N※N

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : rnz
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Top and Current
Source : (remove) : rnz
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Current health and safety rules are unworkable, manufacturers say

Manufacturers Deem Current Health and Safety Rules Unworkable, Urge Government Overhaul

In a bold critique of New Zealand's workplace regulations, manufacturers and business leaders have labeled the existing health and safety rules as "unworkable" and overly burdensome, calling for urgent reforms to alleviate what they describe as stifling compliance costs and operational hurdles. This sentiment, voiced prominently by industry representatives, comes amid growing frustrations within the manufacturing sector, which argues that the current framework under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 is not only impractical but also detrimental to productivity and economic growth.

The chorus of discontent was highlighted in recent submissions to the government, where organizations such as the Manufacturers and Exporters Association (EMA) and other employer groups expressed their concerns. According to these stakeholders, the rules, introduced in the wake of the Pike River mining disaster to enhance worker safety, have evolved into a labyrinth of red tape that disproportionately affects small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Manufacturers claim that the emphasis on documentation, risk assessments, and compliance reporting has diverted resources away from core business activities, leading to inefficiencies and higher operational costs.

One key figure in this debate is Catherine Beard, the chief executive of the EMA, who has been vocal about the need for change. In her statements, Beard emphasized that while the intent behind the legislation—to protect workers—is commendable, its implementation has resulted in "overreach." She pointed out instances where businesses are required to conduct exhaustive risk assessments for even minor hazards, such as office ergonomics or routine machinery maintenance, which she argues creates unnecessary administrative burdens. "We're not against safety; we're against rules that make it harder to run a business without adding real value to worker protection," Beard reportedly said. This perspective resonates with many in the sector, where anecdotes abound of companies spending thousands of dollars on consultants and paperwork to meet compliance standards that feel disconnected from practical realities.

The manufacturers' grievances extend beyond mere paperwork. They argue that the current regime fosters a culture of fear among employers, who worry about severe penalties for non-compliance, including fines up to $3 million or imprisonment for serious breaches. This has led to what some describe as "defensive compliance," where businesses overcompensate by implementing excessive measures to avoid litigation, even when such steps are not proportionate to the actual risks involved. For example, in the manufacturing industry, where heavy machinery and hazardous materials are commonplace, the rules mandate worker participation in safety committees and regular audits. While these are designed to empower employees, critics say they often result in time-consuming meetings that disrupt production lines without significantly reducing accident rates.

Statistics from WorkSafe New Zealand, the regulatory body overseeing health and safety, paint a mixed picture. While workplace fatalities have decreased since the Act's introduction—from around 50 per year in the early 2010s to about 30 in recent years—the injury rate remains stubbornly high, with over 30,000 serious harm notifications annually. Manufacturers contend that this indicates the rules are not effectively targeting the root causes of accidents, such as inadequate training or equipment failures, but instead focus on bureaucratic processes. They advocate for a more targeted approach, perhaps drawing inspiration from international models like those in Australia or the UK, where regulations are streamlined to balance safety with business viability.

Government officials have acknowledged these concerns, with Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden signaling a willingness to review the Act. In a recent announcement, van Velden stated that the coalition government is committed to "cutting red tape" to boost economic productivity, and health and safety regulations are a prime area for reform. "We want rules that work for everyone—protecting workers while allowing businesses to thrive," she said. This aligns with the broader National-led government's agenda to reduce regulatory burdens, as outlined in their election promises. However, opposition parties, including Labour and the Greens, have cautioned against any changes that could undermine worker protections. Labour's workplace relations spokesperson, Camilla Belich, warned that diluting the rules might lead to a resurgence in workplace incidents, referencing the Pike River tragedy as a stark reminder of the consequences of lax oversight.

The debate has also drawn in unions, who offer a counterpoint to the manufacturers' views. Representatives from the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) argue that the current rules are essential for safeguarding vulnerable workers, particularly in high-risk industries like manufacturing. CTU president Richard Wagstaff has criticized the push for deregulation as "short-sighted," emphasizing that any reforms must prioritize evidence-based improvements rather than cost-cutting. "Health and safety isn't a burden; it's a right," Wagstaff asserted, highlighting cases where robust regulations have prevented accidents and saved lives.

Delving deeper into the manufacturers' specific complaints, a report commissioned by the EMA detailed several pain points. For instance, the requirement for "person conducting a business or undertaking" (PCBU) to consult with workers on all health and safety matters is seen as cumbersome for smaller operations without dedicated HR teams. In manufacturing plants, this can mean halting assembly lines for consultations on minor changes, leading to downtime and lost revenue. Additionally, the overlap between health and safety rules and other regulations, such as environmental standards or building codes, creates confusion and duplication of effort. Manufacturers propose simplifying these overlaps through a unified compliance framework that integrates multiple regulatory requirements.

Economic implications are a significant undercurrent in this discussion. New Zealand's manufacturing sector contributes approximately 10% to the GDP and employs over 200,000 people, making it a vital engine of the economy. Industry leaders warn that unworkable rules could drive businesses offshore or discourage investment. A survey by the EMA found that 60% of manufacturers reported increased costs due to compliance, with some estimating annual expenditures exceeding $50,000 per firm. This, they say, hampers competitiveness in global markets, where rivals in Asia or Europe face less stringent regulations.

To illustrate, consider the case of a mid-sized Auckland-based machinery producer that recently shared its experiences anonymously. The company, which exports components to Australia, described spending weeks preparing for a WorkSafe audit that focused more on paperwork than on-site safety practices. "We had all the right equipment and training in place, but the auditors wanted binders full of forms," a manager recounted. Such stories underscore the disconnect between regulatory intent and practical application.

Looking ahead, the government has initiated a consultation process, inviting submissions from businesses, workers, and experts. This could lead to amendments in the coming year, potentially including exemptions for low-risk activities, digital tools to streamline reporting, or performance-based standards that reward safe practices rather than punishing minor infractions. Manufacturers are optimistic that these changes could reinvigorate the sector, but they stress the need for balanced reforms that don't compromise safety.

In conclusion, the outcry from manufacturers highlights a tension at the heart of New Zealand's regulatory landscape: the challenge of fostering a safe work environment without impeding business efficiency. As the government navigates this complex issue, the outcomes will have far-reaching effects on workers' rights, economic productivity, and the nation's industrial future. With stakeholders on all sides engaged, the path forward requires careful dialogue to ensure that safety remains paramount while addressing the legitimate concerns of those on the front lines of production.

(Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full rnz Article at:
[ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/568386/current-health-and-safety-rules-are-unworkable-manufacturers-say ]