The recent coronial finding into three workplace deaths related to an Australian government economic stimulus package in 2009 has muddled the safety profession over the political context and the OHS context of these deaths.  But the finding and resulting discussions could be the catalyst for a much-needed analysis of how decisions made with good intentions in Canberra can lead to the tragic personal and shopfloor decisions in the suburbs.

Nanny State

The Home Insulation Program (HIP) could have been interpreted as government “interference” in the market and been badged as “nanny state” economics.  However it may be possible to argue that Prime Minister Rudd could have been an economic hero if the Home Insulation Program had continued without any deaths. Recent newspaper articles have indicated that the home insulation sector doubled its workforce in response to the stimulus package (The Australian 8 July 2013 ).  One person’s “nanny state” could be another’s social welfare.

One media report in 2010 mentions a Coalition accusation of nanny state economics but in comparison to the Howard era of handouts, the accusation is a little shrill. The same report outlines some of the safety benefits that resulted from HIP.

Around the same time The Daily Reckoning used the HIP as an general criticism of the “nanny state” but also said:

“….it is truly stunning that a $2.5 billion program designed to put insulation in people’s homes (a dubious program to begin with) actually killed four young Australians…and no one has had the courage to link the bad policy with the tragic result.

Think about that again – the death of four young people is directly linked to government policy – and no one has been fired, lost a job, or held accountable for it at all. If, for example, four diggers were killed in Afghanistan after being sent on poorly planned mission, what do you think the coverage in the media would be like?”

In 2011 Annabel Crabb asked an uncomfortable ideological question about the Liberal Party’s inconsistency on the “nanny state”:

“Tony Abbott, for instance, wants the Government to be more involved in the household expenditure of welfare recipients, but also wants it to keep its grubby mitts away from anyone pouring their pay down the pokies.

How can one party support such intimate interventionism on one hand, and yet – on the other – preserve its customary suspicion of the nanny state? How do the rights and freedoms of a problem gambler outweigh the rights and freedoms of an alcoholic person on the dole?”

This 2012 article by Peter Lewis and Jackie Woods provides a very useful statistical approach to how the community would view the aims of many activities that some would describe as “nanny state”:

“On issues with natural safety implications, people believe the primary objective of regulation should be the protection of health and safety.”

Job Creation

It should be remembered that the HIP was seen as a “green jobs” stimulus program and probably the largest Australian job creation scheme with environmental credentials.  The mantra of almost all the Australian governments at the time of the HIP was “jobs, jobs, jobs.”  Such programs are rarely, if ever, run past the OHS policy makers or OHS regulators prior to implementation, yet it is well known that effective levels of safety are most successfully established the earlier they are introduced to the project design.

The failure of HIP is a strong argument for greater interaction between government regulators and program developers and the implementation of formal Safety Impact Assessments  in government project tendering and program development.

Accountability

A moral argument can be made that the Prime Minister and senior Ministers of the Australian government at the time were responsible for the deaths of the four men, and the burning of many homes, due to their setting a policy that could not be fulfilled without sacrificing workplace safety.  It can be argued that the State Governments, which had the responsibility for implementing and monitoring HIP and the safety requirements, were overwhelmed by the operational demands of HIP and failed in their regulatory duties.

But there can be no doubt that under OHS laws the principal responsibility for the safety of workers, then as it is now, was with the employers.

The OHS regulators have and will pursue these companies through the Courts.  But the only accountability for the politicians associated with the HIP, other than their own consciences, will be through the ballot box.

What Australia does not have at the moment is any coordinated investigation into, amongst others:

• the effects on OHS of the  government’s decision making processes on the economy,
• the opportunities presented to small companies by such stimulus packages,
• the preparedness of businessmen to seize these opportunities without adequate consideration of the risks to workers,
• the level of resources required by State OHS regulators to address the inspectorate and licensing needs of a program that was foisted on them at extremely short notice, and
• the awareness of homeowners to the risks presented to building contractors on their premises,

The success and failure of the Home Insulation Program is a great opportunity for an analysis of how decisions at the top of the political structure in Australia can lead to fatal decisions in workplaces or, in the HIP case, the roof space of a domestic home.  Such an analysis could change the way workplace safety is understood and applied in all Australian businesses.

Kevin Jones

Mental health, happiness, well being, safety, red tape …. each of these have been linked to productivity recently in Australian discourses but, as has been mentioned previously, productivity has a flexible definition depending on one’s politics and political agenda. There is multi-factor productivity and labour productivity.  Each measure provides different results.  So where does OHS sit?

An article in The Weekend Australian on 27 July 2013 illustrates the flexible definitions and includes a rare acknowledgement on labour productivity.

“On the measure of labour productivity, which captures the output of each worker, productivity growth is in fact soaring, hitting 3.4 per cent in 2011-12. [emphasis added]

But on the broader measure, which includes the use business makes of capital equipment, growth is still a negligible 0.1 per cent and has declined on average 0.7 per cent a year ever since Labor was elected.”

The labour productivity figure is important to remember when one hears about excessive workloads, excessive hours of work and other potential causes for psychosocial hazards.  Of course, such statements can always be tempered by considering the changes to the labour market such as the decline in manufacturing jobs, increase in resources jobs and the increase in part-time work, amongst other factors, but these changes seem to make the 3.4% growth figure even more significant.

As well as the labour market changes mentioned above, labour productivity is “soaring” at a time of declining, or flattening, trade union membership, during a period of substantial change and tweaking to the industrial relations laws, whilst rates of workplace fatalities are declining and claims for stress, bullying and other mental health issues seem to be increasing.

That “the output of each  worker” is increasing during this period or economic and social variability should encourage greater analysis of the factors involved in labour productivity but the business lobby and conservative politicians seem to be addressing business concerns rather than causal factors.  This is illustrated further into The Weekend Australian article under the sub-heading if Industrial Relations.  There is no acknowledgement of the growth figure for labour productivity or options for increasing this productivity further.

The article quotes the common mantra of Australian business groups that

“Smaller businesses complain about the difficulty of managing redundancies, which restricts their ability to adjust to changing market conditions.”

Smaller businesses can complain as much as they want.  But instead of “managing redundancies” industry groups should be helping small businesses to eliminate psychosocial hazards as there is evidence that a happy and safe workforce is also a productive workforce, and a productive workforce increases the profitability of a business by increasing output and production efficiency.  Good safety management will minimise any disruptions to

It is unlikely that the productivity benefits of OHS will be picked up by the political opposition as Australia moves towards an election later this year.  The Weekend Australian in a separate article reported:

“The Coalition is expected to release its productivity agenda during the election campaign, but is refusing to release detail of the findings of a working group tasked with thrashing out how an Abbott government would boost Australia’s flatlining productivity.”

But not all productivity is flatlining and unless all political parties and lobbyists acknowledge this, the opportunities provided by the growth in labour productivity will be missed, and so will the chances for increasing the workplace conditions of Australian workers.

Kevin Jones

Everyone wants clarity.  We want the comfort of knowing we are doing the right thing or that we are meeting the targets we and others set.  Workplace safety is no different but it has been complicated to an extent that clarity is unachievable and so uncertainty has come to dominate.

Occupational health and safety (OHS) consultants are often asked by business, small business in particular, “just tell us how to comply”.  Once upon a time this could be done but now the best a consultant can do is say something like “I reckon you’ll be okay, ……. if you follow through with the commitments needed, and keep your state of knowledge up to date, and take out as many liability insurances as you can, and become a member of an industry association ….and……..and…..”

The cult of “reasonably practicable” has been a major cause of this uncertainty but even prior to this was the move in Australia in the 1990s from a prescriptive regulatory structure to performance-based.

OHS compliance is now at the stage of the “best guess” or an “educated guess”, if one is lucky.  This “best guess” situation is seen as increasing the level of risk or exposure on small business owners but a quick look at the history of OHS in Australia will show that the risk has not increased.  It is only that the level of responsibility, that was always on employers, cannot now be avoided.  Where previously one could say that “WorkSafe said it [whatever it was] complies”, now one must take ownership of the risk and the responsibility by stating that “I believe this complies”.  The obligation for a safe workplace resides exclusively with the person or organisation who gains the most benefit from the production of that company where in the past one could argue that the responsibility was shared with the regulator.

In the prescriptive era, business and industry associations decried the interference of government OHS agencies as being limiting and pedantic and prescription became a pejorative word.  So OHS regulators and governments of the day embraced performance-based measures that reduced the policing aspect of the inspectorate and allowed employers to determine and control their risks.

Yet in this century, business and industry associations continue to complain about regulations, interference and red tape.  Largely the current complainants are those seeking compliance with OHS laws instead of seeking safety, regardless of laws.  If one focuses on safety and the reduction of harm, if one begins to accept the responsibility for OHS and act like a grown-up, the sources of tension, the sources of uncertainty – the regulations, the interference and the red tape – disappear or at least fade considerably.  Business can achieve clarity on workplace safety when it stops looking at the laws and begins looking at the OHS principles.

Many business owners repeat the mantra of “everyone goes home the same way they came to work” [I always think this means if you traveled in by train, you go home by train, or if you come to work with a hangover, you can go home with one] but they usually impose this on OHS regulatory obligations rather than seeing the mantra as a moral and social obligation to their workers, independent of the laws.

Britain is an example of a country whose business groups struggle to work with OHS laws, they struggle to see beyond compliance and they have come to hate the Health and Safety Executive as the embodiment of OHS compliance. The Government has responded by eliminating OHS compliance for some sectors of the economy without replacing it with the values or morals required to keep from hurting people.

As Australia officially enters election mode for the next few weeks, similar lobbying by the business groups will be re-energised for the easing of OHS regulations.  The UK strategy may even by advocated locally.  But the lesson from Britain is that there should never be a void in changing OHS laws.

In the 1990s Australia moved from prescriptive OHS laws and regulations to performance-based but it moved from something to something else. Britain has moved from something to nothing.  Business has moved from clarity (even though that clarity was resented) to what they perceive as a freedom but it is a false freedom of the type that is likely to penalise workers.

Regulatory or policy change on OHS must first establish a direction, and a future, before it dispenses with the old.  Britain has failed to do this and Australia is contemplating the same risk.   All parties need to focus on safety as a priority and compliance as a lesser issue for by attending to safety first, compliance will come.

