I definitely believe WorkSafe should continue to provide the helpline though.

If we can\’t have an adequate inspectorate then maybe we can have a proactive workforce clearly identifying non compliance and then reporting same to the confidential reference point for action. So long as confidentiality is assured and employment protected.

Maybe this doesn\’t sit well with some but then again there has not been very much progress in safety in the workplace and maybe this type of initiative just might get things going.

Mr. Rann and his cohorts in South Australia are getting tough on crime and throwing resources at that, so what is the difference in taking a hard line on injury prevention in the workplace.

You highlight the multifaceted roles some play and I strongly believe that is part of the problem. There is no clear direction or foundation to operate from so the whole thing is a moving feast as we lurch form one grandiose idea to the next with no obvious result, so we go into another hand wringing exercise to develop another grandiose certain to fail program. History is damning and we are repeating history in this area continually.

Tony, I think that WorkSafe, and other OHS regulators, do a pretty good job on investigating workplace incidnets, given the limited level of resources they are provided.

But bullying is different. Proper investigation of workplace bullying takes considerable time and requires skills that many OHS inspectors in the early days of this century did not possess. The increased attention to workplace bullying, and other psychosocial hazards, have demanded a shift of the OHS inspectorate into the realm of Human Resources and out of the comfort zone of engineering solutions. This took some time for the regulators to respond and “skill-up”. In this regard some regulators have been slower than others.

In some respects OHS inspectors are very similar to case managers (and not in the workers compensation way with which you may be more familiar). Inspectors are often required to support, guide and coax businesses to achieve compliance, to acknowledge that safety improvements need additional funds and, perhaps, increased management commitment. This is not to deny that inspectors must discipline when required.

WorkSafe inspections will always be a balancing act between encouragement and punishment but the days of the \”safety sheriff\” are gone and new approaches to newly appearing hazards is what seems to be required now.

The same could be said of workers exposed to known safety risks because an employer is deliberately not complying with safety and has ignored a request by employees to remedy the problem. We all know that workers fear for their jobs if they make a fuss about safety.

Awareness of this type of facility will focus offending employers attention on potential issues of non compliance and not knowing when they may receive a knock on the door from and inspector will encourage compliance and attention. Sure, there will always be the trouble maker but that can be minimised by the introduction of penalties for vexatious reporting.

Failure by an employee to comply with any reasonable direction in respect of bullying is a sack-able offence as is non-compliance with safety policy and procedure. This manages to keep things in perspective.