At the moment in Australia, a political debate is gathering momentum over the creation of jobs at the expense of the environment. This, largely, ideological argument is an example of free market vs regulation and short-term vs sustainability in the context of job creation. In 2013, this blog noted the absence of “Safety” in the jobs debate, a similar omission to the current debate.
This omission of Safety from both words and thought, it seems, led to a poorly structured economic stimulus program that resulted in the deaths of four young workers. The haste in introducing the Home Insulation Program contributed to a climate that allowed, perhaps encouraged, a wilful ignorance of basic occupational health and safety (OHS) practices. A similar haste is appearing in relation to job creation across the economy but most obviously in the current debate over coal mine approvals where environmental factors are being sacrificed for jobs.
The Government is considering amending the environmental laws to reduce opportunities to object against potentially environmentally damaging projects by third parties. This manipulation of long-established laws is an extension of the “red tape” push favoured by many Western countries. Legislation has been amended to eliminate duplication or unnecessary or outmoded legislative quirks. Much of this has been justified but that process has allowed for the manipulation of legislation for dubious benefits and from shaky justifications.
Just as Governments, and workers, would benefit enormously from adding the term “safe” in front of “jobs”, so they would benefit from sustainable jobs. This simple inclusion would support the culture of safety that the community is demanding. As we wrote in 2013:
“One word, “safe”, mentioned every so often by government seeds its importance in the community’s mind and reinforces the value that society already holds as important. It’s omission, speaks just as loudly.”
Tagged: a political debate, job creation, occupational health and safety
