The Australian media has widely reported that Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, exists on three-hours sleep per night. He doesn’t and Professor Drew Dawson, a prominent Australian sleep researcher, discusses the exaggeration of high-flying professionals in an article at Crikey.com on 21 July 2009.
More research of Professor Drew Dawson, Director, Centre for Sleep Research, University of South Australia, is available online.
Further to the recent blog article on New South Wales WorkCover statistics, SafetyAtWorkBlog has been provided with a copy of the official Comparative Performance Monitoring (CPM) report that was released in August 2008. These figures are used to measure performance against the National OHS Strategy 2002-2012.
SafeWorkAustralia has told SafetyAtWorkBlog that the next edition is due in October 2009 (just in time for Safe Work Australia Week – what a coincidence!) after it has been discussed at the next scheduled Workplace Relations Ministers Council amongst other meetings.
Most organisations, including political ones, have key performance indicators for managers and the companies themselves, to measure the likelihood of meeting the target. This may involve additional remuneration, awards or any other type of recognition. If the target is not reached, there are repercussions – loss of potential bonus, loss of job….
The National OHS Strategy has no reward for achievement other than a warm, fuzzy feeling. Nor does it have any penalty except the same warm, fuzzy feeling with perhaps a few less degrees of warmth or duration.
According to the media release from the then-National OHS Council in May 2002, the “indicators of success” are
- “Workplace parties recognise and incorporate OHS as an integral part of their normal business operations
- Increased OHS knowledge and skills in workplaces and the community
- Governments develop and implement more effective OHS interventions
- Research, data and evaluations provide better, timelier information for effective prevention”
The release also said
“There are five initial national priority areas for action to achieve short-term and longer-term improvements…. The priorities are:
- reduce high incidence/severity risks;
- improve the capacity of business operators and workers to manage OHS effectively;
- prevent occupational disease more effectively;
- eliminate hazards at the design stage;
- strengthen the capacity of government to influence OHS outcomes”
These are classic “aspirational targets” that have no penalties for failure. The targets themselves were discussed in the previous blog article.
According to the 2008 CPM report summary
“The reduction in the incidence rate of injury and musculoskeletal claims between the base period (2000–01 to 2002–03) and 2006–07 was 16%, which means the interim target of a 20% reduction by 2006–07 has not been met. It is also below the rate of improvement needed to meet the long term target of a 40% improvement by 2012. The rate of decline in the incidence of claims will need to accelerate in future years if the target is to be achieved. Four jurisdictions however, met the interim target of improvement: NSW with 29% improvement, the Australian Government with 27% improvement and South Australia and Seacare each recorded 24% improvement. Although these four jurisdictions recorded improvements higher than the 20% required, considerable efforts will be required by all jurisdictions if the national target is to be met.
The number of fatalities recorded for 2006–07 is lower than in previous years, increasing the percentage improvement from the base period. The incidence of compensated fatalities from injury and musculoskeletal disorders decreased by 16% from the base period to 2006–07, thus the interim target of a 10% reduction by 2006–07 has been surpassed. The national incidence rate is still ‘on target’ to meet the 20% reduction required by 2011–12, however there is a considerable amount of volatility in this measure and consistent improvement is required.
The National OHS Strategy also includes an aspirational target for Australia to have the lowest work-related traumatic fatality rate in the world by 2009. Analysis of international data indicates that in 2006–07, Australia recorded the sixth lowest injury fatality rate, with this rate decreasing more quickly than many of the best performing countries in the world. However, despite this improvement, it is unlikely that Australia will meet the aspirational goal unless substantial improvements are recorded in the next few years.”
The federal government can react in several ways if the signatories to the strategy fail to meet the target in 2012:
Unless all the parties renew their efforts (and their budgets) in order to reach the targets in 2012, from 2009, which is highly unlikely, 2012 is going to have an OHS “elephant in the room” and it will have been white.
Reading an article about CFMEU organiser, Joe McDonald, today illustrates an important differentiation to be kept in mind. A unionist’s benchmark for safety compliance may differ from that of the employer, regardless of the fact that the employer has the major legislative obligation to establish a “safe and healthy work environment”.
Joe McDonald pledges to keep his members safe. A spokesperson for the construction company said
“…there were some safety issues at the site but said they were being addressed when the union walked out.”
How does walking away from OHS consultation improve safety?
The cause of the confusion on “safety” comes from the weakening of prescriptive legislation and codes to accommodate operating costs, and in the increase of the “reasonably practicable” test.
The union movement in New South Wales had the most extreme level of OHS regulation in Australia. It was hated by the business sector and has been weakened by the government as a result of federal pressures and aims but, the fact that New South Wales has achieved a 2% reduction in the injury incident rate, may add weight to the unions’ desire to retain the legislation.
There is a fundamental dichotomy of regulatory and operational approaches in OHS management in Australia currently that the harmonised OHS system may only exacerbate. It is now up to the Safe Work Australia boffins to keep an open mind in harmonisation negotiations but to also remained focused on the aim of any OHS legislation which is to keep people safe.
One of my colleagues has described her role in a corporation as an “irritant”. She is responsible for quality, environment, risk and OHS – all of those required business elements that companies will avoid or ignore if they could. Her company acknowledges that these elements are necessary and values her role and efforts.
OHS professionals could benefit from realising that in most circumstances, they are not welcome, or rather, their advice is not welcome. OHS is a bitter pill for many companies. But handled well, explained and discussed, OHS can be a substantial agent for positive change.
Sadly, one construction industry unionist in Australia is doing more harm than good. Joe McDonlad is an experienced unionist who is undoubtedly committed to the safety of his members in Western Australia’s construction industry. However, he does not respect the law or due process.
This week, Joe McDonald was fined $10,000 by a Perth Magistrate, Jeremy Packington, for unlawfully entering three building sites in 2007. McDonald’s actions generated considerable political discussion at the time, mainly because his actions occurred during an election campaign.
Safety improvements can be achieved without confrontation and insults. A major OHS principle is consultation. McDonald is a safety-focused trade unionist who may succeed in his aims to improve safety for his members. But the manner in which he conducts his services is causing widespread damage to the cause of OHS in the general community, employers’ perceptions of OHS and the trade union movement in general.
Sometimes the bigger picture is important.
An audio report and a video report of Joe’s action on the construction site and his thoughts on safety are available online.
On 1 July 2009, the Australian industrial relations (IR) climate changed with the introduction of the Fair Work Act. Regardless of the politics of the new Act’s origin, this legislation changes the way that working conditions for Australians are negotiated and set.
The Fair Work Act has no relevance to occupational health and safety, so why mention this on SafetyAtWorkBlog?
The new IR legislation should reduce the conflict that has been existent in workplace negotiations. The new industrial climate is consultative and forward-looking. In fact, the government is hoping that, to some extent, this legislation reboots industrial relations (to borrow a phrase from current international diplomacy).
It is in this IR climate, and consultative structure, that OHS issues will need to be discussed and negotiated in the future.
In a webinar conducted by SmartCompany and Gadens Lawyers on 9 July 2009, the openness of the information/consultative processes was stressed by panellist, Kathryn Dent.
This positive management climate reflected that presented in an earlier seminar conducted by Douglas Workplace Lawyers. Fair Work Australia Commissioner Lewin and lawyer, Andrew Douglas, spoke about how the new IR system is more inclusive than the previous WorkChoices systems. However, they also admitted that the Fair Work Act has nebulous support documentation and information.
The level of prescription is much less than previous. This allows for less restrictive negotiation but it also means that clarity may rely on determinations made by the tribunal. Commissioner Lewin concurred with Andrew Douglas’ point that the operations of the Fair Work system will require several years of “settling in” and some adjustments depending on determinations.
When raising OHS issues for the next year or so in Australia, employees and professionals need to be reminded that many of the managers and employers with whom they are dealing may well be feeling swamped by new industrial relations processes. This distraction may be understandable but OHS obligations remain the same regardless of other management issues.
OHS may seem to be more messy during this period as the IR overlaps with the “safe systems of work”. Unless IR is already part of the responsibilities of an OHS professional, the advice is to keep away from the details of the Fair Work Act. However it is recommended that at least one seminar on the Fair Work Act be attended so that the “tone” of the new legislation is understood. More important is how the Act is to be applied within the workplaces of one’s clients or employer.
Safety management systems will need to be tweaked to fit with the new consultative aims and processes. Of course, they will need to be tweaked again once the harmonised national OHS legislation comes begins in 2010. Don’t expect stability in Australian workplaces for the next couple of years.
Corporate manslaughter, or industrial manslaughter as it is referred to in Australia, was not allowed to gain traction in Australia, except for in the Australian Capital Territory.
The policy has been allowed to fade from the books of most of the Australian left-wing parties but for a while, corporate manslaughter was THE issue. In fact over the last 10 years, it has been the only time that directors and CEOs from thousands of companies have paid serious attention to safety management.
The offence of corporate manslaughter seems to have lost little of its momentum in England. Recently England instigated its first prosecution for corporate manslaughter.
It reminded SafetyAtWorkBlog of an interview we conducted with David Bergman on the issue in April 2002. David Bergman has been the Executive Director of the Centre for Corporate Accountability for ten years and, only last week, was part of a conference in London on “Directors’ Duties, Corporate Manslaughter and Safety Enforcement“.
Below is the text of that 2002 interview
Manslaughter Lobbying – 2002 Interview with David Bergman
David Bergman is the CEO of the Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA) located in London, England. He spoke exclusively to [Safety At Work magazine] about the issue of “corporate killing” legislation and the activities of his organisation.
SAW: Can you provide an outline of what the CCA does?
DB: The organisation is a not-for-profit organisation. Its core purpose is to promote worker and public safety and it does this by focussing on two ideas – improved law enforcement and greater corporate accountability. We have three main activities, we run a work-related death advice service which is a core of our work whereby we provide free, independent and confidential advice to families bereaved from work-related death on how to ensure that an adequate criminal investigation is undertaken into the death and that the evidence is subjected to proper scrutiny by prosecuting bodies who have the duty to determine whether criminal offences have been committed.
We give that advice because, traditionally in Britain, lawyers whom families may go to are often only concerned with issues of compensation. We are concerned with issues of corporate criminal accountability.
We also undertake research into the role of the criminal justice system in the investigation, prosecuting and sentencing of companies and those who control them.
Finally we undertake some lobbying work. We try to lobby for appropriate changes to Law and practice in this area.
SWA: Is you lobbying receiving a sympathetic ear?
DB: There are two focuses of our lobbying. There’s the central Government and there is an organisation that is at arm’s length of the central Government, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. Different departments of the central Government are responsible or different activities.
In Britain we lobby two Government departments. The Home Office is responsible for traditional criminal law and therefore the whole issue of the offence of manslaughter and how it applies to companies. The other department is Transport, Local Government and Regions which is responsible for general safety issues and has an oversight role of the Health and Safety Executive and Commission.
The Government has promised reform on the law of corporate manslaughter and on the sentencing of companies. In relationship to that we lobby the Home Office. It is difficult to say whether we are effective or not as the Government has committed themselves to making this change but it has been a long time coming and there is no Bill before Parliament and it clearly is not a priority of the Government which is why, of course, we need to lobby.
SAW: Sometimes there are activities in the justice system which can work counter to your lobbying or the will of the people. Have you seen evidence of that?
DB: The Courts can only apply the current Law as it stands. If you want change, this will come through changing the Law or changing the policy of the investigation and prosecution bodies to ensure that more cases come to the Courts. It is true to say that in terms of levels of fines there has been the traditional problem in ensuring that the Courts impose sufficiently appropriate fines commensurate to the offences committed when that offence has been committed by the company or individuals who control them. That would be the main criticism of the Courts, but beyond that the Courts can only apply the Common Law and also can only deal with cases that come before it.
