HEALTH AND SAFETY – EDUCATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT
Compliance inside the farm gate, whether it be environmental, employment, health and safety, or quality assurance for product supply, is currently our leading challenge for the collective rural industry – farmers and their service providers.Pressure of compliance on farm businesses
The mounting pressure that all farm business owners now face is constant. They need to understand the applicable science, legislation, good practice codes, guidelines and regulatory rules to effectively manage the associated tasks and compliance risks and not fall foul of regulatory standards. Industry perception, and the fact that much of this pressure is coming from paper-based statistics, does not sit well with our industry either. Farmers, owners and managers alike fear that they are not going to be able to provide enough written evidence to cover their business, just in case a mistake is made and it results in an accident.
The risk of not meeting all these compliance standards places risks on the farming business, potentially resulting in fines or prosecutions, causing financial and reputational damage as individuals and collectively as an industry. What we hear anecdotally is that because of these risks, the conversations that farmers have with the inspectorate teams assigned to assess or audit business compliance are often highly charged.
This comes across as industry negativity or excuses as to why farmers should not ‘have’ to comply. The compliance pressure consequences can also have far-reaching effects. Our whole rural industry mood is already on watch as we face not only this pressure but other issues such as drought, flood and serious slip damage, and the downturn in the dairy pay-out.
Role of advisors
So how can our service and consultancy industry assist? It’s all about education. The farming community and other industries are coming to terms with the increased oversight under the Health and Safety Act 1992. At OnFarmSafety NZ we have assessed that there could be a minimum of 40 governing codes, legislative acts, guidelines, local body regulations and industry good practice standards that we must ‘tick the box’ on to meet compliance standards.
In our business we encourage farming enterprises to have a set of best practice processes, policies and procedures for internal use or to use those that have been developed by their industry associations to work through large amounts of industry regulations.. No wonder farmers are still unclear and struggling with ‘grey areas’ as to what they must do to achieve compliance. We find it’s not that they don’t want to do it. Rather it is that in a paper-adverse, time-poor industry, where there is real pressure to manage all the elements of running a profitable system, the last thing they have time to do is sit down and run through the fine print to ensure they don’t ‘miss’ any details that may put them in breach of compliance standards.
Effective health and safety advisory businesses must ensure that clients know it is not just about the sign on the gate, the folder on the shelf or the wearing of helmets. It is about working on a health and safety culture. Even when this is achieved most farm workplaces cannot prove it or provide evidence to support this culture. We are finding that the glaring holes and grey areas in what is occurring on-farm are mostly in the area of communication, whether this be between owners, directors, boards, managers, sharemilkers and/or staff. It is important to get the relevant people to sit down and discuss their respective responsibilities, obligations and expectations. Lack of understanding about these areas, and unclear or non-existent job descriptions, are quite common – leading to lapses.
Federated Farmers agreements are widely utilised, but not so thoroughly understood. They are the founding relationship document between farmers and staff. Taking the time therefore to go through clauses line by line and get advice on any areas they do not understand is key to setting up a good base for an ongoing working relationship. Health and safety responsibilities in both contractual employment agreements and job descriptions are vital for clarity for individuals and within farm teams.
Regular assessment of that relationship in performance reviews is also advisable, but very rarely done as an industry. The documented evidence base that we require as an industry is to be compliant with the Act, but the messaging on regulatory requirements can vary. As a case in point, recent advice from Worksafe NZ suggests that minimal documentation is required around hazard notification. We know that this will not be sufficient evidence if there was an investigation. Any health and safety advisory business must implement a system that ensures complete risk management for their farm business clients.
Impracticality and blurred boundaries
When we dig deeper as an industry into the fine print we find that many of the regulatory rules have been based on manufacturers’ guidelines and good practice recommendations. These tend to be designed to protect the manufacturer more than the end user, and when applied, for instance, to our machine use purpose they can be impractical. Also we need to factor in that the farm is a workplace, but also a home for farmers and their employees, families, children, pets etc. When the day’s work is done, it often becomes a place of recreation and fun. Where and how do the workplace boundaries get applied? When is a workplace not a workplace? How does this fit into the ‘rule book’?
Quad bikes
Carrying passengers on quad bikes is a real sticking point because it is an integral part of the way the business of farming is carried out. In taking the farm consultant, vet, bank manager or fertiliser consultant to the back paddock, the quad bike has been the most suitable vehicle for the job (alternative vehicle options having been eliminated due to access and egress safety).
Under the current rules many contractors and organisations have created a policy that states that no employees can ride pillion on a quad bike and they are now equipping staff with trailers and their own machines, which then applies pressure on the farm business representative – the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU). They must now assess the competency of the rural professional to be able to competently ride the bike over the farm terrain presented.
The problem is that the rural professional is a specialist in their field of expertise and not necessarily a competent quad bike/4WD rider (or horse rider), and this places the farm principal in a tough decision spot. If that PCBU is a manager, then they have the responsibility of making the call on behalf of a farm owner(s) or a board. Also the rural professional often comes with an hourly rate price tag attached, so the longer they are there the bigger the invoice will be. Their diary is also probably full of clients to cover and time management on each property is critical. Adding a few hours on to walk the job is not an option for either party.
Other industry effects
Farm field-days are another issue for our industry. It is important to have a meaningful discussion with the regulator (WorkSafe NZ) given the role that field-days have in effecting the uptake of technical information and developments within the farming community.
Combined industry health and safety is also challenging. Each area of our service industry has its own set of codes and best practice policies they need to abide, such as agricultural aircraft. Those who fly fixed-wing planes and helicopters are struggling to simplify the required documented evidence needed for their clients – land or strip owners, fertiliser companies and trucking firms. As a combined industry we need to come up with a combined solution to this problem. Strip owners are very vulnerable in this situation, but the last thing we need as an industry is for the landowner to shut the gate on strip use because the risk is too high to their business if something goes wrong and a plane goes down. This leads to productive issues and increased on-farm costs of fertiliser, resulting in increased tonnage rates.
The industry push-back on the impracticalities of how this is going to work is fully understandable and requires a meaningful discussion around setting the rules. Federated Farmers have developed health and safety systems that meet our own industry risk assessment needs, but there does not seem to be any flexibility in regulation for self-mitigation and making our own risk assessment.
WorkSafe NZ has been invited by Federated Farmers to come to the table with an open mind about how we can come up with rules that fit our combined industry workload. To make meaningful progress in this area, regulators and the farming community need to work together to educate farmers and achieve practical outcomes in meeting health and safety regulations.
Benefits of a workable system
- If done well, and to maintain a workable system for the farming community, the benefits are:
- Increased individual and industry understanding of health and safety – peace of mind and a better working environment
- Less deaths and accident rates – no farmer wants to injure their workers or have a fatality at work
- Evidence the business is taking all practicable steps to minimise health and safety risks – compliance in accordance with the legislation
- Staff/family engagement and involvement – improvements in this area
- Government financial support – economic business backing and reward or merit for doing a job really well – NZ Trade and Enterprise already operates in this space
- ACC levy reduction – reduced employer levy fees (WSMP and WSD)
- Risk assessment for financial/insurance partners – provision of all the relevant business risk management systems and paperwork required to reassure business stakeholders that risk is managed and there is opportunity to reduce premiums
- Raising the farm business bar – lifting business best practice
- Industry-led good practice – raising expectations. There is certainly more discussion to be had before we get a health and safety system that works for the entire agricultural industry. However if we look at this proactively we will be able to achieve the desired goal for individual farmers, the industry and the regulator. In the end, less farm workplace injuries and deaths can only be a good thing
Post A Comment:
0 comments: