The ODT's editorial of October 16 on the Health and Safety Reform Bill contained a raft of factual errors.
The most concerning aspect of the editorial was the perception left in the minds of readers that some industries are exempt from the coverage of the new Act.
This is just plain wrong.
One of the strengths of the new law is the increased expectations for all workers and employers to participate meaningfully in health and safety, with strong sanctions for those who don't.
The overwhelming majority of the recommendations of the Health and Safety Task Force have or are being implemented.
On worker participation the Task Force noted ''it is important each workplace is able to identify the approach to worker participation that is appropriate to its circumstances''.
A one-size-fits-all approach is not fit for modern workplaces.
Just electing a worker or two and leaving them to be the ''elfnsafety'' guy while the rest of the firm carries on has served small business poorly and must change. Good health and safety practice is good for business and everyone, workers and managers, needs to play their part.
There is no need to amend the Act by sending it back to a select committee as indicated by the editorial.
While the Bill has passed, the regulation prescribing high-risk small businesses who may decline a request to have a health and safety representative is currently out for consultation.
Members of the public are welcome to submit on the draft regulation which can be found at www.mbie.govt.nz/about/whats-happening/news/2015/consulting-on-draft-wor...
The documents released to opposition parties under the OIA contained wide-ranging advice that was used to frame an early concept of what the threshold for health and safety representatives could be.
The fact that last week's editorial incorrectly stated that the initial guidance provided to the House was the Level 2 ANZSIC classifications shows just how complicated this process has been.
That guidance targeted Level 3 industry classifications and was used by me in an attempt to assist the House's understanding of what the regulatory framework could look like.
But it did not form part of the Act when passed and the draft regulation has been considerably amended from the initial guidance provided to the House, to address some anomalies raised.
The regulations currently being consulted on use the ANZSIC Level 2 classifications which provides us with more robust injury rates.
Because it is our largest industry, when adjusted for size, agriculture fell below the threshold agreed for the determination of high-risk.
It is simply incorrect to say the Government has pandered to the farming industry.
The farming sector must lift its game, and I have made that very clear to them.
WorkSafe NZ has worked with farming stakeholders in launching the Safer Farms programme to raise awareness and activity to reduce harm on farms.
I have also reinvigorated attempts to better define what constitutes safe quad bike use on farms.
Delivering a materially improved health and safety legal framework is a top priority for the Government.
But Government can write all the rules and regulations it likes.
Until there is a shift in the mind-set of working New Zealanders that keeping each other safe at work is all our responsibilities, we won't achieve the challenging target of reducing death and injury by 25% by 2020.
I hope that as the reform process advances we can focus our minds more how that targets can be achieved so that all New Zealanders who go to work can come home safely.
• Michael Woodhouse is Workplace Relations and Safety Minister.
[We stand by our editorial, which clearly stated ''the thrust of the reforms are positive'', but was concerned specifically with the process regarding the risk factors of different industries. - Ed]
