DEFINING SERIOUS HARM
2. Basis for consultation
The purposes and process of the revision are described in the document Defining Serious Harm: a discussion paper on the revision of the definition of serious harm.
The Minister of Labour, Hon Ruth Dyson, released the discussion paper for public consultation on 11 April 2007, with a closing date for submissions of 15 June 2007.
As a basis for the consultation, the discussion paper contained a draft definition and 17 questions for submitters to respond to.
Interested parties were encouraged to respond to the questions either on-line or by sending the Department of Labour a Word document. The majority of submissions followed this suggested format for submitting. In addition, some organisations provided more extensive submissions, and numerous of these showed a high level of understanding of the legislation and the uses of the definition.
The Department of Labour acknowledges the overall quality of submissions, and records its appreciation of the efforts of, and the insights offered by, stakeholder groups and individual employers who submitted.
Draft definition for consultation
The discussion paper proposed the following draft revised definition:
"death, or harm of a kind or description declared by Order in Council to be serious for the purposes of this Act" - with the Order in Council containing the following:
- . Injury (including that caused by gradual process) or
disease which causes:
- permanent loss of bodily function; or
- temporary severe loss of bodily function (including any harm causing the person to be unable to perform their normal duties for more than 7 calendar days); or
- Amputation or surgical removal of body part; or
- Loss of consciousness, or acute illness requiring treatment by a medical
- practitioner from:
- lack of oxygen; or
- absorption, inhalation, or ingestion of any substance; or
- contact with any energy source; or
- a fall or other physical impact; or
- Any physical or mental harm that requires hospital admission, surgery, or treatment by a medical practitioner who is a registered specialist operating within their scope of practice.
Questions for consultation
The discussion document posed the following questions about the draft definition:
- Should the review focus primarily on the use of the definition to describe notification requirements?
- Is the avoidance of lists in the definition appropriate and effective?
- Is there sufficient inclusion of gradual process injuries?
- Should clause 1 be limited to "bodily function"?
- Should the phrase "temporary severe loss" be retained, while supplemented with a time-activated definition?
- Will there be sufficient inclusion of "temporary severe loss of bodily function" for non-employees?
- Should the definition of "temporary severe loss" be based on absence from the workplace or, alternatively, being unable to carry out normal duties?
- Is seven days an appropriate period of incapacity, and if not, what is, and why?
- Has "mental harm" been adequately caught by the draft definition?
- Should all cases of amputation or surgical removal of body part be included in the definition?
- Is there sufficient coverage of dangerous incidents or events to highlight "significant hazards" in workplaces?
- In clause 4, is there a need to include a time limit between the occurrence of the injury itself and the treatment provided?
- What explanatory material should be made available for employers and others?
- What information should be included in the prescribed manner of written notice for occurrences of serious harm?
- 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?
- What are the resource and compliance implications of the new definition, and are these reasonable for your business or organisation?
- Will the revised definition help employees to exercise the right to refuse work likely to cause serious harm?