politics – Page 43 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

OHS criticism needs to aim “at the source”

The e-Editor for the Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, Shaun Gibbons, has commented on the recent speech by David Cameron, the Opposition Leader of England’s Conservative Party.

In this editorial Gibbons says

“Instead of cosying up to the newspapers which perpetuate the myths that somehow health and safety is to blame for much of society’s ills, Cameron should be rounding on the media for its part in falsely reporting on health and safety issues.”

If one takes “health and safety” outside the factory fence and consider it as a social attitude or as a collective term for a range of social perspectives, “health and safety” is crucial, or rather the personal fears generated by our concerns for our own health and safety and for those of our family members are a crucial consideration in how we live and work.

David Cameron is a politician and needs the media to distribute his policies and campaign strategies so he is in his natural element.

The print media, principally, does report health and safety issues in an alarming manner but as sensation, and particularly in England titillation, is what sells newspapers, it seems pointless to blame the media for what they have always done.

It will be impossible to get the media to change their attitudes to health and safety. The struggles of Australian OHS regulators in doing so has been touched on elsewhere in SafetyAtWorkBlog. It seems clear that if traditional media cannot be changed in this area, alternate media outlets and mechanisms need to be produced that provide information that is not adequately or appropriately covered elsewhere. This blog is one example. IOSH’s website is another.

Gibbons gets closer to the core issue elsewhere in his editorial:

“…seeing through the predictable soundbites which came from his speech last week, Cameron has actually highlighted an important cultural issue that IOSH does welcome: people’s growing confusion and damaged confidence when it comes to managing day-to-day risk. With the fear of litigation at the heart of this debate, the speech did give IOSH the opportunity to make its call for us all to move away from a culture of blame to one that’s based on better ‘risk intelligence’.”

He is right in saying that society has an (increasingly) skewed perception of “day-to-day risk” but he is more correct when identifying that

“the fear of litigation [is] at the heart of the debate.”

IOSH and other safety professional organisations need to get a better understanding of the insurance and legal industries so that they are able to temper some of the extremism from these sectors that is sacrificing long-term cultural and societal health for short-term gain.

SafetyAtWorkBlog’s editor, Kevin Jones, wrote in National Safety magazine about the pernicious growth in the expansion of directors’ and officers’ liabilities insurance policies to cover the legal expenses AND fines from OHS prosecutions. Either safety organisations are unaware of the impact of these products, do not understand them or do not care, as the silence has been deafening.

Kevin Jones

Tory leader calls for a “forensic examination” of health and safety culture

David Cameron, the leader of England’s Conservative Party, has spoken about the health and safety culture that he says is restricting personal and business options in England.

In the full speech, Cameron clearly outlines an ideological agenda but it is a mistake to see this as an attack on the OHS regulator. Below is an edited summary of the most relevant bits of his speech:

“In almost every area, the Conservative Party aims to remove the obstacles that prevent people from making their own decisions.

That’s why we plan a radical redistribution of power, giving control over education, housing and policing to local people.

…there is a growing sense that too many areas of our life are governed by petty rules, regulations and tick box bureaucracy that flies in the face of common sense, undermines discretion and prevents us from getting on with our lives.

We see it in our police force,… our prisons, …our schools, [and] our hospitals

[the the over-the-top health and safety culture] is… infuriating. It … stifles judgement and discretion……is a straitjacket on personal initiative and responsibility……and is a big barrier to the creation of the big society.

…something has gone seriously wrong with the spirit of health and safety in the past decade.

…it is clear that what began as a noble intention to protect people from harm has mutated into a stultifying blanket of bureaucracy, suspicion and fear that has saturated our country…

How has this over-the-top health and safety culture become embedded in our national way of life? [emphasis added]

[European] bureaucratic rules

The Labour Government

But the biggest cause of this excessive health and safety culture is the way these rules have been interpreted and used.

What is more the problem is the perception we have allowed to develop that in Britain today, behind every accident there is someone who is personally culpable……someone who must pay.

[It is encouraged by]

adverts on television

the commercialising of lawyers’ incentives to generate litigation

the rising premiums and concerns of the insurance industry.

high-profile claims and pay-outs.

This has all helped to create a legal hypersensitivity to risk, accident and injury. And this has had a direct knock-on effect on the health and safety culture.

So it is not just the regulations from Brussels, or even the distrustful, interfering government that has created this culture, or the insurance industry, ……it is that everyone’s so worried about being sued that they invent lots of their own rules on top of the regulations that already exist.

… perhaps the most damaging consequences of this excessive health and safety culture have occurred in our society.

… the health and safety culture actively undermines responsibility.

CONSERVATIVE APPROACH

First, establish clear and specific principles about when health and safety legislation is appropriate, and when it is not, so we can evaluate whether existing or future legislation is necessary.

Second, we will propose practical changes in the law to both help bring an end to the culture of excessive litigation while at the same time giving legal safeguards to those who need them most.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CHANGES

there are three particular scenarios where this is the case.

The first is when consumers have a lack of information, or are unable to understand technical information, about a product or a service they are purchasing.

The second situation in which official action on health and safety is appropriate is where there is an imbalance of power.

The third situation in which there is a case for health and safety oversight is when someone might have a clear motive – normally profit – to put someone else in danger.

That’s because keeping people safe is often more expensive than exposing them to risk.

[REVIEW]

I have asked Lord Young to lead an extensive review on this subject for the Conservative Party. He has a track record of deregulation and cutting bureaucracy. He also has experience in the legal profession and will judge these issues with the care and attention they deserve. And he will look at everything from the working of the Health and Safety Executive, to the nature of our health and safety laws, litigation and the insurance industry.

There are some specific questions I have asked David Young to investigate urgently.

The first question is: how can we best protect what are effectively ‘Good Samaritans’?

In Australia, concern about the effect of increasing payouts for medical negligence led to a full review of civil liability. Its final report concluded that when an individual is acting in good faith – as a Good Samaritan – and takes reasonable actions to help someone, then they should not be found negligent.

Second, can we help alleviate some of health and safety oversight that currently burdens small, local and voluntary organisations?

Third, do we need a Civil Liability Act?

I know the over-the-top health and safety culture that has grown in our country in recent years provokes a lot of understandable anger. But anger itself is not solution. Instead we need a forensic examination of what has gone wrong and the steps we need to take to put it right.”

Cameron’s speech has some valid points even if the ideological path that he has followed to get here may be unpalatable.

What separates this from a Jeremy Clarkson rant is that he is not targeting any one particular bureaucracy or social group. He acknowledges that there are a range of social factors that have, over time, created what he believes is an “over-the-top health and safety culture”. Cameron may have chosen extremes to illustrate his points but most OHS professionals would not be averse to a review of OHS laws particularly if such a review included other social structures that make their lives difficult but over which they have no influence.

Along the way, the chance for the political boot up the jaxy of the regulators and the unions, and those dreadful Europeans, will be irresistable for the Conservatives, but if planned for occupational health and safety may salvage some useful tools.

It must be remembered that the Conservatives are not in power in England but even from here in Australia, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown looks like a dead man walking.

Some commentators have already responded to the “outrageous” suggestions in Cameron’s speech. More union response similar to this from Grahame Smith, General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, can be expected.

“The families of the tens of thousands of workers who have been killed and maimed at work will find these comments deeply offensive. David Cameron has sent a chilling message to the working people in the UK that any future Conservative Government will attack the health and safety laws that trade unions have spent decades fighting for.

“This is not about draconian legislation. This is about the failure, or unwillingness, of employers, community groups and others to grasp the very basics of our health and safety system.

“We have witnessed what poor regulation has done for our finance sector and the economy. We do not want to see this attack on health and safety legislation having a similar catastrophic effect on human lives. Our economy will recover. Individuals killed at work and their families never recover from the consequence of poor health and safety regulation.

“We would say to David Cameron if you want to learn about the true consequences of health and safety failures read Hazards Magazine and come to Scotland and meet families who have lost loved ones due to health and safety failures by employers. Don’t subscribe to the trivial nonsense which is churned out by sections of the media.”

Smith is correct to remind Cameron to not rely on the media from which to develop policies, particularly the English print media. Smith comparison of OHS legislation to financial market regulation is also valid. Legislation should never be used as a blanket control mechanism but requires targeting.

Another union, Prospect, had this to say

On behalf of 1,650 HSE inspectors, scientists and other specialists, Prospect negotiator Mike Macdonald said: “There is a world of difference between petty bureaucracy enacted under the label of health and safety and HSE regulation designed to prevent deaths in the workplace.

