The document discusses critical risks in occupational health and safety (OHS), emphasizing the importance of understanding and managing risks effectively. It highlights the inadequacies of current risk assessments and the need for worker involvement in decision-making for improved safety measures. The focus should shift from subjective measures of risk to ensuring the highest level of protection for workers.

1. Critical Risk – its focus and application.
(a somewhat different OHS perspective…)
AIHS Symposium September 5th 2019
Dr Gerard Ayers
OHS&E Manager
CFMEU C&G Division
Vic/Tas Branch.

2. Critical - what does it mean in an OHS context…?
• Definition…
(https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+definition&rlz=1C1GCEA_enAU834AU834&oq=critical+definiton&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.9929j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
“…of a situation or problem having the potential to become disastrous…”
Synonyms – grave, serious, dangerous, risky, hazardous, precarious;
“…having a decisive or crucial importance in the success, failure or existence of something…”
Synonyms – crucial, vital, essential, important, high-priority, paramount.
2

3. Some more OHS definitions…
• Risk – a probabilistic expression of the hazard potential being realised (Holmes and Gifford 1996).
• Hazard – an intrinsic property of a process, substance, object or situation (Holmes and Gifford 1996).
• Risk Assessment – a process for estimating the probability that a specified undesirable outcome
will result from a specific duration of exposure to a specified hazard (Quinlan and Bohl 1991).
• But workers don’t go to work to play a game of “probability” with hazards, risks and/or their
health and safety…they go to work expecting to leave unharmed and return home to their loved
ones.
3

4. Question?
• Exactly what understanding of the accident/ill health phenomenon are our
workplace (critical…) risk assessments actually being based upon? (Borys 2001).
4

5. Risk management in an OHS context
1. If an injury is a possibility, logic and statistics say it is only a matter of time
before an injury occurs… (Viner 2002).
2. So in employment situations, there is no underlying justification for assessing a
risk as low, medium or high (critical…). Either the control measures are up to
standard or they are not. It is the worth of the control measure/s that needs to be
assessed and debated, not the risk (Viner 2002).
5

6. What is meant by ‘Risk’ in the OHS environment…?
• The meanings of risk in the OHS environment often reflect individual experiences and understanding of risk, together with
the economic context of the industry; all influencing the numerous views and levels of understanding that we have of risk
and its’ management… (Holmes and Gifford 1996).
• The risk factor too often becomes a measure of personal experience and opinion; as opposed to any scientific or objective
exercise in controlling the hazard at its source.
• There is a natural resistance to spend money and taking on more work (in terms of control measures); and often the
decision makers may not always be personally at risk – this all influences the perception of the risk…(Viner 2002).
• Time to return economics to its proper function; that is as a tool to accomplish goals rather than the tool that defines what
those goals should or can be… (Silbergeld 1993).
6

7. Who makes the decisions?
• Standard setting (and hence control measures…) are not just technical and scientific processes – they
involve important ‘normative judgments’ about what is deemed to be acceptable levels of risk. (Quinlan and Bohle
1991).
• Workers and their representatives have as much right to determine what is or is not acceptable as anyone else (Quinlan and
Bohle 1991).
• This is why the involvement of workers and their representatives becomes vital, if a truly balanced approach is to be
achieved in the formulation of risk assessments and any subsequent agreed control measures.
• The risk assessment (critical or otherwise) is merely a value judgment process that takes place in a vacuum of power,
politics, economics, and a raft of views and motives (both personal and professional) that continue to be subject to
all types of prejudices and change (Waring 1996).
7

8. Risk Matrix…?
• The use of subjective terms such as ‘likely’, ‘moderate’, ‘possible’, ‘minor’, ‘major’, ‘low’, ‘medium’,
‘high’, ‘catastrophic’ ‘critical’… are unlikely to lead to consistent choices by different individuals (Viner
2002, Pickering & Cowley 2010).
• Any reliance on key words inevitably introduces the potential for different interpretations… (Viner 2002,
Pickering & Cowley 2010)
• There appears to be little (if any…) published peer reviewed and robust critical evaluation of the Risk
Assessment & Risk Matrix tools - in terms of their value in improving risk related outcomes (Viner 2002,
Pickering & Cowley 2010).
• Research that has been conducted has found substantial inconsistencies exist between both assessors and
within each assessor, and within each method and between each method of risk assessments (Harvey 2002).
• OHS professionals are no better or worse at assessing risk than less experienced individuals (Borys 2001)
• Which leaves us in a bit of a quandary/conundrum when it comes to ‘critical risk and its focus and
application’…?
8

9. A somewhat simpler approach…
1. What can possibly go wrong?
2. What can we do to fix it or prevent it?
3. Have we done enough?
(Dr Ciaran McAleenan 2001)
• Remembering the 2 basic principles under the Victorian OHS Act:
1. Section 2 - To eliminate at the source (Hierarchy of control…)
2. Section 4 - Providing the highest levels of protection (Hierarchy of control…)
9

10. As far as is reasonably practicable…?
• The Definition:
Section 20: The concept of ensuring health and safety – (e.g. silica exposure & engineered stone, asbestos, falls,
excavation engulfment/collapse…).
(2) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this Part and the regulations, regard must be had to the following matters
in determining what is (or was at a particular time) reasonably practicable in relation to ensuring health and
safety—
• (a) the likelihood of the hazard or risk concerned eventuating;
• (b) the degree of harm that would result if the hazard or risk eventuated;
• (c) what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about the hazard or risk and any
ways of eliminating or reducing the hazard or risk;
• (d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or reduce the hazard or risk;
• (e) the cost of eliminating or reducing the hazard or risk.
Time to return economics to its proper function; that is as a tool to accomplish goals rather than the tool that
defines what those goals should or can be.
10

11. In Conclusion…
• In the year 2019 and beyond, it shouldn’t be a question of whether it’s ‘reasonably
practicable’ to provide the highest level of protection for workers (and by default
the public…) – for a critical or any other type of risk…?
• The real question is whether we want to provide the highest level of protection ?
11

12. References:
• Borys, D., 2001, Risk Assessment – the devil is in the detail, Safety in Australia, Vol 23, No.6, pp.8-9.
• Harvey, J., 2002, Realiability of risk assessments: a statistical evaluation of results from six risk assessment tools, Safety in Australia, Vol
24, No.3,pp.22-25.
• Holmes, N., and Gilford, S., 1996, Social meanings of risk in OHS: consequences for risk control, Journal of Occupational Health Safety,
Australia/New Zealand, 12(4), pp.443-450.
• Pickering, A., and Cowley, S., 2010, Risk matrices: implied accuracy and false assumptions, Journal of health and safety research & practice,
Vol.1, Issue 1, pp.9-16.
• Quinlan, M., and Bohle, P., 1991, Managing occupational health and safety in Australia: a multidisciplinary approach, MacMillan, South
Melbourne.
• Viner, D., 2002, Risk assessments – do they work? Safety in Australia, Vol 24, No.3, pp.12-16.
• Waring, A., 1996, Safety management systems, Chapman & Hall, London.
12