Latest news with #RegulatoryImpactStatement
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Local Democracy Under Threat? Officials Warn Against Removing Council 'Four Wellbeings'
Removing the "four wellbeings" for councils is unlikely to make much difference, and could even impact services and development, officials' analysis of the government's law changes shows. The report shows the approach taken by the government can be expected to overall improve clarity and concerns about spending "beyond core infrastructure" - but would undermine stability and localism. It shows the Department of Internal Affairs would have preferred to keep the status quo. The Local government (System Improvements) Amendment legislation passed its first reading last night, with the select committee reporting back in November. The government and the minister have made their views clear, stating that councils have "lacked fiscal discipline", that they "are not mini-Parliaments; they are service delivery agencies", and that residents have become increasingly concerned about rates. The opposition parties have argued it is a power grab that degrades the rights of democratically elected councils. Removing 'four wellbeings' to have little impact A key part of the bill is the government's proposal to remove all 10 mentions of the "four wellbeings" - social, economic, environmental and cultural - from the law governing councils. However, the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on the bill from Internal Affairs said that in isolation, this change was "unlikely to benefit communities more than the status quo". "Previous regulatory impact statements have suggested that despite various changes to the purpose by successive governments, there has been limited impact on council decision-making, activities, and service levels, regardless of intended focus. "Refocusing the purpose of local government will likely have limited impact on its own and may create implementation costs and issues." The paper highlighted that the "proposed changes will likely disrupt the sector" and had led councils to do "costly compliance exercises in the past to determine which activities fit within a narrower purpose". Despite this narrowing, it said the purpose of local government "should reflect the broad range of responsibilities local authorities have under all primary and secondary legislation in New Zealand" - pointing to the 47 statutes councils already have responsibilities under. It noted that departmental feedback from agencies, including the Infrastructure Commission and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, as well as the independent Future of Local Government Review (FLGR) - effectively binned by the government a year ago - had "contrary views to those of ministers". "Feedback suggested that removing the four wellbeings could be seen as disempowering local government, and while focusing councils on low rates may succeed, it would likely come at the expense of key council services and infrastructure development." It noted the FLGR had found successive governments' changes to councils' purpose were disruptive, and recommended the four wellbeings be entrenched in law to provide greater certainty. Removing the wellbeings "could impact [Treaty of Waitangi] settlement arrangements between iwi or hapū and councils". However, some councils had told the minister, "they felt it would also help them to manage community expectations and do fewer things better". In a table assessing the costs and benefits of the legislation, the officials found that "restraint" (addressing concerns about spending beyond core services) and "clarity" (providing useful direction about what councils should be expected to do) were improved compared to the status quo. However, "stability" (minimising disruption and allowing councils to plan effectively) and "localism" (recognising the broad role of councils valued in communities and empowering them to decide for themselves) would be worse than the status quo. Effect on rate rises? The RIS suggested that other changes proposed by the government, including additional performance monitoring and rate capping, were "more likely" to support the government's objectives. While ministers have continued to say the changes are targeted at a lack of fiscal discipline by councils, the RIS stated "cost pressures on councils are being driven by capital and operating cost escalation, flowing from supply chain upheaval and a tight labour market during the Covid-19 pandemic, and accelerated headline inflation since". "Infrastructure costs have long been a major cause of rate increases, with councils needing to upgrade infrastructure, especially for water and wastewater treatment plants, and invest in more infrastructure to meet growth demands. "Around two-thirds of capital expenditure for councils is applied to core infrastructure, not including libraries and other community facilities, or parks and reserves." Local Government Minister Simon Watts, at the first reading speech on Thursday, said, "We looked at the evidence and it showed that whenever the four aspects of community wellbeing are included in the purpose of local government, rates go up as councils are focused on too many things". Internal Affairs' analysis showed rate increases were "about two percent higher when the four wellbeings are in the Act", so while it bears out the minister's statement, the effect cannot explain the full weight of rate rises across the country. The data used also did not account for population growth or distinguish between residential or commercial ratepayers. "Usually, where rates have increased faster, this is because costs for councils have risen faster. The current infrastructure deficit for local government is evidence of prolonged underinvestment, where rates (along with other revenue sources) did not increase enough to enable responsible asset management. "For example, despite rates appearing to increase more towards 2007, the Infrastructure Commission has identified the period from 1995 to 2008 as a time when rates were consistently below their post-World War II average as a share of gross domestic product, and this coincided with a deterioration of the stock of transport, water and waste assets." Limited consultation and scope for