Watch live: Hairdressing law shake-up announced by David Seymour
Photo:
RNZ / Felix Walton
Separate hairdressing regulations are set to be scrapped, with cabinet agreeing to all four recommendations from a regulatory review into the hairdressing and barbering industry.
The
review, carried out by the Ministry for Regulation along with the Ministry of Health
, looked at the regulations the industry needed to follow and whether any of them were deemed to be unnecessary or holding the industry back.
They included rules prohibiting dogs, other than guide-dogs, from being inside a barber shop and a ban on staff serving their clients refreshments.
Announcing the review in December, Minister for Regulation David Seymour said regulations were not making a practical difference to public health, but were
frustrating business owners and customers
.
David Seymour gets a trim after announcing a review of hairdressing regulations. "Best hair in the coalition," he says.
Photo:
RNZ / Felix Walton
The review has now recommended a full revoke of the Health (Hairdressers) Regulations 1980.
Seymour said compliance with health and safety, building regulations and general public health requirements was required already and there was no need for separate regulation from the 1980s.
"Existing regulations aren't making a practical difference to safety, but the compliance is frustrating and costly. We anticipate that revoking all existing regulations will save the industry a minimum of about $1 million per year," he said.
Seymour said the review also found that existing regulations were often applied inconsistently, with annual registration fees set by local government varying between $140 and $495, depending on location.
"Examples of absurd rules include how far apart salon seats should be, how bright the lights in the business are, whether you can have a 'cuppa' with your cut and whether dogs are allowed in salons. From the end of July now these decisions will be up to the business owner," he said.
The review put forward two options in revoking the existing regulations. One option was to rely on existing mechanisms in other legislation along with new industry guidance. The other was to replace the current regulations with risk-based regulations, focused on health and hygiene practices.
Ultimately, it recommended the first option, with the possibility that more targeted regulations could be introduced at a later date.
The
Ministry for Regulation
will work with the Ministry of Health on hygiene, disinfection, and sanitation guidance, accompanying WorkSafe's existing guidance.
It will also work with the Ministry of Justice to respond to concerns raised by submitters over how alcohol licensing applies to the industry.
Once the regulations are revoked, the Ministry for Regulation will be required to report back in two years to see whether the risks were being appropriately managed by the new regime or whether new risk-based regulations should be introduced.
The review identified some instances of harm still occurring in the industry, such as ACC claims related to non-workers, complaints to the industry body and complaints to the Commerce Commission.
But it said the harm was low-level and existing regulations were not proportionate to the risks.
The review was the third sector-wide regulatory review carried out by the Ministry for Regulation, following reviews into early childhood education and agricultural and horticultural products.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
11 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mobility parking permit holder Derek Cossey was incorrectly issued fines, revealing a bigger issue
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice multimedia journalist of Derek Cossey has had one of his fines overturned, but has not received a response from Auckland Transport about a second one. Photo: Sylvie Whinray / NZME Derek Cossey has "old rugby player knees", which significantly limit his mobility. A small relief for the 67-year-old Onehunga man is his parking permit, which - when displayed in his vehicle - allows him to park in dedicated mobility spaces or for double the time shown on time-restricted carparks in Auckland's on-street parking areas. Recently, he has received two infringement notices from Auckland Transport (AT), because its new automatic number plate recognition technology, used for parking enforcement, does not recognise mobility permits. He is not alone. It is a "big issue" and one that "greatly concerns" CCS Disability Action, the primary provider of about 180,000 permits. BJ Clark of CCS Disability Action said other councils also used the technology and he had been contacted by up to 30 permitholders nationwide, who had been incorrectly fined. Clark said CCS was not consulted before AT launched the technology and the service was "desperately" trying to find a solution for its permitholders. AT has recognised the issue and said it was also trying to find a solution. For Cossey, the situation has been extremely frustrating. Last year, he received a fine by post for exceeding the displayed time restriction in an on-street carpark. However, his permit allowed him double the displayed time and he had moved on before that time was up. He managed to have the fine overturned, but said it was not easy. "It must have taken me 4-6 emails backwards and forwards to get them to quash the ticket. "On top of that, it was like they were reprimanding me and saying 'We'll do that in this instance'." Then he got another ticket in the same circumstances more recently. He has yet to have it overturned. Emails, seen by NZME, to Auckland Transport about the ticket went unanswered and the matter was referred to debt collection agency Baycorp. CCS Disability Action issues about 180,000 mobility parking permits nationwide. Photo: Sylvie Whinray / NZME Cossey had to explain the situation to Baycorp and hoped to get that issue resolved. "I've had to go through the wringer." He was concerned about AT's lack of communication in his case, saying he had asked what it was doing to resolve the parking permit issue, but had not received a response. "They never come back and say, 'Look, we're really sorry that this has happened. We didn't think about it in the first place, but we're trying to find a way around it'. None of that. "It's just ignorance. They're a law unto themselves, it's so frustrating to deal with them." Clark said AT launched the technology without consultation with CCS Disability Action. "The first thing we knew about it was when this problem started. It is a big issue and one that concerns us greatly. "I'm intrigued by how the council gets away with issuing a ticket to a person who is legitimately parked. It seems to me a little bit strange." The service has since met AT, but Clark said an agreeable solution had not yet been found. AT's solution of registering number plates against a permit was less than ideal, he said. Parking services group manager John Strawbridge said Auckland Transport was working on a solution to the mobility parking problem. Photo: Chris Gorman / NZME "That sounds like a good way to solve the issue, but from our point of view, it's not. "We issue a permit to a person, not a vehicle number plate, and we don't want people to be able to have more than one vehicle being permitted to use that one permit. "It opens up the system to abuse." Clark said registering vehicles could also pose a problem for older permitholders, who might not remember to use the right vehicles, if they had multiple registered vehicles. Permitholders visiting Auckland might not be recognised. "It restricts the ability for people to use the permit in the way that we give it out," Clark said. "That is, it shouldn't be controlled to one vehicle, it should be controlled to wherever that person is." The service made other suggestions to AT, like rolling out permits that a mounted device on the council's vehicles could scan, but Clark said that method would need to be developed and there were questions about who would bear the costs. "We are desperately trying to find a solution." AT, which launched the technology in 2019, recognised it was a "complicated situation". John Strawbridge, its group manager of parking services, said: "Our preference is to manage mobility spaces by a parking officer, on foot, so that they can sight whether a vehicle has a current mobility permit displayed. "Sometimes the permits are hard to spot. "However, our camera cars also issue fines to vehicles parked in a mobility spot, with or without a permit, as we do not have access to digital data on active permits." The issue was that the permit was for a person, not a vehicle, and the person could ride in multiple vehicles. "We know this isn't a great experience for mobility permitholders and we encourage anyone who has received a fine in error to contact us to see if it warrants being waived." Strawbridge said AT was working on a solution that would allow Auckland permitholders to apply for a digital permit through AT's Park app. The e-permit would enable people to add all vehicles they intended to use to the AT Park app and switch between them. AT has also sought access to the CCS database to confirm active permits. "Our proposed solution will address many of the challenges experienced by permitholders and, when it's ready to be rolled out, we will be reaching out to them to provide more information. "There may be some more improvements needed and we are committed to making continuous improvements." AT confirmed the first of Cossey's fines was waived, but maintained it had not received any correspondence from him on the second. However, after "a bit more digging", it found his emails. It said it would review the matter and respond directly to Cossey. -This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
