Getting the balance right: Regulating occupational health and safety planning and coordination in the Australian construction industry. Issue 4 (20th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lingard, Helen; Warmerdam, Amanda; Shooshtarian, Salman
• Is Part Of: Engineering, construction and architectural management. Volume 26:Issue 4(2019)
• Page Start: 599
• Page End: 617
• Publication Date: 2019-05-20
• Subjects: Construction -- Interview -- Construction safety; Construction industry -- Management -- Periodicals; Engineering -- Management -- Periodicals; Engineering -- Periodicals; Building -- Periodicals; 624.068
• DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-02-2018-0086
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0969-9988

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: In Australia, national harmonisation of occupational health and safety (OHS) regulation was pursued through the development of model Work Health and Safety legislation. The model Work Health and Safety Regulations specify that construction works above a threshold cost of AU$250, 000 are deemed to be construction projects requiring the appointment of a principal contractor with duties relating to OHS planning and coordination. The purpose of this paper is to explore the effectiveness of the monetary threshold as a suitable trigger for specific OHS planning and coordination duties. Design/methodology/approach: Interviews were conducted with 46 Australian construction industry stakeholders, including union representatives, employer groups, construction firm representatives and regulators, as well as four international construction OHS experts, to explore perceptions about the effectiveness of the monetary threshold. Two construction scenarios were also modelled to test for variability in operation of the threshold by geographical location of works and design conditions. Findings: The monetary threshold was perceived to be subject to two forms of capture problem, reflecting inadvertent capture of low risk works or failure to capture high risk works. Organisations were also reported to deliberately split contracts to avoid capture by the threshold. The cost-estimate modelling revealed inequalities and variation in the operation of the monetary threshold by geographic location and design specification. Practical implications: The analysis suggests that limitations inherent in the use of a monetary threshold to trigger duties relating to OHS planning and coordination in construction works. Opportunities to use more sophisticated risk-based mechanisms are considered. Originality/value: The study explores a fundamental challenge of risk-based OHS regulation, i.e., how to ensure that workers' health and safety are adequately protected without creating an unnecessarily high regulatory burden. The research provides evidence that using a monetary value as a proxy measure for OHS risk in construction projects may be problematic.