Questions

This section seeks your feedback on the panel’s fourteen proposed additions to Schedule 2.

5.1 Erionite and malignant mesothelioma

Erionite is a naturally occurring fibrous mineral found in volcanic ash and rocks. It belongs to a group of silicates called zeolites and is similar in appearance and properties to asbestos. While erionite is relatively common in Auckland, those most likely to face occupational exposure to erionite include maintenance workers and people undertaking road construction or reconstruction.

Malignant mesothelioma is a cancer that develops in the thin lining of the lungs, stomach, heart, and testes. Pleural (lung) mesothelioma is the most common kind and forms when an individual inhales pathogenic fibres. This typically develops as a result of asbestos inhalation, but local and international research has shown a strong correlation between erionite inhalation and malignant (lung) mesothelioma.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between erionite inhalation and the development of mesothelioma. This is supported by the clinical experience of the independent panel, designation as an occupational disease/exposure pairing by the ILO and advice from the IARC.

The panel has recommended malignant mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by occupational exposure to erionite for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.1.1

Do you agree or disagree that mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by exposure to erionite is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.1.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by exposure to erionite in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.1.3

How could the inclusion of mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by exposure to erionite in Schedule 2 impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.2 Infrared radiation and heat-induced cataracts

Infrared radiation is a type of energy that is not visible to the human eye, but can be felt as heat on the skin. Exposure to infrared radiation can occur naturally (i.e., the sun or fire) and artificially (i.e., heated glass and metal). Artificial infrared radiation exposure is most likely to affect those in the occupation of glassblowing, blacksmithing, or those working with molten glass and metals.

A cataract occurs when the normally clear lens of the eye clouds over, making it difficult for the person to see through. The primary cause for cataracts is ageing, with family history, complications from eye surgery, and diabetes also being risk factors. Occupational health and safety research has shown that prolonged exposure to artificial radiation can also be a cause of heat-induced cataracts. A heat induced cataract occurs when the tissue of the eye is damaged following the iris and lens absorbing infrared radiation.

The panel found there to be a sufficient casual relationship between exposure to infrared radiation and the development of heat-induced cataracts. This is supported by the clinical experience of the independent panel, designation as an occupational disease/exposure pairing by the ILO and advice from NIOSH.

The panel has recommended heat-induced cataracts diagnosed as caused by occupational exposure to infrared radiation for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.2.1

Do you agree or disagree that heat-induced cataracts of the eye diagnosed as caused by exposure to infrared radiation is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.2.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include heat-induced cataracts of the eye diagnosed as caused by exposure to infrared radiation in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.2.3

How could the inclusion of heat-induced cataracts of the eye diagnosed as caused by exposure to infrared radiation in Schedule 2 impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.3 Nickel and nasal cancer

Nickel is a metallic element found in the earth’s crust. As nickel is ductile, malleable, and tough it has various industrial uses especially in occupations where mining, smelting, welding, casting, and grinding are common activities. The most common occupational exposure to nickel occurs through inhalation of its dusts and fumes.

Nasal cancer is caused by the spread of malignant cells into the nasal cavity (the space behind the nose) and sinuses (small cavities inside the nose, cheekbones, and forehead). There are several recognised causes for nasal cancer including smoking, human papillomavirus (HPV), occupational exposures to wood dust, leather dust and nickel dust.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between exposure to nickel and the development of nasal cancer. This is supported by the clinical experience of the independent panel, designation as an occupational disease/exposure pairing by the ILO and advice from the IARC. Schedule 2 currently accepts nickel as a cause of lung cancer and occupational contact dermatitis.

The panel has recommended nasal cancer diagnosed as caused by occupational exposure to nickel fumes, dusts, or mists for inclusion as a new entry on Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.3.1

Do you agree or disagree that nasal cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to nickel fumes, dusts, or mists is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.3.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include nasal cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to nickel fumes, dusts, or mists in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.3.3

How could the inclusion of nasal cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to nickel fumes, dusts, or mists impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.4 Ammonia and chronic corneal ulcer

Ammonia is a colourless gas that occurs both naturally and commercially. It has a variety of uses, but the majority of commercially produced ammonia is used as fertilizer in the agricultural sector. Those most likely to face occupational exposure to ammonia include manufacturers of fertilizers and pharmaceuticals. The potential for everyday exposure to ammonia is high given its prevalence in household cleaning and gardening supplies.

Corneal ulcers are open sores of the outermost layer of the eye. They can commonly be caused by infections (bacterial, fungal, or viral), foreign material entering the eye, and scratches to the surface of the eye. In severe cases, or with delayed treatment, a corneal ulcer can lead to loss of vision and blindness.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between exposure to ammonia (in liquid and gas forms) and the development of chronic corneal ulcers. This is supported by the clinical experience of the independent panel and designation as an occupational disease/exposure pairing by the ILO.

The panel has recommended chronic corneal ulcer diagnosed as caused by occupational exposure to ammonia for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.4.1

Do you agree or disagree that chronic corneal ulcer diagnosed as caused by exposure to ammonia is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.4.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include chronic corneal ulcer diagnosed as caused by exposure to ammonia in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.4.3

How could the inclusion of chronic corneal ulcer diagnosed as caused by exposure to ammonia impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.5 - 1,2 dichloropropane and cholangiocarcinoma

1,2 dichloropropane (also known as propylene dichloride) is a colourless liquid used as an ingredient in a variety of productions including industrial solvents (e.g., drycleaning fluid), photographic film, and paper coating. As 1,2 dichloropropane does not occur naturally, everyday exposure risks are low. Those most likely to face exposure include manufacturers of the aforementioned products.

Cholangiocarcinoma (also known as bile duct cancer) is a disease where malignant cells have formed in the tubes of the bile duct which connects the liver, gallbladder, and small intestines. Cholangiocarcinomas can be both intrahepatic (inside the liver) and extrahepatic (outside the liver). Risk factors for cholangiocarcinoma include bile duct stones, inflammation in the bile ducts, and parasites in the liver.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between exposure to 1,2 dichloropropane and the development of cholangiocarcinoma. This is supported by IARC and NIOSH advice, and inclusion on the Deemed Diseases List.

The panel has recommended cholangiocarcinoma diagnosed as caused by occupational exposure to 1,2 dichloropropane for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.5.1

Do you agree or disagree that cholangiocarcinoma diagnosed as caused by exposure to 1,2 dichloropropane is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.5.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include cholangiocarcinoma diagnosed as caused by exposure to 1,2 dichloropropane in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.5.3

How could the inclusion of cholangiocarcinoma diagnosed as caused by exposure to 1,2 dichloropropane impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.6 Butadiene and leukaemia

Butadiene is a colourless gas primarily produced through the process of petroleum refinery. It is used to make synthetic rubber products including tyres, shoe soles, resins, and other thermoplastics. Everyday exposure to butadiene is low but can occur through motor vehicle emissions and cigarette smoke. Those most likely to be exposed to butadiene include workers at rubber, plastic, or chemical plants.

Leukaemia are cancers which develop in the blood forming tissues. There are four main types of leukaemia: acute lymphocytic leukaemia, acute myelogenous leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, and chronic myelogenous leukaemia. Leukaemia can develop as a result of internal and external factors including certain genetic disorders, family history of leukaemia, history of smoking, and exposure to industrial chemicals.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between exposure to butadiene and the development of leukaemia. This is supported by IARC, NIOSH, and OSHA advice and inclusion on the Deemed Diseases List.

