Accordingly, where the due diligence obligation under the RSNL refers an officer of the “an person,” the ATA considers it has to be read as officer of the organisation.” “an In of the above, the breadth of the due diligence obligation under the RSNL is the same as under the WHS Act. Both national safety laws require an officer of an organisation to exercise due diligence to ensure that the organisation complies with its duties and obligations. Neither law goes as far as option 4 and requires officers to exercise due diligence to ensure that natural persons comply with their obligations. Summary of expected impacts from option 4 Given the above assessment, the ATA considers that table 5 in the RIS should be recast as follows: Type of impact Compliance costs Safety impacts Administrative costs Increase in the Potential for Modest reductions scope of executive improvements in in the cost of officer liability safety due to investigating and Potential for an removal of doubt prosecuting increase in about executive executive officers compliance costs officer Potential for some Any increase will responsibility for implementation be limited due to compliance and costs the existing reduced requirements of complexity executive officers No evidence under the HVNL provided in the and the Model RIS that the option WHS Act captures serious Any increase will safety-related Qualitative be worsened by offences that are assessment the inconsistency not already of this option with captured the model WHS Widening the Act. scope of liability Guidance may increase materials will be regulatory required to complexity and minimise reduce safety implementation costs Option inconsistent with relevant COAG principles and guidelines. ATA recommendation Governments should adopt option 3 in the consultation RIS.
Accordingly, where the due diligence obligation under the RSNL refers an “an officer of the person,” the ATA considers it has to be read as “an officer of the organisation.” In of the above, the breadth of the due diligence obligation under the RSNL is the same as under the WHS Act. Both national safety laws require an officer of an organisation to exercise due diligence to ensure that the organisation complies with its duties and obligations. Neither law goes as far as option 4 and requires officers to exercise due diligence to ensure that natural persons comply with their obligations. Summary of expected impacts from option 4 Given the above assessment, the ATA considers that table 5 in the RIS should be recast as follows: Type of impact Compliance costs Safety impacts Administrative costs Qualitative assessment Increase in the scope of executive officer liability Potential for an increase in compliance costs Any increase will be limited due to the existing requirements of executive officers under the HVNL and the Model WHS Act Any increase will be worsened by the inconsistency of this option with the model WHS Act. Guidance materials will be required to minimise implementation costs Option inconsistent with relevant COAG principles and guidelines. Potential for improvements in safety due to removal of doubt about executive officer responsibility for compliance and reduced complexity No evidence provided in the RIS that the option captures serious safety-related offences that are not already captured Widening the scope of liability may increase regulatory complexity and reduce safety Modest reductions in the cost of investigating and prosecuting executive officers Potential for some implementation costs ATA recommendation Governments should adopt option 3 in the consultation RIS.
ATA%20executive%20officer%20due%20diligence%20RIS%20submission%2022042016.docx