So if there are deficiencies in the Law, that’s not the fault of the Courts, that’s the responsibility of the Government to change. And if there is a failure on the investigation or prosecution bodies to investigate appropriately or fail to prosecute particular companies or individuals; that is a failure on their part and that is where we need to change practice.
I wouldn’t saw that the Courts are a core part of the problem.
SAW: What has been the response to your lobbying from some of the employer and business representative organisations?
DB: We have been involved in establishing coalition campaigns on safety law and corporate accountability that bring together safety organisations, trade unions and families bereaved from work-related deaths. There are two core issues – the reform of the law of manslaughter and the enactment of this new offence of “corporate killing” as it is referred to in Britain, which the Government is committed to but to which no priority is being given.
Secondly there is the imposition of safety duties on company directors. At the moment under British Law, there are no clear safety duties imposed on company directors, safety obligations are placed on employers or manufacturers. Directors, as separate legal entities from the companies, have no clear legal obligation to ensure that the company complies with safety law.
The two groups mainly in opposition are the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Institute of Directors. There is recognition by industry that a new offence of corporate killing will be enacted and there is a sort-of acceptance. What they’re doing is lobbying to make it more difficult for companies to be convicted of the offence.
The Institute of Directors is lobbying against legal obligations on company directors. Although the Labour Government can well be said to be more interested in safety than a Conservative Government they do listen carefully to what industry says.
SAW: Recently the Australian Industry Group had some concerns with the Industrial Manslaughter Bill that is currently in the Victorian Parliament in Australia. One of their concerns is there needs to be an emphasis on education and not retribution. They don’t believe that such an Act will promote safety, it will only penalise
DB: Our response to that sort of argument is that, first of all, under current law companies escape any form of accountability, even for very serious failures on the company management’s part. Normally there is a situation of immunity and companies don’t get prosecuted for serious offences. That has two effects – a lack of moral justice and a sense from bereaved families and the community that there are some legal entities that are not accountable. There is a problem in the social fabric.
Secondly, if there is immunity under Common Law, and companies know that they can escape accountability, there is inevitably going to be a lack of deterrence in the system so that some companies will feel that we don’t need to change our safety management systems because it is unlikely that there is any serious impact if something goes wrong.
Companies, of all legal entities who get caught up in the criminal justice system, are rational beings. If there is a sense that there will be more cost for them by taking a particular action than if they don’t take a particular action, they won’t take that action. Individuals commit offences for all sorts of reasons which are irrational while corporations operate from a much more rational base. So they are much more likely to be deterred.
In our view, these changes are important for accountability issues which the argument that you mention does not deal with. They are also important for deterrence which links directly back to safety. That is not to say that, hand-in-hand with other approaches for change in criminal law, there ought not to be attempts to ensure that companies are able to comply with safety law so that offences aren’t committed.
SAW: The AI Group says that Government has failed to provide any evidence that such a law will reduce the level of workplace death and injury.
DB: If you look at any reform in Criminal Law, there is never any evidence to say that if we change the law in this particular way there will definitely be a reduction in the number of deaths, or whatever. The fact that you may reform the law of murder in one particular way doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a reduction in murders.
You ask industry to show in any research in relation to any other Criminal Law reform that says “we’re going to change the law because if the law is changed there is evidence to suggest that fewer offences will be committed or fewer deaths will take place.” It just doesn’t happen. That’s not the way that Criminal Law reform happens.
Criminal Law reform takes place because there is a perception of a lack of justice.
This argument doesn’t carry any weight because there is never any evidence that a particular legal reform is going to cause a particular change but what you can be sure of is that there will be greater accountability and you can speculate that there will be greater deterrence.
SAW: Some people assert that an Industrial Manslaughter offence will encourage a change in workplace culture.
