Health And Safety Regulations To Support Science And Technology
Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden is consulting on proposed changes to health and safety regulations to better support innovation in New Zealand's science and technology sector.
'As part of the wider health and safety reforms, we're clearing the way for scientific progress by reducing complexity and making it easier to understand what's required,' says Ms van Velden.
'We've heard that the current regulations don't match what university laboratories do, creating unnecessary compliance challenges. Researchers and innovators need a system that supports their work, not one that stands in the way.'
I am proposing a change that aims to match hazardous substances requirements for university laboratories as well as science and technology laboratories with their actual risk.
Current regulations require flammable substance laboratories to be on the ground floor. However, universities often place them on upper levels to improve fire safety and security, keeping evacuation routes clear and limiting access to hazardous materials. This approach, supported by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, does not align with how the regulations are currently written.
'I'm developing these changes to ensure they are practical and effectively support New Zealand's science and technology sector. This includes assessing whether the current laboratory design and hazardous substances storage requirements work for their laboratories.
'We'll be consulting directly with the university laboratories and science and technology laboratories. I intend to complete these changes by mid-2026.'
Another key change already being consulted on aims to remove regulatory barriers to the development and use of hydrogen technologies.
'We're planning to update the rules to support the safe development and use of hydrogen technologies in a way that's flexible, future-proofed, and internationally aligned.'
Officials have already conducted targeted consultation, and now we're opening it more widely to ensure all interested stakeholders have the opportunity to share their feedback.
Because the current safety requirements were not developed with hydrogen in mind, they are now preventing the safe development and use of hydrogen technologies.
Key changes being consulted on include:
Enabling the use of hydrogen storage containers that are already in common use overseas.
Establishing safety requirements for cryogenic liquid hydrogen.
Introducing safety requirements for hydrogen filling stations and dispensers.
'Hydrogen technologies could transform sectors from transport to manufacturing, and these changes will help unlock that potential by removing regulatory barriers.'
These changes support the Government's 2024 Hydrogen Action Plan by creating an enabling regulatory environment for hydrogen development while maintaining safety. The changes are expected to be completed by mid-2026.
'Once agreed, these updates will remove unnecessary complexity and ensure the regulatory system better supports scientific research and emerging technologies,' says Ms van Velden.
'These changes will save time and costs for businesses and workers as we cut red tape to make it easier to do business. When our Kiwi businesses thrive, there are more jobs and lower prices for all New Zealanders.'
Notes:
· These changes are part of the wider health and safety reform, which delivers on the ACT-National Coalition Agreement commitment to reform health and safety laws and regulations.
· A summary of all the changes and major milestones:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The NZ economy is still sick, doubts are growing about the Govt prescription
Are these the right antibiotics? Are the antibiotics making me feel sick? I do feel a little better I think. But it's taking longer than I expected. Maybe I should see the doctor again. Or am I just being impatient? Ugh, so much uncertainty. Hopefully, those who've tuned in for a fresh read on the state of the economy can see where this is going. Never let a metaphor go by, I say! Anyway, here's me and the New Zealand economy, both sick in the midst of a miserable wet winter and worrying about whether our recoveries have stalled. A run of negative data has knocked the wind out of the nation's sails. The bad vibes are being pushed along by a strong political current. Both the left and right are telling us that the Government has prescribed the wrong medicine. The left blames the Government for cutting spending into a downturn. The logic is pretty simple. Any good Keynesian will tell you, when demand in the private sector falls, that's the time for the Government to come to the party. Borrow a bit more, don't slash and burn civil service, hire more teachers and nurses, build more stuff ... it won't be inflationary because it won't be crowding out private sector competition, which is in recession. The trouble is, we're still in the aftermath of the last big spend-up, which went on too long. Labour's stimulus, once we got through the initial Covid shock, did clash with a private sector boom and exacerbated inflation. That muddied the political narrative. It made it inevitable that the incoming centre-right coalition would cut back despite the extra damage that would do to economic growth. In the context of using fiscal policy to drive economic prosperity, you can make a good case that successive governments have got things completely arse about face. You'd expect this argument from the left. But Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis are being savaged even more aggressively from their right flank. The monetarists, the supply-side guys, the neo-liberals, (whatever you want to call them) are berating the Government for not dealing with the national debt and Crown deficit by administering a Rogernomics-style reboot of the whole economy. I doubt that would make the current downturn any more pleasant, but they argue it couldn't be much worse. And the payoff would be longer-term gains as the economy found a more productive and financially secure baseline. Both arguments can be compelling and, if nothing else, add to the concern that the current strategy of subtle market-oriented tweaks risks underdelivering on all sides. But through all of this gloom, one thing we need to remember is that most economists still believe the foundations of recovery are in place. Step back a bit from the mess of ugly recent economic data – the second quarter sucked, we get it! What are we actually experiencing? The labour market is tough. Unemployment is rising, and new job creation is almost non-existent. But this is not a surprise. In fact, while economists do get things wrong, they've been forecasting unemployment to be about where it is now for more than a year. We know it's one of the last pieces of data to turn in any recovery. Unfortunately, it is now overlapping with an unwanted and unexpected spike in inflation. Like a jump scare in the final scene of a horror movie, food prices (with rates and power, and insurance) have conspired to pause Reserve Bank rate cuts and rattled our faith in the recovery. Then there are tariffs and global unrest and all of that. It's not really surprising that it all feels bleak. So it's a bit ironic to be writing an optimistic take on the economy, especially given the rough week stuck at home that I've just had. My view wouldn't have been so upbeat if I hadn't been woken from my sick bed on Friday morning by a text from investment bank HSBC's Australian head of communications. He was asking how far away I was from my scheduled meeting with their global chief economist, Janet Henry and and Australia-New Zealand chief economist Paul Bloxham. Oops ... I was a long way away. But they kindly let me Zoom in later, and I'm very glad I did. As anyone with Australian cousins will know, sometimes it's healthy to be slapped in the face with a slightly condescending, external view of the New Zealand condition. Bloxham told me his forecasts currently make him one of the gloomiest economists on Australian growth. However, he's one of the most positive on New Zealand growth. Last year, New Zealand had the single largest contraction of any economy in the developed world, Bloxham points out. That inevitably comes with a hangover. But if you believe in the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy, which he does, there is no reason to assume the cycle won't turn. 'I suspect why I'm a little bit more upbeat than others is I sit in Sydney and watch it from the outside and go: hey, you've got two big forces at work that are set to continue to lift growth and give you a recovery.' No prizes for guessing those two forces – falling interest rates and booming agricultural commodity prices. The money flowing into the rural economy must eventually flow through to the cities and lift growth, Bloxham says. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen (my words, not his). We've had a big downswing, which means we're due a pretty big upswing to get back to trend, he says. And we've got monetary policy and the terms of trade in place to drive that cyclical upswing. 'All cycles look different. We always ask the same question going through: oh, it's not quite happening as quickly as we thought. 'The question you ask yourself is: is that because it's not working? Is it that interest rates aren't going to have the same effect? That a positive-terms-of-trade shock won't have the same effect? Or are things just a bit different this time around?' Great question. And look, the sun's finally out and I think my head's clearing. Time to go for a walk and ponder it all. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
NZ Herald
4 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.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Heather du Plessis-Allan: Is the Govt so desperate they announce any half-baked idea?
Of all of the above, it's the ban that's going to give them ongoing headaches. On the face of it, it's great retail politics. Everyone hates being stung 2% for using the credit card at the sushi shop. But there will be consequences. The surcharge is there because it costs to use your credit card. Someone has to pay for it. Either you or the retailer. Currently, it's you in the form of the surcharge. After the ban, it'll be the retailer. And we're talking a lot of money. Interchange fees alone – the fees Visa and Mastercard charge – suck nearly $1 billion out of NZ businesses a year. Add what retail banks charge on top of that and we're talking several billion apparently. One retailer reckons they were paying $2500 a month just in merchant fees. That's $30,000 a year. They realised they were basically subsidising everyone's credit card loyalty schemes. So, they introduced the surcharge. No savvy small or medium-sized retailer will suck up a cost like that. If they can't get that back through a surcharge, they'll get it back by upping the price on products. So, while the Government can sell the story that they're saving consumers money through the ban, they're not. Pity the poor travel agents especially. Let's say they book flights to London for a family of four at the cost of $15,000. If the family put it on the credit card, which most of us would do, there is a $225 merchant fee. Once the ban kicks in, the travel agent will essentially be helping the family pay for their holiday. So, you can see why retailers are up in arms. They're so angry they've managed to mobilise the country's chambers of commerce into banding together in a statement criticising the ban. Their point is a fair one: the Government should really be dealing with the source of the problem, which is banks and credit card companies charging too much for a basic service. Ministers choosing to beat up on Kiwi retailers instead of sorting out big foreign bankers is bizarre. Even more so because SME owners are traditionally National Party and right-leaning voters. The Government is burning its own support base here. Which brings us to the weirdness of this. It should have been entirely predictable that this would blow back badly. So, why did they do it? Are they so desperate to get good coverage that they take any half-baked idea pitched at them by a minister at the weekend to announce the following Monday? Did they run out of time to interrogate the idea before announcing it? Or did they anticipate all the problems but ignore them in their desperation to get a cost-of-living announcement out? It also begs the question, why are they so panicked? The answer is probably that it's not just the Government's vibe that has shifted. It's the country's vibe too. It's the middle of this Government's term and the middle of winter and the tail end of a very long and hard recession. The goodwill towards the coalition Government is suddenly depleting. It's possibly recoverable. Summer and an economic recovery should improve things again. But even when we're warm and flush, it won't stop the Government stuffing things up itself if it keeps making weird announcements like this. Watch now for how they get out of this. And they'll have to. They can't be doing this to their own voter base just months out from next year's election.
