injury prevention: where to from here?
DESCRIPTION
Injury Prevention: Where to from here?. Felicity Lamm http://ohsnet.org.nz/. Introduction. One way in which countries can be judged as to their level of sophistication over human rights is the way in which labour is treated & afforded state protection. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Injury Prevention:Where to from here?
Felicity Lammhttp://ohsnet.org.nz/
![Page 2: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction• One way in which countries can be judged as to their level of
sophistication over human rights is the way in which labour is treated & afforded state protection.
• The barometer of the country’s human rights status can be measured in terms of the:– The robustness of both OHS legislation & the enforcement
agency – The level of occupational injuries & illnesses.
• Aotearoa NZ is also a good case study as it has a long tradition of introducing radical social, economic, & employment policies, in which ACC is an excellent example.
• Given that we have adopted similar OHS legislation, why do we have a worse rate of occupational injury compared to the UK, Australia, etc? What are our values?
![Page 3: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
The Extent of the Problem
![Page 4: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
New Zealand Values: Woodhouse
![Page 5: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
NZ’s Unique Compensation Scheme• In 1967, a Royal Commission, chaired by the Hon.
Owen Woodhouse investigated compensation for personal injury & proposed a universal ‘no-fault’ system based on 5 guiding principles:
1. Community responsibility: the community must protect all citizens as it is in nation’s interests.
2. Comprehensive entitlement: All those injured should receive compensation regardless of the causes
![Page 6: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
NZ’s Unique Compensation Scheme3. Complete rehabilitation: The scheme must provide
physical & vocational recovery for all its citizens & providing a fair monetary compensation for their losses
4. Real compensation for the whole period of incapacity
5. Administrative efficiency :There should be no delays or inconsistencies
(Royal Commission to Inquire into & Report upon Workers’ Compensation, 1967: 39).
![Page 7: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Overview of Presentation• Informed by:– Pike River Coal Mine Disaster– Christchurch Earthquake (CTV building, etc)– NOHSAC Technical Report 12 (2009)– Independent Health & Safety Taskforce (extended the
spirit of the Taskforce & invited comments) • The perennial issues: – Lack of reliable data– Lack of evaluation – Lack of effective enforcement– Lack of commitment
• Emerging Issues:– Changing workforce & nature of work– Changing nature of employment– Changing nature of compensation
![Page 8: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Injury Prevention Initiatives • The main drivers for ACC-initiated programmes are:– Cost of ACC compensation claims & – Number of claims
• The focus is on ‘hazardous’ industries:– Targeted interventions, eg, FishSafe & FarmSafe.
• Public &/or political pressure, for example:– submissions in response to government inquiries/hearings or;– as a result of trends perceived to be socially unacceptable, eg
a rise in a particular chemically-induced illness• Most of NZ’s OHS research & preventative initiatives
were funded by ACC, Health Research Council, DoL & NOHSAC, but there is little current funding
![Page 9: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Perennial issues: Lack of reliable data• We still have no idea of the extent of the
injuries, illnesses & fatalities in NZ • There is no coherent data collection
strategy nor is there any compulsion to standardize the data
• Problems with under-reporting & subjected to manipulation. Also data surveillance systems rarely capture occupational injury & illness data of precariously employed workers
![Page 13: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Perennial issues: Lack of reliable data• Lumping different industries together, (eg agriculture,
forestry & fishing), some of which have the highest fatality rates in NZ & include a large proportion of SMEs, makes industry analysis problematic
• Efforts to improve the situation have been thwarted, for example:– Disestablishment of NOHSAC & Injury Surveillance
Ministerial Advisory Panel [ISMAP])– Lack of on-going funding in the area of injury (&
disease) surveillance & prevention
![Page 14: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Perennial issues: Lack of rigorous evidence
• What is not clear is whether or not injury prevention initiatives actually fit the purpose for which they were designed?
• And whether or not national & regional differences have been taken into consideration?
• Many of the NZ injury prevention initiatives have been influenced by overseas models. However, what is not clear is whether overseas models are an appropriate fit in NZ?
![Page 15: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Perennial issues: Lack of rigorous evidence
• Although there is a plethora of injury prevention initiatives, there has been little scrutiny of the efficacy of such programmes & few publically available reports.
• As Shannon et al. (1999) note:– “…many interventions in occupational safety are
implemented with the sincere hope that they will work, but with a lack of solid evidence of their effectiveness [and] can sometimes make the situation worse” (p.161).
• See NOHSAC Technical Report, Number 12,
![Page 16: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Perennial issues: Lack of rigorous NZ evidence
• There have been few evaluations of NZ injury prevention initiatives. Instead there is a reliance on subsequent injury data to become the de facto measure of the success or failure of the prevention initiative.
• Most injury prevention initiatives were designed around specific workplace hazards & thus the focus of the evaluation (if indeed there ever was one) has been on the success or failure of injury reduction & less (if at all) on the uptake of the initiative by the business community.
• An evaluation on an injury prevention initiative is typically carried out or controlled by those with a vested interest in its success.
![Page 17: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Perennial issues: The lack of sustainability• While there was often an initial flurry of activity to
establish a particular injury prevention initiative, in most cases it was difficult to sustain.
