Written By:
- Date published:
10:46 am, November 19th, 2025 - 17 comments
Categories: Brooke van Velden, health and safety, workers' rights -
Tags:
Press Release from Stand with Pike
Anna Osborne and Sonya Rockhouse will be spending the 15th Anniversary of the mine explosion urging political parties to preserve the Health and Safety at Work Act – legislation passed by the previous National-led government in the name of the tragedy – and strengthen it by introducing corporate manslaughter into law.
The decision to spend this day at Parliament fighting for stronger and better protections is the result of an invitation from Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brook van Velden to meet on the anniversary.
Anna Osborne says the decision was not easy. “Sonya and I usually spend the anniversary together quietly, but in the end we decided that my husband Milt and her son Ben would want us to take this day to fight for all New Zealanders in their names.”
“We’ve not had much justice over the years, but this legislation was something that could be built on with more resources and greater political will. Now, as changes to the law loom, it feels like even this small victory is being taken away from us and from every person who expects to come home from work safe.”
Sonya Rockhouse says the awful lesson of Pike River must not be unlearned.
“Ben died because the mine he was working in was unsafe. Everyone knew it was unsafe but nobody had the power to stop it happening. Least of all the men who paid for this legal failure with their lives.
“I am terrified that what happened at Pike – why and how it happened – has been forgotten by the people overseeing our health and safety law.
“We need to strengthen the consequences for all employers who put our lives at risk in the name of profit. Not give them a free pass. That’s why we will be pushing for support for the current law and for the addition of corporate manslaughter to the Crimes Act.
“We will be spending the most precious day of our year, the day Ben and Milt died, reminding everyone we can that when you take away people’s power to keep themselves and their mates safe, you are making a decision that leads to nothing but anguish and pain.”
NOTE
Sonya, Anna, and their legal advisor Nigel Hampton KC, will be meeting with opposition and government MPs including Minister van Velden in Wellington today (19 November).
Sonya Rockhouse has written about the law changes and the need for a corporate manslaughter law previously.
Brooke Van Velden. The 19th. How crass can she get? So lives are valued too highly in her book, and she wants to loosen the rules, all the while showing neither care or concern. Where do they get these horrors?
Too Right Patricia. A(t)las, van Velden is a hard-Right case, pissing on Kiwi workers.
I would like to know if she wore her usual shocking pink clothes, while showing "sympathy" during the meeting with the Pike River families yesterday.
Thing is, she is so cold and emotionless that she probably wouldn't even realise how inappropriate it was.
If a Labour government were to advocate less stringent rules or laws, the right would be screaming WOKE. She is insulting the workers of NZ and ignoring our bad record in workplace safety.
I cannot find the link to the Stuff story that quotes Paul Goldsmith, maybe it's been altered a bit, or maybe I've gone blind? But he said exactly the same thing in relation to a story about the Clean slate act, and their "reasons" for not changing anything"
“We currently have an extremely busy legislative agenda, particularly in the justice space.”
So, no time to introduce a corporate manslaughter law, and no time to let people convicted decades ago to be able to be gainfully employed, but no doubt, plenty of time to legislate for more people to be locked up? Let's punish the lowlife forever, but let our corporate donors off big time.
Pathetic.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360891636/painful-day-pike-river-families-go-head-head-government
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360892058/he-was-indefinitely-disqualified-driving-more-20-years-ago-and-has-his-licence-back-it-still-stops
Winston Peters also met with the Pike River Families yesterday and had a quite different view of the situation.
https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/west-coast/pike-river-called-murder-scene-15th-anniversary-rnz
That's fighting talk Winston, would love to be a fly on the wall next time this comes up in Cabinet, or one on one between WP and BVV (if that is even possible…)
Irreconcilable differences in the COC?
So far as Pike River is concerned, I think the main issue there was that they were basically broke at the time of the incident. I know for a fact they were cutting a lot of corners.
For example, my company was asked to quote for the supply of a heap of second-hand equipment that had been traded in as part of another deal. Not for purchase mind you, but they were wanting to lease it.
If that sort approach was typical of the way they were doing things, then it was an accident waiting to happen.
That was just before the explosion. It freaked us out because we realised that our own workers could have been underground installing it at the time of the explosion if the deal had gone ahead.
I think there are two categories so far as businesses are concerned with respect to health and safety: Large corporates who should have the resources and expertise to impliment world class health and safety systems. That type of entity is without excuse and should be dealt with harshly for health and safety violations.