Kevin Jones

Australia’s conservative opposition leader, Tony Abbott, has announced that he intends to conduct a judicial inquiry into the government’s handling of the home insulation program (HIP) that resulted in the deaths of four workers in Queensland and New South Wales in 2009 and 2010.

Such a call would, normally, be very welcome but the timing of Abbott’s announcement brings a level of political baggage that weakens his commitment.

Newspapers report that the parents of Matthew Fuller have written a letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd expressing their dissatisfaction with his response to the Coronial findings into their son’s death and the need for a judicial inquiry.  The letter was dated 20 July 2013 but has only received media attention since Rudd announced the Federal election for September 2013.  There is little doubt that the concerns of Kevin and Christine Fuller are genuine and that they want more details from the Government about what they believe contributed to their son’s death.  Most parents would want the same and this letter provides Abbott with an opportunity of being seen to respond to public demands

Where is the criticism of the employers?

A major omission in Abbott’s media announcement and the coverage of the issue in The Australian newspaper, in particularly, is the failure to mention any involvement in the HIP by the employers of the deceased workers.  The argument jumps from deceased workers to Kevin Rudd and the Rudd Government.  In terms of workplace safety, the employers had very clear obligations that were not met in many cases.  Where is the mention of QHI Installations Pty Ltd or Arrow Property Maintenance Pty Ltd?

This video report by The Telegraph mirrors inaccurate statements that have become common.  Steve Lewis says that Matthew Fuller’s death was

“…a tragic accident as a result of the home insulation program that went wrong…”

The deaths occurred due to poor or non-existent safety management practices of the workers’ employers who were taking advantage of an admittedly flawed economic stimulus and job creation program.  Lewis repeats the omission of the employers’ role in their employees’ deaths.

In the days leading to Abbott’s announcement The Australian ran several articles on legal action proposed by home insulation companies that are allegedly out-of-pocket by millions of dollars due to the cancellation of the insulation scheme. According to The Australian on August 8 2013:

“The legal documents quote named public servants, including a senior figure in Mr Garrett’s department who allegedly asked one of Mr Rudd’s top aides: “Is there any way of delaying this scheme while we sort installer training, safety standards – that sort of thing?”

The Rudd aide’s reply is quoted as: “The Prime Minister wants it started now and it’s very difficult to argue with a Prime Minister with a 76 per cent approval rating.”

In another alleged conversation, a department project officer discloses to a company representative: “We expect houses will burn down.”

A company operator, Matthew Hannam, states that he told one of the key public servants: “You’re going to kill people if you let (untrained) installers in from outside the industry.”

The public servant allegedly replied: “It’s all about jobs. We understand there may be injuries.” (link added)

These comments deserve investigation but the fact that these are allegations in the context of civil action seeking compensation should be acknowledged and remembered.

By calling for a judicial inquiry into HIP during this election campaign the Liberal Party can be seen as supporting struggling small businesses, its usual constituency.  But this time the Liberals can support struggling small businesses who feel they have been screwed over by the government – an even better constituency during an election campaign.

The sad part of this announcement is that the workplace safety elements are unlikely to feature in a judicial inquiry due to a similar type of judicial inquiry, the coronial inquests, having already identified as much as they can about worker deaths and the direct accountability for them.  Employers have been prosecuted and penalised for OHS breaches but this fact is rarely acknowledged in the current political discussion.

Exploiting OHS for political purposes

Tony Abbott’s main aim of any judicial inquiry into HIP is political with worker safety being a secondary concern.  [Rudd said that “For the government, safety has always been the number one priority”  and this was clearly not the case] Abbott and the Liberal Party are at risk of doing what they regularly accuse the trade union movement of doing – using occupational health and safety as a cover for another agenda.  In the case of trade unions, the agenda is allegedly industrial relations,  The Liberal Party agenda is political gain and continuing criticism of the Australian Labor Party as poor project managers.  HIP is seen as a political weakness of Kevin Rudd and will continue to be exploited regardless of the election result on 7 September 2013.

For a moment assume that the sympathy that Greg Hunt, Shadow Minister for the Environment, and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott have expressed about the deaths of workers install home insulation is genuine.  Does this indicate a new perspective on worker safety?

If the Liberal Party wins the next election will it push for its State counterparts in Victoria and Western Australia to complete the work started by former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard and have a nationally harmonised work health and safety legislative structure?  These laws would hold employers to be more accountable for their OHS decision making and deterrent penalties have been increased.

Given the criticism directed at former Environment Minister Peter Garrett and the current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd over HIP, would the Liberal Party remove the exemption of the WHS laws that has been applied Ministers so that Ministers would be subject to the same levels of OHS due diligence no applied to most Chief Executive Officers in Australia?

These questions will never appear in the mainstream press as it has little or no OHS understanding, unless it relates to public servants lodging a workers compensation claim after sex in a hotel room.

The former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard mentioned OHS during an election campaign a few years ago which, in some ways, legitimised the topic as valid for an election campaign, at least for a little while.  Tony Abbott seems to be concerned about OHS in this election campaign but it is a thin veneer over his greater concern for small business and the glee of kicking Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his uninsulated soft spots.

In all of this discussion about a potential judicial inquiry one should continue to ask what such an inquiry is likely to achieve.  Justice for the families? Compensation for insulation companies who thought their lucrative ship had come in? More reputational damage on an already damaged Labor Government? Improvements in workplace safety? Greater accountability for public servants?  Greater accountability for small business operators? Or simply a short-term political edge for the Liberal Party in a hotly contested election campaign?

Kevin Jones

One of the most discussed posts on this blog concerned an insurance company that paid the fines awarded against a company director. The company director had been found guilty of OHS breaches that led to the death of a worker. Yesterday, South Australia’s Deputy Premier and Minister for Industrial Relations. John Rau, said that he will be taking action to close the loophole that allows for this situation. But this is unlikely to succeed and may be a distraction from the more significant issue of new penalties for deterrence.

In a media release, not yet available online, Rau states that

“Insurance should not be the preference over safe equipment and safe workplace standards….

Whilst most employers do the right thing, this dodge effectively means that the incentive for a company to provide a safe environment for its workers is diminished or eliminated.”

Rau’s current strategy for closing this loophole, which is not really a legal loophole at all, is weak. Rau, a Labor Party politician, says that he will bring the matter to the attention of the Federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten. However, Australia is ten days away from an election that the current (Labor) government is tipped to lose.

Rau needs to also raise this matter with the Conservative politician most likely to be the next Workplace Relations Minister, Eric Abetz, but Abetz has not been a fan of the harmonised OHS laws and uses OHS as a platform for his own ideological agendas in similar ways to what he accuses the trade union movement of doing.

Of more likely success is Rau’s intention to implement a State-based solution as he is in a stronger electoral position to do so. But what could that be?

South Australia is one of the States that implemented occupational health and safety laws based on the model national Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws. Several States tweaked these laws to address their own peculiarities (or political needs) and to have the new laws pass Parliament. They remain State-based laws so there is good scope for local action to be taken.

Who did wrong?

However, this may be trying to change WHS laws for a non-WHS reason. The director of the company, Ferro Con, and the insurance company have done nothing legally wrong but they do seem to have, to quote Monty Python, “transgressed the unwritten law”. As much as the payout by the insurance company is distasteful to OHS professionals, the insurance company offered, or created, a policy the company director paid for. The insurance company would have assessed the claim and, in this case, chose to pay. It is difficult to see how WHS laws could be amended to affect this strictly commercial activity.

And at who should we aim our outrage? The company director may have taken out the policy for good economic reasons although this seems unlikely as the company went into liquidation. According to the Industrial Magistrate the company had “a general insurance policy which apparently included indemnification of its Director for fines imposed for his criminal conduct.” It seems unlikely that he took out this policy to cover intentionally poor safety management. Perhaps, we should be looking at the commercial morality of the insurance industry.

Rau is more likely to have greater success investigating the range of insurance products on offer. But it would be a courageous political move to question insurance companies.

Penalties and Deterrence

To step away from the insurance issues for a moment perhaps the discussion point should be about the continuing value of applying financial penalties to corporate and OHS breaches. Most penalties applied to large corporations are easily paid from profits. In 2010 BHP Billiton was penalised $A75,000 after the death of a worker, Scott Rigg. At the time I asked:

“The Australian Government has been willing to apply a 40% tax on the mining industry’s profits but is unlikely to apply a percentage penalty in relation to OHS. It could be argued that well-funded corporations have the financial resources to establish safety prevention units and strategies, have existed for decades and should know better on workplace safety issues, so why should they be subjected to an arbitrary set of financial penalty units? “

Ferro Con is not nearly in the same league as BHP Billiton but a percentage penalty of profits or some other corporate element could be an effective deterrent.

Name and Shame

Also, an increasingly important motivation for OHS compliance or other corporate compliance is the fear of reputational damage for such damage can ruin careers and affect stock market performance. “Name and Shame” should be considered again in light of Ferro Con. Michael Tooma was in favour of such an approach several years ago. Tooma was reported as saying

“”It focuses regulatory attention and resources where it is needed the most. By naming the employers, it also applies pressure on the companies concerned to lift their game,” he says.

“Obviously it should be used with other compliance and enforcement strategies since workplace accident injury statistics alone are not an effective measure of safety performance. But in combination with other initiatives, it may be effective in shifting ‘rusted on’ attitudes on ‘acceptable performance’ in some industries.”

Discussions on such an approach still occasionally appear but the challenge is how should the shame be applied in a world where a full-page apology in a newspaper is much less effective as the influence of newspapers has declined. Placing an apology on a corporate website is possible but how sustainable would the shame be?

Rau is unlikely to succeed in closing a loophole that is simply the offering of a commercial insurance product. It is perhaps better to let the case of Ferro Con slide as a very unfortunate lesson and to instead undertake a detailed review of penalties and punishments for OHS breaches. If an OHS penalty, regardless of the type, is intended to deter others from repeating the breach, ie, endangering someone’s life or health, what type of penalty can be applied now, in light of the Ferro Con case, that will have a similar or better level of deterrence?

The Ferro Con case deserves broad discussion on the perspectives of regulators, the courts and the policy and lawmakers. The case is of far more significance than the Baiada case from which various labour lawyers are making mileage. Many lawyers denied that any insurance company would ever pay the fines of a company or director. It was against longstanding principles, they said. Well, it happened and those longstanding principles are no more.

The OHS situation, the corporate accountability, insurance coverage, has changed. That change needs to be accepted and new approaches on penalties and deterrence are required. Or maybe the time has come for the application of old alternatives to financial penalties, alternatives that have been given half-hearted attention by the courts and the regulators in the past. Monetary penalties may not work as deterrence anymore, if they ever did.

Close the loophole, if it exists, but do more. Be creative. Be innovative, but above all, be brave,

Kevin Jones

Occupational health and safety (OHS) eyebrows were raised in Australia recently as a State Government suspended the application of three construction-related codes of practice, principally, on the basis that compliance will cost too much.  The decision by South Australia’s Minister for Industrial Relations, John Rau, following a report by the Small Business Commissioner, Mike Sinkunas, illustrates several issues:

• the SA government is overly influenced by the Housing Industry Association (HIA),
• small business is being misinformed on how workplace safety works,
• the application of “reasonably practicable” has been ignored, and
• the unions and safety profession do not know how to respond.

As part of the arrangement to pass the model Work Health and Safety laws, the SA Government agreed to allow the Small Business Commissioner review OHS codes of practice to

“….assess whether the code of practice would affect small business if implemented…”

The ferocious lobbying for some form of control over OHS was based on misinformation concerning the costs of compliance and, as such, “affect” has been determined as economic effects.  As “affect” is a neutral term it should be possible to assess the OHS Codes on terms other than economic.  A moral and economic argument could be mounted around the reduction of fatalities and injuries in the construction sector but up to now, the South Australian safety profession is silent as is the local trade union association.

Housing Industry Association

The Housing Industry Association of South Australia has long been misrepresenting the potential impacts of the Work Health and Safety harmonisation process on its members and the South Australian Community.  In its media release about the Codes’ suspension the HIA states:

“The decision is a victory for commonsense bearing in mind that the Codes were designed without consideration of their impact upon the residential industry. It is important that unnecessary impediments to this part of the industry are withdrawn given that we are coming off 3 years of significant reduction in activity in South Australia with respect to new home starts….

HIA and its Members remain committed to having the safest sites that we can achieve in the work place and HIA looks forward to further dialogue with SafeWork SA and the Small Business Commissioner as to how that may be achieved in a sensible, practicable and cost effective manner.”

The conservative side of politics loves to see any reduction in regulation as common sense but common sense is a nonsense and the phrase is only ever used when something occurs that supports one’s own position, outlook or ideology.

The HIA says that “the Codes were designed without consideration of their impact upon the residential industry” but the HIA had made a submission (summary, undated) on the model WHS laws and Codes which addressed costs.  The submission said

“The  uncertainty and interpretation concerns in this code could lead to union interference on sites and unnecessary costs for housing construction.”

But the code referenced in the quote above was concerning construction amenities and was not one of the Codes the government has suspended.

The quote is also significant in the linking of industrial relations with costs. The housing industry has always been fearful of union activity on its construction sites, a Conservative fear that is manifesting in the renewed interest in industrial relations at a national political level.

The HIA has regularly spoken to government about the costs associated with OHS compliance.  In a submission to Safe Work Australia on the draft workplace bullying code of practice, the HIA stated that it

“HIA believes that the costs of implementing the draft Code are significantly underestimated.

The methodology used by the RIS in determining costs is questionable. The use of average weekly earnings does not reflect the full cost to a business, but only the possible wage cost. Other costs that are not considered included opportunity costs and purchase costs such as for products or training. This leads to an underestimation of the actual costs to business. Further, the time allocations estimated in the RIS are understated, and assume existing expertise and a static workforce, such as that found in a business with a corporate structure and human resources capacity. This assumption is not appropriate for small business, including those of housing construction.” (page 10, emphases added)

Small Business

The HIA seems to always complain about the additional business costs that could result from new safety regulations and obligations but it fundamentally misunderstands workplace safety and is passing this on to its members.  Every business incurs costs when meeting legislative compliance on OHS just as they do for taxation and business reporting but many businesses, particularly small businesses, underestimate the costs of safety compliance in their business plans because they do not understand the costs of compliance.

Governments in Australia provide business advice that includes some statements on costs but without providing workable cost estimates.  For instance, WorkSafe ACT issues a small business guide that recommends undertaking a risk assessment to identify potential hazards and states:

“You should consider conducting a risk assessment:

• before you buy any new equipment or chemicals (get as much information from suppliers and manufacturers as possible to ensure you won’t ‘buy in’ new risks to your workplace)
• before you re‑order the equipment or chemicals you already use in your workplace when you are about to introduce a new work task or procedure
• when you get new information about your work tasks, procedures, equipment or chemicals.

This is more effective in terms of safety and costs.” (page 9, emphasis added)

Most State and Federal governments issue similar business start-up advice.  The governments try to get OHS compliance costs into initial business plans  but, for some reason, the reality of these costs are ignored or given a lower priority and when costs become evident, such as after an incident or when new laws/Codes are proposed, the costs are then seen as an unfair imposition. The costs of complying with the new WHS laws and codes should have been minimal because the safety obligations are not very different from what already existed.  The costs are more likely to be unpopular or seen as unfair to those businesses that were “managing” their safety through luck and not through a sound understanding of workplace safety.

Reasonably Practicable

Business groups lobbied hard over many years for increased flexibility on compliance with OHS obligations.  The governments allowed this flexibility through the application of “reasonable practicable”.  In its interpretive guidelines, Safe Work Australia says that

“‘Reasonably practicable’ is used to qualify duties to ensure health and safety and certain other duties in the WHS Act and Regulation”

The capacity to qualify duties has been ignored by the South Australian Government and the Small Business Commissioner.  SWA states that

“…Although the cost of eliminating or minimising risk is relevant in determining what is reasonably practicable, there is a clear presumption in favour of safety ahead of cost.

The cost of eliminating or minimising risk must only be taken into account after identifying the
extent of the risk (the likelihood and degree of harm) and the available ways of eliminating or
minimising the risk.” (emphasis added)

The Small Business Commissioner’s assessment of the Codes of Practice talks, almost exclusively, about economic costs – the last consideration in the determination of reasonable practicability.  It’s worth looking at the relevant findings.

• “There are significant additional costs to comply for small businesses;
•  These costs are both administrative and through the purchase and/or hire of various equipment – for example, lunch rooms, fencing, scaffolding and so onto meet the obligations;”

Small construction companies rarely have lunch rooms and it is common for the only onsite facilities to be a portable toilet.  Many workers provide their own meals in lunch boxes, chill bins, eskies or water bottles and eat in the open or their vehicles or under the house’s roof.

Fencing is an OHS measure but principally a way of securing the site in order to prevent any damage to the structure or theft until the house gets to lock-up stage.  This has been an existing business cost for many years.

Scaffolding is needed when working at heights unless the risk of falling has been controlled in other ways.  Regulators have been pushing the cost and risk benefits of safety in design for a long time and the concept remains valid but remains largely ignored.  If safety was incorporated in the design of a structure, there would be no additional safety costs and they would be included in the initial drawings.

The next finding reflects the false costing that the HIA has been pedalling for some time.

“Depending upon the location and size of the builder and also the type of construction, for example in a residential house construction, (whether it is single or double storey) the cost can range from 4 to 5k at the low end up to around 25 to 35k or higher.”

The Small Business Commissioner should have undertaken a more forensic analysis of the information provided by the HIA, a “key group” member according to the Commissioner’s findings. But then Commissioners operate on the information provided to them so perhaps some of the responsibility could be shared by those who remained silent on the Commissioner’s deliberation.  Perhaps there is also a structural flaw in a tripartite consultative model that restricts alternate voices.

“Administrative type costs are aspects such as the setting up of an administrative system to monitor and record the necessary paperwork, ongoing time for supervisors or owners to update and maintain the records, (for example Safe Work Method Statements), training costs, use of consultants and so on;”

This finding is mostly nonsense as all companies operate administrative systems and part of those systems relate to safety management.  The issue of Safe Work Method Statements is one discussed elsewhere in the SafetyAtWorkBlog and is more relevant to large businesses that the residential housing sector.

“These costs cannot be absorbed in the highly competitive market place that currently exists in this sector and additional costs will be passed on to the customer/client which then further affects demand and affordability issues;”

This argument is spurious and an attempt to frame costs in relation to housing affordability.  As discussed above this may only work if costs are new and additional.  Buyers expect a house to be built without a worker being injured in its construction. Would a home buyer be happy living in a house where a worker died during construction?  Could a worker fatality be reason for a home buyer to break a contract?  Should home buyers place a clause in the contract stating that no workers will be injured in the construction of their house, as large construction contracts do?

The Commissioner also complains about the legibility of the Codes:

” The three Codes themselves [Preventing Falls in Housing Construction, Safe Design of Structures, Construction Work] are similar to others I have reviewed previously; lengthy (in these cases from 29 to 53 pages long) not easy to work through, and confusing in places;”

These concerns have not been raised in any other States who have accepted the model WHS Laws, Regulations and Codes, to our knowledge.  OHS regulators place a great deal of attention on the readability of their documentation but acknowledge there is an important role for safety professionals and industry associations in explaining the relevance and contents of these Codes to their clients and members.

Also, the Commissioner’s findings fail to identify any of the confusion in the Codes so there is no opportunity to address the confusion, if it exists at all.

“There are practical considerations which mean for many builders and subcontractors it is almost impossible for them to comply with the WHS regulations and codes of practice. This is due to many of these businesses being so small that they do not have the capacity to dedicate resources in this area. Some builders have identified that is uneconomic to undertake smaller jobs due to the ‘level of paperwork’ that is required to complete a job.”

This sounds like nonsense.  Small businesses have limited resources, sometimes because they misunderstood or underestimated the resources required to undertake a job safely.  The reality of limited resources is usually a major reason for joining industry associations and it is hard to believe builders reject work on the basis of excessive OHS paperwork.  The matter of perceived red tape has been addressed elsewhere in the SafetyAtWorkBlog.

“There is an overwhelming view that the ‘one size fits all approach’ in the Codes are not practical for residential building sites – that these Codes have many aspects that are related to civil/commercial building sites only.”

See “reasonably practicable” above.

“There is some concern regarding varying interpretations that a Safe Work SA inspector may provide regarding compliance.”

This is always the case in any jurisdiction and surely accepting the Codes of Practice would have helped minimise the “varying interpretations”.  Expect more varying interpretations with the Codes.

“There has been significant effort by the industry over time to ensure a high level of safety in the workplace with ongoing training and education.”