“Measures aimed at preventing death and injury at work run the risk of being overshadowed by inappropriate obsessions by local authorities with minor issues that are often an excuse for withdrawing services on the grounds of cost. Given the importance of health and safety to the British economy and UK businesses we would welcome any changes that boost workers’ safety as well as business competitiveness.

“But confusing the two continues to perpetuate a negative image of health and safety regulation and masks the bigger picture: as the figures for 2007/08 show 32,810 employees were exposed to fatal and major injuries at work.”

If (when) the Conservatives come to power in England, Cameron and Lord Young will need to structure an inquiry that is inclusive and designed to be constructive. Many people will approach such an inquiry with decades of suspicion and many memories of despair and disappointment. In many ways the laws require a rationalisation, not a revolution and this is what Cameron needs to “sell” as he gets ready for the next election, due in the first half of 2010.

Kevin Jones

Big fine for Queensland Rail – big risks in rail

Almost two years ago, two rail workers died in Queensland. According to the official report into the incident:

“At approximately 1056 on Friday 7 December 2007, two QR [Queensland Rail] Infrastructure Services Group (ISG) track workers were fatally injured as a consequence of being struck by a track machine (train) at Mindi, approximately 130 kilometres south-west of Mackay.

The collision occurred when Track Machine MMA59, in the process of conducting track resurfacing work on the Down line at Mindi, commenced a routine reversing movement.

During the process, two QR Systems Maintenance personnel, working on the same track and behind the track machine, were struck and fatally injured by this track machine.

Analysis of evidence and conditions surrounding the accident revealed:

An overall lack of compliance with elements of the QR SMS at the Mindi site; and

Inadequate communication and coordination between workgroups at the Mindi site.”

On 26 November 2009, Queensland Rail was fined $A650,000 over the deaths. The fine is only $A100,000 below the maximum fine applicable. According to a media release about the fine:

“The Workplace Health and Safety Queensland investigation found that QR’s safety management systems were inadequate for managing the separation of workers and plant, particularly when both were within the same section of track between signals.

It also found that QR knew the systems were inadequate and not working because it had been highlighted to management in a series of audits.”

Not only were Queensland Rail’s safety management systems inadequate, Queensland Rail knew they were inadequate because a series of audits had told it so.

Railway in Australia and elsewhere is one of the most regulated industries. It is also one of the industries with the most prescriptive set of rules. It is a complicated business but one where hazards are known and systems are in place to control these hazards.

The extent of QR’s failure to operate safely can be illustrated by some of the many recommendations made in 2008 by Queensland Transport:

The necessity for consistent and effective Worksite Safety Briefings by ISG personnel;

Preconditions to the reversal of vehicles in accordance with QR safeworking requirements;

Responsibilities and training syllabi for ISG Resurfacing personnel;

The necessity for pre-departure safety checks on ISG trains;

Provision of safe separation and segregation between ISG track workers and trains;

ISG SMS compliance monitoring, at the local level;

Fatigue management within QR, and in particular ISG rostering;

Management of the perceived relationship between ISG and Network Control;

Awareness of the priority of safety over commercial pressures by remote ISG staff;

Distribution of safety communications and documents within QR;

Representation for relevant stakeholders in operational change management processes;

Risk and change management training for ISG operational personnel;

Safety risks presented to ISG through the permanent coupling of track machines;

The safety value to QR of an enhanced and transparent reporting system;

The management of ISG district staff relationship issues; and

ISG and Network Access radio protocol compliance monitoring.

Many elements are familiar to other investigations in rail and other industries – fatigue, on-site communication, training, segregation, document control and distribution, local compliance enforcement, transparency in reporting…..

On 10 September 2008, the QR CEO Lance Hockridge said:

“When I arrived in November 2007, I found an organisation with a safety record that was improving but not what it should be. Only three weeks later we had a very tragic reminder of this when work colleagues Jamie Adams and Gary Watkins were killed at Mindi.

“Organisations hoping to achieve meaningful change must firstly be honest with themselves – we need to confront this reality and make the changes required.”

Queensland Rail did not face the reality of problems identified by safety auditors and two workers died.

The news of the record fine came at a time when the ownership of Victoria’s metropolitan rail network has changed from Connex to Metro. Victoria has a stressed rail service but has managed to avoid the controversy of Queensland Rail and RailCorp in New South Wales but this has been through luck rather than good management. The Victorian Government, and particularly the Transport Minister, Lynne Kosky, needs to read the Waterfall Inquiry report and the Queensland Mindi report to understand the personal, economic and political cost of not having a tightly managed, functional rail safety regime. Having been in power for just over 10 years, this government now owns all the Victorian problems and must account to the electorate for not fixing them.

