There is a great deal that can be done, but first the conversations have to start, and until the safety industry is willing to listen and learn from those they have failed nothing will change.

My reason for telling the above little insight is that at 10yrs old, I knew that all that was required to \”learn\” more about ghost stories was to join a group of other like minded people and we could talk in circles regardless of how much or how little we actually knew.

The safety industry do not like stepping away from what they \”know\”, they sit in closed circles, they talk endlessly about the need to generate endless white papers-reports-policy-procedures-charts-graphs-leaflets-guidelines, there are conferences where industry professionals stand and pontificate about the importance of their research.
While it is correct the number of workplace injuries and deaths has fallen in various industries, it is also correct that the workforce are now exposed to different types of injuries that also can end in suicide as a direct result of the injury.
I have spoken to many senior safety industry people about the need to talk with injured workers to discover just what it is that injured workers know that the safety people ignore because it does not fit into the charts and graphs.
I have offered to facilitate such meetings because if there is one thing I do know it is how to speak with injured workers, but to date not one safety person has taken up the offer. The standard response is “it is too time consuming and would be too expensive” to hold such gatherings.
My offer is still in place and will remain in place in the faint hope that someone will actually care enough to discuss what it possible to learn rather than reason not to.

Thanks Kevin, I can\’t agree with the \”reasonably practicable\” line as you put it. It is up to the regulators inspectorate to make that determination and if they determine that there is a non-compliance then they should provide the employer with an expiation notice and the opportunity to argue their case in court if they are feeling hard done by.

Outcome of this approach is two fold (1) It will bring safety obligations into very clear focus (as well as pay for the inspectorate) and (2) create case law that will clearly define reasonably practicable or at least help to do so.

Maybe the talk fests should be about getting the pollie\’s to sort out the legislative mess they have caused with the \”weasel\” wording they have inserted into the act and spend a lot more time drafting law that is precise and concise. More pressure in this area would have a practical outcome.

It is not good enough to state \”I don\’t know how to comply\” then do nothing as a consequence. Unfortunately that is the position we have now.

Tony, I don\’t disagree with much of your comment but any discussion on safety will benefit from plain speaking both in better defining problems and action and broadening the understanding of failures and repairs.

On the issue of compliance, the days of being able to define compliance and to identify a clear delineation between compliance and non-compliance have already passed. Once the application of \”reasonably practicable\” entered the legislative realm the compliance \”line\” broadened to a grey band. In my opinion this has made it more difficult than ever for small businesses, particularly, to know if they are meeting OHS legislative obligations, let alone determine if they have a safe workplace. Compliance and safety are not necessarily the same.

If we can\’t utilise what we already have and we can\’t obey current law I see no value in more talking to the converted as an answer.

Societal failure should be topical at the moment with Syria, Afghanistan etc. and a myriad of other failures of monumental proportion, some resulting in a significant increase in water traffic to our country.

New work place strategies get a mention. How about we try a strategy of obeying the law and proactively policing that law as a preventative measure. I am sure we could get some measurable results there for the statistically minded.

Your first para says it all and the poor \”buggers\” who wear it are \”screwed\” by the compensation system so badly we compound the problem with many more cases of mental illness, poverty and further drains on the public system as families disintegrate.

With all due respect I found the article unhelpful in the safety debate which needs to toughen up and confront non compliance by business in the workplace. Hundreds of thousands of these business are failing to comply at the basic level and your article does nothing to address this HUGE FAILURE of the regulators and government as a whole.

Talk is cheap positive action at the coal face is rare but effective when undertaken in a proactive manner.