A new study suggests that another Pike River mine disaster is likely.
The Victoria University of Wellington researchers say the failures that lead to the disaster that killed 29 men could happen again at any other organisation.
One of their "potentially disturbing observations" is that health & safety training, auditors, and well-qualified staff were not enough to prevent failure – and may also have provided an "illusion of certainty" and overconfidence.
The new research has come amidst a slew of changes to health and safety legislation being pushed through by the Government, which has sparked warnings from advocates.
One of those is Mike Cosman, an independent health and safety practitioner who sat on the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health & Safety established after the Pike River disaster.
And he joins us now on The Front Page to discuss this new study and the proposed changes.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Sound Engineer/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Ethan Sills
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. A new
study suggests that another Pike River mine disaster is likely.
The Victoria University of Wellington researchers say the failures that
(00:25):
led to the disaster that killed twenty nine men in
twenty ten could happen again at any other organization. One
of their potentially disturbing observations is that health and safety training,
auditors and well qualified staff were not enough to prevent failure,
and may also have provided an illusion of certainty and overconfidence.
(00:49):
The new research has come amidst a slew of changes
to health and safety legislation being pushed through by the government,
which has sparked warnings from advocates. One of those advocates
is Like Cosmon, an independent health and safety practitioner who
sat on the Independent Task Force on Workplace Health and
Safety established after the Pike River disaster. He joins us
(01:11):
now on the Front Page to discuss this new study
and the proposed changes. So this new case study of
Pike River warns we could very well see another similar
disaster in the future, even fifteen years on You've done
a lot of work around workplace health and safety of
(01:32):
course over the decades. Tell me what have we learned
since then? If anything, I think what we've.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Learned is that disasters can still happen. Obviously Pike River
was the most relevant one in this context, but it
wasn't the first disaster that we had in the mining industry.
If we look internationally, we know that disasters have occurred
in a whole variety of different spectors, ranging from adventure
(01:59):
activity with dream world, chemical plant, mines, ferries, railways and
the like. And so I think one of the things
that we have to reflect on is the fact that
wherever there are activities that involve a lot of people
and a lot of energy, then the potential for that
(02:19):
energy to be released and people to be harmed is
ever present. And whilst it may be very rare, when
it does happen, it's catastrophic. And so the challenge for
busy managers and directors is to say, well, you know,
is it worth investing in reducing the likelihood of this
occurring when I've got more pressing problems that I have
(02:40):
to deal with immediately. And I think the Pike River
case study shows that they were kicking the can down
the road, hoping that things would come right and that
they would be able to generate revenue, get into better
quality conditions, get the machinery working properly, get the team
working cohesively, and that all of this would actually make
(03:02):
things better, whereas in fact, as we know, the explosion
occurred within a month of them actually trying to go
into full production.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
The lead author of this study, doctor Richard Logan, has
said whilst the subsequent Royal Commission of Inquiry investigated and
reported their findings as to the causes of the disaster,
and this was followed by a number of articles and books,
there is a general sense of unfinished business, especially in
the leadership and governance space. So has anything changed or
(03:34):
how do we change that leadership and governance space.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
I spend a lot of my time working with boards
and senior leadership teams, and I think that there has
been a significant shift. I think that they are more engaged. Clearly,
part of the regulatory change that I was involved with
leading was around creating this proactive due diligence duty, so
(03:58):
that actually there is a very clear expectation not just
that you wait to be told but that as a director,
you need to find out, you need to ask the questions,
you need to seek the information that you need in
order to understand your risks. So a lot of effort
has gone in particularly i would say, at the at
the big end of town. But what I'm seeing is
less focus in smaller businesses governance perhaps doesn't exist in
(04:22):
the traditional form, or where the governance skills don't exist
as they might amongst professional directors. I'm seeing it in
offshore owned businesses in New Zealand, where we are simply
a part of a much larger global business and where
perhaps health and safety doesn't have as much focus. But
we're also seeing people like the Institute of Directors and
(04:44):
the guidance that was produced last year really signaling clearly
what director should do. And then the most recent prosecution
of Tony Gibson, the former chief executive of Ports of Auckland,