The political risk was summarized in an editorial in The Age on 30 November 2009

“In September, a Senate report into federal funding of public transport found Melbourne’s network was badly managed in comparison with Perth’s government-operated system. A key problem was lack of accountability: it was unclear who was in charge. The consequences of the lack of an overarching transit authority to oversee the whole system are clear…..

New operators of trains and trams in new livery will struggle to deliver acceptable service unless the Government makes good its past neglect of infrastructure.”

The fact that the Victorian rail system is being privately operated will not be an acceptable shield when the first passenger train crashes with a jam-packed peak hour cargo.

Kevin Jones

Unpaid overtime is the new danger money

In Australia there is increasing pressure to work more hours than what one is paid for. Many different organisations use this fact to push for various improved benefits, in many circumstances the statistics are used in support of wage improvements.

But working beyond contracted hours will certainly affect one’s work/life balance as there are only so many hours in the day and if work dominates one’s life, family time or rest will be sacrificed. The imbalance leads to a range of negative psychological and social actions. An article in Wikipedia on working time summarises this.

“In contrast, a work week that is too long will result in more material goods at the cost of stress-related health problems as well as a “drought of leisure.” Furthermore, children are likely to receive less attention from busy parents, and childrearing is likely to be subjectively worse. The exact ways in which long work weeks affect culture, public health, and education are debated.”

Australia has yet to have the debate on the matter of working hours that has been seen in Europe and England but the issue exists very much in Australia, although it has yet to gain any traction.

According to a media report by the Australian Council of Trade Unions a new research report by the Australia Institute

“… found that each year, the average full-time Australian worker does 266.6 hours of unpaid overtime, or an extra six-and-a-half working weeks…. The think tank estimates that through unpaid overtime, workers are forgoing a total of $72.2 billion in wages or 6% of GDP.”

The Australian Institute report found the following

Forty-five per cent of all Australian workers, and more than half of all full-time employees, work more hours than they are paid for during a typical workday.

Unpaid overtime is more common among people who work a ‘standard’ business workday (that is, not shift work) and among white-collar workers.

Workplace culture is a dominant contributing factor, with 44 per cent of people who work unpaid overtime saying that it is ‘compulsory’ or ‘expected’ and another 43 per cent saying that it is ‘not expected, but also not discouraged’.

Across the workforce, the average employee works 49 minutes unpaid during a typical workday.

Full-time employees work 70 minutes of unpaid overtime on average, while parttime employees work 23 minutes.

Men work more unpaid overtime than women (63 minutes versus 36 minutes a day). Men with young children work a great deal more than women with young children (71 minutes compared with 30 minutes).

Unpaid overtime increases with income: people in low-income households work an average of 28 minutes of unpaid overtime a day compared with 61 minutes for people in high-income households.

When asked what would happen if they didn’t work unpaid overtime, most say that ‘the work wouldn’t get done’, suggesting that the demands placed on employees are too much for many people.

A majority of survey respondents who work additional hours said that if they didn’t work overtime they would spend more time with family, and many said that they would do more exercise.

The report clearly states that allowing “unpaid overtime” has a strong cost in social and individual health but there is an OHS perspective that over gets overlooked due to public health and industrial relations dominating the issue.

In a media statement from October 2009, as an example, Deloittes quoted some scientists, in support of a anti-sleep device, on statistics that have been bandied around for some time:

“…scientists equate fatigue to blood-alcohol levels: if a person has been awake for 18 hours, it’s the equivalent of having a .05 level of alcohol in their body; if they have been awake for 21 hours, it’s equivalent to a.08 level.”

There are several further examples on negative health impacts in the Australia Institute report.

It can be strongly argued that by allowing, or expecting, “unpaid overtime”, employers may be encouraging workers to travel home while impaired and that employers are creating a work/life imbalance by requiring “unpaid overtime”. Certainly it could be argued that even during unpaid overtime, the cognitive function of the employee is less than expected, or even have the worker unfit for work.

Arguing about unpaid overtime clearly makes the debate one of money not safety or wellness or the social contract, and this is the argument’s inherent weakness.

