Contents
- Summary
- Method of consultation
- Method of analysis
- Broad themes emerging from consultation
- Recommended changes to the draft
- Recommended changes to the draft definition after consultation
- Basis for consultation
- Draft definition for consultation
- Questions for consultation
- Overview of submitters
- Who submitted
- Support for the review
- Support for the draft definition
- Support by type of submitter
- Analysis of responses to individual questions
- Q1. Should the review focus primarily on the use of the definition to describe notification requirements?
- Q2. Is the avoidance of lists in the definition appropriate and effective?
- Q3. Is there sufficient inclusion of gradual process injuries?
Q4. Should clause 1 be limited to “bodily function”?
- Q5. Should the phrase “temporary severe loss” be retained, while supplemented with a time-activated definition?
- Q6. Will there be sufficient inclusion of “temporary severe loss of bodily function” for non-employees?
- Q7. Should the definition of “temporary severe loss” be based on absence from the workplace or, alternatively, being unable to carry out normal duties?.
- Q8. Is seven days an appropriate period of incapacity, and if not, what is, and why?
- Q9. Has “mental harm” been adequately caught by the draft definition?
- Q10. Should all cases of amputation or surgical removal of body part be included in the definition?
- Q11. Is there sufficient coverage of dangerous incidents or events to highlight “significant hazards” in workplaces?
- Q12. In clause 4, is there a need to include a time limit between the occurrence of the injury itself and the treatment provided?
- Q13. What explanatory material should be made available for employers and others?
- Q14. What information should be included in the prescribed manner of written notice for occurrences of serious harm?
- Q15. What information should be included in the prescribed form of accident register, and should it contain the same information as the manner of written notice?
- Q16. What are the resource and compliance implications of the new definition, and are these reasonable for your business or organisation?
- Q17. Will the revised definition help employees to exercise the right to refuse work likely to cause serious harm?
- Recommended revised draft definition for Cabinet approval
- Appendix: Submissions received