have actually demonstrated that at least one of the regulators
in the form of Maritime New Zealand, is willing to
actually put that to the test and has secured a
(05:06):
conviction in relation to what they believe the chief executive
in a high risk business with a portrack record should
be expected to do, but noticing of course that that
is subject to appeal.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
What I can tell you is that in the opportunity
I've had to speak to the family members and the
time that I spent with them, there is an awful
lot of sorrow in that room, but not anger. People
realize that this has been a great tragedy. They deserve answers,
and in due course we will have a proper investigation
(05:42):
to deliver them those answers. But for now, people are
recognizing the scale of the tragedy and taking solace from
the fact that so many people from around the world
are giving them comfort, love and support.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
When you sat on the Independent Task Force on Workplace
and Health and Safety, what were some of the recommendations
that were actually then made into law.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
We made a whole series of recommendations, and part of
the framing that we used was that it was like
a cloak. I think we actually had a fucker toki
that said, a carefully woven cloak is a protection for
us all. And we said to the Minister at the time,
who was Simon Bridges, this is not a Chinese restaurant
menu where you can pick and mix these things all
(06:30):
have to be mutually reinforcing, so if you're going to
do it, do it all. He agreed, and for a
time it looked as if officials agreed, but then other
priorities prevailed and what we ended up with was exactly
what we'd feared, which was only some of the recommendations
being implemented. So if we take one of the issues
that the Minister is currently talking about, which is around
(06:54):
clarity and certainty for business as to what they need
to be doing in certain circumstances, that was a clear
recommendation from the task Force. There was a roadmap of
new regulations that was planned, but it stalled, and so
we've got significant gaps in the regulatory framework. And that
(07:14):
means that there are lots of areas, very important areas,
where the detail isn't simply there to support businesses to
know what they should be doing. And unfortunately that hasn't
been helped because of the relatively small number of cases
that go to court and actually get determined, and so
we're not building up that case law, that jurisprudence that
(07:35):
actually tells us what the courts of interpreted parliaments intend
to be. And so whilst I disagree with the majority
of the minister's proposals. The one thing that I think
everybody agrees on is that we do need up to
date relevant guidance to support business to know how to
do the right thing.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Of those recommendations that you made that ever made into legislation,
if you had a magic pen and you had the
ability to sign something off tomorrow, what do you think
should be on the top of the list.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
So for me, it's actually seeing health and safety as
being about a system, and it's a system that needs
governance just the same as a business needs governance. So
one of the recommendations that we made and which was
implemented but probably in name rather than substance, is having
a national strategy around health and safety, but that strategy
(08:30):
actually having some oversight and some teeth. So our national strategy,
which is produced in twenty eighteen, there's probably about three
people in the country who are aware of it and
nobody who's actually doing anything to bring it about. So
there's no implementation plan for the strategy. We've got different agencies,
both public sector agencies like acc Work Safe, NZTA, Maritime
(08:53):
New Zealand, all doing their thing but not really being
joined up as part of a cohesive approach. We've got
different parts of the private sector, whether it's private insurers,
whether it's the medical system, the training system, health and safety,
professional workers. All of them are trying hard, but there
is no governance. There's no overseeing group as they have
(09:16):
in other countries, which is taking that bigger picture of
you and saying how do we make sure that the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And
at the moment we're being busy, but we're not necessarily
being very effective.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brook van Velden has made
a number of changes over the last year to health
and safety regulation. The most recent change is that this
government wants work safe to become a more supportive regulator,
to ditch its adversarial culture and focus on managing critical risks.
According to a report in The Herald, what do you
(10:00):
make of this change?
Speaker 3 (10:01):
So the first thing is that nothing that she says
appears to be based on any evidence that it will
actually improve health and safety. So the driver is about
reducing burdens on business improving productivity, which are all worthwhile,
but ultimately the objective I believe has to be about
(10:22):
will it reduce the burden of harm that our workers
and our social welfare system, and our medical system and
familism baro are all experiencing every single day. So critical risk, yes,
because those are areas that cause the greatest harm in
terms of severity, so the things that kill people. But
that is being part of the regulator's agenda for many years.
(10:46):
They've prioritized forestry and construction and agriculture and manufacturing and transport,
so there's nothing new in that space. But by focusing
exclusively on critical risk, you actually miss out on things
such as like a social or harm, which we know
is a massive burden on all of society. We've got
some of the worst suicide rates in the world and
(11:07):
workplace factors are a significant contribution to that. It ignores
the things that cost acc and therefore us the most
amount of money, which is musculo scletal disorders. They wouldn't
be classed as critical risks, and so by saying that
the out of scope for the legislation and the regulator,
we're actually dismissing, you know, the many hundreds of thousands
(11:29):
of people with damage backs and chronic injuries that don't
meet the definition. So I think she's being somewhat dogmatic
in her approach. What it needs is a much more
nuanced approach. It isn't a question of guidance or regulation.
The two have to work hand in hand. She also,
I think, seems to be implying by talking about work
(11:51):
Safe being more business friendly, that they should be out
there actually acting as publicly funded business advisors. Now you
know that is not the regulator's role. Businesses have to
own their own risks, They have to seek their own advice.
The regulator should provide the guidance, but the guidance will
only be generic. How you implement it in your business
(12:14):
will be something that each business has to work out
for itself, and so I think it's the simplistic some
of it, I would say is driven by dogma rather
than by genuine care for improving worker health and safety.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
On the work safe side, I'm going to direct work
Safe to confirm and provide guidance on instances of road
cone over compliance. There will be a hotline for the
public to report on excessive road cone use they might
find out in the wild. Having work Safe focus on
this will be a culture shift for the agency, but
(12:50):
it signifies the broader direction this government is taking with
the health and safety system. This is just the start
of the reform program. I'll be seeking care cabnet decisions
on further issues in the coming months.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
There have also been changes removing responsibility for company directors
and boards for health and safety risks, a removal of
liability for land owners when it comes to recreational activities,
and some leeway for small businesses around non critical risks.
Now I understand from some previous comments you've made in
the media that you aren't a big fan of these changes.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
I think that would be putting it politely. At the moment,
there are only proposals, so nothing has actually changed. So
we had a cabinet paper back in March. We'll have
another cabinet paper in May, and obviously the Minister will
need to bring forward more detailed proposals for legislative change
through the Select committee process, which is obviously when you
know we will be putting our submissions together. Removing director
(13:50):
responsibilities I think is absolutely a mistake. As we've just
been discussing. You know, tone from the top is crucial.
If directors aren't fully committed to health and safety, they'd
be no surprise if managers and supervisors and frontline workers
get the message that it's all about production and safety
is a nice to have, not a mat out. In
terms of small businesses, we know that actually small businesses
(14:12):
health and safety record is worse than larger businesses because
they don't have the capacity and capability to manage risks
as well as larger organization. So yes, focus their attention
on the things that are going to kill and permanently
disabled people. But once we start exempting things, and we
saw this a few years ago when there was an
(14:34):
attempt to exempt certain small businesses from requiring them to
have health and safety reps if requested, and it ended
up with all sorts of anomalies where farming was considered
low risk, and yet we know it's got one of
the highest fatality rates of any industry. And so I think,
you know, the minister is playing to an audience. You know,
if we take the whole Cones issue, which has been
(14:57):
a complete distraction.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Oh god, it's just a headline grab. I think it is.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
I mean, I think what the media refer to it
as a dead cat. So you throw a dead cat
on the table and everybody focuses on the dead cat
and not on the issue that we were talking about previously.
And they've been highly successful because everybody now talks about cones,
and cones have become demonized. And yet actually we know
that the risks to both road workers and road users
(15:22):
when roadworks are taking place, it's potentially very high. Yes,
we can always improve, you know, making sure the cones
are removed once the work has finished, you know, looking
at alternative ways of protecting the workplace, but that work
was ongoing two three years ago. It's a big change
that's occurring in that industry, but it also requires some
tough choices, such as close the road rather than put
(15:46):
cones in and out, you know, at nine point thirty
every morning and take them back in again at three
o'clock every afternoon, which slows the work down. It puts
everybody at more risk because the process of putting out
and taking in the traffic management is one of the
highest risk times. And actually, by demonizing cones, what we're
seeing is that road workers are being demonized. So one
(16:07):
of my clients is heavily involved in this work and
their staff are getting spat at, they're getting things thrown
at them, they're getting people driving at them deliberately because
they are seen now as being the cause of the
delays that are occurring whilst the roads are being fit.
