Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I will make this a brief contribution. It is very clear the Labor Party comprehensively, thoroughly consulted on this bill, multiple credible organisations, the example of other jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth. This is robust legislation. Obviously, I am not the DPP, but I found this morning’s briefing unpersuasive and confusing. When I sought clarity about, ‘if the collective of parliament passes this bill unamended, what does that mean for the DPP, what is the issue here?’, I could not glean the answer.
Most of us are seasoned briefing attenders. Invariably, you will leave a briefing clearer in your mind about the bill you are to debate. I am less so. I am absolutely clear this bill needs to be supported today, but the problem the government has is that there has been this last-minute flurry from government, WorkSafe Tasmania, the Director of Public Prosecutions, that sort of landed on us when we are talking about legislation – which has been a very long time coming, far too long coming – legislation where the will of the House of Assembly has been expressed. We are debating it having passed the other place.
I cannot see the merit in sending it off to Committee A. I was quite interested in the member for Mersey’s discussion on potentially, extra briefings, but I still cannot be sure that would make us any the wiser. I will briefly go through it again.
We have the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, which has made a compelling case for an industrial manslaughter offence to be included in the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2012. We have the example, particularly most recently of Queensland’s thorough review and legislative development processes, the work of the Commonwealth inquiry, and other legislation to look at. One of the weakest arguments made this morning in the briefing that did not hold water was that we need to look for model consistent legislation. If we are looking for some consistency, we do not complicate negligence by requiring for there to be a culpability there because, as I understand it, other jurisdictions have taken a range of approaches, but the majority have settled on a simple negligence test.
We had a lack of clarity from the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning, an overly complex explanation from WorkSafe Tasmania, and on my e-mail at 3.05 this afternoon, more correspondence from the DPP.
Tasmania needs this legislation. People who go off to work, send people they love off to work, need this legislation. Employers need to have an understanding that parliament expects workplaces to be safe and I believe the deterrent effect of this legislation would be significant. It is unarguable that it has the capacity to prevent death and workplace injury.
Regarding the government’s argument that there is no need for this offence, in the last century since the Criminal Code Act was enacted, how many employers have been convicted for culpable negligence, negligence causing death or injury in the workplace? I think it might be zero. Clearly there is a need for this legislation.
I understand and respect where the member for McIntyre is coming from. Obviously, concerns have been raised, particularly by the business sector. However, we get specious arguments like this one from the Tasmanian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, which talks about industrial manslaughter laws having no mandate because it was not a policy position that formed part of the 2024 election policy platform of either the Tasmanian Liberal Party or the Jacqui Lambie Network. Hello, parliament calling. Parliament makes the laws in Tasmania. The Labor Party has a mandate to deliver this legislation. Parliament has a mandate to do everything we can to make sure that our workplaces are safe, and that when people head off to work, send someone they love off to work, they know they will come home.
Mr President, I will not be supporting the referral to a committee.
