In the heart of New Zealand's political landscape, a battle is brewing over workplace safety, and it's a fight that carries the weight of a tragic past. Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse, two formidable advocates for workplace safety, are leading a charge against proposed legislation that they believe could lead to another workplace disaster.
The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, if passed, would roll back critical protections for workers, and it's a move that has left these campaigners, who have fought tirelessly since the Pike River tragedy, feeling betrayed and angry.
"It's a betrayal of the men we lost at Pike River," Osborne says. "We don't want their deaths to be in vain. We're fighting to ensure that no one else has to go through what we've been through."
The proposed bill, introduced by Minister Brooke van Velden, aims to simplify health and safety laws, especially for small businesses. However, critics argue that this simplification comes at the cost of worker safety. The bill introduces a two-tier system, where small businesses are only required to manage 'critical' risks, while larger companies must manage all risks. This distinction, critics say, could lead to a higher injury rate for workers in smaller firms.
"Small businesses have a higher injury rate, yet they're being carved out of the bill's full requirements. It makes no sense," says Mike Cosman, spokesperson for the Institute of Safety Management. "The bill is a dog's breakfast, and it needs to be stopped before it does more harm."
The select committee's report on the bill highlights its failings, with the Green and Labour parties opposing it. They argue that the bill's flaws have not been adequately addressed, and that it appears the select committee is merely a rubber stamp for the government's agenda.
One of the most concerning aspects of the bill is its potential to weaken worker protections. For instance, under the proposed changes, workers may no longer be provided with safety boots or gloves, as hand and foot injuries are not classified as 'critical'. This is a worrying development, especially given New Zealand's already high workplace fatality rate compared to similar countries.
"Gravity doesn't work simply, and fall risks must be managed regardless of height," Cosman adds. "We learned this the hard way during the Canterbury rebuild."
The bill's supporters, including BusinessNZ, argue that it 'right-sizes' health and safety duties for small businesses, reducing complexity and fear of non-compliance. However, critics like Sheridan Broadbent, chair of the Business Leaders' Health and Safety Forum, believe the bill is out of step with global good practice and could increase ACC costs and lower productivity.
As the debate rages on, the fate of this legislation hangs in the balance. With NZ First's vote still uncertain, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for worker safety in New Zealand.
"We're not going away," Osborne says. "We'll keep fighting to ensure that every worker, no matter their industry or company size, is safe in the workplace."
The question remains: Will New Zealand's politicians heed the call of these passionate advocates, or will they allow this bill to pass, potentially endangering the lives of workers across the country?
