3.0 Certification and Inspection of Work
3.1 Background
The Review endorsed self-certification
155. The Review endorsed self-certification by electrical and gas workers because it places clear accountability for safety of the completed work on the worker, who is in the best position to ensure its safety. Self-certification enables consumers to take action over unsafe work against the person who completed and/or certified the work, independent of regulatory intervention.
156. Extending self-certification would also remove the uncertainty for the public as to when or where a Certificate is required.
Certificates provide an audit trail for enforcement purposes
157. As blank certificates are sold to workers by the respective Boards (or resellers on behalf of the EWRB), self-certification acts as a cost recovery mechanism and provides an audit trail for enforcement purpose.
Improved quality of work is convincing industry that self-certification is working
158. All of the electrical and gas industry groups consulted are convinced that self-certification is working and that it has resulted in greater emphasis on safety. Both Boards have anecdotal evidence that suggests that the quality of electrical and gas work has improved since the introduction of self-certification. The PG&D Board has noted a very low level of non-compliance when it has been conducting audits of certified work.
Certification systems should be consolidated and extended to cover all work requiring a licensed worker
159. The Review recommended that the Certificate of Compliance and the Electrical Safety Certificate processes should be collapsed into one to avoid confusion,1 and extended to all electrical work carried out by licensed workers. The costs associated with certificates would need to be reviewed to reflect the significantly increased quantity of certification that would occur. Consideration should also be given to the coverage of the gas self-certification regime.
Certificates should be made more user-friendly
160. It was considered that the licensing authorities should look at ways of increasing compliance with self-certification, including making Certificates of Compliance more user-friendly and by continuing to educate householders and other asset owners to ask for them.
Completed gas and electrical work has to be certified by a licensed worker
161. Prior to 1992, electrical and gas installation work was controlled through a permit and inspection system operated by local electricity and gas suppliers. This system was replaced by a self-certification system in the 1992 energy sector reforms, with all work previously subject to a permit now requiring a Certificate of Compliance provided by a licensed worker. Electrical appliance repairs, maintenance work, and electrical work on supply systems were not covered by the permit system and consequently are not currently covered by the certification regime (the EWRB introduced a voluntary certification system for appliance repairs in response to industry requests). The Certificate of Compliance provides assurance and accountability.
162. Electrical installation work that carries high safety risks must still be inspected and certified by a registered electrical inspector in addition to the standard self-certification.
The certifier is not responsible for work that has been carried out by other licensed workers
163. The certifier (licensed worker) may not have done the work themselves. It should be noted that, in relation to electrical work, when the work has been done by other licensed workers, they remain responsible for the work. In these circumstances the certifier is responsible for the certification of the work, not the work itself. In relation to gas work, the gas certifier is responsible for the work itself.
Self-certification and auditing
164. Electrical workers are required to demonstrate accountability for the safety of a specified range of work via the self-certification system. Copies of Certificates of Compliance issued for completed work must be kept for three years. The risk-based audit system operated by the EWRB uses Certificates of Compliance in two ways. The first is for persons who hold practising licences and who use Certificates; they are considered "low risk". This category was determined from information from previous audit regimes which concentrated on auditing work done under Certificates of Compliance. The second way certificates are used is to identify samples of work, which are then subject to an audit inspection.
165. Only craftsman gasfitters are able to self-certify. Copies of Certificates of Compliance issued by gasfitters and holders of individual exemptions must be sent to the PG&D Board within five days and copies must be kept by the worker for seven years.
There is a range of electrical work for which inspection is mandatory
166. The following kinds of prescribed electrical work must be inspected by a registered electrical inspector, or by a person authorised to inspect the particular kind of prescribed electrical work under an employer licence, before connection to a power supply:
- work on electrical installations that operate at high voltages;
- work in hazardous areas;
- work that involves connecting, altering, extending or earthing mains supply conductors, switchboards;
- work on the installation of mains parallel generation systems;
- work on the installation of medical fittings and medical electrical appliances in patient care areas of hospitals and patient care premises; and
- work on fittings of animal stunning electrical appliances or meat conditioning electrical appliances.
167. Existing provisions in the Gas Act allow registered craftsman gasfitters to self-certify work without the subsequent need for territorial local authorities (TLAs) or others to inspect.
168. Given that the safety regulatory environment is performance-based and has recognised methods of compliance, it may be more appropriate, if the inspection regime is retained, for it to apply only where the risk of non-compliance is shown to be significant. The Review considered that the type of work requiring inspection should be reviewed to reduce compliance costs provided safety is not unduly affected.
There is additional work for which certification is also required
169. Registered electrical workers and others are required to complete certain types of certification following inspection and testing in accordance with both mandatory and recognised means of compliance (i.e. warrants of electrical fitness, periodic examinations, appliance repairs, testing of appliances for second-hand sale, hire, and use on construction sites).
170. There is justification in rationalising and aligning these various forms to create a more consumer friendly regime.
There are issues relating to TLAs and self-certification in the electrical and gas industries
171. One of the objectives of the Building Act 1991 was to allow Territorial Local Authorities (TLAs) to compile accurate records about buildings within their area, based on information from building consents. The intention of these records was to create a service history for buildings that could be used by potential buyers and others to establish whether a building complies with building codes and has been inspected. Inspection by the TLA provides important background information if a building does not comply. However, self-certification for electrical and gas work has meant these sectors are exempted from the requirement to have work inspected by the TLA. Consumers therefore no longer have access to a full set of TLA records about work carried out on a particular building or information about the remedies available if something subsequently goes wrong.
There is concern at the apparent level of non-compliance with certification requirements
172. There is some evidence to suggest that Certificates of Compliance are not being issued for a significant amount of work that should be certified. A study undertaken by the former Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer showed that approximately 50% of extensions and alterations to wiring in electrical installations were not certified, but that installations that had not been certified did not have a higher incidence of faults. The level of compliance for new installations is, however, much higher. This reflects the obligation of the electricity supplier to verify that certificates have been completed before supplying electricity.
173. The uptake and return of gas certificates has remained steady since the introduction of self-certification. The PG&D Board is working with gas suppliers to cross-check customers, in particular new connections, with certificates returned. The objective is a co-operative approach to minimise non-compliance and make gasfitters aware that if they are failing to certify in accordance with regulatory requirements, they are likely to face disciplinary action from the Board.
174. Assessment of the level of compliance with LPG and certification of additions, replacements and alterations is more difficult to manage, but figures extracted from the PG&D database show a good level of compliance in these areas. The Board is continuing to work with gas suppliers and gas appliance manufacturers to maintain this.
175. The Board has contacted gasfitters asking for co-operation, and reinforcing that the certificate not only provides a safety assurance and an essential property document for owners, but there is also protection for the certifier providing a record of the tested and verified work carried out.
There are cost issues concerning certification of all work
176. There are concerns that while certification is a mechanism used in the auditing of licensed workers, the costs associated with operating the regime may be too high. For this reason it is recommended that licensing Boards be required to implement low cost alternatives, such as e-commerce, which would also aid long-term record keeping.
Compliance issues can be resolved under a self-certification regime
177. As self-certification is one of the cornerstones of the safety regime, any problems relating to compliance are of concern. Some parties to the Review called for the return of the old inspection regime that applied before the 1992 reforms. However, this would be a retrograde step as inspection would shift accountability for the safety of work away from the worker, who is the person best able to influence safety, and would be substantially more expensive. Estimates of the cost of the previous permit and inspection regime range from $15 million to $30 million. Moreover, the PG&D Board has noted that territorial authorities find it difficult to meet their inspection obligations under the PG&D Act because of resourcing problems. Many local authority inspectors are becoming generalists, rather than specialists, and this could compromise safety if inspection replaced self-certification.
Safety Certificates
178. During the Review, consumer groups suggested that insurance companies be encouraged to promote Certificates of Compliance as a way of reducing risk. While this idea has merit the Review did not conclude that it should be made part of the legislative framework but rather that it would best be pursued by the industry and licensing authorities.
3.2 Responses to 1999 Cabinet Decision
3.2.1 Self-Certification
Review Recommendation 10
The present system of self-certification is endorsed and consideration should be given to extending it to all electrical work carried out by licensed electrical workers.
Review Recommendation 11
The Certificates of Compliance and the Electrical Safety Certificates should be collapsed into one system to avoid confusion.
Review Recommendation 43
Existing requirements for licensing and certification should be retained until further work is done on the level of risk from repair and maintenance of gas appliances.
Self-certification would remain, and cover all work by licensed workers
179. The EWP supports the Review recommendation that self-certification be extended to all electrical work carried out by licensed workers. This would ensure that clear accountability for safety of the completed work remains with the certifier and the worker, both of whom (if they are different people) are in the best position to ensure its safety.
This would include maintenance and appliance repair work
180. The principle of certification, that is the assurance that the work is safe, has been tested, and complies with the relevant legislation, should also be retained as this forms the basis of the assurance to the public. Extending self-certification in the electrical regime to cover maintenance work and appliance repair would also remove uncertainty for the public as to when or where a Certificate is required.
Work on electrical metering and control equipment on consumers' premises would require certification
181. A consequence of extending of certification to all work on installations is that electrical metering and control equipment on consumers' premises would also require certification, even though the equipment may not be owned by the consumer. (Gas metering would not be similarly captured because gas installations are defined to be downstream from the meter.) Consumers are entitled to be assured that all work done on their installation has been tested, complies with the relevant legislation, and is safe. The inclusion of metering would ensure that customers were in no doubt as to where certification applied.
The MARIA system would be expected to provide the basis for this certification
182. Any electrical metering work is however generally done under the Metering and Reconciliation Information Agreement (MARIA), This agreement requires that the installation be done by a Test House approved under MARIA, and approval includes a requirement to meet ISO Standards for metering and calibration, and to have a documented quality management system. The MARIA system also requires that each metering installation be certified by the placement of a certification sticker issued by the Approved Test House.
183. Because the MARIA system parallels that recommended for electrical Certificates of Compliance, it is considered that compliance with the MARIA system would be an acceptable alternative provided the MARIA system clearly satisfies the safety objectives to be addressed. It is considered however that the electrical Certificate of Compliance should be added in addition to the MARIA certificate, for consistency.
184. It should be noted that any other metering and control equipment not complying to MARIA standards would require certification in the same manner as all other work.
Costing of an extended certification regime
185. The following chart shows current financial projections for electrical licensing, competency and disciplinary functions for the next three years.
| | | | |
Financial Projection |
| | 1999/2000 | 2000/2001 | 2001/2002 | 2002/2003 |
| Revenue | $2,997,000 | $3,046,504 | $3,000,000 | $3,000,000 |
| Expenses | $2,959,800 | $2,834,511 | $2,900,000 | $3,060,000 |
Surplus/
Deficit | $37,200 | $211,933 | $100,000 | ($60,000) |
Costs of certificates would reduce if applied to all prescribed work
186. Approximately $1,000,000 of revenue is derived from the sale of Certificates of Compliance. It is envisaged that the costs of operating an extended certification regime would not be dissimilar to the present system, and that costs for the electrical licensing and ongoing competency aspects of a licensing body would remain reasonably static.
187. At present the EWRB sells approximately 120,000 Certificates of Compliance per year, at an average cost of approximately $7 per unit. Estimates are that, with the extension of certification to maintenance and appliance repair work, this number could swell to anywhere between one million and five million per year. The cost for each electrical certificate would accordingly reduce to between 20 cents and a dollar each, plus production and processing costs.
Certification simple to keep compliance costs down
188. To ensure that compliance costs are kept to a minimum, the regime for certification should be as simple as possible.
It is proposed that Certificates be required to have:
- a description of the work being certified;
- a declaration that the completed work is safe, has been tested and complies with the legislation;
- clear identification and contact details for the certifier (e.g. name, address and licence number);
- the signature (or some other method of establishing authenticity) of the certifier; and
- a safety compliance mark issued by the licensing Board.
189. It is envisaged that the safety compliance mark might be a small adhesive sticker, with a commonly recognisable "safety" symbol and marking to identify the issuing Board.
Any person would be able to construct their own certificate
190. This approach would mean that any person could construct his or her own certificate provided it contains the safety compliance mark and provides the information required. This certificate could take the form of the certifier's invoice or could be unique to the certifier. All the certifier would have to do is to purchase the safety compliance mark from the licensing Board. This could be done presently by facsimile, but in the near future e-commerce transactions will be possible.
Alternatively certificates could still be purchased from the licensing board
191. Alternatively, the certifier could continue to purchase certificates from the licensing Board in much the same manner as presently existing for Certificates of Compliance.
Responsibility for issuing certificates
192. The EWP considered at length who should legally be responsible for the issue of a certificate. That is, should the onus remain with the certifier (the licensed worker) or the person for whom the work was done (that is, the customer)? It was considered that certifying should remain with the certifier, as the person responsible, and only he or she, not the customer, can decide whether or not work is at a stage where certification can take place.
Provision of certificates
193. The certificate should be required to be supplied to the customer within five days of completion of the work, to remove confusion surrounding when and where certification should take place.
Forwarding copies of Certificates to TLAs would involve too great a compliance cost at present
194. Consideration has also given to rectifying some of the problems with lack of self-certification through some form of central record keeping. This could also address the difficulty TLAs have in not being able to compile complete records of buildings in their area as intended under the Building Act 1991.
195. The lodging of copies of all certificates with the TLA would, with current processes, involve very expensive handling, recording and storage systems, even if work on portable appliances, which are not of interest to the TLAs, were excluded. This is particularly true of electrical work where job sizes tend to be smaller.
196. Therefore, the involvement of TLAs in the certification scheme is not supported, although this may become more practicable in the future. Whether or not a licensing Board requires copies of certificates to be lodged with them is for the Boards themselves to decide.
197. Where a TLA requires evidence of compliance as part of the building consent process, the EWP considers that this should be requested from the building owner under that regime and not under the energy regime.
198. The possible role of energy suppliers is considered separately in section 5.3.6.
Competencies for self-certification be included in licensing criteria
199. The extension of self-certification to all work that must be done by a licensed worker is recommended but only where the criteria for the issue of a licence include competency in self-certification. Note that this would mean that work on installations supplied from small LPG cylinders would also require certification, following the recommendations in section 5.2.1.
"Third-party" inspection of self-certified work
200. Similarly, the "third party" who would inspect work that has been carried out in accordance with a non-recognised means of compliance would be a person who is competent to certify the work of another. Once again this recommendation should only be implemented where the criteria for an occupational licence includes competency to certify the work of others.
201. The inclusion of such issues in licensing criteria is warranted to ensure that those certifying understand their obligations and responsibility in carrying out certification. This becomes more imperative where the recommendations (see 3.2.2) regarding inspection of self-certified work are considered. Those recommendations propose that the levels of inspection be greatly reduced, with the onus being more firmly placed on the certifier.
202. The levels of third-party inspection are considered in detail in section 3.2.2
Proviso regarding testing
203. The EWP is of the view that legislation relating to certification must be supported by a mandated testing of outcomes. These outcomes must ensure that all work is safe, has been tested in accordance with recognised practices and complies with the relevant legislation before connection to the supply.
204. Legislation must ensure, however, that the issues of testing and certification are discrete. The main reason for this is that, particularly in the electrical work area, work is often connected to the electricity supply in stages. The legislation must be clear that the testing regime relates to the connection to the electricity supply, not the provision of certification.
