Thursday, March 28, 2024

WorkSafe approach not litigious

Avatar photo
Australian research has revealed roll bars on quad bikes reduce death rates of users in accidents. Federated Farmers board member Katie Milne described the findings as “reasonably compelling stuff” but said more analysis was needed because some of the findings involved modelling.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

But at a first glance the research appeared to support farmer cynicism about the role of helmets in preventing injury and death from a quad bike accident.

Speaking at the Otago branch annual meeting, Milne said feedback from federation members was that roll bars on quad bikes were more practical and offered greater protection than helmets. 

“It’s a difficult space. WorkSafe want us to be there but the hearts and minds of the people who live and work it, see themselves in a different spot.”

The roll bars tested varied from a steel bar attached to the back of the seat to a plastic, solid compound bar the width of the bike.

There were other issues such as roll bars making void the quad’s guarantee and the weight of the bar could affect its structural integrity.

WorkSafe’s Otago assessment manager Mark Murray told the meeting the department wanted to help farmers make workplaces safer, rather than adopting a litigious approach.

He said a safety culture would permeate through the sector only when leaders adopted safe practices that other farmers could learn from.

Updated legislation was expected to be law later this year and Murray said like the rules it would replace, it was expected to be performance-based, telling people what was expected but leaving it to them to reach that threshold.

He also expected the legislation to clarify farmers’ primary duty of care and their obligations to contractors and visitors such as hunters and fishermen.

Murray said assessors were expected to phone and seek appointments for farm visits to inspect safety standards but on occasion might act on impulse if they saw an opportunity to talk to a farmer.

They want to understand farmers’ business, the number of staff employed, the issues they were grappling with and what was going well.

“We also want to understand where you are at with health and safety management, especially plant, equipment and people.”

That involved the type of plant and equipment on the farm, how it was maintained, the competency of staff using that equipment and where it was used.

The management of hazardous substances was also of interest to assessors – the chemicals used onfarm, where they were stored, what safety gear was available and they would want to see an inventory list.

Inspectors accepted they would find gaps on farms but had a role helping farmers fill those gaps.

“We also want to understand where you are at with health and safety management, especially plant, equipment and people.”

Mark Murray

WorkSafe NZ

“That’s our role, we’re gap fillers.”

A legal process could be followed, depending on the severity of deficiencies found.

A farmer could be issued with a letter confirming an agreement and timeline to fix a problem or a more formal letter issued stating something had to be fixed by an agreed date.

For serious and dangerous breaches a farmer could be issued with a desist notice, which shut down an activity until something was fixed.

Murray said that could mean stopping haymaking until a missing PTO shaft cover on the bailer was put in place.

Asked about the potential clash where farms were a place of work and a home, Murray accepted it could be a dilemma.

He said farmers should ask themselves “what is safe for our children?” regardless of whether the risk was in a woolshed or when tradesmen were working on the family home.

Asked about the relevance of signs on farms, Murray said they had to be relevant and convey a message.

A sign saying anyone entering the farm should comply with the Health and Safety Act was irrelevant because it was not specific compared to one warning that a shed contained hazardous substances.

Taieri farmer Mike Lord asked how an assessor would respond to a dairy farmer towing with a quad bike a 900 litre barrel of milk to calves, well beyond the bike’s recommended operating limits.

Murray said an assessor would ask what alternatives were available and why they were overlooked.

“It means asking serious questions about why you think it was a good idea.”

He urged farmers to seek information about what was best practice for health and safety, saying that detail was available on the WorkSafe website, but more importantly, to ask and to learn from their contemporaries.

Courts will decide

An Otago farming leader fears litigation will eventually decide where farmers’ responsibilities for health and safety lie.

Federated Farmers meat and fibre chairman Simon McAtamney said while WorkSafe’s intentions were admirable, there remained uncertainty about farmers’ liability.

“Unfortunately it may not be until after the outcomes of some prosecutions under the new act that we know exactly what we are expected to comply with.”

He based that view on comments by WorkSafe it was not setting out to fine and prosecute people yet was charging Work and Income over last year’s shooting of two staff members.

“Supposedly WINZ had not taken all practicable steps to protect its employees. Extrapolate that case out to all the things that could go wrong on a farm.”

McAtamney said farmers had to think about their everyday practices and how they could reduce harm.

“This is more important to actually preventing injuries than ticking boxes.”

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading