Restructure of Workplace Standards
and Workcover Tasmania
CPSU Response to Proposed Structure
The following feedback is provided on behalf of CPSU members to the
proposed restructure of Workplace Standards and Workcover Tasmania
Consultation Process
The CPSU has significant concern about the consultation that has been undertaken in regard to this
restructure. It is a major change and has the potential to impact on the roles and function of a large
number of workers. In these circumstances it is essential that the aims and objectives of the
restructure are clearly stated, that staff are provided with accurate and timely information on which
to provide their input and that practical information about how positions in the new structure will be
filled and the possibility of voluntary redundancies is also made available.
Aims and Objectives
The only information that has been provided in regard to the aims and objectives of the restructure
are the terms of reference document authored by the Department Secretary Simon Overland on 20
March. Rather than identify what the issues are that the restructure is designed to address, the
terms of reference just lists the matters that must be considered in developing a ‘new unified
structure’. It seems achieving a unified structure is the only objective. Surely a unified structure is
an outcome and not an objective.
By failing to state what the objectives of the process are at the start it is impossible to assess
whether each proposed change contributes to those objectives. This makes it very difficult for staff
to provide feedback on the draft structure.
Provision of Accurate and Timely Information
There is a large amount of confusion amongst staff regarding the changes. This confusion has arisen
because there are two contradictory published structures that have been provided to staff. The first
structure is for the ‘Office of Regulation’ which separates existing WPS and WC functions into three
Directorates. Unfortunately this structure leaves 15 positions in an unallocated pink box. The
second structure involves changes to DoJ Head Office and seems to allocate the pink box positions
into central Agency structures. Unfortunately this structure is inconsistent with the first structure in
some key ways such as:

In one structure there is a General Manager Regulation with three Directors reporting
through this role. In the other structure there is a Director for Worksafe Tasmania with two
deputy Directors reporting through that role and a separate Director of Building and
Licencing;

In one structure Gas and Electrical standards report to the Director of Building, Electrical &
Gas but in the other structure Gas and Electrical standards is outside the Building and
Licencing structure
This confusion has been exacerbated by inconsistent verbal messages with some staff getting
different answers to the same question depending on the manager they have asked the question of.
This has been particularly the case for the pink box people with WST making it clear they expect the
roles will remain at Rosny reporting directly into the WST/WC structure but some of the
policy/communications managers in Head Office making it clear they understand the roles will
relocate to the city and the roles and function will be absorbed into the Head Office unit.
There is also a lack of clarity around some of the roles with feedback being based solely on the title
in the draft structure rather than being based on a description of the function and deliverables of
the position. One example is ‘Investigation and Enforcement Services’. Reading the title you would
expect this team would be providing specialist support to the Inspectorate and other areas on
investigation and be the primary focus for enforcement. Despite this staff have been told that the
main role of this team will be around addressing issues of bullying and harassment and that they
would have little involvement in other general inspectorate investigations. It is hard to provide
feedback with so little detail available.
HR Issues
There has been little information provided to staff about how the structure will be filled and
whether or not the new structure accommodates all existing staff.
Staff have been told by senior management that the structure has not been costed which has added
to their concerns because staff can see new positions created in management levels and as they
have been told that there are to be no ‘new faces’ they are not confident it will be fully
implemented. To fill the new positions they are concerned that Inspector/Senior Inspector positions
will be reduced to pay for them thus reducing the ability of WST to provide the necessary service and
meet legislative requirements.
There are a number of staff who have indicated they are considering retirement in the near future
and others who would consider voluntary redundancy. Staff feel this should have been assessed and
taken into consideration before the structure was developed as it seems consultation is occurring on
a structure which will subsequently be changed again when positions are removed to accommodate
redundancies.
One longstanding issue that has been ignored through this restructure is that a significant number of
senior inspectors have outstanding translation appeals. These appeals are likely to be resolved in
coming months and if successful has the potential to create a number of structural anomalies.
Feedback on Draft Structure
The following are issues that have been raised by CPSU members:
1. Proximity
It was generally felt that separating functions such as communications, web and information
technology from the operational areas reduced the ability of these groups to provide timely
and integrated services. While some roles may look to be generic (ie systems manager) in
fact the work being undertaken is very specific to the Workplace Standards business units.
Feedback was received on how important it is to be able to have systems and websites
updated with accurate information quickly in response to urgent incidents. The recent
bushfires and rain water tank issues are good examples of this. There is a lack of confidence
with this continue with greater separation between the operation units and the support
services.
It is worth noting that some of these roles and functions were moved to Head Office in 2008
only to be moved back in 2010 because it was acknowledged that the services were not able
to be provided to WST at the level required from Head Office.
2. Policy
The proposed structure shifts a significant number of policy positions from within
operational teams and into Head Office. It was noted that most of these roles are actually
involved in operational policy rather than strategic policy and while it was generally agreed
Head Office needs a greater capacity for strategic policy this should not be achieved by
reducing the capacity for operational policy from those operational units.
3. Key Person Dependency
One of the long standing issues in WPS/WC has been the high degree of key person
dependency. This coupled with an aging workforce and an absence of succession planning
creates significant risk. The proposed structure does little to reduce key person dependency
in fact it is even more ‘siloed’ than the current structure and with a significant inconsistency
of classifications across similar management levels it is likely to reduce opportunities for
staff to move horizontally – thereby expanding their knowledge base.
4. Administrative Staff
In general administrative staff, particularly those in the regions, felt the proposed structure
provided them with an improved management structure and clearer reporting lines
although in some cases e.g. GSS, it was felt the admin role was specialist and therefore fits
better within the GSS structure.
Conclusion
2013 is a critical year for workplace safety in Tasmania. The introduction of the new Workplace
Health and Safety Act is creating many challenges and these will only increase over the next few
years. While the CPSU acknowledges the need to ensure WST/WC have the best structure possible
to respond to these changes we are not convinced the proposal currently put forward achieves that
outcome.
We propose a full review of the functions, roles and responsibilities of WPS and WC be undertaken
and that from this review a new structure be developed. This review should include input from all
stakeholders - Workcover Board, Industry, unions and the workforce. The aim should be to
complete such a review by the end of 2013 with implementation of the new structure in 2014.
This would provide the opportunity to do the following:





Identify what the key functions of WST/WC are to enable form to follow function;
Identify the issues currently affecting WST/WC which need addressing;
Address issues of corporate risk and key person dependency;
Develop a structure that provides for succession planning and future proofing of
WST/WC;
Review the operational structure of the Department of Justice Head Office to ensure
it supports and integrates with a new WST/WC model.