Appendix 2: Precis of Submissions (continued)
(Continued)
LPG Association of NZ
Type of Interest: Industry representative group.
Comments on Current Regime
Safety
The LPG Association considers the safety record of both the Natural and LP Gas Industries is good. No actions taken within the framework of the current, or possible gas safety framework could have prevented the deaths referred to in the report. The inclusion of these figures is therefore of questionable usefulness. Whilst it is appreciated that gauging the effectiveness of regulatory regimes is difficult, there is no information in the report to substantiate the conclusion that the current system is failing.
The current regime for gas safety has, over the last five years, resulted in the improvement of the standard of gasfitting. This has been achieved by moving the responsibility for safety from third party inspection to the craftsman gasfitter who certifies the work. The other control on safety is the requirement that gasfitters be adequately trained and registered with the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board.
The LPG Industry does not have any major concerns with the effectiveness of the current regulatory system for gas work. Our concern is restricted to overlaps between the Office of the Chief Gas Engineer and the Explosives and Dangerous Goods section of OSH in areas relating to LPG cabinet heaters, camping appliances and associated equipment.
Costs
The report contains no information which leads this Association to perceive the current system is costing too much. This is not to say that cost-effectiveness is not an issue, but since no information relating to costs of either the current or proposed system is included, a judgement cannot be made.
Comments on Approach One
The LPG Association believes that based on current experience and lacking any information to support substantial changes Approach One would be the Preferred Approach. The concerns the LPG Industry has with the present regime can be sorted out through amendments to regulations and changes to the memorandum of understanding between the OCGE and OSH.
Comments on Approach Two
Licensing
In the Association's submission on the current review of occupational licensing, support was given for retention of a central licensing board established under legislation. The Association does not believe any worthwhile benefits would result in the establishment of private sector organisations for licensing gas workers. Indeed such a move has the potential to increase costs and reduce safety. The option of complete removal of mandatory licensing for gas workers would fly in the face of overseas experience and has the potential for substantial reduction of both worker and consumer safety.
Ministry of Health
Type of Interest: Government department.
Comments on Current Regime
Understand that the decision to review the safety regime for electrical and gas work was influenced by the Electrical Workers Registration Board's concern that safety outcomes were not being achieved under the self-certification regime for electricians. This is contrary to the experience of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board which considers that self-certification has had positive safety outcomes. Self-certification is established in several Australian States. It has been successful and is likely to be extended to the remaining States. Understand that it is combined with compulsory liability insurance for practitioners. It would have been helpful if there had been more discussion about issues relating to self-certification in the paper.
Comments on Approach Two
Licensing
Propose changes to the occupational regulation of plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers which will reduce the prescriptiveness of the legislation and place increased emphasis on performance-based forms of regulation and the regulation of outcomes. Consider that it is more important to register the person who certifies that work has been undertaken in a competent way, rather than to require certification or licensing of the person who undertakes the work. Therefore support the continuance of self-certification for gasfitters and recommend that this be extended to plumbers. Since the three occupations of plumbers, gasfitters and electricians pose similar risks, consider that the occupations should be regulated in similar ways.
The Ministry's review of occupational regulation has concluded that the most efficient method of regulating occupational groups which pose significant risks to people using their services is the certification of practitioners by a public registration board established under legislation.
The arguments in the discussion paper in support of private sector organisations undertaking registration functions are not clearly stated. Competition among private sector organisations for members may reduce costs for consumers but may also lead to uncertainty and lack of transparency about the status of different licensing organisations.
Comments on Preferred Approach
Found the preferred option confusing as it recommends addressing two issues, i.e. worker safety and consumer safety, by placing them within one statute. Consider that these issues are distinct from each other and better addressed separately.
Chris Pattison
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Other Approaches
Two principal concerns:
- Fuses still predominate in internal distribution boards.
- There is no use of earth leakage devices (RCDs) in houses.
Strongly advocates the systematic phasing out of fuses in favour of trip switches, mainly because the extraction of the fuse cartridge exposes the user to live terminals. In addition, trip switches are far easier to reset by feel in the dark (when so often the power seems to trip out), than rewiring a fuse.
Secondly, strongly advocates the compulsory introduction in all new houses of RCDs.
In South Africa, legislation was recently passed requiring that a house's electrical system be tested and a certificate issued prior to its onward sale to another party. It cannot be sold without a Warrant of Fitness (WoF). This is done by electricians who have been checked and warranted to do this work. If this concept were applied in NZ, it would be a simple matter of saying that a building cannot obtain a WoF for ongoing sale without having a RCD fitted. Also, any alteration to the wiring of a building would require a WoF to be issued by the electrician, in turn, only issuable if a RCD had been retrofitted.
Peter Macmillan
Type of Interest: Electrical consultant.
Comments on Current Regime
Safety Outcomes
Over the period 1992-96 the electrical industry's death rate is low. However, in the 1997 year the death rate increased significantly. This year has already started with an electrical death. This is a matter of concern.
Safety outcomes could be improved. The current training systems for trainees and apprentices are confusing and poorly implemented. It allows trainees who are not competent to operate in the industry and remain in training for many years. The cost of the ITO practical training systems is so great that many employers tick and flick the practical requirements. This is due to the shift from the Polytechnic training system to an employer-based training system.
Safety outcomes could be greatly increased by establishing minimum safety criteria at each level of a qualification and standardising this across the country.
Safety outcomes would be improved if S114 of the Electricity Act was enforced for the sale of an electrical installation requiring inspections. Over time the safety outcomes of electrical installations would improve.
Self-certification is an effective system and should continue.
Comments on Principles
The overriding principles should be that:
- The installation owner should be protected against work that causes injury to persons or damage to property.
- Individuals caring out installation work are themselves protected from injury.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance and Input Regulation vs. Output Regulation
Prefers performance-based outcome orientated regulations that use global statements leaving detail to Codes of Practice as a means of compliance or non-mandatory standards.
Comments on Approach One
Not a preferred option. It provides no competition to the existing system and therefore no reduction in cost.
Comments on Approach Two
This appears to be the best approach as it provides competition for registration and training.
Comments on Preferred Option B and III
Allowing an alternative private licensing system using the same criteria as the employer licensing would be an advantage to the industry with an ISO system. Keeping the board with its current format would encourage private systems.
A means of compliance qualification could be laid down in Codes of Practice as an alternative to the present NZQA system.
This should not limit an alternative system licensed under the Ministry of Commerce for such areas as competency, examination and registration.
If the two Acts were combined, one board would be needed with the same criteria for an alternative system.
