Tasmanian politicians recently discussed Industrial Manslaughter laws in Parliament. As with similar debates in other jurisdictions, occupational health and safety (OHS) appears to justify these amendments, but the OHS principle of preventing harm is rarely discussed. Deterrence? Yes, but Prevention? Not really.
Most of the Australian occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators have released their calendars of events for October. There are many invaluable events, especially for those in small- to medium-sized businesses or who have been delegated as “responsible” for OHS in those companies. There are several special events and symposiums for those of working in OHS full time, but here are three themes that I would like to see discussed during the 2024 National Safe Work Month?
Continue reading ““How can I make my workers safer?””The inquiry report into the Grenfell Tower fire has yet to be seriously considered from the other side of the world. However, the report is being mentioned in Australia’s emergency services and fire sectors. The inquiry has been thoroughly followed and analysed in the United Kingdom, and many excellent summaries have been published in newspapers, books, and podcasts. Australia’s cladding debate has not been to the same extent as the UK. Still, the UK’s structures, policies, processes, business ethics and neglect are certainly mirrored in Australia, which directly impacts how workplace health and safety operates here.
Prosecution for Industrial Manslaughter in Australia’s occupational health and safety (OHS) is supposed to deter employers from neglecting the health and safety of their workers, but there is very little evidence of effective deterrence from this type of penalty, or improved safety and healthy working conditions. Industrial manslaughter seems to have more of a marketing and political impact. It allows governments to say they are doing something tough on OHS even though the changes have little deterrence and continue to be difficult to apply to the intended corporate targets.
The Queensland Parliament has provided a recent example of the political weaponisation of Industrial Manslaughter.
Most submissions to the inquiry into Sentencing Occupational Health and Safety Offences in Victoria are now publicly available. They raise a lot of different issues and some grumbles even though the Sentencing Advisory Council provided some structure to the topics it wanted addressed.
A major purpose of any penalty is to deter harmful and damaging actions from being repeated. SAC reiterates that any sentence
The CFMEU’s Dr Gerry Ayers opens his submission with Deterrence by quoting Gunningham and Johnstone from 1999, who wrote:
New South Wales is the latest Australian jurisdiction to introduce a penalty for Industrial Manslaughter (IM) in its occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. One of the primary aims of significant penalties like IM is to deter others from making similar negligent decisions related to workplace health and safety. But deterrence is a fickle beast.
Last week, a miner, Kurt Hourigan, died in a rockfall in a gold mine in the rural city of Ballarat. Another was rescued, and over twenty work colleagues were able to access a safety pod and exit the mine later.
Accusations of mismanagement and deficient occupational health and safety (OHS) practices are rife. The media coverage of the disaster and its aftermath reflects the days immediately after the Beaconsfield Mine Disaster in Tasmania in 2006, where the trade union, the Australian Workers Union (AWU), dominated the provision of information. But why is the AWU calling for a prosecution for Industrial Manslaughter? And why now? Isn’t there a stronger OHS message available?
