Outrage at tough OSH rules

Some employers say they will be forced out of business if planned safety and health legislation is forced on them. Business editor JIM EAGLES reports.

Auckland businesses are outraged at plans to toughen occupational safety and health legislation.

Nearly two-thirds of companies that responded to an Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce survey indicated that the proposed changes would make them think twice about hiring staff.

Most firms condemned the draft law as appalling, saying it would do nothing to make workplaces safer.

The new rules are in the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill tabled by Labour Minister Margaret Wilson. They would:

* Increase penalties five-fold (to a maximum of $500,000).

* Ban companies from insuring against those penalties.

* Allow unions to bring prosecutions where Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) chooses not to.

* Authorise workplace health and safety representatives to issue notices to employers to fix hazards.

* Recognise stress and fatigue as occupational hazards.

Just under 500 businesses responded to the survey, conducted with the Business Herald. The response was the most vigorous the chamber had received.

Most indicated that they supported improving occupational safety but did not support Ms Wilson's suggestions.

The Auckland chamber's chief executive, Michael Barnett, said the strong response showed that the Government "should have done more to ascertain the feelings of business before they came out with legislation like this which obviously has a profound effect".

Mr Barnett said the chamber would prefer to see the Government working with business "rather than taking a sledgehammer approach and imposing prescriptive rules which business resents".

Several firms criticised the OSH proposals as part of a general trend by the Government to load more costs and responsibility onto business.

Typical comments were: "If the Government wants to stop business in its tracks they are going the right way about it", and "As an employer ... with a very small profit margin, I am afraid that I may be forced to give up my business if there are too many restrictions placed on it".

The inclusion of stress as an occupational hazard was criticised and respondents questioned the definition of "stress".

"This is a grey area and will cause more huge expenses for business if passed into law," wrote one member.

Some companies were worried about unions being able to bring prosecutions.

One member described the proposal involving unions as "extremely dangerous".

"A major danger in the proposals is the opening for disaffected union-affiliated employees to take malicious action," wrote another.

There was some support for the changes, but most of those that agreed with the reforms believed that the responsible majority were being penalised for an irresponsible few.

One said that "efforts should be directed at those types of business that have a bad record to encourage improvement rather than imposing an overall harsh penalty regime".

Another company said: "This is yet another example of the anti-business attitude of Margaret Wilson, who clearly cannot distinguish between 'big business' and 'small businesses' which are yet again penalised by not only the compliance costs but also the viciously increased penalty regime."

* In Forum tomorrow: Council of Trade Unions president Ross Wilson and Business NZ chief executive Simon Carlaw discuss the planned OSH rules.