stakeholder reference group · april 2016 consider for future srg if iru presentation and data is...

Chair Marnie Williams / Leanne Hughson Minutes/Actions: Kellie Cameron

Participants Paul Sutton, Barry Durham,

Melinda Collinson, Shane Gillard, Meagan Browne, Sue Allen, Ross Pilkington, Tim

McLean, Danica Harris, Paul Fowler, Melanie Fineberg,

Apologies

Time No. Item Who

1.00pm

20 mins

1 Welcome and Introduction

Minutes and Actions from previous meeting

MW

1.20pm

20 mins

2

Health and Safety Update HSLT

1.40pm

20 mins

3 Modern Regulator Update MB

2.00pm

20 mins

4 External Affairs – Enforcement Campaign MF

2.20pm

10 mins

BREAK – 10 minutes

2.30pm

40 mins

5 Enforcement Group Update PF

3.10pm

30 mins

6 Legislative Policy and Information Services Update DH

3.40pm

20 mins

7 Other Business ALL

4.00pm 8 Close MW

Stakeholder Reference Group

Thursday 4 February 2016

1pm to 4pm

WorkSafe Offices, Essendon Fields

Essendon Fields, 171-191 Hammond Avenue

Agenda

2

ACTIONS

Role of guidance to be discussed at a future SRG. April 2016

Consider for future SRG if IRU presentation and data is of

interest to SRG.

April 2016

29/10/2015 Enforcement Group

EG to present on the investigations process and criteria used when

determining what matters go to investigation / prosecution.

By Feb

2016

LH to consider how Section 69 relates to payment of a shift worker

when not their ordinary shift and report back to the group.

By Feb

2016

Health and Safety

MW to bring a regional map to the next SRG meeting to show our

Inspectorate coverage

By Feb

2016

Breakdown of notices in relation to areas / industry and for what to

be provided at a future SRG

By Feb

2016

WJ to meet to discuss KaC’s concerns in relation to HSR

evaluation as raised at October SRG

By Feb

2016

An overview of incident response timeframes and the triaging

process for incidents to be provided to SRG

April 2016

Legislative Policy and Information Services Update (LPIS)

National OHS Forums update to be included at SRG meetings Ongoing

Present

Barry Durham (VCEA), Paul Sutton (VTHC), Gerry Ayers (CFMEU), Patrick D’Alessandri (VACC), Rod Tresidder (Master Plumbers), Carl Marsich (CPSU/SPSFV), Tony Lopez (HIA), Charles Cameron (RCSA), Janet Marshall (AEV), Kathy Crisfield (ANMF), Duncan McGreggor (CFMEU), Paul Burgess (NECA), Sarah Ross (AMWV), John Darcy (MBAV), Cindy O’Connor (AMWU), Emma Morrissey (IEU), Anthony Palmieri (MCA), Percy Pillai (AMU), Tracey Browne (AIG), Frank Fairley (AMWU), Kris Gretgrix (ETU), Alexandra Drew (ANMF), Robert Patchett (MUA), Jamie Porter (RTBU), Cindy O’Connor (AMWU), Emma Morrissey (IEU),

In attendance Marnie Williams (MW), Leanne Hughson (LH) – Co Chairperson Melinda Collinson (MC), Shane Gillard (SG), Ross Pilkington (RP), Sue Allen (SA), Adam Watson (AW), Kellie Cameron (KC), Danica Harris (DH), Dmitry Rozkin (DR), Paul Fowler (PF), Peter Collins (PC), Melanie Fineberg (MF), Maha Krishnapillai (MK)

Apologies Stefan Delaney (SIAV), Brian Martin (IEU ), Steve Rocco (PTEU), Jenna Flower (ANMF), Phil Lovelock (VECCI), Peter Verberne (ACMCAV), Tim McLean(TM), Renata Musolino (VTHC)

No. Item

1. Welcome and Introduction

Marnie Williams (MW) opened the meeting and welcomed members. MW confirmed that the

meeting agenda and papers had been circulated in advance of the meeting to members. MW

introduced Susan Allen (SA) Head of Improvement Programs and Specialist Services to the

committee. MW confirmed that the SRG meetings will be held in April, June, September and

December for 2016.

MW confirmed the agenda for the day and called for any other business. Paul Sutton (PS) put

forward the following matters for other business:

Concern over HSR PINS

Gender imbalance in WorkSafe Inspectorate

Potential breaches of ARREO provisions

Stakeholder Charter and Website

Concerns over the OHS Reg Review process/ timeline

MW sought feedback/comments on the minutes from the previous meeting (October) to which

feedback was given. MW endorsed the minutes of the previous meeting.

MW went through the actions from the previous meeting and provided an update, as per

following:

Minutes

Stakeholder Reference Group

Meeting No. 001

4 February 2016

Essendon Fields Office

Signed as a correct record Date

Chair

Page 2

No. Item

Actions to be covered in meeting -

Enforcement Group to present on the investigations process and criteria used when

determining what matters go to investigation / prosecution – closed as item to be

addressed in the Enforcement Group Updated in current meeting.

Leanne Hughson (LH) to consider how Section 69 relates to payment of a shift worker

when not their ordinary shift – Ross Pilkington (RP) addressed this action item…….

Marnie to provide regional map at next SRG meeting to show inspectorate coverage –

map provided as handout at SRG. Updated map to be provided to committee.

Request for breakdown of notices with performance information – MW confirmed that

this would be addressed in the H&S Update in current.

WorkSafe to meet with Kathy Chrisfield (KaC) in relation to HSR evaluation concerns –

RP met with KaC on 02/02 to discuss concerns – action closed.

Update on National OHS Forums (LPIS) – ongoing action – update provided at current

meeting.

Actions held for future meetings -

A review of incident response timeframes and the triaging process for incidents,

requested in the August SRG. MW confirmed that the external audit was currently being

organised and an update would occur in April’s SRG.

Process of how guidance is developed – April SRG

IRU presentation – held to June SRG due to Anne Warner’s resignation as Director.

Action: Updated regional inspectorate map to be provided to committee.

2. Health and Safety Update

MW provided a general update on number of key matters relating to the business unit, these

included:

Health Practice Team – MW confirmed that the Health Practice Team will remain part of

our Hazardous Industries and Industry Practice division on an ongoing basis.

Recruitment for the roles on an ongoing basis will be commence shortly.

Inspector Recruitment – MW confirmed that inspector recruitment has opened for

WorkSafe’s 2016 intake. 10 new inspectors will be recruited for. Recruitment will occur

in the following areas and locations are:

o Construction (Mulgrave)

o Agriculture / Manufacturing (Traralgon)

o Civil Construction / Commercial Construction / Agriculture (Geelong)

o Healthcare / Public Sector / Manufacturing / Transport (Essendon)

Applications close 19 February. New inspectors will commence 6 June 2016.

OHSAC – MW confirmed that the last OHSAC meeting was 15 December 2015. Next

OHSAC meeting is 10 February 2016. Agenda items include an update on Safe Design,

HSBU 2015 / 2016 Strategic Priorities, Agriculture update and the Enforcement

campaign to be presented.

MW confirmed that Barry Durham and Paul Sutton had been confirmed as observers to

the OHSAC meeting. SRG committee members should approach either Barry or Paul


Chair

Page 3

No. Item

for further information on OHSAC.

MW presented an update on Health and Safety performance up to December 2015 (as per

powerpoint presentation). MW noted that both the CpMHW and 4 week CpMHW have both

decreased for the month of January. MW reported that fatalities remain a challenge, with 13

work-related fatalities reported in the first half of 2015-16, equalling the same number reported

for the first half of 2014/15. Nine of these fatalities occurred in November alone which was the

worst result in a calendar month in over a decade. There were no fatalities in December 2015.

Three fatalities were reported in January; two were due to electrocution, one due to drowning.

The update also included a summary of the Inspector visits with a breakdown on visit type and

industry, issued notices summary including a breakdown of the type of notice.

Discussion

Kris Gretgrix (KG) raised concerns over the Yarra Trams incident where a first year apprentice

had been set on fire. A notice had been given at the time of the incident although when the

notice went to WorkSafe IRU for review an extension was granted for a further 6 months in

order to comply. MW said that she would pass on the feedback to our Internal Review Unit.

The SRG committee confirmed that they would like to continue to see the performance

information especially in regards to inspector visits and notices. Carl Marsich (CM) queried the

breakdown of notices where a voluntary compliance had been entered into and those notices

that had been issued in regards to a non-disturbance.

MW confirmed that she had reviewed the voluntary compliance notices at a high level and

although there was still opportunity for improvement most were largely used well (approximately

11% not used correctly).

PS asked how visits were counted for inspectors especially where more than one inspector

attended the workplace. MW confirmed that a visit was counted for each inspector and that this

may be for a variety of reasons such as specialist attending the site, the need for more than one

inspector to attend certain workplaces and coaching and mentoring of inspectors. From the

target WorkSafe would visit 14,000 unique workplaces in the 2015/16 financial year.

MW acknowledged again that there is always room for improvement and the concerns raised by

the SRG were ones that the Health and Safety leadership team were currently looking into.

Shane Gillard (SG) confirmed that for the 2015/16 period we would visit 7,900 additional

workplaces.

Robert Patchett (RP) asked for information in relation to the Maritime industry.

John Darcy (JD) noted the difference between civil, commercial and domestic.

Leanne Hughson (LH) confirmed that the breakdown of industries were classified by the ANZIC

Codes.


Chair

Page 4

No. Item

It was acknowledge that there could be improvements in Manual Handling notices.

A request was made to get a copy of the slides that were presented by Ross Pilkington.

CM raised that the breakdown of notices look at the physical hazard and not the psychological

hazard.

Action: MW to pass on feedback to WorkSafe IRU in regards to Yarra Trams incident

regarding the notice being overturned.

3. Modern Regulator Update

Meagan Browne (MB) presented on the agenda item Modern Regulator Update. Pre reading

had been sent through to the SRG Committee prior to the meeting. Questions were taken in

regards to the pre-reading ‘Reinvigorating our focus as a ‘modern regulator.’ The pre reading

included a project report summary.

Discussion

CM mentioned that he was appreciative of the information that was provided but asked what

action is being taken by WorkSafe following the release of the report. CM commented that the

point about WorkSafe being risk adverse within the report was probably still consistent and

correct.

MB confirmed that much of the recommendations have or are being adopted into the current

way of working and that some work still remained a work in progress.

MW confirmed that there was a visioning piece that was occurring within WorkSafe to review

and look at how WorkSafe will remain relevant as a modern regulator.

LH acknowledged the importance of the three areas of WorkSafe ie, Legal, Health and Safety

and External Affairs in working together.

JD also mentioned that he was glad the Modern Regulator work had not been ‘let go.’

Gerry Ayres (GA) mentioned that the key items for WorkSafe are consistency both within the

inspectorate and when dealing with advisory and to disincentive those that do not believe they

need to the OHS Act.

4 Enforcement Campaign

Melanie Fineberg (MF) and Maha Krishnapillai (MK) presented the new WorkSafe Enforcement

Campaign. MF went through the campaign objectives which include increasing awareness that

WorkSafe inspector are out there, that an inspection is likely, that it is simply not worth it to cut

corners in regards to safety and to encourage employers to take action in improve safety /

ensure compliance.


Chair

Page 5

No. Item

The campaign is a balance of enforcement, emotion and education.

Campaign is to go live Sunday 21 February and will be shown at the mid-year financial results

briefing on 2 March 2016.

Discussion

Duncan MacGregor commented that he did not believe it was an enforcement campaign.

The group asked what assistance / guidance is available from WorkSafe for the employer when

in the event that an incident does occur in their workplace that might support the employer /

manager in dealing with the family members of the injured person. Sarah Ross (SR) mentioned

that there was a paper by Bottomley that provided practical advice when in those situations.

JD requested that the Committee is provided an update on the campaign once aired.

Action: Circulate Bottomley’s report to the group.

Action: External Affairs to report back on Enforcement Campaign at next SRG.

5 Enforcement Group Update

Leanne Hughson (LH) presented to the group the recent prosecutions statistics as at 1

February 2016 and the recent prosecution outcomes (see presentation). LH discussed the two

recent prosecutions of the Essendon Football club and the XXX.

Dmitry Rozkin (DR), Paul Fowler (PF) and Peter Collins (PC) presented on the criteria used for

prosecutions and the different investigations that are undertaken by the Enforcement Group. LH

confirmed that the Enforcement Group and the Health and Safety Business Unit continue to

work together to align enforcement action with WorkSafe’s strategic priorities.

Discussion

RP questioned the process in regards to how and the number of charges are laid.

SR noted that there are still no manual handling prosecutions.

PS questioned that when undertaking prosecutions, especially where there have been

successful outcomes – how is WorkSafe getting the message out there eg. to other apprentices

where the individual has been charged. This creates the opportunity to change the culture in the

industry (if needed) rather than the one individual charged / convicted.

Duncan McGregor (DMc) asked about the difference between matters that go to the County

versus the Magistrates Court and who determines which court.

GA questioned if there had been any learning’s from the Grocon prosecution / investigation and

his concern over the penalty applied to the subcontractor.

LH confirmed that we release press releases for the outcomes for all prosecutions. Some of


Chair

Page 6

No. Item

these are picked up by the media some are not.

GA raised concern over recent ARREO incident.

CM asked how many section 131 investigations WorkSafe received in the financial year. PC

confirmed that we had received 8 in the last year and 1 currently at the moment.

CC raised the fact that there had been a number of deaths of recent months – does WorkSafe

have the resources to investigate the matters. PC confirmed the investigator numbers and

outlined that resources are allocated to meet relevant priorities.

6 Legislative, Policy and Information Services Update

Danica Harris (DH) presented the Legislative, Policy and Information Services (LPIS) Update

(see presentation). DH presented the indicative timeframes for the OHS Regulations Reform,

provided an update on the National Collaboration Opportunities (as per action item) and the

National OHS forums.

Discussion

Discussion was mainly held around the timing of the Regs versus the Codes.

PS raised there is an ongoing concern over the timing of the Regs. PS stated the position of the

unions was to have public comment on the regs then public comment on the codes.

LH confirmed that the business was happy to hold the codes providing that there was an agreed

timeframe and process.

7 Other Business

MW covered the ‘Other Business’ that was put forward at the start of the meeting:

Concern over HSR PINS (analysis to be covered in April SRG)

Gender imbalance in WorkSafe Inspectorate (covered earlier)

Potential breaches of ARREO provisions (related to a specific matter that WorkSafe

were already aware of)

Stakeholder Charter and Website (Stakeholder Charter to be reviewed prior to April

SRG)

Concerns over the OHS Reg Review process/ timeline (covered earlier)


Chair

Page 7

ACTIONS

Role of guidance to be discussed at a future SRG. June 2016

SRG to consider for future meeting if IRU presentation and data

is of interest to SRG.

June 2016

An overview of incident response timeframes and the triaging

process for incidents to be provided to SRG

April 2016

Circulate Bottomley’s report to the group.

External Affairs to report back on Enforcement Campaign at next

SRG.

April 2016

MW to pass on feedback to WorkSafe IRU in regards to Yarra

Trams incident regarding the notice being overturned.

By April

2016

Health and Safety Stakeholder Reference Group

4 February 2016

Agenda

Time Agenda Item Who

1.00 Welcome and Agenda Marnie Williams

1.20 Health and Safety Update HSLT

1.40 Modern Regulator Update Meagan Browne

2.00 External Affairs – Enforcement Campaign Melanie Fineberg

2.20 Break

2.30 Enforcement Group Update Paul Fowler

3.10 Legislative Policy and Information Services

Update

Danica Harris

3.40 Other business Marnie Williams

4.00 Meeting close

Welcome and Introduction

Attendees / Apologies

Previous Minutes – 29 October 2015

Actions Arising

Health and Safety Update

Quarter 2

Key Performance Indicators Update

Claims per Million Hours Worked

4-week Claims per Million Hours

Worked

Inspector Visits

For half year ended 31 December 2015

• Mandatory visits are those conducted to meet regulated requirements in construction, major

hazards and earth resources, and to fulfil WorkSafe’s response obligations.

• Strategic visits are those conducted as part of strategic risk reduction intervention programs.

Visit by type

Visits Visit Total

first 2 Quarters

Visit % first 2 Quarters

Annual Forecast

STRATEGIC Planned 8736 40% 36%

MANDATORY

Regulatory 3026 14% 9%

Response 9977 46% 55%

TOTAL 21,739

Visits by Industry

Issued notices summary

By the end of the 1st quarter LY, 6,456 notices had been issued.

Region Improvement

Notices Other

Notices Prohibition

Notices Voluntary

Compliance Total

Total Notices 8,440 43 222 3,159 11,864

Industry % of visits

YTD

A Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 5%

B Mining 1%

C Manufacturing 22% D Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste

Services 1%

E Construction 22%

F Wholesale Trade 6%

G Retail Trade 7%

H Accommodation and Food Services 3%

I Transport, Postal and Warehousing 5% J Information Media and

Telecommunications 0%

K Financial and Insurance Services 1% L Rental, Hiring and Real Estate

Services 2% M Professional, Scientific and

Technical Services 1%

N Administrative and Support Services 1%

O Public Administration and Safety 2%

P Education and Training 4%

Q Health Care and Social Assistance 4%

R Arts and Recreation Services 5%

S Other Services 5%

Z Unknown 3%

Notices Issued by Inspectors

All Notices For period 1 July to 31 October 2015 – Total All Notices = 9,743

Improvement Notice (6,854)

Voluntary Compliance (2,854)

Prohibition Notice (182)

Other (44)

Plant (3,273)

Slips trips and falls (1,661)

Electrical/Equipment

management (931)

Emergency management/Fire safety

(787)

Dangerous Goods (603)

Top 5 Hazards Notices by type

All Notices (top 5 hazards/top 5 Industry) Manufacturing Construction Other Service Retail Agriculture All other

Industries

Plant 1,388

276

304 146 362

797

Slips trips and falls 295

720

75 123 38

410

Electrical/Equipment management 189

440

47 44 28

183

Emergency management/Fire safety 257

59

88 97 24

262

Dangerous Goods 201

10

107 77 41

167

All other hazards/harms 619

579

177 168 125

820

Total 2,949

2,084

798 655 618

2,639

HSBU Activities

Health and Safety Priorities

Dangerous

Goods

Manual

handling

Psychological

Health

Occupational

disease

• Noise Hub content completed – website

development underway (launching April

2016)

• Visits in manufacturing to commence April

2016

• UV cancers / working outdoors project

underway in Agriculture & Construction

Asbestos

Safe Design

• New ‘Safety in Design’ online hub under

development – launching April 2016

• Workplace design in transport & warehousing

visits (600) commencing March 2016

• audits of architecture, structural design firms

underway

Young Workers

Worker Health

• Transport of DG – bulk tanker visits commenced

Dec’15 with 300 inspections scheduled 2016.

Intermodal and packaged DG inspections

scheduled to commence early 2017

• Illegal fireworks projects – cross agency media,

intelligence & coordination. (~100 visits in 2016)

• Rescheduling of high risk storage & handling

facilities to mid 2016 is currently underway

• Stress Foundations – 12 psychological health &

safety information sheets and guiding principles to

be released in March 2016, updated web content

30 June

• Enforcement & Compliance Pilot project for

Principals commencing April 2016, in partnership

with DET

• Bullying prevention partnerships

• HWSA Project ‘Young Workers in Large

Scale Construction’ (40)

• Targeted visits in retail, hospitality,

manufacturing to commence in April 2016

(900)

• New Young Workers campaign May

2016

• Shipping containers visits (400) underway

• ‘Upstream’ guidance being finalised, due

March 2016

• Order picking project planning underway to

commence Q4

• Q4 manufacturing focus – metal fab

• In-situ visits continue (1700) in schools,

expanding to TAFEs from Q4, with

factories and hospitals targeted in 16/17.