This is no doubt the case but the Commissioner should have realised that training and education remain as the second lowest hazard control measures in the hierarchy of risk controls.  By instigating or encouraging higher order controls, the long term safety costs to businesses and the community would be minimised.

The Commissioner ends his findings by calling on “key groups’ to renegotiated a more suitable Code of practice that  improves

” safety practices and outcomes in a practical cost effective manner.”

Deputy Premier and Minister for Industrial Relations, John Rau has agreed to this review process but it is difficult to see how this will work while continuing to follow the WHS harmonisation process, where model Codes of Practice are applied consistently across Australia.

The model Code of Practice for Safe Design of Structures, and most other model Codes, states:

“Compliance with the WHS Act and Regulations may be achieved by following another  method, such as a technical or an industry standard, if it provides an equivalent or higher  standard of work health and safety than the code.”

There is no obligation for Minister Rau to revise these Codes.  It may be possible to throw this process back to the housing industry to develop an industry standard, as long as it matches or exceeds the model Code of Practice.  If the HIA and Master Builders South Australia have concerns with the Codes, set them the task of doing better.  They may find that the model Codes of Practice were the better option in relation to legal standing, business costs and ease of implementation.

Some colleagues in South Australia have said that this whole kerfuffle is directly related to the precarious election position of the current government given that an election is due within six months.  This may be the political imperative but there seemed to be far less capitulation to lobby groups under the previous Industrial Relations Minister, Russell Wortley.

What seems to be needed in South Australia is a strong OHS voice that argues on the basis of evidence and that scrutinises OHS statements and allegations to verify facts and identifies uncertainty.  The unions seem to have made no comment on Rau’s decision to suspend the Codes and the safety profession associations are as silent as ever.

The arguments about business costs and Codes of Practice have currently been restricted to the building industry but wait until the new guidance on workplace bullying is released soon.  The Housing Industry Association went to town on business costs in its workplace bullying submission to Safe Work Australia in July 2013, as below.  Rau’s acceptance of the costs argument by HIA and others through the Small Business Commissioner has legitimised the argument and has undercut the validity of establishing and managing a safe workplace for all South Australian businesses, big and small.

“Costs of a code of practice 

HIA believes that the costs of implementing the draft Code are significantly underestimated.

The methodology used by the RIS in determining costs is questionable. The use of average weekly earnings does not reflect the full cost to a business, but only the possible wage cost. Other costs that are not considered included opportunity costs and purchase costs such as for products or training. This leads to an underestimation of the actual costs to business. Further, the time allocations estimated in the RIS are understated, and assume existing expertise and a static workforce, such as that found in a business with a corporate structure and human resources capacity. This assumption is not appropriate for small business, including those of housing construction.”

Kevin Jones

Ever since the UK Government reduced the occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations on small business, there have been concerns that a similar strategy could occur in Australia.  Of all the States in Australia, Victoria is the most likely to mirror the UK actions, particularly as its WorkSafe organisation continues with its restructuring and (ridiculous) rebranding, and Victoria’s conservative government continues to see OHS as a red tape issue for small business.  However a recent finding by the Queensland Coroner should be considered very seriously when thinking of OHS in small business.

In 2011 Adam Douglas Forster

” … came close to the rotating ball mill, then accidently (sic) became ensnared by the protruding bolts and was dragged underneath the ball mill which continued to rotate, thereby causing his fatal injuries.”

The inquest found

“There were no guards, barriers or other apparatus restricting access by any persons to the ball mill.” and

Forster “did not know how to turn the ball mill on or off”.

It must be noted that Forster’s official duties, he was a sales and marketing manager, did not involve any action with the ball mill but that he did help out now and then in some areas of the plant, as is a common occurrence in many small businesses.

The Coroner made particular note of a point made by Mrs Forster concerning the level of education on OHS matters in small business.  The Coroner said:

“This was an operation that, because of its size and location, was not generally open to the scrutiny of officials, unions, passers-by or others who might have raised concerns about the level of safety measures around the ball mill.

It has taken this fatal incident to focus attention on this particular workplace.

The recommendation made now is for the policy makers and advisors of WHSQ to consider the circumstances of Mr Forster’s death to see what else may reasonably be done or done better to educate very small business operators in order to foster a culture of workplace health and safety into their operations.”

OHS inspectors rarely visit small and micro-businesses like the one above, a company of four employees, as these rarely operate in what is considered “high risk” activities.  Certainly there is little risk of multiple fatalities or much impact on the public but Forster’s death shows that this sector needs OHS attention and support.  OHS regulators would say that there is plenty of OHS information available tailored to this sector and that some have specific advisory programs.  However, making something available does not mean it will be used.

For some time, OHS regulators have been advertising to the small business sector with ads about an unexpected visit from an inspector but this is an unlikely occurrence, particularly if the workplace is “low-risk”.  Many regulators have increasingly focused on encouraging workers themselves to refuse unsafe tasks, reflecting a general attention to personal empowerment for controlling hazards.  Partly, this approach is due to a continuing decline in union oversight and influence on OHS matters and the lack of companies applying the consultative mechanisms advocated in the OHS laws such as OHS committees and Health and Safety Representatives.  But it could also be a continuation of the misunderstanding of employer obligations to provide a safe system of work and what is actually meant by a “system of work”.  There is also the increasing distraction from direct cause-and-effect incidents by advocates of mental health and wellness programs.

Significantly the Queensland Coroner encourages “a culture of workplace health and safety” as a broad strategy to increase the attention given to OHS in small businesses. Work Health and Safety Queensland has as much safety information as most other OHS regulators including documents on culture, leadership and safety culture as well as a program of workshops for small business.  But even with all of this information available there remains a disconnection between valuing OHS and practicing OHS.

Clearly a new strategy is required beyond OHS pamphlets and support programs by the regulators.  Some thoughts for consideration:

• A mentoring program of small businesses by corporate safety professionals in similar industry sectors.
• A safety collective based around industrial neighbourhoods in industrial/business parks.
• Continuous Professional Development points/credit for pro bono work by OHS professionals.

At some point, safety must be integrated into the operational mind of all businesses and the front of mind of all workers.  Brochures and guidances go some way.  Marketing has generated a change in OHS values in some in the community as well as. perhaps, generating unrealistic expectations on OHS inspectorates. It may be time to stop looking at the regulators for leadership on OHS in the small business sector and instead provide it directly to those workplaces that slip under the inspectorate radar but that can still kill people like Adam Douglas Forster.

Kevin Jones

Work/life balance is a close cousin to occupational health and safety (OHS), particularly health.  It is often the gateway people use to reduce occupational health risks such as stress and other psychosocial issues.  Moving to self-employment can be a successful strategy but it is not as easy as simply relocating one’s individual workplace or teleworking, the expected control on work hours may not eventuate and it may be very difficult to maintain a livable wage.  In The Saturday Age on April 26 2014 (not locatable on-line), Dr Natalie Skinner of the Australian Centre for Work + Life, provided a useful perspective.

Skinner writes that her annual surveys over the last six years have indicated that:

“self-employment is neither better nor worse for work-life conflict than being an employee.”

Skinner acknowledges that this seems odd because there has been so much debate about the win-win of workplace flexibility.

Having been a freelance writer and an employee, full-time employment provides the necessary living wage but one does miss the flexibility of freelancing.  That is why before considering self-employment it is vital to establish a ledger where the pros and cons are listed prior to making the decision.  My experience would include the following positives and negatives:

• increased sense of community – professional loneliness
• direct control of income and costs – earning capacity linked more directly to economic fluctuations
• more time with kids – less time for work and income
• control the pace of one’s life – until the next deadline
• personal customer service – struggle to do so on limited resources
• time to smell the roses – sleepless nights over unpaid bills or late invoices

These are just some of my considerations and experiences over the last 15 years or so.  Work/life balance is a goal that is never achieved because it is a continuing process of give and take and flexibility in more elements than just work.  It may require freelancing for a while and salaried employment for a time, home office and city office.  It may involve a mix of the two extremes but this can easily become working two jobs and could result in less flexibility than one ever expected.  The pathway of work/life balance and self-employment has many insidious traps.

Kevin Jones

More of Dr Skinner’s work can be found on-line at the research page of the Centre for Work  + Life.

Paul Breslin caused a stir in Australia’s OHS sector in 2013 with his costing of one element of managing high risk workplaces, the Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS).  In 2014, an update of Breslin’s research was published in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Health, Safety and Environment (only available through subscription), in which he states that

“Industry stakeholders claim that the SWMS Process is no longer manageable and that this document process has failed the industry and has basically outlived its usefulness” and

Recent “criticism has centred on the fact that SWMSs, which were intended to be easy to use documents, have often become so large and complex that they are impractical to use”.

(The latter statement was supported by speakers at a recent (poorly attended) Safety In Construction Conference in Melbourne, Australia.)

Some general industry criticism has been aimed at occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators such as the various WorkSafes and the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner for accepting bloated and super-generic SWMSs but an equal amount of criticism could be laid at the feet of clients who often request a SWMS when, in fact they are seeking a construction or work methodology.  This is lazy management but also indicative of ignoring the need to have OHS professionals in the contract assessment process from the conceptual stage of a tender process.

Several Australian States are embarking on a period of multi-billion dollar infrastructure construction and will be accepting tenders with bloated impractical SWMS.  Due to the long length of construction projects, this acceptance will delay any substantial change to this SWMS debate and exacerbate the expensive cost base when issues of red tape, productivity and excessive government spending are hot topics.

Generic SWMS Templates

The situation is not helped by commercial opportunists that are selling SWMS templates of work tasks for which there is no legislative justification, an issue discussed in a previous SafetyAtWorkBlog article.  Several OHS regulators have clearly stated that SWMS are required for high risk work.  WorkCover NSW discusses SWMS and high risk construction work and defines what that work is.  The Victorian Workcover Authority echoes the need of a SWMS for high risk construction work and adds:

“When an SWMS is being used for a site where there are multiple hazards, the SWMS needs to deal with the specific hazards and risks on the site.

For this reason, a generic SWMS is unlikely to meet the new requirements, unless it has first been reviewed in light of the hazards and risks on the specific site and amended as necessary.”

