John MacDonald: The dangers of tinkering with Health and Safety

If there’s anyone who shouldn't be told they can wind things back on the health and safety front, it’s a New Zealander.  

Because generally, we are absolute shockers when it comes to this sort of thing and our health and safety laws are the only thing standing between our “she’ll be right” attitude and misery and tragedy.  

Especially when you consider that —even with the health and safety laws we have at the moment— our workplace fatality rate is 60% higher than Australia’s and more than 500% higher than the UK’s.  

So a perfect time, isn’t it, for us to be getting rid of what the Government says is WorkSafe's “safety-at-all costs mentality”?  

Just in case you think I’m a health and safety freak, I’m not.   

But I’m also enough of a realist to know that, without these laws, more people would be going home at the end of the day injured or not going home at all.  

Another reason why us New Zealanders are the last people to be told we can go a bit easy on the old health and safety is that we have very short memories.  

I haven’t forgotten the 19th of November 2010, when the first Pike River explosion happened. I remember distinctly getting home from work that afternoon and all of us watching the live coverage.   

That was what set-in-train a huge overhaul of health and safety laws because, as we eventually discovered, the guy who ran the mine wasn’t the hero we all initially thought he was.  

Pike River was where it all started. And the government is setting out today to walk all over the progress that we’ve made since then – apparently because we’ve gone too far with it.    

But even though I’m just as capable as the next person of shaking my head at some of the things businesses and employers are required to do in the name of keeping people safe, I’m not happy about the screws being loosened.  

But what the Government has in its favour is that most people haven’t experienced the consequences of things going pear-shaped at work.  

That’s why it’s so easy to dismiss health and safety as an overreaction. But I bet if you have known someone who has lost their life at work or if you know someone who has been seriously injured at work, then you’ll have a much more realistic view of things.  

The irony is we’ve got the Government on one hand saying today that its crackdown on badly-behaved state housing tenants has worked  

But, on the other hand, it’s saying that it wants to be less heavy-handed on employers who don’t do everything they can to keep their people safe.  

Which is why the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden, wants WorkSafe to ditch what she’s calling its “adversarial nature” and to move from managing risk generally to critical risk.  

But what on earth does that mean?  

Do you know the difference between “general” risk and “critical” risk?   

Example: is an extension cord running across the floor somewhere at work a “general risk” or a “critical risk”? The answer to that depends on the consequence.  

If the consequence of a power cable running across the floor in the office is just a bit of a nuisance and nothing else, then you could probably categorise it as a “general risk”.  

But if that cable lying across the floor means someone trips on it and they bang their head pretty hard on a wall and get some sort of brain bleed, then that becomes a “critical risk”, doesn’t it?  

See what I mean?  

The idea of taking the pedal off the metal and only taking “critical risks” seriously probably sounds great to many of us. But dig a bit deeper or even think about it for a few minutes and you’ll realise that it’s a huge mistake.  

It’s a bit like Trump coming in and saying that all this Paris climate change st

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Mornings podcast with John McDonald
from NEWSTALKSB.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Do you know if there's anyone who shouldn't be told,
If there's anyone who shouldn't be told, they can wind
things back on the health and safety front. It's a
New Zealander because we are absolute shockers when it comes
to the sort of thing, and our health and safety
laws are the only thing standing between our she'll be

(00:33):
right attitude and misery and tragedy. The only thing, especially
when you consider this that even with the health and
safety laws we have, at the moment, our workplace fatality
rate is sixty percent higher than Australia's and more than
five hundred percent higher than the UK's. So it's a
perfect time, isn't it a perfect time to be getting

(00:57):
rid of what the government says is work safe safety
at all costs mentality. We're fine, yes, Now, just in
case you think I'm a health and safety freak, I'm not.
But I'm also enough of a realist to know that
without these laws, more people would be going home at
the end of the day injured or not going home

(01:20):
at all. Tell that to the government. Another reason why
us New Zealanders are the last people to be told
we can go a bit easy on the old health
and safety. Is that we have very short memories, it seems,
which the government knows because it's counting on us forgetting
what brought about this so called safety it all costs

(01:42):
mentality that it wants to get rid of. I haven't
forgotten it happened on the nineteenth of November twenty ten,
when the Pike River explosion happened. Remember that, I remember
distinctly getting home from work that afternoon and all of
us watching the live TV coverage, and that was what
said and train a huge overhaul of help and safety

(02:04):
laws because as we eventually discovered, you remember this, the
guy who ran the mine. We all thought he was
a hero, turned out he wasn't. And so Pike River
was where it all started. And the government is setting
out today to walk all over the progress that we've
made since then, apparently because we've gone too far with it.

(02:25):
We've taken it all a bit too far, but too seriously.
But even though I'm just as capable as the next
person of shaking my head at some of the things
businesses and employers are required to do in the name
of keeping people safe. I'm certainly not happy about the
screws being loosened because what the government has in its
favor is that most of us, thankfully most of us.

(02:49):
I can't speak for you specifically, but most of us
haven't experienced the consequences of things going pair shaped at work.
That's why it's so easy for us to dismiss health
and safety as a o very action. Oh, it's all
a bit too far the night bet. If you have
known someone who has lost their life at work, or
if you know someone who has been seriously intern at work,
then you will have a much more realistic view of things.

(03:12):
But for most of us, we've got no idea about
the real benefits of the health and safety changes that
have come into force since Pike River. And the irony
is is what really struck me today. The irony is
we've got the government on one hand saying today that
it's cracked down on badly behaved state housing tenants has worked,
But on the other hand, it's saying it wants to

(03:34):
be less heavy handed on employers who don't do everything
they can to keep their people safe. Makes absolutely no sense.
That's why the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety. Brook
van Velden wants work safe to ditch what she's calling
its quote adversarial nature, and she wants it to move
from managing risk generally to critical risk only. But what

(03:57):
on earth does that mean? Do you know the difference
between general risk and critical risk? I'll give you an example.
Is an extension cord running across the floor somewhere at
work a general risk or a critical risk? And the
answer to that depends on the consequence. If the consequence
of a power cable running across the floor, then the

(04:19):
office is just a bit of a nuisance and nothing else,
then you could probably say, all right, that's a general risk.
But if that cable lying across the floor means someone
trips on it and they bang their head pretty hard
on a wall and they get some sort of brain bleed,
well that becomes a critical risk, doesn't it. So it
I mean, And while the idea of taking the pedal

(04:41):
off the metal and only taking critical risks seriously probably
sounds great to many of us, just dig a bit deeper,
or even think about it for a few minutes, and
you will realize that it's a huge mistake. It's a
bit like it's alone. It's a bit like Trump, you know,
coming in and saying all this parrot climate change stuff
is nonsense. And suddenly what happens then you people all

(05:03):
around the world saying yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, enough of
this climate change nonsense. And the reason that's happening is
because people like Trump are giving people permission to go
all climate change skeptic on it. And this is exactly
what the government's doing with its loosening of the health
and safety laws. It's giving people permission to go easy
on health and safety. And as I said right at

(05:24):
the start, that is the last thing us New Zealanders
need When our default position is She'll be right, it's
a disaster waiting to happen all over again.

Speaker 1 (05:36):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.