The EWRB currently has no competitor, which make it slow in dealing with issues. For example, a coherent auditing system has not evolved since the introduction of the 1992 Act. Also its practising licence pricing system is high compared to, for example, the teachers' registration.
Comments on Approach Three
HSE Act and Building Act
Safety outcomes would be compromised. The installation owner would not know if the person doing the job was competent as the HSE Act has no registration requirement. Recently the accident rate under the HSE legislation has been very high. Administering extra legal requirements under the Act would compromise safety. The Building Act provides no legislative requirements for appliances or their safe use, prohibition of certain fittings without approval or the quality of electricity supply.
To meet the safety outcomes of the Electricity and Gas Acts an extensive revision process would be needed.
The cost for small firms to comply with the HSE Act would be prohibitive. They would tend to hope there would be no accidents and therefore no investigation. For large electrical and gas construction and maintenance firms, the compliance cost would initially be lower. However, the majority of the training is carried out by small firms and additional costs will result in less training. The cost to organisations to comply with the Building Act and fund the local council inspectors would be large. The percentage cut required by building consents may spill over to electrical work and add costs and time to projects.
Regulation to set minimum standards would be required under the HSE Act for the safe use of appliances, appliance design, technical requirements for electrical installations.
There would be a need for regulations under the HSE Act requiring employers to employ staff who hold a certificate of competence for both construction and maintenance work. In addition, employees should hold competency in areas where there is higher risk and extra safety precautions are needed in construction and maintenance, e.g. hazardous areas, electro-medical and meat stunning.
Consumer Legislation
Consumer legislation would not provide enough protection for the consumer. The consumer has little or no knowledge of either gas or electricity and will therefore have no perception of whether a construction or maintenance is safe.
Comments on Approach Four
There is a relationship between training and safety. The training for both systems must be similar to produce the same safety outcomes. Workers should be able to change from one system to another without being disadvantaged (in training) by the option their firm has taken.
In the Electricity Act employer licences already exist at a small fee. This allows large firms to carry out their day to day activities exempt from parts of the electricity regulations. In general, this has been used by supply authorities and their contractors. There would be no advantage for a contractor to use an alternative system at the price.
Approach Three and Four allow for involvement in electrical work by territorial authorities which increase the costs to projects. The HSE Act is struggling to provide safety in the work place without the addition of electricity and gas.
Other Approaches
There are three separate Acts: Electricity, Gas, Plumbers and Gasfitters and Drainlayers.
They have a number of commonalities, i.e. regulation of a potentially hazardous product, registration system, training, generally part of the construction industry, and they regulate the sale of products and appliances and fixtures.
These three Acts should be combined thus significantly reducing the cost of safety outcomes. If the Government is serious about a reduction of legislation in people's lives then a rationalisation of these Acts would make sense. If it is not achieved this round of legislative changes, then it should be on the agenda for the next round.
Hutt Valley Polytechnic
Type of Interest: Training provider.
The submission by the EWRB accurately reflects the position of the electrical staff of Hutt Valley Polytechnic.
Hutt Valley Polytechnic supports the registration system for electrical workers in New Zealand due to the inherent danger associated with the work and the inability of home owners, in particular, to assess the competence of electrical workers.
Jim Heron
Type of Interest: Not Stated.
Comments on Current Regime
Safety
There are some areas where safety outcomes are not being achieved. For example, self-certification is not working. People in charge are not taking enough attention to their responsibility. Some are not keeping up-to-date with the regulations and safety requirements. Householders are commonly not doing work properly or getting it checked.
Safety outcomes could be improved by ensuring all requirements on the site are met. For example, properly maintained equipment. Also, by ensuring the regulations are better understood and made easier to understand.
Comments on Approach One
The advantages of retaining existing regulations is that the present safety record would be maintained and the only costs involved would be updating codes of compliance etc and attending refresher training courses.
There is a minimum safety level administered through electrical and gas regimes for the safety of the public and consumers which works very well and should not be changed.
Comments on Approach Two
Licensing and Qualifications
Retention of the existing boards would be preferable as it has worked and it keeps the same standards throughout New Zealand. However, would like the present licensing board to set up a tendering system to training providers to provide training to tradespersons. The board could set a syllabus and it would keep costs to a reasonable level.
The disadvantages associated with any new system would be:
- Cost of introduction of new system.
- Determining the number of licensing organisations.
- Difficulties associated with the costs and different methods of training providers.
Comments on Approach Three
Building Act
Each territory seems to have different ideas of the Building Act, and a variation on charges. Each territory would have to have staff with qualifications to enforce electrical and gas safety. The problem would be to have the same standards through out New Zealand. Setting up this type of framework would be a costly project.
Consumer Legislation
The public would have no protection under the Sale of Goods Act.
Electrical Contractors Association of New Zealand, New Zealand Electrical Institute, Electronic Technology Services Association, Electronic Appliance Guild, Electrotechnology Industry Training Organisation, Electrical Safety Organisation Inc, and Electrical Workers Registration Board
Type of Interest: Industry representative organisations, an organisation that sets training standards, a training provider and the worker registration board.
Comments on Current Regime
Safety
The parties are strongly of the view that safety risks for non-electrical workers are the same as those for consumers and the general public, (i.e. the safety risks are often unknown and often involuntary). Therefore, while electrical work in a number of areas may constitute little risk for the general public, there remains a very significant risk to non-electrical workers.
The parties submit that the performance of the present regime as it relates to the registration/licensing/auditing of electrical workers is most satisfactory and this can be demonstrated by the very low number of instances of non-compliant work being detected through the Board's audit processes. The parties acknowledge that there have been difficulties in the Board's auditing area. However, there is confidence that revised strategies recently introduced will alleviate the majority of the problems.
Another demonstration of the performance of the present regime is the "uptake" of practising licences. At the present time in excess of 20,000 annual practising licences have been issued and this is considered to be indicative of the industry's acceptance of safety training.
The parties believe that the accident statistics shown in the discussion paper are indicative of the electrical/electronic industry's responsible attitude to electrical safety.
The parties are unable to provide substantive comment on the performance of the present Energy Inspection Group of the Operations and Risk Management Section of the Ministry of Commerce because of the lack of transparency in that operation.
The parties have no details available to suggest that there are particular areas where it is believed that safety outcomes could be improved.
Costs
An electrician active in the industry would have total ongoing compliance costs between $600/$800 per annum. Contractors (businesses depending on their size and type of activity) would have compliance costs of $1,000/$10,000 per annum.
Through practising licence fees, user charges and certificates of compliance, practitioners and the electrical/electronic industry presently pay in the order of $2.95m per annum.
Nowhere within the discussion paper is there any evidence as to how current safety outcomes can be achieved at a lower cost or where the regime is duplicative, costly and inefficient. The parties find this lack of evidence difficult to accept as the cost associated with the present registration/licensing/auditing of electrical workers regime is publicly available. The parties point out that such assertions without credible support raise doubts as to the efficacy of the paper as a whole.
The cost of the present registration/licensing/auditing of electrical workers regime is $2.94m per annum and this is funded totally from third party revenue.
The parties consider that the present type of registration/licensing/auditing of electrical workers regime is efficient and would demonstrate this as follows. It is considered that a conservative estimate of the value of the electrical industry per annum would be $1.5b/$2b. The figure is derived by accepting that 15,000 to 20,000 practising licence holders each generate $100,000 worth of business per year. It is a fact that the present registration/licensing/auditing of electrical workers regime costs $2.95m (with some questionable overheads included) and as such the regime approximately costs 0.2% of the total estimated annual value.
The parties do not, however, have available the costs associated with the other aspects of the present regime that fall outside the registration/licensing/auditing of electrical workers aspects. The parties are therefore unable to comment on the accuracy of the statement in relation to the functions of the Energy Inspection Group of the Operations and Risk Management Branch of the Ministry of Commerce and the Occupational Safety and Health Service of the Department of Labour.
Comments on Principles
The subject of reciprocity of qualifications should be one of the guiding principles used to assess options for improving the electrical regime. However, apart from that proviso, the guiding principles used are sound.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance and Output vs. Input
Performance/output regulation is imperative in any future legislation.
Comments on Approach Three
HSE Act
In respect to the Health and Safety in Employment legislation, there are no details of the "overlaps" aside from accident investigation and reporting (and these are considered to be administrative matters, not legislative ones) in the discussion paper. Yet it would appear that these are the major reasons that prompted sections of the discussion paper.
The parties see the relationship between the Health and Safety in Employment legislation and the Electricity Act as complementary rather than conflicting. This appears to be reinforced in the discussion paper (4.21 of the discussion paper) by the statement "OSH does not set electricity and gas standards in workplaces but recognises compliance with the standards prescribed in the Electricity and Gas Regulations as being compliant with the requirement to take "all practicable steps" to manage electricity and gas hazards in workplaces".Any overlaps that presently exist between the electrical safety regime and the requirements of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1993 must be addressed in any future regime.
Comments on Preferred Approach
The Preferred Approach reduces flexibility and competitiveness by promoting a licensing regime essentially based on where work is carried out, not on what work is carried out. To be able to carry out the same electrical work across the electrical/electronic industry, it appears from the discussion paper that a worker will require verification (a "licence") of training under the Health and Safety in Employment legislation and a licence under the Electricity Act. It is considered that this would constitute two forms of licence for the carrying out of the same types of work.
If the parties' understanding is correct the Preferred Approach will create artificial barriers to carrying out electrical work and will have a negative impact on the portability of skills and a competitive marketplace. Workers with appropriate competencies and the businesses that employ the workers need to be able to carry out electrical work regardless of whether that work is on transmission, distribution or generation networks or on consumer installations without having to bear the additional costs, both financially and in time, of having to obtain more than one "licence".
It appears from the discussion paper that persons receiving training for work on distribution systems and networks will not be able to automatically (as they can now) carry out work on electrical installations. They will have to obtain a licence from one of the licensing organisations. For example, an electrical worker trained on a distribution network will not be able to work in an industrial complex, even though they may have the necessary training and skills, simply because they do have an appropriate licence.
It is the parties' view that the Preferred Approach will return the industry to the pre-1992 situation and that such a situation would be untenable.
The parties concur with the comments in paragraph 6.25 of the discussion paper that "the proposal would be more difficult for consumers or workers to understand than the current system". From a public relations survey carried out professionally in 1997 for the Board by Agenda Communications, the public are gradually coming to understand the current regime and the role of the Board and the Ministry of Commerce within that regime. The parties consider that to change now would totally undermine that understanding and produce greater uncertainty. The survey indicated that the public, consumers and non-electrical workers have confidence in the safety of electrical work performed by electrical workers and that confidence is enhanced by the safety assurances offered by the present type of registration/ licensing/auditing of electrical workers regime.
It is submitted that if "the proposal would be more difficult for consumers, the public and workers to understand than the current system" such a proposal is unacceptable to the parties.
The Preferred Approach will result in greater uncertainty for the public as there will be a number of different licensing bodies and licences in use. It is considered that the public will not be aware of what the licences are for, or even be able to ascertain if the licence holder is an appropriate person to carry out their work.
The Preferred Approach will reduce transparency in that non-electrical workers and the public will have no way of knowing whether persons trained solely under the Health and Safety in Employment legislation have the appropriate safety skills and experience.
There are very few environments in which electrical workers operate that do not involve significant risks to the public, consumers and non-electrical workers.
Successive statutory licensing boards and committees have generally moved towards more transparent operations. It is difficult for the parties to see how private licensing organisations will operate under this type of regime proposed. Will the proposed legislation apply to them? Will they have to hold registers that are available to the public? Will they be able to cancel or suspend licences? Would such organisations be required to "open their books"?
The parties consider that the level of government intervention under the preferred option will, at best, not be any less than what presently exists and probably greater. The level of intervention in some areas is difficult to assess due to the lack of detail in the paper (for example, disciplinary processes and present worker safety provisions).
The parties assume from the discussion paper that the licensing organisations would be required to be licensed themselves by the Ministry of Commerce. If the assumption is correct, it will mean that intervention will be required and such intervention will be an increase on the present level.
Under the Preferred Approach, Industry Training Organisations may wish to take up the functions relating to disciplinary processes and worker safety provisions and this again will require intervention. However, the parties believe that the understanding of the present role of the Electrotechnology Industry Training Organisation shown in the discussion paper is minimal. That role is to develop competency standards for workers and to deliver training to those standards on behalf of the industry.
The Board's current role largely in relation to Industry Training Organisations is an advisory one where it works in concert with the organisations to ensure that they understand and incorporate the registration requirements in their training systems. The training managed by the Electrotechnology Industry Training Organisation delivers the level of competence and safety necessary for registration. The Board has had discussions with the other Industry Training Organisations concerning the acceptance of qualifications.
It follows that under the Preferred Approach, the level of Government intervention would appear to be greater as it seems that the Ministry of Commerce would have to be directly involved in the training programmes to ensure licensing standards are met and maintained.
The Preferred Approach will encourage a proliferation of competency and safety standards and such a strategy will be in conflict with the Government's Industry Training Strategy.
The issues of electrical worker and non-electrical worker, consumers and public safety are inextricably linked. The processes used to promote and secure electrical worker safety have the flow-on effect of promoting the safety of non-electrical workers, consumers and the public (i.e. in securing the safety of the electrical worker, the safety of non-electrical workers, consumers and the public is invariably secured. To attempt to split electrical worker safety from the safety of non-electrical workers, consumers and the public across two sets of legislation will create uncertainty, and may result in having differing safety outcomes for the same work. In the parties' view, a reduction in safety will be inevitable.
The parties are also extremely concerned that the Preferred Approach is promoted through the discussion paper, even though the paper itself contains the following serious reservations:
- On the basis of available information it is not possible to determine whether or not such an approach would affect the levels of safety achieved by the current regime (6.23 of the discussion paper).
- It may also be difficult to ensure consistency of standards among multiple licensing organisations (6.25 of the discussion paper).
These form the strongest reasons for not adopting the Preferred Approach.
Costs of the Preferred Approach
The lack of detail in the discussion paper, coupled with the omission of some fundamental issues, mean it is difficult for the parties to even guess at what the overall government/industry/public costs would be for the Preferred Approach.
The parties do believe that the Preferred Approach will be the total inverse of the "economies of scale" concept that presently exists and if the approach is adopted would burden the industry with additional costs which are not necessary.
The parties are extremely concerned that the proponents of the Preferred Approach concede that working with the Health and Safety in Employment Act can "impose significant compliance costs on small businesses" (refer to paragraph 6.46 of the discussion paper).
The electricity/electronic industry comprises mostly small businesses and these are the organisations that provide, and will continue to provide, the bulk of employment and training. The current regime provides a relevant insight as to compliance costs. The parties are of the opinion that probably the most significant factor in the low number of employer licences issued has been the cost of compliance factor. For most businesses it is cheaper and more efficient to train and/or employ registered workers simply because the costs are lower, yet the desired results are achieved.
The parties consider that many smaller organisations do not have the resources to set up the systems to ensure the training and on-going competence of workers. In these circumstances, the present type of regime provides an assurance that the employee has met the regulatory criteria and is authorised to perform that work.
Conversely the parties understand that the owners of "works" and the principals of specific organisations are able to establish the necessary controls and, for those groups, the controls are equally effective in ensuring that those organisations achieve the desired safety outcomes.
Issues Not Raised in the Preferred Approach
1. Liability
Liability issues arise within the Preferred Approach with what appears to be the Ministry of Commerce approving multiple licensing bodies. It appears to the parties that the Government, through the Ministry of Commerce, cannot approve such bodies and avoid liability if one of the bodies fails to perform or the Ministry of Commerce fails to audit a licensing organisation that has inappropriate processes in place.
2. Appeal Provisions
There is no mention within the Preferred Approach as to whether persons will have appeal rights against decisions made by a private licensing organisation. Will there be an appeal process?
3. Complaints/Disciplinary Procedures
The discussion paper does not refer to any disciplinary process that may or may not be used in the Preferred Approach. It is the view of the parties that a fair and transparent complaints/disciplinary system is fundamental to the credibility of any licensing system.
One of the things that differentiates a complaints/disciplinary system from the prosecution option is the wider range of sanctions, many proactive, that are available under a complaints/disciplinary system.
Under the Electricity Act 1992 prosecution provisions, the Courts are restricted to imposing monetary penalties (this is of course not the case if prosecutions are taken under such legislation as the Crimes Act). The Board can, however, in addition to imposing monetary penalties:
- censure registered workers, apprentices, trainees, tradespersons, electrical engineers and electrical engineering associates
- cancel or suspend registrations
- remove the right to carry out prescribed electrical work in the case of apprentices, trainees, tradespersons, electrical engineers and electrical engineering associates
- order re-training (usually under supervision) for registered workers, apprentices, trainees, tradespersons
- limit a registration (i.e. remove the right to test work before connection to an electricity supply, the outcome being that the person with the restriction can still do the work but must get a fully registered person to test and connect it).
It is difficult for the parties to see under the preferred option how discipline could be enacted without also having a separate complaints assessment system or relying solely on prosecutions.
It appears to the parties, from the lack of any mention of the disciplinary process in the discussion paper, that the present prosecution approach being used by the Energy Inspection Group of the Operations and Risk Management Branch of the Ministry of Commerce will form part of the Preferred Approach.
While it is acknowledged that overall the Ministry of Commerce has an enforcement rolein many areas, the parties strongly disagree with the non-transparentprosecution policy being used by the Energy Inspection Group of the Operations and Risk Management Branch of the Ministry of Commerce and also strongly disagree with the use of that approach in the future.
The parties submit that the complaints assessment procedures as for licensed persons as recommended by the EWRB in its report entitled "Review of the Electricity Act 1992" to the Minister of Energy be adopted in any future regime. The proposal for the procedures is based on the judicial system applicable to Justices of the Peace for New Zealand sitting in District Courts.
The parties would also question whether the Energy Inspection Group of the Operations and Risk Management Branch of the Ministry of Commerce is the best-positioned group to undertake prosecutions for breaches of the Act.
4. Participation of the Public Within the Licensing System
The preferred option does not address the matter of public participation in any registration, complaints/disciplinary process.
The participation of members of the public (those not eligible for registration) means that the views of the users of the system (consumers and the public) have direct input into the workings and direction of the system. Within the present regime, public participation is catered for in two ways. Two members of the public sit on the Board, while with Complaints Assessment Committees, one member has to be drawn from the public.
It is difficult for the parties to see, with the multiple licensing organisation option, where direct public participation can be achieved without increasing the levels of government intervention in the workings of private organisations by dictating who shall participate in the licensing process.
5. Homeowners, Appliance Owners, Non-Electrical Tradespersons
The parties are concerned that within the discussion paper, there is no attempt to assess whether or not the homeowner, appliance owner or non-electricaltradesperson provisions continue to be appropriate.
While the parties support the continuance of these provisions in their present form, a review of the safety regime for electrical and gas work should include analysis that supports (or otherwise) the continuance of these provisions.
Further, there is no discussion or analysis within the paper as to whether or not the homeowner, appliance owner or tradesperson provisions in the Electricity Act 1992 should be paralleled in the Gas Act 1992.
6. Assistance
With the Electricity Act and regulations there are two major provisions that relate to assistance for prescribed electrical work and neither are analysed within the paper.
The parties believe that one of the reasons for the changes in 1992 was to ensure that as wide a range of persons as possible were permitted to carry out prescribed electrical work.
The first provision relates to permitting any person to assist with prescribed electrical work provided the apparatus worked on is disconnected from the electricity supply. Is it intended to continue this provision under the Preferred Approach?
The second provision relates to registered persons being able to assist with prescribed electrical work by virtue of their registration. This provision allows persons to obtain further electrical safety skills and training, while at the same time being adequately supervised.
It is difficult for the parties to see how this provision can be included in the Preferred Approach with the multiplicity of licensing organisations and licences. If it is included, the level of government intervention will probably rise as the Ministry of Commerce would continually have to work out the equivalencies.
Other Approaches
The parties are of the view that the current type of regime rates the most favourably against the principles listed in section 5.1 of the discussion paper.
However, because of the lack of detail to the "incremental" aspects of the proposal, the parties wish to submit an alternative which the parties believe will be user-friendly and workable for the vast majority of the electrical/electronic industry.
There should continue to be government intervention in the electrical/electronic industry as the Government has a role in ensuring "the public good".
The intervention is necessary as many consumers and the public lack the technical competence or appropriate information, are unable to assess the competence of electrical workers they employ. Historically, in many instances, any electrical worker incompetence has only been discovered after incidents take place. There is no indication that this situation will be different in the future.
On the other hand, where satisfactory risk management processes are in place to ensure compliance with all legislative and regulatory requirements on "works", registration of individuals and companies should be made optional.
The parties submit that there should be two distinct "systems" for the authorising of workers under any new regime.
The first should be a system whereby a single national authority is set up to regulate and control electrical workers who work on "installations". This system should also apply to persons who work on "works" where satisfactory risk management systems are not in place.
A second system should be set up, in line with the recommendation in the Board's report entitled "Review of the Electricity Act 1992" to the Minister of Energy, to recognise that where satisfactory risk management processes are in place to ensure compliance with all legislative and regulatory requirements on "works", registration of individuals and companies should be optional.
The level of government intervention should not impede the industry in the delivery of cost-effective solutions and should be limited to the setting of outcomes.
The parties have considered the legislative provisions that presently apply to non-registered persons undertaking prescribed electrical work. They note that these provisions have been successful and consider that they should be retained.
As indicated in the discussion paper the electrical/electronic industry is a responsible one and therefore the single national authority should be fundamentally industry "owned".
The parties submit that the single national authority should be made up of Ministerial appointed representatives of the electrical/electronic industry and have lay persons included in its membership.
The parties have considered a number of models for the composition of the single national authority and it is recommended that the model for the authority would be similar to that detailed in the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand Act 1996.
The parties submit that the single national authority should be established under an Act to:
- require the authority to have rules governing membership, discipline, and other matters and a code of ethics governing the professional conduct of its members
- provide for related matters.
Canterbury Health
Type of Interest: Medical Care Provider.
Comments on Preferred Approach
Comments relate specifically on how the Preferred Approach could impact on the Healthcare environment.
It has been indicated that safety outcomes may be obtained by application of the requirements of the Building Act or the HSE Act. This may be true for the general application of electrical reticulation. However, when looking at the specific application of Medical Gas systems and the Electrical requirements in Cardiac and Body Protected Patient Treatment Areas, the Acts mentioned become somewhat limited in ensuring correct systems design and overall systems safety.
In reality the application or ECP12 is the most viable method of ensuring electrically safe installations in a Healthcare environment. The electrical reticulation is one portion of an overall safety regime. There is in addition the requirement for medical equipment which is safe and applied in a safe manner.
Until the Medicines Act encompasses the requirements for registration of medical products and ECP12 is updated to reflect current industry opinion, there is a significant gap in ensuring overall safety of medical equipment marketed in New Zealand.
The proposed registration requirements may introduce an element of competition. However, by allowing multiple registration bodies there will be a vast array of training that each may consider appropriate to meet the requirements for safe work.
As educational organisations move progressively down the path of developing unit standards in conjunction with NZQA it would seem appropriate that the "core" requirements are developed through this approach.
The base information required to ensure a safe installation will provide knowledge which is limited to the typical electrical installation. The particular requirements for an industry such as ours will need to be taken up "in-house". The specific requirements for medical equipment must be understood by those working in this area and should be developed within the industry.
The continuation of work commenced by the Office of the Chief Electrical Engineer linked with Standards NZ and the Ministry of Health would go a long way to ensuring safe outcomes as it applies to the specific application of electricity in a patient care environment and the range of associated medical equipment.
Electrical Safety Organisation Inc.
Type of Interest: Industry representative organisation, training provider.
Comments on Approach Two
It is considered that the present system of registration should be maintained to ensure public safety. There would be support for the administration of the system to stay with the EWRB, where a fair disciplinary system operates for those who digress.
The provisions under the existing employer license regime under the electricity legislation should be retained as an alternative to worker licensing. However, there needs to be greater concentration on safety outcomes.
Comments on Approach Three
HSE Act
Leaving it to employers to determine how safety is met without providing any solutions or running proactive safety programs, gives no guarantee of a safety outcome. In general laypeople are not in a position to assess matters of electrical safety but rely on the present systems to provide a degree of protection and systems of redress.
Under an HSE regime there is still a necessity to have some form of registration where competency and safety issues need to be addressed (e.g. scaffolding, blasting and underwater work).
Administration of electrical safety by OSH would raise cost issues. OSH at present has no electrical expertise.
Building Act
Using the Building Act consents to control electrical safety within an installation will only be effective if the whole of the permit system and inspection of completed work, as for other building services, is adopted in its entirety.
The keeping of records does not in itself provide a safety outcome. The use of building consents and historical records as a means of providing a future purchaser with verification of the electrical safety of a building is flawed. It does not make any provision for degradation of electrical insulation, maintenance and safety of equipment and factors affecting the safety performance of an installation which cannot be addressed by maintaining a historical record.
The use of an electrical inspector who is a registered person with no commercial vested interest in the installation, is the only way to ensure the ongoing safety of an electrical installation within a building.
Consumer Legislation
The protection offered under the Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Guarantees Act would be a cumbersome and ineffective way of providing consumer protection in electrical matters presently covered in the current legislation.
Other Comments
Public safety issues do not appear to have been directly addressed. It is considered that regulatory regimes need to be in force to maintain protection of the public and electrical worker. The major industry players are influencing major change purely on profit driven grounds.
Electricity as an energy source is a hazardous product which, if not carefully controlled, can result in fatalities. The comparisons made with accident statistics of other trades as illustrated in the paper is misleading as there is the risk for any contact with electricity to be fatal.
Peter Milne
Type of Interest: Electrical engineer.
Comments on Current Regime
Safety
Adequate safety outcomes are generally being achieved. However, an area where safety outcomes could be improved relates to the ownership of 'works' (e.g. overhead lines). In some cases they are passing to persons or entities who are unaware of their continuing surveillance and maintenance obligations. In some of these cases, e.g. 230/400 volt lines there is probably no need for continuing surveillance (they are similar to normal wiring installations), but some mechanism may be necessary for high voltage lines serving residential and lifestyle customers.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance / Output Regulation vs. Input Regulation
Relative merits would be different for different industries and classes of activities. A performance and output regime would be the most appropriate for major industrial processes, especially those involving potentially hazardous feedstock, product and internal energy utilisation, such as electricity generating stations, oil refineries, major dairy factories etc. This is especially as the same or similar safety issues apply for other operational aspects as for electricity and gas. Also such facilities are fully covered by HSE Act (i.e. little or no 'public safety' implications). A degree of prescriptiveness (through standards) and input regulation appears appropriate for smaller business and residential work.
Comments on Approach One
The principal advantage is to retain some continuity especially as the present regime is only five years old compared with the previous regimes which lasted for decades. A further advantage is that the regime is generally fulfilling a safety and quality need at the lower end of the market. Principal disadvantage is that the present regime is not keeping pace with the changing industrial and regulatory climate.
Comments on Approach Two
Amendments as suggested should reduce compliance costs for medium - large businesses but could be too confusing for small businesses and individual customers. Consider that the EWRB should remain in the medium term as a regulating entity of 'last resort'. As management systems are improving and management philosophies are better understood there is probably no reason why the Board should not operate with reasonable efficiency in the future. This is especially if some Board places are allocated to persons with appropriate successful business expertise.
Comments on Approach Three
HSE Act
If the HSE Act remained in its present form, safety outcomes would be compromised in some cases. It may be necessary to adopt some standards as 'mandatory'. In relation to supplementary public safety regulation, energy transmission and distribution networks are probably not places of work unless construction or maintenance work is being carried out. Although extending the scope of HSE does not appear to be favoured in general, extending HSE to declare networks to be 'places of work' at all times could be the most effective solution in this case. Alternatively, a limited supplementary regime defined in similar terms to HSE could be adopted. Competency regulations under the HSE Act would probably be necessary for particularly hazardous tasks (e.g. live high voltage work) but there could be specific NZQA unit standards covering these tasks. There should be reduced compliance costs with the HSE Act.
Building Act
Safety outcomes would be compromised in some cases if the Building Act remained in its present form. Compliance costs would be increased if minor work needed to be notified and checked and if 'progress' inspections required for major work (e.g. inspection of wiring and pipework before walls are lined).
Consumer Legislation
The Sale of Goods Act and Consumer Guarantee Act are not sufficient on their own for some domestic and small business consumers as they may be 'unselective' in the choice of tradespeople.
Comments on Approach Four
This approach has the advantage that an effective but least cost option can be selected for different industry types. The disadvantages are the existence of multiple regimes and the need to set up a system to determine eligibility for an 'output' related regime.
General Assessment of Respective Merits of Four Approaches
Approaches Two and Three represent fairly extreme positions and hence are not applicable for all situations involving the electricity and gas industries. Hence Approach Four is preferable to these two even though it has a mixture of 'input' end 'output' regulation.
The main problem with Approach One is that it is causing excessive compliance costs to energy producers, transmitters and distributors as well as other large industrial processes. These entities are mostly 'workplace' oriented so are covered by HSE and hence do not generally need industry specific regulation. For energy transmission and distribution networks there are some public safety implications not covered by HSE and this probably requires some supplementary regulation or an extension of the HSE Act.
This can, however, be overcome by modifying the present regime to allow almost complete 'opting out' of the present regime by appropriate entities. This could then be followed by evolutionary changes so that Approach One evolves in time to Approach Four.
Alan Cuthbert
Type of Interest: Industry.
Comments on Current Regime
Safety
Consider that in general a reasonable level of safety is being achieved but there is room for improvement in the areas of:
- Random auditing of work carried out for ALL classes of registered workers.
- Improvement in communication of changes or amendments to electrical workers. With the proposed use of NZS 3000 which contain mandatory safety outcome statements and the acceptable solutions there is an urgent need to advise ALL electrical workers who carry out wiring installation work of the forthcoming changes.
- Details on Certificates of Compliance (COC) used to certify work. The detail on COC used for certifying work requires expanding to clearly identify the work being certified, including results of the insulation and bonding tests made. Currently there is a lack of a specified maximum period by which the completed COC must be handed or delivered to the installation owner or client following testing and connection to a power supply of the work certified. It is submitted that a maximum specified period for delivery of 20 days be required.
- The EWRB to be responsible for both electrical worker registration and employer licensing.
- Subjecting work carried out under an employer licence to random audit. Any minor work defects found should cause a review of work practices and control systems used under the authority of the employer licence. For serious work defects, there should be temporary suspension of that licence until demonstrable improvements have been made to those work practices and control systems.
- Modifying the present training and prescription to direct that tuition in regulations be mainly focused on safety outcomes rather than the present "acceptable solutions".
- Preparing standard instructions for material to be covered during refresher training of electrical workers in order to reduce the variations in standard between various course providers. It is understood that the EWRB has a suitable document in the course of preparation. It is also submitted that some auditing of refresher courses take place to ensure that a minimum level of competency is being obtained by course attendees.
Prescriptiveness vs. Performance
At present there are some parts of the electrical industry who are still using the highly prescriptive EWR 1976 provisions due to the lack of adequate briefing of the new type documents ER 1993 and latterly ER 1997. The newer NZS 3000 type document should be a lot easier for this group of electrical workers to use. There are other parts of the industry which are currently working with safety outcomes statements. It is essential that both sets of workers be catered for in the short to medium term.
Input vs. Output Regulation
Estimate that approximately 60% of electrical work is carried out by individual workers or by small firms not exceeding three persons. The use of input regulation is very suitable for those individual workers or by small firms not exceeding three persons without the need for the control systems and associated documentation which would be necessary if coverage was by the HSE Act provisions or employer licence. The preparation of such documentation is a very high overhead cost to these persons or small firms.
For the balance of electrical work which is carried out by firms with greater than three persons, the two options - Input option or Output option (employer licence) - should be available with the firm being able to select which option is the most suitable choice for their operation.
It is seen as essential that both options be still available following the review.
Comments on Approach One
Approach One with improvements as detailed above is the most applicable for New Zealand conditions for registered electrical workers and for firms which use employer licences. Should be adopted for low voltage wiring systems.
Comments on Approach Two
The preferred option is A, I with the provision that employer licensing be controlled by the EWRB (Crown entity) which would effectively have control over all workers who carry out work for reward. The EWRB should also be responsible for the random auditing of electrical work carried out by electrical workers or workers working under an employer licence provisions.
With the responsibility of registration and auditing vested in a common board would mean little, if any, auditing or control would be required by MOC and very low or no cost to the Government. The registration board can, as it does at the present, operate on a self funding basis.
Some other options in Approach Two could result in multiple registration boards which could result in varying standards and considerably more auditing required by the MOC with resulting higher cost to Government or higher annual practising licence or employer licence costs if full cost recovery was used.
In the case of major power generators, high capacity distribution systems who have adequate safety control systems, the use of individually registered workers could be made unnecessary. But they should be required to have some form of employer licence suitable to maintain the ability for MOC/OCEE to audit installed equipment to ensure that acceptable safety standards are being maintained.
In case of high voltage systems in the electricity providers' network, for those who can demonstrate good engineering control of risk, it is submitted that an employer licence provision would be satisfactory. For those who cannot demonstrate this, the use of the COC system or similar certification system to an Electricity Regulation or approved code of practice by the installer, should be mandatory.
Comments on Approach Three
HSE Act and Building Act
The required continuous cover of electricity safety outcomes following installation would not be able to be achieved if control of safety outcomes was vested in the HSE and Building Acts without substantial changes in intent and outcomes in both Acts. In particular, the intent of the HSE Act is totally unsuitable for the management of ongoing safety outcomes post installation.
There would be a high cost of compliance cost on the electrical industry for all workers and employers to fully comply with the requirements of the HSE and Building Acts. The Building Act also does not allow self-certification of work and the possible appointment of independent inspectors is not seen as a cost-effective method of inspection and/or certification of electrical work carried out. It would impose higher costs on the electricity consumers due to the use of independent inspectors for all electrical work.
It was also demonstrated prior to 1 April 1993 under the EWR 1976 regime that the level of inspection of all new and major and minor alterations to existing electrical installations by local electric power authority inspectors was often somewhat below the level expected, in particular for minor work. This was largely due to the high level of documentation and delays in the issue of the permit and inspection by the inspector.
Regulation under the HSE Act would be required for electrical installations and some types of equipment. Coverage over a greater range of documents would be confusing.
Regulations would be required under the HSE requiring employers to employ holders of a certificate of competence for all prescribed work in order that workers with sufficient knowledge of electrical safety outcomes are able to work safely on or adjacent to live equipment.
Consumer Legislation
Adequate protection is not provided without major amendment in intent and coverage.
Comments on Approach Four
This approach is able to be used with employer licences.
For major power generators and power transmission system providers who, because of their large size and limited range of equipment, are able to use a limited number of versions of the HSE documentation, it means a low unit cost.
In the electricity network providers area (power supply companies) of operation, they are considerably smaller and have greater variation in plant to cover which means that there are very high costs in producing and maintaining current suitable documentation for all plant installed. Also, a considerable amount of construction and maintenance work on the network is carried out by contractors who also need suitable HSE documentation for their work. For these latter sections of the electricity supply industry, the best coverage at lowest cost of safety outcomes would be by the electricity regime.
It is in major generating stations, high capacity distribution systems and electricity networks using high voltage equipment that have a greater element of risk of electric shock when in normal operation. Hence some higher degree of control over the level of risk is required by regulation or approved code of practice.
Major generating stations and high capacity distribution systems could be allowed to cover their own risk assessment if a suitable level of engineering staff is employed to oversee the level of risk. In the case of electricity network providers each should be closely examined and if sufficient engineering control to oversee the level of the risk is available, control of their own risk assessment would be acceptable. Where this engineering control is deficient, resort to Electricity Regulation or electrical code of practice type safety outcome control in order to achieve an acceptable safety level.
The Association of Consulting Engineers of New Zealand Inc
Type of Interest: Industry representative group.
Comments on Current Regime
Areas for Improvement
From a liability point of view, engineers (and their clients) tend to keep records of all designs and modifications. It would be reasonable to keep records also for gas and electrical work to facilitate ongoing maintenance and future modifications. However, this may have limitations with, say, domestic or minor work, where the costs of compliance would probably outweigh the benefits.
Comments on Approach Two
Licensing and Qualifications
We have concerns that a totally market driven regime is necessarily best for consumers, particularly in areas where the consumer cannot be expected to be able to differentiate between suppliers of technical services. From a professional viewpoint, we place considerable emphasis on the need for members to operate within their levels of competence. In an open market, there is always a danger that some suppliers may offer services beyond their level of competence. Consumers are often unable to determine which qualifications are relevant and what value affiliation with a professional or business organisation might have. Not all members actively promote their membership.
Comments on Preferred Approach
No major concerns with the proposed option other than one of consistency. Current legislation is powerful, but performance-based outcomes are still largely untested in the construction sector compared to the prescriptive regime of the past. The balance may be a delicate one. Are the professions and trades being treated consistently, or do risk factors dictate how much regulation is applied?
Other Comments
The Ministry has expressed concerns that some electrical and gas workers are not self-certifying their work. It may be of interest that with professional engineering, some engineers are virtually barred from self-certifying their work or, if self-certification is accepted, it often has little to do with membership of a professional organisation or registration, but more to do with in-house vetting processes by the client (particularly local authorities). It would seem that some consistency is desirable. Again, the primary motives appear to be perceptions of risk, whether valid or not.
Maurice Carpenter
Type of Interest: Public interest.
Other Comments
Perhaps some further thought may be given to the manner that statistics and summaries of accidents are presented. Instead of using two headings, fatal and non-fatal, in the report of electrical accidents, the use of a severity rating could be useful. The present graphs lump strains/sprains in with the potentially much more hazardous injuries, to persons and property, involving uncontrolled energy releases.
Further to this approach, incidents of non-injury electrical events could also be graphed, to underline the potential or actual overall loss. In so doing, the proactive approach to preventing loss may be further explored.
Standards NZ
Type of Interest: Organisation responsible for Standards.
General Comments
No specific comment about the content, but would like to promote the use of Standards as a means of compliance with the regulatory regime. Standards are a very cost-effective means of achieving safety outcomes without resorting to prescriptive regulation, and associated high costs to industry and others.
Standards fit well with the guiding principles outlined in the Discussion Paper. Standards can provide the incentive, and promote a means of compliance to those most able to influence safety outcomes in a positive way, without removing the ability of industry or others to remain competitive, and innovative. Standards by their very nature of development, maintain transparency, and consensus, and become well accepted. Standards also draw on a very wide field of expertise from local and international sources and are recognised as specifications of "best practice". Because Standards are often adoptions of international standards, they promote the removal of trade barriers and in this way they have an additional desirable outcome for the New Zealand Government and businesses generally.
Recommend that an additional approach for improving the current regime (paragraph 1.9) is one that includes the use of Standards developed by Standards New Zealand, as a means of compliance with regulation.
The Institute of Refrigeration Heating & Air Conditioning Engineers of NZ
Type of Interest: Industry representative organisation.
General Comments
Electrical and gas work are only minor parts of a total engineering process. People completing the other processes all affect the final safety of an installation, and MOC's reviews, as with others recently done, seem to concentrate only on the role of the engineers involved.
Even with correct training, retraining, systems, designs, authorities, and standards, the electricians and gas fitters cannot often be held responsible.
Prefers that the whole system is reviewed by independent engineers who have suitable indemnity (negligence) insurance, to take overall responsibility, and that they ensure the right people are employed in the right processes.
All work must be independently inspected on completion. Self certification should never apply.
Wanganui Gas
Type of Interest: Gas supplier. Involved in preparation of Gas Association of New Zealand's (GANZ) submission. The GANZ submission on the above review has wholehearted support.
Norma Gould
Type of Interest:Public interest.
General Comments
RCD units should be made compulsory on all new switchboards and the existence of the units should be made better known to encourage them to be fitted on existing boards.
Gas Association of New Zealand
(Stephen Parker, National Manager)
Type of Interest: Public interest.GANZ represents the companies who supply fuel gas, mainly natural gas through 11,000 km of pipeline systems and networks.
Comments on Current Regime
An overarching and less cumbersome safety regime is required.
There is legislative overlap and/or boundary issues with the HSE Act and also the PGD Act, the Building Act, The Maritime Transport Act, The Transport Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Sale of Goods Act as well as common law legislation. Duplication has not been worked out between MOC and OSH and customers continue to meet the cost of this needless duplication.
One of the major problems with current legislation is that there is too much focus on trying to separate workplace safety from public (including consumer) safety. Operators in the gas industry consider a single safety regime is required and that MOC and OSH should resolve this issue. For gas transmission systems there will soon be only one piece of legislation. There is no need for different treatment for gas systems operating at pressures below 2000 kPa.
The Gas Act and Regulations are no longer appropriate with the prescriptive nature of them becoming a constraint on the rate of development of the industry. Change is needed as the structure and operations of companies distributing and supplying gas have changedsignificantly in recent years. Significant legislative changes are warranted to enable the industry to progress further. Attempts to get minor changes to correct anomalies have been unsuccessful even though most are not contentious.
It is essential to move to a legislative structure that is performance based. This will encourage innovation and efficiency, ensure that the key requirements for safety are thought out and expressed, ensure that standards are set at appropriate rather than minimum levels, reduce the amount of legislation and ease the amendment process.
Harmonisation between New Zealand and Australia will increase the need for greater flexibility in legislation.
General Comments on Approaches
None of the options suggested provide any solutions that move the gas industry closer to resolving the legislative overlap and conflict that exists.
Association prefers all safety covered through one piece of legislation, similar to that for gas transmission systems under the HSE Act.
Other Approaches
The gas industry proposes a new structure which will require companies to produce safety and operating plans based on risk assessment. These would clearly set out the performance targets in relation to safety and reliability, the level of performance would be able to be measured and the processes independently audited. Skill levels would be selected appropriate to the job requirements, and training and assessment procedures put in place to confirm the competency of the workforce.
Trade training and education must be reinforced through a core level of competency in all sectors of the energy industry. Whether licenses are needed, or some form of compulsory registration through NZQA, a worker's competency must be assured through training before they and others are exposed to unacceptable risk.
The activities of the gas industry fall into two categories: transportation of gas to the consumer's gas meter, and downstream of the meter in the consumer's premises. This split is because there are single identifiable asset owners, generally the asset is operated in open access mode and it lies in places readily accessible to the public. Downstream of the meter there are a large number of individual parties involved in supplying, installing, owning, operating and maintaining the equipment and pipework, and different criteria need to be applied.
Legislation would be performance-based and identify only those few key outcomes necessary for safety and reliability, leaving individual operators to select the appropriate ways to meet those outcomes.
Transportation: A Utility/Network Act would apply to gas, electricity, water, drainage, telecommunications, rail systems and roads. Its purpose would be to require all operators to design, install and operate network systems in a safe manner and avoid harm to the public and property. It would include incident reporting, the ability to locate equipment, non-interference with each other’s equipment, access to land and road reserves and the liabilities of the various parties. It could cover reliability and quality of supply to provide further consumer protection, in areas not already covered by consumer and commercial legislation.
The regime would encourage the self policing safety case concept and require disclosure of indicators and audit results to provide measures of safety performance. Only at Regulation level would it need to become industry specific, replacing a whole raft of industry legislation
Consumers’ installations: A Premises Act would apply to all utility supplies in domestic, commercial and industrial buildings. It would replace the Building Act and have the purpose of requiring all building constructors and providers of services within the buildings to certify the safety and durability of the building and the equipment (gas, electricity, water, drainage, fire protection, access and egress, etc). The second purpose of the Act would be to require owners and occupiers to maintain their building and associated equipment so that the risk of harm to occupiers, visitors, adjacent property and the general public is minimised.
The detailed requirements would go into Regulations, Standards or Codes and these would be performance based but include at least one means of compliance.
Other Comments
The review is too narrowly focussed, contains misleading information, lacks any commercial considerations and fails to address the key issues, particularly those raised by the Labour Select Committee in 1996.
The safety of the population, whether in the workplace, home or in the street, is the prime concern for government and the industry. The industry should ensure it has the checks and balances to measure its performance, with the appropriate level of competent resources, and yet remain competitive and profitable. Government's position in this relationship should be moving towards auditing rather than policing.
Back to Top