Review of the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy for New Zealand to 2015 (WHSS)

Summary of written submissions

1. Introduction

The Workplace Health and Safety Strategy to 2015 was launched in June 2005, with the intention to review it after three years of implementation.

The first review of the strategy was conducted over the first half of 2009. It involved a series of consultation activities, including public events in Auckland, wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin, consultation with agencies, and in-depth interviews with a range of health and safety experts and practitioners.

In addition, written submissions were encouraged and a total of 58 submissions were received. Numerous organisations or individuals that attended the public events also provided written submissions.

The tables and charts below provide a summary of written submissions by type of individual or organisation, by sector and by geographic distribution.

In summary, there was a good spread in each of the categories.

Geographically, Wellington and central government were over represented.

In terms of types of organisations, while there was good representation of sector groups, employee organisations and government, there were relatively submissions from employers.

Nearly a third of submissions were from individuals/employees. This includes a small number of individual submissions from departmental staff, which have been included in the analysis.

Similarly, in terms of industry representation, although submissions were received from a good range of sectors, central government and the health sector were over represented.

This did not surprise the reviewers, as sector and specialist groups have tended to engage most readily with the strategy.

Our analysis of submissions

Submissions were invited in response to four general questions.

In this summary we have recorded the responses to each of these questions, and according to each to the strategies four areas of focus, i.e. leadership, capability, knowledge, and infrastructure.

The summary attempts to show a consistency of views, rather than describing individual submissions in detail, or attempting to give a complete description of all submissions.

In describing comments or proposals for improvement, it therefore describes a commonality of response, rather than addressing the merits or otherwise of individual submissions. Similarly, the summary does not generally distinguish between, or refer to the type of submitter making a comment or suggestion, i.e. individual vs employer or union etc. Instead, it describes each individual submission at face value and gives weight to recommendations or criticisms only according to the numbers received.

This method was chosen as most fairly representing the range of views of a committed but otherwise sometimes divergent group of submitters, and given the relatively small number of submissions received.

Individual submissions are referred to by numbered lists only, and are itemised at the end of the report.

Table 1: Submitters by type
Academic	2	3%
Employer	9	16%
Employee/individual	16	28%
Central govt organisation	9	16%
Industry or employer association	10	17%
Industry training organisation	2	3%
Local govt organisation	1	2%
Union/employee representative	7	12%
Other	2	3%
Total	58	100%

NB: No submissions from Maori or Pacific Island groups

Chart 1: Submitters by type Key to Chart 1: Submitters by type

Table 2: Submitters by Sector
Agriculture/horticulture	2	3%
Construction	5	9%
Cross Sector	1	2%
Education	4	7%
Forestry	3	5%
Government services	16	28%
Health and safety specialists	8	14%
Manufacturing	6	10%
Medical	3	5%
Meat processing	1	2%
Transport and storage	3	5%
Other	6	10%
Total	58	100%