21.10.2022

Health and Safety at Work Act: Whakaari prosecutions and protection of the public

On 9 December 2019 Whakaari/White Island erupted tragically killing or severely injuring the 47 people who were exploring the offshore volcano.

The resulting investigation by WorkSafe was the most extensive and complex ever undertaken by the health and safety regulator and led to charges being laid against 13 parties, including a charge against the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

WorkSafe alleged that NEMA had a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) to ensure that the health and safety of tourists and tour operators to Whakaari was not put at risk from work carried out by NEMA.  This was on the basis that NEMA is the government agency responsible for leadership in reducing risk, being ready for, responding to, and recovering from emergencies, including volcanic eruptions. 

On 15 May 2022, NEMA successfully argued that the charge against it should be struck out.  The District Court decided that for a NEMA to owe a duty of care to “other persons” under HSWA, it must have been carrying out “work”.  The decision turns on the distinction between carrying out the work (for example, conducting sightseeing trips to the island) and the result of that work. 

The District Court Decision

The word “workplace” is defined in HSWA, but the word “work” is not.  WorkSafe argued that “work means work” without differentiating between the process of carrying out that work (work activity) and the result of that work (work product).

NEMA did not carry out work on or send workers to Whakaari.  All the same, WorkSafe argued that NEMA had a primary duty of care to tourists and tour operators because section 36(2) HSWA created a stand-alone duty to ensure the health and safety of “other persons” arising from its work product.  (The judgment does not explain what this work product was, but we expect that it relates to NEMA’s volcanic bulletins and emergency warning processes). 

The Court disagreed.  The Court held that interpreting section 36(2) in this way stretched the duty beyond that intended by parliament. 

The Court considered that section 36(2) requires a PCBU to ensure that the health and safety of “other persons” is not put at risk from “work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking”.  It was found that “work carried out” referred to the activity of work itself, rather than the product of that work.  (There are separate “upstream” duties within HSWA that contemplate liability in respect of the design, manufacture, supply and installation plant, substances or structures where the product of the work could result in liability).

The Court concluded that while there is a duty to “other persons”, this is in the context of protecting workers from workplace risks.  The purpose of protecting “other persons” was a part of securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces i.e. the primary duty to protect workers set out in section 36(1).  The section 36(2) duty only went as far as protecting other persons from work being carried out, not the work product.  The Court concluded that sections 36(1) and (2) must be read alongside one another. 

Allowing the duty to “other persons” to be isolated from duties to workers carrying out work would have significant consequences – effectively creating a broad public safety duty that was not contemplated by parliament when the law was drafted.  WorkSafe argued that the duty to other persons was reasonably limited by HSWA’s proportionality concepts (influence and control; what is reasonably practicable).  The Court rejected that approach on the basis that no duty applied to “other persons” in the context of this case i.e. there was no work, or a workplace that gave rise to a section 36(1) duty.

The decision is interesting for the distinction between work carried out by a party and that party’s work product, but one must bear in mind that the decision was made on a specific and unusual set of facts – a government agency produced warnings which informed the activities of parties out of its control, in their operation of adventure activities on an active volcano.   

Given the range of parties to be charged in respect of the Whakaari tragedy – government agencies, private landowners and adventure tourism operators – the prosecutions will continue to develop health and safety law in New Zealand, in particular in relation to the regulation of adventure activities. 

If you have any questions in relation to this article or require specific advice in relation to a health and safety matter, please feel free to get in touch with Hesketh Henry’s Health & Safety Team.

 

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Property
Make Your Premises Good Again
With all the time, effort and cost that goes into taking on a new lease of commercial premises, what happens when it comes time to move on can seem unimportant. It is not surprising, then that make-go...
25.06.2025 Posted in Property
Flooded car
Flooding due to overland flow paths and damaged drainage
Persistent heavy rainfall across the country often results in damage to property due to flooding caused by overland flow paths and defective drainage.  But who is responsible for the cost of the dama...
17.06.2025 Posted in Climate Change & Property
Understanding Indirect Privacy Notification: What you need to know
The Privacy Amendment Bill (the Bill), if passed into law, will require agencies to notify individuals when their personal information is collected from a source other than the individual themselves, ...
16.06.2025 Posted in Corporate & Commercial & Employment
iStock  Succession Plan medium
Family Ties: Intra-Family Succession and Exit Planning
As the second instalment in a series of articles looking at the generational wealth transition and its impacts on business succession in New Zealand, Ben Hickson (partner, Corporate & Commercial...
16.06.2025 Posted in Corporate & Commercial & Private Wealth
Employment law at a glance – June 2025
If you are anything like us, you will be shocked to realise that we are halfway into 2025. As time has been marching on, so too have employment law developments – and there have certainly been quite...
05.06.2025 Posted in Employment
HH Pg  Forrest uncropped
ETS Update: Climate Change Commission recommends minor tweaks to ETS Settings
Last month, He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission (the Commission) released its annual advice to the Government on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) settings for the period 2026 to 2030 (Advice)....
HS Scrabble Med Crop Vignette
Health and safety learnings for landowners following latest Whakaari decision
The leasing and subleasing of land, buildings and infrastructure is commonplace in New Zealand business and commerce, but what happens when something goes wrong? Do landowners have health and safety o...
08.05.2025 Posted in Health & Safety
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.