Tuesday, 26 October 2010 1:25pm
The UK could be on the brink of shedding some of the heavy obligations applied to low-hazard workplaces, in an attempt to free employers from "unnecessary bureaucratic burdens" associated with safety obligations.
The Prime Minister's health and safety advisor, Lord Young of Graffham, who has drafted a series of "common-sense" safety recommendations, says the standing of health and safety in the eyes of the public has never been lower.
"Last year over 800,000 compensation claims were made in the UK... and there is a growing fear among business owners of having to pay out for even the most unreasonable claims," he says in the "Common sense, common safety" report.
"The incentives for claiming compensation have to change. The system must be fair and proportionate without placing an excessive financial burden on the losing party."
A key to reform is the insurance industry, says Lord Young. "Insurance companies should draw up a code of practice on health and safety for businesses and the voluntary sector. If the industry is unable to draw up such a code, then legislation should be considered."
Further, companies and personal injury lawyers should be prevented from advertising in a way that suggests people "can easily claim compensation for the most minor of incidents and even be financially rewarded once a claim is accepted".
Consultants adopt "overcautious" approach
According to Lord Young, risk-based principles contained in UK safety legislation have been "eroded" by an overly-prescriptive, compliance-driven approach.
A "climate of fear" has been compounded by health and safety consultants - many without any professional qualifications - "who have a perverse incentive to take an overzealous approach to applying the health and safety regulations", he says.
"As a consequence they employ a goal of eliminating all risk from the workplace instead of setting out the rational, proportionate approach that the Health and Safety at Work etc Act [1974] demands."
Lord Young says there should be a system of accreditation for health and safety consultants and a web-based listing for employers.
Processes should also be put in place to ensure their assessments are proportionate, he says.
Low-risk workplaces should have fewer obligations
Only about three per cent of all workplace injuries in Great Britain involve offices, and no office workers died as a result of accidents at work in 2009, says Lord Young.
Even so, low-hazard workplaces are obliged to carry out the same written risk assessments as high-hazard workplaces.
The UK should take the lead in ensuring EU health and safety rules for low-risk businesses "are not overly prescriptive, are proportionate and do not attempt to achieve the elimination of all risk", he says.
Further, employers should be exempt from conducting "unnecessary and intrusive" risk assessments for employees working from home in a low-hazard environment.
Self-employed people in low-hazard businesses should also be exempt from conducting risk assessments, he says.
Welcoming Lord Young's report, the Prime Minister said "good, straightforward legislation designed to protect people from major hazards" was all too often "extended inappropriately".
"We simply cannot go on like this," he said, pledging to carry out all of the recommendations.
Well this would be a welcome certainly to SME with low risk within Australia. Let's hope it catches on very quickly and we can get back to managing risk in a practical manner and not through the administrative wonderland which is what has been created.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
OHS harmonisation "dead", as NSW opts out
Thursday, 14 October 2010 11:05am
The harmonisation of OHS laws could be dead in the water, with NSW on the verge of withdrawing from the process.
In an astonishing move, NSW Premier Kristina Keneally has told Prime Minister Julia Gillard that NSW would only implement the proposed Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act if it could retain union-led prosecutions and reverse onus of proof laws.
The NSW Government agreed in December last year to adopt the model Act, without these provisions.
But Keneally said that as "modern safety laws focus on employers identifying and controlling the risks in their workplace", and recognising that they should "know the risks better than anyone", it was "entirely fair" that the onus should be on them "to prove what is and isn't reasonably practicable" in the event of a safety prosecution.
She also said the right of unions to initiate prosecutions, which had been in place in NSW since 1943, "provided workers with an important avenue of redress".
"NSW has the highest standards in safety in our workplaces and we won't compromise on that," Keneally said.
High-profile OHS lawyer Michael Tooma said harmonisation "in its present form is dead".
Tooma, who has in the past expressed doubts that harmonisation would succeed, said Keneally's move highlighted the "inherent vulnerability" of the model Act adopted.
"The current regulatory framework adopted for harmonisation is at the mercy of every change of policy direction by a state or territory government, as has occurred in this case [and] in Western Australia [following a change of government]," he said.
"The Federal Government must intervene to rescue harmonisation by introducing Federal legislation covering the field on this critical issue.
"We must abandon this inherently unstable approach of relying on model legislation. The Federal Government has the power to do this. It must show leadership on this issue."
Keneally swayed by "minor matters": McCallum
Labour-law expert Professor Ron McCallum told OHS Alert that it would be a "great pity" if NSW reneged on its commitment to enact the model Act based on two "rather minor matters".
McCallum, of Sydney University, said that while he approved of NSW's reverse-onus provision, it "doesn't make a difference in most cases".
He also said "there are mechanisms in the Federal law which allow for calls to review any decision [by a regulator] not to prosecute" an employer for an alleged safety breach.
But all is not lost, according to McCallum. He said he "would hope" that if the NSW Labor Government didn't pass the Act, the Opposition would if - as is widely expected - it won the State election in March next year.
"Harmonisation will help both employers and workers have a safer environment," he said.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard in July described the harmonisation of OHS laws as one of the most important reforms she "delivered" in her three years as Federal Workplace Relations Minister.
In June, OHS academic Neil Foster opined that it was "entirely possible that between now and the end of 2011 some or all of the jurisdictions who have signed on to the process will lose the political will to carry it through".
The harmonisation of OHS laws could be dead in the water, with NSW on the verge of withdrawing from the process.
In an astonishing move, NSW Premier Kristina Keneally has told Prime Minister Julia Gillard that NSW would only implement the proposed Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act if it could retain union-led prosecutions and reverse onus of proof laws.
The NSW Government agreed in December last year to adopt the model Act, without these provisions.
But Keneally said that as "modern safety laws focus on employers identifying and controlling the risks in their workplace", and recognising that they should "know the risks better than anyone", it was "entirely fair" that the onus should be on them "to prove what is and isn't reasonably practicable" in the event of a safety prosecution.
She also said the right of unions to initiate prosecutions, which had been in place in NSW since 1943, "provided workers with an important avenue of redress".
"NSW has the highest standards in safety in our workplaces and we won't compromise on that," Keneally said.
High-profile OHS lawyer Michael Tooma said harmonisation "in its present form is dead".
Tooma, who has in the past expressed doubts that harmonisation would succeed, said Keneally's move highlighted the "inherent vulnerability" of the model Act adopted.
"The current regulatory framework adopted for harmonisation is at the mercy of every change of policy direction by a state or territory government, as has occurred in this case [and] in Western Australia [following a change of government]," he said.
"The Federal Government must intervene to rescue harmonisation by introducing Federal legislation covering the field on this critical issue.
"We must abandon this inherently unstable approach of relying on model legislation. The Federal Government has the power to do this. It must show leadership on this issue."
Keneally swayed by "minor matters": McCallum
Labour-law expert Professor Ron McCallum told OHS Alert that it would be a "great pity" if NSW reneged on its commitment to enact the model Act based on two "rather minor matters".
McCallum, of Sydney University, said that while he approved of NSW's reverse-onus provision, it "doesn't make a difference in most cases".
He also said "there are mechanisms in the Federal law which allow for calls to review any decision [by a regulator] not to prosecute" an employer for an alleged safety breach.
But all is not lost, according to McCallum. He said he "would hope" that if the NSW Labor Government didn't pass the Act, the Opposition would if - as is widely expected - it won the State election in March next year.
"Harmonisation will help both employers and workers have a safer environment," he said.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard in July described the harmonisation of OHS laws as one of the most important reforms she "delivered" in her three years as Federal Workplace Relations Minister.
In June, OHS academic Neil Foster opined that it was "entirely possible that between now and the end of 2011 some or all of the jurisdictions who have signed on to the process will lose the political will to carry it through".
Radio National OHS Program
On 21 September 2010, Radio Australia’s regular program Australia Talks conducted a live interview concerning occupational safety and health.
For those who have been listening to the show for some time would have been surprised that the program covered much of the same old OHS ground. Similar statistics, similar questions of what are the most dangerous occupations, similar assumptions and the same misunderstanding that discussions about OHS law are the same as discussions on safety management.
However, for those new to OHS, the program may have provided an impression that the issue is serious but that, even with harmonisation, the issue is too complex to be applied in their own circumstances.
What was very surprising was that the program spent some time discussing Industrial Manslaughter legislation that, to my knowledge, is not being seriously considered by any States through the harmonisation process, a position mentioned in the program. Such laws exist in the Australian Capital Territory but have never been used.
The case for the deterrent value of such laws seemed weak, regardless of what Geoff Fary of the ACTU said on the program. In fact it was stated that the consideration of such laws would cause employer associations to walk away from any OHS discussions involving the concept. It has become a matter of division in negotiations.
Such a talkback program will always attract callers who outline personal or particular grievances and need to be cut short by the host. This is a shame but a necessity of the format. What Radio National and other broadcasters fail to realise is that occupational health and safety is a combination of a many concepts and disciplines that cannot be dealt with in an hour or a couple of hours.
