For a country that is not highly industrialised, New Zealand has a poor record for accidents on the job. Each year, some 160 people die from workplace accidents and 400 die from work-related illnesses. The cost of injuries is about $3 billion. Such statistics suggests that an element of "she'll be right, mate" still pervades some workplaces. Sometimes this attitude may be adopted by employers, on others by employees. In all instances, however, safety in the workplace is everybody's responsibility. That responsibility must be shared honestly and fairly. Unwisely, proposals for tough new safety laws, outlined in a discussion paper, threaten to misplace that burden.
Most contentious is the suggestion that staff health and safety representatives should be allowed to issue notices that would force their employers to rectify a hazard or shut off dangerous machines. Employers could appeal to Occupational Health and Safety inspectors, who would confirm or revoke the notices. The Minister of Labour will have nothing of the suggestion that this power could be used as a weapon in industrial disputes. "It's not like someone can come up and just close down the plant. It's not that stupid," says Margaret Wilson. She argues that machines would be closed down only "after a process of investigation." But at no stage before the shutdown will OSH, the body best qualified to rule on safety, be involved. Effectively, a production line could stop operating because of workers' qualms about one piece of machinery.
No one should be compelled to work in an unsafe environment. But the unnecessary halting of production could be easily avoided if OSH were the arbiter in such disputes. This would involve inspectors being available immediately to evaluate the safety of machinery. Such a procedure could, of course, necessitate the beefing up of OSH. But if, as the Council of Trade Unions claims, our workplace safety record is "shameful," that is surely the most sensible course. But the proposed changes to the Health and Safety in Employment Act seem, if anything, to limit the service's role. OSH, for example, would no longer be the sole prosecuting body. So there would less consistency in bringing prosecutions.
OSH, in fact, seems to be being chastised for the low risk of prosecution. The paper says the chances of a negligent employer being inspected, let alone facing a financial penalty, is slim. Unions have long argued that this is a measure of the service's ineffectiveness. In fact, of course, much of the work of OSH inspectors goes unremarked because the vast majority of employers comply with notices of required improvements. In any event, the Government would do well to establish whether OSH's effectiveness has been hampered by a lack of manpower and resources.
The discussion paper's other key proposal could see employers face fines of $500,000 - a fivefold increase - and two years in jail for knowingly allowing employees to work in conditions which might cause death or serious harm. Such penalties are clearly justified for serious breaches, particularly when an employer persistently fails to take "all practicable steps" to protect workers, as required by the law.
In 1997, a wool-scoring company was fined $50,000 when a serious accident occurred on site less than three years after it was prosecuted for a fatal accident. Its record in safety matters was a factor in the size of the penalty. That sum, however, is of little consequence to large employers. A stronger deterrent would undoubtedly help to focus the minds of employers, big and small.
The greatest incentive for compliance with the law lies, however, in the work of OSH. A couple of years ago, the number of accidents on construction sites became totally unacceptable. Max Bradford, the Minister of Labour, instructed OSH to inspect sites to find out why so many workers were being killed. Action was to be taken wherever there was evidence of unsafe practices. That approach placed the emphasis where it should be.
A highly visible, available and well-resourced team of OSH inspectors is the key to a safer working environment. There is no need to tilt the balance against employers. Stricter penalties will ensure they are more aware of their responsibilities. But, in the final analysis, the fear of getting caught is the best guarantee of a safer workplace.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
Should ratepayers foot the bill to ensure freedom campers stick to the rules?
Whangarei District Council reviews need for monitoring of freedom camping.