analysis, rates capping process uncertain The analysis stated that the minister only allowed officials to examine two options: the status quo and his preferred approach. "The data and evidence used in carrying out this analysis was generally low quality due to limitations on options exploration and consultation. "There was a heavy reliance on previous regulatory impact statements that covered the same or reverse law changes." The inclusion of the wellbeings has been added to or removed from the law four times since the Act came into force in 2003, so there were more than enough previous analyses to draw from. It remains unclear whether rate capping, which the minister wants "before Christmas", would be included in the bill after the select committee reports back in November. In a response to RNZ, the minister said decisions had not yet been made on whether rates capping would be added to the current bill, or in new legislation. "This week I confrimed that the government is exploring a rates capping system with policy work underway since Cabinet agreed in April. I will bring advice back to Cabinet for consideration later this year. I intend to progress work on a rate-capping system suited to New Zealand that is flexible enough to support our housing growth aspirations and which allows us to respond to the infrastrcuture deficit while limiting spending on nice-to-haves. "We want ratepayers to get value for money and with issues like average rate increases in 2024 of 9.6 percent vs CPI inflation at 2.2 percent , constraining increases is an option we are actively considering." However, the analysis repeatedly highlights that efforts to "limit council revenue from rates" are part of the government's intended package of reform, and a section laying out a timeline of changes includes a redacted entry that follows the implementation of the changes described in the bill. The disclosure statement prepared by the department noted that the RIS was limited to assessing the impacts of refocusing the purpose of local government. It said the Regulations Ministry had determined other aspects of the bill did not need to be assessed, "on the grounds that these proposals would have no or only minor economic, social, or environmental impacts". The ministry also asked the minister to provide an analysis on rates capping when reporting back to Cabinet on the overall bill in December. The statement also showed Watts had asked for consultation relating to transparency and accountability with the Free Speech Union lobby group, the Taxpayers Union lobby group, the New Zealand Initiative think tank, Transparency International, and other ratepayer groups and academics. On performance management, the department also sought feedback from a reference group, and on regulatory relief, the department was instructed to consult LGNZ, Local Government Professionals NZ, Federated Farmers, and Business NZ. Officials also shared a clause of the draft bill with the Local Government Funding Agency.
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Ministry Feared Costs Of $60m A Year To Review Laws Under Regulatory Standards Bill
Officials have warned David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates suggested, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth. Seymour is playing down the concerns, saying AI will solve some of those problems and the officials have not accounted for some aspects of the bill he expects will speed up government processes. The documents released under the Official Information Act show Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials feared $50 million to $60m a year in costs to government departments would be on the low end of estimates. They also believed the bill would slow the passage of legislation by two to four weeks, and make the business environment more uncertain, slowing economic growth. Like other departments and in line with the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry for Regulation, MBIE also expressed "concerns about the proposals outlined and their ability to support genuine improvement in regulatory quality", and said there were other, better options for achieving the bill's aims. MBIE estimates of costs to review legislation In feedback ahead of last week's select committee hearings, MBIE officials particularly expressed concern over the additional costs the bill would impose, saying up to three full-time staff would be needed for each of the 95 laws the ministry is responsible for, costing the ministry up to $34.2m over multiple years. "This translates to 95 - 285 FTE in total ($11.4 to $34.2 million). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation - larger Acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation." As an example, the Building Act includes 680 sections and has 34 pieces of secondary legislation. "It is very roughly estimated that a dedicated team of 6-8 FTE (full time employees) with a manager may be required in order to undertake the consistency reviews and provide advice to the Minister on whether departures are justified." This figure does not include new legislation and regulations, which are covered by the RSB. MBIE estimated an additional full-time employee would be needed for each new bill the government asks the ministry to write, with the requirements of the Regulatory Standards Bill adding "an additional 2-4 weeks into the legislative process". "As an indication, MBIE has supported the passage of 6 Acts so far in 2024/25," the advice stated. "It is highly unlikely that we could meet these additional costs within baseline as suggested within the Cabinet paper without significant impacts on MBIE's ability to deliver Ministers' policy priorities." The figures also do not include the estimated 450 to 550 pieces of existing secondary legislation (regulations) the ministry also oversees - which had originally been included in the RSB's scope and could still be added at a later date. Questioned about the figures, MBIE said they were high-level estimates and could yet change. "The advice provided high level estimates with a range of costs and timeframes based on the work that might be required as a result of the Bill. We would need to revise and update these estimates when the Bill is passed." Estimated $50m to $60m annual cost to departments a 'lower bound' MBIE's advice also quoted from the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by Seymour's Regulations Ministry an estimated annual cost to departments of "$50m-$60m per year", saying this was likely on the lower end. "As per previous MBIE advice, MBIE considers that the assumptions made by the Ministry for Regulation in developing that estimate make it a lower bound. In regulatory-heavy portfolios, MBIE estimates that up to 15 percent of the policy resource will need to be engaged in this work." The documents show MBIE offered to help the Regulations Ministry come up with a more accurate accounting. "We offered to work with the Ministry to better cost the work that would be involved in undertaking consistency reviews. In the 48 hour timeframe for comment, it was not possible to complete robust analysis on agency impact but our assessment is this [is] substantial for agencies with a significant volume of regulatory stock such as MBIE". However, the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted the bill would cost $18m annually across the whole of government. RNZ has sought clarification from MBIE about where the $50m to $60m figure came from, and whether it was still current. Seymour expects AI will bring department costs down Questioned about the costs, Seymour said the officials did not seem to be accounting for the fact the range of considerations in the RSB were narrower than already required under the Cabinet Manual, nor that it would replace most of the work done to produce Regulatory Impact Statements. "It's disappointing that MBIE officials think it's too hard to consider the impacts of their regulations on Kiwis," he said. "It says more about their productivity and attitude towards Kiwis than the Bill. Businesses who have to comply with their rules and regulations are constantly innovating and improving their processes, why can't these officials? "This isn't a zero-sum game. Kiwis all over the country are faced with endless costs caused by overzealous bureaucrats who aren't accountable. By preventing more bad regulations, and getting rid of pointless old ones, we'll save the country far more money than these bureaucrats could ever spend." He suggested AI could also help. "Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we'll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI," he said. "Could it change the way that a government department scans the legislation it's responsible for to pick out things that might be consistent or inconsistent with a peer to principles? That's already here." He pushed back when asked if AI could be trusted to do that work. "I don't think the issue is that you're going to trust it. I think the issue is that you're going to use it to speed up the work that humans are ultimately trusted for." Victoria University senior lecturer in Artificial Intelligence Andrew Lensen warned artificial intelligence is not the silver bullet David Seymour has suggested it will be for reducing the cost of the Regulatory Standards Bill. "There are some benefits we've seen in the public sector with the use of AI to help public servants do some stuff, but I think what the minister is proposing is very optimistic and not at all what I'd suggest as a reasonable solution," Lensen told Midday Report. He said human oversight would be needed if AI was used to make sure there were no mistakes or inaccuracies. "If you need someone to baby-sit a model, or baby-sit that system, then it's sort of limited how much efficiency you can gain from that process," Lensen said. He added the return investment in AI is not clear because there is a big risk of legal costs if AI makes a mistake. Concerns over opposition to RSB affecting business confidence The advice shows MBIE was also concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence, because the principles in it were likely to change under a future government. "Because some of the principles in the Bill are viewed as novel or contentious, as opposed to widely accepted, there is a risk to the durability of the principles, and potentially the Bill as a whole. "Future legislation, designed to be consistent with novel principles, may also take on characteristics that are seen as unorthodox, and eventually be subject to regulatory churn." Emails between officials show the ministry raised with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford that the bill would make the regulatory environment less predictable, "which can constrain business' commitment to investment and growth". RNZ has sought comment from Seymour about the effect on business confidence. Cost estimates 'highly concerning' - Greens The Green Party's regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez said the ministry's cost estimates were highly concerning, saying officials would be focused on "doing make-work jobs just to comply with the extremist provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill". He was also concerned the bill would have a chilling effect on regulations "that protect people and planet". "Instead of the money going to frontline public services, it's just going to be wasted on the cost of basically pursuing one person's ideological vanity project." He said Seymour's explanations sounded like "total BS", saying it was "desperation". He pointed to a study from the United Kingdom which suggested AI could save public servants two weeks in a 52-week year, less than 5 percent. "AI is quite good for doing the sort of low-level administrative tasks and simplifying those things, but the level of nuanced work of interpreting secondary legislation and how it applies to a principles framework that, again, is like created by human beings - it's not really the sort of thing that could easily be automated," Hernandez said. "Seymour is spinning." He said he agreed with the analysis on the bill impacting business confidence, and pushed back on suggestions the current opposition repealing the bill could be partly to blame for it - saying it was not just the opposition showing signs of not supporting it. "The coalition itself is showing cracks around the seams around that, so if Seymour can't even get the full unequivocal support of his colleagues in cabinet, then that goes to show how extreme this bill is." Cabinet removed requirement to review every 10 years after every ministry complained The documents also showed significant concern from MBIE about an earlier version of the RSB the ministries were asked to provide feedback on, which would have required all legislation and regulations to be reviewed at least once every decade. This requirement was removed by Cabinet before the bill was introduced to Parliament. An email in the documents showed concerns about the 10-yearly reviews was widespread. "David will address the resourcing issue in the meeting, as it has been raised by every agency and several ministers," the email said. Questioned about the prospect of changes to the bill following the select committee process, Seymour used the matter as an example of changes already made. "People said 'oh, that'll be too much work for the department', we said 'well, if it's too much work for the government to read all of its laws in 10 years, imagine the poor buggers who have to follow these laws out there anyway'. We said 'okay, we'll take the 10 year thing out, take pressure off that'. That's the kind of change they've already made."
NZ Herald
5 days ago
- Business
- NZ Herald
Officials warn David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could cost $60m
Like other departments and in line with the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry for Regulation, MBIE also expressed 'concerns about the proposals outlined and their ability to support genuine improvement in regulatory quality', and said there were other, better options for achieving the bill's aims. MBIE estimates of costs In feedback before last week's select committee hearings, MBIE officials particularly expressed concern over the additional costs the bill would impose, saying up to three fulltime staff would be needed for each of the 95 laws the ministry is responsible for, costing the ministry up to $34.2m over multiple years. 'This translates to 95-285 FTE in total ($11.4m to $34.2m). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation – larger acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation.' As an example, the Building Act includes 680 sections and has 34 pieces of secondary legislation. 'It is very roughly estimated that a dedicated team of 6-8 FTE (fulltime employees) with a manager may be required in order to undertake the consistency reviews and provide advice to the minister on whether departures are justified.' This figure does not include new legislation and regulations, which are covered by the RSB. MBIE estimated an additional fulltime employee would be needed for each new bill the Government asks the ministry to write, with the requirements of the Regulatory Standards Bill adding 'an additional 2-4 weeks into the legislative process'. 'As an indication, MBIE has supported the passage of 6 Acts so far in 2024/25,' the advice stated. 'It is highly unlikely that we could meet these additional costs within baseline as suggested within the Cabinet paper without significant impacts on MBIE's ability to deliver ministers' policy priorities.' The figures also do not include the estimated 450 to 550 pieces of existing secondary legislation (regulations) the ministry also oversees – which had originally been included in the RSB's scope and could still be added at a later date. Questioned about the figures, MBIE said they were high-level estimates and could yet change. 'The advice provided high-level estimates with a range of costs and timeframes based on the work that might be required as a result of the bill. We would need to revise and update these estimates when the bill is passed.' Estimated cost a 'lower bound' MBIE's advice also quoted from the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by Seymour's Regulations Ministry an estimated annual cost to departments of '$50m-$60m per year', saying this was likely on the lower end. 'As per previous MBIE advice, MBIE considers that the assumptions made by the Ministry for Regulation in developing that estimate make it a lower bound. In regulatory-heavy portfolios, MBIE estimates that up to 15 percent of the policy resource will need to be engaged in this work.' The documents show MBIE offered to help the Regulations Ministry come up with a more accurate accounting. 'We offered to work with the ministry to better cost the work that would be involved in undertaking consistency reviews. In the 48-hour timeframe for comment, it was not possible to complete robust analysis on agency impact but our assessment is this [is] substantial for agencies with a significant volume of regulatory stock such as MBIE'. However, the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted the bill would cost $18m annually across the whole of government. RNZ has sought clarification from MBIE about where the $50m to $60m figure came from, and whether it was still current. Seymour says AI will bring costs down Questioned about the costs, Seymour said the officials did not seem to be accounting for the fact the range of considerations in the RSB were narrower than already required under the Cabinet Manual, nor that it would replace most of the work done to produce Regulatory Impact Statements. 'It's disappointing that MBIE officials think it's too hard to consider the impacts of their regulations on Kiwis,' he said. 'It says more about their productivity and attitude towards Kiwis than the bill. Businesses who have to comply with their rules and regulations are constantly innovating and improving their processes, why can't these officials? 'This isn't a zero-sum game. Kiwis all over the country are faced with endless costs caused by overzealous bureaucrats who aren't accountable. By preventing more bad regulations, and getting rid of pointless old ones, we'll save the country far more money than these bureaucrats could ever spend.' He suggested AI could also help. 'Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we'll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI,' he said. 'Could it change the way that a government department scans the legislation it's responsible for to pick out things that might be consistent or inconsistent with a peer to principles? That's already here.' He pushed back when asked if AI could be trusted to do that work. 'I don't think the issue is that you're going to trust it. I think the issue is that you're going to use it to speed up the work that humans are ultimately trusted for.' Concerns over business confidence The advice shows MBIE was also concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence, because the principles in it were likely to change under a future government. 'Because some of the principles in the bill are viewed as novel or contentious, as opposed to widely accepted, there is a risk to the durability of the principles, and potentially the bill as a whole. 'Future legislation, designed to be consistent with novel principles, may also take on characteristics that are seen as unorthodox, and eventually be subject to regulatory churn.' Emails between officials show the ministry raised with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford that the bill would make the regulatory environment less predictable, 'which can constrain business' commitment to investment and growth'. RNZ has sought comment from Seymour about the effect on business confidence. Cost 'highly concerning' - Greens The Green Party's regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez said the ministry's cost estimates were highly concerning, saying officials would be focused on 'doing make-work jobs just to comply with the extremist provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill'. He was also concerned the bill would have a chilling effect on regulations 'that protect people and planet'. 'Instead of the money going to frontline public services, it's just going to be wasted on the cost of basically pursuing one person's ideological vanity project.' He said Seymour's explanations sounded like 'total BS', saying it was 'desperation'. He pointed to a study from the United Kingdom which suggested AI could save public servants two weeks in a 52-week year, less than 5%. 'AI is quite good for doing the sort of low-level administrative tasks and simplifying those things, but the level of nuanced work of interpreting secondary legislation and how it applies to a principles framework that, again, is like created by human beings – it's not really the sort of thing that could easily be automated,' Hernandez said. 'Seymour is spinning.' He said he agreed with the analysis on the bill impacting business confidence, and pushed back on suggestions the current opposition repealing the bill could be partly to blame for it – saying it was not just the opposition showing signs of not supporting it. 'The coalition itself is showing cracks around the seams around that, so if Seymour can't even get the full unequivocal support of his colleagues in cabinet, then that goes to show how extreme this bill is.' Requirement to review removed The documents also showed significant concern from MBIE about an earlier version of the RSB the ministries were asked to provide feedback on, which would have required all legislation and regulations to be reviewed at least once every decade. This requirement was removed by Cabinet before the bill was introduced to Parliament. An email in the documents showed concern about the 10-yearly reviews was widespread. 'David will address the resourcing issue in the meeting, as it has been raised by every agency and several ministers,' the email said. Questioned about the prospect of changes to the bill following the select committee process, Seymour used the matter as an example of changes already made. 'People said 'oh, that'll be too much work for the department', we said 'well, if it's too much work for the government to read all of its laws in 10 years, imagine the poor buggers who have to follow these laws out there anyway'. We said 'okay, we'll take the 10-year thing out, take pressure off that'. That's the kind of change they've already made.' – RNZ
Scoop
17-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Please Explain! The Proponents Of The Retrospective Law Change Need To Front Up
Those responsible for pushing a retrospective law change that could wipe out the rights of tens of thousands of New Zealanders must now front up to provide a formal 'please- explain'. That's the call from Scott Russell, the lawyer leading the Banking Class Action against ANZ and ASB, who has formally written to Cameron Brewer, MP as Chair of Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Committee urging him to call key decision-makers and proponents of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill to publicly explain the rationale for this extraordinary intervention. The Committee has the power to compel individuals to appear and a more clear-cut case for using that power would be hard to imagine. 'The Government is rewriting the law half-way through an active legal case to benefit two powerful Australian-owned banks – and no one seems to be taking responsibility for making the decision,' said Russell. 'Hon Scott Simpson, Commerce Minister says the banks didn't ask for it. The banks haven't commented. MBIE won't release the documents. And the public is being asked to accept it all on blind trust. Enough. It's time for answers.' Russell's submission urges the Select Committee to summon the following to 'Please Explain': The Chair and Chief Executives of ANZ and ASB to explain their role in the process; Senior MBIE officials to justify the sudden shift to retrospective legislation following private meetings with the banks; The Reserve Bank to provide any evidence backing claims that the law change is needed to protect financial stability. 'If their rationale is sound, let's hear it. Because right now, no one has offered a credible explanation for why a law change ruled out during the public consultation stage was suddenly resurrected behind closed doors – and timed perfectly to potentially limit the liability of two banks in a live court case.' The Government has refused to release unredacted versions of the Regulatory Impact Statement and delayed key OIA responses until after the public submission period closes on 23 June. The Ombudsman is now investigating. 'The Select Committee process cannot be allowed to rubber-stamp a law change that overrides consumer rights and undermines public trust – especially when those responsible won't even show up to explain it,' Russell said. 'If this is in the public interest, let the public hear why.'
