WORK HEALTH & SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
One of those cliches oft en used is “do you want the good news first or the bad news”. Irrespective of your response the news is just something that you do not want. BRUCE MCCLURE, CMPA’s General Manager reports on the introduction of Work Health and Safety Management Systems to Extractive Industry Sites
FOR many in the extractives industry in Victoria the bad news is that on the 1 January 2011 (current time frame) it appears that it will become compulsory to have a Work Health and Safety Management System (WHSMS) in place for each quarry.
Let’s recap how and why this proposed WHSMA has come about. In the Sand & Stone issue 52 (August/September 2010) Tom Kerr formerly of Conundrum Holdings reported on the National Harmonisation of OH&S Laws. Tom went on to state that a commitment by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments to the harmonisation (agreement or accord) of work health and safety laws in Australia would see the introduction of a model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act on 1st January 2012. The model act will be supported by model WHS Regulations and Codes of Practice. State and territory jurisdictions will adopt the model legislation by either replacing their current OHS Act with a new Act or amending their current OHS Act to align with the model WHS Act.
It has been stated by the departments involved that as the model Act has been largely based on existing legislation, and in particular the current Victorian OHS Act, most currently compliant OHS systems should go a long way to satisfy the new laws. Significant changes to the current Victorian Act will be as follows:
- Emphasis on graduated enforcement but higher penalties
- Moving from employment as basis for duties, obligations and rights
- New positive duty of care for officers, with due diligence defined
- Broadened consultation obligations – vertical and horizontal
- Broadened union right of entry
- Greater protection against discrimination and coercion
- Easier modification of notices
- Increased powers of questioning and reduced rights of individuals
It is claimed that the main aims of the new legislation are to provide a clearer, easier to use document with less legal jargon. The new legislation will see an increase in the maximum penalties for safety breaches, however the reforms are also aimed at driving better safety outcomes by imposing less fines and moving towards more graduated enforcements such as enforceable undertakings or compulsory spending on safety.
Tom finally went on to report that while the exact details of the model WHS Act are subject to review, the key principles have been agreed to. As contracts that will operate after the commencement of the new laws could be entered into now, it is important to ensure your systems will meet the requirements of the new laws.
So let’s return back to our article. As most in our industry will ask, why the need for a WHSMS at every extractive industry site? Th ere is no evidence to suggest that the current practices of industry and the requirements of the regulator are not sufficient, are not working or just no longer appropriate. Yet we have a situation where further regulation, further red tape is going to be required at a substantial cost to each member of the industry. Maybe for some in the industry the costs and benefits of the proposal are considered reasonable and needed to ensure work safety. For others particularly the smaller privately owned businesses, the impost of their businesses will be pronounced, may not be easily complied with and I would suggest not welcomed at all.
Bruce McClure, General Manager recently attended a meeting of the WorkSafe Earth Resources Tripartite Safety forum where the proposed draft Harmonised Mining Regulations and draft Code of Practice for the Work Health and Safety Management Systems in Mining document was discussed. Following this meeting the Secretariat wrote back to WorkSafe stating the following.
“The extractive industry sector in Victoria of which over 200 are small to medium businesses has been drawn into this system without any consultation or consideration. Some of the bigger multinational companies who have operations across multiple states may have been involved, but as far as we are aware none of the privately owned quarries in Victoria were given the opportunity to comment on either document. To impose such a system on the industry without prior consultation is going to lead to considerable angst amongst our members”.
The CMPA letter then went on to mention members concerns “that the draft code loses its impact and credibility to our members as it talks explicitly about mining for the overwhelming majority of the text even though in Victoria the extractive industry is bigger than mining (excluding coal). The only mention and reference to the extractives industry is in one section (section 1.2) and the majority of text does not relate to the extractives industry”.
The CMPA letter further stated that “the model put forward in this code is not representative of the risks, nature and activities that take place in a quarry”.
The CMPA also suggested that the Department “considers the adoption of implementation thresholds for the application of elements of the WHSMS”. The CMPA attached a copy of its Site Manager Classifications which it suggested could be used as a starting point for discussion on the minimum elements required for different quarry sites.
Given that the introduction of the WHSMS appears to be a fait accompli and in the interests of our members, the CMPA has indicated that it would like to work with WorkSafe on this code of practice or, preferably an extractive specific document to ensure the best possible outcome.
The CMPA is now waiting upon a response to its comments. Once there is a clearer picture regarding the code of practice document the organisation will decide what future documentation and training my need to be put in place to ensure all members can comply with the new requirements whatever they finally end up being.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login