RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
The purpose of this form is to simplify collation of Regulatory Impact Analysis Review Panel’s feedback on the quality of Regulatory Impact Analysis.
This form can be used for a Regulatory Impact Statement, Cost Recovery Impact Statement, Discussion Document, or Supplementary Analysis Report. For
information specific to each type of document see [link to intranet] and [Treasury’s website].
First Review
Second Review
Overal rating Partially meets
Choose an item.
of document*
Section
Considerations
QA rating
How to improve this section
Comments
Status Quo & Is a problem
Needs work
The RIS argues that the 2015 reforms (or their implementation) have
There is a greater
Problem
identified and
led to an increase in compliance costs, distracting PCBUs from
integration of the positive
Definition
explained?
addressing material H&SAW risks, while New Zealand continues to
trend in injury and fatality
experience higher rates of injuries and fatalities than comparator
trends into the strategic
Does the problem
countries.
story, which is useful.
need to be
addressed?
At the same time, the RIS notes a steadily falling incidence of injuries
However, stakeholder
Is the problem
and fatalities, while observing that “most respondents generally
feedback, and manifesto
clearly described?
understand their Health and Safety obligations well” and “Many noted
style language are still
that the Act works well in general” (page 13).
(often) presented
uncritically, without clearly
While there are some more objective aspects to the problem (guidance expressing a reasoned
and ACOPs are out of date, and PCBUs reporting there is a lack of clarity MBIE policy position -
about obligations, uncertainty about how to meet them, and a fear of
especially in respect of the
prosecution), we think a more nuanced discussion overall would be
claim that the system
useful.
encourages compliance
and paperwork rather than
To be more convincing, we think the RIS needs to:
genuine effort to reduce
• discuss why the incidence of injuries and fatalities is falling, and the most material risks.
what conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of the
2015 reforms
Does MBIE agree with
assertions that the H&S
• discuss the extent to which there is a trade-off between
system has led to
reducing obligations / compliance on PCBUs and maintaining
excessive compliance
1
RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
the gains in H&SAW outcomes. (In places the RIS suggests that
and that critical risks are
compliance obligations post-2015 have worsened H&SAW
being missed? Some
outcomes, and that reducing compliance could improve
stakeholders have raised
outcomes. We think this needs careful thought. If the case is
this, but does MBIE
being made that reduced compliance will, in itself, lead to
consider these concerns
better outcomes, then the RIS is short of intervention logic and to be well-founded? And if
evidence to support this proposition)
so, is the root cause
unclear guidance, or
• discuss the perceptions of excessive compliance arising from
onerous compliance-
uncertainty, prompting over-compliance, vs regulatory
focussed procedures?
expectations being genuinely demanding (which might be
The reporting of
justified by consequent reductions in injuries and fatalities). Put stakeholder feedback is
another way, how valid are the complaints about burdensome /
low value compliance? Is it useful to distinguish here between
inconsistent. In some
firm size, and nature of the industry?
places the lack of
guidance is presented as
• explain further the role of PCBU guidance (in its various forms)
the main theme. In other
in reducing the incidence of injuries and fatalities, and the
places, excessive
limitations of guidance even when expertly designed and
compliance burden is
delivered. And place the role of enhanced guidance alongside
presented as the main
other government reforms to improve H&SAW outcomes.
theme.
On balance, the lack of
We think this will help to produce a more compelling problem
guidance appears to be
definition. From the evidence in the RIS, we suspect the root problem is more the more consistent
low quality guidance (as per green row, page 11) causing some over-
feedback, and this aligns
compliance in the face of uncertainty (causing excess cost), and PCBUs
well with the suite of
failing to follow best practice because they don’t know what best-
options.
practice is. Addressing this problem successfully may go some way to
reducing injuries and fatalities further through better work-place
The RIS needs a consistent
practices, or at least protect the current downward trends, while
and coherent treatment of
ensuring PCBU compliance costs are proportionate and well-directed to the overcompliance issue –
risks.
how real is it, and what’s
2
RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
Additional feedback for consideration (ie not critical):
the cause? (The most
• Terms such as “over-compliance” and “scope creep” and
coherent story, aligning
phrases such as “the HSW Act appears to apply too broadly” are with the evidence seems to
not particularly wel explained. It would be useful to include
be that uncertainty leads
some tangible examples of how these outcomes manifest in
to “defensive just-in-case”
practice by PCBUs and WorkSafe.
compliance, but it’s not
• Considering the vast amounts of feedback received, which has
clear.)
been distilled down to just a few paragraphs, it would be useful
if a more complete summary of this feedback were referenced
A number of statements
– eg is there a summary of submissions available (this may also could be construed as
address the above point).
political / manifesto
• Comparisons are made to injury and fatality outcomes in
language, rather than
Australia and the UK, and a desire to achieve similar outcomes
impartial analysis:
is expressed, however there is no discussion about what factors
might be contributing to these outcomes, for example:
“
In brief, critical risks are
o The purposes of the NZ legislation and the Australian
being missed because
model laws are the same – why are these purposes
PCBUs are focused on
considered not as effective here?
doing everything, with
o What are the compliance costs in these countries? If
little to no prioritisation,
these countries are spending more, then cutting
which means harm is still
compliance costs in New Zealand may have an adverse
occurring. We are not
effect on our downward injury and fatality trends.
addressing enough
o What makes the interpretation and application of
critical risks, and are
“reasonably practicable” more difficult here, compared
spending too much
to other jurisdictions? Is this because of deemed
resource addressing
compliance in these countries? Or are there are other
lower-level risks.”
factors?
We would also note that while New Zealand still experiences
poorer outcomes, the work fatality rate has fallen faster and is
Does MBIE consider that
now substantially closer to these other jurisdictions than it has PCBUs are “doing
been historically, which indicates that the current model and
everything”? If so,
actions in the workplace are working.
wouldn’t we see better
outcomes?
3
RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
Or broad judgements
such as:
“
In particular, it [the Act]
has placed a focus on
systems and paperwork.
This is a market/societal
response to the Act,
rather than prescribed by
the Act.”
This doesn’t appear
supported by the
evidence in the RIS
including stakeholder
feedback.
Objectives
Do the objectives Adequate
We suggest sharpening the objectives to demonstrate the focus of
Agree this is useful, though
describe the
these proposals is on improving clarity and certainty for PCBUs and
not sure that
taxpayers are
desired outcome?
reducing unnecessary compliance costs, while still ensuring positive
an appropriate reference
Will the
health and safety outcome trends, eg:
point? (H&S scheme is fee
objectives
and levy funded?)
identify the best
• ensure costs for businesses, consumers, and taxpayers are
option?
proportionate to risks
Is it clear how the
• ensure PCBUs can access high-quality H&SAW guidance
objectives will be
• support the continued reduction in the incidence of workplace
applied?
injuries and fatalities
This approach would also better align with Figure 4, particularly the
outcomes column, which doesn’t include any particular health and
4
RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
safety outcomes despite the current objectives including to improve
outcomes.
Alternatively, the analysis should better demonstrate the links between
the proposed changes and improved work health and safety outcomes,
ie how will focussing on more critical risks (and less on other risks) lead
to better outcomes overall.
Options
Are all possible
Needs work
We considered the range of options assessed to be complete and
These issues appear largely
Analysis
options identified
convincing overall. However, analysis of the “option that is likely to best unresolved / unaddressed,
and described?
address the problem, meet the policy objectives and deliver the highest most critically in relation to
Has the best
net benefits” does not consider or discuss safety outcomes at al ,
how the preferred options
option been
despite being one of three objectives. Discussion in this section should
will lead to improved
selected?
be linked to how the preferred options meet the three policy
safety outcomes. As
Is the analysis of
objectives, rather than framing the analysis in terms of the best options currently drafted, this
options
to “improve the availability and role of guidance and ACOPs” and
appears to be a hopeful
presented
“improve the application of the HSW Act”.
secondary effect, rather
consistently?
than a core outcome
Some minor feedback on specific options, for consideration:
deliberately sought by at
• Option 2 and 3 – is there an opportunity to draw from ACOP-
least some of the proposed
equivalent documents overseas to further streamline the
interventions.
updating of NZ ACOPs? If so, it would be worth noting this.
