Health and safety bill set to impact

Under the new Bill, farmers can expect greater scrutiny from MBIE inspectors toward their farm safety and processes.

The Health and Safety Reform Bill is before a Select Committee after passing its first reading in Parliament.

Farmers, farm workers, land owners, managers and their suppliers of plant and contractors will need to review their risk management processes and demonstrate due diligence under the new law.

In 2011, the Department of Labour (now Worksafe New Zealand) published 'Guidelines for the safe use of quad bikes'. On average, five people are killed on our farms each year in work-related quad bike accidents.

That guideline is endorsed by Federated Farmers, which was consulted on in its preparation.

The key messages of the guideline are:

-Always wear a helmet

-Choose the right vehicle for the job -- pay close attention to manufacturers'

instructions on carrying passengers and maximum load limits.

-Don't let kids ride adult quad bikes.

-Riders must be trained or experienced enough to do the job.

The recent prosecution of a Marlborough farm worker for not wearing a quad bike helmet, resulting in a fine of $15,000, will have made farmers focus on that particular obligation. But the guideline also recommends the practicable step of recognising dangerous areas by establishing 'no-go' zones in farm health and safety plans.

To get an understanding of the new health and safety reform bill's impact on farming it is worth looking at the roles of sharemilker and farm owner in a recent health and safety prosecution which relied on the guideline.

A Mangakino company sharemilker who had an otherwise exemplary record towards equipment, experience and training had an instance on farm where a farm worker overturned his quad bike and was asphyxiated when it fell on top of him.

The sharemilker had adopted the health and safety system of the farm owner which was a significant farming enterprise.

The sharemilker pleaded guilty to a single charge under the Health and Safety in Employment Act for failing to have a map of 'no-go' zones of the farm and promoting the map to the farm employees. This was the first prosecution for such an omission.

Reparation of $75,000 was ordered for the family of the deceased farm worker, and the sharemilker was also ordered to pay a fine of $28,150. The reparation was paid by the sharemilker's insurer, but the fine had to be paid by the sharemilker personally.

Under the new Bill, greater scrutiny in that case may have fallen on the farm owner and manager, and led to criminal charges. Furthermore, the new Bill imposes clear personal responsibilities on the directors and managers involved, rather than merely the corporate or trust entity that owns or manages the farm.

So, farm owners and sharemilkers should be reviewing their processes in anticipation of the passing of the Bill later this year, with a view to ensuring that not only the company or trust involved in the farm complies with the guideline, but that the directors and 'officers' can also demonstrate they have considered the issues and assured themselves that the company or trust is doing so.

-Neil Beadle, Partner, DLA Phillips Fox, acted for the sharemilker in the prosecution referred to above and advises on compliance with health and safety obligations.