Governments use legislation and the threat of punishment as a deterrent for dangerous actions and poor decision-making. Imposing harsh consequences is hoped to change the behaviour of companies and individuals. Occupational health and safety (OHS) laws are no different with deterrence being used to justify the introduction and enforcement of Industrial Manslaughter laws, for instance.
The Australian Senate’s current inquiry
South Australia’s occupational health and safety (OHS) regulator, SafeWorkSA, is being investigated by that State’s Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (ICAC). SafeWorkSA has been subjected to several inquiries over recent years but the current ICAC one is perhaps the most significant, and one that is generating a lot of local discussion, and that should be watched by all OHS professionals, Regulators around Australia.
It is important to note the specifics of the Inquiry or “Evaluation”.
SafetyAtWorkBlog will be reporting from the biennial Congress of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. For the first time Trade unions have been pivotal for the creation and enforcement of occupational health and safety (OHS) around the world.
Most of the past reporting on these events in mainstream media has focused on politics and industrial relations. OHS tends to get overlooked so SafetyAtWorkBlog’s attendance will be important.
Articles from the Congress will be available only to Subscribers. Continue reading “Exclusive reports from the 2018 ACTU Congress”
Several of the articles in the Safety At Work special edition on Industrial Manslaughter mentioned in a previous post were from a July 2004 Building Trades Unions Conference at which Reverend Fred Nile, Katy Gallagher and John Della Bosca spoke. Below are some of the interesting quotes raised but before we reach them, in August 2004, the Federal Government, through its then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, issued a media release saying:
“This is in stark contrast to the ACT’s punitive industrial manslaughter law which simply places employers and employees in an adversarial workplace setting. Industrial manslaughter laws are unnecessary and can only create uncertainty for employers and employees.”
In 2004, the hottest occupational health and safety (OHS) topic was industrial manslaughter. In Melbourne, there were seminars on the topic that easily topped 200 participants. However it was also a year of confusion and fear, which may have accounted for the good seminar attendance figures.
At that time I was producing an online PDF Magazine and I devoted a whole edition to the topic. Now it is a time capsule of the issues and objections raised at the time which provide a useful context to the current debates. Here is my article on the issue from August 2004, slightly edited with links included, where possible.
On June 28 2018 in the West Australian Parliament, the Minister for Commerce and Industrial Relations, Bill Johnston, progressed the State’s move to towards harmonised Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws. According to Hansard, Johnston said
“Last July, I formed a ministerial advisory panel to advise on the development of a single, harmonised and comprehensive work health and safety act. The new act will cover all workplaces in Western Australia and be aligned with legislation in other Australian jurisdictions…..” (page 4146, emphasis added)
That WA will have new safety laws to cover all workplaces is a very good move;
Gaby Grammeno has been writing about workplace health and safety (WHS) issues for longer than I have. Her work for Workplace OHS, a subscription OHS news service, includes an “ask an expert” service and her latest is a comparison between the OHS/WHS laws involving “reckless endangerment” and “industrial manslaughter”.
The article is of interest to OHS people and reinforces some of the legal opinions on the proposed introduction of industrial manslaughter laws in Victoria. There is disparity in sentencing and financial penalties in Queensland laws compared to potential Victorian ones and one includes “serious injuries” where the other addresses deaths. But the issue of penalty sizes is a sideshow to the intended purpose of these types of laws – deterrence.
Will a penalty of A$3.8 million have a greater deterrent effect than A$3.1 million?