“Critical Risk – it’s focus and application” Presented by Dr Gerard Ayers, OHS & E Manager, CMFEU Australian Institute of Health & Safety

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