OHS deserves its own weekly radio program in Australia so that issues, like those listed below, and specific industry needs can be discussed, explained and understood.
Below is a brief list of OHS-related issues that I believe could be the basis for a series of radio broadcasts, in no particular order:
For those who have been listening to the show for some time would have been surprised that the program covered much of the same old OHS ground. Similar statistics, similar questions of what are the most dangerous occupations, similar assumptions and the same misunderstanding that discussions about OHS law are the same as discussions on safety management.
What was very surprising was that the program spent some time discussing Industrial Manslaughter legislation that, to my knowledge, is not being seriously considered by any States through the harmonisation process, a position mentioned in the program. Such laws exist in the Australian Capital Territory but have never been used.
Such a talkback program will always attract callers who outline personal or particular grievances and need to be cut short by the host. This is a shame but a necessity of the format. What Radio National and other broadcasters fail to realise is that occupational health and safety is a combination of a many concepts and disciplines that cannot be dealt with in an hour or a couple of hours.
OHS deserves its own weekly radio program in Australia so that issues, like those listed below, and specific industry needs can be discussed, explained and understood.
Below is a brief list of OHS-related issues that I believe could be the basis for a series of radio broadcasts, in no particular order:
- Infectious disease
- Mental Health
- Measuring OHS performance
- Safety Culture
- OHS Enforcement Policies and Limitations
- OHS Law
- Workplace suicide
- The Social Costs of Workplace Injury
- Can Capitalism allow OHS?
- Bullying
- Corporate Social Responsibility
- Determining Compliance
- Determining an Acceptable Level of Safety
- The Profession of Safety
- Where OHS is not relevant
- OHS and Politics
- Small Business Perceptions of OHS
Corporate Australia 'needs culture change'
Carolyn Taylor says Australian businesses need to adjust their 'she'll be right' attitude (Flickr: Tony Eccles)
Carolyn Taylor says many Australian companies have a dangerous "she'll be right" attitude and the problem areas of bullying and sexual harassment are accidents waiting to happen.
"I see a little bit of a belief that we can control behaviour by policies instead of recognising that culture is about values and standards," Ms Taylor told ABC Radio's The World Today.
"You can't mandate. It's not about what you tell people to do - it's about how you hold people to account.
"Every organisation has a culture. The question is whether it's the culture you need to avoid the kind of risks that can blow up in the high-profile disasters we've had recently."
Ms Taylor points to the global cases of Toyota, Goldman Sachs and Enron where poor management culture has damaged corporate reputations and financial bottom lines.
She believes the $37 million sexual harassment case confronting the retailer David Jones should prompt other companies to review their culture in addition to policies and procedures.
"The first question to ask is if it's an isolated incident or is there actually a pattern of behaviour that has been allowed, or even encouraged over a long period of time by the way that people in an organisation will 'walk their talk'?" she said.
Ms Taylor says high-profile cases of poor corporate culture should be lessons to companies trying to improve their workplace, but she worries the case studies are too quickly consigned to corporate history.
She says short-term thinking is a growing problem.
During her Australian visit Ms Taylor will work with the likes of BHP Billiton, Alacetel Lucent and Vodaphone Hutchison to advise on ways to improve corporate culture.
By business editor Peter Ryan
Updated Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:27pm AEST
Carolyn Taylor says many Australian companies have a dangerous "she'll be right" attitude and the problem areas of bullying and sexual harassment are accidents waiting to happen.
"I see a little bit of a belief that we can control behaviour by policies instead of recognising that culture is about values and standards," Ms Taylor told ABC Radio's The World Today.
"You can't mandate. It's not about what you tell people to do - it's about how you hold people to account.
"Every organisation has a culture. The question is whether it's the culture you need to avoid the kind of risks that can blow up in the high-profile disasters we've had recently."
Ms Taylor points to the global cases of Toyota, Goldman Sachs and Enron where poor management culture has damaged corporate reputations and financial bottom lines.
She believes the $37 million sexual harassment case confronting the retailer David Jones should prompt other companies to review their culture in addition to policies and procedures.
"The first question to ask is if it's an isolated incident or is there actually a pattern of behaviour that has been allowed, or even encouraged over a long period of time by the way that people in an organisation will 'walk their talk'?" she said.
Ms Taylor says high-profile cases of poor corporate culture should be lessons to companies trying to improve their workplace, but she worries the case studies are too quickly consigned to corporate history.
She says short-term thinking is a growing problem.
During her Australian visit Ms Taylor will work with the likes of BHP Billiton, Alacetel Lucent and Vodaphone Hutchison to advise on ways to improve corporate culture.
By business editor Peter Ryan
Updated Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:27pm AEST
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Australia - New work safety laws on farms 02 Oct 2010
NEW work safety rules apply for farmers and rural industries from this month, with the phasing out of legislated occupational health and safety exemptions for rural Queensland.
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland executive director, Dr Simon Blackwood, said the phasing out program, which started in 1990, required all rural property workers to be aware of, and comply with, the Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 2008.
"The phasing out of these exemptions is part of a staged removal to bring the rural industry in line with other Queensland industries," Dr Blackwood said.
"This staged removal ensures rural workers can get appropriate training, education, certification and licensing where required.
"The exemptions revoked in 2009 involved rural activities in demolition, construction work and the use of hazardous substances.
"Exemptions being removed from this September concern registrable plant design, confined spaces and atmospheric contaminants.
A new rural chemicals guide is available to rural workplaces containing information on herbicides, pesticides, hazardous substances, dangerous goods, flammable liquids, and agricultural and veterinary medicines," he said.
"Workplace Health and Safety Queensland's A guide to working safely in confined spaces highlights the new requirements and provides useful tools and information.
"It highlights how working in a confined space has the potential to increase the risk of injury from noise, being overcome by fumes, gases or oxygen depletion, high or low temperatures, manual handling and slips, trips and falls."
For more information about the rural industry exemption removal or managing rural chemicals go to http://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/ or call the Workplace Health and Safety Infoline on 1300 369 915
Dr Blackwood highlighted that the changes which took effect from September 1 did not apply to rural workers being exempt from the requirement to hold a licence to perform high-risk work (e.g. forklift, tower crane, scaffolding).
"The rural exemption for this part of the regulation has been extended indefinitely until the new national model health and safety laws are enacted in Queensland," he said.
"The amendment ensures workers in the rural industry are not legally required to undertake the cost of training to obtain a licence, only to find out when the national OHS laws are finalised that they may no longer be required to hold a licence to operate in that class of work.
"However, it should be noted that forklift licensing is an excellent means of meeting the requirements of the current WHS legislation to provide a safe workplace.
"Rural businesses that use forklifts are urged to have operators of forklifts trained and licensed, particularly those who are regularly required to operate forklifts."
Forklift (and other classes of high-risk work) licensing is expected to be required under the nationally harmonised legislation from January 1, 2012.
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland executive director, Dr Simon Blackwood, said the phasing out program, which started in 1990, required all rural property workers to be aware of, and comply with, the Workplace Health and Safety Regulation 2008.
"The phasing out of these exemptions is part of a staged removal to bring the rural industry in line with other Queensland industries," Dr Blackwood said.
"This staged removal ensures rural workers can get appropriate training, education, certification and licensing where required.
"The exemptions revoked in 2009 involved rural activities in demolition, construction work and the use of hazardous substances.
"Exemptions being removed from this September concern registrable plant design, confined spaces and atmospheric contaminants.
A new rural chemicals guide is available to rural workplaces containing information on herbicides, pesticides, hazardous substances, dangerous goods, flammable liquids, and agricultural and veterinary medicines," he said.
"Workplace Health and Safety Queensland's A guide to working safely in confined spaces highlights the new requirements and provides useful tools and information.
"It highlights how working in a confined space has the potential to increase the risk of injury from noise, being overcome by fumes, gases or oxygen depletion, high or low temperatures, manual handling and slips, trips and falls."
For more information about the rural industry exemption removal or managing rural chemicals go to http://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/ or call the Workplace Health and Safety Infoline on 1300 369 915
Dr Blackwood highlighted that the changes which took effect from September 1 did not apply to rural workers being exempt from the requirement to hold a licence to perform high-risk work (e.g. forklift, tower crane, scaffolding).
"The rural exemption for this part of the regulation has been extended indefinitely until the new national model health and safety laws are enacted in Queensland," he said.
"The amendment ensures workers in the rural industry are not legally required to undertake the cost of training to obtain a licence, only to find out when the national OHS laws are finalised that they may no longer be required to hold a licence to operate in that class of work.
"However, it should be noted that forklift licensing is an excellent means of meeting the requirements of the current WHS legislation to provide a safe workplace.
"Rural businesses that use forklifts are urged to have operators of forklifts trained and licensed, particularly those who are regularly required to operate forklifts."
Forklift (and other classes of high-risk work) licensing is expected to be required under the nationally harmonised legislation from January 1, 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)