Clause 14(c) of our terms of reference require us to consider the resource implications for all levels of government in administering harmonised laws.
It is widely accepted that harmonised OHS laws will reduce red tape and compliance costs for multi-state employers. In its 1995 report, the Industry Commission (IC) concluded that:16
National employers have to work within multiple OHS jurisdictions. Multiple regimes means additional costs whenever systems of work are changed or staff are moved between regimes. They also raise the costs of compliance by their operations.
That inquiry discussed options for achieving greater consistency between jurisdictions, but it did not provide any estimates of the benefits of doing so, or indicate how these estimates could be reached.
Similarly, the 2004 PC report noted that there are significant benefits to be gained from a national OHS system, particularly for multi-state employers and for the increasingly mobile workforce. Apart from reproducing data provided by a number of large companies in their submissions, the PC did not quantify the economic benefits of harmonisation.17
In 2006 the PC estimated the potential benefits of COAG’s National Reform Agenda; of which OHS is one of 10 cross-jurisdictional ‘hot-spot’ areas where overlapping and inconsistent regulatory regimes are impeding economic activity. While the PC did not consider OHS in isolation, it did find that the regulatory reforms proposed under the National Reform Agenda have the potential to reduce compliance costs by up to 20 per cent (0.8 per cent of GDP per annum or as much as $8 billion in 2005-06 values). The PC did not quantify implementation costs of the reforms, but noted that international evidence showed the levels government expenditure required to achieve reductions were small relative to the benefits.18
We have not been able to quantify the resource implications. Among other things, this will depend on the final decisions by the WRMC on our recommendations. We note that, while there may be short term costs involved for governments in implementing the model laws, in the longer term the resource implications should be no greater as uniform model laws will reduce duplication and obviate the need for the periodic, individual jurisdictional reviews that have become common in recent years.
We also consider that the implementation of model OHS laws would improve OHS outcomes, as business would be able to spend the time and resources focusing on developing better prevention strategies which they may otherwise have spent on researching and complying with different OHS laws.
Chapter 2: The constantly changing work environment
Clause 11(c) of the terms of reference requires us to take into account the changing nature of work and employment arrangements. The processes of change that we describe in this chapter have reinforced our view that the model Act should be designed so that it is capable of accommodating such new and evolving circumstances, without requiring amendments as these changes occur.
Over the past few decades, significant changes have occurred to the economy, the labour market and the nature and organisation of work in Australia. These changes have led to growth in casual, part-time and temporary work, outsourcing, job-sharing and the use of labour hire and home workers. In many ways, the work environment, arrangements and activities of 2008 are fundamentally different from those of 25 years ago, when the early Robens-style OHS legislation was first introduced in Australia.
At the same time, the numbers of small businesses (those with less than 20 employees) and micro-businesses (those with less than five employees) have increased. Globalisation and changes in technology have led to organisations becoming more flexible and responsive. Australia is also experiencing a labour shortage and an ageing workforce.
Such changes are challenging many of the principles underpinning the Robens model, which had assumed relatively stable, permanent work arrangements between employers and employees.
The Australian labour market
The traditional model of OHS regulation and administration is founded on dealing with physical hazards in high risk industries such as manufacturing and construction and with workers in medium to large workplaces. OHS laws have struggled to keep pace with the considerable changes that have affected the composition of the labour market over time.
The decline in employment in the manufacturing industry has occurred in tandem with a growth in the services sector. Over the past decade, employment in the manufacturing sector has fallen from 14 per cent of all employed people in 1996–97 to 10 per cent in 2006–07. The manufacturing industry now ranks equal with the health and community services sector, at 10 per cent of all employed persons, after the:19
retail trade sector (14 per cent of all employed persons); and
property and business services sector (12 per cent of all employed persons).
During the same period, the greatest increases in the proportion of employed people were in the:20
property and business services industry, from 10 to 12 per cent; and
construction industry, from 7 to 9 per cent.
Despite the decline in employment in manufacturing, this sector recorded the highest incidence rate of accepted workers’ compensation claims in 2005-06 (28.8 claims per 1000 employees) followed by the transport and storage industry (27.6), the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry (25.9) and the construction industry (25.0).21
The expansion of the service sector and the changing nature of work have shifted the pattern of occupational injury and disease towards psychosocial problems and musculoskeletal disorders.22
New and emerging technologies are also impacting on OHS. For example, there is expanding use of engineered nanoscale particles, or nanotechnology, of which the health and safety effects remain mostly unknown.23
