• Peter Bateman
    272
    In the July/August edition of Safeguard magazine we pose three questions based on stories in the magazine. One of them is this:

    Grant Nicholson and Lauren Eastlake note that in Australia, organisations convicted of a health & safety offence can be additionally sanctioned with a time-limited ban from tendering for government projects. 
    Would this facility be worth considering here?


    Feel free to respond here on the Forum, or privately here via a Survey Monkey form.

    An edited selection of responses will be published in the Sept/Oct edition, but with no names attached. One randomly selected person will receive a prize, namely a copy of the book Do Safety Differently, by Sidney Dekker and Todd Conklin.
  • Steve H
    308
    Absolutely, anything that might improve our Workplace Death, Serious Accident rates is worth a go in my book.
  • Denise
    27
    Sounds like double jeopardy. So if your organisation relies on Govt contracts 100% then potentially out of business but if they don't then potentially no additional or minor impact for them. From my observations this already appears to be factored into tendering for Government contracts as information regarding any Company prosecutions is required to be disclosed (usually for a specified period) and generally the questions appear to be more interested in what occurred, what lessons have been learned and what changes have been made to prevent another occurrence i.e. what level of HSE maturity the Organisation displays. So not a formal ban but potential to have an impact during the tendering process on organisations that haven't stepped up, rather than a one punishment fits all approach.
  • Aaron Marshall
    118
    I think that this would decrease the pool of tenderers that the Gov't has to use.
    There are already many companies who simply find that the hassle of dealing with Government entities is simply not worth the time.
  • Andrew
    404
    Govt tenders - well theres a crock of the proverbial. They would prefer to go off shore or support people based on race rather than support local.
  • Steve H
    308


    Does seem the way it is currently Andrew, but that's a whole other thing.
  • Yonny Yeung
    11
    Interesting... I think companies being convicted will just change their name on 1 April, as many companies do every other year. Then they start afresh with a new name.

    Like others said, depends on your industry. We usually work indirectly on government projects through another contractor. We waste hours on tendering every year, but never had any luck getting a government project, as we don't cover all their needs.
  • Chris Peace
    86
    Why not amend section 383 of the Companies Act to include offences under the HSWA and so enable regulatory agencies to apply to the court to disqualify a director for a period of time? This might stop an SME from trading and would hurt directors of large PCBUs. This is occasionally done in the UK.
    Not a perfect solution but it would be another tool in the regulatory kit.
    As a further thought, Gisborne District Council just got convictions of two forestry companies under the RMA. Those companies had been previously convicted of HSWA breaches. Officers/directors of recidivist PCBUs need to know they can lose their jobs
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to the Safeguard forum!

If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.