• Trades awareness campaign launched in

November, continues online & print

through to June 2016.

• Wave 3 action period commenced

(through to end July)

• Wave 1 evaluation completed

• Mental Wellbeing Collab. resource

centre to launch March 2016

Five Priority Industries Update

8.62CpMHW

4674 ytd

1 ytd

2 in 14/15

Key Projects

• MRISC in Food product

mfg

New intervention

• Paper mfg and printing

services, Mfg in Country

areas, Wood product mfg

Manufacturing

Claims Visits Fatalities Prevention

Transport

CpMHW – Claims per million hours

worked

4 wk CpMHW – 4 week claims per

million hours worked

8.08CpMHW

1136 ytd

1 ytd

0 in 14/15

Key Projects

• DG transport compliance

• Operation Trishula

• Side of road inspections

New intervention

• Falls from heights, forklifts

and traffic management

Claim Data up to Nov 2015

Visit and Fatality Data up to Dec 2015

Agriculture

Five Priority Industries Update

8.92CpMHW

4682 ytd

4 ytd

1 in 14/15

Focus for current projects

• UV , Hire – yards and

Traffic Management

• Precast panels

New interventions

• HSWA Young workers

Construction

Claims Visits Fatalities Prevention

Health

CpMHW – Claims per million hours

worked

4 wk CpMHW – 4 week claims per

million hours worked

Claim Data up to Nov 2015

Visit and Fatality Data up to Dec 2015

8.49CpMHW

951 ytd

1 ytd

0 in 14/15

Key Projects

• Manual Handling and OV

& Aggression in Hospital &

Aged Care

• Children's Services

New intervention

• Disability Services

8.26CpMHW

996 ytd

5 ytd

7 in 14/15

Key Projects

• Safe Plant in Agriculture

• Orchards and Vineyards

New interventions

• Forestry and Logging

• Sawmills

Modern Regulator Update

Meagan Browne

Director Business Improvement

Enforcement Campaign

Melanie Fineberg

Manager, Marketing Insights & Programs

Page 15

Agenda

• Campaign development – research & consultation

• Target audience and campaign objectives

• Preview of TV ad

• The rest of the campaign

• Evaluation

• Next steps

• What can you do? Page 16

Campaign development – research

& consultation

• Data & research

> Academic papers

> WorkSafe data on visits, notices and claims

> Social research and survey results (community, workers, employers)

> Previous campaign results and feedback

• Internal consultation

> Inspectors, Investigators, Advisors

• External consultation

> Focus groups with employers

> Campaign specific Stakeholder Reference Group – 4 meetings

Page 17

Target audience

Primary audience

• Employers (small to medium businesses)

• Industry focus: Construction, Manufacturing, Retail and Healthcare

Secondary audience

• Employers (large businesses)

• Workers (the campaign should influence them to feel empowered to speak with their employer or to WorkSafe about making improvements to health and safety in their workplace)

Out of scope

• Workplaces who deliberately circumvent the law for material advantage

Page 18

Campaign objectives

• Increase awareness that WorkSafe Inspectors are out there,

visiting workplaces and enforcing the law to keep workplaces safe.

• Increase belief that a WorkSafe Inspection is likely – a WorkSafe Inspector could show up at any time.

• Increase belief that it’s simply not worth it to cut corners when it comes to safety – sooner or later WorkSafe will catch you or someone will get hurt.

• Encourage employers to take action and improve their safety/ensure compliance.

• Maintain community support for (and trust in) enforcement activity.

Page 19

Campaign objectives

Balance of Enforcement, Emotion and Education

Clear Enforcement message – anywhere, any day, anytime – firm message of regulation and the role of our Inspectors.

But also using Emotion to explain why we do it. Showing the human side of Enforcement. This is a universal message that everyone should agree with – because no-one wants a really bad day.

Underpinning all of this with Education and resources to encourage and support employers to take action and improve safety.

Page 20

Preview of TV ad

Page 21

Really Bad Day - 45s - TVC - offline edit.mp4

The rest of the campaign

Page 22

Mass

media

Owned

& earned

media

Targeted

media

The rest of the campaign

Page 23

worksafeeveryday.com.au

Campaign website

Page 24

Campaign website

Page 25

Evaluation

Page 26

Awareness & attitudes

(Community, worker & employer surveys, change from benchmark)

• Who saw the campaign?

• Were the messages understood?

• Have knowledge, attitudes/perceptions changed?

Action taken

(Online stats, Advisory, Inspector feedback)

• Phone calls and queries

• Social media activity

• Use of resources

• Feedback

Next steps

• Campaign go live Sunday 21 February

• Shown at the mid-year financial results briefing - 2 March

Page 27

BREAK

10 minutes

Enforcement Group Update

Paul Fowler - Director Dmitry Rozkin – Principal Lawyer Peter Collins – State Manager Investigations

Page 29

Performance (as at 1 February,

2016)

KPI Target 13/14 14/15 15/16

YTD

No. of investigations

completed 250 251 273 156

% of charges issued within

12 months of investigation

commencing

75% 75% 83% 94%

No. of commenced

prosecutions 110 107 114 69

% of successful

prosecutions 90% 88% 93% 95%

No. of prosecutions

completed No target 122 121 55

Investigation conversion rate 60% 67% 66% 77%

Recent Outcomes

Case Summary Outcome

Essendon Football Club Between December 2011 and February 2013

the Essendon Football Club conducted a

supplements program that was not properly

controlled. The risk of the program was that the

Essendon players may have been given

substances that could be harmful to their health

or that the substances may have been given in

a manner that was harmful to their health.

The club pleaded guilty to both charges and

was convicted and fined $50 000 on the first

and convicted and fined $150 000 on the

second. The court considered general

deterrence and public denunciation as

important to the consideration of the penalty.

Cabrini Health Limited Cabrini Health Limited operates an acute care

hospital at Malvern. The undertaking of the

offender included the transfer of 660 litre bins

loaded with cardboard through the Basement

Car Park. The risk that persons other than

employees were exposed to by the task was the

risk of being struck by a loaded 660 litre bin as

it was pushed through On 30 July 2014, an

elderly women was struck by the corner of a

660 litre wheeled waste storage bin loaded with

cardboard.

The offender pleaded guilty and was without

conviction sentenced to pay a fine of

$50,000.00 and to pay costs of $4,564.00.

Recent Outcomes

Case Summary Outcome

Daniel Graham The offender Daniel Graham was a panel

shop assistant at a spray painting business.

On 17 January 2013 a fourth year

apprentice was carrying up paint thinner

with some rags in the panel shop. The

offender pulled his cigarette lighter out and

flicked it at the apprentice, causing the rags

to spark and ignite. The apprentice threw

the rags to the ground after they singed her

hair and burnt her neck.

The offender pleaded guilty and was with

conviction sentenced to pay a fine of $2,000

and to pay costs of $1169

Daniel Walters The defendant Daniel Walters was a

landscaper. On 15 May 2015 the defendant

was operating a cordless circular saw,

cutting timbers to make a garden bench.

The defendant walked over to another

employee and brought the exposed blade of

the circular saw to within about ten

centimetres of his neck. He joked that he

would “cut” the employee. The circular saw

was not operating at this time. The

defendant then walked over to a second

employee, a first year apprentice, who was

bending over with his back to the defendant,

cleaning pavers. The defendant revved the

circular saw and exposed the blade by

drawing back the guard. He held the

spinning blade close to the employee’s

buttocks and the blade grabbed onto his

shorts, cutting through to the skin.

The defendant pleaded guilty and was,

without conviction, sentenced to pay a fine

of $4,000 and to pay costs of $2,000

Page 32

Criteria Used for Prosecutions

1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support enforcement action.

Factors to be considered:

a) reliability and credibility of witnesses;

b) admissibility of evidence (is the evidence likely to be excluded);

c) Admissions; and

d) identification issues.

2. Public interest considerations:

a) the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence;

b) The characteristics of the alleged offender:

i. the alleged offender's compliance history;

ii. the attitude of the alleged offender (steps taken to comply,

restitution);

iii. the offender's age, health, financial circumstances, intelligence or

any other special infirmity; Page 33

Criteria Used for Prosecutions (cont.)

iv. the offender's age, health, financial circumstances, intelligence or

any other special infirmity; and

v. co-operation with the investigation or co-operation with the

prosecution of the co-accused.

c) the impact of the alleged offence on others;

d) the impact of the alleged offence on the scheme;

e) the need for general deterrence;

f) the need for specific deterrence ;

g) the effect of prosecution;

h) the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of the

law and the scheme including considering whether enforcement

action could be perceived as counter productive (e.g. by bringing

the law into disrepute);

i) the costs and the length of the prosecution; and

j) when the alleged offence occurred.

Page 34

Investigations H&S

• Reactive: ensuring primary investigative resources are directed to

the most serious workplace incidents including work-related fatalities

and incidents resulting in serious injury or significant exposure to risk.

• Mandatory: investigations conducted pursuant to section 131 of the

OHSA.

• Directed: ensuring that available resources are directed to

investigations which are aligned to the organisational H&S strategy

as reflected in the H&S Strategic Framework and risk-prioritisation

model.

• Proactive: undertaking proactive investigations based on

comparative data analysis (fail to notify).

Page 35

Alignment with IBU and HSBU

Strategic Objectives

• There are two decision-making points at which EG can

align its decision-making with the strategic objectives for

IBU and HSBU: directed investigations and under public

interest criteria.

• Enforcement Group will continue to work with HSBU in

relation to the aligning its directed investigations resources

to the most significant risks to safety (as per the RSBF).

