Proposed changes to Health and Safety Laws
You may have seen the proposed changes to Health and Safety laws, whereby the government wants to reduce compliance costs and provide greater certainty for businesses. Bell Gully have a good summation of the proposed reforms here, but basically the Government is endeavouring to reduce the compliance burden, clarify health and safety duties (including limiting obligations for small, low-risk businesses) and clarify the distinction between governance and operational health and safety responsibilities.
There are many opposing points of view on the changes. Council of Trade Unions president Richard Wagstaff has said
"It's disappointing to see the minister has ignored the widespread consensus on what New Zealand needs to do to improve its poor track record and instead has chosen to carve out small businesses from good health and safety practices.
Exempting small businesses from best practice health and safety makes no sense when we know that small business are riskier and need more support."
Institute of Directors general manager Guy Beatson said
"Clarifying that boards are accountable for risk management and safety culture - not hands-on management - will mean directors can better focus on their core governance role without inadvertently overstepping."
Mike Cosman, chair of the Institute of Safety Management said
"The reforms are focused instead on costs to businesses of prevention and not the much greater costs of harm.
This seems to be looking through the wrong end of the telescope to us because the cost of our poor health and safety record is north of $4.9 billion per year to say nothing of the impact on workers and their families."
Russell Hutchinson has taken a look at the proposed regulations and put in his two cents.
As a country we have a not-terrible, but not-so-good track record on health and safety. One measure is fatal accidents, here I have selected countries we often use in comparisons:
Clearly, we are not as bad as, say, the United States. If we delved into that we would see significant variation on a state-by-state basis – but let’s not worry about that for now. Compared to Australia, for roughly every three people who die in a workplace accident there, four will die here. Not so good. What’s surprising is how well the UK performs – better than France and much of the EU, and better than Japan, places I normally consider to be better organised and more prescriptive in terms of employee protections. Not so! I like it when we find good data which challenges my pre-existing view. It’s a reward for paying attention to the data.
Are the proposed changes to governance liability right or wrong? One argument could be that by reducing liability on directors the workplace will become less safe. Another view is that by ensuring we place responsibility on the people who are closest to the problem we will better target the point at which better decisions can be made. Probably we will not know which until we have seen this operate for some time. Progress always seems to be so slow. Incentives also count – and the role of ACC, which has many benefits to our economy, also has some negative effects, somewhat masking the price signal in this case. I wonder if that will also get talked about.
More news:
Russell Hutchinson explains Non-Pharmac medicines coverage
AIA introducing a new excess option to AIA Private Health
AIA have updated Rules to Reinstate Policies
FSC Workplace Savings Half-Yearly Function 2025 is on 21 May
Financial Advice NZ are holding a 'Community of Practice: Central District' on 29 April
How to reduce chronic inflammation in your body
Eating well and getting regular exercise are most effective longevity tactics
Report finds deposit insurance scheme could see deposit interest rates fall significantly
Commerce Commission puts banks’ clawbacks, conversions and disincentives under scrutiny