Option 3: Licensing of workplaces that cut, grind, drill or polish engineered stone
The status quo is premised on the existence of the general duties on businesses and workers under the HSW Act.
On this page
Option 3 would introduce licensing of workplaces that cut, grind, drill or polish engineered stone.[1]
The voluntary NZESAG accreditation scheme described earlier in option 1 (the status quo, see also Annex IV) provides a framework for businesses to demonstrate their management of RCS exposure risk, and is based on the Australian approved code of practice.
A regulatory requirement for fabrication businesses to be licensed would, potentially, provide assurance that businesses are using appropriate controls. It would reduce the level of WorkSafe inspectorate resource currently directed at engaging directly with the sector, while still allowing regulatory oversight of the sector and individual businesses.[2]
Licensing could include the implementation of mandatory requirements and monitoring as part of the requirements for obtaining a license, therefore integrating options 2 and 4.
Option 3 increases the level of regulatory oversight and the effectiveness of the current duties, but would lead to higher costs
Implementing a licensing regime would create certainty that specific standards of risk management are being achieved. However, there would be expectations of increased costs to businesses to obtain and maintain a license. We are interested in understanding from businesses how a licensing regime would impact them and whether it could be prohibitive to entering (or staying in) the market.
Questions about Option 3: Licensing of workplaces that cut, grind, drill or polish engineered stone
5. Do you support or oppose a regulatory requirement for licencing of workplaces that cut, grind, or polish engineered stone? Tell us why.
6. What should be the conditions of gaining and maintaining a licence?
7. In your view, what are the benefits and costs of operating under a licencing system?
8. Do you consider a licencing system would be effective in reducing harm?
Additional questions for businesses
28. Do you believe that the current optional accreditation scheme is adequate without mandatory licensing? Please explain.
29. Have you already joined the accreditation scheme? If so, how did you find it? If not, why?
Footnotes
[1]Work on ‘legacy’ products (engineered stone benchtops that has already been installed) involves shorter exposure periods than in fabrication or installation.
[2]While Australia has chosen not to impose a national licensing requirement, Victoria established a licensing scheme for engineered stone businesses, by regulations, from November 2022. Licensing was considered again for businesses to work with legacy engineered stone products after the ban was imposed in Australia. It was decided to instead require businesses to notify the regulator of any such work, and to follow the general requirements for the management of RCS risk described as option 2.