Key themes for improvement identified in the submissions and roadshows
On this page
Feedback from the submission surveys tended to be relatively even, with both positive and negative views expressed in relation to a range of matters across the system. Feedback from the Roadshows tended to be more pointed, with stronger views and themes emerging in relation to particular issues. Submitters and roadshow feedback on the Regulator most often related to WorkSafe rather than the other two designated Regulators (Maritime New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority).
The following high-level themes emerged from feedback on the consultation surveys and Roadshows, regarding areas for improvement:
There is need to increase certainty within the system, and reduce unnecessary compliance and red tape
Feedback was clear that workers and businesses take their work health and safety responsibilities seriously and understand the importance of having have effective measures in place to address risks. There was a broad view that the Act itself is generally working well, though issues within the system are causing problems, creating uncertainty, and driving costs. In particular:
- There is a lack of clarity, guidance and outdated regulations relating to some parts of the system. Submitters commonly identified the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017, sections of Part 2 of the Act (though some felt it worked well), and a lack of detail and ambiguity regarding guidance and Approved Codes of Practice as problem areas.
- This was also reflected in the Roadshows, where some attendees noted they are trying to do the right thing, but compliance costs are too high, and there is a need for greater certainty about what they need to do under the Act (and how to do it), particularly from small businesses. Examples included that more clarity is needed on what is ‘reasonably practicable’ regarding actions and compliance under the Act, and the need for up-to-date Approved Codes of Practice and guidance across a range of sectors. Roadshow feedback also noted concern with sections of Part 2 of the Act, such as clarity around officers’ duties and landowner liabilities for recreational land-use.
- A lack of certainty about what is required can drive unnecessary compliance and costs for businesses, particularly for small businesses. Some feel they don’t know what to do and/or need to take disproportionate or unhelpful measures, such as through a proliferation of work health and safety consultancy advice and paper-based systems, regardless of whether they are practical, useful or proportionate. Roadshow feedback also included concerns about proliferation of pre-qualification requirements in procurement/tendering and subcontracting, ineffective paper-based compliance, or impractical risk management and training tick-box systems.
There are discrete problems within the Act that require attention
At a broad level, Submitters were sharply divided about whether the work health and safety regulatory system’s settings are correctly balanced, with relatively even proportions of negative and positive views on whether settings are over or under-cautious, clear, effective, flexible and durable, proportionate to the risk or balancing costs with risks. This indicates that as well as positive views, there are an equally significant proportion of negative views about whether the current balance is desirable.
In addition to the need for improved guidance and certainty within the work health and safety system covered above, uncertainty and confusion caused by overlaps with other regulatory systems was identified as an issue. The most common difficult overlaps identified by Submitters were between the Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, the Building Act 2004 and the Land Transport Act 1998. Roadshow feedback also included confusion about overlaps, such as in relation to road cone use in traffic management, or evacuation of earthquake-prone buildings.
There is need for improvements to WorkSafe
Submitters’ experiences with WorkSafe were highly variable, although there was a slightly higher proportion of strongly negative responses than positive. Much of the feedback was sharply divided between negative and positive responses, or with a large proportion of partial satisfaction in relation to different types of interactions with WorkSafe (such as queries, applications for licences, notifications, registering equipment, regulatory tools, workplace visits and education and training materials).
Roadshow feedback about WorkSafe tended to be more negative. It generally highlighted a lack of consistency in its advice to businesses, ranging between an absence of clarity to being overly prescriptive. This can drive either unnecessary costs as businesses look for alternative means to provide certainty (such as ‘off the shelf’ measures and consultants) or drives fear of engagement. This included:
- Businesses receiving inconsistent advice from WorkSafe for addressing similar risks, not being provided sufficient upfront certainty and support about what is ‘reasonably practicable’ regarding businesses’ obligations, or quick to highlight ex post failings with hindsight bias.
- WorkSafe is not focussing on the most critical risks, or taking a “gold standard” approach to compliance with the fullest extent of controls in the regulations in situations where the regulations are also designed to allow flexibility for tailored approaches.
- There needs to be a greater WorkSafe focus on collaborative engagement, education and supporting businesses to do better, rather than punitive approaches.
- While some WorkSafe offices are helpful, there is a perception they are under-resourced.