Businesses flag 'several significant issues' in the bill
Reforms to New Zealand's work health and safety law and regulations has passed the first reading, as businesses warn about "several significant issues" that can introduce problems in the future.
The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill aims to strengthen Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) and clarify the function of workplace safety regulator WorkSafe.
Under the bill, ACOPs will serve as compliance "safe harbours," meaning businesses need only meet the ACOP for their sector to satisfy health and safety obligations.
The bill also recasts WorkSafe as a body that focuses on providing guidance on the critical risks workplaces must address, rather than expecting employers to immediately manage every conceivable hazard.
"Today is a win for practical, common-sense changes that will set businesses up for success in keeping people safe," said Workplace Safety Minister Brooke van Velden in a statement.
"This new focus will make WorkSafe a more consistent and helpful agency, so that businesses can get the support they need to keep workers safe, without wasting resources on external consultants or excessive paperwork compliance."
Business concerns remain
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) of New Zealand said they support the bill, but flagged several issued that may lead to "unintended consequences."
"Overall, we support the Bill's intent," said Paul Jarvie, EMA Manager of Employment Relations and Safety, in a statement.
"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."
One of these problems the EMA pointed out is allowing small, low-risk businesses to only manage critical risks and provide basic facilities to ensure worker welfare.
"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," Jarvie said.
He warned of a problematic disconnect if small businesses are required to meet only the critical-risk criteria, noting that these do not address the leading causes of workplace injury, such as strains, sprains, and back injuries.
"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."
"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."
Jarvie added that while EMA strongly supports the industry-led ACOPs, the absence of draft regulations could cause confusion to businesses.
"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," he said.
"Employers need confidence that they'll receive consistent, practical advice. Without that, the risk-based model won't deliver the improvements we all want."
New Zealand's reforms have been introduced in response to business calls for greater clarity around health and safety obligations.
"I'm looking forward to hearing feedback, particularly around whether these changes are clear and workable, once the Bill opens for submissions at select committee," van Velden said.
