Kerre Woodham: Our workplace fatality rate is appalling - Kerre Woodham Mornings Podcast

On average, there are 73 work-related deaths in New Zealand every single year. Relative to the number of people in employment, the New Zealand workplace fatality rate is double that of Australia, and it hasn't shifted in many, many years. More road cones have not made a difference. The New Zealand rate is similar to the rate the UK experienced back in the 1980s. The gap between New Zealand and Australia is consistent across most industries and occupations. It's not like we've got one that is more dangerous than any other, which is why it's throwing these figures out. It's consistent across industries and occupations.  

Looking at the construction industry, the New Zealand fatality rate is 4.41 workers every 100,000 compared to 2.93 workers in every 100,000. The workplace injury rates tell a similar story. New Zealand injury rates, as reported by ACC have improved over time, however the Australian rate is 25% lower, the UK 45% lower. Why? Why are we so much worse than other countries we should be able to compare ourselves with? Brooke van Velden, the Minister for Workplace Safety, says we're overregulated. That there are too many rules and the fear of prosecution is making workplaces less safe.  

“We're changing the focus of worker health and safety to focusing on the critical risks, those things that can cause deaths and serious injury, and at the same time, I'm changing the focus of WorkSafe to care about deaths and serious injury as well and not sweating the small stuff because we've had a culture of too much over compliance, ticking all the boxes, trying to get all of the paperwork done, rather than focusing on, do I actually do anything in my workplace that could cause death or serious injury? And are we doing that correctly?  

“So I'm saying to everybody out there, let's not sweat the small stuff. Let's focus on those deaths and serious injury activities and let's have WorkSafe going on site providing more upfront guidance so that they're here to help rather than having too much of the stick.” 

Who was it that said there are no more chilling words than “hi, we're from the government. We're here to help”? It was an American, I'm sure. Is there going to be able to be a change of emphasis? If all of a sudden, Workplace Safety says, ‘hey, we're here to help. We're here to help you, as the employer, make the workplace safer’. Are we able to pivot away from thinking ‘if Health and Safety come in here, they're going to find all sorts of nitpicky things and make my life misery’, to ‘might ring Workplace Health and Safety and see how they can help me’. It's going to take a big mind shift.  

Mike said this morning he thought there were too many rules and there probably are for people who are educated, who have choices about what they do, who have choices about where they work. For people who don't have the luxury of telling a boss to stick it if they're asked to do something they think is really dangerous, or to do something with equipment they think is dangerous, rules are required. But they need to be clear, they need to be effective and if they're not working, do away with them. And I think most importantly, employees need to be on board with them. The number of times I've had employers ring in and tell me that as required by law, they bring in the safety gear, they instruct the workers to wear it, they do spot cheques to ensure the workers are wearing it, and the workers are not wearing it. They say that the goggles mist up. That the harnesses mean that they can't rely on their own wits to go about the building, and they'd rather risk death than rely on their own sense of balance. The employees don't seem to value their lives in some cases. You've got to get employees on board as well.  

There has to be a culture of safety, that workers have to value themselves and employers have t