IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v14y2025i4p49-d1702940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mining Work Health, Safety Laws and Serious Industrial Crimes in Australia: Down the Shaft of Jurisdictional Inconsistency

Author

Listed:
  • Trajce Cvetkovski

    (Faculty of Law and Business, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, QLD 4014, Australia)

  • Neville Weston

    (More Chambers, Brisbane City, QLD 4000, Australia)

Abstract

This article examines the level of inconsistency in work, health and safety (WHS) laws across Australia’s mining sector. Despite general efforts towards national harmonisation through model WHS legislation, significant inconsistencies persist because individual states and territories retain primary regulatory control. A critical analysis of each jurisdiction’s legislative framework reveals a fragmented legal landscape. Queensland, especially, exhibits notable divergence. Key findings highlight a considerable variation in legislative approaches to risk management principles and specific obligations. In particular, a disjointed and incremental approach to serious offences such as industrial manslaughter and provisions concerning imputed conduct are evident. These inconsistencies suggest that corporations operating in multiple Australian mining regions must develop a nuanced understanding of the varying WHS requirements in each jurisdiction. This study underscores the need for caution when assessing risk management strategies aimed at preventing serious incidents because the presumption of a harmonised system can be misleading, especially concerning mining-specific legislation.

Suggested Citation

  • Trajce Cvetkovski & Neville Weston, 2025. "Mining Work Health, Safety Laws and Serious Industrial Crimes in Australia: Down the Shaft of Jurisdictional Inconsistency," Laws, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-30, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:14:y:2025:i:4:p:49-:d:1702940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/14/4/49/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/14/4/49/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones-Lee, M. & Aven, T., 2011. "ALARP—What does it really mean?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(8), pages 877-882.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Moura Carneiro, F.O. & Barbosa Rocha, H.H. & Costa Rocha, P.A., 2013. "Investigation of possible societal risk associated with wind power generation systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 30-36.
    2. Sujan, Mark A. & Habli, Ibrahim & Kelly, Tim P. & Gühnemann, Astrid & Pozzi, Simone & Johnson, Christopher W., 2017. "How can health care organisations make and justify decisions about risk reduction? Lessons from a cross-industry review and a health care stakeholder consensus development process," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Patrik Baard, 2016. "Risk-reducing goals: ideals and abilities when managing complex environmental risks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 164-180, February.
    4. Antonio Nesticò & Shuquan He & Gianluigi De Mare & Renato Benintendi & Gabriella Maselli, 2018. "The ALARP Principle in the Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Acceptability of Investment Risk," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Risk assessment and risk management: Review of recent advances on their foundation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 1-13.
    6. Maria-Monika Metallinou & Torgrim Log, 2018. "Cold Climate Structural Fire Danger Rating System?," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Aven, Terje, 2019. "The cautionary principle in risk management: Foundation and practical use," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:14:y:2025:i:4:p:49-:d:1702940. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.