OHS laws are important, but safe workplaces less risky
Keeping people safe in workplaces should be a hot topic for debate. But right now the laws that drive occupational health and safety (OHS) in Australia are the major topic.
The development of a uniform model for OHS laws around the country has been going on for some time, and progress has been made.
There was at least a semblance of unity after a May 18 teleconference in which Australia’s workplace relations ministers met to discuss the model laws. In the official communiqué issued later, the meeting was described as an “historic moment”.
The official word was that the ministers have decided on the optimal structure and content of a model OHS Act to be adopted by the federal, state and territory governments.
But all was not really quite so rosy, and maybe the “historic moment” rhetoric is premature. The day after the communiqué was released, WA Commerce Minister Troy Buswell announced his state has concerns that existing standards in the west would be eroded by the proposed laws.
WA will continue to participate in the discussions, but Mr Buswell says his government is under no obligation to adopt any legislation passed in Federal Parliament.
Inevitably the draft legislation had to resemble one state’s approach more closely than that of others, and in this case Victoria’s OHS laws took the lead.
This didn’t thrill the unions, who under the Victorian model would be denied the right to prosecute for breaches of health and safety laws – a freedom they enjoy in NSW.
“The recommendations agreed to by the ministers would significantly undermine protections for many workers,” Australian Council of Trade Unions Secretary Jeff Lawrence said.
But law firm Deacons partner Michael Hammond says OHS practitioners generally are “extremely happy” about the harmonisation process continuing, despite the hiccups.
“I do take issue with people who suggest the Victorian model is a soft approach,” he told insuranceNEWS.com.au. “The Victorian law and its enforcement is of a high standard.
“This is criminal jurisdiction, not parking tickets, and I don’t think anyone but the Crown ought to be prosecuting for criminal offences.”
He says his major concern is the proposed abrogation of the fundamental right to silence. Under the proposed uniform system, OHS inspectors would have the absolute power to demand answers to their questions, not only in relation to suspects but to witnesses as well.
OAMPS’ Employment Risk Solutions Manager Brett Millar is not in the cut and thrust of OHS legislation, but he makes a sound argument when he says a uniform system will benefit business of all sizes, especially those that operate nationally.
And, yes, a uniform model would doubtless reduce administrative costs and confusion around compliance and rehabilitation requirements.
But at the end of the day, regardless of the system, employers need to keep workers’ safety at the top of their agenda – not the laws that govern and punish.
The insurance industry is adept at helping employers minimise the risks of injury in the workplace, and as Mr Millar sees it, brokers can be of major benefit to clients by managing all the risk related to OHS, workcover, risk management and insurance needs.
He says educating businesses about integrating all risk management functions and communicating the risk strategy throughout the company is a major challenge.
“The people on the floor may be aware that there is an OHS plan in the business, but they might not know who their first aid officer is, or where the safety data sheets are located,” he told insuranceNEWS.com.au.
As the OHS debate grinds on, it would be helpful if the protagonists remembered Mr Millar’s advice: risk management is still the biggest thing to focus on.
The development of a uniform model for OHS laws around the country has been going on for some time, and progress has been made.
There was at least a semblance of unity after a May 18 teleconference in which Australia’s workplace relations ministers met to discuss the model laws. In the official communiqué issued later, the meeting was described as an “historic moment”.
The official word was that the ministers have decided on the optimal structure and content of a model OHS Act to be adopted by the federal, state and territory governments.
But all was not really quite so rosy, and maybe the “historic moment” rhetoric is premature. The day after the communiqué was released, WA Commerce Minister Troy Buswell announced his state has concerns that existing standards in the west would be eroded by the proposed laws.
WA will continue to participate in the discussions, but Mr Buswell says his government is under no obligation to adopt any legislation passed in Federal Parliament.
Inevitably the draft legislation had to resemble one state’s approach more closely than that of others, and in this case Victoria’s OHS laws took the lead.
This didn’t thrill the unions, who under the Victorian model would be denied the right to prosecute for breaches of health and safety laws – a freedom they enjoy in NSW.
“The recommendations agreed to by the ministers would significantly undermine protections for many workers,” Australian Council of Trade Unions Secretary Jeff Lawrence said.
But law firm Deacons partner Michael Hammond says OHS practitioners generally are “extremely happy” about the harmonisation process continuing, despite the hiccups.
“I do take issue with people who suggest the Victorian model is a soft approach,” he told insuranceNEWS.com.au. “The Victorian law and its enforcement is of a high standard.
“This is criminal jurisdiction, not parking tickets, and I don’t think anyone but the Crown ought to be prosecuting for criminal offences.”
He says his major concern is the proposed abrogation of the fundamental right to silence. Under the proposed uniform system, OHS inspectors would have the absolute power to demand answers to their questions, not only in relation to suspects but to witnesses as well.
OAMPS’ Employment Risk Solutions Manager Brett Millar is not in the cut and thrust of OHS legislation, but he makes a sound argument when he says a uniform system will benefit business of all sizes, especially those that operate nationally.
And, yes, a uniform model would doubtless reduce administrative costs and confusion around compliance and rehabilitation requirements.
But at the end of the day, regardless of the system, employers need to keep workers’ safety at the top of their agenda – not the laws that govern and punish.
The insurance industry is adept at helping employers minimise the risks of injury in the workplace, and as Mr Millar sees it, brokers can be of major benefit to clients by managing all the risk related to OHS, workcover, risk management and insurance needs.
He says educating businesses about integrating all risk management functions and communicating the risk strategy throughout the company is a major challenge.
“The people on the floor may be aware that there is an OHS plan in the business, but they might not know who their first aid officer is, or where the safety data sheets are located,” he told insuranceNEWS.com.au.
As the OHS debate grinds on, it would be helpful if the protagonists remembered Mr Millar’s advice: risk management is still the biggest thing to focus on.