ACC v Worksafe – who should enforce H&S compliance in NZ?
ACC have embarked on their public consultation. This is a process whereby ACC wishes to introduce a raft of changes that they are legally obligated to consult the levy payer and public about.
Typically, this process in our opinion is good and we have certainly been encouraged in the past with the changes and recommendations we have submitted which have subsequently been taken up by ACC.
This year’s submission has a couple interesting developments that we do not agree with. Both revolve around the role ACC should play and the role Worksafe should play.
ACC is proposing to introduce two changes that in our opinion sit outside of the scope of ACC’s responsibility.
1. Experience Rating: Increase the penalty cap from 75% to 100% of your levies.
2. Fatality Modifier: a 30% penalty on your ACC levies when there is a workplace fatality through accident
We understand ACC’s intent is to ‘encourage’ employers to improve their health, safety, and wellbeing. Fair enough… if it wasn’t for the fact that this sits under Worksafe not ACC.
Worksafe is the regulator not ACC. Why should ACC collect extra levies for which it incurs no cost i.e. both the increase in penalties and the fatality modifier are not introduced due to costs that need to be covered. Rather, they are additional revenue ACC is looking to source from employers who may already be facing prosecution by Worksafe.
We appreciate that the Courts will factor in any extra costs the employer has paid ACC in sentencing – assuming the employer’s Barrister understands the ACC Experience Rating scheme.
The point we make is, should ACC even play this role?
If it should, should ACC keep this revenue or pass it on to Worksafe or perhaps, better still, organisations like CHASNZ.
Manage Group’s position is that ACC is working well outside its remit on this.
