• Peter Bateman
    34
    There is a poll facility than can be selected when you start a new discussion.
    Let's see how it works!
    1. Is the HSW Act 2015 working better for you than the HSE Act 1992 did? (18 votes)
        Yes
        50%
        No
        22%
        Too early to tell
        17%
        Not sure
        11%
  • Andrew
    29
    I'll say "no".

    And maybe I'm supported by the statistics
    June 2013: 28,126 ACC entitlements claims for work injuries costing $525m
    June 2014: 28,702 injuries costing $550m
    June 2015: 33,406 injuries costing $636m
    June 2016: 34,872 claims costing $661m
    June 2017: 37,183 claims costing $690m

    Average cost of claims trending up.

    I'd have thought Pike River would have given everyone a good kick in the goolies to encourage improvements. Seems that has no effect. What about the 2010 "Zero Harm" campaign. Nope looks like that didn't work either. Can't see why we'd expect a law change to make things better
  • Paul Reyneke
    14
    (I know you are trying out a functionality Peter B, but I am responding to the question, not the poll! I promise I will click a response on the poll as well ... it will be "no")

    It is a loaded question and in my opinion one of the issues with our 'profession'. Legislation cannot solve the problem (work better for us), it only sets a regime in place how to deal with the baddies. And, as is often the case with hard-and-fast rules in all (most) spheres of society, it sometimes catches the goodies as well.

    So, does it work better for me? Dunno - we do things because it is the right things to do and legal compliance is the outcome, not the input. We are not a baddie and I hope we won't be pinged (even though we are goodies)
  • Andrew
    29
    Hmm. 1 out of six so far reckons new Act is good. Thats no good
  • SafetylawyerNZ
    15
    I think it's too early to tell. There are clearly some things that are good (eg the duty to consult, cooperate and coordinate activities, and the greater emphasis on worker engagement), but until we get guidance from the courts about what the various duties mean, and what is reasonably practicable in different types of circumstances, it is all just words.
  • Craig Marriott
    24
    Peter - Answered 'not sure' as it was the closest option for me.
    Fundamentally, the law hasn't changed what we do in practice. There are some extra requirements (e.g. officer due diligence, WEPR), there are higher fines. But the primary duty of care is still based on a target based approach as it always was. It's now better defined in law (mostly) but, as Paul notes in his comment, I don't believe it affects what most people do day to day.
  • Campbell Hardy
    5
    Hey,

    Anything involving people we need to set a standard in order to achieve any level of success. Our new act certainly sets a slightly higher standard than previous one, especially regarding senior staff involvement, cooperation regarding all affected parties (PCBU's), that all important worker engagement and participation and our shift from hazard to risk management.

    Having had a birds eye view when we seen the change over it was interesting to watch people and businesses rush around as if the sky was falling? Which given there wasn't a huge shift in focus it appeared a lot of busniesses weren't even close to meeting any standard pre 2015 let alone post 2015!

    Much like anything in life, you can have the best system in the world, however if we don't use it, support it and drive it to the next level and beyond, we will stay exactly where we are.
  • Jan Hall
    20
    'Good for me' how?
    For business? I suspect most H&S persons are run off their feet with fear of the unknown (the new Act) driving clients, main contractors et al to insist upon impeccable plans and processes.

    Good for H&S generally? Probably. I think 'yes'. Because, at the moment, many have been persuaded to improve their h&s systems and processes to obtain work.

    Reservations: The fear of the unknown; how the Act will be enforced, go through the courts, etc,etc, has created a terrible tendency to put compliance before commonsense. A commercial construction site induction with 71 points. one of which is "I understand and will comply with the provisions of the HSWA 2015"? PS "The best system in the world - if we don't use it, support it and drive it to the next level and beyond".... not sure about that Campbell Hardy. Imo 'the best (H&S) system in the world' is so user friendly it doesn't need 'driving'.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to the Safeguard forum!

If you are interested in workplace health & safety in New Zealand, then this is the discussion forum for you.