Safety - a Union Perspective. Ross Wilson to Danish Unions

Safety in the Emerging Labour Market - a Union Perspective

A paper prepared by Ross Wilson, NZCTU president, for the Elsinore Denmark 3-6 September 2002 Inaugural Conference of the International Network on the Prevention of Accidents and Trauma at Work.

ABSTRACT

This paper provides a trade union perspective on the changes to New Zealand statutory framework for injury prevention during the 1990's, in the context of the political, social and economic environment of the time, and the measures taken since the election of a social democratic government in 1999 to legislate employee rights, foster applied injury programmes on an industry basis, and to acknowledge injury prevention as a community responsibility.

New Zealand: an emerging labour market

Greetings from Aoteaoa New Zealand and, in particular, greetings from the Council of Trade Unions. I am deeply honoured to have been invited to present this keynote address to a conference of such eminent specialists in injury prevention. And all of you from countries which have fine traditions in the protection of the health and safety of people at work. I was intrigued by the title I was given for my paper: "Safety in the emerging labour market - a union perspective". Although it may not have been quite what the conference organisers intended, I have interpreted it to mean "emerging from the New Zealand neo-liberal experiment". I have chosen to interpret the title this way because I think there are lessons from our experience as a country during the last 15 years which are of relevance to you all. In doing so I am not seeking to create political controversy in this country which has recently experienced a change of political direction. I have taken this approach because neo-liberal policies have been the distinctive feature of New Zealand during that period, and it is impossible to explain even safety policies and programmes without also describing the broader economic and social policies which provide the context.

New Zealand: in a nutshell

For those of you who do not know, New Zealand is a small country in the South Pacific with a population of almost 4 million people, and a GDP of $112 billion. It is a country heavily dependant on overseas trade. Traditionally a large proportion of our exports, mainly agricultural exports, went to the United Kingdom, but during the past 20 years since the UK entry into the European common market, our exports have been diversified to Pacific Rim countries. As a country it has at times been very progressive in some areas of social reform. Firstly, at the end of the 19th century: the right to vote for women in 1893, labour legislation in 1894, old age pensions in 1898, and a no fault workers compensation scheme in 1900. Secondly, in the 1930-40s when the first Labour (social democratic) Government introduced the 40 hour week, a minimum wage, an old age pension at age 60, and unemployment and disability benefits. The labour legislation in 1894 introduced a system of compulsory arbitration for all disputes between employers and unions, and unions were given exclusive coverage by registration for a particular industry or craft. From 1936 union membership became compulsory. This system of arbitration and compulsory union membership, which provided a system of centralised wage bargaining, continued until the 1980s. For fifty years after the election of the first Labour Government in November 1935, New Zealand's economic policy was based on strong State involvement either as a significant supplier or regulator in virtually every sector of the economy. Following the 1970s oil shocks and UK entry to the European community (which reduced our UK market access for sheep and dairy products), the New Zealand economy was under mounting pressure. By time of the 1984 General Election (we have elections every three years) a neo liberal prescription had been prepared involving key Government officials, big business, and some politicians, including Roger Douglas in the Labour Party. Roger Douglas became Finance Minister in the 4th Labour Government in 1984 and the New Zealand Experiment began.

The New Zealand Experiment

In one traumatic decade, from 1985 to 1995, the social and economic structure of New Zealand was torn apart and replaced by a new order. The changes were an almost pure application of conventional "New Right" ideology, described in a quote used by the OECD as "one of the most notable episodes of liberalisation that history has to offer". The basic policies were: - De-regulation of everything; finance, investment, trade and labour markets, to allow free reign of market forces. - Monetarist ideology and techniques to control inflation and - a programme aimed at reducing the role of the state in economic and social life, alongside continued fiscal austerity self-imposed by successive tax cuts for the rich It was partly because the changes were so comprehensive, partly because they were so heavily influenced by ideology, partly because they were implemented so quickly, and partly because they were voluntary, (ie they were not imposed by the IMF), that the New Zealand "experiment" attracted massive international attention. All of the changes were introduced at breakneck speed. It was a deliberate strategy of the Labour Government's Finance Minister to move quickly on several fronts and keep the opposition confused and divided. And in that he succeeded. And then, in 1990 with the election of a conservative National Government came labour market de-regulation; the Employment Contracts Act. Unions very quickly found out what the new law meant for them. Couched in the language of freedom, neutrality and choice its real intent was to empower management, and deunionise the workforce.