The panel has recommended leukaemia diagnosed as caused by exposure to butadiene for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.6.1

Do you agree or disagree that leukaemia diagnosed as caused by exposure to butadiene is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.6.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include leukaemia diagnosed as caused by exposure to butadiene in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.6.3

How could the inclusion of leukaemia diagnosed as caused by exposure to butadiene impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.7 Trichloroethylene and kidney cancer

Trichloroethylene is a colourless, man-made liquid and organic solvent. It is commonly used as a metal degreaser, dry-cleaning solvent, and is a common ingredient in adhesives, paint strippers and typewriter correction fluids. Those most likely to be exposed to trichloroethylene include workers whose activities heavily involve the aforementioned products.

Kidney cancer (also known as renal cancer) is a cancer that originates in the cells of the kidney. There are many types of kidney cancers with the most common being a renal cell carcinoma, this develops in the lining of the small tubes in the kidney. Risk factors for developing kidney cancer include a history of smoking, family history of kidney cancer, obesity, certain genetic disorders, and long-term dialysis for the treatment of kidney disease.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between exposure to trichloroethylene and the development of kidney cancer. This is supported by designation as an occupational disease/exposure pairing by the ILO, inclusion on the Deemed Diseases List, and IARC and NIOSH advice. Schedule 2 currently recognises trichloroethylene as a cause of chronic solvent-induced encephalopathy (entry 35) and peripheral neuropathy (entry 36).

The panel has recommended kidney cancer diagnosed as caused by occupational exposure to trichloroethylene for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.7.1

Do you agree or disagree that kidney cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to trichloroethylene is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.7.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include kidney cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to trichloroethylene in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.7.3

How could the inclusion of kidney cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to trichloroethylene impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.8 Welding and ocular melanoma

Welding is an occupational process common in New Zealand’s workforce. There are four key types of welding: gas metal arc welding (GMAW), flux-cored wire-arc welding (FCAW), shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), and gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW). Each type of welding produces a different amount of welding fumes.

Ocular melanoma is a type of cancer originating in the uvea of the eye. This comprises the iris (coloured part), ciliary body (assists with focus) and choroid (connects the retina to the sclera). Risks factors for developing ocular melanoma include light eye colour, ageing, and exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between undertaking welding as an occupational process and developing ocular melanoma. This is supported by the clinical experience of the panel, IARC advice, and inclusion on the Deemed Diseases List.

Due to the variation of welding types, the independent panel found it most appropriate to include welding as an occupational process on Schedule 2, rather than separating out potential welding exposures. This aligns with advice from the IARC which states that, without a full review of welding as a process, ocular melanoma cannot be attributed to UV radiation specifically.

The panel has recommended ocular melanoma diagnosed as caused by occupational welding for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.8.1

Do you agree or disagree that ocular melanoma diagnosed as caused by occupational welding is appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.8.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include ocular melanoma diagnosed as caused by occupational welding in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.8.3

How could the inclusion of ocular melanoma diagnosed as caused by occupational welding in Schedule 2 impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.9 Firefighting and mesothelioma

Firefighters perform a variety of activities in their everyday roles. This includes, but is not limited to, putting out fires, responding to motor vehicle incidents, assisting with medical emergencies, and attending incidents involving hazardous substances. Given the diversity of the role, the panel found it to be impractical to separate out the potential hazards a firefighter may be exposed to over the course of their career. Therefore, they have recommended firefighting as an occupation be included in Schedule 2 as a cause of bladder cancer and mesothelioma.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between the exposures faced by firefighters and the development of mesothelioma. This is supported by IARC and NIOSH advice, along with guidance from the Deemed Diseases List. Schedule 2 currently recognises asbestos exposure as a cause for mesothelioma (entry 2).

The panel has recommended mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by firefighting for inclusion as a new entry in Schedule 2. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.9.1

Do you agree or disagree that mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by exposures faced in occupational firefighting is appropriate for Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.9.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by exposures faced in occupational firefighting in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.9.3

How could the inclusion of mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by exposures faced in occupational firefighting improve awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce? Please provide reasons for your view.

5.10 Potroom emissions and asthma

Potroom emissions (including fluorine and aluminium) occur in the industrial production of aluminium and fluoride; the term ‘potroom’ comes from the use of metal pots in the preparation of these materials. Those most likely to be exposed to potroom emissions include potroom workers, smelters, and casters.

Occupational asthma is a type of asthma caused by exposure to workplace irritants. ILO guidance notes identify fumes containing hydrogen fluoride, cryolite, and elements adsorbed onto aluminium as primary irritants. A key difference between occupational asthma and ‘normal’ asthma is that occupational asthma is caused by specific agents and can be reversible by discontinuing exposure to these agents.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between exposure to potroom emissions and the development of occupational asthma. This is supported by the panel’s clinical experience and designation as an occupational disease/exposure pairing by the ILO. Schedule 2 currently recognises ‘sensitising agents inherent in the work process’ including isocyanates, certain wood dusts, flour dusts, animal proteins, enzymes, and latex as a causes of occupational asthma (entry 37).

The panel has recommended amending entry 37 in Schedule 2 to include potroom emissions, including, but not limited to, fluorine and aluminium as causes for occupational asthma. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.10.1

Do you agree or disagree that amending entry 37 to include potroom emissions, including, but not limited to, fluorine and aluminium as causes for occupational asthma is appropriate for Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.10.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include potroom emissions, including, but not limited to, fluorine and aluminium as causes for occupational asthma in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.10.3

How could amending entry 37 to include potroom emissions, including, but not limited to, fluorine and aluminium as causes for occupational asthma impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.11 Asbestos and laryngeal cancer

Asbestos is a group of naturally occurring fibrous minerals most commonly found in rocks or soil. Historically, asbestos has been used commercially in building materials, fireproofing materials and for insultation due to its resistance to heat, electricity, and corrosion. Those likely to be exposed to asbestos include workers in the building, construction, and maintenance sectors.

Laryngeal cancer is a type of cancer that develops when malignant cells form in the tissues of the larynx (the part of the throat between the base of the tongue and the trachea). Risk factors for developing laryngeal cancer include some forms of HPV, excessive tobacco or alcohol consumption, ageing, and occupational exposure to hazardous substances.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between asbestos exposure and the development of laryngeal cancer. This is supported by ILO guidance notes, IARC advice, and inclusion on the Deemed Diseases List. Schedule 2 currently recognises asbestos as a cause of lung cancer and mesothelioma (entry 2).

The panel has recommended amending entry 2 in Schedule 2 to include laryngeal cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.11.1

Do you agree or disagree that amending entry 2 to include laryngeal cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos is appropriate for Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.11.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include laryngeal cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.11.3

How could amending entry 2 to include laryngeal cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.12 Asbestos and ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is the collective name for cancer that originates in the ovaries. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the most common type of ovarian cancer and forms on the outside of the ovary. Risk factors for developing ovarian cancer include ageing, family history, and the early onset of periods (i.e., from age 12).

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between asbestos exposure and the development of ovarian cancer. This is supported by ILO guidance notes, IARC advice, and inclusion on the Deemed Diseases List. Schedule 2 currently recognises asbestos as a cause of lung cancer and mesothelioma (entry 2).

The panel has recommended amending entry 2 in Schedule 2 to include ovarian cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.12.1

Do you agree or disagree that amending entry 2 to include ovarian cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos is appropriate for Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.12.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include ovarian cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.12.3

How could amending entry 2 to include ovarian cancer diagnosed as caused by exposure to asbestos impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.13 Vinyl chloride and hepatocellular carcinoma

Vinyl chloride is a colourless gas industrially produced to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) used in pipes, cable coatings, and packaging materials. Inhalation of vinyl chloride is the primary exposure route with those most likely to be exposed working in facilities producing vinyl chloride.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer and originates in the main liver cells called hepatocytes. Hepatocellular carcinoma commonly affects people who have chronic liver diseases (i.e., hepatitis B and C) with other risk factors including excessive alcohol consumption, type 2 diabetes, and occupational exposure to hazardous substances.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between inhalation of vinyl chloride fumes and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. This is supported by ILO guidance notes, IARC advice, and inclusion on the Deemed Diseases List. Schedule 2 currently recognise vinyl chloride as a cause of angiosarcoma of the liver (entry 21).

The panel has recommended amending entry 21 in Schedule 2 to include hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed as caused by vinyl chloride monomer. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.13.1

Do you agree or disagree that amending entry 21 to include hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed as caused by vinyl chloride is appropriate for Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.13.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed as caused by vinyl chloride in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.13.3

How could amending entry 21 to include hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed as caused by vinyl chloride impact on different occupations and/or affect awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce?

5.14 Firefighting and bladder cancer

Firefighters perform a variety of activities in their everyday roles. This includes, but is not limited to, putting out fires, responding to motor vehicle incidents, assisting with medical emergencies, and attending incidents involving hazardous substances. Given the diversity of the role, the panel found it to be too challenging to separate out the potential hazards a firefighter may be exposed to over the course of their career. Therefore, they have recommended firefighting as an occupation be included in Schedule 2 as a cause of bladder cancer and mesothelioma.

Bladder cancer is a cancer which occurs when the cells in the bladder grow uncontrollably. There are five key types of bladder cancer with the most common being urothelial carcinoma. This type of bladder cancer originates in the cells lining the inside of the bladder. Risk factors for developing bladder cancer include a history of smoking, family history of bladder cancer, previous radiotherapy, and exposure to hazardous chemicals.

The panel found there to be a sufficient causal relationship between the exposures faced by firefighters and the development of bladder cancer. This is supported by IARC and NIOSH advice, along with guidance from the Deemed Diseases List. Schedule 2 currently recognises aromatic amines & poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as causes of bladder cancer (entry 33).

The panel has recommended amending entry 33 in Schedule 2 to include occupational firefighting as a cause for bladder cancer. MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.14.1

Do you agree or disagree that amending entry 33 to include bladder cancer diagnosed as caused by exposures faced in occupational firefighting is appropriate for Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view.

Question 5.14.2

Do you agree or disagree that it is practical to include bladder cancer diagnosed as caused by exposures faced in occupational firefighting in Schedule 2? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

Question 5.14.3

How could the inclusion of bladder cancer diagnosed as caused by exposures faced in occupational firefighting improve awareness of the occupational exposure risks faced by Aotearoa New Zealand’s workforce? Please provide reasons for your view. This can refer to the practicality of making a claim or the practicality of managing such claims.

5.15 Inclusion of an occupation and process

The panel has recommended the inclusion of a specific occupation (firefighting) and process (welding). These would be the first entries listing an occupation, industry or process opposed to an agent, dust, compound, substance, radiation, or thing.

As discussed on page 15, the panel’s reasoning for these recommendations were due to the impracticality of separating out individual causative agents in exposures faced in firefighting or when welding, and linking these to the development of a disease or other illness.

MBIE is now seeking your feedback on this recommendation.

Question 5.15.1

If ocular melanoma diagnosed as caused by occupational welding and/or bladder cancer and mesothelioma diagnosed as caused by exposures faced in occupational firefighting were included in Schedule 2, these would be the first entries that specify a process and occupation (respectively) rather than an agent, dust, compound, substance, radiation, or thing. How do you think this would affect access to AC Scheme cover for people working in Aotearoa New Zealand? Please provide reasons for your view.

< The panel’s recommendations | What happens next >

Last updated: 30 October 2024

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/employment-and-skills/employment-legislation-reviews/review-framework-for-list-of-occupational-diseases/discussion-document-seeking-feedback-on-the-proposed-additions-to-schedule-2-of-the-accident-compensation-act-2001/questions
Please note: This content will change over time and can go out of date.

Breadcrumbs