Arguing for compensation for “unpaid overtime” is arguing for “danger money” – how much money will a worker accept in order to keep working into the unhealthy and dangerous hours beyond their regular contracted hours? This type of argument disappeared almost twenty years ago in Australia when the Australian awards system was reformed to remove allowances in relation to working at heights, picking up roadkill, or working in excessive heat. It was agreed that “danger money” was inappropriate and that OHS principles demanded the risks involved with these tasks be reduced rather than “paying workers” to place themselves at risk.

ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence, in his media statement in support of Go Home on Time Day, and The Australia Institute in its media statement on its report both underplay a major point in the debate on working hours when they argue in economic terms. Lawrence says

“If the work demands are too much to complete in a normal working day, then employees should be paid for their extra hours, or their employer must hire more staff.”

The institute mentions wellness in passing but emphasises in its media release

“..the 2.14 billion hours of unpaid overtime worked per year is a $72 billion gift to employers and means that 6% of our economy depends on free labour.”

Employing more staff is preferable but removing the culture of unpaid overtime is far more important. Arguing on the basis of economics, ie “being paid for their extra hours”, may expose the worker to greater risk of injury or illness at the workplace or on the way home. Quality of life, work/life balance and personal health and safety are stronger arguments for “going home on time”, arguments supported by The Australia Institute and the Australian Greens.

Kevin Jones

Tasmania’s workers compensation changes pass

It is easy to forget that workers compensation is clicking along during this intense period of analysis of OHS laws. Workers compensation legislation passed through Tasmania’s House of Assembly this week (it still needs to get through the Legislative Council). The Minister for Workplace relations, Lisa Singh, highlighted the following components of the changes in a media release on 6 November 2009.

“The key reforms will:

Improve access to common law damages for compensation by reducing the whole of person impairment threshold from 30% to 20%;

Amend the first step-down to 90% of normal weekly earnings rather than 85% of normal weekly earnings;

Delay the operation of the first step-down, so that it comes into effect at 26 weeks of incapacity rather than 13 weeks;

Streamline the management of injury and illness to deliver better health and return to work outcomes for injured workers and lower costs to employers;

Foster and reinforce a return to work culture among employers, workers and other stakeholders;

Provide greater income security for injured workers by increasing the duration and reducing the “step-down” of weekly compensation payments for injured workers;

Increase lump sum compensation up to $250,000 for permanent impairment or death to levels more comparable to those provided in other states and territories;

Provide additional financial incentives for workers and employers to participate in rehabilitation.”

The reforms are based on the Government’s response to the recommendations of Victorian consultant Alan Clayton and the Return to Work and Injury Management Model developed by the WorkCover Tasmania Board.

Alan has been a prominent advisor on workers compensation to governments around Australia for some time. His Tasmanian review and recommendations were in 2007 and are available online. The Government’s response is also available.

The Minister has said

“With the range of views that were put forward during consultation I am confident that this legislation strikes the right balance of fairness for workers and their families and support for employers and business.”

Simon Cocker, of Unions Tasmania, said in response to the Bill:

“The Workplace Relations Minister is to be congratulated for pursuing these improvements which will ensure that injured workers are better supported when they return to work and are paid more appropriate rates of compensation while off work.”

“The step-down provisions that currently operate have been shown to be unfair and place injured workers and their families under financial stress at a time when they are often struggling to cope with the impact of a serious injury.”

“Delaying the step down and softening its financial impact is an improvement.”

The Australian Government paid considerable attention to the Victorian OHS Act because it was the most recent review of that legislation. If the government continues this trend, the Tasmanian changes may be very significant for the rest of the country.

Kevin Jones

UPDATE: 19 November 2009

Tasmanian workers’ compensation laws passed the Legislative Council on 18 November 2009.

Public Comments vs Petition – modern lobbying required

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog noted that almost one quarter of the submission to the government on its proposed national model OHS law were from individuals and confidential. There was a suspicion of bulk proforma submissions.

One example that is available through the publicly accessible submissions is a letter to the Minister, Julia Gillard, from the Dr Sharann Johnson, President of the Australian lnstitute of Occupational Hygienists. The letter raises concerns over the omission of “suitably qualified” from the legislation. It concludes

“I strongly implore you to reconsider your decision not to include a requirement for the providers of Occupational Health and Safety advice and services to be “suitably qualified” in the national new model OHS legislation. lt would be disappointing to see this amalgamation of legislation miss the opportunity to make a significant impact on the standard of OHS advice provided to Australian industry and ultimately improve our health and safety performance at a national level.”