But there are the small businesses who know they should be doing something about health and safety but don't know where to start. That is where I think it is better to take a pragmatic approach and aim for improved health and safety in these organisations rather than aiming for them to meet a standard that is beyond their means to achieve.
Thus, I think in these smaller organisations, there needs to be a standards set that are more appropriate for organisations of that size, and are achievable for them.
I think that is where it is more productive for Worksafe to take a consultative educational approach with the aim of helping these businesses become compliant.
So far as my business is concerned, we have less than 20 employees. But we actually bit the bullet a few years back and invested in achieving ISO 45001. It cost us at least $50k to get there. And has quite a high ongoing annual expense to maintain the standard. But, for a lot of businesses, the profit to achieve that sort of standard simply wouldn't be there in their businesses.
For us, the payoff is more than just the improved safety of our employees. It is also good for business because it is a mandatory requirement for many of the contracts we tender for.
But that is already the legal framework. The Health and Safety at Work Act doesn’t demand some gold-plated universal standard. It only requires PCBUs to take all reasonably practicable steps to keep people safe. That means weighing the likelihood of harm, the severity of potential consequences, and the availability of controls.
It’s intentionally flexible, but it’s not optional.
And that’s exactly why I’m very wary of arguments that smaller businesses should get a lighter regulatory touch because safety is “too expensive” for them. Cost is one factor in the HSWA, sure. But it’s never an excuse for exposing workers to risks that could maim or kill them.
The law doesn’t say workers at small firms are worth less than workers at large ones. Their lives aren’t discounted on the basis of headcount.
No worker should die because someone’s business model only works if corners are cut. Pike River is a textbook example of what happens when financial pressure becomes a justification for lowering safety standards. Once we start normalising that logic, we’re back on the road to regulatory failure; to disasters being ‘inevitable’ instead of prevented.
If a business genuinely can’t afford to operate safely, then it’s not a viable business. Full stop. If you can’t afford to protect the people whose labour keeps your doors open, then you can’t afford to employ them.
Their right to come home alive outweighs any owner’s right to operate at a profit.
I am not saying that small businesses shouldn't have a robust health and safety system. But, vague words such as "reasonably practicable" is overly subjective and not particularly helpful IMO.
I think it would be better if small organisations were required develop health and safety systems, and to have their health and safety systems approved by Worksafe. Then, so long as they are complying with their approved health and safety policy, they could then be confident they will not be prosecuted in the event that something happens despite of that.
That wouldn't necessarily mean a bloat in Worksafe, as Worksafe could licence this sort of approval process to private health and safety organisations that meet the required standard.
A point made by the QC is that it is not tenable for Worksafe to be both a corporate adviser and responsible for prosecuting companies for following their advice. Perhaps organisations like the Business Round Table and others should be responsible for advice . . .
That’s a good point!
A well-designed regulatory system lets regulators focus on actually regulating. Once you bolt on an advisory role, you create a built-in incentive for them to drift toward advice and support instead of doing the hard yards of enforcement. It’s a recipe for regulatory failure.
It’s exactly the trap Waka Kotahi fell into with driver licensing and heavy-vehicle certification.
That is why it might be better for worksafe to certify organisations to do that type of work. So, certified organisations, rather than Worksafe, are able to approve health and safety plans as compliant.
Wouldn't take many prosecutions of apparently compliant businesses to kill the mood for that.
Being a little vague here over details – since it affects the day job.
But relevant to this discussion.
There has just been a near miss at work. Someone was walking through the loading dock, while a loader was reversing. NB: loader was operating entirely within their safety parameters – no shade on them.
Now. There are painted walkways for safe passage both inside and outside the building (loader was nowhere near these). And there have been multiple safety briefings on exactly why you should stick to walking between the lines.
Problem is, this is less 'convenient' than cutting straight through the loading area – as people want to enter/exit the building. The loading area is on the street corner, the main door (which everyone is supposed to use) is about half-way around the building (not possible to shift either of these in an existing building).
What, practically, do you – as the business owner or manager – do? Make taking short-cuts a firing offense? This is the classic 'she'll be right' Kiwi attitude in operation.
We've just had a really strong message from HR (a couple of hours ago) – being explicit about the goal being everyone goes home safely at the end of the day – and I've just seen two staff cut through the loading dock on their way out of the building to lunch…..
Put a rail around the walkway, and make not keeping behind it an offence that gets written in their personnel record.
You could put up a security camera or two in the area and advise staff that anyone observed walking outside the approved areas will be subject to disciplinary action.
I think that would stop the problem immediately.
Until an employee decides that's a breach of their human rights and privacy, and turns it into a protracted legal case…