From the CCF President

By Ross Barrett

In the early 1960s, I was employed by the Snowy Mountains Authority at Geehi Dam.
Back then, workplace safety was just beginning to achieve its due recognition as an important consideration in carrying out construction works. The SMA insisted on safety training and demanded results. They were so proud of the outcome that they boasted that there was “less than one worker killed per mile of tunnel.” (There were in fact 121 deaths during the construction of the scheme which includes 140 miles - 225km - of tunnel).
We have come a long way from there in the intervening 40 years. Today we are more enlightened and realise that even one death or serious accident, is too high a price to pay. We are not only motivated to ensure site safety by moral obligations, but also legal and financial imperatives.
But have we got it right? Or has site safety become predominantly a paperwork exercise, where employers are forced to focus for the most part on compliance, to ensure an appearance of safety while striving to avoid the legal ramifications if an accident does occur?
Sidetracked outcome
The current OH&S systems in Australia are costly and too complex. Why is such an important outcome being sidetracked by difficult to implement paperwork systems? 
Because of the focus on these red tape systems, businesses which might not have the accredited systems, but nevertheless have first class safety records get no credit for this. This is a real case of form over substance and highlights yet again the problems businesses face with formalities and regulatory burdens. Businesses like these believe they should be given some credit and acknowledgement for their safety record.
We certainly all support any practical efforts to improve workplace safety. Therefore CCF supports the Federal Government’s move to harmonise OH&S legislation across the states and territories. For this harmonisation process to achieve the maximum outcomes however, two things will need to happen.
First, individual states need to ensure “harmonisation” is not ruined by differing individual state regulations which remove the benefits of consistency. Reports suggest that some states may be more concerned with preserving their own powers, rather than achieving outcomes that will improve workplace safety, while reducing the complexity of the system. There is concern that the model legislation allows the states too much flexibility when determining their mirror legislation.
Education program
Second, an awareness and education program on the new laws must form part of the reform process.
CCF also supports the work of the Federal Safety Commissioner (FSC), whose appointment back in 2005, imposed yet another tier of occupational health and safety oversight on Commonwealth projects. The aim was to ensure OH&S received top priority on all Australian Government funded construction jobs.
But there are several aspects of the current accreditation scheme that need immediate review. CCF is working closely with the Office of Federal Safety Commissioner and we are discussing issues which could result in separate documentation and procedures for civil contracting projects. We are seeking to create a separation between the requirements for civil contracting and building projects.
Surely safety is a simple concept. It should revolve around identifying the risks, understanding them and putting in place procedures that will minimise them, while accepting accidents can still happen. 
Presumption of guilt
Unfortunately the regulators seem unable to grasp the concept that we do not live or work in a risk free society. Even the best managed work sites can have an accident through unforeseen circumstances or straight out errors. So why is the presumption of fault always aimed at the employer who now seems obliged to prove his innocence?
Safety needs to be a practical exercise, based on a national set of standards, carried out before an accident. It should not be one centered on paperwork and blame to ensure a shift of responsibility in the event of an accident occurring. 
Workers must be provided with safety training, safe equipment and a safe work environment. But after that, workers should be responsible for their own actions. Responsibility for safety should be shared, with more emphasis being placed on the individual’s responsibility.
Employers provide people with their job.  Most employers train their staff, treat them with respect and pay them reasonable wages.  Is it unreasonable for those employers to then expect their employees to be responsible and accountable for their own actions including their own safety?