Page 36

Legislation, Policy and Information Services

Danica Harris

Manager, Stakeholder

Engagement and Communications

OHS Regulations Reform – Indicative

timeframes

February – March 2016

> Feedback received from topic-specific Stakeholder Reference Groups on draft regulations and codes

> Update draft regulations and codes, where needed

> Deloitte Access Economics to finalise Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS)

> Office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel (OCPC) to provide draft consolidated set of regulations

> WorkSafe to brief the Minister on all stakeholder views on the draft regulations and codes

April – June 2016

> OCPC prepares the proposed Regulations for public comment

> Office of the Commissioner for Better Regulation certifies the RIS complies with the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994

> Ministerial approval to release the regulations, codes and RIS for public comment

OHS Regulations Reform – Indicative

timeframes

July – September 2016

> Proposed regulations, codes and RIS made available for public comment

October – February 2017

> Consider and address public comment submissions

> Topic-specific Stakeholder Reference Groups meetings

March – May 2017

> Finalise draft regulations and codes

> Ministerial endorsement to make the regulations and codes

June 2017

> New regulations and codes are made

> Implementation

OHS Advisory Committee – National

Collaboration Opportunities

Driving improvement in health and safety outcomes

> In December, WorkSafe sought OHSAC views on OHS matters identified for national collaboration to improve health and safety outcomes

> Six areas were proposed to benefit from a national approach:

Corporate governance – To increase corporate officers' understanding of their

OHS obligations

Risks to psychological health

Occupational disease

Precarious employment

Migrant workers from non-English speaking backgrounds in precarious

employment

Asbestos

National OHS forums

Page 41

Safe Work Australia Members’ Meeting – 3 December 2015

Emerging issues

> Literature review of the hazards of sedentary work

> Work plan for ‘at risk’ migrant workers

Model WHS Laws and Supporting material

> Construction information sheets: Roof work and steel erection

> AgVet chemicals information sheets

> Hazardous chemicals labelling: proposed amendments

Next Safe Work Australia Members’ Meeting – 18 February 2016

Any questions?

Page 42

Other Business

• Any other business / questions

Page 43

of 2

Stakeholder Reference Group 4 February 2016

Asbestos Stakeholder Working Group Update

Paper

Asbestos Stakeholder Working Group

Purpose

2. To inform SRG members on the progress of the Asbestos Stakeholder Working Group.

Background

3. The Asbestos Stakeholder Working Group (ASWG) currently meets on a quarterly basis. The last meeting of the Group was held on 15 December 2015. Attendees included:

Australian Education Union (AEU) - Janet Marshall

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) – Peter Clarke / Gerry Ayers

Housing Industry Association (HIA) – Tony Lopez

The Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) - Renata Musolino

Victorian Council of Employer Associations (VCEA) – Barry Durham

Master Builders Association of Victoria (MBAV) – John Darcy

Communications Electrical Plumbing Union (CEPU) – Steve Rocco

4. The next Asbestos Stakeholder Working Group meeting is scheduled for 3 February 2016.

Comments / Issues / Discussion

5. Discussion occurred around action items including reporting on Class A versus Class B removal notifications and notices issued to either; fire damaged ACM guidance; DG Order; and asbestos coverall standards.

6. The Group were advised that a new Safety Alert around the importation of building products containing asbestos is now available on WorkSafe’s website following member input.

Recommendations

1. That SRG members note the update from the Asbestos Stakeholder Working

Group.

of 2

7. WorkSafe provided an overview of activity to date around the In-situ asbestos project (visits/notices issued, industries visited and notice topics; increase in planned total visits to 1600; communication and engagement with education stakeholders – particularly AEU, IEU and Catholic Education Melbourne; new internal tool; 3 new guidance documents completed)

8. Radio advertisements for the Asbestos Trades Awareness Campaign were presented. Information was provided on the next phase of the campaign, website hit / usage metrics and communication with HIA members.

9. WorkSafe reported on a range of issues and action taken relating to asbestos, including:

a. The importation of brake parts containing asbestos, including the recall of

these parts and WorkSafe’s liaison with other jurisdictions and agencies.

ASWG was also advised of the HWSA rapid response protocol around

importation of asbestos containing products. ASWG briefly discussed

exemptions for importation for research and analysis.

b. WorkSafe’s engagement with dairy manufacturers in south west Victoria

around asbestos exposure by tanker drivers.

c. WorkSafe’s action around recent intelligence around a proposal for Jim’s

franchises to expand into asbestos removal.

Recommendation

10. That SRG members note the information provided from the Asbestos Stakeholder Working Group.

Prepared By: Jennifer Chellew, Program Officer

Organisation: WorkSafe Victoria

Date: 20 January 2015

N:\WorkSafe\HIIP\EARTH Resources\Meetings_Stakeholders\SRG Page 1 of 2

Stakeholder Reference Group Thursday 4 Feb 2016

Health & Safety Stakeholder Working Group Updates

Earth Resources Tripartite Safety (ERTS) forum Working Group Update

Purpose

1. To advise SRG members of topics discussed during the Earth Resources Tripartite Safety (ERTS) forum held on 22 October 2015.

Background

2. The Earth Resources Tripartite Safety (ERTS) forum currently meets on a quarterly basis. The most recent meeting was held on 22 October 2015 and attended by the following external stakeholders:

Cement, Concrete and Aggregates Australia (CCAA) – Roger Buckley

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) – Duncan MacGregor & Luke Van Der Meulen

Construction Materials Processors Association (CMPA) – Gavin Moreira

Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) – Bernie Hyde & Anthony Palmiere

Prospectors and Miners Association (PMAV) – Bruce Brown

Victorian Limestone Producers Association – Trevor Tovey

Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) – Paul Sutton

Australian Workers Union (AWU) – Mark Bell


3. Previous minutes accepted.

4. Review of Victorian performance and significant incidents:

a. Mining and exploration summary of safety statistics and trends.

b. Mining reported incidents and notices (4 months).

c. Quarry reported incidents and notices (4 months).

5. Both mining and general hazards continued trending down (for previous 12 and 24 month periods).

6. The following points remain relatively unchanged over the past four months, June - September 2015:

Mining plant, fires and rock fall continue to feature prominently in incident reporting.

With regards to general OHS, incidents relating to hand tools, electrical, slips & trips and hazardous substances are ongoing concerns.

Including the occurrence of six significant incidents during the four months – brief overview of incidents released to members.

Recommendations

1. That SRG members note updates from the Earth Resources Tripartite Safety

(ERTS) forum held on 22 October 2015.

N:\WorkSafe\HIIP\EARTH Resources\Meetings_Stakeholders\SRG Page 2 of 2

7. Mines and Quarry Notices Summary Report tabled for period June 2015 – September 2015.

8. Discussion around mine and quarry reported incidents.

9. Discussion regarding initiatives for improving safety performance and the new role - Manager Systems safety, Leading Indicators and WorkSafe week.

10. Progress update on OHS Regulations Reform project and National OHS Forums.

11. Discussions re Hazelwood Inquiry response: WorkSafe Victoria has provided the second submission of evidence to the Implementation Monitor (IM). WorkSafe Victoria has also addressed a number of recommendations, most notably - a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been reached/finalised between WorkSafe and DEDJTR and a newly created position (System Safety Manager) has been filled by Simon Farrar.

12. Discussion re: the Anglesea mine and power station ceased operations close to the end of August 2015. Oversight of mine fire preparedness is ongoing.

13. Guest Speaker - Presentation - Helen De Cieri: Leading Indicators of Occupational Health and Safety: Highlights from Workplace Surveys – Monash Business School, WorkSafe and ISCRR.

14. Marnie Williams introduced herself to the forum as the recently appointed Executive Director Health and Safety - beginning her new role in early August 2015.

15. Next meeting proposed for 25 February 2016.

Recommendation

16. That SRG members note the updates from Earth Resources Tripartite Safety (ERTS) forum held on 22 October 2015.

Attachments

17. Nil

Prepared By: Kevin Hayes

Organisation: WorkSafe


of 2


Foundations for Safety Victoria (FSV) Update

Purpose

1. To inform SRG members on topics discussed during the Foundations for Safety Victoria committee meeting held on 19 November 2015.

Background

2. WorkSafe established the Foundations for Safety Victoria (FSV) committee in 1998. The committee currently meets on a quarterly basis.

3. The most recent meeting was held on 19 November 2015 and was attended by the

following external stakeholders:

- Electrical Trades Union (ETU) – David Tuddenham

- Master Plumbers and Mechanical Services Association of Australia – Rod Tresidder

- Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – Gerry Ayers

- Housing Industry Association – Tony Lopez

- Australian Workers Union (AWU) – Percy Pillai

- Victorian Constructors Safety Alliance – David Waterfield

- Master Builders Association of Victoria – James Curtin

- Plumbing Trades Employees Union (CEPU) – Steve Rocco


4. Previous minutes accepted.

5. Dermot Moody updated members on the implementation of the new Construction Program delivery model:

i. 10 new construction inspectors have commenced;

ii. Strategy and Prevention Manager vacancy to be advertised in new year;

iii. 3 year construction strategy and business plan to be developed in new year;

iv. A copy of the Construction Program Response Chart for the metro area to be provided to FFSV members.

6. Schedule for 2016 FSV meetings provided.

7. Update on EWP crushing / national competency provided:

i. Mixed feedback re secondary guarding for EWP controls;

ii. AS 1418.10 currently under review;

Recommendations

1. That SRG members note the update from Foundations for Safety committee meeting held on 19 November 2015.

of 2

8. Update re non-compliant lift doors. It was noted that there may be an overall design issue for the VBA with this.

9. Traffic management project update:

i. Previous SWAT campaign to be invigorated;

ii. Expressions of interest sought for working group in conjunction with VicRoads, to be re-convened in new year;

10. Members discussed various issues / concerns re traffic management around construction sites.

11. WorkSafe Construction Business update:

i. Industry performance statistics and injury hotspots information tabled;

ii. Guidance note for safe work at height under Hansen Yuncken Enforceable Undertaking being developed;

iii. Cross border interventions scheduled for March in Echuca / Moama and June in Albury / Wodonga;

iv. Roadside works and hire yards campaigns scheduled for Christmas / New Year period;

12. Danica Harris and Jodie Thrun (WorkSafe) provided updates on the OHS Regs Reform Project and construction amenities compliance codes re-draft.

13. Natasha Jager (Australian Drug Foundation) presented to members on an interactive tablet / smartphone initiative – ‘Tradie Trainer’ which targets construction trades on the negative effects of drugs and alcohol at work.