The "safety compliance mark" would be based on a common recognisable symbol
205. The EWP recommends that all of the above certification systems be rationalised wherever possible while still meeting the needs of the Registration Boards and applicable Standards. A safety compliance mark should be adopted that:
- is used by licensed workers, and those operating under exemptions, when they complete specific testing or installation work in accordance with the applicable regulatory provisions;
- is easily associated with any forms of certification needed by the registration Boards;
- provides for recommended forms for certification to be provided as schedules to the legislation or the associated Standards;
- is attached to the appropriate documentation that describes the work covered by the Certificate (e.g. invoice), and not to the appliance or installation on which the work has been done;
- is in the form of a sticker or similar product authorised by the Boards;
- is used as the cost recovery system for audit funding purposes;
- is set in legislation and is protected against misuse;
- is promoted to the wider community to support its effective introduction; and
- wherever possible is aligned with any other marking system that is in place to signify energy safety etc (e.g. the Regulatory Compliance Mark (RCM), which is being introduced for electrical appliances).
EWP Recommendation 12
206. It is recommended that:
- licensing and self-certification remain as the assurance for consumers that the work is safe and complies with the legislation;
- the responsibility for producing evidence of certification stays with the certifier;
- wherever possible, consistency between the gas and electrical self-certification regimes be retained at the consumer. However, it is accepted that there may be differences in administration, i.e. gasfitters to return certificates;
- the electrical regime certification extend to:
- repairs and maintenance; and
- metering and control systems, where installed on consumers premises;
- legislation relating to certification:
- determines what work requires certification;
- determines who can certify and, if necessary, which work can be certified; and
- requires that any document used for certification:
- has a safety compliance mark issued by the licensing Board;
- describes the work being certified;
- requires the certifier to certify that the completed work is safe, has been tested, and complies with the legislation;
- requires the signature, printed name and licence number of the certifier; and
- determines that only the licensing Board can issue the safety compliance mark for certification;
- compliance costs do not deter the certifier from using the certification process. The emphasis with certification would be on tracking the process through a safety compliance mark. Those certifying can use their own documentation provided it has the identifier and contains the required information;
- licensing authorities be required to:
- implement e-commerce to facilitate the process; and
- educate consumers to ensure the success of self-certification;
- appropriate competencies for self-certification to be a criterion for an occupational licence;
- any certificate be provided to the customer within 5 days of completion of the work, and a copy sent to the licensing Board (gas only) within five days of completing the work, the certifier to retain a copy of certificate;
- further work is done on the level of risk from repair and maintenance of gas appliances before a decision on certification in that area is made;
- consequent to the above, the legislation require that work be safe, be tested and comply with legislation before connection to the supply;
- a safety compliance mark be put into legislation to be applied to certification by a registered person where the work or testing has been carried out in accordance with the regulatory requirements;
- the possibility of aligning the mark with any other marking system that is in place to signify energy safety, for example the Regulatory Compliance Mark (RCM), be investigated; and
- legislative and administrative changes made, as a result of this review, be kept flexible enough to allow for the Internet to be used for recording purposes in the future and also for the future possibility of lodging records with the TLAs (under the Building Act).
Legislative Implications
207. Amend the energy sector Acts to clarify the role of self-certification and of independent audit by licensing authorities.
208. Remove from the energy sector Acts requirements for forms of certification other than self-certification.
208a. Note thatlegislative changes should be kept flexible enough to allow for the use of the Internet for recording purposes in the future.
Administrative Issues
209. The key role of licensing authorities in the administration and audit of a self-certification regime would need to be supported by adequate secretariat and data management resources. Resourcing may be an issue.
3.2.2 Work Requiring Inspection
Review Recommendation 49
The current requirement on work requiring inspection should be reviewed to reduce the compliance costs associated with it. It may be appropriate for the inspection regime, if retained, to apply only where the recognised practices are not being followed.
Most requirements for inspection of completed electrical work should be removed
210. Currently a range of electrical work must be both certified and inspected. This is done when the competence of the person doing the work is critical to safety. With the development of competency units covering many of these areas there is a need to consider whether a "double" certification system is still needed.
The list for self-certified electrical work needs to be reviewed
211. The EWP considered it timely to review the list of self-certified electrical work requiring inspection to ascertain whether it remains relevant or whether it would be possible for such work to be checked by a competent person other than a registered electrical inspector. In some cases a check by an electrician, other than the electrician who carried out the work, may be adequate.
Inspection requirements should also be reviewed to reduce compliance costs
212. It was also considered that current requirements for inspection should be reviewed to reduce the associated compliance costs. Given that the safety regulatory environment is performance-based and has recognised methods of compliance, it may be more appropriate for the inspection regime, if retained, to apply only where non-compliance is an issue.
213. Other initiatives may also have a bearing. In hazardous operations or situations in both industries, the transfer of responsibility for workplace health and safety to the HSE Act regime, the amendment of that Act to include leaving work in a safe condition, and the application of regulations, codes and guidelines under the Act, may contribute to making a separate inspection system redundant.
214. There are no tasks in gasfitting that must be both self-certified and inspected.
"Third party" inspection
215. The EWP is of the view that "third-party" inspection need only be required where a non-recognised means of compliance is being used. It considered that the following are sufficient to ensure that the required safety outcomes are met:
- including competency in self-certification (and testing) in licensing criteria;
- including competency in third party inspection (and testing) in licensing criteria;
- the continuing emphasis on a performance based safety regulatory environment; and
- explicit and well-publicised recognised methods of compliance.
216. Hazardous areas already have a certification and third-party inspection regime that is far more prescriptive than would ever be envisaged under a statutory regime.
217. The EWP considers that there are sufficient industry mechanisms in place and that these coupled with the proposals in this paper mean that the need for third-party inspection reduces considerably. It is appropriate, therefore, that third-party inspection should apply only to that work carried out and completed using a non-recognised method of compliance.
Who should do "third party" inspections
218. Within the current system, this would fall largely to those registered as electrical inspectors. As stated above, licensing criteria include competency in the third-party inspection of self-certified work - including testing. Given the flexibility required of the licensing regime within the proposals in this paper, it is quite probable that a person not currently registered as an inspector could be licensed to carry out certain types (or all types) of third party inspection without gaining recognition as an electrical inspector.
219. It is therefore recommended that third-party inspection be carried out only by those who have demonstrated competency in third-party inspection.
220. For this reason consideration needs to be given as to whether or not there should continue to be a registration (or licensing class) of electrical inspector.
Certification of homeowner work
221. At present, certification of homeowner work is carried out by registered electrical inspectors. However, as stated above, the changes proposed to the inspection regime would mean that persons, other than electrical inspectors, could carry out this type of certification. The EWP recommends, therefore, that the certification of homeowner work be carried out by a licence holder who has met the required competency criteria. Further, the EWP recommends that competency to certify homeowner work be a specific licence criterion, but that the gaining of this competency be optional for the licence holder.
EWP Recommendation 13
222. It is recommended that:
- there continue to be no requirement for third-party inspection within the gas regime.
Views are sought on whether or not:
- third-party inspection in the electricity regime extend only to work not carried out using a recognised means of compliance;
- competency in third party inspection (and testing) be an optional licensing criterion, if the electrical inspector class of registration is removed;
- competency in the certification of homeowner work (and testing) be an optional licensing criterion, if the electrical inspector class of registration is removed; and
- the electrical inspector class of registration (or licence) is required.
223. It is noted thatif inspection requirements are eliminated, the levels of competence specified for self-certification may need to be enhanced.
Legislative Implications
224. Amend the energy sector Acts to accommodate the recommendations of the review of inspection requirements.
Administrative Issues
225. None directly relevant to this issue.
Back to Top