Quote:
Originally Posted by tweeked
If he had no knowledge of this critical function?
Then it would prove beyond all doubt that he failed miserably. He created workplace manslaughter laws where it holds the top person responsible where they are unaware of critical functions.
The ONLY way he should escape responsibility is if he can prove that he ensured that there were checks and balances in place, that he made sure everyone covered off on foreseeable risks - and that they then lied to him. Continually saying they don't know who is responsible leads directly to failure at the top.
You have to open the other eye Trevor.
|
you are getting confused here, let's keep it simple
* as head of the Government he cannot be across
EVERYTHING that happens under him - any senior manager will tell you that. They all rely on the competence of the people below them. If there was an issue, maybe he trusted people he shouldn't have (given hindsight)
* Did he make the actual decision to use security guards? I am fairly confident he didn't personally make that decision, but, as in my previous post, he is accountable for that decision
As for quoting Victoria's new WORKPLACE manslaughter legislation (section 39A to 39G of the OHS Act 2004), if you read the legislation (and I have as I teach this stuff most days) the responsibility and accountability will sit with the most senior person who made the decisions - and just to get it exactly right, the legislation is aimed at 'workplaces over which there is undoubted control'. Does Andrews have undoubted control over the security company, the hotels - NO!!!!, he does over his employees etc. I love how people quote law, but never quite get it right
