Comments on: OHS uniformity is looking unlikely

By: Col Finnie

Col Finnie — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:09:02 +0000

I reckon there is a fairly significant motivation for jurisdictions to have uniformity too KJ. I\’d suggest that a lack of uniformity is present but it can be there, rather than it\’s seen by the jurisdictions as a good thing. The benefits of dispersing the cost of putting together laws, guidance material and enforcement programs is well understood. The jurisdictions have their Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities trying to implement consistent approaches, while I was in the fold I convened a network of people doing guidance material in other jurisdictions so we could share ideas and approaches. And that latter thing wasn\’t my idea. It came about when I was researching needs in guidance material development when I moved out of legislation drafting to the guidance material gig. It was WorkSafe Vic people who asked for it.

What all this says to me is the commonsense of uniformity is acknowledged, it \”just\” needs a resolute attitude to making it happen. It also needs an acknowledgement that this is the moment. They come along every now and then. If the moment gets lost then we will fluff around for another decade before the next \”moment\”.

I disagree that the benefits of uniformity are minimal. I noticed in a HSE plan for 2010 and beyond that the Poms have accepted that all that lovely, \”safe\”, generic guidance material has to stop and specific workplace targeted guidance is needed. Plus more face to face help is needed. From my view of the world, that\’s exactly what my punters are looking for.

All that equates to more work, more resources (or more cost-efficient use of resources). Combined efforts that pivot around a uniform set of legislation and enforcement system is the answer.

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:31:23 +0000

The motivation for uniformity comes from two main areas – business and unions.

Business has stated that, for years, there is unnecessary cost through the need to comply with different legislative obligations in each Australian State. I agree but note that the majority of businesses in Australia only operate in their local States, and therefore, to many, the issue is irrelevant.

Business have argued their case well to the National OHS Model Law Review and to Productivity Commission inquiries before that. Unions have a more difficult proposition.

Unions argue that their tasks would be easier with national uniformity but this does not equate to their members benefitting, other than the unions being able to operate with a slightly reduce operating cost. basically, the same argument as the employers.

On OHS matters, lawyers are like unions in that uniformity would allow them to provide one set of advice to all clients in each State. I would put that the job may be easier but the workload will be the same, partly because each jurisdiction has already established a history of legal precedents and, regardless of the enforcement regime, application of these precedents will result in lawyers setting State variations to any OHS legislation, national or model.

By: Col Finnie

Col Finnie — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 02:15:06 +0000

Clearly Tooma is aiming to be \”realistic\” about the prospects of legislative uniformity, but I believe his argument falls over because it has a cart-before-the-horse quality.

It has to be assumed that the core issue is paramount: an absence of uniform OH&S laws and enforcement in Australia is a bad thing. If that\’s accepted by the community, then the discrepancies between each jurisdiction\’s laws and enforcement practices is significant for the ultimate set of solutions but essentially irrelevant to the question of whether we should go ahead.