Hon Clayton Cosgrove
Minister for Building and Construction

27 September 2007 Speech

Making a positive difference in the real world -
speech to the SiteSafe Myth Busting Safety Conference

Venue: Waipuna Hotel and Conference Centre Auckland
Time: 8.25am, 27 September 2007

Site Safe New Zealand chairman Peter Heaphy, and Site Safe Executive Director Iris Clanachan; Site Safe members; Industry sponsors Mainzeal Construction, Fletcher Construction, Hawkins Construction and Equipsafety; building industry representatives; invited guests; ladies and gentlemen.

Good morning and thank you for inviting me to be with you today.

I would like to congratulate SiteSafe for the excellent work in organising this conference. Today you will be working on one of the most important issues facing, not just your sector, but other industrial groups in New Zealand as well – safety in our workplace sites.

The attitudes, policies and practices you will be developing, promoting and practising as a result of this conference will provide valuable leadership.

As you know, the construction sector carries a high degree of inherent risk to workers. In Europe, the fatality rate is two-and-a-half times higher than for the industry as a whole, making it one of the most dangerous land-based activities.

It is easy to see why this is so on large construction sites where heavy objects are moving around and tradespeople and labourers are often working at some distance from the ground.

But the risk of injury is not just confined to large sites. Safety is also an issue on small projects, not just because there are inherent hazards, but because safety is often left up to an individual operator or subcontractor.

There is also a degree of risk for short-term workers and contractors visiting building sites whose task may require them to be on site for only a few hours. These are the ones who may have only limited knowledge of the site hazards, and this can be doubly dangerous if they are less than rigorous about managing risk.

To some degree, we can measure the risk from the construction sector – or its financial impact at least – by the cost of claims to ACC. In 2005/06, construction sector claims cost in the order of $81 million. More worrying, nearly $47 million of those were for ongoing claims where costs were carried over from the previous year.

What this tells us is that there were some reasonably significant injuries to many of the individuals concerned.

Unfortunately, this financial measurement doesn’t tell us anything about the cost in terms of pain and suffering.

Perhaps if I add that ACC accepted claims for 30 fatalities during 2005/06, we get a better picture of the impact of construction sector injuries, not just on the individuals who are maimed or killed, but on the families who continue to experience the grief of the death of a loved one, or the impact of supporting a family member who is seriously injured.

But just because there is an inherent risk within an industry doesn’t mean we have to take it for granted and your conference theme, Myth Busting, goes to the heart of this.

Accidents don’t just happen. The ones that are truly down to pure bad luck are very rare. Usually they result from a lack of foresight, poor or insufficient planning, or carelessness, either on the part of the site operator or the worker.

I will concede that even the best intentioned of us can slip up, and that was the case for an Honourable Mention in the so-called Darwin Awards 2001.

For safety’s sake, this worker tethered himself to a piece of fourth floor scaffolding. Unfortunately, he overlooked the fact that he was also dismantling the scaffolding, and followed it down when he tossed it to the ground.

We can never entirely eliminate risk. But we do need to recognise risk when it is present and take all reasonable steps to manage it when it cannot be eliminated.

Nowadays, we do this routinely when we climb into a car. We know that cars are much safer than the used to be, and we don’t expect to be involved in a collision, let alone one that is life-threatening, during our journey.

Nevertheless, we recognise that there is still that possibility and we take a simple step to reduce the adverse consequences by doing up our safety belts.

The same principle applies to hazards on the construction site and it is also one of the considerations underlying the reforms of the building industry taking place now.

Government’s reforms

The reforms are squarely aimed at improving the quality of our homes and buildings and at making them warmer and healthier. But the work being done now will also lift standards in a way that will feed right back into practices on the construction site.

Licensed Building Practitioner scheme

The Licensed Building Practitioner scheme which comes into operation on a voluntary basis from 1 November recognises the importance of worksite management.

The primary aim is to raise skill levels and to put in place practices that will ensure buildings are designed and built right the first time so that they are capable of meeting the ongoing needs of the people who live and work in them.

But the scheme will also lift the overall tenor of practices on the worksite.

Licensing will start in November with applications being accepted from designers, builders, site supervisors, construction managers and carpenters and, eventually, these licensed building practitioners will have oversight of various aspects of the construction process.

Next year, the opportunity to become licensed will be extended to external plasterers, roofers, bricklayers and blocklayers, and specialists in concrete structure, steel structure and building services.

Over time, the scheme will help provide a clear career pathway for many people in the industry and enable their skills, competency and professionalism to be formally recognised – in many cases, for the first time.

This will help attract and retain good people whose skills will not only improve the quality of the resulting building, but also contribute to better and safer functioning of the building process.

