Strategic Directions for Safety in the Electricity Supply Industry

Plaza International Hotel, Wellington

Tas Scott, president of the Electricity Engineers Association and chairman of this seminar, members of the EEA ...

Thank you for inviting me here this morning.

Today's seminar on directions for safety in the electricity supply industry is the first opportunity I have had to publicly address some of the issues arising from last year's review of the Health and Safety in Employment Act.

Such issues are often overshadowed by the more sensational happenings connected with Parliament at the moment.

That is a shame because it masks some of the excellent work which is going on behind the scenes, both by the Government and by responsible organisations such as yours.

Beneath all the froth and bubble, I believe the coalition Government is doing a good job.

There is far less friction than the media and the Opposition parties love to proclaim at every possible opportunity. The Cabinet is working as a team.

I was never a supporter of MMP, but it is here and it is working better than many people thought it would.

And outside Parliament it is good to see initiatives such as this seminar to look at safety in your industry.

I am aware that among your industry, the Labour Select Committee inquiry into the administration of occupational safety and health has generated considerable discussion over the future shape of safety legislation for the industry.

I speak to you today as the former chair of the Labour Select Committee which reviewed the HSE Act, as well as the Minister of both of the affected portfolios, Energy and Labour.

The HSE Act came into effect in 1993, introducing a performance-based approach to workplace health and safety.

It replaced a plethora of fragmented, sector specific, inconsistent, prescriptive rules administered by a number of separate agencies.

The Government's over-riding concern was to minimise the social and economic costs of workplace illness and injury

through minimum Government intervention and compliance costs
providing maximum flexibility to industry and the public.
The Act signalled a switch from regulatory, prescriptive Government ownership of health and safety to workplace management and ownership of these responsibilities.

In that way, it is closely linked with other labour market legislation, particularly the Employment Contracts Act.

Choice and flexibility are the central principles of New Zealand's labour market legislation since 1991.

The Employment Contracts Act set up a framework for employees and employers to choose their employment relationships to suit their own particular circumstances.

The HSE Act gives employers and employees the freedom to take a variety of different approaches to the management of workplace safety and hazard management, best suited to their individual circumstances.

To foster the competitiveness of New Zealand's diverse businesses, voluntary and performance-based codes allow businesses the ability to adapt to change in a competitive environment.

The HSE Act was intended to create incentives for employers and employees to comply with both the law, and with the best international occupational safety and health practice... achieving positive outcomes at the lowest cost.

At the time of last year's Labour Select Committee inquiry, the HSE Act had been in operation for four years.

It was apparent there were some difficulties with the administration of occupational safety and health under the Act.

There were indications that small and medium sized businesses - that is most New Zealand businesses - were struggling to comply with the Act.

Their problems were compounded by inconsistent interpretation in different parts of the country, and problems of defining boundaries of responsibility.

These are matters squarely in my sights now.

Health and safety legislation ought to enable businesses, including you in the energy sector, to focus on creating wealth - safely - without unnecessary cost and constraint.

Costs on the business sector have to be kept down to ensure New Zealand businesses remain competitive in a fast-moving international marketplace - a matter my colleague John Luxton has been charged with the responsibility for.

Research into the barriers preventing small businesses from complying with the Act is currently underway. And OSH is working to provide businesses with the information and advice they need.

The Government intends to take action to reduce compliance costs for businesses, but this does need to be balanced with the need to reduce accidents in the workplace.

I am determined to work with businesses on this issue.

Within 12 to 18 months I will be looking to see some concrete evidence, in terms of reduced work place accidents rates, resulting from the HSE Act and OSH's activities.

One issue raised in the Labour Select Committee inquiry - which directly involves you people here today - was the HSE's relationship with the Electricity and Gas Acts.

Much energy sector concern has focused on the conflict or incompatibility of the performance-based approach of the HSE Act, and what are seen to be highly prescriptive safety provisions in the Electricity and Gas Acts.

The Labour Select Committee felt that to be consistent, health and safety under these acts should be instead included in the broad context of the HSE Act.

However, a transfer of full responsibility for safety in the electricity industry would require major changes to the scope and content of the HSE, Electricity and Gas Acts.

Furthermore, the focus of the HSE Act is workplace safety, not public safety.

Extending the HSE Act to include all aspects of public safety with the use of electricity and gas would extend the HSE Act beyond its intent.

On the other hand, transferring only the occupational parts of electricity safety to the HSE Act might create major problems in separating occupational and public safety.

Those boundary issues between public and workplace safety affect a wide range of industries.

In some cases the HSE Act is seen to intrude into public safety areas where it was not intended, such as the recreational use of farmland.

Transport is a particularly complicated area, highlighted by a case where a person was killed on a public road in an accident involving a piece of road working contractor's machinery.

I have proposed a joint project with Transport Minister Jenny Shipley to investigate options to deal with these boundary issues.

There needs to be a common approach and ideally no cracks should exist between the HSE Act and legislation administered by agencies such as the Land Transport Authority and ACC.

But, returning to the issue of electricity... even if we did transfer some or all of the electricity safety regime to the HSE Act, the question of what specific controls are required would still remain.

For example, the HSE regime still provides for worker registration - and applies it, for example, to scaffolding work, commercial diving, and the operation of blasting equipment.

I have little doubt that many would argue vehemently to retain a registration system for electricity workers because of the inherently hazardous nature of the work and importance of worker's skills to ensure safety.

I'm sure improvements - and particularly simplifications - can be made.

But totally abolishing the electrical worker registration system, as a few seem to have advocated, is unlikely at this time.

Action is already well in hand to remove the prescriptive elements of the electricity and gas regulations and codes.

The Ministry of Commerce has been reviewing the overall regime of Electricity Regulations. The Government aims to get rid of as much prescriptive detail as possible, as a priority.

You will also be aware of the review of electricity safety regimes by the Electrical Workers Registration Board.

I look forward to receiving the Board's recommendations.

I am particularly interested in its views on -

the extent of ongoing Government involvement in the registration process, and what scope there is for private sector involvement,
whether registration should be managed by a Government body
what scope is there for simplifying requirements and minimising costs, while still ensuring public and occupational safety
and can the Board's processes be better integrated with the work of industry training organisations? The response to the Select Committee report points to a lot more work, by both the Ministry of Commerce and OSH - and a lot more consultation with industry
not just the electricity supply industry but others in the electrical industry too.
I've received a work programme from OSH for addressing the recommendations in the report and in particular some of the boundary issues, and the Ministry of Commerce will be outlining later in the seminar a programme for reviewing the electricity safety regime.

I encourage you to contribute to these reviews.

Before I go, I would like to leave you with these points: The top priority is to minimise the social and economic costs of workplace illness and injury, with minimum Government intervention and compliance costs, in a way that provides maximum flexibility to industry and the public.

There needs to be a noticeable decrease in the incidence of workplace accidents and illness.

If there isn't, the significant costs of accidents and illness turn up as higher employer ACC levies.

The most certain way of lowering the large costs of the ACC scheme is to prevent accidents in the work place.

We all - the Government, industry, employers and employees - have a responsibility to see this happens.v