Source: EMA
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) says the government’s new Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill takes a constructive step towards a modern, risk-based system – but warns several significant issues must be addressed through the submission and select committee process.
EMA Manager of Employment Relations and Safety Paul Jarvie says a risk-focused framework is the right direction. However, there are flaws and inconsistencies that could undermine its intent.
“A modern, risk-based approach is different to what we currently have, but the current approach isn’t working. So it’s worth trying this – a framework successfully used in other jurisdictions around the world.
“We do have concerns about the proposed exemptions for smaller businesses (fewer than 20 employees), as size has no bearing on risk, and some of the proposed exemptions could create new problems rather than solving old ones.”
The proposed bill limits these businesses’ requirements to identify and manage critical risks. Businesses with more than 20 workers, however, would continue to be responsible for managing all risks, not just critical ones.
However, the greatest cause of workplace injuries across all sectors is strains, sprains, and back injuries. These would not meet the critical-risk criteria and therefore would not be required to be identified or managed.
Jarvie says this creates a problematic disconnect.
“It’s vital that businesses collect all this data – for example, incident and near-miss reports – to understand what is potentially going to happen next. Low-level injuries can often help identify a more significant issue. Workplace violence, fatigue, and stress are other examples of issues employers need to identify and manage but which would not meet the critical-risk criteria,” he says.
“Creating a distinction between a small business and a large business doesn’t make any sense when both could have the same risks and injury profiles.”
Another challenge is allowing other legislation to override health and safety requirements if those duties are already covered elsewhere.
Jarvie says this creates uncertainty and could lead to unintended consequences.
“We already see conflicting requirements between agencies – for example, between land transport rules and health and safety guidance. Without clearer definitions, the bill risks widening those gaps.”
The EMA strongly supports the bill’s proposed industry-led Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) and its clearer distinction between governance and operational duties.
However, Jarvie says the absence of draft regulations could add confusion.
“We urgently need regulations to support the current Health and Safety at Work Act. It’s critical that we see them and that they align with and direct the bill’s intent.”
Jarvie says the success of the reforms will rely on a well-resourced, modern regulator that works collaboratively with business, similar to the Swedish system.
“Employers need confidence that they’ll receive consistent, practical advice. Without that, the risk-based model won’t deliver the improvements we all want.”
“Overall, we support the Bill’s intent,” Jarvie says. “But several significant issues need to be addressed to avoid unintended consequences. If we get this right, it will help New Zealand finally shift its stubborn health and safety performance.”
The EMA will continue reviewing the legislation in detail and will provide further guidance to its members in the coming weeks.