Building Consent Authority accreditation scheme

The new Building Consent Authority accreditation scheme is another initiative that will lift standards through the consenting process. By ensuring that homes and buildings have been inspected right the first time, this means the building and design work has been done properly also. Councils are the consumers’ last line of defence so lifting standards in this area has been crucial.

Building Consent Authorities will be required to have proper systems and procedures in place so they can carry out their responsibilities in the building process as efficiently as possible.

Councils are showing strong commitment to the accreditation process and the end result will be better quality consents, faster processing and quicker identification of poor quality consent applications.

Councils will benefit from greater efficiency in their building control operations, increased capability and risk management, while customers will enjoy better service and more consistent application of the Building Code.

Energy efficiency

One of my key reforms this year involves amendment of the Building Code to make new houses more energy efficient so they will need to use about 30 percent less heating energy to achieve the same indoor temperatures.

Why are we doing this?

Because, frankly, we live in quite a cold country and the harsh reality is that the houses we have been building for generations are not the houses best suited to our environment, and that needs to change.

You may be wondering what this has to do with safety. Well, it may not prevent injuries, or have any safety impact in the short-term. But it will help to prevent the poor health outcomes that are associated with cold homes.

And by international standards, our houses are cold. Kiwis fancy themselves as pretty hardy creatures, but the fact is that cold houses we tend to take for granted are doing us no favours at all. Let’s bust a few myths. Living in a cold, damp house doesn’t make you tough, but it can make you sick.

A recent Otago University School of Medicine study was very clear on this: houses with better insulation have measurable health benefits as they are drier, warmer, and healthier. And those are the kinds of houses this Government wants New Zealanders living in and raising their children in.

What does all this mean in practical terms?

Well, in most parts of New Zealand, better insulation and double-glazing of windows will be required. In the warmer climates of the far north it may not be necessary to achieve the same level of interior heating. We are talking performance-based realities – which is the essence of our Building Code. The Building Code says this is the level you need to meet, and the means to meeting it is left open, allowing for innovation in both function and design. Maximising the warmth from the sun is another tool at the designers’ disposal.

But the bottom line is that we are raising the performance bar to get warmer homes without adding to their energy bills.

It is estimated that these measures could add $3000 to $5000 to the construction of the average new home – but that initial cost will be repaid in a few short years through lower gas and electricity bills. In the long-term, warm, energy efficient houses will be more attractive to buyers and I believe they will command a higher price.

We are moving on it quickly, bringing the improved insulation requirements to the coldest parts of the country first.

They will take effect in the South Island and the Central Plateau from this November, and the rest of the North Island up as far as the Auckland region from July next year, and, finally, from north of Auckland in October next year.

Building Code review

In the context of forward-looking reform, one of the exciting things happening as we speak is the current top-to-bottom review of the Building Code.

The aim is not just to update the Code, but to squarely focus it so that it can provide for the buildings of the 21st century and the second Building Code review discussion document released last month puts sustainability very much at the heart of what we are seeking to achieve.

One of the significant sections relates to the “embodied energy” in buildings. By embodied energy, it means the energy we use to create the building – the materials that go into it, and the energy used to put the actual building in place – the total amount of energy used to produce a final product from raw materials.

The second discussion document raises the idea of factoring into the design the greenhouse gas impact of producing the building’s components, as well as the building’s lifetime operating energy use, as a requirement of the Building Code.

This is big picture stuff, and no decisions will be made over whether we should go down this path until all the necessary in-depth analysis has been done. That means separating the myth from the reality. Housing affordability, for example, is a key consideration, because it is no use having houses that Kiwis can't afford to buy.

It is possible that embodied energy could even lower the cost of construction in New Zealand, given that manufacturers would have an incentive to conserve energy and therefore reduce their production costs – which should have flow-on effects to consumers. Such a scheme would also encourage more recycling and using fewer materials more efficiently, which would minimise construction waste – all factors which could make houses cheaper to build. But as I said, it is early days.

Conclusion

The government’s programme to transform the building and construction sector has a clear parallel with the work you do. We both see that upfront cost-cutting or short-cuts often causes problems down the track, and that honest tallying up of risks and benefits over time is the true way to raise standards – whether they be safety standards on the building site or the standard of the work being produced.

Plus, of course, when you really look at it, the long term approach is often the less costly. In the case of building reform, we see the benefits of energy savings and better health from warmer homes from that upfront investment.

In the case of site safety, a single injury can cost many millions of dollars over time if it is bad enough in medical care and in income replacement.

And, as I mentioned, the financial costs can be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the less measurable impact on families and the individual concerned.

Bearing these thoughts in mind, your conference theme of Mythbusting is one that has application right across the building industry, as well as in making the construction worksite safer.

You deservedly should be praised for that approach you are taking in looking behind the statistics, to root out the causes of worksite injuries to find commonsense ways of preventing them.

I wish you all a productive and enjoyable conference.

Thank you.

ENDS

© Scoop Media