Companies or regulatory authorities whose faulty processes resulted in death or catastrophic failure should be called to account, Labour Party justice spokesman Andrew Little said in Dunedin yesterday.
Mr Little was in the city to talk to an aviation conference. After his conference speech, he told the Otago Daily Times that a corporate manslaughter law, as opposed to ordinary manslaughter as it was now under the Crimes Act, dealt with collective failures of governance and management.
''It deals with systems failures and it deals with poor culture at all levels.''
Drawing on his experience as the former national secretary of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, Mr Little said he had represented families in coroner's inquests and had challenged the Department of Labour's failure to proceed with investigations after workers had died.
New Zealand did not have a good record in work safety and people still died in work-related accidents.
''The call for a specific law on corporate manslaughter reflects ongoing concern, if not despair, at our persistently high workplace fatality rate.''
It was difficult under the Crimes Act for the collective failure of a number of responsible people - any of whom might be regarded as culpable - to be called to account, he said.
Referring to the Pike River mine tragedy, Mr Little said it was not just the directors and management of the company who failed in that case.
''The other system that failed was our health and safety regulations, including the inspectorate.''
Former Pike River mine chief executive Peter Whittall should not be the only one in the dock when the case went to trial, he said.
Mr Little was sponsoring a Crimes (Corporate Manslaughter) Bill that was waiting to be drawn out of the ballot in Parliament.
The Bill could be used in cases where the Probation Service failed to protect victims when offenders were not monitored closely enough and they ended up committing further crimes.
On the issue of accident investigations in the aviation sector, Mr Little acknowledged the purpose of the limitations on the use of cockpit voice recorders in criminal and other proceedings. It was in the public interest that aviation accident investigations were able to proceed without obstruction from those who would otherwise seek to withhold evidence as a matter of avoiding self-incrimination, he said.