The New Zealand Experiment: an assessment

It is now widely acknowledged that the New Zealand experiment was, in many respects, a failure. While some economic reform was necessary, New Zealand at the end of this process was weaker economically, had high levels of debt, large income disparities, and massive infrastructural deficiencies. There was zero growth for about 6 years from 1986 to 1992. In terms of real gross domestic product per capita, New Zealand fell from being ranked 4th in the OECD in 1960 to 15th in 1993 and we have kept sliding...we're now at about 20th. Average percentage growth in GDP per capita between 1990 and 1998 can be compared between Denmark, Australia and New Zealand: - Denmark 2.2 - Australia 2.3 - New Zealand 0.6 A New Zealand academic economist, Professor Dalziel has looked at the reforms in New Zealand by comparing the growth rates with Australia between 1978 and 1998. The data reveals a striking similarity between the two countries' GDP paths (adjusted to a common scale) for the years before 1984, and an equally striking divergence after 1984 right through to the end of the 1990s. The cumulative gap after 1984 is enormous: if New Zealand had continued to grow at approximately the same rate as Australia (as it did between 1978 and 1984), it would have produced extra output between 1985 and 1998 amounting to more than NZ$210 billion in 1995/96 prices, or well over twice New Zealand's total GDP in 1998. What that is saying is that if the New Zealand economy had grown at its previous trend rate, or matched Australia over the same period, output would have been a third higher for that period. The amounts of personal and public income associated with this are staggering. That extra income would have generated an extra $11 billion of tax revenue per annum - enough to halve net government debt, or double spending on health and education". The social impacts at that time were equally dramatic, and depressing. In a proudly egalitarian country there was a rapid increase in inequality. Between 1984-1998 the bottom 50% of income earners decreased their income by 14%, while the top 10% increased their income by 43%.The gap between rich and poor grew faster in NZ during that period than any other OECD country

The Labour Market Impacts

The direct effects of the Employment Contracts Act on bargaining and unions, particularly those with less bargaining power and organised strength, were devastating for many groups of workers.. Collective bargaining coverage was almost halved in the 1990s, enterprise and individual employment contracts were almost universal, and union density fell from 35.4% of the labour force in 1991 to 17% by 1999. Most workers experienced a diminution in their conditions of employment, particularly those in small business and the service sector. There was a relative decline in permanent full-time employment and a growth in shiftwork and nightwork, self-employment, part-time jobs, multiple job holding, home work, and casual and temporary employment (increasingly through labour-hire companies). Improvements in the pay gap between men and women stalled, and pension plans were curtailed. Given that the changes in employment law and practice were intended to promote efficiency in the labour market, it is significant that aggregate productivity statistics for the period are so very poor. NZ is now 23rd out of 26 developed countries in overall productivity. Labour productivity growth averaged 0.5% from1993 to 1998. By comparison Australia had an average of 3.2% for the same period. An OECD study of manufacturing and service sector labour productivity in 1994 (GDP per hours worked) showed the following ratios (OECD average was set at 100): - Denmark 95.7 - Australia 90.2 - New Zealand 71.9 One New Zealand academic has attributed this decline to a collapse in social capital - a collapse of trust, loyalty, and good faith in the workplace. This is seen to be caused by an employer attitude, and obsession with reducing unit labour costs, at the expense of investing in good workplace relationships and skill development.

Changes to Workplace Health & Safety laws

New Zealand has followed the British tradition with minimum health and safety standards prescribed by quasi-criminal law and enforced by a Government inspectorate. Union involvement in workplace health and safety was achieved only by agreement with employers. The Labour Government did introduce to Parliament in 1990 a new OSH Bill providing for a general duty, performance standards based system. This was to be enforced through the law by an OSH inspectorate, but also provided for elected Health and Safety Representatives following the influence from Scandinavia which has also been reflected in the legislation in the UK and Australia. However, consistent with the labour market de-regulation, the conservative National Government, elected in 1990, stripped out the provisions relating to elected health and safety representatives. Its view was that health and safety should be managed by the employer, to the exclusion of employees or their representatives, if the employer thought fit. What this has meant is that, for the past 9 years, the Health & Safety in Employment Act 1992, has provided a general duty legislative framework, supplemented by a limited number of codes of practice and guidelines, and enforced by a seriously under-resourced inspectorate. However, notably absent have been any of the worker rights or participation systems, such as the elected health and safety representatives, which have been a feature of the UK model since the Robens Report in the 1970's which, in turn, was heavily influenced by the Scandinavian models. In effect, our legislation was like a two legged stool. The employers had a clear general duty, and the inspectorate had a clear enforcement role, but employees and their unions were denied any statutory role.

The Accident Compensation Scheme

Another important Government institution in New Zealand, unique in the world, which became a casualty of the neo-liberal reforms, is the Accident Compensation Scheme. I am able to still say "is" rather than "was" because it was re-established two years ago after the election of a Labour Government. The Accident Compensation Scheme is a comprehensive no fault prevention, rehabilitation, and compensation social insurance system providing 24 hour cover to all New Zealand citizens. It was established on a bi-partisan political basis in 1974, on the recommendation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry led by a remarkably visionary jurist, Justice Sir Own Woodhouse. The scheme replaced the statutory workers compensation scheme, and the common law tort system, and became the sole system of compensation for personal injury by accident whether the accident occurred at work, on the roads, during leisure or sporting activity, or in the home. Although such a scheme has obvious advantages for rehabilitation and compensation of injured people, in the context of this conference I will focus on the huge unrealized potential which this comprehensive system has for effective injury prevention in New Zealand. Justice Woodhouse's view of accidents as complex events, although consistent with a Scandinavian approach, was well in advance of the New Zealand thinking of the time, the late 1960's. But if this approach was hard to grasp 35 years ago, it is certainly more readily understood today in a world where there is daily debate about the disabling effects of poorly designed work stations, poorly structured work organization, the health effects of toxic exposures both in the workplace and the general environment, and the unknown effects of genetically modified foods. The old tools of common law deterrence and market-based financial incentives belong to a much simpler world. However this rather obvious reality didn't prevent the neo liberals in New Zealand applying their old ideology. As one academic observer noted : "for economic reasons the notion still exists that accidents can be neatly classified as to cause, and that every accident is the unique financial obligation of a single agent. The same logic leads to the further conclusion that where there is no proven injury there can be no responsibility for safety." And so it was that, in the dying days of the neo-liberal era, and its sponsoring Government, the process of fragmenting New Zealand's national public fund scheme into private insurance markets began. The 1998 Accident Insurance Act created an "accident injury insurance market" for work accidents and provided for: - compulsory private insurance - statutory suspension of the common law right to sue - statutory limits on injured workers entitlements The intention was that the "market" would determine prevention policies, as ultimately private contracts would dictate the levels of compensation. In doing so the Government of the day, strongly supported by private insurance companies, turned its back on the unrealised potential of the Accident Compensation Scheme. This was a scheme founded on the principle of "community responsibility" to provide a coordinated public response to societal risk. In this respect, as in so many other policy areas, public policy on injury prevention went back 30 years.

