Civil Contractors New Zealand says it is deeply disappointed the
Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill has passed through third reading without addressing fundamental flaws raised by an overwhelming majority of business submitters.
“Good health and safety is essential to good civil construction operations. The regulatory carve-out creates a two-tier health and safety system that provides no benefit for our sector, while substantially increasing risk,” says CCNZ Chief Executive Alan Pollard.
“All businesses on a worksite should operate under the same baseline duties. It makes no sense that a 21-person accounting firm will be required to manage all risk, while a 19-person abseiling and soil stabilisation company working to manage rockfall from cliffsides will not,” says Mr Pollard.
“The health and safety risks a business must manage on a worksite are related to the hazards faced in the workplace, not the size of a business or undertaking. Things that aren’t ‘critical risks’ in the new law, such as fatigue, can quickly multiply to result in serious harm.”
Rather than reducing confusion, Mr Pollard says that splitting duties by headcount introduces a new layer of complexity onto already complex shared worksites, some of which may have dozens of companies working together.
CCNZ and its members have called on lawmakers to remove the small PCBU carve-out entirely as a bottom line, to ensure the new Bill is workable as it comes into law. However, measures to do this have been bypassed as the Bill was rushed through parliament.
“The real shame here is that the Bill may have been salvageable, with changes. Now it has been passed, businesses must begin to understand not just what their safety obligations are but whether the business on-site next to them is even subject to the same rules”.
Mr Pollard says civil construction workers operate in some of the highest-risk situations, and businesses must manage risk on and around work sites, for workers but also the general public. It is important this is done efficiently, or costs of compliance can greatly escalate.
“Our members work in the riskiest ten per cent of situations. They want workable duties that reduce unnecessary compliance costs, improve risk management, and help everyone on shared or complex worksites meet their obligations.
“Fundamentally, this obliges big business to prescribe practice for small business. A carve-out based on business size does not reduce unnecessary compliance cost or give businesses greater certainty; it creates confusion and will generate worse outcomes.”
CCNZ also raised concerns about other parts of the Bill. It warns the "critical risk" framework could entrench tick-box compliance rather than genuine protection. The Bill risks pushing safety responsibility down the supply chain, leaving head contractors to proscriptively manage risk for subcontractors, who will in turn face unclear expectations across different sites.
Acknowledging the Select Committee's move to delay commencement so WorkSafe can prepare updated guidance, CCNZ says guidance cannot fix flawed legislation.
“If underlying duties are unclear, no amount of guidance will resolve the confusion on shared worksites.
“We’ve shown lawmakers where the blind spots are. Regrettably, the government has not listened. It's an unfortunate case of poorly designed legislation with potential to hurt workers, increase cost, impact business capability and leave the health system to pick up the tab.”
CCNZ’s submission on the Bill is available to read
on its website.