Workplace safety inspectors are "very important" but the minister in charge of governing them, Brooke van Velden, says she's unsure whether hiring more inspectors would reduce New Zealand's high rates of deaths on the job.
The Government has been pushing ahead with plans to reform health and safety laws, part of National's coalition agreement with ACT.
Van Velden was asked about the Government's plans on Q+A this morning.
The Workplace Relations and Safety Minister has said she wanted to "simplify and clarify" existing laws to "build back business confidence".
These included the Holidays Act and the Employment Relations Act.
"Over the last few years, businesses have told us they've been really hurting," she said.
"They've got added costs, added pressures, and we want an economy that thrives because we know if we can get it working for business, we can get it working for workers, and that's good for everybody."
Speaking to Q+A, van Velden was pressed about what her Government's plan was to reduce the number of people being killed or injured in the workplace, estimated to cost the economy more than $4 billion every year.
On average, 73 people are killed in work accidents every year, according to the Business Leaders' Health and Safety Forum.
The fatality rate, when taking into account the workforce population, is double that of Australia and equal to the UK's rate from the 1980s.
Meanwhile, the country also has a lower per-capita number of safety inspectors. Australia has 11 inspectors for every 100,000 workers, while New Zealand only has 6.3.
When asked about the disparity, and if more inspectors would help, van Velden said: "I think it's a very good question.
"But it does come back to, what has WorkSafe been doing?
"If you look over the last few years, the number of people employed at WorkSafe has really gone up. It's really, really gone up, but it’s not the same as frontline."
She added: "I think it does actually come back to our health and safety reforms. If businesses are unsure whether or not they are able to comply with the law or whether they know what their obligations are, is the role of the inspector actually useful?"
Later continuing: "I've talked to businesses who have said when the inspector comes in, the inspector is sometimes not sure whether the business is complying as well, because the law sometimes has these grey zones."
Van Velden cited an anecdote about whether inspectors were "asking the right questions", saying she was focused on outcomes.
"Why is it that when I've got people saying, ‘I've had WorkSafe investigators coming to my shop three or four times, I've always been in compliance with the law, but I know some other mates of mine might be a little bit different, and they've never had an inspector.’
"How are they actually making those determinations? Because we're only going to see better outcomes if we're actually asking the right questions.
"Is it appropriate if we get 1000 more investigators, but they still just turn up to the exact same shops? That's not going to actually lead to any better outcomes."
The previous Labour government significantly increased the number of labour inspectors but struggled to meet promises that it made before entering office.
Minister shares evidence on 90-day trials
Speaking to Q+A's Jack Tame, the Workplace Relations Minister was also questioned about the Government bringing back 90-day trials.
John Key’s National government brought in trials which allowed businesses to fire staff within the first 90 days of employment without having to give a reason and without having to face legal action for unfair dismissal.
The move was officially announced by the coalition government on Monday afternoon, to a mixed response. (Source: 1News)
The previous government curbed that law but kept the trials in place for businesses with fewer than 20 staff. A Treasury-commissioned study in 2016 found 90-day trials did not help job-seekers and did not boost employment numbers.
When first asked about her evidence the policy would increase hiring, van Velden said: "It's part of building back business confidence. We heard that businesses want this government to be a government of action and to back them.
"The evidence that I had did come through MBIE. The only perceived threat of the policy was a perception of people that it would make their work arrangements more precarious. But that was a perceived threat, it wasn’t an actual threat."
Questioned again about evidence endorsing the efficacy of the policy, the minister said: "Well, I know from talking to people up and down New Zealand. Just this week I had someone phone me up, and he said, 'yeah, my business can't wait to use these.'"
Asked if she only had anecdotal evidence, she said: "Anecdotal evidence. But also we have a very, very strong consultation period through the election where so many businesses said, this is what we want."
Responding to the 2016 Treasury study, van Velden said it ultimately "missed the fact that businesses want us to build back their confidence.
"If you look at those numbers, yes, a lot of people do use 90-day trials, but it doesn't mean that they actually fire people.
"This gives them the confidence to take on somebody."
The Treasury study's authors wrote: "We find no evidence that the ability to use trial periods significantly increases firms' overall hiring. We estimate the policy effect to be statistically and economically insignificant."
On the campaign trail, National said it would return the 90-day trials to the old settings, saying employers would be more likely to hire people.
Ven Velden said: "When it comes to 90-day trials, they already existed under Labour with small businesses. If it was right for the small businesses, I see no need why big businesses were carved out of it. If it worked for them, it works for everyone."
Q+A with Jack Tame is made with the support of New Zealand On Air
SHARE ME