DB: The thing about changing corporate culture is that you are more likely to change it when you change the Law. That’s the important effect that law reform has, it changes the perception about a particular conduct. I would argue that changing law would have an important effect upon the corporate culture. There is no question about that.
The problem with a lot of the corporate social responsibility arguments is that they are all about voluntary codes and about trying to get companies to do particular things. There will always be some good companies that will comply with them. Compliance with those codes doesn’t get to the companies who will commit offences anyway.
SAW: The UK has had some high profile cases that generate discussion on corporate manslaughter. We have covered some of those in the last few years. But one that seems not to be going away is some of the issues associated with Railtrack, the privatised rail transport company, after some very public fatalities and incidents. Are they incorporating accountability into their new organisational structures?
DB: Clearly, after the Paddington disaster and others, rail safety became a priority in this country. I would say that this was a very good thing but it also subsumed attention to other industries where there is a far higher level of death and injury, like the construction and manufacturing industries.
Those disasters were partly responsible for increasing the debate on the need for a new offence on corporate killing, for Directors’ safety duties and also, the reason why the Government decided to take Railtrack out of private ownership.
Families of victims from the Paddington disaster are still pushing for the application of corporate manslaughter against Railtrack. The Crown Prosecutor initially refused to prosecute for manslaughter however the families have got the Crown Prosecutor to reconsider that decision.
SAW: Have you had any interest in the moves on corporate killing from outside Britain?
DB: Australia is the one country where it has been addressed. Canada has put in some important reforms in this area recently.
If there is reform in the area of corporate killing in the next few years, there might be an impact on other jurisdictions.
This interview appeared originally in Safety At Work magazine Vol. 3 Issue 14 on 30 April 2002. It remains Copyright – Workplace Safety Services P/L
The fragility of Australia’s agreement for OHS harmonisation is illustrated in an article by Michael Stutchbury of The Australian. He mentions the potential domino effect resulting from the West Australian Treasurer’s desire to keep his options open. New South Wales and Queensland see that a (politically unpalatable) out is possible.
The freshest information in his article was that the CEO of the Business Council of Australia (BCA), Katie Lahey, has described OHS harmonisation as “linchpin” in the government’s push for a seamless national business economy, according to Stutchbury. This perspective is one that should be watched closely as the BCA is not renowned for its OHS innovation or advice.
Stutchbury misinterprets the pledge by the Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)
“to make safety the key to their battle against the ABCC’s powers”.
The union is applying safety to their industrial relations battle with the ABCC because their initial attack failed. The Government has watered down the ABCC’s powers but the ABCC will continue to exist. Indeed the “lawlessness” of the unions has caused the Government to continue with regulatory oversight of the construction industry beyond the ABCC. The unions are flogging a dead horse (albeit for excellent ideological reasons) and, as a result, are reinforcing the political and community perspectives of union “thuggery”.
The ABCC action against unions has not been on the basis of health and safety, as far as SafetyAtWorkBlog is aware. It has been on the issue of union conduct, the way the union progresses on OHS matters. The ABCC concerns stem from the process itself and not the origin of the process.
The Australian union movement needs to realise that it is its heavy-handedness on industrial relations that is impeding its progress on several fronts. It is not getting the ear of what traditionally has been a sympathetic political party and it is failing to gain any ground in the community because of its brash conduct. As a result it is not attracting new members.
It is also disappointing that health and safety is trotted out as a Plan B. This has happened repeatedly and has resulted in the tactic being seen as minimally effective. The union movement needs to see that OHS is a core value of union membership. Workers can be confident that an OHS issue brought to management with the union’s support will get an audience, and is more likely to get fixed.
The unions will gain new members by emphasising the positive and direct benefits of union membership. A possible campaign start could be
“You will be safer at work with a union”.
There is a place for ideological protest. The point needs to be made that the powers of ABCC are inappropriate. But the ABCC was introduced in response to union arrogance and excessive testosterone. A change of culture in the union movement some time ago would have allowed it to focus on the future of its members rather than continue with its outdated and unpopular belligerence.