Page 3500 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
people who simply would not dare to risk their job security or the ire of their employer by reporting an OH&S problem, especially when the problem does not appear to constitute a major safety risk, and of course most people are not qualified to accurately assess the potential danger of any given OH&S risk.
Every workplace is required to have occupational health and safety representation for its employees. These representatives are required to undergo training to ensure they will recognise risks and report or action them as need be, but as these duties are in addition to their usual workload they may be forgotten. People are also required to have a bit of commonsense, to take care of themselves at work and to report a risk if they see one. But too often these things just become part of the wallpaper and are disregarded. Unless OH&S has an immediate impact on our lives or requires immediate attention, there is a good chance that we will ignore it, and usually if OH&S has impacted our lives it is because we have been injured or because someone we know has been injured—and by that stage it is too late.
There were 4,006 workers compensation claims made in 2005-06. These claims cost millions of dollars each year. I would suggest that a great many of these 4,006 claims could possibly have been prevented if there had been sufficient monitoring of the workplace. Even for the slightest injury, which may only take the employee off work for one or two days, there is lost productivity and low morale. The workplace suffers when OH&S is not responsibly governed, and not just in dollar amounts. Those who have experienced an injury and a workers compensation claim endure the pain and suffering, and those who remain at work are left to cope with additional tasks—training someone else to fill a position—as well as a general lowering of morale from experiencing an accident in an environment where they spend a lot of their time.
That is why we need independent inspectors coming in to ensure that workplaces are safe. There was recently a news story about an electrical subcontractor being fined $30,000 for the death of a worker at the Brindabella Business Park. The magistrate said the fine was to act as a deterrent. Fining the employer as punishment is just, but it does not bring the worker back. Having adequately resourced, effective and independent inspectors attending sites is a necessary feature of an effective OH&S system and one which may save many lives.
The unions note, and in fact have recommended, that all OH&S concerns should be covered under the one agency, and this makes sense. In September 2005 the ACT Occupational Health and Safety Council released its final report Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989: scope and structure review. Recommendation 38 of this report suggests that:
Consideration be given to establishing a statutory authority … to administer the OHS Act as an independent regulator, which clearly delineates the functions of the OHS Commissioner from those in the Chief Minister’s Department and ACT Government as employer.
The OH&S Council made a number of recommendations about what they considered would be an optimal form of OH&S governance arrangements. The council highlighted the need for:
… the regulator to operate independently and at arm’s length from the Minister. This is because Government is also being regulated and there is a need to be seen
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .