Comments on: Insurance over OHS prosecution hits the deterrence effect

By: Cry of frustration in Industrial Manslaughter Bill « SafetyAtWorkBlog

Cry of frustration in Industrial Manslaughter Bill « SafetyAtWorkBlog — Mon, 11 May 2015 22:00:30 +0000

[…] insurance several times, referring to the prosecution of a company director who, in 2014, had an insurance company pay his fine for an OHS breach. Franks stated to the SA Parliament on 6 May […]

By: Fear of exposure rather than pride in their work « SafetyAtWorkBlog

Fear of exposure rather than pride in their work « SafetyAtWorkBlog — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 22:02:34 +0000

[…] and company lawyers extending the defence to WHS prosecutions, particularly at a time when one company director’s fine was covered by an insurance […]

By: MP wants to close a dodgy loophole but vision is warranted « SafetyAtWorkBlog

Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:00:53 +0000

[…] of the most discussed posts on this blog concerned an insurance company that paid the fines awarded against a company director. The […]

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Sun, 11 Aug 2013 05:53:42 +0000

In reply to Mick. Mick, there is nothing \"surely\" about this, sadly.

By: Mick

Mick — Sun, 11 Aug 2013 05:08:50 +0000

Surely the regulator would seek an injunction to prevent this

By: Robert Walterfang

Robert Walterfang — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 03:10:35 +0000

The only way I can see the this changing is that when the legislator (SafeWork SA), will impose the new fines under the WHS laws next year and then the insurance directors will not be able to take the liability of the larger fines because the premiums will not be able cover the fine.

The problem you also have this will take some time due to the fact the fines under the new WHS 2012 will not be enforced until Jan 2014 and then it will take approx 2 yrs., for the first case to become public as per the Adelaide Aqua desalination plant.

There will always be someone out there trying to find a loophole in the legislation. We are now at the realm of changing legislation for common sense.

In regards to the desalination plant in SA, the Principle Contractor must take some responsibility also, when I was inducted onto the site the only thing the HSE/OHS Advisor taking the induction could talk about for 2.5hrs was being on time and being under budget, I think I roughly counted 38 times.

This is now when the HSE/OHS professionals need to take responsibility for their position regardless of Project Management, because as we all know ATTITUDE on site is critical, this was set up to fail because conducting a Safety Induction with the main theme was “being on time and being under budget” sets up a culture of taking short cuts. This is the first mistake.

By: Andrea Madeley

Andrea Madeley — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 01:59:14 +0000

So true – the question is what is to be done?

My curiosity immediately moved to the question as to how many contractors and indeed companies involved in the joint venture were covered under such a policy? Was it just the one or was it many? I would like to think this is one area Parliament will look into.

I am trying to consolidate in my own mind the legal issues here. It\’s a very disturbing result for any sentence. Is there even an avenue to appeal? I would have thought that would be the quickest path to legal clarity on all levels of sentencing issues but on what grounds would that appeal be lodged? It\’s hard to conceive the Supreme or High Court being willing to tread on Parliament\’s territory given that it seems to be more a policy issue than one of interpretation.

The insurance companies must be rubbing its self righteous hands together with glee. To think of the compensation rights the average worker gave up in the face of a this same industry hollering about the undue pressures being placed on it. The only thing I am certain of here, should this become common place practise, premiums will rise.

By: Brett

Brett — Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:18:39 +0000

motoguzzirulz – That was the point of the article, your understanding has been challenged, insurance paid the fine, it was done and all the law professors were wrong. The question is what is to be done about it?

By: motoguzzirulz

motoguzzirulz — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 01:43:02 +0000

You cannot insure again a criminal prosecutions, Pecunary penalties can not be paid by Insurance of an sort period. I recall for my Law Lectures by a very leared multiple degree law lecurer. I await to so who would challenge this precept. It will be very interesting,thus I operate on what has been statedto me until it is challenged.
Cheers.

By: mick

mick — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:52:18 +0000

The focus here has been on the avoidance of the penalty but should Adelaide Aqua have been required to take a more direct role in the safety arrangements of its contractors, employing someone to perform a specialist role that you cant and has a safety strike already against them could mean the managing of risk is obscured and the BP oil rig disaster where more than one company was found to have been responsible for this with BP having a company subcontracted to it all were fined .