Comments on: Flogging a dead horse when it is still alive, though looking poorly

By: Brad Hamilton

Brad Hamilton — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:49:46 +0000

Nearly every article on harmonisation in The Australian that I have read in the last couple of years has contained some or many factual errors, many of which are used to openly campaign against the laws.

By: Chris Winder

Chris Winder — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:34:22 +0000

A shame really. Harmonisation of the differences in OHS legislation in the various jurisdictions across Australia (Commonwealth, State and Territory) does seem like a good idea, not the least because consistency is good for business.

The trouble is that the word harmonisation seems to mean different things to different people. For example, it seems to mean chosing the lowest common policy, dumbing the legislation down so that successful approaches are nullified, removing anything from legislation that stands in the way of the right to make a profit (what I call the James Hardy model). I think it means we all sing the same song.

Further, ignoring previous Federal-State minsterial agreements because the wrong party was in office, just derails the process further.

OHS is not a political football. A safe and healthy workplace should be a right for all workers.

By: John Culvenor

John Culvenor — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:22:12 +0000

Harmonisation was without substantial prospect of being useful pointless at the outset, it remains so, and is feasibly a harmful initiative.

1. By and large the schemes were harmonised using the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (UK) as the model. So there was nothing to harmonise.

2. Whatever differences there were affected only multi-jurisdiction businesses which are in the main large businesses thus leaving most Australian employees (in small businesses) unaffected.

3. Law sets a minimum standard for action. It does not drive good risk controls, great risk controls, or excellent risk controls but reasonable risk controls. What is done beyond the minimum is for other reasons. The vast majority of work I see done to control risk has nothing to do with crossing the legal boundary. The law is irrelevant to these efforts.

4. Whatever value law has, and I believe it is vastly over-rated, but whatever value you give it, for it to improve it must change. The harmonisation process is now a complex bureaucratic anchor on any type of innovation. It was fine to have a common model but not a prescription. The documentation is excessive in the extreme, unwieldy and a barrier to legislative innovation in the jurisdictions and thus the expression \”…antithesis of establishing a non-prescriptive duty of care…\” is well put.

By: Marian Macdonald (@milkmaidmarian)

Marian Macdonald (@milkmaidmarian) — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:58:35 +0000

The sad thing about this situation is that it just reinforces the perception that OHS belongs in the \”too hard basket\” for many.

By: Andrea Madeley

Andrea Madeley — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 00:38:57 +0000

>>> The introduction of “reasonable practicability” also removed prescriptive controls by allowing economic factors to be included in the risk assessment and safety management processes.<<<

I read that comment and pondered for a moment …

"I am terribly sorry Officer. I realise my tyres do not have much tread on them and that they may pose a slight safety hazard but it is just is not really reasonably practicable to upgrade them at this time due to economic factors."

Yep … we live by many rules in this confused society of ours don't we?

By: Kevin Johnson

Kevin Johnson — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:39:52 +0000

Personally, over the years having worked for a Company operating inQld,NSW and Victoria,I never felt particularly challanged with the different Legislation,as basically the essentials are the same,
Regulations etc obviously differed however it became fairly easy over time to modify procedures and documentation to suit.
My greatest problem and expense is dealing witht the various WorkCover regimes, a nightmare.No logic,rhyme or reason.
Another major difficulty was the various Fair Trade type regimes with the problems with qualifications.