WorkSafe confusion
SINCE WorkSafe turns nine at the end of this year, we might expect it to have its act together.
But an independent review released last week found our standalone health and safety regulator could not clearly describe its role, did not have a clear strategy and cannot show if it is making progress on reducing harm in the workplace.
Issues identified in other earlier reviews had not been fully addressed either, reviewers SageBush, consultants specialising in public sector finance, found.
This review was to assess whether WorkSafe was managing its resources efficiently and effectively and to give advice on the rationale, quantum and targeting of any additional funding.
And while the reviewers expected WorkSafe will need more funding, that should not happen until WorkSafe develops a clear description of what it does, what resources it devotes to various activities and what effect these activities are having. Without that, determining what needed more funding and what impact that extra funding might have was not possible.
The review acknowledges WorkSafe’s role is broad and challenging, with 557,000 businesses to cover, about 400,000 of which involve the selfemployed. WorkSafe is expected to provide leadership on health and safety, providing advice and intervening when appropriate. Its challenge is coping with competing demands. This seems to have resulted in almost a scattergun approach which has not been efficient or effective.
Hopes were high for the regulatory ability of the standalone organisation when it was established at the end of 2013, and this increased when laws were beefed up in the Health and Safety at Work Act which came into force in 2016 in the aftermath of the deaths at the Pike River Mine.
But it has come under considerable criticism, including for not conducting enough investigations, or doing them poorly, and whether it pursues the right people. SageBush questioned whether taking enforcement action high up the supply chain is an effective use of resources.
As the reviewers say, given its enabling legislation and broad role, the reality is WorkSafe will never have sufficient resources to address all health and safety risks. All the more reason for it to have a clear and concise strategy that is compelling, specific and outcomes focused.
The target of reducing workrelated deaths by a quarter by 2020 has been exceeded, but early improvements in the first few years after WorkSafe’s birth levelled off and fatality rates are now increasing.
The same thing has happened with serious nonfatal work injuries, where the drop had stopped by 201718.
Rates of workrelated injuries which resulted in more than a week away from work have increased every year since 2012.
The reviewers want more emphasis on reinforcing that businesses are accountable for workplace health and safety because WorkSafe will ever have enough resources to engage with every workplace. Without such focus there is a risk of business operators not taking their duty of care seriously and considering the likelihood of enforcement action against them is low.
One of the particularly concerning revelations in the review was the inaction over the known harm caused by fatigue in the transport sector.
‘‘It appears that WorkSafe’s view is that fatigue in the road freight transport sector is the result of commercial pressures and that prosecuting operators is not going to change any behaviours as operators are unable to influence commercial pressures. ’’
Its preference was to try to influence those parties creating the commercial pressures that generate fatigue, but no further intervention was planned.
WorkSafe expressed the view it was not funded for activities in the transport sector, something which the reviewers understandably took issue with, given that workplaces are involved.
WorkSafe has committed to implementing all 20 of the reviewers recommendations. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood has not yet commented on the report, but we hope he recognises the need to keep the spotlight on all the issues highlighted.