One Australian company, Safety Culture,  is retailing SWMS templates for work that is not included in the categories of high risk work listed by Safe Work Australia under the model Work Health and Safety laws.  This company lists a range of templates for work activities in retail, swimming pools, hospitality and other non-high-risk work activities.  For instance, one template for operating a mobile photography booth is being sold for $A79.95.  The site claims that the template “complies with current legislation in all States and Territories” but WHS/OHS legislation only requires SWMS for high risk work and operating a mobile photography booth is not listed in the Safe Work Australia categories of high risk work. How can the template “comply” when there is no legislative requirement for a SWMS for this task?

(Safety Culture responded to an earlier article on its SWMS templates, in December 2012)

Few templates, if any, can, or should, be used without modification and even though the site referred to above describes the templates as “ready to use”, the company does encourage purchasers to:

“… include any site specific details or risks ensuring it is specific to the task at hand.”

But one could argue that this type of modification can be done just as effectively on one of the blank safety checklists included in many of the free Codes of Practices or Guidances available in every State of Australia.  This would save, (particularly small) businesses money, represent safety management more accurately and encourage communication with OHS regulators, advisers and inspectorates.

Anyone is entitled to sell anything but calling  these templates “Safe Work Method Statements” can confuse the business sector about the extent of their OHS/WHS needs and obligations.

Also SWMS are often mentioned in relation to business red tape but this argument could only be made, perhaps, in industries of high risk work.  Promoting SWMS into sectors where they are not required muddies business’, politicians’ and the public’s understanding of safety management, hazard control and injury prevention.

Amongst Breslin’s latest findings he says that “there is a perception that (SWMS) protects an organisation from potential prosecution.”  Generic SWMS templates could further spread and strengthen such a perception diminishing the effectiveness of hazard control measures and provide a false sense of safety security.

Many years ago WorkSafe Victoria issued an information sheet on backbraces indicating that:

“…there is little scientific evidence of increased lifting power or lower rates of injury in workers wearing back belts. There is however, some evidence of potential harm from increased abdominal and blood pressure.”

It would seem time for one of the OHS regulators or Safe Work Australia to provide a similar document clarifying the role and use of Safe Work Method Statements in order to reduce unnecessary paperwork, streamline safety management and reduce (small) business costs.

Kevin Jones

Later this month, the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) will be releasing a document entitled “Integrated approaches to worker health, safety and well-being” (pictured right, but not yet available online).  It is intended to generate discussion on how to improve workplace safety performance by breaking down the walls of various disciplines, production processes, consultative silos and institutional or organisational biases.  This document builds on the overseas experience of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH – Total Worker Health program), the World Health Organisation (WHO – Healthy Workplace Framework) and others to provide an Australian context.

Those who are experienced in risk management principles may see little new in this approach and the publication’s success is likely to depend on how VWA explains the initiative and how its stakeholders, Victorian businesses of all sizes, accept the concept and believe it can work in their own workplaces.

Integration

The release of a publication advocating Integration implies that an unintegrated approach to safety management has been an impediment to change. This may be a surprise to risk managers and those who have been consulting broadly on OHS in their workplaces and those companies who have integrated systems managers with responsibility for Quality, OHS and Environment.

Language

Curiously, much of the language is about “improving productivity”, “creating a healthy workplace climate” or “driving significant gains in safety performance”, phrases that the business readership, and even the OHS profession, would struggle to explain.  For years OHS regulators have relied on industry associations, safety professionals and the trickle of media to translate their publications and to implement concepts in the real world but those communication pathways are reducing.  There is an increasing need for more Plain English advice directly from OHS regulators to those expected to implement the information at the workplace.  Regulators need to engage directly with business owners, safety managers and health and safety representatives and phrases like those above are unhelpful.

The main conclusions of the integrated approach proposed are:

• “Integrated approaches are effective for both physical and mental health outcomes; evidence also demonstrates positive return on investment, and access to workers in “high-risk” occupations, who are the least likely to participate in health promotion programs.
• The evaluated case studies demonstrate an ability to build upon their existing OHS structures in order to introduce some low-cost, rapidly-adopted health promotion strategies.
• Implementation of integrated approaches is now well underway in Victorian workplaces. Strong management and leadership and an established ‘integrated health committee’ appear to underpin successful implementation.
• Key challenges for workplaces include staff engagement and participation; inadequate internal expertise to source appropriate programs; resource (time, staff, financial) constraints; and appropriate evaluation tools.”

SafetyAtWorkBlog is a strong advocate for evidence-based decision making in OHS areas.  This guidebook references some authoritative overseas bodies but seems thin on Australian evidence, even though it states “implementation of integrated approaches is now well underway in Victorian workplaces”, as in the quote above. The reference page seems to include only two Australian sources – a 2010 Comcare publication on “Effective Health and Wellbeing Programs” and a 1997 journal article on “the health-promoting workplace: an integrative perspective“.

Evidence

In the “Summary of research findings”, subheading “Evidence supporting integrated approaches”, it is stated that

“….of the eight studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness of integrated interventions, all but one reported a favourable outcome.” (page 4)

and

“…the evidence from the thirty-two intervention studies included in the systematic review demonstrated the positive impact of integrated approaches on worker health and safety outcomes.” (page 4)

The referencing in the publication is inconsistent and it would have been a great help for the “eight studies” or the “thirty-two intervention studies” to have been identified through to the endnotes.

Admittedly the summary is a summary but even when referenced in the body of the document (page 25, for instance)  it is difficult to identify the thirty-two studies.  This is further complicated with another unreferenced mention of thirty documents on page 9:

“In developing these guidelines, the review canvassed expert consensus and evidence informed strategies and recommendations from thirty documents (e.g. conceptual frameworks; guidelines; ‘toolkits’) for the implementation of integrated workplace health and safety programs.”

The evidence may exist but the reader needs to be able to find it.

The guidebook gains authority through then inclusion of  real-life case studies of six Australian companies rather than the usual generic fabrications, but the well-being activities in all of the case studies are no older than 2008 with two of them beginning in 2013.  This weakness could be compensated for through a strong campaign where the companies in the case studies speak about their experiences first-hand.  Even weak or recent evidence can be strengthened by hearing from those who have struggled with, and achieved, an integrated approach.  This is where WorkCover’s communication strategy around this document should be focused even though it may be more expensive in the short term.  The returns will come from the potential savings generated by implementing the integrated approach advocated.

The guidebook provides an outline of the major resources used in developing the publication and strategy, such as NIOSH, WHO and the Safewell Practice Guidelines from the Harvard School of Public Health, but much more Australian evidence is required.  A good supplement to this guidebook would be a bibliography for further reading in this area, in other words additional (hopefully local) evidence.  VWA has an excellent library that could be used for this purpose.

It is very important for the integrated approach to be discussed in the Australian context to see if the potential benefits discussed elsewhere in the world can be replicated.  This guidebook is a good start and it is believed to be only the first part of a strategy that will continue for at least 12 months.  The  information session on 21 October 2014*, as part of Health and Safety Week 2014, indicates that VWA knows that more than a standalone guidebook is required.  The session brief states:

“The session will include a summary of the empirical evidence into the effectiveness of this approach, and some suggested high-level steps for employers to follow when taking an integrated approach to health and safety issues in the workplace. The session will also feature a case study from an employer demonstrating integrated approaches in the workplace to showcase their learnings, barriers and outcomes.”

More such sessions are required over the next year or two and the guidebook could be built upon and expanded (and simplified) to provide a solid and local evidence base from which companies can structure, and/or restructure, their OHS communication processes to achieve the potential cost savings and efficiencies suggested.

Kevin Jones

* SafetyAtWorkBlog will be attending this session and providing an article on the presentation.

One of the most ignored, but important, elements of occupational health and safety (OHS) management is the business case.  Work on this issue is being completed in Australia by Safe Work Australia but the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) has beaten it to the punch by releasing “The business case for safety and health at work: Cost-benefit analyses of interventions in small and medium-sized enterprises“.  This document includes new case studies that provide detailed analysis of cost and return on investment from interventions as varied as a vacuum lifter for pavers to warm-up exercises and task assessments of domestic builders by qualified physiotherapists.

The report found that:

• “Wide-ranging interventions appear to be more profitable than interventions targeting a particular
  issue related to the sector of the enterprise.
• Interventions that mainly concern training and organisational change appear to be more profitable than interventions based on technical changes (such as introducing new equipment).
• Interventions that include direct worker (participatory) involvement appear to be more profitable, regardless of whether or not increased productivity benefits are taken into account in the
  economic evaluation.
• In most cases, the enterprises managed to estimate benefits related to increased productivity. It
  should be emphasised that increased productivity does not always come as a result of improved
  safety and health, but it is taken into account in the context of a business case.” (page 10)

These findings can be supportive and threatening to established OHS approaches. For instance, wide-ranging interventions can be more profitable, perhaps like the elimination of risk through job redesign, but actions that are of a lower order in the Hierarchy of Controls, such as training, can be more profitable  than the introduction of new equipment.  Direct worker participation supports the process of consultation drawing on worker experience and knowledge.  But it also shows that an executive summary should not be relied upon when determining these economic and OHS factors.

The report seems to recommend that to be successful advocates for safety improvement OHS professionals, and others, must understand an organisation’s business strategy.

“When presenting convincing arguments for investments in OSH in a business case, there is a need to make the link between OSH and the company’s business strategy and bottom line.  This link with the business’s core activities is essential to obtain commitment and to integrate OSH into business processes.” (page 18)

It also states that

“Cost is rarely the motive for OSH intervention; reputation and compliance with the law appear to be more influential”. (page 19)

These realities might be “known” by OHS professionals but this report provides proof to that experience.

A research report from 2001 (Smallman and John) based on British companies and quoted in the report

“found no companies that calculated ROI for OSH spending, as spending for OSH was not assessed in monetary terms, at least not in board-level reports or thinking.” (page 18)

A 2006 study by Antonelli et al. in this report found “the most important reasons why SMEs invest in OSH are:

• understanding that health and safety is an integral part of being a ‘good business’;
• maintaining their reputation;
• achieving higher productivity — especially by reducing absence;
• keeping within the law, hence avoiding punitive action from government bodies;
• avoiding the expense of accidents;
• containing insurance costs;
• meeting client demands; and
• being a ‘good’ employer.” (page 20)

The appeal of this document and many EU-OSHA publication is the inclusion of detailed information on the safety interventions.  Each of the case studies includes a short description, images, cost figures and monetary benefits.  There is a wide variety of work tasks covered but with some substantial innovations, at least substantial to the Australian circumstance.