Turning the ship of state back to port

It took more than a decade for the progressive forces in New Zealand to rebuild politically and bring the neo-liberal experiment to an end. I won't burden you with the detail of that struggle, which is another quite long story, but I am proud to say that that struggle was led by the union movement. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, while the Left debated important issues (mainly foreign policy issues like Vietnam and nuclear weapons) on the left, we neglected the only electable centre-left party in New Zealand. We allowed it to be taken over by the neo liberals. Unions became much more active politically during the 1990's. Nurses and teachers took strike action in a way they had never done before. State unions moved from their previous "party political neutrality" to a more overt political role. Private sector unions renewed their affiliation and active involvement in the Labour Party. Unions campaigned actively around many issues including the privatisation of ACC, and labour market reforms. The CTU also worked closely with the Labour Party (in particular, but also the Alliance Party on the left of Labour) in developing alternative policies. Although the centre left parties went very close to defeating the centre right parties in the 1993 and 1996 General Elections, it wasn't until 1999 that a centre left coalition Government was elected. A Labour led Government was elected again last month for a further three year term.

Safety in the "emerging labour market"

Although little research evidence is available in New Zealand of the impact on workplace health and safety of the neo-liberal experiment of the 1990's, there is a general acknowledgement that it has had an adverse effect particularly as a result of the de-regulation of the labour market and the legislative health and safety framework. A published study comparing work related fatal injuries in United States, Australia, and New Zealand revealed that New Zealand had the highest average annual rate (4.9/100,000), Australia an intermediate rate (3.8/100,000) and the United States the lowest rate (3.2/100,000) of fatal occupational injury, although some of the difference between countries was accounted for by differences in industry distribution. Another study has shown that although occupational related fatality rate reductions of between 60%-70% have been achieved over the past two decades in Sweden, Japan, Germany and the United States, the New Zealand fatality rate reduction over the past two decades has, at best, been 30%. The last decade has seen a growth in precarious employment; shiftwork and nightwork, self-employment, part-time jobs, multiple job holding, home work, and casual and temporary employment (increasingly through labour-hire companies). At the same time there has been an increase in working hours and intensity of work for some sections of the workforce. So a division in the labour market between "work rich" and "work poor" has developed. The effects of precarious work have been illustrated in a recent qualitative study of the impact of work hours on thirty families commissioned by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. A recent review of 93 research studies covering 11 countries covering a range of industries and employing a number of methodologies has shown that that the growth of these types of work arrangements are having adverse effects on workers health and safety. Of the 93 studies, 76 found that precarious employment was associated with a measurable deterioration in occupational safety and health. The experience in New Zealand accords with the broad findings common to those studies: - First, precarious employment is often associated with economic pressures or changes to payment and reward systems that endanger health. These include competitive tendering and consequent "corner-cutting" by subcontractors, the outsourcing of dangerous tasks, payment by results and low pay, work intensification and overload, long hours of work, and the limited resources that small businesses can devote to OHS - Second, precarious employment can be associated with dangerous forms of work disorganisation such as the difficulty of ensuring adequate training of temporary or labour hire workers, especially where the workforce is young and inexperienced or where there is a high level of labour turnover. Outsourcing and labour hire contracting means the introduction of "strangers" to the workplace, disruption of informal flows of safety knowledge and communication, and an increase in complexity and ambiguity in rules and procedures. Downsizing can result in a loss of knowledge with the loss of older and more experienced workers and resulting multi-tasking may result in additional risks if workers are not suitably retrained. Precarious workers are often in a weak position to raise or complain about OHS issues, particularly in a non-union environment. - Third, the OHS regulatory framework is designed and implemented to predominantly deal with permanent employees in large workplaces. On multi-employer work-sites, such as construction sites, complex webs of legal and management responsibility and control increase risk. To compound this, changes to labour legislation weakened minimum standards and union input resulting in unionised workers working excessive hours at low rates of pay. In New Zealand the employment and occupational health and safety laws, have had a negative effect on worker and union involvement in occupational safety and health standard setting and management. The Employment Contracts Act, introduced in 1991, was essentially a de-unionisation measure and severely limited union access to workplaces without employer consent. Similarly the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1993 contained no mandatory employee participatory mechanisms. I have already mentioned that collective bargaining was almost halved in the 1990s, enterprise documents and individual employment contracts were almost universal, and union density fell from 35.4% of the labour force in 1991 to 17% by 1999. The result for occupational safety and health protection was: - The widespread weakening of employee participation in occupational safety and health. - lessening of employee knowledge and awareness of health and safety issues - A weakening of union representation and bargaining on health and safety issues - An increasing unwillingness of workers to report OHS problems.