• Option 4 – it is unclear why these particular proposals are a
priority, some discussion on why they have been selected to be
included alongside the broader proposals in the RIS would be
useful.
• Option 6C – it would be useful to explain how ‘critical risks’ are
proposed to be defined.
• Option 6C – it would also be useful to clarify that PCBUs are
also proposed to be required to provide worker supervision,
training and instruction, and PPE (in line with current reg
provisions), per the Cabinet paper.
5
RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
Implementati
Is an
Adequate
Worksafe will be a key player in giving effect to the proposed regulatory
on,
implementation
changes. The discussion from page 5 identified significant institutional
Monitoring,
path identified
weaknesses at Worksafe. We suggest shifting the bulk of this discussion
Evaluation
and explained?
to the implementation section, and commenting further on how to
and Review
Is the
mitigate implementation risks, given Worksafe’s challenges, for
implementation
example:
path realistic?
• What wil WorkSafe not be doing in order to focus on
Are the
implementing these proposals, and what outcomes could be
implications clear
conversely affected? Are the current levels of compliance and
for affected
enforcement expected to be maintained in the interim?
parties?
• What if WorkSafe’s baseline is insufficient to implement these
proposals and maintain other critical activities?
PCBUs will also be key players in implementation. What are the risks
they that (1) choose not to contribute to developing better guidance or
(2) choose not comply with the guidance?
There is also no discussion of monitoring the impact on workers and
ACC for different injury types and overall impact to the cost of injuries
(what if minor and moderate injuries go up because of the focus on
more critical risks?).
Consultation
Is it clear who has Adequate
As noted in relation to the problem definition, it is clear widespread
A more consistent
(included
been consulted
consultation has occurred and is being taken into account in forming
summary of the main
throughout
and what form
these proposals, however, a more detailed summary of the feedback
themes would help – is
the analysis)
the consultation
received would be useful.
more lack of guidance, or
has taken?
excessive paperwork - as
Is key feedback
For option 4, for example, as noted above there is no discussion of the
above.
summarised, with
drivers or feedback that has led to the particular proposals. Are there
any significant
other pain points that are not being addressed now, and why? Wil they
concerns raised
be reviewed/addressed at a later date or in one of the other related
about the
proposals going to Cabinet?
6
RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
preferred
options?
It would also be helpful for the analysis of stakeholder views to include:
Has the proposal
• Discussion of where there might be mixed support for some
been altered to
options, or what types of stakeholders are expected to oppose
address
any of the options.
feedback? If not,
• Some of the key stakeholder views, for example, a
why not?
representative range of peak bodies, unions and other relevant
If there was
groups, in addition to the PCBU feedback discussed throughout
limited or no
the RIS.
consultation
undertaken, have
the reasons for
this been
explained?
Other
Provide any other Choose an
Overall, the range of
feedback
feedback for the
item.
options look well-suited to
author here,
strengthening the H&S
including notes
system, and providing a
on whether the
better chance of delivering
document is clear
on the original goals of the
and concise
2015 reforms. The RIS is
overall.
unnecessarily complicated
by an unclear story on
system compliance /
paperwork, and how this is
leading to poorer safety
outcomes than might be
otherwise expected, given
the injury and fatality
trends show good overall
improvement.
*Coming to an overal rating
7
RIS Assessment Checklist and Feedback Form
Judgement is required in deciding on a document’s rating. This is especial y so when choosing between
meets and
partial y meets; and between
partial y
meets and
does not meet.
The Panel needs to consider the context of the decis ions being taken (are they in principle or final policy decisions?) and any constraints that have been
identified or disclosed that may compromise the quality of the analysis.
In general, Treasury recommends:
•
does not meet is used when the Regulatory Impact Assessment fal s short of the standards on more than one aspect (for example, several
components of the required information are absent or of inadequate quality)
•
partial y meets may be appropriate when the Regulatory Impact Assessment meets the quality standards on most dimensions, but there is one
particular area of deficiency that should be highlighted.
8
