Workplace Safety: Sweeping Up OH&S Mess

By Boyce, Gerard | Review - Institute of Public Affairs, December 2005 | Go to article overview

Workplace Safety: Sweeping Up OH&S Mess

Boyce, Gerard, Review - Institute of Public Affairs

From a legal standpoint, breaches of workplace occupational health and safety (OH&S) laws are now on par with more conventional crimes against person or property. Indeed, with a majority of workplace accidents now involving die commission of a criminal offence, simply doing business has become akin to a quasi-criminal enterprise.

This disturbing approach to the regulation of OH&S by state and territory Labor Governments is an area of policy that is becoming not only largely incompatible with federalism, but also with the rule of law, individual freedom and the unique character of public government.

Nowhere are the problems better highlighted than in the recent introduction of differing offences for reckless or negligent conduct in die workplace resulting in death or serious injury in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. Despite the fact that these offences bear little real resemblance to the offence of criminal manslaughter by an individual, they are commonly referred to as 'industrial manslaughter' offences.


Unlike broader labour market regulation, state Labor Governments have historically been able to quarantine OH&S laws from the infections that flow from leftist class war ideology. But while commendable, this has been more the result of previous union approaches to OH&S, and the nature of the old industrial relations landscape, than a consequence of real leadership within the ALP.

Before the late 1970s, union involvement in OH&S was, at best, sporadic and half-hearted-confined to strikes and arbitral proceedings over safety issues, as well as seeking rents and special allowances such as accident make-up pay and dirt money. It was not until 1979, some four years after wage indexation started to bite, that the Australian Council of Trade Unions actually came up with an OH&S policy. But it was not until a declining membership base in the late 1980s, and questions surrounding ongoing union relevancy after the wages accord, that union leaders first properly recognised the enduring source of power, money and status that could come from unions institutionalising themselves as the collectivist moral voice and representative on all OH&S issues.

The unions monopolistic representation rights and other privileges under IR legislation have given them an undeserved private government status in Australian society. However, though unions may lack the sovereignty and control that defines public government, union privileges in the area of OH&S today are now so significant that their powers are much more expansive than the term 'private government' suggests.

Although not all of these OH&S privileges derive themselves solely from OH&S legislation or hold uniformly across all states and territories, they include: the ability to require that employees be paid for strikes related to 'genuine' safety concerns; the right to enter business premises without notice to investigate 'suspected' safety breaches; the right to be consulted over workplace safety, even where the union has no members; the right to prosecute employers for breaches of OH&S legislation; the right to obtain a 'bounty' in the form of half of any monetary penalty awarded in a unionled OH&S prosecution; and the right to be reimbursed by business for the legal costs incurred by the union in conducting an OH&S prosecution.

Over the past three years, proper debate about industrial manslaughter legislation across Australia has been polluted by the ability of some unions to leverage their standard class war mantra of 'blame' and 'exploitation' with state and territory Labor Governments. This has not only clouded the real regulatory and legal issues involved in this important area of public policy, but led to inconsistent and deficient legislative outcomes.


Laws in most civilised countries differ according to whether an offence is criminal or civil, due mainly to the seriousness of the moral stigmas and sanctions attached to a finding of criminality. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Workplace Safety: Sweeping Up OH&S Mess


Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25,

    New feature

    It is estimated that 1 in 10 people have dyslexia, and in an effort to make Questia easier to use for those people, we have added a new choice of font to the Reader. That font is called OpenDyslexic, and has been designed to help with some of the symptoms of dyslexia. For more information on this font, please visit

    To use OpenDyslexic, choose it from the Typeface list in Font settings.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search


    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.