Similar concerns to Dr Johnson’s have been discussed elsewhere in SafetyAtWorkBlog but on the issue of proforma submissions it is noted that three other submissions, Kevin Hedges, Gavin Irving and a personal submission by Dr Johnson, contain almost exactly the same text.

What these and other proforma submitters are producing is not a response to a draft document or a submission but a petition. Petitions have existed for centuries and carry considerable political clout but putting in a cut-and-paste submission is unhelpful. It signifies a united position but is not constructive. A petition to the Government or specific ministers on a single issue, such as “suitably qualified”, may have had more influence if it included an influential number of signatories and was lodged at the appropriate time, in response to outrage over the particular matter.

There is no criticism of the content of the AIOH letters only of the method of delivery and strategy. There are many more confidential submissions that have also applied a similar strategy.

SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted Safe Work Australia over the issue and asked “How many proformas were used and who were they by?” A spokesperson responded

“Of the 480 submissions received, just over 200 standard form submissions were received from union members, in five different proformas. Each of the five forms contained similar comments. In addition, we identified a small number of standard form submissions from one professional association.”

In developing better legislation, the influence on the process from “weight of numbers” is likely to be far less in this circumstance than would be gained through constructive and innovative suggestions.

As Australia is likely to go through similar public comment phases on a raft of OHS regulations and documents over the next 12 months, assuming the Government does not shelve the project. It is important for the proforma submitters to review their strategies and, perhaps, establish more direct contact through lobbying the relevant Ministers in each State and Federally, on behalf of their large (?) membership. In this way the Government would be familiar with the various organisations, would understand the background to those organisations’ arguments, and would then anticipate the innovative solutions that OHS organisations, professionals and experts, would put forward.

This strategy has worked for the unions and business groups for decades. It may be time for a new strategy for some groups that combines reliable techniques like petitions with personal contact to be followed up by a knock-out submission at the right time, perhaps supported by a broadly distributed media statement.

Kevin Jones

Justice in workers’ compensation reforms

A South Australian colleague has pointed out some interesting elements in WorkCover SA’s review of employer incentives discussed earlier.

The following text are some of the aims of South Australia’s Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.

(1) The objects of this Act are—

(a) to establish a workers rehabilitation and compensation scheme—

(i) that achieves a reasonable balance between the interests of employers and the interests of workers

(iv) that reduces the overall social and economic cost to the community of employment-related disabilities

(2) A person exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative powers must interpret this Act in the light of its objects without bias towards the interests of employers on the one hand, or workers on the other.

My colleague points out that a review of employer incentives is well and good but what are the incentives for employees, given the objects of the Act concerning balance and bias?

She also criticises

“…the current incentive for employers of paying the first two weeks of the injured workers income payments if the employer supplies the claim agent with the employer section of the injury/incident report goes against the intent as outlined in Objects of the Act, as there is not any corresponding incentive offered to the injured worker.”

Whether the injury report is valid or useful is irrelevant to the incentive as it is the lodgment of the form that generates the incentive rather than any rehabilitation action for the injured worker.

There is no doubt that the workers compensation scheme needed a review. The recent Return-To-Work (RTW) conference in Adelaide had an atmosphere of hope after the introduction of the RTW coordinator requirements for businesses.

South Australia is different from most other Australian States where a single company handles workers compensation insurance, Employers Mutual. Not only is there a huge lack of competition in South Australia but the government and the insurer are close.

There is also a political element with Paul Caica being given the portfolio in order to fix it. In June 2009, the Minister announced a range of projects from a fair pool of funds but many of them are focused on the workers rather than providing structural change to the system. It is hard not to speculate how workers may benefit if the insurance industry in the State had competition.

The need for reform was clear as the South Australian workers’ compensation scheme was bleeding money but it must have been politically attractive to try to postpone an analysis of the system until the Federal Government started its national review of workers’ compensation system in a few years’ time. It may have been that such a strategy was planned until the global financial crisis changed the public’s tolerance for government debt forcing the SA government had to act.

Kevin Jones

Tag: politics

OHS criticism needs to aim “at the source”

Like this:

Tory leader calls for a “forensic examination” of health and safety culture

Like this:

Big fine for Queensland Rail – big risks in rail

Like this:

Unpaid overtime is the new danger money

Like this:

Tasmania’s workers compensation changes pass

Like this:

Public Comments vs Petition – modern lobbying required

Like this:

Justice in workers’ compensation reforms

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: