The safety you have when you're not having safety

Further to reporting the disgraceful state and danger to pedestrians from the road and railways intersection on Rawson Rd, I have received a letter on behalf of the recently-appointed replacement NSW Minister for the Central Coast, Mr Grant McBride.

His executive assistant Mr Chris Church, an efficient intelligent humane sounding man, expressed horror at my poor memory of 10 or more being killed at this point in the last 20 years.

I hope that one or more of your socially conscious readers will contact Mr Church giving him exact details of the number of deaths.

Premier Bob Carr was "persuaded" to head a local organisation to reduce the number of similar deaths occurring on the Central Coast when they reached epidemic proportions a few years ago.

In view of this, I am grimly amused to be told by one of Workcover's inspectors that neither the road nor the railway line is considered either a place of work or safety.

I received a letter from Mr Jon Blackwall, CEO of Workcover.

He states the " occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 is explicit regarding the responsibilities of employers protecting the health and safety of their employees".

He goes on to quote s8 1(a), saying it "categorically states that these responsibilities include 'ensuring that any premises controlled by the employer where the employees' work (and the mean of access to or exit from the premises) are safe and without risk to health'".

I am totally intrigued by this projected proof that the Rawson Rd railway crossing is, according to the act, not "premises" and that the act does not protect the public unless a rail or road crew is working on it.

Is this Clayton's Act designed to protect only the Clayton's citizens of NSW?

The frequently passing apparitions of trains driven by employees of the SRA and Rail Australia, together with local council and refuse collector's trucks utilising the road, must also be courtesy of Clayton.

Richard Newby, Woy Woy