Multi-criteria analysis
We are proposing the following five criteria to compare the options to the status quo:
- Effective – options will reduce harm arising from work and prevent regulatory failure.
- Proportionate – options are proportionate to the risk and will target key risks.
- Clear – options are logical, consistent, and easy to understand, provide sufficient certainty to support the duty holders to comply and the regulator to enforce, and provide assurance for workers of protection of their health and safety.
- Cost-efficient – options will minimise compliance and transitional costs for the duty holders and for the regulator, for the benefits they deliver.
- Adaptable – options are future-proofed to manage risks as there are changes in technology and ways of working.
While not explicitly mentioned, options should provide equal protection to workers facing the same or similar risks in other sectors. We would also consider impacts on consumers as a part of any cost inefficiency identified.
Question about the criteria and analysis
1. Do you consider we have outlined the correct criteria and do you think any weighting should be applied? If so, why?
Below is a high-level summary of our provisional view of how each of the options weigh up against the status quo, using the key.
How each option has been assessed against the criteria is detailed in the relevant options page. We would expect to analyse various combinations of options as a part of final decision making. The document asks a series of questions that we will use to refine our analysis. We also welcome any feedback on our current assessment of the options outlined below, and again note that while some options may appear to rate higher than others, we do not currently have a preference on an option or set of options.
Key
+ + much better than the status quo
+ better than the status quo
0 about the same as the status quo
- worse than the status quo
- - much worse than the status quo.
Multi-criteria analysis of options presented in this discussion document
Option 1: No change
Effective
0 about the same as the status quo
- In cases where businesses follow best practice it is effective. However, evidence suggests this is not always the case.
Proportionate
0 about the same as the status quo
- Because there are businesses that do not follow best practice and take measures as required under the HSW Act, the current regulatory settings are not proportionate to the risks.
Clear
0 about the same as the status quo
- WorkSafe and NZESAG have received good feedback from industry on the guidance and good practice guide currently developed.
Cost-efficient
0 about the same as the status quo
- Due to inconsistent practices, there is not a level playing field in the costs being met by businesses and consumers to ensure healthy and safe working conditions.
Adaptable
0 about the same as the status quo
- The status quo is the most adaptable option, but evidence suggests this flexibility is not leading to optimum outcomes.
Overall assessment
0 about the same as the status quo
- The status quo, while flexible and an appropriate lever for most businesses, is not currently considered the optimal choice. We welcome feedback from submitters on the status quo.
Option 2: Specific mandatory engineered stone requirements
Effective
+ + much better than the status quo
- Enforcing more stringent regulations will force businesses acting in bad faith to comply or exit the affected industries.
Proportionate
+ + much better than the status quo
- The current measures are not considered to be enough, therefore increasing mandatory requirements would be proportionate to the level of risk.
Clear
+ better than the status quo
- Regulations and appropriate guidance are clear and enforceable. We would expect a period of time is required to fully comply where businesses are not already doing so.
Cost-efficient
0 about the same as the status quo
- It is assumed most businesses should be following best practice and therefore already absorbing costs. Mandatory requirements may add costs for businesses not following food practice.
Adaptable
+ better than the status quo
- Dependent on the level of prescription required, requirements would be expected to be continuously updated to reflect best practice.
Overall assessment
+ + much better than the status quo
- Overall, option 2 is considered to meet or improve most of the criteria. However, more information is required to form a robust opinion.
Option 3: Licensing of workplaces
Effective
+ better than the status quo
- Focuses compliance burden on engineered stone PCBUs and allows monitoring by, and closer relationship with the regulator.
Proportionate
0 about the same as the status quo
- May be required to support other options e.g. a partial ban.
Clear
+ better than the status quo
- Sets clear requirements for PCBUs to meet. Would support other proposed duties.
Cost-efficient
- worse than the status quo
- Expensive and resource intensive for regulator. A full cost benefit would need to be completed separately from the other options.
Adaptable
+ better than the status quo
- Relatively adaptable as practices change over time.
Overall assessment
+ better than the status quo
- Option 3 may be a good addition to support other options. However, it could be a burden on the regulator.
Option 4: General duties (4A) and mandatory monitoring of worker health (4B) and/or exposure (4C)
Effective
+ better than the status quo
- 4A: Introducing a general duty is expected to be an effective tool.
- 4B+4C: Health or exposure monitoring as a stand-alone option will not prevent harm from occurring. However, monitoring could be used to support mandatory requirements as it provides useful information to determine whether those are working effectively.
Proportionate
+ + much better than the status quo
- 4A: A general duty would encompass all industries and is proportionate to the level of risk.
- 4B: proportionate where workers are engaged in high-risk activities.
- 4C: more information is required to inform an assessment.
Clear
+ better than the status quo
- 4A: A general duty would be clear.
- 4B + 4C: Requirements are clear and would be prescriptive where necessary.
- 4C: More information is required to understand how easy compliance will be.
Cost-efficient
0 about the same as the status quo
- 4A: Similar to option 2, no to minimal cost increase is expected from this option.
- 4B + 4C: Costs may be high and disproportionally so for smaller businesses for health and exposure monitoring. However, more information is required to inform this assumption.
Adaptable
+ better than the status quo
- All three options will be able to be updated to ensure regulations match international best practice.
Overall assessment
+ better than the status quo
- More information is required to inform a robust analysis of exposure monitoring (option 4C). Health monitoring and imposing a general duty (options 4A and 4C) is a positive step forward, we would be interested in understanding current practices in this space from submitters.
Option 5: Limiting supply or use of engineered stone through a full ban (5A) or partial ban (5B) on engineered stone
Effective
+ + much better than the status quo
- 5A: A total ban would remove risk regarding new imports but may still require additional measures for product already in the country “legacy products”.
- 5B: A partial ban may still require additional measures as lower crystalline silica products may or may not be safer than high crystalline silica products.
Proportionate
- worse than the status quo
- A total or partial ban would target all engineered stone businesses regardless of risk level. We require more information as to whether it could be considered proportionate to the level of risk when other measures could be taken.
Clear
+ better than the status quo
- A ban would be clear, a full ban (5A) would be easier to comply with than a partial ban (5B).
Cost-efficient
- - much worse than the status quo.
- A total or partial ban would have negative financial implications for businesses and workers. May create additional costs for businesses working with product already imported.
Adaptable
- - much worse than the status quo.
- A total or partial ban would not be able to respond and adapt to changes in risk, technology, or ways of working.
Overall assessment
- worse than the status quo
- There are positives and negatives to this option, however we currently do not have the evidence to suggest an overall positive impact due to the negatives associated with cost and adaptability. Submitters are encouraged to provide any information about the impacts of a ban.