14. In general discussion members raised the following:

i. The meeting considered a request for FSV membership from the Crane Industry Council of Australia (CICA);

ii. Concerns with asbestos labelling at RMIT – WorkSafe hygienist to be consulted;

iii. Compliance concerns re civil contractor: site generator provided then removed from site at conclusion of inspector’s visit;

iv. Harnessing for tower crane riggers – service request now in system;

v. Induction requirements for concrete delivery drivers;

15. Next meeting proposed for 18 February 2016.

Recommendation

16. That SRG members note the update from Foundations for Safety Victoria committee

meeting held on 19 November 2015.

Attachments Nil

Prepared By: Dermot Moody, Manager Construction Program Organisation: WorkSafe Victoria Date: 24 December 2015

of 2


Health Services Stakeholder Working Group Update

Purpose

To inform SRG members on the progress of the Health Services Stakeholder Working

Group.

Background

• The primary objective of the Health Services SWG is to actively engage industry

representatives in the design and delivery of strategic initiatives to improve health and

safety in the Health Care and Social Assistance Sector across Victoria.

• The Health Services Stakeholder Working Group last met on 26 November 2015.

• As at 7 January 2016, the current member organisations of the group are:

o WorkSafe Victoria

o Victorian Trades Hall Council (no attendee at present)

o Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation

o Victorian Congress of Employer Associations

o Leading Age Services Australia

o Recruitment & Consulting Services Association

o Department of Health and Human Services

o Australian Industry Group

o Health & Community Services Union


Key agenda items for the working group since the last update in October include:

Ongoing Health practice program delivery and design consultation.

Update on inspector visit activity and planned projects for 2015/2016.

Recommendations

1. That SRG members note the update from the Health Services stakeholder working

group.

of 2

Update on work underway by Specialist Services (Human factors & Engineering team) in the health sector including ISCRR research, technical support & input on the DHHS VHIMS 2 project and planning for a Human Factors in Health Capability forum in 2016.

Presentation and discussion on hospital initiated projects as part of the Work Health Improvement Network.

Further discussion held on the direction of a strategy for Aged Care.

Recommendation

1. That SRG members note the update from the Health Services SWG.

Attachments Forward plan for 2016

Prepared By: Kate Maheras, Manager Health Practice & Chair Health Services SWG Organisation: WorkSafe Victoria Date: 7 January 2016

of 2


Manual Handling Program

Manual Handling Stakeholder Working Group

Purpose

2. To inform SRG members on the topics discussed during the Manual Handling

Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) meeting held at WSV since the last SRG

meeting.

Background

3. The Manual Handling SWG meets every eight weeks. The most recent meeting was

held on 30 November 2015 and attended by the following external stakeholders:

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union – Vehicles Division (AMWU) – Sarah Ross

Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) – Patrick D’Alessandri


Victorian Council Employees Association – Barry Durham

Self Insurer Association Victoria – Stefan Delaney

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Association – Claire King

4. The next Manual Handling SWG meeting is scheduled for 17 February 2016.


5. ISCRR research proposal: “MSD’s from patient handling – Nurses not following

procedures or flaws in the system?

a. WSV presented the proposal for a joint research project with the University of the Sunshine Coast, Monash University and WorkSafe to review musculoskeletal disorders from patient handling. The aim of the research is to develop a pilot project to implement a systems-based approach for identifying the factors influencing the success of risk control measures for tasks involving transferring people in a hospital setting. Five hospitals will be recruited for stage 1 of the study and fifteen hospitals will be recruited for the implementation phase of the study.

Recommendation

1. That SRG members note the update from the Manual Handling Stakeholder

Working Group.

of 2

b. Other projects underway were discussed, including an overview of a presentation given at the International Ergonomics Conference in August 2015 which compared the approaches taken to manual handling and psychological factors and the challenge for Regulators Varying research has been undertaken on the relationship between physical versus psychological factors in musculoskeletal disorders and whilst there is no agreement on the degree of relationship, there is agreement that psychological factors have an impact on musculoskeletal disorders.

c. WorkSafe tabled a new piece of draft guidance providing information on the process required to review and revise risk control measures in manual handling. Feedback on the guidance was requested from the group.

6. Strategic Program Development: Storepersons and Delivery Drivers across Supply

Chains: packing/unpacking shipping containers

a. WorkSafe reported on 30 initial intelligence-gathering visits that were conducted as part of this project. 15 of the 30 companies visited reported that they have worked with their suppliers to better package loads for delivery. A small number of companies visited had either completely eliminated manual handling or had substantially eliminated it through workplace improvements and supply chain management.

b. Phase 2 of packing / unpacking shipping container compliance activity has been approved and workplace visits commenced in December 2015.

c. Draft guidance – Manual handling: Packing and unpacking shipping containers – taking a supply chain management approach to improve workplace safety was distributed for comment.

d. The 2003 publication ‘Guide to preventing injury from packing and unpacking shipping containers and enclosed trailers’ is currently being reviewed and updated.

7. Strategic Program Development: Storepersons and Delivery Drivers across Supply

Chains: order picking

d. Advice was provided that work on the development of an approach to order picking was commencing.

Recommendation

8. That SRG members note the information provided from the Manual Handling SWG

meetings.

Prepared By: Christine Normoyle, Manual Handling Program Officer



of 3


Occupational Disease Stakeholder Working Group Update

Occupational Disease Stakeholder Working Group

Purpose

2. To inform SRG members on the progress of the Occupational Disease Stakeholder

Working Group meeting held at WSV on 10 November 2015.

Background

3. The Occupational Disease Stakeholder Working Group currently meets on a quarterly basis. The most recent meeting was held on 10 November 2015 and attended by (external stakeholders):

• Victorian Council Employers Association (VCEA) – Barry Durham

• Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) – Renata Musolino

• Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) – Phil Lovelock

4. The next meeting of the Group is scheduled for Tuesday 9 February.


5. An update was provided on the program of work underway targeting Noise Induced hearing Loss:

a) Noise Network Foundations - Meeting with Australian Acoustics Society held on 1 October 2015. The organisation expressed an interest in the program. Worksafe is currently scheduling a follow up meeting with Paul O’Halloran.

b) OHS Noise Foundations – Chapters for the Information hub have now been finalised and are going through Information & Guidance and Legal reviews. All members of the Stakeholder working group are also reviewing the documents. Work also commencing on developing Inspector training program to assist with visits.

c) Manufacturing Field Intervention – 21 OHU Research visits were complete on several sub-sectors within manufacturing. This information gathered will inform and assist in the development of tools for Inspectors.

d) Construction Field Intervention – Consultation with the Construction program will commence shortly to incorporate Noise in their visits.

6. Discussion took place on the following topics/ issues:

Recommendations

1. That SRG members note the update from the Occupational Disease Stakeholder Working Group

of 3

a) The OHU Research visits were completed to gather industry Intel in relation to Noise issues and current controls. WorkSafe presented an overview of the findings from these visits:

b) Awareness of noise as a hazard – there was some awareness; however it was not a high priority for the majority of employers.

c) Level of knowledge of controls for noise – knowledge of higher level noise controls was very limited. Sometimes controls were more industry driven e.g. new technology that was quieter, but not specifically purchased for the purposes of noise reduction.

d) Level of compliance – Generally lowest order used. Issues such as hearing protectors not being correctly worn. Workers generally don’t put in complaints about noise.

e) Types of controls currently used – Some employers reported issues such as overheating of machinery due to lack of understanding of controls and incorrect control being used.

f) Use of hearing protection – Hearing protection was often not well fitted or worn at all times. Workplaces relied heavily on hearing protection.

g) This reinforces the Program that is running and need to educate on higher order controls.

h) A discussion occurred regarding the lack of higher order controls being implemented. There was agreement that we need to get people thinking about the costs of not controlling excessive noise.

i) Major sources of noise in target workplaces – Noise sources were items such as saws, grinders, pneumatics, all of which currently have easily implementable solutions.

j) Opportunities for improvements (controls and knowledge) – There were many opportunities to improve controls; the major barrier was a lack of understanding.

k) Use and availability of guidance on noise – Many employers were very keen to see more practical and easy to understand guidance on noise.

l) Attitudes towards noise and compliance – Employers were interested in controls, but didn’t know where to begin. Only 1 company did employee training on hearing.

7. The Group further discussed the following issues relating to the broader Occupational Disease priority area:

a) WorkSafe Week 2015

I. WorkSafe Occupational Hygienist, Alex Simovski, presented ‘Noise in the Workplace’ at WS Week.

b) Occupational Cancer Program

II. A program plan is currently being finalised for work focussing on Occupational Cancers.

III. WorkSafe is working with SunSmart on updating existing guidance and tools for Inspectors. Construction Program have already commenced including UV module in their visits from early December.

c) Compliance Code

I. WorkSafe’s Legislation and Policy branch is currently developing a new Compliance Code for Noise, with expected release is 2017.

of 3

Recommendation

7. That SRG members note the information provided from the Occupational Disease Stakeholder Working Group.

Prepared By: Marisa Adams, Program Officer Organisation: WorkSafe Victoria Date: 14 January 2016

of 3


Risks to Psychological Health Stakeholder Working Group Update

Risks to Psychological Health Stakeholder Working Group

Purpose

2. To inform SRG members on the topics discussed in the Risks to Psychological Health Stakeholder Working Group.

Background

3. The Risks to Psychological Health Stakeholder Working Group meets on a bi-monthly basis. The last meeting of the Group was held on 15 November 2015. This meeting was attended by the following external stakeholders:

Victorian Council Employer Associations (VCEA) – Barry Durham

Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) – Phil Lovelock

Australian Education Union (AEU) – Janet Marshall

Master Builders Association of Victoria (MBAV) – John Darcy

Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU) – Carl Marsich

The Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) - Percy Pillai

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) - Cassandra Rowe

The Police Association – Michael Clarke

Independent Education Union (IEU) - Emma Morrissey

Housing Industry Association Ltd (HIA) - Tony Lopez

Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) - Tracey Browne

External consultant to WorkSafe- Dr Peter Cotton

4. The next Risks to Psychological Health Stakeholder Working Group meeting is scheduled for 3 February 2016.


5. The group received an update on the status of the Stress Foundations Project and Recommendations, including a mapping of all WorkSafe activities in the prevention and rehabilitation areas demonstrating how relevant programs and projects fit together and complement each other. Detailed information was presented regarding the Stress in Education Project, including visits to schools from April 2016, early PTSD project work, including mapping of programs across emergency services for the purposes of prevention activity research and analysis.

