Appendix 2: Precis of Submissions
Electricity Engineers' Association of NZ Ltd (EEANZ)
(P E Berry, Executive Director in consultation with the Electricity Supply Association of NZ)
Type of Interest: EEANZ represents engineers, technical and contracting managers in the electricity supply industry. The Electricity Supply Association is a national association for the power companies. Both are involved in the Industry Training Organisation (ITO).
Comments on Current Regime
Need for improvements overall. Concerns about compliance costs, lack of transparency of costs and outcomes of energy inspection services in the Ministry of Commerce and general lack of accident data across industry. Question need for electricity workplace safety regime separate from OSH workplace regime.
Areas for Improvement
Alternative option to improve safety administration provided. See section 11.
Comments on Principles
No comments on those in discussion document. Extra principles proposed to cover:
- Alignment of safety regimes with government's policies on workplace and public safety.
- Framework for safety needs to be simple and clearly understood by all concerned.
- Appropriate incentives for those able to influence safety outcomes - employers, employees and the public.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
Alternative option proposed which involves performance-based regime, output regulation and industry owned guides, standards and Codes of Practice.
Input vs. Output Regulation
Alternative option focuses on output regulation and performance-based standards.
Comments on Approach One
Current regime provides unnecessary dual coverage through Electricity and HSE Acts. Does not ensure currency of worker competence. This limits its value in terms of employer and employees' responsibility for workplace and public safety. Approach One was supported by a minority of members who considered registration a more cost-effective option than employer licensing for their small contracting businesses.
Comments on Approach Two
Focus of safety should be upon ensuring a person is competent to do the work. Relevant ITOs provide standard framework for employers to assess ongoing competence of their workers. Government intervention, if required, could be at audit level to monitor public safety outcomes. Industry sectors could offer a voluntary registration system to provide additional assurance to the public. Would not require formal licensing regime. Approach Two does not pursue key role of employers in ensuring competency.
Comments on Approach Three
Support for workplace safety being covered solely by the HSE Act. Building Act would be limited to buildings only. Cost of compliance and willingness of local authorities to provide such a service, as they may assume some liability, is unknown. Option would require further detailed investigation.
Addition of electrical workplace safety requirements is only incremental. Cost of compliance under Building Act not known.
If industry covered under HSE Act only, then workplace Codes of Practice and guides recognised by OSH necessary. Public safety should remain outside HSE Act. Approach Three supported by electricity supply industry. Cost benefit of using other Acts to cover public safety requires further analysis.
Alternative regime proposed is based on competence. Requirement for certificates of competence diminished if there are sufficient statutory incentives and liability to ensure only competent persons carry out electrical work. Consumer Guarantees Act does not cover commercial or industrial electrical work. Sale of Goods Act would need amending to cover services.
Comments on Approach Four
Public safety in the workplace should be solely governed by HSE Act, public safety elsewhere should use existing public safety statutes, supplemented if required by new statutory powers.
Other Approach
Alternative regime proposed includes features of Approaches Two, Three and Four and focuses on key role of industry employers and employees in achieving workplace safety.
Key premises:
- Workplace safety (including public safety in the workplace) should be governed solely by HSE Act, relevant industry safety rules, standards, guides or codes.
- HSE already covers all employees and employers. Act is performance-based to encourage industry to develop compliance options. Industry has developed minimum standards and plays active role in ensuring quality and safety of products and processes.
- Any person carrying out electrical work shall be competent to do that work.
- Electricity supply industry has developed competence benchmarks through Electricity Supply ITO. HSE Act requires workers to maintain competencies but licensing via EWRB does not.
- Responsibility for ensuring employee competence lies with employer.
- Public safety outside the workplace is responsibility of industry and Government through legislation, standards and industry codes (could range from a specific Public Safety Act to amending Consumer Guarantees Act and Building Act).
Details: Works to be designed installed and maintained by competent persons. Responsibility for ensuring competency rests with employer. Safety of final product to be to recognised industry standards and certified to owner by warranty of safety and fitness issued by employer. Approved audit body may audit satisfactory operation of public safety aspects and ensure evidence of competency of persons carrying out work (or satisfactory supervision). Penalty provisions could be in utilities or electricity statute via consumer legislation and existing litigation process.
Industry warranty process could be used. Requires further consideration.
Government and industry have a role in educating public about what work they may do, how to do it safely and how to select competent people. Government intervention should be at the level of assisting industry to deliver safety.
Cost/benefits of approach difficult to compare as there is a lack of information on costs and outcomes of the present regime. However, there is duplication currently which has a cost. Costs will not increase to those having workplace safety compliance programmes but will to those who do not.
Other Issues Raised
- Little recognition in discussion document that HSE Act already applies to all employers in electrical industry and OSH is main initiator of prosecutions.
- Industry has prepared own safety rules and demonstrated its ability to manage its own safety.
- Certificates of Competency under HSE Act were largely developed by industry.
- No recognition of utility multiskilling. Licensing of workers under separate regimes may increase their costs and limit opportunities for competition.
Transpower NZ Ltd
(Ian Niven, GM Corporate Services)
Type of Interest: Supplier.
Comments on Current Regime
- Does not conform with government policy in that does not require industry to self-manage safety. Extent of control which statutory board is required to exercise over employee competence under Electricity Act is contrary to policy of shifting control and responsibility to industry.
- Registration system with its ownership of employee competence and monitoring by electricity regulators detracts from object of HSE Act of employer responsibility.
- Mistaken belief that regulating workers will assure public safety.
- Electricity regime has weak sanctions either not used or ineffective and insufficient accountability and consumer protection. HSE workplace safety regime has more accountability. Disciplinary actions have taken excessively long times and have had little effect on person disciplined. (Note that penalties are higher under HSE than Electricity Act and more prosecutions are taken under HSE Act).
- Duplication of compliance costs for electrical industry workplaces with Electricity and HSE Act requirements to met. For example, accidents must be notified to both Commerce and OSH and investigations and prosecutions can be done by both parties.
- Public safety issues can be addressed more economically than at present through existing mechanisms outside the Electricity Act.
Alternative Approach
- Sole coverage by HSE Act.
- Remove registration provisions and require industry accountability.
- Use of industry skill standards as basis for employers to ensure competency of employees.
- Public safety to be achieved by industry development of standards, trader membership in associations which include self monitoring and accountability for members' performance.
- Public protection via consumer legislation on quality of products and services. Public safety via Crimes Act.
- OSH to enforce industry-developed guidelines covering products and services.
- Industry associations formed as brand of quality. Associations monitor and enforce member compliance with standards.
- Employers have full responsibility for managing competence of employees with NQF skill units as basis. Incentive is competing for ACC rating discounts.
- Public educated about recourse for poor service/product or safety failure.
- Warranty covering compliance and fitness for purpose - signed declaration on invoice with schedule of work. Trader required to maintain records of warranties and schedule. Customer has copy. Building owners required to keep warranties/schedules as part of building records.
Transpower believes this will meet government policy on workplace safety, provide self-management by industry, minimise cost of compliance, provide accountability by employers and self-employed workers for workplace and public safety, build on existing mechanisms for failed service and safety, and eliminate outdated regulatory controls.
Other Issues Raised
Limited options put forward in discussion document may lead to status quo.
Data provided on injury time in the transmission part of the industry which shows downward trend in injury frequency rate since HSE Act supported by Transpower's insistence that contractors followed performance-based self-management approach required by HSE.
New Zealand Fire Service
(Brian Davey, Operational QA and Performance Measurement Advisor)
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Comments on Current Regime
It doesn't cover owner/operators of installations and equipment in private use or deal with lack of maintenance. Significant number of fires are caused through careless acts but there are a number of incidents where failure, leakage or breakage of appliances is a factor. Risks increase in caravans because of construction and limited exits.
Areas for Improvement
Work done by householder should be certified as safe by qualified person and documented. Warrant of Fitness may be appropriate for all gas installations. (Concern is risk of gas installations in caravans or enclosed spaces.)
Other Issues Raised
Fire Service could make data on incidents attended by them available.
Building Industry Authority
(Bruce Klein, Building Services Adviser)
Type of Interest: Specific interest group.
Submission deals with particular issues relevant to building work.
Comments on Current Regime
- Territorial authority must accept an energy work certificate for gas and electrical work even if it is obvious that work does not comply with the Regulations.
- Customers, particularly rural energy ones, have difficulties in finding out about the energy work done in their building.
- Requirements not being met. For example, where electrical work does not comply with Electricity Codes of Practice in BIA documents, a Determination must be sought from Authority, e.g. for lifts (Building Act 34a). This is not happening as electricians can issue energy work certificate stating compliance with the Electricity Regs even though they do not comply with ECPs and Documents.
Areas for Improvement
Territorial authority should have option of accepting or rejecting energy work certificates.
Background: Building Act requires work to comply with the building code. Can be done by producer statements, building certificates issued by a building certified by territorial authority or third party inspection. Building Act requires that territorial authority is the "office of record" for documentation to do with construction of building. Records on electrical and gas installations that are part of work requiring a building consent will be kept by local authority.
Building owner has energy work certificate to show work complies with the Regs. Local authority is bound by law to accept an energy work certificate even if it is blatantly obvious work does not comply.
If energy work is certified as unsafe, building can be deemed dangerous under S 64 of the Building Act. If work done under a building consent, notice to rectify can be issued to energy worker.
Compliance with building code is by energy work certificate.
Records of routing of wiring or gas pipework not kept in easily obtainable form except where specific energy work is part of building consent.
Other Point Raised
Authority staff will work with Commerce and SANZ to prepare appropriate energy documentation for reference in the BIA Approved Documents for use in buildings.
Rachel Gould
Remuera, Auckland
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Comments on Current Regime
Does not provide adequate levels of public safety.
Husband died as result of incorrect wiring in holiday home. Inquest did not hold anyone specifically at fault.
Areas for Improvement
Wants amendments to Electricity Act & Regs to ensure:
- All electrical work selectively or randomly inspected by registered inspectors.
- All people carrying out electrical work (excluding simple fittings by homeowners) be licensed and registered by statutory appointed board or companies operating through delegated authority from Board or Crown.
- Inspectors able to enter any premises for inspecting and testing before connection to supply.
- All electrical training and work to adhere to national standards.
- Registered electricians to pass courses ensuring compliance with Electricity Act 1992 as well as HSE Act and Building Act 1991 before allowed to practise.
- Electrical work to have certification by registered inspector on completion.
- All electricians and electrical employers to be registered annually through license and this maintained as a public record. The practice of electrical work should be limited to registered practitioners.
- Registered electrical practitioners should be subject to immediate review of competency or suspension of license where work is completed or made operational without inspection, or incurs a safety breach that may, or does, injure.
Other Issues
- Suggests use of mandatory earth leakage circuit breaker (as in NSW). Cost of $300 per household must be set against risk of death and costs of accidents to the community.
- Notes death through electrical faults has major costs to individuals and taxpayers that should be taken into account when considering the cost of regulating for safety.
Paul Neems
Senior mechanical/electrical inspector, Mining Inspection Group, Ministry of Commerce.
Type of Interest: Practitioner as health and safety inspector with delegated powers under electricity act and registered electrical engineer.
Comments on Current Regime
HSE Act provides better method of improving work practices and maintenance as it puts responsibility on persons who influence the way work is conducted in contrast to Electricity Act which concentrates on individual worker.
Safety tuition every two years and present auditing system are not effective. Audit is more concerned with ensuring statutory requirements were followed, not that the work was performed competently and safely.
Areas for Improvement
Suggests two-pronged approach with focus on ensuring all electrical workers have adequate knowledge and skills to perform in safe and competent manner. Second requirement involves putting accountability for worker and workplace safety under HSE Act. Need for Electrical Health and Safety Inspector in each OSH regional office to do safety audits on electrical installations and investigate any accident or dangerous occurrence. Cannot be done effectively from central location.
No Specific Comments
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
Need for basic training requirements to be set in Regs and administered by statutory board or other government agency. Important that legal obligations of employee and employer clearly understood. Should be clearly stated "Electricity at work" Regs that state performance-based objectives. Methods of meeting these can also be contained in Codes of Practice.
Comments on Approach Three
Supports use of HSE Act to cover workplace safety. However, this should be based on foundation of basic training for workers set in Regulations and administered by statutory board or other government agency.
HSE Act gives employers more incentives to make sure workers have appropriate safety and test equipment for working and checking and do not work on live equipment unnecessarily. Also employees would be clearly responsible for ensuring workers have skills necessary to perform their work including specialised training.
Other Points Raised
Need to expand health and safety inspection function in regional offices so it covers electrical safety. Need for regulators to have regular contact with industry it serves which is difficult for centrally-based agency.
ECNZ
(G Baumann, General Counsel)
Type of Interest: Supplier/Distributor.
Comments on Current Regime
Records don't establish that there is an unacceptable situation in deaths and serious injuries. But it is not possible to tell how many deaths and injuries have been avoided by current regime or might have been avoided by an alternative. Need to focus on finding more rational approach which is better at ensuring competency and less expensive to administer.
Areas for Improvement
Safety will be improved by more emphasis on observing basic principles of HSE Act. Transfer of responsibility for worker competency from Boards to employers will provide additional incentives to ensure the competence of workers. Making employer responsible for issue of warranty certifying safety of completed work will also impose discipline. Warranty for unsafe work would constitute grounds for prosecution and possible criminal liability.
Additional Principles
Need for final framework to be logical and aligned with legislative regimes governing other industries. (Current regime with two Acts and licensing is out of line with other industries.)
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
Right balance depends upon outcomes regime is attempting to achieve and the most practicable ways of ensuring those.
ECNZ thinks that the most cost-effective way of ensuring safety is to ensure persons carrying out the work are competent. This is best assured by employers. Evidence of competence should be relevant competency unit standards. Regulatory regime based on competency will be input based and prescriptive in nature. For instance, Government could decide that particular installation work, e.g. household, may only be carried out by persons with particular qualifications. For supply systems, Government may simply require that person is competent and permit employer to decide competency. Liabilities on principals by S18 of HSE will act as check.
Input vs. Output Regulation
See comments on Section 4.
Comments on Approach One
Advantage is that the people in gas and electrical industries are familiar and comfortable with the regime. EWRB is altering audit systems to concentrate on competency of workers and this is supported.
Disadvantage of existing regime is that registration is at early stage of career and may not cover current competency. Some current work may bear little relationship to original training worker received.
Other disadvantage is joint coverage of workplace safety which causes confusion with workers oblivious to HSE requirements. Need only HSE Act for workplace safety with safety Codes of Practice recognised under it as means of compliance documents.
Approach One provides minor improvements to Regs which should happen in any regime.
Comments on Approach Two
No advantage in continuing regime which has licensing on central register. Licensing should only be invoked where competency of self-employed persons requires additional control. Electricity and Gas Acts could specify that persons undertaking electrical and gas work should be competent to do that work. Could be specific requirements for specific types of work. Commerce should contract an accrediting body to check with employers and self-employed persons on qualifications of workers and work carried out. If there is a problem Commerce should investigate further and prosecute if there are breaches of Act and Regs. Audit could be funded by levy on value of work or from sale of safety warranties.
Advantage may be that being registered may enhance pride in one's work but on its own, this is not a valid reason for continuing licensing. Support use of qualifications and competency unit standards, but prerogative of employer to determine competency of its employees must not be usurped. Approach retains dual Act coverage of safety which ECNZ strongly deprecates.
ECNZ believes unit standards and qualifications should be evidence of competency which employers may choose to accept.
Comments on Approach Three
Workplace safety needs only HSE Act but public safety outside workplace should not be covered by HSE Act. Most appropriate would be Electricity and Gas Acts as Building Act would be limited to safety in buildings only. Building Act should not extend coverage to electrical and gas installations and appliances. Would lead to duplication and interfacing difficulties.
Sole use of HSE would not change compliance costs if safety provisions in Electricity and Gas Regs were supplanted by industry codes recognised by OSH as means of compliance with HSE Act. Would increase compliance costs to extend coverage of Building Act to electrical and gas installations and appliances.
Public safety would remain outside HSE Act to avoid converting HSE Act into a de facto public safety Act which would detract from focus on workplace safety. For public safety, electrical contracting sector may need to deal mainly with Building Act while supply sector would be governed by Electricity Act
Certification of competency under HSE or Electricity Act is unnecessary, undesirable and over-regulation because HSE Act requires principals to ensure competency of persons who carry out the work. Transfer of responsibility from employees to employers is important incentive for employer to take all practicable steps for safety.
Sale of Goods Act doesn't apply to services such as repairs or installed systems. Consumer Goods Act deals with repairs, but scope is limited to items for personal, domestic or household use excluding commercial or industrial work. Use of Consumer Guarantees Act to cover commercial or industrial electrical work would detract from one-stop shop concept that should apply to public safety in electricity and gas industries. Sufficient for these Acts to be an additional line of defence for domestic consumers.
Approach Three concedes single HSE coverage of workplace safety but spreads public safety over several Acts which would be undesirable. Preference is for these to be in performance-based provisions and regulations of one Act.
Comments on Approach Four
In absence of all-embracing Public Safety Act or Utilities Act, Electricity and Gas Acts are logical statutes for public safety. Spreading public safety provisions over several Acts is undesirable. One stop shop is desirable for consumer safety.
This option is the most promising for further discussions but ECNZ is not keen on use of the Building Act as an alternative to the Electricity Act. Use of inspection processes implies possible use of non-competent persons to do work which might compromise public safety. Suggestion in Approach Four that worker licensing regime is necessary is rejected. It would be sufficient to require that persons carrying out work be competent, then put in place system for auditing maintenance of that competence.
Comments on Preferred Approach
Second and fourth approaches have greatest potential but both advocate continued licensing of workers to safeguard public safety. ECNZ believes public safety will be well safeguarded by employers monitoring and assessing continuing competency of their workers. Licensing of individual workers is unnecessary and takes funds better spent on auditing competence and educating public to demand evidence of competence.
Other Approaches
Proposals for an Alternative Legislative Framework
Fundamental concepts for legislative structure governing safety:
- With exceptions for simple defined work done in accordance with Codes of Practice, all work to be done by person competent to do the work.
- Responsibility for ensuring that any person is competent lies with employer or with self-employed person (but competency shall be periodically audited).
- Workplace safety shall be solely under HSE Act and relevant workplace safety Standards or industry codes under the relevant Regulations.
- Public safety outside workplaces shall be governed by Electricity and Gas Acts and any relevant public safety standards or industry codes.
- Registration of workers discontinued. Evidence of competence to be provided by assessments against unit standards registered on NQF.
Elaboration of the Above and New Points
- Some people entitled under existing registration system to carry out work may not be competent to do so as they may not have relevant current experience of some specialist tasks. Transfer of responsibility for competence to employer will prevent people not fully competent from carrying out work. Special steps may be necessary for self-employed. Proposed industry do recognition of current competency assessments (RCC) for self-employed.
- One-off assessment by EWRB is not satisfactory evidence of continuing and current competence.
- All electrical and gas workplaces covered by HSE Act. Measures desirable to assist with management of risks should be written into industry workplace safety codes recognised by OSH. This would result in better appreciation of HSE requirements. Codes might include requirements for additional training of people who work with live equipment.
- Case for Government to regulate because of hazardous badly designed, operated or maintained installations and appliances present to general public. These regulations belong in Public Safety or Utility Act (or Act belonging to the industry).
- All work performed for an asset owner by non-employees should have warranty on safety of the product of its work and its compliance with any specification supplied by the owner. Warranty would imply that product is safe, and that regulatory requirements had been complied with, including testing and inspection required by a competent person. This would be in Electrical Regulations.
- Audits: Commerce should contract with independent and qualified auditor to carry out audits of competency unit standard portfolios of workers. Auditor would focus on system employer uses to assess employee competency. If portfolio contents out of line with work employer was requesting there would be prima facie case that employer was in breach of Act. Responsibility of Commerce to investigate further. ECNZ seeks no exemption for the electricity supply industry in respect of the auditing of worker competencies. However auditing of supply industry workers could be given lower priority than some other parts of the electrical industry.
- Government (Commerce and OSH) should maintain a publicity campaign encouraging public to ensure that persons doing electrical and gas work are competent to do that work.
- Cost:Proposed framework will add costs to people who are not now complying with HSE Act. There would be savings in administration of licensing and registration. This should be transferred to auditing system and publicity to encourage requests for competency. Would be one-off transition costs with transfer of older qualifications into the equivalent competency-based qualifications. Target date of three years could be set. RCC assessment processes could be used. If transition compulsory, Government should subsidise costs involved. Transfer of older qualifications could be voluntary.
New Zealand Engineering, Printing And Manufacturing Union Inc.
(Hazel Armstrong, Safety co-ordinator)
Type of Interest: Represents some electrical and gas workers.
Comments on Current Regime
Adequate safety is not being achieved. Employers are using unqualified staff, not as many people are being trained and training is more limited. Experienced tradesmen are being replaced by less experienced younger workers.
Areas for Improvement
Too much pressure from employers to cut costs is leading workers to take risks and cut corners.
No live work should be done whilst working alone without competent assistance.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
Prescriptiveness gives employee a definitive standard to work to. Performance standards have potential to create conflict between worker and employer.
Input vs. Output Regulation
Preference is for input regulation to help keep out the cowboys. No advantage in output regulation. Government will be undermining value of trades certificate which will only benefit employers who want cheaper labour.
Comments on Approach One
Should be definitive boundaries describing what work must be undertaken by registered workers. Employer licensing system has exceeded its intended scope, and is being abused.
Want to retain EWRB and minimum standards for working in the industry.
OSH & Commerce should have Memorandum of Understanding. Reduction in funding would not enhance safety.
Central licensing board needed and if employer licensing continues it should be under EWRB to maintain standards.
This is preferred approach among the four, but there is concern with it removing many of the prescriptive requirements.
Comments on Approach Two
Want retention of qualification standards set in regulations and administered by a statutory board. Concern that workers are being treated as expendable "acceptable losses".
Comments on Approach Three
Safety would be compromised because workers not licensed and industry would be controlled by people without specialist skills and knowledge. Compliance costs would rise if Electricity Act repealed as costs of inspections would fall on business. Costs would reduce if goal posts shifted and standards compromised.
Powers of Electricity Act and its Regs should be put into HSE Regs. Standards have fallen over recent years because of permissiveness of Electricity Act so this should be corrected in amended Regulations.
Certificate of competence would be required to enable holders to carry out live work and work that may pose risk to life, limb or property.
Consumer legislation reactive and inherently negative. Need to provide additional protection for consumer through enforcement of standards so that work is done right the first time. Current sanction by which person can apply to EWRB to censure or de-register electrical worker provides good check on standards of professionalism.
Comments on Approach Four
Parallel system does not give consumer certainty and increases the complexity of the regime.
Other Points
Electrical safety working group of union has been set up. Keen to participate in industry meetings.
Consumers' Institute
(David Harmer, Policy Analyst)
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Comments on Current Regime
Adequate safety not being achieved under current regime. Anecdotal evidence is that electricians are not self-certifying all work they should be and existing audit scheme is failing to identify and correct this.
Areas for Improvement
Current level of self-certification needs addressing. Audit process should be adequately funded and auditors able to monitor whether adequate safety outcomes being achieved. Strengthening public awareness of requirement to self-certify prescribed work could increase self-certification.
Comments on Principles
Principles appropriate but competitiveness should be of least importance.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
Essential that there are clearly understood minimum standards. Standards establish benchmarks by which public may assess whether safety outcomes are being met. Essential there are adequate standards covering competence of electrical and gas workers and the standard to which they must perform.
Input vs. Output Regulation
Combination of input and output regulation will best achieve acceptable standard of safety.
Comments on Approach One
Significant advantages to retaining the current regime as it is conceptually sound and provided it is operated effectively, has potential to achieve adequate safety outcomes. Problems with existing regime are at administrative level. In particular, the audit process is not sufficiently robust and has not ensured self-certification is occurring. Not certain how far alternative regimes will achieve adequate safety outcomes. However, cost involved in implementing any alternative is not warranted as effective implementation of current regime should correct problems identified in the discussion paper.
Preference is for Approach One. Need to strengthen audit process to ensure self-certification occurs as well as need to increase public awareness of certificate of inspection. Existence of effective system of self-certification and availability of independent inspections for prospective purchasers provides consumers with mechanism for ensuring ongoing safety of electrical and gas work within buildings.
Comments on Approach Two
No advantage in amending form of licensing or legislative requirements on qualifications.
Creation of competing boards as proposed will water down existing pool of expertise for auditing. There will be no incentive to become involved in public information campaigns. Certainty and transparency would be lost through multiple registration boards applying different standards.
Comments on Approach Three
Safety outcomes would be compromised if they were regulated under HSE Act and Building Act. Existing regime establishes clear responsibilities on workers and employers to require certification of work. HSE Act places obligations on people who control workplaces to ensure safety. There would be only a limited obligation to ensure act or omission on part of electrical or gas worker does not harm other people.
Enforcement of HSE Act is after the event. Not acceptable for electrical and gas work which has potentially fatal consequences. Prescribed safety standards and certification systems needed to prevent accidents and property damage. Territorial authorities in certifying under Building Act can choose to inspect or not. May compromise safety as authorities not uniformly capable of adequately inspecting the work.
Presume there would be additional costs to business through need to establish compliance programmes. Ability to assess whether work of electrical or gas worker has been performed to appropriate standard requires technical expertise. Employers may have to employ electricians or gas-fitters to certify work performed by others.
Any work currently defined as "prescribed electrical work" should be carried out only by holder of certificate or competence.
Consumer Acts cannot adequately protect consumers from potential consequences of faulty gas and electrical work. They do not protect consumers from physical harm but provide recourse once goods or services are found to be faulty.
Comments on Preferred Approach
No significant advantage.
Myra Harpham
Type of Interest: Public interest. Member of Complaints Assessment Committee dealing with complaints against Electrical workers.
Comments on Current Regime
No convincing evidence of need for major change. Need for good quality data before decisions to change are made. Present regime can be further developed to iron out problems.
Need for regulation of electrical and gas industries to achieve an acceptable level of consumer safety and feeling of security. (See also comments in Section 12.)
Areas for Improvement
- Public education needed to inform public about Certificates of Compliance.
- Electricity Regs should specify time within which COCs have to be delivered to clients to avoid slowing up complaints process with unnecessary complaints about delays.
- Make it mandatory for copies of all COCs to be lodged with one authority.
- Education campaign on additional security provided by independent inspections of houses at time of purchase would improve safety at little cost.
- Committee should be set up to define research needs of safety of electrical and gas industries. Ongoing programme should be developed and funded and results made available to the public.
Comments on Principles
Should include appropriateness of the disciplinary process as well as incentives.
Principle on competitiveness probably unnecessary and would be a secondary principle.
Add principle: "Quality decision making - proposals to change the current safety regime should be based on sound and adequate data."
Prescriptiveness
Agree that detail is useful so workers can easily understand what they must do to work safely and that removing detail and requiring workers to use discretion could increase costs and make it more difficult to achieve successful prosecutions. "Prescriptiveness is the community's safety net."
Input vs. Output Regulation
Output regulation in the sense of regulations which establish that all completed work is safe by some process involving prescriptiveness plus inspection by an independent person has considerable merit. As an ideal this will not die until there is adequate data to show that such a two-tier safety process is not really necessary. Present partial two-tier process has not yet got public confidence.
Comments on Approach Three
Approach does not place incentives on workers and employers to promote consumer safety and public safety, only worker safety. Provides insufficient regulation to promote consumer and public safety.
Comments on Approach Four
No specific comments
Comments on Preferred Approach
Do not support. Certainty and clarity would be reduced and there could be a loss of confidence in electricity and gas safety in the community.
Agree approach could promote competition for licensing but this is not related to improved safety, nor is an increase in consumer choice. Standards of training and qualifications could vary unless prescribed by regulation and monitored. Similarly for disciplinary processes. Availability of adequate resources to monitor and report on the regime could be in question.
Young people entering the industries would not have sufficient information to choose the training provider and licence body.
Approach does not cover the public interest and educational aspects of work currently covered by EWRB.
Other Points Raised
Comments on EWRB's Review of Electricity Act 1992
Agree with most recommendations but suggest following changes:
- Resources needed to inspect and audit and prosecute to ensure acceptable level of safety is achieved. Reliable data from accident reporting and regular external review of the monitoring process may also be required.
- Funding of important work done by EWRB in public education should not be neglected.
- Technical person investigating complaint should act as expert witness not as prosecutor.
- Prehearing assessment panel should receive expert's advice and make decision on whether to proceed.
- Third person for prehearing assessment panel with a quorum of two would solve some existing problems.
- Attributes required in panel members need clarification.
Julien Michael Leys
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Comments on Current Regime
Does not give an acceptable level of safety. Two deaths of members of the public since 1995 from incorrect wiring. Self-certification and limited inspection requires changing to mandatory random inspection of all electrical work. 1992 changes put responsibility for safety on to registered electricians at the expense of the public. There are widespread abuses and the public is exposed to unsafe work practices.
Cost: Secondary issue which should not dominate main intention of safe delivery of electricity. No concrete evidence to prove how costs would rise as suggested in discussion document.
Areas for Improvement
Need for mandatory requirement of random inspection of all electrical work, not just major work.
Comments on Principles
Principles misrepresent the main issue of safety and clear accountable lines of responsibility. The pursuit of economic efficiency cannot precede public safety which should be main priority.
Comments on Approaches One to Four
None of these approaches provide a satisfactory solution to current regime's failures which have resulted in two deaths. Alternative approach suggested which involves tightening up current regime through changes to Electricity Act.
Other Approach
Wants amendments to Electricity Act & Regs to ensure:
- All electrical work selectively or randomly inspected by registered inspectors.
- All people carrying out electrical work (excluding simple fittings by homeowners) be licensed and registered by statutory appointed board or companies operating through delegated authority from Board or Crown.
- Inspectors able to enter any premises for testing before connection to supply.
- All electrical training and work to adhere to national standards.
- Registered electricians to pass courses ensuring compliance with Act 1992 as well as HSE Act and BA 1991 before allowed to practise.
- Electrical work to have certification by registered inspector on completion.
- All electricians and/or electrical employers to be registered annually through licence and this maintained as a public record and practice limited to registered practitioners.
- Registered electrical practitioners subject to immediate review of competency or suspension of license where work completed or made operational without inspection, or incurs a breach that may, or does, injure.
Other Points Raised
Options obfuscate main concern, which is to deliver adequate consistent levels of safety to the public (including workers and consumers). Cost, transparency and flexibility are secondary considerations which should support but not dominate the main intention of electricity legislation.
Dangerous nature of electricity should require government to adopt a specific interventionist stance where safety of those who work with it or use it are concerned.
This preferred approach is supported by R L Webb, Webb Property Services, Mrs E J Allan, Mairangi Bay , Christine Fletcher MP, Audrey Wood, Mt Roskill, Elizabeth Rackley, Epsom , Ian Richards and Chris Brooke, Papakura.
Transalta
(Brent Stewart, Lines Services Manager)
Type of Interest: Owner and operator of electricity generation plants, electricity and gas distribution networks.
Comments on Current Regime
Company experiences some frustration in working with the prescribed and often duplicated requirements of various pieces of legislation and liaising with assorted government agencies administering the legislation.
Areas for Improvement
All safety should be covered by one piece of legislation. Legislation (and Government's role) should focus on outcome-oriented auditing of the safety performance and compliance of the industry against a set of mutually agreed performance criteria, as opposed to prescription and policing.
Options
Transalta unable to assess options in absence of information about the costs of compliance, which is an important decision parameter. Proposed options do not resolve the issue of existing regulatory overlap and duplication between the Gas and Electricity Acts and the HSE Act.
Other Points Raised
Great deal more industry-wide discussion is required. Transalta would welcome opportunity to participate.
Terry Gould
Type of Interest: Public interest, brother of person electrocuted through defective wiring.
Comments on Current Regime
Potential for defects in workmanship to occur is high and consequences may be fatal. Present levels of safety are unacceptable and need to be reviewed.
Areas for Improvement
See comments under S 11.
Comments on Preferred Approach
Approach looks to establish an improved level of accountability and regulation, but because of nature and extent of electrical and gas work, no amount of regulation will reduce the risk of defects so that death will not occur.
Other Approaches
Because most electrical and gas jobs are relatively small and inspection and regulation extremely difficult, no amount of regulation either self or external will reduce risk of defects to a level where the consequence of those defects (i.e. death) are acceptable.
Need to look to means other than human self regulation. Need changes in quality of service and self regulation. Regulatory authorities should continuously review available technology which could reduce the consequences of defective installation or other work. For instance, fitting of Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker should be made compulsory in all installations. In addition, new developments in equipment and methods should be evaluated and introduced compulsorily where that would remove the risks of fatal consequences of defective work.
Other Points Raised
Consumers and general public have neither the ability nor the expertise to competently evaluate standards or work. Nor do have any method of checking whether or not any current or latent defect may be present. The risks associated with using electricity are potentially fatal, unknown and involuntary and therefore there is a prima facie case for government intervention.
Disabled Persons Assembly (New Zealand) Inc
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Input Regulation vs. Output Regulation
Experience with service contracting issues experienced by the voluntary sector leads them to caution against an overly zealous focus on output specification which can lead to neglect of infrastructural development.
Other Points Raised
For 23% of New Zealanders with disabilities, accidents were the cause of their disabilities. For 18% of adults with disabilities, the work environment was the cause of their disability.
Concern that data on benefits of regulation will not be counted in sufficiently as benefits arising from safety-related activity tend to be indirect. They relate to non-incidence of adverse events that might have been expected to happen. The directly-experienced costs of safety-related activity may tend to loom larger than the less immediately identifiable benefits.
Agree that there is a market failure in use of electricity and gas which can lead people to making decisions which can endanger lives or cause injuries and the full costs are not borne by those who create them.
Agree that given the safety risks of working with and consuming electricity and gas are high, unknown and involuntary there is a prima facie case for government intervention.
Where government intervention is seen to be ineffective or inefficient, the issues of why this is so should be specifically addressed, rather than this being necessarily seen as arguments against regulation.
IPENZ (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand)
(John Gardiner, Manager, Engineering Practice)
Type of Interest: Represents engineers.
Comments on Current Regime
Unsatisfactory but unproven that any proposed changes will not create more problems.
Other Points Raised
Government needsto establish a policy framework for all safety-related legislation based on international best practice and structured on an analysis of the relative costs and benefits.
Use of HSE Act as the overarching legislative framework for workplace safety in gas and electrical fields reduces some of the inconsistencies and is supported by IPENZ. However, lack of a coherent public safety framework has created distortions in the proposal. This could be solved by a Public Safety Act, which if structured philosophically and operationally the same as the HSE Act would provide a conceptual framework to link workplace and public safety.
National Council of Women
(Liz Hicks, Executive Officer)
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Comments on Current Regime
Incidence of accidents and fatalities needs to be reduced further. For example, disproportionate number of LPG accidents involving young people needs to be addressed.
Areas for Improvement
Need for reporting systems to be improved to deliver good quality statistical data on incidents in gas and electrical sectors.
Need to raise public awareness of limitations of work homeowners and other householders are able to carry out under the current regulations.
Strongly support mandatory installation of residual current devices (RCDs).
Comments on Principles
Agree principles would help achieve ongoing safety at reasonable cost. Need to add that regulations, incentives and disincentives must assist in promoting safety and influencing safety outcomes.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
To achieve best safety outcomes both prescriptive and performance approaches should be used as appropriate.
Input Regulation vs. Output Regulation
Combination of input and output regulation preferred. The safety of the consumer and worker should be paramount in the choice of approaches.
Comments on Approach One
Preferred approach because the National Council of Women is not convinced that changes to the way gas and electrical industries are regulated would result in improved standards, increased safety and reduced costs for consumers.
Comments on Approach Two
Registration and licensing of workers is essential for safety. Not convinced that non-governmental licensing organisations would be able to provide the necessary unbiased safeguards to ensure public consumer and worker safety. Added difficulty and cost of achieving consistency and standards across several licensing organisations and throughout the whole of New Zealand.
Registration should be mandatory for any qualified electrical or gas worker carrying out prescribed electrical work. All workers operating commercially should also continue to be licensed annually to ensure up-skilling and knowledge of new developments as well as the safety requirements of their jobs.
If more than one training and licensing body is approved, a single authority must have responsibility for monitoring standards and regulations and providing discipline.
Privatisation of training would be difficult administratively. Would raise costs to students and be unlikely to reduce costs (judging from operation of English Language Schools as private training establishments).
Cost of qualified teachers would not reduce if standards were maintained and there would be higher costs in building new facilities over using already established training centres such as technical institutes.
Competition for students would not necessarily improve the standards of training. Self regulation of training and licensing could result in less competent workers licensed by less responsible authorities.
There should be no lowering of standards to conform internationally.
Comments on Approach Three
Safety outcomes would not be compromised if regulated through HSE Act and Building Act respectively.
Consumer legislation gives only limited protection to consumers. Will be sufficient for normal kinds of dissatisfaction - unfinished or poorly finished work, failure to carry out the work to the specifications - provided these failures are obvious. However, nature of electricity and gas is that faults and non-compliance may not be discovered until someone has been seriously injured or even killed. Supplier may then be liable but recompense and correction of the fault will be poor comfort for the customers affected.
Provisions for safety in electrical and gas work cannot be regarded in the same way as any other consumer product. Those who supply them need to be able to prove to customers that they are adequately trained to do the work, understand fully the work they are doing, and be willing to have their work properly inspected.
Other Approaches
No specific comments
Other Points Raised
Any regime should include proper control and if more than one authority is involved it should be quite clear what responsibility each will take.
The National Council of Women is not convinced that changes to the way gas and electrical industries are regulated would result in improved standards, increased safety and reduced costs for consumers.
Dave Howe, Howe Electrical Services Ltd
Onehunga
Type of Interest: Thirty five years in electrical trade including five years as an inspector and 23 years as an electrical contractor.
Comments on Current Regime
- COCs too consuming, expensive and difficult to monitor. Used as income for the Government, not as a means of regulating the electrical industry.
- Self inspection will never work as commercial interests are likely to influence decisions.
- Too many consumers now incorrectly assume that anyone can wire-up their homes.
- Many factories expect mechanical engineers or fitters to be able to carry out electrical repairs or small installations. This puts operators using incorrectly wired machinery at risk and as the repairmen are not registered with EWRB their work is not inspected.
- Need for specialised training in inspecting other electricians' work not recognised in EWRB selection process.
- Current inspectors tend to overlook work that is difficult to access or in dirty areas.
- Inspections carried out when job is complete and all wiring is concealed.
- Electrical workers' qualifications system does not take changes in technology into account. A higher skill level is required.
- The current Electrical Safety Manual is more than adequate as a guideline for electricians.
- Not enough incentive for electrical contractors to raise standards of workmanship.
- Because of nature of the trade, virtually impossible for employers to monitor employees' work on a regular basis.
- Employers (electrical contractors) have limited information on potential employee's safety record due to the Privacy Act. Often too late by the time shortcomings are detected.
- Smaller contractors are disadvantaged by the COC system. The same amount of paper work is required for a job taking two hours and a contract taking six months to complete and employing 50 electricians.
Other Approaches
New Zealand Council of Insurers should set up guidelines on safety and work practices for their members to follow when insuring electrical contractors. This should include all safety aspects, training, skill level, technical training institute curriculum, employment of specialist inspectors to randomly inspect installation work, premium discounts for high standards and de-registration for hazardous work.
Electrical contractors could then advertise their compliance to the recognised standard. Clients would feel secure in the knowledge that their electrical work is guaranteed safe by the insurers.
Those commissioning work would be able to specify in tender documents that all work has to comply with the Insurance Council standards and be guaranteed accordingly.
Insurance companies could make it a "condition of cover" that buildings or plant insured by them must comply with electrical standards or risk having claims denied.
Money currently spent on registration of workers and COCs would be redirected to insurance companies through policy premiums which would fund the additional administration costs.
Electricians or contractors carrying out work without insurance company certification would themselves be held accountable for any accidents caused through faulty workmanship and their clients would be risking rejected insurance costs.
The Government would only be required to intervene in cases of dispute and this could be achieved through the Disputes Tribunal or OSH and ACC.
Other Points Raised
Electrical Contractors Association of New Zealand is not the appropriate body for policing its members' safety standards. Decisions tend to reflect perspective of larger organisations to the disadvantage of smaller contractors or registered employees.
Electrical Supply Industry Training Organisation (ESITO)
(R Howlett, Chief Executive)
Type of Interest: Training supplier. Established February 1996. Has developed 300 unit standards covering skills required for generation, transmission, distribution and utilisation sectors of the industry. Has also developed a range of qualifications which offer employers and employees flexibility to develop skills to match the outcomes required.
Areas for Improvement
Electricity Act is out of keeping with more performance-based statutes.
Comments on Approach Two
Approach suggested by ESITO overlaps with Approach Two. ESITO already provides training designed to meet safety outcomes. Not clear from submission whether registration should be abolished.
Other Approach
Use of unit standards and assessment system goes a long way towards providing employers and principals with a compliance programme for the Electricity Act, the HSE Act and the Accident Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.
Each employee has a record of learning which identifies skills they have. Contract principals are citing unit standards as skill requirements for design build and maintenance contracts.
Unit standards provide public with a level of safety and quality assurance much broader then the existing statutory registration regime. This could be the basis of a non-statutory registration/quality assurance programme for the public. This could be operated by a national industry association.
Questions of liability for faulty workmanship etc would remain with the Consumer legislation.
Alan Marshall, Engineer, (Lighting And Power Protection, Telecom)
Type of Interest: Technical involvement.
Comments on Current Regime
Power distribution companies are undergoing substantial downsizing and key specialist expertise is being lost. Many Power Company staff are guessing at problems they have only a superficial understanding of. However this problem will become much worse if some of the more detailed and specific provisions in the Electricity Regulations are scrapped.
Legislative Overlap
This is largely a "red herring". No problems with the current arrangements, whereby the HSE Act and the Building Act provide some very general requirements, and the Electricity Act and Electricity Regulations provide the more specific requirements needed for the power industry.
The current self-certification scheme does not ensure all work is "declared". It is too easy for a "slack" electrician to avoid sending in certificates, or only send in certificates for his "better" jobs. In fact there are strong incentives in the way the current system works that effectively encourage electricians not to bother self-certifying. Since electricians can charge for the reasonable extra costs involved in supplying a compliance certificate, few home-owners actually request (and pay) for one.
Areas for Improvement
Need to rewrite Handbook to the Electricity Regulations. Current Handbook does very little other than repeat the text of the Electricity Regulations. What is needed is a well organised, easy to read "plain English" handbook which explains why the individual requirements in the Electricity Regulations are needed, and advises (and cross-references) some of the best ways of addressing these requirements.
The current Electricity Act, Electricity Regulations and associated Electrical Codes of Practice etc are only poorly understood by most workers in the power industry - because they are not very user-friendly.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
So long as the down-skilling trend in the power distribution industry continues, there will be an increasing need to put MORE specific provisions in the Electricity Regulations, not LESS, to ensure adequate public safety outcomes.
Favour the approach of specifying the required performance outcome, rather than prescribing the exact way a thing should be done, provided an "acceptable means of compliance" with the required performance outcome is detailed in an associated Electrical Code of Practice, NZStandard or Industry Standard.
In the vast majority of cases, all Power Company staff want is a standard practice that they can specify to staff or contractors. In the few cases where the Power Company wants to employ a different practice, and have the expertise "on-board" to justify the different practice in terms of it meeting the required performance outcome, they should be able do this.
However, any prescriptive regulation should not be abandoned before a recommended (but NOT mandatory) standard practice is availableto power industry staff who don't have the time or expertise to justify their own alternative practice.
Input Regulation
The Electricity Act and Electricity Regulations should continue to specify the minimum "qualifications" for people entitled to do prescribed electrical work. MOC together with the power industry should draw up a "recipe" of suitable topics that need to be adequately addressed in any approved training course. MOC must retain the right to "audit" any approved training course to ensure that a suitable minimum standard is achieved.
Having the appropriate qualifications is no guarantee that individuals' work (particularly of electricians working for themselves) is of an appropriate standard. So some form of auditing a sample of electricians' work is needed. Work audited should be a randomly selected sample of all work done, plus a more thorough audit of individuals suspected of being below standard. To make this work, a (new?) system of "declaring" all work done would be needed. The current self-certification scheme would not do, because it does not ensure all work is "declared".
It would be dangerous to abandon any requirement for qualifications and rely instead on prospective building owners arranging for independent inspection of the electrical work in the building. Too much is hidden "behind walls". Too many possible future hazards cannot be readily tested for now.
Comments on Approach Four
Some necessary requirements, e.g. those dealing with power co-ordination would be inappropriate in the HSE Act. Need to be in industry-specific legislation.
Other Approaches
- As much as possible, shift details of specific practices and hardware from legislation to NZ Electrical Codes of Practice, NZ Standards and Power Industry Standards.
- Wherever possible, make requirements in the Electricity Act and Electricity Regulations performance-based. Detailed associated practices should then be included in the Electrical Codes of Practice, NZ Standards and Power Industry Standards, as "acceptable means of compliance".
- Do not delete any detailed (prescriptive) provision in legislation before an equivalent recommended (but NOT mandatory) standard practiceis availableto power industry staff who don't have the time or expertise to justify their own alternative practice.
- Specific quantified requirements (especially if performance-based) are still going to be needed in the Electricity Act and Electricity Regulations to give power industry staff suitable standards to work to.
- Electricians, and most Power Company staff, should not need to understand the Electricity Act and Electricity Regulations. These are written in legalese, and are not easy to follow. Instead, they should read:
- The appropriate Electrical Codes of Practice etc, which should be totally self contained, repeating (if necessary) any relevant clauses in the Electricity Act and Regulations.
- A rewritten Handbook to the Regulations in well-organised easy to understand format.
Other Points Raised
Power Co-Ordination
Submitter has a particular interest in all Electricity Regulations etc controlling the prevention of hazardous power fault voltages getting into telecommunications networks (known as Power Co-ordination). This is currently covered by Electricity Regulation 58, and Sections 24 and 25 of the Electricity Act.
Electricity Regulation 58 is a performance-based regulation, which prohibits the construction of a power or telecommunication plant likely to cause a hazard to persons or plant. It specifies the maximum induced voltages and human body currents that are "deemed not to be likely to cause a hazard to persons or plant". Sections 24 and 25 of the Electricity Act are prescriptive. They require Power Companies to notify details of proposed works to all relevant telecommunication network operators, who then have up to 15 working days to notify the Power Company of any objections.
All three of these regulations/sections are needed, essentially in their current form, to ensure Power Co-ordination hazard evaluations occur, and occur in an organised and expeditious manner. Deletion of any of these regulations/sections, or even of part of them, would make notification of works, and Power Co-ordination hazard evaluations, less likely to occur. It would also lead to arguments with individual Power Companies about what constitutes a "likely" hazard, and what a "reasonable" time for completing a hazard evaluation should be.
Also, all three of these regulations/sections would be inappropriate in the HSE Act or the Building Act. They need to remain in some power industry specific legislation.
Power Co-ordination is a power industry safety issue that is extremely dependent on retaining the current level of specific (performance-based) requirements contained in Electricity Regulation 58 (and Electricity Act sections 24 and 25). It is getting harder and harder to find Power Company staff capable doing meaningful single phase-to-earth fault current calculations, and Earth Potential Rise contour predictions, or even just understand the general theory behind these. Consequently, there is an increasing danger of Power Company staff, with only a superficial understanding of Power Co-ordination hazard mechanisms, indulging in "wishful thinking" if asked to interpret for themselves a general requirement to be "safe".
Where Power Co-ordination problems are identified which will take some time to mitigate, Telecom is frequently striking a new Power Company "creed" that delaying the enlivening of new works beyond the committed-to commissioning date, is not an option. Power Company staff are now under considerable pressure to "deliver on (or before) time", particularly for large commercial works. As a result, they are becoming increasingly willing to enliven now, and sort any outstanding safety problems later.
Where this would place them in breach of the specific provisions of Electricity Regulation 58, there is a very strong lever to "force" them to sort this out prior to enlivening. However, if these specific provisions were replaced with a much more general requirement to "be safe", then there may be major problems getting Power Company staff with limited knowledge of Power Co-ordination hazard mechanisms, to take the Power Co-ordination hazard seriously, particularly if this might involve a delays. Since the power faults that cause significant induction or Earth Potential Rise hazard, are themselves relatively low risk events, Power Company staff are going to be very tempted to just "take a risk" on their interpretation of what is safe.
Back to Top