Maybe, Peter, but the positive duty in the legislation is intended to stop work fatalities so that prosecution is not required. The lack of acceptance of the positive duty to do no harm by employers has turned into the risk management reality of “do nothing until we have a fatality”, or “do nothing until an Inspector calls”.

If a business has a profit boost, the employers do not seem to think to reinvest that profit into the health and welfare of workers which would support their duty of care. This is one of the areas where OHS activism and activity could influence government and, through government, employers. OHS professionals often try to counter an employer’s perception of OHS improvements as a cost by advocating that it is really an investment. That investment will pay the employer back through a more sustainable workforce and a corporate state of knowledge that is strengthened through worker retention. The logic is there, and it is supported by Australian evidence, but all of this is unable to counter the dominant (mis)understanding of OHS and the duty of care.