Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (2) to (7) circulated in my name together:

(2) Heading to clause 31, page 37 (line 5), after "Reckless", insert "or negligent".

(3) Clause 31, page 37 (line 11), after "reckless", insert "or negligent".

(4) Clause 245, page 173 (line 12), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".

(5) Clause 245, page 173 (lines 14 and 15), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".

(6) Clause 251, page 176 (line 17), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".

(7) Clause 251, page 176 (lines 19 and 20), omit "or recklessness", substitute ", recklessness or negligence".

These amendments will give effect to what one of the participants in the harmonisation process, the ACTU, certainly understood as being an element of what was agreed—namely, that, as well as intentional and reckless acts of employers being able to be prosecuted, grossly negligent acts would also be able to be prosecuted. The ACTU made the point in their submission to the Senate inquiry that they understood that they had received a direct commitment that gross negligence would be something that was able to be prosecuted. Of course, in the context of health and safety, that makes perfect sense. Proving recklessness requires proving an element of intent, whereas negligence, and gross negligence in particular, is about the failure to comply with the required standard of care. In an area as important as health and safety, where steps are required to be taken and certain systems are required to be in place, it makes perfect sense to allow gross negligence to be the relevant test and not simply recklessness or intent. So on that basis I commend amendments (2) to (7) to the House.

See this speech in context