And so the level of violence and aggression toward road
(16:28):
workers and the lack of adherence to roadwork signage, whether
it's about speed limits or not driving too fast on
roads that have just been resurfaced, is actually creating many,
many more problems rather than actually addressing the ones that
we already working on.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
So, if work Safe is going to focus on critical
risks and the threat of another Pike River could be
described as such, what would you like to see change
to prevent that? Because at the moment, all I'm thinking is, oh,
these are all going to look nice on a three
poster in the mail room, do you know what I mean? Like,
what incentive other than trying not to kill your workers
(17:09):
do those directors do those company owners have at the
moment to implement these changes?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
So I think what I would like to see is
that there is much more collaborative work around critical risk. So,
rather than a transactional approach where an individual inspector visits
an individual business to talk about how they're managing a
particular activity, is actually to get the key movers and
(17:36):
shakers in that sector or in relation to that risk
together and actually agree how do we move standards forward
in a managed way, because one of the challenges, particularly
if we start to reduce the amount of enforcement, is
that it actually makes life harder for the good performance.
So somebody who's actually invested in improving health and safety
(17:56):
is likely to be at a competitive disadvantage against somebody
who hasn't made that investment, but who the regulator is
not actually holding to account. So I think it's in
everybody's best interest to have that clarity. This is what
we're trying to achieve, this is the best way to
achieve it. Here's the guidance that sets out in broad
terms how we go about doing it. And this is
(18:18):
how individually and collectively the various parts of the system
are going to hold you to account. We're actually doing it,
and that, from my experience back in the UK, is
how you get sustainable change because we're all moving in
the same direction together. We're not using health and safety
as something that we compete against each other on. And
(18:39):
actually that process is where the regulator needs to lead
because they are the only ones who at the end
of the day, actually have the power and the authority
to drive change if they can't actually achieve it in
a more collaborative way.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Thanks for joining us, Mike, my pleasure. That's it for
this episode of The Front Page. You can read more
about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzedherld dot
co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan
Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our sound engineer.
(19:18):
I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio
or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow
for another look behind the headlines.
Hilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. A new
study suggests that another Pike River mine disaster is likely.
The Victoria University of Wellington researchers say the failures that
(00:25):
led to the disaster that killed twenty nine men in
twenty ten could happen again at any other organization. One
of their potentially disturbing observations is that health and safety training,
auditors and well qualified staff were not enough to prevent failure,
and may also have provided an illusion of certainty and overconfidence.
(00:49):
The new research has come amidst a slew of changes
to health and safety legislation being pushed through by the government,
which has sparked warnings from advocates. One of those advocates
is Like Cosmon, an independent health and safety practitioner who
sat on the Independent Task Force on Workplace Health and
Safety established after the Pike River disaster. He joins us
(01:11):
now on the Front Page to discuss this new study
and the proposed changes. So this new case study of
Pike River warns we could very well see another similar
disaster in the future, even fifteen years on You've done
a lot of work around workplace health and safety of
(01:32):
course over the decades. Tell me what have we learned
since then? If anything, I think what we've.
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Learned is that disasters can still happen. Obviously Pike River
was the most relevant one in this context, but it
wasn't the first disaster that we had in the mining industry.
If we look internationally, we know that disasters have occurred
in a whole variety of different spectors, ranging from adventure
(01:59):
activity with dream world, chemical plant, mines, ferries, railways and
the like. And so I think one of the things
that we have to reflect on is the fact that
wherever there are activities that involve a lot of people
and a lot of energy, then the potential for that
(02:19):
energy to be released and people to be harmed is
ever present. And whilst it may be very rare, when
it does happen, it's catastrophic. And so the challenge for
busy managers and directors is to say, well, you know,
is it worth investing in reducing the likelihood of this
occurring when I've got more pressing problems that I have
(02:40):
to deal with immediately. And I think the Pike River
case study shows that they were kicking the can down
the road, hoping that things would come right and that
they would be able to generate revenue, get into better
quality conditions, get the machinery working properly, get the team
working cohesively, and that all of this would actually make
(03:02):
things better, whereas in fact, as we know, the explosion
occurred within a month of them actually trying to go
into full production.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
The lead author of this study, doctor Richard Logan, has
said whilst the subsequent Royal Commission of Inquiry investigated and
reported their findings as to the causes of the disaster,
and this was followed by a number of articles and books,
there is a general sense of unfinished business, especially in
the leadership and governance space. So has anything changed or
(03:34):
how do we change that leadership and governance space.
Speaker 3 (03:38):
I spend a lot of my time working with boards
and senior leadership teams, and I think that there has
been a significant shift. I think that they are more engaged. Clearly,
part of the regulatory change that I was involved with
leading was around creating this proactive due diligence duty, so
(03:58):
that actually there is a very clear expectation not just
that you wait to be told but that as a director,
you need to find out, you need to ask the questions,
you need to seek the information that you need in
order to understand your risks. So a lot of effort
has gone in particularly i would say, at the at
the big end of town. But what I'm seeing is
less focus in smaller businesses governance perhaps doesn't exist in
(04:22):
the traditional form, or where the governance skills don't exist
as they might amongst professional directors. I'm seeing it in
offshore owned businesses in New Zealand, where we are simply
a part of a much larger global business and where
perhaps health and safety doesn't have as much focus. But
we're also seeing people like the Institute of Directors and
(04:44):
the guidance that was produced last year really signaling clearly
what director should do. And then the most recent prosecution
of Tony Gibson, the former chief executive of Ports of Auckland,
have actually demonstrated that at least one of the regulators
in the form of Maritime New Zealand, is willing to
actually put that to the test and has secured a
(05:06):
conviction in relation to what they believe the chief executive
in a high risk business with a portrack record should
be expected to do, but noticing of course that that
is subject to appeal.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
What I can tell you is that in the opportunity
I've had to speak to the family members and the
time that I spent with them, there is an awful
lot of sorrow in that room, but not anger. People
realize that this has been a great tragedy. They deserve answers,
and in due course we will have a proper investigation
(05:42):
to deliver them those answers. But for now, people are
recognizing the scale of the tragedy and taking solace from
the fact that so many people from around the world
are giving them comfort, love and support.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
When you sat on the Independent Task Force on Workplace
and Health and Safety, what were some of the recommendations
that were actually then made into law.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
We made a whole series of recommendations, and part of
the framing that we used was that it was like
a cloak. I think we actually had a fucker toki
that said, a carefully woven cloak is a protection for
us all. And we said to the Minister at the time,
who was Simon Bridges, this is not a Chinese restaurant
menu where you can pick and mix these things all
(06:30):
have to be mutually reinforcing, so if you're going to
do it, do it all. He agreed, and for a
time it looked as if officials agreed, but then other
priorities prevailed and what we ended up with was exactly
what we'd feared, which was only some of the recommendations
being implemented. So if we take one of the issues
that the Minister is currently talking about, which is around
(06:54):
clarity and certainty for business as to what they need
to be doing in certain circumstances, that was a clear
recommendation from the task Force. There was a roadmap of
new regulations that was planned, but it stalled, and so
we've got significant gaps in the regulatory framework. And that
(07:14):
means that there are lots of areas, very important areas,
where the detail isn't simply there to support businesses to
know what they should be doing. And unfortunately that hasn't
been helped because of the relatively small number of cases
that go to court and actually get determined, and so
we're not building up that case law, that jurisprudence that
(07:35):
actually tells us what the courts of interpreted parliaments intend
to be. And so whilst I disagree with the majority
of the minister's proposals. The one thing that I think
everybody agrees on is that we do need up to
date relevant guidance to support business to know how to
do the right thing.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Of those recommendations that you made that ever made into legislation,
if you had a magic pen and you had the
ability to sign something off tomorrow, what do you think
should be on the top of the list.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
So for me, it's actually seeing health and safety as
being about a system, and it's a system that needs
governance just the same as a business needs governance. So
one of the recommendations that we made and which was
implemented but probably in name rather than substance, is having
a national strategy around health and safety, but that strategy
(08:30):
actually having some oversight and some teeth. So our national strategy,
which is produced in twenty eighteen, there's probably about three
people in the country who are aware of it and
nobody who's actually doing anything to bring it about. So
there's no implementation plan for the strategy. We've got different agencies,
both public sector agencies like acc Work Safe, NZTA, Maritime
(08:53):
New Zealand, all doing their thing but not really being
joined up as part of a cohesive approach. We've got
different parts of the private sector, whether it's private insurers,
whether it's the medical system, the training system, health and safety,
professional workers. All of them are trying hard, but there
is no governance. There's no overseeing group as they have
(09:16):
in other countries, which is taking that bigger picture of
you and saying how do we make sure that the
whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And
at the moment we're being busy, but we're not necessarily
being very effective.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brook van Velden has made
a number of changes over the last year to health
and safety regulation. The most recent change is that this
government wants work safe to become a more supportive regulator,
to ditch its adversarial culture and focus on managing critical risks.
According to a report in The Herald, what do you
(10:00):
make of this change?
Speaker 3 (10:01):
So the first thing is that nothing that she says
appears to be based on any evidence that it will
actually improve health and safety. So the driver is about
reducing burdens on business improving productivity, which are all worthwhile,
but ultimately the objective I believe has to be about
(10:22):
will it reduce the burden of harm that our workers
and our social welfare system, and our medical system and
familism baro are all experiencing every single day. So critical risk, yes,
because those are areas that cause the greatest harm in
terms of severity, so the things that kill people. But
that is being part of the regulator's agenda for many years.
(10:46):
They've prioritized forestry and construction and agriculture and manufacturing and transport,
so there's nothing new in that space. But by focusing
exclusively on critical risk, you actually miss out on things
such as like a social or harm, which we know
is a massive burden on all of society. We've got
some of the worst suicide rates in the world and
(11:07):
workplace factors are a significant contribution to that. It ignores
the things that cost acc and therefore us the most
amount of money, which is musculo scletal disorders. They wouldn't
be classed as critical risks, and so by saying that
the out of scope for the legislation and the regulator,
we're actually dismissing, you know, the many hundreds of thousands
(11:29):
of people with damage backs and chronic injuries that don't
meet the definition. So I think she's being somewhat dogmatic
in her approach. What it needs is a much more
nuanced approach. It isn't a question of guidance or regulation.
The two have to work hand in hand. She also,
I think, seems to be implying by talking about work
(11:51):
Safe being more business friendly, that they should be out
there actually acting as publicly funded business advisors. Now you
know that is not the regulator's role. Businesses have to
own their own risks, They have to seek their own advice.
The regulator should provide the guidance, but the guidance will
only be generic. How you implement it in your business
(12:14):
will be something that each business has to work out
for itself, and so I think it's the simplistic some
of it, I would say is driven by dogma rather
than by genuine care for improving worker health and safety.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
On the work safe side, I'm going to direct work
Safe to confirm and provide guidance on instances of road
cone over compliance. There will be a hotline for the
public to report on excessive road cone use they might
find out in the wild. Having work Safe focus on
this will be a culture shift for the agency, but
(12:50):
it signifies the broader direction this government is taking with
the health and safety system. This is just the start
of the reform program. I'll be seeking care cabnet decisions
on further issues in the coming months.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
There have also been changes removing responsibility for company directors
and boards for health and safety risks, a removal of
liability for land owners when it comes to recreational activities,
and some leeway for small businesses around non critical risks.
Now I understand from some previous comments you've made in
the media that you aren't a big fan of these changes.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
I think that would be putting it politely. At the moment,
there are only proposals, so nothing has actually changed. So
we had a cabinet paper back in March. We'll have
another cabinet paper in May, and obviously the Minister will
need to bring forward more detailed proposals for legislative change
through the Select committee process, which is obviously when you
know we will be putting our submissions together. Removing director
(13:50):
responsibilities I think is absolutely a mistake. As we've just
been discussing. You know, tone from the top is crucial.
If directors aren't fully committed to health and safety, they'd
be no surprise if managers and supervisors and frontline workers
get the message that it's all about production and safety
is a nice to have, not a mat out. In
terms of small businesses, we know that actually small businesses
(14:12):
health and safety record is worse than larger businesses because
they don't have the capacity and capability to manage risks
as well as larger organization. So yes, focus their attention
on the things that are going to kill and permanently
disabled people. But once we start exempting things, and we
saw this a few years ago when there was an
(14:34):
attempt to exempt certain small businesses from requiring them to
have health and safety reps if requested, and it ended
up with all sorts of anomalies where farming was considered
low risk, and yet we know it's got one of
the highest fatality rates of any industry. And so I think,
you know, the minister is playing to an audience. You know,
if we take the whole Cones issue, which has been
(14:57):
a complete distraction.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Oh god, it's just a headline grab. I think it is.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
I mean, I think what the media refer to it
as a dead cat. So you throw a dead cat
on the table and everybody focuses on the dead cat
and not on the issue that we were talking about previously.
And they've been highly successful because everybody now talks about cones,
and cones have become demonized. And yet actually we know
that the risks to both road workers and road users
(15:22):
when roadworks are taking place, it's potentially very high. Yes,
we can always improve, you know, making sure the cones
are removed once the work has finished, you know, looking
at alternative ways of protecting the workplace, but that work
was ongoing two three years ago. It's a big change
that's occurring in that industry, but it also requires some
tough choices, such as close the road rather than put
(15:46):
cones in and out, you know, at nine point thirty
every morning and take them back in again at three
o'clock every afternoon, which slows the work down. It puts
everybody at more risk because the process of putting out
and taking in the traffic management is one of the
highest risk times. And actually, by demonizing cones, what we're
seeing is that road workers are being demonized. So one
(16:07):
of my clients is heavily involved in this work and
their staff are getting spat at, they're getting things thrown
at them, they're getting people driving at them deliberately because
they are seen now as being the cause of the
delays that are occurring whilst the roads are being fit.
And so the level of violence and aggression toward road
(16:28):
workers and the lack of adherence to roadwork signage, whether
it's about speed limits or not driving too fast on
roads that have just been resurfaced, is actually creating many,
many more problems rather than actually addressing the ones that
we already working on.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
So, if work Safe is going to focus on critical
risks and the threat of another Pike River could be
described as such, what would you like to see change
to prevent that? Because at the moment, all I'm thinking is, oh,
these are all going to look nice on a three
poster in the mail room, do you know what I mean? Like,
what incentive other than trying not to kill your workers
(17:09):
do those directors do those company owners have at the
moment to implement these changes?
Speaker 3 (17:16):
So I think what I would like to see is
that there is much more collaborative work around critical risk. So,
rather than a transactional approach where an individual inspector visits
an individual business to talk about how they're managing a
particular activity, is actually to get the key movers and
(17:36):
shakers in that sector or in relation to that risk
together and actually agree how do we move standards forward
in a managed way, because one of the challenges, particularly
if we start to reduce the amount of enforcement, is
that it actually makes life harder for the good performance.
So somebody who's actually invested in improving health and safety
(17:56):
is likely to be at a competitive disadvantage against somebody
who hasn't made that investment, but who the regulator is
not actually holding to account. So I think it's in
everybody's best interest to have that clarity. This is what
we're trying to achieve, this is the best way to
achieve it. Here's the guidance that sets out in broad
terms how we go about doing it. And this is
(18:18):
how individually and collectively the various parts of the system
are going to hold you to account. We're actually doing it,
and that, from my experience back in the UK, is
how you get sustainable change because we're all moving in
the same direction together. We're not using health and safety
as something that we compete against each other on. And
(18:39):
actually that process is where the regulator needs to lead
because they are the only ones who at the end
of the day, actually have the power and the authority
to drive change if they can't actually achieve it in
a more collaborative way.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Thanks for joining us, Mike, my pleasure. That's it for
this episode of The Front Page. You can read more
about today's stories and extensive news coverage at enzedherld dot
co dot nz. The Front Page is produced by Ethan
Sills and Richard Martin, who is also our sound engineer.
(19:18):
I'm Chelsea Daniels. Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio
or wherever you get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow
for another look behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.