Rebuilding a Social Democratic Agenda

With the change in Government almost three years ago New Zealand experienced a quite dramatic change in policies. The neo-liberal experiment was over. The social democratic Labour Alliance Coalition Government adopted a much more inclusive approach. In the remainder of my paper I will outline the challenges and obstacles to re-establishing a social democratic agenda in New Zealand. As will have been apparent from my paper we had moved a long way from such a policy approach over a 15 year period, and a range of changes were necessary to re-establish a social democratic approach, including measures to address the health and safety issues I have mentioned.

Changing the public discourse

Am important challenge has been to change the public discourse. After 15 years of sustained advocacy of the neo-liberal policies by business, Government, and the media it was, and remains, a major challenge to change the emphasis from market solutions, and individual responsibility to more "hands on" inclusive policies, and community responsibility. In some crucial areas, including employment law reform, and the re-nationalisation of our accident compensation scheme, there seemed to be a surprise among business interests, in particular, when the Government actually moved to implement its election policy commitments. Similarly, there was considerable resistance within the Government bureaucracy to the change in political direction. After almost three years, although there is still resistance from business, and pockets of the bureaucracy, there is widespread public support for the Government policies. Public opinion polls have recorded higher support for the Government than any Government or Prime Minister in more than 20 years.

Employment Law reform

One of the first legislative measures was the introduction of a new Employment Relations Act firmly based on the International Labour Organisation Conventions 87 and 98. These ILO Core conventions recognise freedom of association and the promotion of collective bargaining by the State as guaranteed human rights. The new Act also allows union access to the workplace for any purpose. After almost ten years of political and employer hostility, the union movement in New Zealand emerged much smaller, but more resilient and well organised as a result of the bitter experience. As a result of the more favourable employment laws and political environment unions have begun to grow again after more than two decades of membership decline. In fact union membership has grown during the past two years at more than twice the rate of increase of the national workforce as a whole. Although union density at 22% is lower than the 35% at the beginning of the last decade we still take pride in the fact that we are the largest democratic organization in the country and have an ever increasing political influence. As a result a social partnership approach is developing and new, and co-operative working relationships are developing between Government, employers and unions at national, industry and workplace level. The base for these new relationships is the Employment Relations Act with its requirements for good faith working relationships. The re-emerging union movement, and collective bargaining form the organisational base from which to rebuild workplace health and safety standards at a workplace and industry level. It is expected that collective agreements will develop as a workplace framework within which employers and employees can develop injury prevention and health protection programmes, as well as the more traditional conditions of employment. However, collective bargaining is only part of the solution. It has been recognised by the Government, and the CTU, that many groups of workers will be beyond the coverage of collective bargaining, particularly in the short term. For this reason, following the European model, a statutory minimum code of employment conditions and rights is progressively being put in place for the benefit of those workers outside the unionised collective bargaining sector, many of whom are more vulnerable groups of workers in precarious employment. This has included improved minimum wage rates, and an upgrading of annual holiday and special leave entitlements. We still have a long way to go. The "Thirty Families" research which I have already mentioned was undertaken by the CTU with the objective of identifying the impacts on working families of the intensification of work, and the deterioration in working conditions which have developed during the past 15 years. As expected we have tapped into a groundswell of public concern. We have had very strong public, and institutional support for our "Get a Life" campaign which we intend to use to build political support for a range of measures which will address these issues. It is recognised that precarious employment issues require particular attention and the Labour Party, as part of its policy commitments for the recent General Election, has agreed with the CTU on a number of amendments to employment laws to address labour market issues such as casualisation and security of employment for vulnerable workers. It is perhaps worthy of comment that more than a century ago, (in labour market conditions with some striking similarities with the labour market of today), many industrialised countries identified working conditions as exploitative and unhealthy. At that time unions and political allies were able to achieve legislative intervention with factories legislation which addressed hours of work and other minimum labour standard issues. Today we are again seeing a growing awareness in our country that the current issues of working conditions, including precarious employment and associated health and safety issues, need to be addressed.

Occupational health and safety

One of the most important minimum code protections is the right to a safe and healthy workplace, and the Government is also overhauling our occupational safety and health legislation. The Council of Trade Unions strongly believes that the Government has a responsibility to provide an effective Occupational Safety and Health statutory framework at national, industry, and enterprise levels. At the national level there should be a tri-partite process which determines acceptable minimum standards of safety. Having established national minimum standards these should be embodied in understandable legislation, regulations and codes of practice which are well publicised. These minimum standards should be rigorously enforced by an inspectorate with substantial penalties for breaches. At industry level the legislation should encourage the development of practices and programmes which aim for best practice in health and safety. These osh strategies should be integrated with quality management and worker participation so that work and workplace design, training and protection of the safety and health of workers can be addressed on an industry basis. At workplace level there should be legislative recognition of the workers rights to know (about potential hazards they face at work),the right to participate (in decisions affecting their safety and health at work), and the right to refuse dangerous work. While the critical importance of management commitment to health and safety is acknowledged, the involvement of workers is both a valuable contribution to the solution of health and safety problems and an important expression of industrial democracy. I am sure you will have found from your own experience that the best prevention strategies involve the people at risk, the employees, developing and maintaining their own safe systems of work. The legislation presently before our Parliament will substantially amend the 1993 Health & Safety in Employment Act to: - Extend coverage of the Act to include workers, like rail workers and aircrew, presently excluded from the protection of the Act. Coverage will also be extended to cover volunteer workers, and the increasing number of workers in the labour hire workforce. There will be obligations on those labour hire companies to ensure that the workplaces their employees are placed in meet the statutory standard. - Enable any person to legally enforce the Act against employers. - Increase maximum fines and introduce a new system of instant fines. - Clarify that stress and fatigue are hazards under the Act - And, most importantly, encourage an inclusive partnership approach between employers and employees, with rights that ensure elected health and safety representatives can play a leadership role. Although unions and health and safety professionals have welcomed the proposed changes, employers' representative groups and some right wing politicians have lobbied strongly against the changes. This is despite a clear majority of public submissions supporting such changes in response to a discussion paper outlining possible reform options. Specifically, 72% of health and safety professionals thought increased fines would improve workplace health and safety, 88% supported instant fines, and 67% thought the current Government inspectorate monopoly on prosecution should be removed to enable any person to prosecute under the Act. While the CTU warmly welcomes the employee rights and participation provisions in the new Bill, we have concerns about the continued criminal law structure of the enforcement process. It is time to question whether enforcement of workplace health and safety standards though the criminal law ( ie the Health & Safety in Employment Act) is the best policy option, particularly as a preventive measure. The last Government's policy approach was that the "signals" which fines under the Health and Safety in Employment Act provide, together with the incentives provided by ACC experience rating of premiums, would ensure that employers pursued accident prevention through risk management techniques. The experience rating system added penalty loadings on employers premiums if the claims cost of the employer was above the average of other employers in the same industry classification. In practice experience rating proved ineffective as an injury prevention tool and has been abolished, and the "signals" from the Health & Safety in Employment Act have, because of relatively low fines, been rather dim. It is entirely appropriate, given the strong Anglo-Saxon influence in our legal system, that there should be minimum standards enforced through the criminal law, and there is considerable support for not only increasing the maximum fines, but also introducing corporate manslaughter for serious cases. However, the CTU has been advocating the view that an effective administrative penalty system, perhaps modelled on the British Columbia system, can be developed to supplement the system of criminal prosecution. There is cogent evidence from around the world that administrative penalty systems can be effective in imposing significant penalties directly on identified hazards and unsafe systems of work. Such a system has operated effectively in British Columbia since the 1970's. It would appear some of the significant reasons for the effectiveness of such systems as an injury prevention tool are that: - Penalties can be imposed on hazards identified by inspectors as an incentive to eliminate the hazard. In New Zealand more than 90% of HSE Act prosecutions take place as a consequence of a serious accident. The administrative penalty system thus encourages OSH Inspectors to look at the system of work and the use of the penalty power as a preventative rather than an ex post facto punitive measure. - The maximum penalties imposed can be substantial and can be increased for continuing non-compliance. - The system is relatively inexpensive (c.f. criminal prosecution) yet natural justice is preserved by providing a right of appeal to a legal forum against the imposition of a penalty. - It moves away from breaches of workplace health and safety standards as breaches of criminal law and toward an administrative system which directly imposes penalties on identified hazards/breaches of standards. - It also enables a proper focus on occupational health hazards that often tend to be ignored in a criminal prosecution system because of long latency periods for many occupational diseases which make it difficult to prove a causal link back to a specific hazard. The legislation is still before our Parliament and there is still debate on other issues which should be addressed. How can the legal framework more effectively ensure adequate standards of safety for all workers, including those in small businesses, franchisees, and the self-employed. The real challenge lies ahead, after the implementation of the new law. The real challenge is to work together, to move beyond minimum standards, within the government framework and the incentives it provides, to improve and achieve best practice in health and safety protection of all workers. The criminal law based health and safety framework is no substitute for properly researched and applied injury prevention and health protection programmes.

Community responsibility and national injury prevention strategies

It is therefore fortuitous that one of the early legislative steps also taken by the Labour Alliance Government was the abolition of the private insurance market for workplace accident insurance and the re-establishment of the national single public fund accident injury scheme with strong responsibilities for injury prevention. Having regard to these responsibilities the CTU is working with ACC and employers in several industries to develop industry based injury prevention and health protection organizations. The objective is to ensure that the new systems of employee participation through employee health and safety representatives is taken to industry level. It is out objective to draw on the experience of other countries to develop tripartite industry associations which will analyse industry hazards and develop and apply solutions through best practice programmes. But the ultimate opportunity is to realise the full potential of our no fault accident compensation scheme by addressing injury prevention on a society wide basis as a community responsibility. As a modern union movement in New Zealand our concerns are not confined to the parameters of the workplace. Our union members reflect a cross section of the workforce, all of whom are exposed to hazards and risks 24 hours a day seven days a week, in their homes, on the roads, in their leisure activities, as well as in the workplace. We are currently working with Government and other social partners on a National Injury Prevention Strategy which will provide a framework for addressing injury prevention on a society wide basis. New Zealand is in transition at the moment; from the deregulated "hands off" market approach (to everything) which was the feature of the neo liberal era of the 1990s, towards a more "intelligent hands on" approach of the inclusive social democratic societies of Europe. Three years down the new political path we are building strong support for unions. Membership is growing at twice the speed of employment growth, and our influence is growing with it. The experience of the past 15 years has taught us that the union movement has a huge responsibility as the voice for all working people, most of whom have no other public and political voice. We aim to be forward looking and progressive, and to be a strong voice for innovation and social justice. It is for this reason that I welcome the immensely valuable opportunity to network with you all, and to apply your experience in our own country. It is also, I hope, useful for you to share our experience of the past decade and to give serious consideration to my recommendation to you; do not repeat the New Zealand experiment.