Tony

OHS law has been based on shopfloor enforcement since the Robens review in the 1970s. The importance of each employer being responsible for providing a safe and healthy work environment is well-established and continues to be reinforced in Australia legislation. Each set of OHS legislation has actively supported the presence and influence of health and safety representatives in each workplace. Both of these responsibilities exist and operate without official inspections.

Inspectors, and the government more generally, are not responsible for workplace safety. This is clearly the responsibility of employers and employees to varying degrees. OHS regulators have a role to promote the prevention of injury and to provide advice on how businesses can achieve this.

One control measure that may not be in place in South Australia is the ability to impose Provisional Improvement Notices (PIN) on specific workplace hazards. These are imposed by employees and/or HSRs and can be verified, or resolved, with the assistance of OHS inspectors, however it is the workplace participants who work to the lifting of the PIN. I have seen these used very effectively in Victoria to identify a hazard and to introduce a control measure within a specified time frame. Frequently PIN notices are followed up by OHS inspectors to ensure compliance. But the power to impose and resolve a PIN sits within the workplace.

I have a concern that OHS law is becoming increasingly vague and complex and that the effectiveness of the control measures listed above – employers and HSRs – will be reduced and replaced by expensive and, often, unnecessary legal advice. This runs contrary to the aims of the dominant OHS laws in the Commonwealth since Lord Robens\’ inquiry in the UK.

Most inspections take place as a result of either a reportable accident or an independent complaint usually made by a worker or visitor to the place of business.

Having the legal capacity to apply on the spot fines is one thing but actually providing the practical capacity to do so is another. I doubt the veracity of any statement that says they have evidence to state that punitive preventative action does not work in this environment. You mention other measures, I have yet to see any successful measures that have had a dramatic effect on the reduction of the number of injuries in the workplace across Australia, in fact, the increase in unfunded liabilities says otherwise.

I am all for research, education and preventative initiatives to cover the more difficult and elusive answers to causes of workplace injury, but the need for consistent \”in your face\” policing at the shop floor is absolute and should be the foundation of safety in the workplace. If we can\’t fix it there it is forever broken.

What we see as secrecy may be the manifestation of the desire for the control of the consultative process but it shows an insecurity about the process. Open consultation and communication can be managed well if there is a clear aim to the project. This first meeting, seems to be either fishing for ideas or operating like a focus group, testing the waters of \”public\” opinion. May be I am expecting too much at this early stage.

Tony
You often mention on-the-spot fines. My understanding is that most States have had the capacity for these enforcement measures for some years but many are hesitant to apply them as they have evidence that they are not as effective as other measures.
The harmonisation of OHS laws also calls for a consistent national enforcement policy so it will be interesting to see if on-the-spot fines are applied nationally

It would seem that all the issues surrounding workers compensation are predicated on cost to the system and making sure that workers do not get appropriate support as a result of their injury. Anything less than the wages and benefits a worker would enjoy by normally attending his/her work place is an unacceptable impost. Injured workers are not on holiday and they have been injured, hopefully through no fault of their own so why should they be penalised given they are in the main suffering ongoing pain.

Injured workers see themselves as put upon by the system very early in the process and if you are trying to establish a combative relationship then just continue with the system as it is and costs will continue to escalate, primarily because of the lack of ethical and moral management of cases, where there is a consistent lack of empathy driven by bureaucratic policy and reliance on legalistic interpretations by case managers of the various Act\’s to thoroughly confuse injured workers who have no idea where to turn. Given the very poor record of the Unions in representation on the shop floor, injured workers can\’t rely on them for substantive help on a one on one basis, so where else do they go.

Kevin Jones has hit the nail on the head. It is secrecy that always clouds public issues, and the area of workers compensation is no exception. OHS harmonisation has and continues to be a drawn out process, but reflects an openess to comment that contrasts with the closed door silence of the workers comp proceedings.

OHS and compensation, risk management and return to work rightly become interwoven, as they should. If this complicates the original plan/process put in place then all the players need to step back, breathe and set up a new new game plan. A fair go should be the starting point, open discussions the method.

Get out of the bunkers and let in some fresh air and fresh thoughts and do, and be seen to do, the right thing.

Graham Scott someoneontheground PROJECTS