I do feel strongly that Safety would benefit enormously from an Ombudsman particularly as the criminal aspects of OHS law become more emphasised under the model Work Health & Safety Act in Australia. Also because the shift from a focus on \”workplace\” to \”work\” brings in a large range of new work environments and introduces (traditionally) public safety issues into the OHS law.

As it stands at the moment, individuals and organisations are providing a very broad range of \”Safety\” services and advice, to an equally broad range of organisations, over a huge number of industries and endeavors. Each one of those suppliers being open to civil action if their clients are not satisfied with service provided.

The law is the law, employers \”\”\”must\”\”\”\” understand it and comply with it and there are no excuses, They are ultimately responsible for the safety and welfare of their workforce and others attending their premises or work sites under their control. Failure to do so should result in rapid and substantial action against perpetrators.

The only real need for an Ombudsman is for an independent umpire in dispute resolution, or complaint resolution, in the day to day sphere of action and as a garner of trend information for feed back to legislators and those charged with administering the various acts.

There is a degree of suspicion within some of the SIA divisions over HaSPA and also within the safety industry generally. Some have seen HaSPA as a national takeover by the SIA, others a takeover by WorkSafe Victoria……

A lot of attention is being given to the HaSPA Code of Conduct but it only has three signatories at the moment and the tertiary institution HaSPA members have their own ethics code and complaints procedures. The HaSPA Code seems to be given more authority than it has but a revised version is being developed, or so I believe.

An Ombudsman could be the independent overseer of the Code and Ethics Procedures, if not the \”court of appeal\” on such matters.

In a fractured, and fractious(?), industry like safety, an Ombudsman could be the unifying element required to broach some uniformity of purpose but also to garner the professionalism that the Safety Institute, in particular, seems to crave.

But such a move would require the suspension of institutional egos for the greater good. It could be argued that the maturity of an institution is best indicated by its willingness to do such an act.