Recommendations

1. That SRG members note the update from the Risks to Psychological Health

Stakeholder Working Group.

of 3

6. The Stress Foundations project aims specifically to develop an organisation-wide prevention framework for psychological hazards in the workplace; gain consensus on stress related terminology; and learn from past programs, projects and interventions to understand how our tools and resources can be applied to most effectively minimise stress in workplaces.

The group discussed the following items/topics during this meeting:

7. An update was provided on the following key pieces of work under Stress Foundations:

a) 12 Stress Information Sheets – Expert Advisor to WorkSafe, Dr. Peter

Cotton, updated the group on the 12 Tip Sheets, including the Early

Intervention tip sheet and the Incivility in the Workplace tip sheet. He

elaborated on the importance of including these ‘cutting edge’ topics in the tip

sheets to enable WorkSafe’s materials in the psychological space to be useful

and relevant to workplaces.

b) Guiding Principles - Dr Cotton presented the Guiding Principles to the group.

These guiding principles are intended to assist organisations in determining

and selecting relevant tools and resources for their organisation in relation to

stress/psychological health, based on size, maturity and existing OHS

systems in place.

c) Glossary of Terms – WorkSafe presented the Glossary of Terms (a specific

stress hazard related terminology glossary), emphasising that these are

currently being reviewed to ensure consistent application of terminology

across WorkSafe and within WorkSafe publications.

8. Key issues discussed by the group in relation to these items included:

a) how these documents may be ‘translated’ into a user friendly living document,

for example, by being located on the WorkSafe web page (currently in

development)

b) whether information specific to small businesses can be provided (small

business information is now included as part of the guiding principles)

c) other stakeholder feedback in relation to the Information Sheets was noted

and addressed.

9. An update was also provided on the Stress in Education Project including the following key points:

a) consultation is currently under way with the Department of Education about

this project

b) the Stress Foundations project (discussed above) will inform the approach to

inspector visits in the Education Sector with the development of an

enforcement and compliance framework

10. An update was also presented on the Stress in Public Administration and Safety project including the following key points:

a) the focus of the project is prevention and management of PTSD in front-line

workers with inclusion of VicPol, Ambulance Victoria, CFA & MFB.

b) A gap analysis is currently under way to determine WorkSafe’s role in this

space.

of 3

11. The group further received an update on Risks to Psychological Heath operational projects. Discussions took place regarding:

a) Clarification about the Psychosocial Hazards Management Project.

b) Bullying guidance materials

Recommendation

12. That SRG members note the information provided from the Risks to Psychological

Health Stakeholder Working Group from 18 November 2015.

Prepared By: Marina Jivogliadova, Psychological Health Project Officer

Taraia McWilliams, Psychological Health Program Manager



of 3


Safe Design Stakeholder Working Group Update

Safe Design Stakeholder Working Group Update

Purpose

2. To inform SRG members on the topics discussed during the Safe Design

Stakeholder Working Group meeting held at WSV on 25 November 2015.

Background

3. The Safe Design Stakeholder Working Group meets on a quarterly basis. The most

recent meeting was held on 25 November 2015 and was attended by:

Victorian Council Employers Association (VCEA) – Barry Durham

Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (ANMF) – Claire King

Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) – Patrick D’Alessandri

Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VCCI) - Phil Lovelock


4. The next Safe Design SWG meeting is scheduled for 24 February 2016


5. Program Logic – Safe Design of Buildings & Structures

a. WSV thanked the group for their participation in the Program Logic Workshop held

on 31 August 2015. This workshop focused on the Safe Design of buildings and

structures section of the program. The Program Logic outcomes have now been

incorporate in the project activities and evaluation framework.

6. WorkSafe Week 2015

a. WSV presented the session ‘Safety in Design and Procurement’ at the 2015

WorkSafe Week event. 164 participants attended the two sessions.

Recommendations

1. That SRG members note the update from the Safe Design Stakeholder Working

Group.

of 3

7. Program Updates

An update on the programs and projects under the Safe Design Strategic Priority

Area was provided. Discussion included:

a. Safety in Design Information Hub:

i. Work is currently underway with the External Affairs Division to determine the

best way of organising Safe Design Information in a centralised web location.

This hub will incorporate existing WSV guidance, with links to other

jurisdictions, research and case studies to be included at a later date. Landing

page content is also currently under development. This will be circulated to the

SWG prior to release for feedback.Delivery of the hub is planned for the end of

March 2016.

b. Safe Design in Supply Chains Program:

i. The Group received an update on the HWSA Supply Chains and Networks

(SCN) Working Group & Project. The project plan for this work has been

approved by the HWSA Executive. The HWSA SCN Working Group met in

Canberra in October. At this meeting the group discussed the direction of the

project and the need for clarity on roles and responsibilities within supply

chains and how to fulfil roles. One aim of the group is to develop nationally

consistent definitions of SCN. A draft of the simple definition of SCN was

discussed with the SWG, with the detailed definition to be circulated for review

once completed. Following this, the HWSA Working Group will develop

guidance materials in relation to definitions, duty of care, and responsibilities.

This will be promoted using the theme ‘Sharing the Duty of Care and

Responsibility’ and communicated by interactive presentations.

ii. An update on Supply Chain Machinery Program activities was provided to the

group. Currently this Program is focusing on plant within the agriculture and

food industries.

c. Safe Design in Buildings and Workplaces Program:

Forklifts & Traffic Management in Warehousing

i. The Group discussed the inspection project on Forklifts & Traffic Management

in Warehousing. Following on from a request at the previous SWG, forklift

claims data was presented to the group. The majority of incidents occurred

within the self- insurer segment, however a considerable number also occur

within medium employers. An Inspector Tool is currently being developed with

visits to commence in February (running through to April 2016). Based on

feedback from the SWG, large, self-insured, and medium workplaces will be

targeted.

ii. Barry Dunn (WSV) provided an overview of a presentation given at the SIA.

This focused on Victorian legislation, issues surrounding limitations for

of 3

buildability, and successful prosecutions. The limitations of s.28 were

discussed including that “Buildability” which is not currently covered under

section 28 of the legislation. Current strategy involves encouraging designers

to address buildability where possible. It was emphasised that controlling

buildability risks in the design phase is generally more effective & economical.

At present buildability hazards can only be addressed via ‘downstream’ duties

of builders under section 21.

i. Current progress of Designers of Buildings and Structures Project was

discussed. Engagement with designer peak bodies will commence in January

2016. In addition to this, WSV will develop guidance focussing on duties of the

different parties and the importance of engagement/collaboration between all

parties for the safe design of buildings/structures. A template is currently under

development for case studies focussing on buildability.

ii. Bich Huynh (WSV) provided an overview on WSV’s historic work and

professional development with key groups such as designers associations,

local government authorities, architects, universities, building authorities in

relation to Section 28 Duties. This work is being revisited through a series of

exploratory visits to designer firms, which commenced 3 November. Through

these visits, WSV is conducting enquiries into designers’ current practice

methods, review maintenance of Safety Design Systems (Document Controls),

and how designers influence change with clients. Current exploratory visits are

proving difficult with little or no support from designers. The group discussed

ways of influencing change through Universities/ RTO’s and Department of

Treasury capital works criteria.

Recommendation

8. That SRG members note the information provided from the Safe Design

Stakeholder Working Group meetings.

Prepared By: Rachael Sinclair, Project Officer Organisation: WorkSafe Date: 11 January 2016

1

Reinvigorating our focus as a ‘modern regulator’ Project report summary, August 2013

The work that WorkSafe has done as the OHS regulator in Victoria is widely acknowledged as being very good, with reductions in our claims targets (both in numbers and duration) still being achieved. It is also clear from our annual Employee Opinion Survey results that our people remain committed, passionate and dedicated to the work of the regulator and the work that they do to deliver the vision of Victorian workers coming home safely.

It is also acknowledged that the work that WorkSafe undertook to transform itself into a ‘modern regulator’ following the Maxwell Review resulted in some significant improvements to our effectiveness, as measured by the factors noted above and in the perception of our social partners and other stakeholders.

However, the work that was commenced as part of the post-Maxwell Review ‘transformation’ process was not fully embedded when it was transitioned to business as usual, and when a significant change in leadership occurred within the Health and Safety Business Unit in 2010-11 this, combined with other factors, meant that the focus that WorkSafe had to become a ‘modern’ regulator was dissipated.

In reviewing the data gathered from our social partners, other external stakeholders and employees during this project a clear picture emerges that WorkSafe is now perceived to be less effective as a regulator than previously. This is supported by the data gathered from employers and workers through our flagship surveys. While the satisfaction with our inspectorate and advisory services and information and guidance remains very high, the perception that a workplace will be inspected and that WorkSafe will catch and punish wrongdoers has fallen dramatically in the last survey results.

There was remarkable alignment in the issues and concerns raised by the different groups of people – our employees, social partners and other stakeholders -who contributed to this project.

WorkSafe no longer presents a cohesive and united front in our interactions relating to our OHS regulator functions both within and outside the organisation. Social partners report in particular that we are not transparent or consistent in how we engage or consult with them across the functions of health and safety in our business.

It is not clear how WorkSafe as a regulator makes decisions about where we will focus our attention and what drives our work. This is partly due to our lack of an overarching Health and Safety Strategy to guide our work as a regulator, exacerbated by a lack of consistent evaluation of our work and a failure to document our decisions as to why we change our priorities.

Of recent years there has been no compelling story to draw people together in their work, nor has there been a strategic approach to understanding the regulatory tools at our disposal and how we can use those most effectively to achieve our goals.