One case study of particular note involved the prevention of back problems in small floor laying company in Germany.  There was an assessment of the way work was conducted as well as providing trunk-strengthening exercises via a qualified sports instructor.  (Similar programs have been trialled in Australia but not with an assessment of economic benefits.)  This resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 1.80 with a payback period of 2.16 years.  The achievements listed include:

“The training enabled the workers to significantly strengthen their trunk muscles.  At the same time, the new design of the work processes helped them to put less strain on their backs. Thus, the workers unanimously confirmed in a final survey that they had back pain less and less frequently.

This matches the result reported by the health insurance association, which certified in its final report that there had been no cases of work incapacity during the two years of the project (2005 and 2006), and therefore also no absence as a result of back problems.

Five years later (in 2011), it was found that during these five years only one case of spinal disorder (dorsopathy) had occurred, resulting in two days’ absence from work.

In 2013, the head of the company, Mr Brandenburg, was able to confirm that the senior skilled workers remained in their jobs with the company until they turned 65.” (page 84)

The vacuum lifter of pavers was also intriguing.

Perhaps the biggest achievement of the report and the program it depicts is the establishment of a “common cost model (with common assumptions and accounting principles)”. The report states that

“this was helpful for enterprises, which had remarkable success in identifying and estimating economic costs and benefits related either to absenteeism or to improved productivity, which were the two main cost categories (although they did not manage to quantify all the relevant costs and benefits)” (page 10)

(It also has a terrific bibliography)

OHS professionals are in desperate need for solid economic evidence of the benefits of safety intervention for many reasons, one of which is to dispel the unfair perception that OHS professionals are pedants and fun vampires but, more importantly, to argue that safety is not simply a moral obligation but a profit generator.

Kevin Jones

Later this month, Victoria is conducting its regular State election.  Workplace safety has not been mentioned by any of the candidates but at least one industry association has mentioned occupational health and safety in its pre-election statement.  The Australian Industry Group (AiGroup) has recommended

“The next Victorian Government should immediately commit to the harmonised OHS laws as the state remains the only jurisdiction not to do so.” (page 5)

The AiGroup does not expand on the reasons for this recommendation other than seeing OHS has part of its general call for harmonisation and that it is part of “reducing costs of doing business”.  SafetyAtWorkBlog was able to fill in some of the AiGroup’s reasoning by talking, exclusively, with Mark Goodsell, in the unavailability of the author of the pre-election statement, Tim Piper.

A major reason for the Victorian Government refusing to introduce the harmonised Work Health and Safety was that the cost of introduction, determined by PricewaterhouseCooper, outweighed the benefits by billions of dollars.  To some extent the PwC report was used as justification for an ideological reason of the  incoming Conservative government of the Victorian Liberal Party.  Goodsell says that the PwC report was very limited.

“It focussed only a couple of issues… and overlooked the overall benefits … of everyone speaking the same [OHS] language. This is one of the large benefits of harmonisation that is often overlooked.  We talk about it as a pure cost or who’s got the best system but there is another element to it.  …. Harmonisation has de-cluttered the horizon.”

Goodsell discussed recent research that identifies how companies and managers learn about safety laws.  He said that people learn about safety through the media and suppliers.  The role of suppliers and the supply chain in emphasising OHS was noticeable. 

Criticism of OHS harmonisation has included the statistic that Australia has comparably few businesses that operate across State jurisdictions however this statistic ignores the logistics industry that operates nationwide even though head offices may exist in only one State.  And as the significance of safety in the logistics sector, particularly through the chain of responsibility, gains credibility and legislative support, OHS conversations and expectations become more similar.  Having Victoria, and to a lesser extent, Western Australia un-harmonised complicates the process and hinders a commonality of language and understanding on important safety matters.

Goodsell sympathises with the Victorian decision not to harmonise by recognising that Victoria has a healthy workers compensation scheme, a well-performing OHS regulator and had a leadership position on OHS laws.  In this situation, why change?  Goodsell says that the AiGroup is calling on the Victorian Government to review its stance on harmonisation given the apparent benefits that seem to have been generated from an almost-harmonised country over the last few years.

Goodsell agreed that Victoria has lost its leadership position on OHS, a position that it prided itself on for many years.

“It seems that a lot of their energy has gone into this anti-harmonisation position. In the harmonised States, there is an air of cooperation and shared wording on how the make the best fo the new structure.  Victoria is largely outside this process even though they are watching.  I think the national harmonisation would be stronger if they were in it.”

 Business Cases

Given that there has been some attention recently in Australia and elsewhere on developing a business case for workplace safety, SafetyAtWorkBlog asked for Goodsell’s opinion on the importance and worth of developing business cases.

“The business case arguments are there but it does give rise to the suspicion that this is just an economic argument when there is an underlying moral argument about whether anyone is entitled to make a quid in business and hurt people on the way through.  The answer to that is no but it does give rise to a whole heap of issues about how much you can control behaviour. …. The edges between the moral argument and the economic argument get really blurred if you follow them through.”

He said that for many small businesses the argument can be an existential one as there are many business that have collapsed due to serious injuries or a fatality.

Regardless of the business case argument, Goodsell says there is an increasing commercial argument.

“Companies in particular supply chains, mining and facilities management just don’t get hired unless there is a decent attitude to safety. … I don’t see a distinction [between the moral and economic arguments] because they draw on the same basic argument that [safety] is right and sensible.”

To some extent, says Goodsell, it is a matter of messaging where some respond better to a business argument than a moral argument and vice versa. He acknowledges that there is a lot of peer pressure in this area where business leaders watch what others are doing and if one of them does something because it is the right thing or it is profitable or it is good for the business, the activity gets emulated.

With nothing coming from the political parties on the future or current status OHS/WHS in Victoria, it is refreshing to know that at least one business group has not forgotten about workplace safety.  And given that almost all the other Australian States have implemented WHS laws and that, even though there have been tweaks, the fundamental principles of OHS have continued, the time is ripe for either of the major political parties to pledge to introduce the harmonised laws as an assistance to business and productivity.  The ideological opposition to WHS regulation through the extremely tenuous ‘red tape” argument has ended and the community has moved on to a point where a political pledge on harmonised safety laws would show responsible economic management in this area and a moral backbone. 

The AiGroup has contributed to a mature discussion on OHS/WHS laws for Victoria that is long overdue but yes, there are (easy) votes in it too.

Kevin Jones

SafetyAtWorkBlog is proud to have been listed as one of Australia’s Best Business Blogs by business resource website SmartCompany.

How different can occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators be? A review into WorkSafe Victoria was announced in February 2015 but the review into its equivalent in South Australia, SafeWorkSA, is more progressed and has released a public discussion paper entitled “Transforming Work Health and Safety Performance“. Its suggestions should be noted by James Mackenzie the reviewer of WorkSafe Victoria.

Maybe not surprising to many, the future is a reworking of the past.  According to a media release from the South Australian Industrial Relations Minister, John Rau:

“SafeWork SA is both the educator on work health and safety, and the regulator responsible for issuing infringement notices and carrying out prosecutions for breaches,” he said. “Under the current structure these two elements are not clearly defined and that can discourage businesses from contacting SafeWork SA and asking for assistance.

“It is not acceptable that people can not ask for help for fear of being prosecuted for breaches that may be found. At the same time the regulator can’t ignore unsafe work practices that endanger workers.”

Mr Rau the primary focus for the Government was preventing workplace injury, and the structure and culture of SafeWork SA needs to reflect this.

“Feedback from employers showed that many feared asking SafeWork SA for help because a visit from an inspector may lead to compliance action being taken against them,” he said. “These proposed changes separate the compliance and education functions because the educator should be approachable, respected and able to assist both employers and workers to understand their obligations.

Compliance activity by the Inspectorate needs to be proactive. It must enforce obligations and reduce the potential for injuries to occur.  Following the Return to Work reforms last year, it became clear to me that structural separation of SafeWork SA was necessary to bring about the change we need to see in this area.” (emphasis added)

The emphasis is clearly to renew faith in the OHS regulator after many years of controversy by clarifying organisational roles

One-Stop-Shop

SafeWorkSA pursued the concept of being a “one-stop shop” for all things safety (a phrase commonly used in relation to OHS) but there is an inherent political, economic and ideological conflict between the prevention of injury and the compensation for injury.  This conflict is reflected in, and perhaps caused by, the core values of the insurance industry where compensation is seen as sufficient.  Whereas the safety profession and the trade union movement believes that economic concessions may be required in order to prevent physical and mental harm.  In the middle of this is the Return-To-Work coordinators, and advocates, who try to fix the results of safety failures with limited funding, resources and systemic time pressures.

To a large extent the SafeWorkSA plan should be very familiar to OHS professionals:

“There are two key strategies for preventing work injuries:

• a strong enforcement and compliance regime which makes sure work health and safety laws are not being breached; and
• a comprehensive education and support service which provides businesses and workers with the information needed to keep themselves and their workplaces safe.” (page 1)

One could argue that the second “key strategy” should be emphasised over enforcement as the OHS/WHS laws clearly state that the principle responsibility for preventing harm rests with the employer or the PCBU.  It is amazing that any business operator should still believe that workplace safety is the responsibility of some one else, and that that someone could be a government department or authority, but the misbelief exists.

Dual conflicting roles of OHS Inspectorate

There is an implication in the strategy document that previous strategies have contributed the misbelief.  Previously in South Australian and other Australian States, the OHS regulator has blended the enforcement role and the advisory role into the inspectors, or field officers.  The economic basis for having those who are out in the field respond to incidents and needs in different ways is understandable (some may say this is “common sense”) but having one role applying two very different approaches to OHS was always going to be confusing.  No wonder business operators were hesitant to contact SafeWorkSA for advice.  Many have a similar fear of the Australian Taxation Office.

The misbelief was further encouraged by the dual role of the Inspectors who were often asked for their advice on controlling a particular hazard and were told that Inspectors were not allowed to provide this advice, as has happened in Victoria in the past.  Aren’t they subject matter experts?  Isn’t this why they were recruited?  We are encouraged to call the Regulator for advice but the Regulator’s representatives are not allowed to give that advice?

WorkSafe Victoria tried to avoid this conflict by establishing a Small Business Advisory service, mirrored by other regulators, but these programs seem to have had limited success.  One could argue why a Government authority should be offering or support such services at all.  Should not the Government be encouraging membership of industry-based associations where a broader range of services are available and of which many businesses are already members?  Workers Compensation insurance agents also often have a requirement to provide OHS advisory services that will help businesses reduce insurance premiums by improving safety and at no additional cost to the employer.

Transformations

The recent upheaval in WorkSafe Victoria and Victoria’s State politics is likely to lead to a similar strategy for that State.  Acting CEO Clare Amies outlined the following factors facing WorkSafe Victoria in a presentation in February 2015 as part of “transforming our organisation”:

• “Growth in health care & social assistance
• Critical point for manufacturing and the costs of doing business in Victoria
• Changing mix in full-time, part-time and casual workforce
• Reforms in regulatory oversight
• Rising pressure to reduce red tape
• Connection regulation: lead agency models to streamline regulation
• Premium pricing in other jurisdictions & impact of Comcare changes
• Increasing expectations for information, education & support
• Planning for Centre of Excellence” (Slide 4)

Cosgrove

The former CEO Denise Cosgrove was enlisted for her insurance experience in New Zealand and endorsed by the then Minister for WorkCover, Gordon Rich-Phillips:

““Ms Cosgrove will bring valuable skills and knowledge to the business, which continues to deliver great outcomes for all Victorians, including the safest workplaces in the state’s history and the lowest WorkCover premiums in Australia,” Mr Rich-Phillips said”.

The politics of OHS in the quote above is further emphasised by Rich-Phillips’ recent grumbles over the recently announced review into WorkSafe being undertaken by James Mackenzie.

It may be that South Australia is simply in the political cycle about workplace safety where Labor governments (as South Australia and Victoria currently have), with their strong traditional trade union links, give more attention to the safety of workers than to the business costs. Everyone seems to agree that OHS is a cost to business but they argue about who should wear that cost – the business owners or the workers.

The South Australian and Victorian reviews are unlikely to encourage consensus on this argument.  Each political party and ideology will simply bite their tongues on the issue until the political climate swings to their advantage and then OHS oversight will change again.

Kevin Jones

The Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) has released its small business blueprint.  The document continues the misunderstanding of industry and business groups in respect to occupational health and safety (OHS) and red tape.

The “Small business. Big opportunities” document continues to show OHS as a burden rather than an opportunity.  The chapter that discusses “high level of
labour market adaptability and flexibility” includes this recommendation:

“Simplify existing workplace relations legislation applying to small business, without removing the intent of regulations to provide safe, fair, productive and successful workplaces.

Small business currently needs to comply with numerous
substantial pieces of legislation (for example, taxation,
superannuation, OHS, equal opportunity and corporations law) that can act as a major disincentive to growth, employment and investment.” (page 10)

Previous SafetyAtWorkBlog articles have highlighted how inaccurate and unfair it is to include OHS obligations with other laws, such as taxation, as they have fundamentally different origins.  OHS laws are not a “major disincentive to growth, employment and investment”.  Such a disincentive is often self-imposed by the effort expended on avoiding those legislative obligations and on pushing the compliance band of “reasonably practicable” from workplace safety to the reduction of liability and avoidance of accountability.

The call to simplify OHS laws is a regular one from the business sector but the laws – the Act and Regulations – seem simpler than they have ever been.  Business owners’ lack of understanding of OHS and its role is often a major impediment to growth.  There is much research that shows that the integration of OHS in the design phases of a project or in the establishment of a business, minimises business costs over the (not-so) long term.  Trying to retrofit OHS to an existing production or management system is infinitely more expensive than working WITH safety from the start.  It is important to differentiate the costs of OHS being made to fit an existing system to OHS being applied as part of the initial business design.

In a way, VECCI acknowledges the importance of OHS in the starting of any business.  In this report, VECCI recommends Government:

“Establish a new low cost Business Foundations short course program – delivered by industry – that enables SME start-ups to acquaint themselves with the fundamental prerequisites needed to establish and operate a small business, ranging from basic sales and marketing, HR and workplace OHS obligations, basic accounting and cash-flow, tax management, credit management, customer service, meeting government requirements and business planning.” (page 14)

As VECCI is also a training organisation, this recommendation is a little self-serving. (Interestingly, the important “foundation” of industrial relations is not included)  It also tries to achieve too much, making the course too complex even if it focuses on the “fundamental prerequisites”.

In its discussion on indirect business costs, VECCI recommends the Victorian Government

“Accelerate the review of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 which sunset in 2017 and set a target for a 15 per cent reduction in the regulatory burden. Such a reform could consolidate Victoria’s position as having the safest workplaces in Australia at the lowest average cost to business.” (page 20)

There is no justification for the government to bring forward its review of OHS laws particularly if Victoria already has “the safest workplaces in Australia at the lowest average cost to business”. This statement is a curious inclusion in VECCI’s report.  It acknowledges Victoria’s position as having the safest workplaces (debatable but…) which undercuts its calls for reform.  Victoria seems to have the safest workplaces despite the red tape burden!

VECCI also states that this high level of safety has been achieved at “the lowest average cost to business”??  So where’s the problem?  If OHS in Victorian businesses is in this state, why change, other than for ideological purposes?

Also, how can one measure any reduction of red tape in a percentage? Red tape has a notoriously fluid definition seemingly being applied to whatever piece of bureaucracy and regulation one dislikes at the time.

Two years ago, SafetyAtWorkBlog wrote

“The reality may be that employers perceive workplace safety as onerous and generating red tape when it may be that the administration of safety systems is poorly understood or badly managed or handled by inexperienced and poorly qualified safety people or handled as an add-on to another role such as that of a part-time paymaster (a real situation).”

The business sector’s approach to OHS doesn’t seem to have changed but at least one organisation is trying to improve the reliability of OHS advice through a certification process.  The Safety Institute of Australia’s certification process seems clunky and will need to prove itself upon its introduction in a couple of months but it has potential.

Victoria’s business sector and industry groups, like VECCI, need to acknowledge that they, themselves, can reduce red tape and its costs by advocating the application of OHS in a business process when it has the most potential for harm reduction and the least cost impact, rather than urging government to do something.  It is curious that organisations that trust the marketplace continue to lobby government to change things that can be changed without government intervention.  Many small business operators are proud of what they have achieved without government support or financial assistance yet one of their lobbyists/representatives keeps expecting government to help.

Australian business groups would be serving their members better by talking about the cost savings of appropriate safety management rather than the costs to business from picking up the pieces and avoiding responsibility.

Kevin Jones

Suicide is a reality in many workplaces.  Work may exacerbate the stresses and psychological conditions leading to people thinking of suicide and it can create those stresses.  Most workers at risk of suicide show signs of distress, just as all workplaces show signs like near misses, but these signs are often not recognised. Mates in Construction is one program that teaches the recognition of these signs after an increasing suicide rate but Australian farmers are also killing themselves.  This reality has generated The Ripple Effect program to, initially, raise awareness of the risks and to de-stigmatise suicide and psychological issues.

Research into farmer suicides has been given some prominence over the last few years. (This audio interview is a good indication)  At least one research literature review into the issue has been followed up with real-world research. Such research needs to include a broad range of issues, particularly including gender. Gender studies have been dominated by feminist perspectives for decades but, particularly in the case of farming, some of the research and work undertaken in the male-dominated mining and construction sectors needs serious consideration.

Farming is often seen as remote and isolated and this perspective is imposed onto interpreting workplace hazards.  But the social impact of a workplace incident or death in the country is just as significant as one in urban areas, in fact, the remoteness probably increases the social “ripple effect”.  The psychosocial issues of workload and working hours, or those associated with bureaucracy, precarious work, fluctuating incomes and work/life balance, can be just as influential on worker health and safety in the country as elsewhere.  These matters are not symptoms of urban work but of work generally.  Hazard control measures and interventions may be different, because of resource restrictions and different social and support networks, but the hazards are the same.

The challenge is to develop multifaceted interventions in a strategic manner.  Otherwise the challenge seems so big that nothing changes.

It is also important that OHS regulators do not dispute the work-related elements of a suicide by over-emphasising the social or family pressures and that the family does not place all of the blame on to the employer or work factors.  There needs to be a balance, respect and discretion in developing risk and harm control measures and in discussing the issue.

Suicides are the end result of a build-up of a range of psychosocial issues.  Signs exist of this build-up but we rarely read them as such.  Men, in particular, (and Australian farmers are mostly male) are often dismissive of these signs and respond by advising mates to “toughen up”, or have another drink, or “she’ll be right”. (All elements of the current trend in resilience training or coping mechanisms – short term and shallow strategies)  These dismissals have been lauded in the past as important elements of the Australian (masculine) culture but such responses can isolate workers at risk further, rather than providing opportunities for help.

Suicide continues to be a challenge for the OHS profession but the more it is talked about, the less stigma it generates, and the closer we will get to reducing those risks.

Kevin Jones

Recently a reader brought to our attention a research report from Edith Cowan University that used SafetyAtWorkBlog as an important source of occupational health and safety (OHS) dialogue. “A ‘Once in a Generation Opportunity’? Narratives about the Potential Impact of OHS Harmonisation on Smaller Firms in Australia” by Rowena Barrett, Susanne Bahn, and Susan Mayson, illustrates, amongst many things, that social media can be a useful source of information for OHS research.

The main article referred to in the paper is one concerning lawyer Andrew Douglas with most attention given to the comments.

Barrett, Bahn and Mason have continued to research how OHS is seen by the small business sector in Australia. A more recent (2013) paper, available online, is called “The unmet promise of occupational health and safety harmonisation: continued complexity for small, multi-jurisdictional firms“.

Kevin Jones

The final report into quadbike safety has finally been released by the University of New South Wales in a series of five papers and in the wake of Queensland coronial findings into nine quadbike-related deaths. (A New South Wales inquiry is currently underway)

It has been a rocky road to get to this report as a search of this blog will show but the recommendations are solid with many already being flagged by various safety regulators and others requiring much more consultation. The trick will be to accept the evidence and progress safety – not likely on the experience of the last four years.

The research recommendations that will get the most media attention will be those that involve increased safety for children but the workplace context of the quadbikes is stressed by the researchers early in the report:

“The Authors also note that Quad bikes and Side by Side Vehicles (SSVs) are classified as mobile plant in the Work Health and Safety legislation. The hierarchy of controls for managing risks within that legislation specifies that engineering controls which design out the hazard are considered more effective control measures than administrative controls such as training courses which seek to change human behaviour and personal protection measures (e.g. helmets).” (page 7 – link added to earlier article on this issue)

A major tool for the assessment of the safety of these vehicles – a star rating system – had already been indicated in earlier reports.  It will interesting to see if the quadbike manufacturers complain or try to make the best of an unfavourable situation. In particular, the following image in support of the star rating system is provocative in a consumer protection, and occupational health and safety (OHS), context although it simply reflects the research findings.