Newsroom
09-06-2025
- Health
- Newsroom
History's verdict is already in on van Velden's safety reforms
Analysis: Death at work usually comes violently, and it is always avoidable. It is commonly preceded by the warning signs of threadbare health and safety practices: near-misses, previous incidents, worker anxiety, production pressure, shabby management. Often the signs are nuanced and hard to see: incurious and complacent company directors, a bullying culture, delusions of competence, grandiosity, arrogance. The path to catastrophe is generally marked with some or all of these interacting factors. Running a workplace that's safe for those who work there is complex. It requires good systems, a clear understanding of risk, diligent monitoring, self-reflection, honesty, the ability to genuinely listen to workers, and a willingness to act when they report failings and shortcomings. Generally, those who run safe workplaces are also, by association, running good businesses. As a 2024 report from the Business Leaders' Health and Safety Forum noted, '[F]or well-run businesses, health and safety is simply part and parcel of a tidy house, a well-performing business and a confident workforce.' The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden, wants to reduce the burden of health and safety compliance for businesses. She wants WorkSafe, the regulator, to shift from a 'safety at all costs mentality' to a focus on 'helping duty-holders do what is proportionate to the risks' and 'rooting out over-compliance'. She wants the regulator to focus on 'critical risks', although this is not defined. She has visited 11 towns and cities and received feedback from 1000 people, and reports that some businesses feel frightened of WorkSafe. She has heard the regulator is 'punitive' and not 'supportive'. She has heard businesses feel uncertain, and that they want the regulator to tell them how to be compliant. In other words, they are not sure how to keep a tidy house, and want WorkSafe to stop being scary and to offer them a guiding hand. The minister thinks a key solution to businesses' anxiety is to 'rebalance' WorkSafe's focus away from enforcement and towards advice. It's not clear from van Velden's recent Cabinet Paper how she thinks her new approach will reduce the number of workers killed on the job, who suffer life-changing injury, or whose lives are shortened by diseases caused by exposure to workplace harms. She says improved outcomes are 'expected', but offers no evidence to support this. Nor is there a Regulatory Impact Statement with further insight on the changes she announced last week; the Ministry for Regulation, overseen by Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour – van Velden's Act party leader – advised an RIS was not needed. Nor does her Cabinet paper reflect on the fact the rate of workplace death in New Zealand is 60 percent higher than Australia and 500 percent higher than the UK, or that our rate of serious injury is 35 percent and 330 percent higher respectively than those two countries. Instead, the focus is on making WorkSafe friendlier, more collaborative, and more helpful to business. In many years of writing about workers killed at work, I've seen no evidence that a kinder and less punitive regulator would have helped keep those workers alive. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that such an approach contributes directly to the avoidable deaths of workers. The ID cards of the 29 men whose bodies remain in the Pike River Mine now form part of a memorial. The leading example is, of course, Pike River Coal Ltd. Pike killed 29 workers in 2010, a tragedy that led to the creation of WorkSafe in 2013 and a major overhaul of health and safety law in 2015. Would a supportive, collaborative and non-punitive regulator have helped Pike keep a tidy house? Would it have prevented the violent deaths of 29 productive workers (not to mention the destruction of $340 million in capital)? We are able to answer this question with a high level of confidence because Pike had just such a regulator. The two mines inspectors who worked at different times with Pike invariably took a kindly approach with the company and its driving force Peter Whittall, as well as with the many mine managers who came and went with great frequency in the short benighted life of the project. The inspectors were approachable, and Pike often raised concerns and sought input from them. They took a low-level compliance strategy, seeking negotiated agreements with Pike. The inspectors preferred a voluntary approach, even when they could – and should – have used their statutory powers to shut the place down. Certainly, the inspectors never gave Pike cause to be fearful or anxious, and there is no evidence that Whittall experienced such discomfort. He and Pike's board of directors remained at liberty to run an outfit that repeatedly exposed workers to catastrophic risk, routinely broke with long-established rules of safe underground coal mining practice, and ignored incidents and serious concerns reported by workers. Quite correctly, van Velden wants to see more codes of practice and industry guidance. When the Health and Safety at Work Act was passed in 2015, it was intended the legislation would be underpinned by more detailed regulations. One of the most vital parts of that regulatory framework was to be a set of rules for protecting people working with tools and machinery and working at heights (plant and structures). On average 54 workers a year die while working with machines, equipment and structures such as scaffolding. Officials started six years ago to modernise the rules and provide clear, effective, proportionate, and durable regulations. But officials and governments – including the previous Labour government – dragged their feet, and work on the regulations had not been completed by the time van Velden took over the portfolio in late 2023. And, despite her stated desire for clearer guidance for businesses, van Velden last year put work on the plant and structures regulations on hold pending her current overhaul. The $5.6 million allocated for this work was clocked as a saving in the 2024 Budget. It's impossible to know whether the electrocution of experienced 28-year-old Auckland scaffolder Jahden Nelson would have been avoided if the regulations had been in place by 2022, when he went to work for a small company owned by Claire Attard, who had come from the fitness industry. Attard was an SME (small and medium enterprise) battler, striving to do her best and no doubt wanting to contribute to economic prosperity. There was no red tape stopping her from getting into the scaffolding industry, despite her inexperience in the sector. And she wasn't 'sweating the small stuff' – a phrase van Velden often uses – when it came to being an employer, as she treated Nelson and other workers as self-employed contractors. They owned their own tools, paid their own tax and ACC levies, and when there was no work there was no pay. Attard met Jahden Nelson for the first time at her company's yard in early February 2022, and he started work for her at 7am the next day. There was no contract signed. He was initially on $25 an hour, later rising to $27, and worked 10 hours a day for Attard's firm. Although there were no plant and structures regulations in place when he and his crew went to work on April 19, 2022 to dismantle scaffolding previously erected by a different group of Attard's workers, there were clear rules for working near powerlines. WorkSafe also had 'good practice guidelines' for scaffolding. Possibly Attard, like the anxious and uncertain business owners from whom van Velden has been hearing, had wanted more support from WorkSafe on how to run her business safely, but there is no evidence of that in the available documents. She had a suite of health and safety documentation stating that her company strove for health and safety excellence and provided training and instruction. The rules governing work near powerlines said the workers who had been briefed and consented by Mercury's field service provider to assemble the scaffolding must also be the ones to dismantle it. No one else was permitted to work in the consented area in the vicinity of the power lines. However Attard didn't know this, and she tasked a different crew to take the structure down. Nelson was a member of that crew. There was no discussion about the powerlines or the consented area before they got stuck into their work. Nelson did the first lift of the day, and the 6.5m metal pole he was holding touched a power line. There was a loud explosion and large fireball that travelled down the pole to his body. He didn't die, but when he emerged from a coma a month later both arms had been amputated to save his life, he had suffered a heart attack and kidney damage, had severe burns to 30% of his body, and couldn't walk. He subsequently endured 40 operations. When I was welcomed by Nelson and his partner Santana Tierney into his room at Middlemore Hospital's burns unit in late 2022, the father of three young children talked about his his pain and trauma, his love of and need to work ('I don't like not working. I can't sit still,' he told me), and his struggle to come to terms with his profoundly life-altering disability. WorkSafe investigated, and among its findings observed that Nelson and his co-workers had contributed to the incident. However, this was considered minor compared with the overall failure of Attard's company to manage health and safety risks. None of the workers was prosecuted by WorkSafe, but Attard's company was. It pleaded guilty. Enforcement decisions like this may be different under van Velden's revamped health and safety regime. Although she wants WorkSafe to 'rebalance' its focus from enforcement to advice for businesses, she also wants to see more workers prosecuted. She says businesses have told her that workers repeatedly ignore instructions, yet she hasn't heard of WorkSafe prosecuting any. 'I will set an expectation that WorkSafe strengthen its approach to worker breaches of duty,' she states in the Cabinet paper. Van Velden also wants to introduce 'safe harbours' of deemed compliance. The violent death of 39-year old Misha Tremel in 2022 provides an opportunity to consider what that approach might look like. Tremel was at the end of a chain of SMEs harvesting a woodlot in Clevedon, South Auckland. The forest owner had contracted forest management company Pulley Contracting, which had contracted logging company Turoa Logging, which had contracted Tremel's small company (he was the sole worker) to do manual logging with his chainsaw. Again, it's not known whether Turoa or Pulley had fretted over how best to run their companies safely or whether they had longed for more support from WorkSafe. As with the scaffolding industry, there is considerable guidance available in the forestry sector, including an Approved Code of Practice (albeit long overdue for update) and best practice guidelines produced by WorkSafe. The industry also has a template to help analyse the risks of working on steep slopes like the one Tremel was tasked with logging. Tremel was felling wind-wrenched trees, which present additional risks because tension and compression builds as they grow. When such trees are cut these forces can be released. WorkSafe and the forestry industry strongly recommend they are harvested by machines, not by chainsaws. Another factor in the incident was that Turoa had been using a mechanical harvester to fell trees into the stand that Tremel was cutting with his chainsaw. Misha Tremel and his wife Bronwyn. Photo: Supplied Tremel sustained blunt force trauma when a wind-wrenched tree broke and fell. He died at the scene, leaving his partner and two children bereft. WorkSafe prosecuted Turoa and Pulley, who were fined $300,000 earlier this year. Under van Velden's reforms, with safe harbour guidance and WorkSafe sheeting more responsibility back to workers, the regulator may take more lenient approach to the two companies and instead focus its interrogation on Tremel's role. He was, after all, an experienced and skilled manual feller who understood the risks. He was confident and willing to undertake the work, for which he was paid by the hour. Perhaps the minister's refocused regulator would conclude that Tremel was the architect of his own demise? There would be nothing new in that. The history of death in the forestry industry is littered with instances where the regulator has investigated incidents and concluded – in the face of ample evidence of production pressure, poor conditions of work and slack monitoring – that the dead worker had only themselves to blame. This reluctance of the regulator to prosecute contributed to a scandalous record of death and harm, triggering a major inquiry in 2014. As demonstrated by the deaths of Tremel and 39 others in the forestry industry in the past 10 years, the lessons have still not been learned. WorkSafe – depicted by van Velden as punitive and frightening – has prosecuted in only 13 of those cases. On November 19 it will be the 15th anniversary of the tragedy at Pike River Mine, an event that shocked the nation and led to a broad tripartite consensus that underpinned the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act in 2015. No one is satisfied with the slow progress that has been made since in bringing down the toll of death and injury at work, nor with the estimated $4.9 billion annual economic cost of lost lives, lost earnings, the burden of workplace related illness on the health system and of serious injury to ACC. Business leaders and unions have repeatedly urged successive ministers and governments to complete the roll-out of the supporting regulations and guidance that were intended as part of a coherent health and safety regime. But the minister, van Velden, risks setting the scene for further tragedies by instructing WorkSafe to go easy on businesses and by promoting the idea that workplaces are currently over-policed by a fearsome regulator focused on trivia. This is a myth: New Zealand has 31 percent fewer health and safety inspectors than Australia, on whose regime the 2015 Act was based and which does a far better job of protecting workers' lives. As Francois Barton, director of the Business Leaders' Health and Safety Forum, commented last week after van Velden's announcements, WorkSafe makes 80 percent fewer workplace visits than its Australian equivalent, issues 90 percent fewer infringement notices and 50 percent fewer improvement notices. 'You are more likely to lead or work in an organisation where someone has been killed at work than you are to be prosecuted,' wrote Barton on LinkedIn in response to van Velden's announcement. 'I know which of those outcomes I worry about the most.'
