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.
Tagged: OHS