• One of the main reasons for an injury prevention initiative to falter was that once key protagonists were no longer involved & suitable replacements were not found, it became difficult to sustain, eg– ACC/DoL/Waitakere City Council Cleaner Boat
Production Project.
• Regular reviews of the injury initiative is a way of ensuring that there is continual commitment from all parties.
![Page 18: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Perennial issues: Lack of effective enforcement
• Since 1988 the Department of Labour has undergone major restructuring & successive governments have to a greater or lesser degree “rolled back the state”.
• The DoL was directed to focus exclusively on core labour market functions while taking a “side-line/advisory” position to most aspects of employment, including frontline enforcement.
• This has also resulted in limited content knowledge of OHS amongst civil servants responsible for this area & a high turn-over in staff (restructuring & poor paid)
• There has often been a need for better integration between the various government agencies when tackling OHS & stronger community links (but might change with Better Public Services programme)
![Page 19: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Number of OHS inspectors by number enterprises
1988 1998 2008
No. of OHS inspectors
317 168 130
Size of Business Population
247,143 471,100 470,050
![Page 20: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Lack of effective enforcement (cont)• The reasons for the reduced coverage of inspectors are
threefold: 1. There has been a systematic withholding of resources to the
OHS inspectorate since the 1980s 2. In theory self-regulation requires fewer inspectors as the
onus is on the employer (& to a lesser extent the employee) to ensure a healthy & safe workplace.
3. There was a trade-off – employers involvement in setting standards & DoL would back off. BUT there is either a lack of willingness (or a lack of competency) on the part of employers to engage in OHS infrastructure – eg Minex OHS Mining reference group set up to develop
performance standards & codes of practice but nothing or very little eventuated.
![Page 21: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Lack of effective enforcement (cont)• The NZ Department of Labour was disestablished on the 1st
July 2012 & merged into a “mega” agency called the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
• Government press releases also reinforce the business focus of the Ministry, for example:– The establishment of a new business-facing department to
take more effective leadership of NZ’s microeconomic policy agenda & the development of practical decisions to achieve productivity improvement & competitive, internationally-focused businesses & industries…”.
• Overwhelming tripartite support for a stand-alone OSH Ministry, that incorporates all accident investigation responsibilities (eg Transport Accident Investigation Commission, etc).
![Page 22: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Perennial issues: Lack of commitment• The disestablishment of the Department of
Labour also raises uncomfortable questions: 1. Is the demise of the Department of Labour
indicative of its lack of political influence & employer patronage combined with the lack of influence of workers?
2. Given its new form, is MoBIE capable of protecting the OHS of workers?
• Both questions are difficult to answer
![Page 23: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Emerging Issues: Changing work• Demographics: – Aging workforce: Those aged 75 & over now make up 5.5
% of the total population – Immigration: managing OHS in diverse settings is topical.
Increasingly diverse workforce eg Auckland CBD approx over 70% are non-European & possible changes to the demographics in Christchurch
• Work: – the introduction of new technology (eg mining); – the emergence of more flexible forms of work &
organisations; – the ongoing intensification of work – operating within complex systems, for example: supply
chains/sub-contracting, satellite divisions eg Aust/NZ.
![Page 24: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Emerging Issues: Changes in Employment• Employment– Rise in the number of non-standard &
precariously employed workers,– 90-Day Trial Period: high % of injuries occur within
the first 90 days of work & will it be difficult to raise a claim?
– Industries are under increasing pressure – tighter margins (trucking & fishing industries) & increased local & international competition,
– Lack of skilled workers (eg engineering = lowering of OHS standards?)
![Page 25: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Emerging Issues: Compensation• Compensation:– The debates around what, how & who should be
compensated will become more intense– Experience rating will impact how we set levies & manage
claims (earners vs work accounts = tension between employers & employees)
– To privatise or not?: Another layer of complexity on business?
– Merging compensation with enforcement? Two competing views
– So what happens to the injured & what impact does it have on family & community? Migrants (RSE workers?), older workers?
– And what impact will the growing disparities between rich & poor have on obtaining workers’ compensation? – Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett
![Page 26: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
A Way Forward• Perennial issues – If we know what causes injuries, why do they still occur? – have to be addressed, commencing with understanding
the extent of the problem.– Separate, robust OHS agency & ACC
• Emerging issues: – Strategic plans need to include dialogue with all key
players, recognising regional differences, different business sizes, etc;
– Should not ignore sunrise industries (focus is typically on sunset industries)
• Revisit Woodhouse principles: – including administrative efficiency
![Page 27: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
A Way Forward• Key Ingredients of OHS initiatives:– Treat injury prevention fads that based often with
manufacturing, with caution but we can learn from other disciplines, eg traffic safety
– Tripartite, industry, & community involvement & commitment – the success of Queensland building industry’s injury prevention initiative
– Capacity & capability building within sectors –necessary to ensure that the OHS initiatives will have an impact on the target group.
– Champions & mentors: worked well in “hard to crack” industries
– Continuity & succession: There has to be succession planning when introducing any OHS initiatives
– Evaluations are essential
![Page 28: Injury Prevention: Where to from here?](https://reader033.vdocuments.mx/reader033/viewer/2022052603/56814747550346895db48518/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
THANK YOU
http://ohsnet.org.nz/