Hairdressing regulations given 'serious trim'
Separate hairdressing regulations are set to be scrapped, with cabinet agreeing to all four recommendations from a regulatory review into the hairdressing and barbering industry.
The review, carried out by the Ministry for Regulation along with the Ministry of Health, looked at the regulations the industry needed to follow and whether any of them were deemed to be unnecessary or holding the industry back.
They included rules prohibiting dogs, other than guide-dogs, from being inside a barber shop and a ban on staff serving their clients refreshments.
Minister for Regulation David Seymour said "pointless bureaucracy" was being cut back.
"This is buzz cut season for red tape and regulation at salons up and down New Zealand. We are taking a serious trim to the amount of pointless bureaucracy, really shaving it back to the scalp where it's no longer needed because it's critical that people up and down this country who run small businesses can spend more time doing what they want to do and spend less time complying with pointless rules and regulations.
"The savings ... are about $1 million a year. Some will say 'what's a million dollars in the context of the whole economy', I say how many times do you see a government actually removing rules that aren't needed, actually saving money year after year to make it easier to get on with our lives."
The cost of the review had been about half a million dollars over six months, he said, "and give it 10 years' time it will have paid for itself 20 times over".
Seymour said the changes being talked about would come into effect from July 1, but changes to the sale and supply of alcohol would need to go through legislation he hoped to convince his coalition partners to progress before the end of the year.
He said hairdressing was a very competitive industry, and concerns about hygiene and sanitation would be "solved by customer vigilance and competition amongst salons, it doesn't actually require an inspector to come in".
If he was wrong about that, the requirement for the rules to be reassessed after two years would see the rules reintroduced "but I don't think that will happen". Full replacement of regulations
Announcing the review in December, Seymour said regulations were not making a practical difference to public health, but were frustrating business owners and customers.
The review has now recommended a full revoke of the Health (Hairdressers) Regulations 1980.
Seymour said compliance with health and safety, building regulations and general public health requirements was required already and there was no need for separate regulation from the 1980s.
"Existing regulations aren't making a practical difference to safety, but the compliance is frustrating and costly. We anticipate that revoking all existing regulations will save the industry a minimum of about $1 million per year," he said.
Seymour said the review also found that existing regulations were often applied inconsistently, with annual registration fees set by local government varying between $140 and $495, depending on location.
"Examples of absurd rules include how far apart salon seats should be, how bright the lights in the business are, whether you can have a 'cuppa' with your cut and whether dogs are allowed in salons. From the end of July now these decisions will be up to the business owner," he said.
The review put forward two options in revoking the existing regulations. One option was to rely on existing mechanisms in other legislation along with new industry guidance. The other was to replace the current regulations with risk-based regulations, focused on health and hygiene practices.
Ultimately, it recommended the first option, with the possibility that more targeted regulations could be introduced at a later date.
The Ministry for Regulation will work with the Ministry of Health on hygiene, disinfection, and sanitation guidance, accompanying WorkSafe's existing guidance.
It will also work with the Ministry of Justice to respond to concerns raised by submitters over how alcohol licensing applies to the industry.
Once the regulations are revoked, the Ministry for Regulation will be required to report back in two years to see whether the risks were being appropriately managed by the new regime or whether new risk-based regulations should be introduced.
The review identified some instances of harm still occurring in the industry, such as ACC claims related to non-workers, complaints to the industry body and complaints to the Commerce Commission.
But it said the harm was low-level and existing regulations were not proportionate to the risks.
The review was the third sector-wide regulatory review carried out by the Ministry for Regulation, following reviews into early childhood education and agricultural and horticultural products.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
17 hours ago
- 1News
David Seymour defends role in Oxford Union 'stolen land' debate
Newly minted Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour says his self-funded trip to participate in the Oxford Union is worth doing despite his growing workload back home, because the world can learn from New Zealand's experience. Seymour has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England. Oxford Union claims to be the "most prestigious debating society in the world'', on its website. Established in 1823 with a commitment to freedom of speech and expression, the union's members largely remain University of Oxford students. The Deputy Prime Minister has followed in the footsteps of some of the world's most prominent people, speaking at an Oxford Union event in England. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT Seymour was opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates RJ Hauman and Art Arthur. The proposing side are historian Aviva Chomsky, Palestinian peace activist Nivine Sandouka and Australian Senator and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens Mehreen Faruqi. Both sides will also include a student speaker. "I believe we're one of the most successful societies that there are in a world that is very troubled in many ways," Seymour told 1News. "A country like New Zealand that does practise the rule of law, that has sought through treaty settlements to right the wrongs of the past, that does welcome migrants." Seymour said he thought the invite was a prank until he saw that Labour MP Willie Jackson had participated in a debate at the union last year. He is opposing the moot "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land" alongside United States immigration reform advocates. (Source: Breakfast) On now being linked to the group of distinguished people that have spoken at Oxford Union events, Seymour said humour was his best chance for standing out. ADVERTISEMENT "Albert Einstein's been here, so I'm not the smartest.,They've had people like Elton John, so I'm not the most famous and I don't know if I'll be the funniest, but that's probably the best area to compete," he said. Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson critical of moot Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi has criticised Oxford Union's debate topic of "This House Believes No One Can Be Illegal on Stolen Land," saying discussing topics like this under the principle of freedom of expression is "ultimately dangerous". Toitū Te Tiriti spokesperson Eru Kapa-Kingi. He says this principle creates "opportunity for more embedded stereotypes which will damage not only current generations but also future generations of indigenous communities who are in the process right now of reclaiming and reviving their own identity, culture and political authority". Kapa-Kingi helped lead the hīkoi to Parliament opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, which failed at the second reading in Parliament. He's also been critical of Seymour participating in the debate, saying it's problematic. ADVERTISEMENT "He has neither the qualification nor the lived experience to talk either about illegal immigration or the colonisation of indigenous cultures, particularly through the theft of land… "Also, given David Seymour's most recent track record in terms of the Treaty Principles Bill and most recently the Regulatory Standards Bill, direct attacks on indigenous rights, tangata whenua (Māori) rights in Aotearoa, this is a provocative move inviting him to partake in this debate concerning those exact rights.' Kapa-Kingi said he questions the integrity and credibility of the debate, perceiving the event as a "deliberate attempt to incite what will inevitably be hateful rhetoric, damaging rhetoric to indigenous communities". Parliament punishment, free money?, getting wicked again (Source: 1News) Kapa-Kingi said Māori with formal qualifications and lived experience would be a better pick to take part and 'carry the kōrero with respect, honour and in a way that's genuinely productive and genuinely thought-provoking". Seymour has rejected the comments, saying everyone is allowed to share their perspective on an issue. "I think that they need to start respecting each person's dignity and right to have views and share them, instead of trying to say that some people are less able to express a view which seems to be exactly what they believe.' ADVERTISEMENT Seymour claimed the protest group divides society "into victims and villains and we should each know our place". "Well actually I think that we all get a time on earth and should be able to make the most of it, share the ideas that are important for us, throw away the ones that we don't like." A long history of distinguished guests As well as debates, the Union has a long history of hearing from distinguished people from around the world. This has included Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa and Malcolm X. Controversial speakers have also been invited over the years, sparking dramatic protests. New Zealand's most famous Oxford Union debate moment came in 1985 when former Prime Minister David Lange responded to a student speaker that he would answer his question, "if you hold your breath just for a moment... I can smell the uranium on it as you lean towards me!" David Lange at the Oxford Union event in 1985. (Source: TVNZ) Lange won the debate, arguing that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible" and drawing international attention to New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance.
Scoop
18 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
Scoop
19 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