Figure 1: Final Points and Star Rating of the 16 production Quad bikes and SSVs tested.

It will be difficult for an employer to argue that they have done all that is reasonably practicable to ensure the safety of their workers on quad bikes when all the quad bikes are not even three-stars.

Operator Protection Devices

The recommended helmets may help with an operational rating but the big “winners” in this research are likely to be the suppliers of Operator Protection Devices (OPDs – formerly Crush Protection Devices) such as Quadbar and Lifeguard, particularly after the ill-judged campaign against such devices supported by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI). A central point of the campaign was the statement that:

“Roll bars, crush protection devices and roll over protection systems when fitted to All Terrain Vehicles or quad bikes (ATVs) can cause more injuries than they prevent.”

The UNSW research states

“Operator Protection Devices (OPDs). The static stability and dynamic handling tests identified that the Quadbar and Lifeguard … were not detrimental while a third (Quickfix) was found to be detrimental to the stability or handling of the Quad bikes.” (page 11 – emphasis added)

and

“In regard to injury prevention in rollovers for the workplace environment, two OPDs (Quadbar and Lifeguard) are likely to be beneficial in terms of severe injury and pinned prevention in some low speed rollovers typical of farm incidents. They do not reduce the incidents of rollover. In some specific cases injury risk could be increased although there is currently no real world recorded evidence of this. The findings support the view that multiple controls need to be applied. Of course there is scope for improvements to OPD designs in future.” (page 11 – emphasis added)

It is likely that the ATV Safety website will be reviewed shortly.

Queensland Coronial Findings

One of the recommendations of the Queensland Coroner that is likely to have long term effect is:

“…that Safe Work Australia… manage or oversee the development of an Australian Standard, or the like, for crush protection devices fitted on sit-astride quad bikes in Australian workplaces.” (page 61)

However, to do so will require a much greater level of maturity and cooperation by all the members of the working party than we have seen in recent years.  The recommendation implies going through the Standards Australia process but it is significant that Safe Work Australia (SWA) is given the responsibility for managing the process.

On the, possible, flip side the quadbike manufacturers have been recommended to

“… initiate the process of developing an Australian Standard through Standards Australia, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, for the design, manufacture, import and supply of quad bikes and side by side vehicles to Australia.” (page 62)

This is a much greater task than Safe Work Australia has been given and based on previous working groups of manufacturers and stakeholders on quadbike issues, unless a specific timeline is set, an Australian Standard covering all the matters listed is highly unlikely. At least for the OPD standard mentioned above, SWA can be the referee.

SafetyAtWorkBlog has heard that the NSW Coronial Inquiry has been rigorous, with manufacturers being challenged over safety.  Australia/Victoria and New Zealand have had many such inquiries over the years and most have recommending tweaking safety at the edges rather than establishing sustainable change.  No one is likely to outlaw quadbikes on the basis of an inherent lack of safety but there is now sufficient evidence of safety deficiencies and an increase in viable alternatives to push purchasers to buy safer.

The recognition of the legitimacy of OPDs by researchers and the Queensland Coroner has provided purchasers with a transitional purchase strategy before upgrading to a side-by-side vehicle.

As with many elements of OHS, sustainable regulatory change is likely to come through Court decisions rather than the courage of the safety regulators. This means that there will be more deaths, more arguments and a slower change process.

In a time when State and Federal politicians are being asked for vision and longterm thinking, it would take only one politician to commit to changing quadbike use for the sake of current and future farming families, in particular.  Good evidence from which solid policy decisions can be made is now readily available.  More evidence will come if both types of findings and recommendations are acted upon.

Kevin Jones

UPDATE 5 August 2015 – NSW Workcover has uploaded a video explaining some of the research

The quest for accurate determination of the costs of poor occupational health and safety (OHS) has been a regular discussion point in this blog but the quest may be a never-ending one and ultimately pointless.

Recently the UK’s HSE Chairman, Judith Hackett took the Forum for Private Business (FPB) to task over estimates of OHS compliance costs.  FPB stated that

“The cost of compliance for the UK’s 1.2 million micro, small and medium sized businesses is £20 billion of actual costs and £41 billion if you include opportunity costs’.”

Hackett was unable to look at the claims as the FPB report was only for members.  This is a common marketing tactic where some information is released publicly in order to generate a demand which can be satisfied only with a membership or payment.  The downside of this tactic is that the carefully constructed statements become accepted as fact without allowing those facts to be independently verified.

Hackett also points out that there is an insurance element to the cost estimates that is not usually in the consideration of OHS compliance costs.

A contributor to this situation seems to be the segmentation of the OHS regulatory process in relation to small business.  Establishing a two-tier regulatory system in the UK was always going to cause confusion and generate opportunities for business support services like FPB.

HSE has a page dedicated to discussing the business costs of safety, primarily through the context of leadership.  Around ten years ago the HSE had a slightly different approach.  A media release from time introduced a “ready reckoner” for costs (no longer available) and stated:

“Health and safety failures currently cost Britain’s employers up to a staggering £6.5 billion every year. Over 25 million working days are lost annually, with over a million workers suffering from work-related accidents and even more falling prey to work-related ill-health.”

and, in relation to small business:

“Small firms are often operating on tight margins. They may not have experienced many accidents or cases of ill health, but when they do these can often have a disproportionate impact on the business.”

The media release included a long list of “major injury and ill-health costs not covered by insurance” but probably of more relevance is a 2005 research report by the HSE “Perceptions of the cost implications of health and safety failures” which lists considerations that outweigh the moral desire to eliminate or minimise harm:

“The avoidance or reduction of accident and work-related ill health costs per se does not appear to be the primary motivating factor for effective health and safety management. A combination of other interlinked factors emerged as being more influential in driving the health and safety agenda in most organisations, including:

• avoidance or reduction of liability claims;
• potential legal exposure;
• concern over the cost of insurance premiums;
• external pressures from insurance companies;
• maintenance of corporate image and reputation;
• customer and client expectations;
• government targets;
• moral obligations;
• staff morale;
• absence, recruitment and retention, and
• impact on productivity, efficiency and quality of service delivery.

However, it was generally acknowledged that health and safety failures might ultimately impact on the financial performance of an organisation through any of these higher level factors.” (page iv – bullets added)

Judith Hackett’s frustrations are understandable.  The attempt to illustrate the importance of, or the burden of, OHS in financial terms is a constant desire.  But it is also ridiculously complex, perhaps to the extent that it may be a pointless exercise.

Recent Australian research in to OHS business costs has refined our understanding of OHS costs but still acknowledges that  determining accurate data is still evolving. O’Neill wrote:

“… demonstrating the financial case for investment can be highly problematic. Not only are many relevant costs hidden or externalised, but the work health and safety implications of many operating and financing decisions are often overlooked because critical interdependencies between ‘safe and healthy work’ and the four P’s of planning, procurement, production and performance (including productivity) are poorly understood.” (page 4)

There will always be a desire to quantify the economic costs of workplace safety failures and their remediation but in many ways this desire may be a hindrance to safety innovation and creative thought.  Judith Hackett, as the HSE Chair, must engage in disputes and discussions on the cost aspect of OHS but the discussion can become a dominant element of the discourse to the detriment of the worker safety and the aim of reducing harm.

Kevin Jones

Few would argue against the need for occupational health and safety (OHS) regulation for high-risk work but many are arguing against OHS laws on the basis of low-risk workplaces. It seems logical that low risk work should not require laws but perhaps the traditional definition of OHS and risk is colouring our judgement. Perhaps some are making these arguments because they are afraid to change. Perhaps some of these leaders are, in fact, cowards.

New Zealand

There is discussion in New Zealand currently about exempting small “low-risk” businesses from some OHS obligations in the name of “red tape” but also on the understanding that small business seems to equal low risk.  (Similar discussions, or changes, have occurred in the UK, Australia and the US) Opponents are pointing to the farming sector as an example of a small business that is also high-risk but, in New Zealand in particular, the agricultural sector is politically influential and the red-tape argument seems to be winning against the risk issue.

But these discussions remain linked to the traditional mindset that safety risks are primarily traumatic physical injuries.  There is an increased acceptance that psychosocial risks at work can be as harmful (costly?) as physical injuries albeit in a different form.  This position has led to the perception that mental health risks are increasing but the accurate measurements required to substantiate this perception are only just beginning as people argue over definitions and jurisdictions. However there is no doubt that psychosocial risks now must be considered in any OHS management system.

So are low-risk workplaces low risk?

So are low-risk workplaces low risk? Yes, if we only consider physical risks but no, if we broaden our definition of risk and hazard to include psychosocial issues.  (Perhaps the question should be “are low-risk workplaces low harm?”) OHS and Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws increasingly require us to use the latter definition so that companies comply.

The advocates of red-tape/low-risk exemptions understand this change in approach and seem to have been frightened by the apparent magnitude of the task.  They have realised that to achieve OHS/WHS compliance they will need to change the way they do business and the way they treat their workers and this is scary.

This fear has generated calls to change the rules, to make it easier to comply.  The sad part of all of this is that the fearful response is happening at the same time that there are calls for greater OHS leadership.  Surely the best leadership results from facing these fears and conquering them.

The Dominion Post’s editorial of August 8 2015, summarises the political challenges over this issue well, challenges that other governments will also need to face:

“The Government can declare that agriculture is not high risk and so free its political mates from that bothersome stuff about work safety representatives. Or it can do the rational thing, declare agriculture high risk – and face a backlash. That decision will show how much National really cares about work safety.”

Behind this political challenge is a discussion about the fundamental elements of workplace safety.  These include –

• our moral obligations to others, particularly those who work for us;
• our preparedness to accept less profit but to have safer workers; and
• our capacity to accept mistakes or failures and to learn from them.

Workplace safety is often only as hard as it is allowed to be. The inability to change shown by some business leaders is complicating the OHS task.

One website lists the following words as antonyms for Leadership:

• impotence,
• inability,
• incapacity,
• powerlessness,
• weakness,and
• subservience.

Perhaps we should add cowardice.

Kevin Jones