Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4861 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

for this legislation. It was put strongly to our committee that bad corporate culture needs to be attacked-through the corporate responsibility part of the criminal code.

Mrs Dunne: Absolutely.

MR STEFANIAK: Mrs Dunne says, "Absolutely,"and we agree with that wholeheartedly. It is not as if we have not had successful prosecutions for manslaughter in the industrial context in the past. While not in Canberra, in Victoria manslaughter is generally a very hard offence to prove. In New South Wales recently, someone threw someone off a train in the face of an oncoming train, and they had difficulty finding manslaughter there. The jury found manslaughter-and so they should have-but it shows how difficult manslaughter can be. It is a hard act to prove, and rightly so, because it is a very serious offence.

There was a recent successful prosecution in Victoria for industrial manslaughter. A young apprentice was told by his foreman, at the direction of his boss, to fix up the acid vat. The foreman did not show him how to, and the young fellow died. There was a successful prosecution against the boss, who went to jail. I was going through Watson and Purnell on the criminal law-I have got the 1971 edition-and found that it quoted as an example of manslaughter a case where one someone did the wrong thing in the workplace and a worker died; they went to jail. It happens under our existing law.

Why do we need a separate offence for industrial manslaughter? If we go down this path, why don't we have sporting manslaughter arising from incidents on the sporting fields, motor vehicle manslaughter arising from accidents on the road or maybe manslaughter when the victim is under 18? We do not have those, because we do not need them. I will take the case in point of motor vehicle manslaughter.

People have been convicted of manslaughter in relation to the driving of motor vehicles. There is also the lesser offence of culpable driving, which I suggested in my report might be a more appropriate road for the government to go down. It is a lot tidier legally and is more consistent with the law. Why do we need a separate offence for industrial manslaughter? Manslaughter is manslaughter, and the fact that there have been successful prosecutions says it all.

Ms Dundas raised the question of how often this legislation would be used. Thankfully, we have very few deaths, and they are getting fewer. But how often would this be used? It could well be that we never see this offence used. If, as the government says-to my committee and, I assume, today-there is no real difference between the standards and elements needed to prove manslaughter and those needed to prove industrial manslaughter, why on earth do we need this bill? If both offences are the same, you do not need it.

You do not need to scare off all these businesses, rightly or wrongly, and jeopardise the jobs of thousands of ACT workers, the prosperity of this territory and the families of workers. That does not help anyone, especially if the laws are in place now and other laws in relation to occupational health and safety can be enhanced.

Other laws in relation to occupational health and safety are being enhanced in other jurisdictions, which are not going down this path. They are going down the path of

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .