9 september 2015 – katherine morris and lucy bochenek is it possible to comply with the safety...
TRANSCRIPT
9 SEPTEMBER 2015 – KATHERINE MORRIS AND LUCY BOCHENEK
Is it possible to comply with the safety aspects of the Petroleum & Gas (Production & Safety) Act (Qld)?
Petroleum & Gas (Production & Safety) Act 2004 (Qld)
• From the start of the commissioning stage of operating plant onwards
Regulation of health and
safety
• Key positions:• Operator • Executive Safety Manager • Site Safety Manager
Exposure to personal liability
• View that operator should be an individual Active regulator
Who can be an operator and what are the duties of an operator?
Appointment of individual/natural person is not required
Duties of operators are prescriptive and include (amongst other things): • Developing, implementing and maintaining a safety
management plan• Formal risk assessments • Training and supervision programs • Emergency procedures • Record management • Fulfilling requirements under WHS Act
Can an individual satisfy the duties in the P&G Act? (cont.)
Obligations require range of expertise
and personnel to
fulfil
Challenging for one
person to be accountable
for all requirements
Consequences of P&G Act for safety and the industry
Highly prescriptive legislation
inconsistent with other jurisdictions
Difficult to achieve safety outcomes and risk of corporate and
personal liability
Inconsistencies across jurisdictions
Queensland• P&G Act • Work Health and Safety Act 2011 • Prescriptive duties
South Australia • Work Health and Safety Act 2012 • Not included – operator, executive safety
manager, site safety manager, safety management plan
• Duty holders have flexibility in satisfying duties
Consequences of inconsistent legislation
Companies and individuals exposed to prosecution
Undermines health and safety
Organisations and individuals are placed in a precarious position
Reform to the P&G Act
Opportunity for reform
Reform should involve • ensuring consistency with
other WHS legislation across Australia (especially for multi-jurisdictional operations)
• clarity in appointment to statutory positions
Technical examples
Examples of inconsistencies across jurisdictions
Level of risk
• QLD• Acceptable level of risk • Level of risk must be within
acceptable safety limits and as low as reasonably practicable
• Prescriptive list of how to achieve an acceptable level of risk
• OTHER JURISDICTIONS• Eliminating or minimising risks so
far as is reasonably practicable • What is reasonably practicable is
a balancing act of a variety of factors
Training of workers
• QLD• Skills assessment • Training and supervision
program, including assessing new skills, monitoring performance and ensuring retention of skills
• OTHER JURISDICTIONS• Provision of information, training,
instruction or supervision necessary to protect persons from risks to their health and safety arising from the work carried out, so far as is reasonably practicable
Examples of inconsistencies across jurisdictions (cont.)
Records of Safety Management Plans
• QLD• “Resulting records” for a SMP• Must be kept for 7 years
• OTHER JURISDICTIONS• Only applies to construction
work • Copy to be kept until project is
completed• In the event of a notifiable
incident, copy of the plan must be kept for 2 years after the incident occurs
Incident notification
• QLD• Death of a person• Injury requiring medical
treatment • Range of other circumstances,
including emergency alarm activation, fire, incident with potential to cause a fuel gas shortage, damage to property
• OTHER JURISDICTIONS• Death of a person • A serious injury or illness to a
person • Dangerous incident
Examples of inconsistencies across jurisdictions (cont.)
Consultation with other parties
• QLD • If there is proposed, or likely to be, interaction with other operating
plant or contractors in the same vicinity, or there are multiple operating plant with different operators on the same tenure or authority, SMP must include a description of the proposed or likely interactions and how they will be managed; identification of risks that may arise as a result of the proposed or likely interactions and how the risks will be controlled; and identification of the safety responsibilities of each operator
• OTHER JURISDICTIONS • If more than one person has a duty in relation to the same matter,
each person with the duty must, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult, co-operate and co-ordinate activities with all other persons who have a duty in relation to the same matter
Opportunity for reform: Clarity as to appointment of statutory positions
Operator – current position• Person responsible for management and safe operation
of operating plant, but not a person who is subject to the control of another person
• P&G Act contemplates appointment of a corporation or natural person as ‘operator’ but regulator prefers an individual
• Companies better placed to discharge obligations of operator
Suggested reform • Operator can be the corporation • Clear appointment of operator provision which defines
who the operator is
Opportunity for reform: Clarity as to appointment of statutory positions (cont.)
Executive Safety Manager – current position• Operator is default ESM or the senior managing
officer of the corporation responsible for the management and safe operation of the plant
Suggested reform
• If a duty of individual managers is required, duty similar to “officer” duty under WHS legislation could be introduced
Questions?
Katherine Morris
Partner, Sydney
T +61 2 9931 4872
M 0414 095 944
Lucy Bochenek
Senior Associate, Sydney
T +61 2 9035 7243