Fragmentation of the functions of the OHS regulator has occurred over the last 2-3 years. Functions such as strategic policy, investigations and prosecutions and information and guidance have been moved outside of the Health and Safety Business Unit post 2010. Within the Health and Safety Business Unit, the relationship between health and safety operations and prevention strategy deteriorated.

Frequent changes in leadership and structure have also occurred in the same period, with a flow-on effect of loss in corporate memory and experience in thinking as a regulator. Structured processes have not been put in place to ensure new leaders (and new staff generally, other than inspectors) understand their role in the regulatory context.

2

Coordinated oversight of the OHS regulator functions has also been absent, leading to multiple business areas working hard on their piece of the jigsaw in isolation. This has inevitably resulted in a piecemeal approach to putting the whole puzzle together.

We do not have a strong focus on evaluation and learning from our experience, and we do not have a sophisticated way to manage knowledge within the business.

There is a consistent perception that WorkSafe has become very risk averse as a regulator, and is not pushing the boundaries in terms of enforcement and prosecution.

There is room for improvement in the way in which we use our regulatory tools and determining the right mix of tools for particular circumstances or issues.

The culmination of all of these factors challenge our ability to be and be seen to be an effective as possible regulator.

The following recommendations draw upon the specific issues that are identified in the earlier sections of this report. It is intended that an implementation plan would be developed for each endorsed recommendation.

Refer attachments 1 and 2 for a status update on the recommendations made as part of this report and a copy of the attributes of a ‘modern’ regulator outlined in the policy of statement endorsed in August 2013.

3

Attachment 1: Status of the ‘Modern Regulator’ recommendations

# Recommendation Status

1 That the proposed policy statement setting out WorkSafe’s approach as a ‘modern regulator’ that has been developed as part of this project be endorsed.

The proposed policy statement was endorsed for internal use by the then ELT in 2013.

The policy statement is a key input to our visioning work for the H&S Regulator of 2025. We will share where we are at with this at the next SRG meeting and provide an opportunity for you to input to that work.

The literature review conducted in 2013 has been updated with some more recent research on Regulatory Practice to inform our visioning work.

2 That the endorsed policy statement be published on our website and socialised in a structured way with our people.

The policy statement was not endorsed for external publication by the then ELT.

3 That the endorsed policy statement be a core reference for context when developing future strategies, conducting induction programs for all WorkSafe Victoria staff who lead, perform or support OHS regulator functions, developing or reviewing operational policies/procedures, developing/delivering presentations about the role of WorkSafe as the OHS regulator, and when measuring our performance as a regulator.

The policy statement has been used to inform inspector training since 2014, in particular inspector induction the OHS from a Regulator’s perspective training program offered to non-inspectors.

The policy statement, in particular the attributes of a Modern Regulator are being used in our visioning work for the H&S regulator of 2025

4 That a structured induction program be developed and routinely scheduled for all relevant employees (to complement the existing induction program for OHS inspectors) which covers the role and functions of the OHS regulator, our approach to being a ‘modern regulator’ and how their work links to these.

The 2 day training module “OHS for non-inspectors” was revamped using the policy statement to become “OHS from a Regulator’s perspective”. This program is offered to new starters (except inspector recruits) across WorkSafe. It is required for all new program and project officers in HSBU. In 2014, the program was delivered in an abridged form to Minister Scott, the Ministerial liaison team and subsequently to the new Board.

The program is offered by request for large groups as well as in the scheduled training calendar. The next course in Feb 2016 was promoted in Connect in December. “The workshop is open to all staff as a learning opportunity to support your understanding of the underpinning concepts relating to OHS, its application as a regulator, and WorkSafe's role as Victoria's work safety 'watchdog'.”

5 That a cross-functional OHS regulator executive A Health and Safety Executive group was established in late 2013 and met regularly until

4


leadership group be (re)established with the responsibility to collaboratively set the agenda for health and safety, provide governance across all OHS regulator functions and be held accountable for our performance as the OHS regulator. Leadership of this group should be vested in the Executive Director, Health and Safety.

September 2015.

The ELT has been restructured under the leadership of Clare Amies and health and safety issues are now discussed as part of the regular ELT meeting.

SRG is now co-chaired by Leanne Hughson and Marnie Williams to reflect the collaboration between the parts of our business responsible for Health and Safety.

6 That, to support our intention to be visible and set the agenda for health and safety in Victoria and our principle of transparency, WorkSafe publishes documents that set out our role as a regulator, our Health and Safety Strategy, our approach to dealing with specific health and safety issues and other relevant material in a way that makes them readily accessible to those outside our organisation.

WorkSafe published the Health and Safety Strategic Framework in November 2013.

WorkSafe published documents setting out our approach to dealing with specific H&S issues for a number of years. These were withdrawn in November 2013 due to the changes in Commonwealth legislation. These have been redrafted in consultation with VTHC/VECCI and SRG and should be published in February 2016.

We routinely talk about what we are doing with SRG and provide updates to OHSAC.

Knowledge hub has been set up on our website to try and make it easier to find info.

7 That we continue to work on improving our arrangements for engaging with our social partners and other stakeholders on relevant matters.

A Stakeholder & Communication Coordinator role was established in ED H&S Office in 2014 and stakeholder engagement framework was drafted. Internally, a strategic approach is taken to planning SRG/OHSAC and working group meetings.

Feedback is that WorkSafe’s ‘engagement’ with stakeholders has improved.

8 That a reporting process be established for activity undertaken with co-regulators under the application of established MOUs.

We publish all of our MoUs.

A centralised register for MOUs relating to H&S has been developed. A monthly status report is provided to relevant HSLT members.

As yet we do not report on activities undertaken with

9 That a stocktake be conducted to identify the extent to which each of the OHS regulator functions have adequate operational policies, procedures and other guidance to clearly guide our people in what they are expected to do, and that an agreed action plan for addressing gaps be developed and implemented.

Operational policies and procedures are documented along with guidance on their application in the following areas:

Field work by inspectors (Field Ops Manual)

Investigations Manual

Permissioning (BMS)

Program and Project Management Framework

Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

5


A Business Support office was created within IPSS to manage the development and review of operational policies and procedures within IPSS and in particular related to permissioning.

A project has been scoped by ORS with support of LPIS to undertake this stocktake.

10 That a stocktake be conducted to identify the extent to which each of the OHS regulator functions have adequate performance measures, that these be mapped together with the higher-level regulator performance measures (that are to be developed as part of the Health and Safety Strategy), and that an agreed action plan for addressing gaps be developed and implemented.

KPIs exist for our permissioning processes. We have targets set for the numbers of field interventions; however we don’t have KPIs related to visit quality and H&S outcomes (other than corporate KPIs).

A project has been scoped by ORS with support of LPIS to undertake this stocktake.

A separate project is underway within ORS to work out the ‘value’ of our visits.

We acknowledge further work needs to be undertaken in this area.

11 That a learning culture strategy be developed, agreed and implemented.

Learning culture elements have been incorporated within the Knowledge Management Framework, Succession Planning Toolkit, the Program and Project Management Framework and the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

12 That a knowledge management strategy be developed, agreed and implemented.

A knowledge management strategy was developed for the HSBU in 2014 with a focus on knowledge sharing and succession planning given that a corporate Knowledge management strategy was being developed at the same time as part of the Geelong relocation project.

The knowledge management project is well under way.

13 That it is noted that work to develop and implement the Health and Safety Strategy will address other issues raised in this report relating to the policy statement and its implementation. (Refer to note below.)

A H&S Strategic Framework was developed, rather than a strategy per se. A process was designed, documented and implemented within the HSBU to translate the Strategic framework into our programs of work and support informed decision-making about where we will focus our attention and what drives our work (RBSF, Delivery Approach, Program design, development and implementation).

14 That a review be undertaken of the use of ‘voluntary compliance’ recording by inspectors to assess the extent to which its use is consistent with operational policy and procedure.

A review was undertaken of the use of VC in the first 6 months of 2014-2015.

The analysis of VC use is now captured within the monthly Scheme Analysis Report prepared by ORS for the HSLT. And shared with SRG and OHSAC.

15 That an operational strategy be developed to better support inspectors apply the hierarchy of

Work is underway in relation to how we enforce hazardous manual handling which will support this approach.

6


risk control in their work.

16 That the assessment commenced during this project of the use of investigations and prosecutions as one of our tools be continued, with a view to further explore identified issues and consider how those issues may best be addressed. This further assessment work should also address the need for greater consistency in escalation of repeated non-compliance identified by inspectors.

When developing a Delivery Approach following the recommendations of hazard and sectors that pose the greatest risk that flow from the RBSF, all regulatory tools are assessed for their potential to positively impact on the problem. Consultation occurs with relevant parts of our business in the design of the Delivery Approach. Enforcement Group (EG) is one of the key business partners in this process.

The Investigation Governance Group has been re-established, chaired by the Manager Investigations and attended by the senior leaders and relevant operational staff from HSBU and EG. The focus of this group is to give consideration to referrals of a strategic or complex nature or where a referral has been rejected. It takes a Case Conference approach to discussing issues from a range of perspectives.

17 That the Executive Director, Health and Safety again be formally involved in the authorisation of an OHS prosecution.

The ED H&S is actively involved in authorising OHS prosecutions.

18 That a review of our policy relating to enforceable undertakings be undertaken, and that improved means by which operational inspectors can be aware of the existence of such undertakings (before subsequently attending relevant workplaces) be explored.

All EUs are published on our web-site. We have a process and documented procedure for monitoring EUs. A register of EUs, agreed actions and assigned responsibilities is maintained centrally by ORS and circulated monthly to the accountable people.

19 That the potential use of suspension and cancellation of licences or other permissions/authorisations be more formally integrated for routine consideration when escalated enforcement action is contemplated in relevant cases.

Operational policies and procedures (where relevant) highlight the use of suspension/cancellation of licenses. For example: In relation to Asbestos removals and notifications: “In conjunction with your line manager, consider whether any matters should be referred to the Enforcement Group or OHU for comprehensive investigation, suspension / cancellation or placement of conditions on an asbestos removal licence.”

Operational procedures are provided to assist inspectors when dealing with issues associated with the suspension or cancellation of an assessor's licence or a high risk work license.

20 That the current review of the supplementary enforcement policy, Publicising prosecution outcomes and other enforcement information, be completed as a matter of priority and be the subject of approval by the proposed OHS

WorkSafe Victoria published a supplementary enforcement policy on publicising prosecution outcomes in October 2014. Other supplementary enforcement policies include Subpoenas, Letters of caution and enforceable undertakings.

7


leadership group.

21 That it is noted that work to develop and implement the Health and Safety Strategy will address other issues raised in this report which identify a need for us to make better strategic use of a number of our regulatory tools. (Refer to note below.)

The programs and projects methodology requires that in developing our Delivery Approach an analysis be undertaken to identify the most effective regulatory tools to address the specific H&S issue/s.

The visioning work for the H&S Regulator of 2025 includes consideration of the regulatory tools at our disposal and the best ways of using them.

22 That it is noted that the way in which we allocate our resources to design/deliver the application of our regulatory tools across the OHS regulator functions has been referred to the H&S Business Unit Alignment Project.

The H&S Business Unit Alignment Project was tasked with developing a Program and Project Management Framework. This was designed consultatively and implemented in 2014. As part of designing the Delivery Approach (a key stage in thinking about how we will address an identified hazard in a high-risk sector) our people are asked to undertake an assessment of the regulatory tools at our disposal to determine which would be most effective in addressing the problem. The selected tools them form the basis of our Delivery Approach and once endorsed by HSLT form the basis of our program design.

23 That suitable processes be established to address the current issues identified in section 1 of this report that relate to the out-workings of internal and external review.

A process was implemented in 2012 to capture and share lessons learned from internal and external review. Lessons from prosecutions undertaken are also captured and shared.

Further observations: We have developed and implemented a Monitoring and Evaluation framework across health and safety

Our visioning work to be an effective and relevant Regulator in 2025 is well underway

Prevention strategy was brought back within H&S in 2014.

8

Attachment 2: The attributes of a contemporary, effective regulator (extract from the policy statement setting our WorkSafe’s approach as a Modern Regulator, August 2013)

We continue to work towards consistently demonstrating these attributes.

Working to meet the underlying principles of legislation and expectations of government and the community

We work in collaboration with workers and employers, their representatives and representative bodies, other relevant OHS stakeholders and other bodies with a stake in the outcome to identify and solve problems that adversely affect workplace health and safety.

We support and promote the understanding and application of effective workplace OHS consultation arrangements between employers and employees and their representatives.

We support and empower health and safety representatives in the performance of their role and exercise of their powers under the OHS Act.

We progressively remove unnecessary burdens for duty holders with obligations under OHS laws, without diminishing health and safety standards, while ensuring the principles of health and safety protection and the hierarchy of risk control are applied.

We work collaboratively with other government agencies and regulators on matters of common interest and responsibility.

We enforce the obligations in OHS laws.

Being visible and ‘setting the agenda’

We are an authoritative leader in occupational health and safety.

We have a direct presence in workplaces and other places where we have jurisdiction through our inspection and enforcement activities.

In order to drive and influence improved OHS, we have a presence in the broader community, for example through our education and information activities, advertising and other media use and in sponsoring major community events.

We publish our strategies which set out what our intentions and goals are and what success looks like in achieving this. We are clear about what we can and will do in our role, as well as what we expect from others.

Valuing engagement with our social partners and other stakeholders

We aim to have respectful and effective relationships with our social partners (the representative organisations of employees and employers), and with other stakeholders, recognising their role in contributing to the setting of OHS standards, the design of OHS regulatory practice and the development of our strategic initiatives. We also recognise and value that the actions of all our stakeholders complement ours and help realise achievement of our collective objectives.

On relevant matters we consult with them on what we propose to do and take into account their views and suggestions when determining a course of action. Other forms of our engagement with stakeholders, depending on the nature of the matter, are provision of information, direct involvement and collaboration. For each matter, the type of engagement will be clear.

Influencing and supporting others to take action

OHS is predominantly a workplace issue, but one which has far-reaching impact into the broader community. A range of people and organisations contribute, individually and collectively, to achieving the objects of relevant legislation. As well as the OHS regulator, the other people and organisations include those with duties and obligations under OHS legislation (such as employers, employees, designers, manufacturers, importers and suppliers), those to who those duties and obligations are owed (employees, other workers and members of the public potentially affected by work activity), health and

9

safety representatives and health and safety committees in workplaces, and representative organisations of employees and employers.

By seeking to influence and facilitate what others can do to disseminate important OHS messages and undertake activity which complements ours, we believe the objective of improved work health and safety will have a far greater chance of success.

Applying the following underpinning principles to guide our work

To be effective in our work we have adopted the following principles. Some of these are consistent with WorkSafe Victoria’s organisational values, and all are consistent with best practice approaches to regulation and regulatory practice.

Constructiveness We will provide context and set clear expectations about what needs to occur to improve workplace health and safety.

We will provide advice, guidance and support to help employers and other duty holders to help build their capability and comply with their obligations.

Accountability We are accountable for the efficient and effective use of our resources.

We expect to be held to account for the decisions we make and to learn from situations where we err.

We are willing to explain and justify our decisions and make available avenues for our decisions and actions to be challenged and reviewed.

We measure our performance and seek feedback on the work we do, and aim to continuously improve.

Transparency We publish and communicate our compliance and enforcement policy and our strategies and plans for how and where we focus our efforts and allocate our resources.

We publish information about what we do, how we go about it, and our performance, including our enforcement actions and outcomes.

Consistency We aim to ensure that our decision-making and actions are predictable in that they are consistent with the legal parameters within which we operate and our stated policy positions.

We use the tools or methods available to us equitably so that like cases are treated in a like manner.

Impartiality Our decisions are both impartial and seen to be impartial, with any potential or actual conflict of interest that may influence or be seen to influence a decision or action being disclosed and, where relevant, addressed.

Fairness We aim to strike the right balance between assisting voluntary compliance and undertaking enforcement actions, while also responding to the interests and expectations of government and the broader community.

In our decision-making, we take account of all relevant information.

Proportionality Our decisions to act in a given situation are proportionate to the level of risk of harm, the seriousness of the duty holder’s conduct, and the objective which is intended to be achieved.

10

Applying targeted, ‘risk-based’ and ‘responsive’ approaches to identifying and dealing with current issues and allocating our resources

There are virtually an unlimited number of OHS issues to deal with at a very large number of workplaces and other places where we have jurisdiction in Victoria. We have finite resources and therefore focus our activities on the areas of assessed highest risk and other identified strategic priorities.

We allocate our resources appropriately in order to effectively discharge our statutory functions and obligations, our response to statutory notifications and requests for information and assistance and our strategic initiatives and interventions.

In developing our strategic interventions we seek to be evidence-based by using data and intelligence from a wide range of sources (including knowledge of our staff, our social partners and other stakeholders), building on the past, applying learnings from evaluations of what has previously been done, and encouraging innovation. Assumptions and uncertainties are acknowledged along with the evidence-base when we identify and prioritise the risk of non-compliance/risk of harm in order to decide who, where and what issues to focus our efforts on.

Our focus is on areas of greatest risk to work-related health and safety - not just on work-related death, injury or ill-health that has already occurred, but where risk is present though exposure to OHS hazards and where risk of failed or non-existent consultation and representative arrangements exists. We target our interventions to workplaces and industries or sectors where we understand the greatest risks are present.

We recognise that duty holders and other parties we deal with are not homogeneous in their attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, motivation, capability, the circumstances they operate in, or – in the event duty holders are alleged to have not complied with OHS laws – their culpability. We try to understand what motivates or influences compliance behaviour and take this into account, as well as the public interest, in deciding when and how to intervene. We use our regulatory tools or methods to support and/or enforce compliance as appropriate to the circumstances. We believe our regulatory intervention should not be more burdensome than that which is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is needed. However, we do not resile from the need to take and escalate enforcement action as appropriate.

We seek to ensure that there are fair and swift consequences for those who do not comply with OHS laws. We do this not only to deter those who do not comply and those who are considering not complying, but also to assure those who are complying that it is worth their while to do so. Providing a ‘level playing field’ is an important outcome of our response to non-compliance with OHS laws.

Preparing for the future

To prepare for the future, we invest in and monitor research and conduct environmental scanning and analysis in order to identify what work-related and community issues may emerge with potential to cause harm and adversely affect occupational health and safety.

This helps inform our strategic thinking, planning and target setting, and enables improvements in health and safety outcomes in relation to new or changing medium to long-term health and safety risks from work related activities.

Applying a comprehensive problem-solving approach to address complex problems

We recognise that not all OHS problems can best be solved through the application of our day-to-day core function work or traditional approaches. Some problems are not wholly within our capacity to solve. These problems are difficult to define and generally do not have a single right answer. For these broader, important and more complex issues we need to apply a problem-solving approach that draws together all those that may have a stake in the outcome.

The problem-solving approach we apply may, for example, take the form of ‘case-conferencing’ for a specific and isolated issue. A more intensive process is required for broader matters. Such an approach requires:

o the problem to be defined in sufficient detail, o understanding the perspectives of all who have a stake in the outcome,

11

o considering what success might look like, o experimenting by being innovative and creative in identifying options for possible solutions, o testing and assessing the effectiveness of these options, o checking for unintended consequences, o implementing the solution which seem to best address the problem, and o tracking its impact.

Learnings from ‘tried and true’ approaches may then be embedded into day-to-day core function work.

Being flexible and agile

Through and with others, we become aware of opportunities and seize those opportunities to address OHS issues before they become entrenched and more difficult to deal with.

We are able to quickly plan and, where needed, reorganise ourselves to deal with the more immediate issues that may affect our credibility and reputation as an effective regulator.

We have contingency planning in place to re-allocate our resources, as necessary, to deal with major OHS incidents or events as they occur.

___________________________________________________________________________________

stakeholder reference group · april 2016 consider for future srg if iru presentation and data is...

Documents