MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY NOT RETRIBUTION
Member for Western Victoria Region, Bev McArthur spoke on the Workplace Safety Legislation Amendment (Workplace Manslaughter and Other Matters) Bill 2019 in Parliament, before it passed through the Legislative Council.
Quotes attributable to Bev McArthur MP:
“This is a bill which is not only unnecessary but actively damaging, indeed counterproductive. This is not a theoretical debate. It is not a disagreement about philosophy or politics. It has real life consequences for businesses and the livelihoods of those they employ.”
“Negligent manslaughter is already covered under common law, which includes injury and death in the workplace. Codifying this law is completely unnecessary unless the true intention is to impose a greater burden on employers.”
“The Labor Party, their cross bench friends and the unions do not have ownership over wanting a safe work place. Industry groups, employers, farmers and employees obviously all want a safe work place.” “Those who do not comply with existing regulations regarding safety and risk procedures can already be investigated and charged.”
“There are further issues with the legislation involving WorkSafe as opposed to police having primary responsibility for workplace injury or death investigation involving criminal sanctions of $16m in fines and 20 years imprisonment.”
“This legislation is anti-business and anti-sensible workplace practice. This Bill could see enterprises reducing their workforce numbers and even shutting up shop. This is no way to build a co-operative work place environment and no way to foster harmonious relationships. Whatever happened to common sense?”
“Mr Meddick (Animal Justice Party) referred to ‘retribution’ in relation to injury and death on work sites. I took complete exception to this proposition, having lost a son to a road incident involving two workers and a father who endured quadriplegia in a farm accident as a contractor. Our family could have gone down the retribution path but that would have not brought our son back, restored my father to full working capacity, or improved the lives of those involved in the accidents.”
“The number of workplace fatalities in the ACT, where such legislation as this exists, has remained constant since 2003 when the industrial manslaughter offences were first introduced. There is no evidence that such legislation has improved the lot of anyone it it has placed an extra compliance burden on employers which is particularly costly for small business and farms.”
“I am concerned that the new legislation is simply political grandstanding. It is about playing to Labor Party and Greens factions and their union bosses who have wanted this legislation for decades. It is not about improving workplace safety and shouldn’t just be a publicity stunt for the Premier. This is legislation. It is the law, and it is a law that in its current form could make things worse, not better.”
“Similar legislation operates in Queensland and the case of the Goggin family business was highlighted in a recent Senate Enquiry and after two years of court proceedings, hundreds of thousands of dollars later and a collapsed business; it was found no charges could be laid. Mr Goggin referred to the legislation needing a ‘poster boy’ to justify their existence. A shocking outcome for all concerned, including the family whose son was the victim.”
“The bill ignores employee responsibility for workplace safety. If there is to be a new law to prevent workplace fatalities, it must apply to all in the workplace. Excluding employees undermines the fundamental principle of shared responsibility for workplace safety. Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the principle applies to workplace safety too.”
The Coalition sought to pass an amendment to exclude family farms and explicitly include bodies of the Crown.
Mrs McArthur said “Family farms are unique businesses where, because farmers are often both the employers and employees, it was essential to pass the amendment to exclude family farms.” The Government and their cross bench friends rejected all reasonable amendments.
“The act should bind the Crown. There should be no doubt that this legislation must involve these bodies… It would be self-interested, hypocritical and a sham if the government tried to shed responsibility in this way.” This didn’t happen either.
During Committee, Mrs McArthur asked numerous questions of the Government, including:
“In a situation on a farm, if an animal activist invaded a farm and caused an injury to a worker, who would be responsible, the farmer or the animal activist?”
“Minister, in the situation of local government, if an injury or death occurs in the workplace, who is responsible, the CEO, the mayor or the councillors?”
“We are in a new era of litigation and retribution where individual responsibility seems to have been replaced by blame and demands for solutions by others, including government.”
“Governments would be better placed to encourage individual and mutual responsibility instead of wielding big sticks and attributing blame to the people who take the financial risks and provide the vast majority of jobs in this State for both union and non-union members.”
ENDS
3 December 2019