Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — failing to consult with other PCBUs — M bovis outbreak — chemical burns — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 34, 36, 49, 152-158 & 153 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7 & 8 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Alderson Poultry Transport Ltd [2019] NZDC 25090. The defendant appeared for sentence after pleading guilty to charges of failing to ensure the health and safety of workers, and failing to consult with other persons conducting a business or undertaking. The defendant had contracted a private company (AsureQuality) to carry out cleaning and disinfection services in response to New Zealand's M.bovis outbreak. AsureQuality in turn contracted another company to provide temporary workers to carry out the work; seven of the temporary workers suffered chemical burns from the product that they were using in the cleaning. Five of them required hospital treatment. The defendant failed to properly consult with the contracting companies on health and safety matters. It also failed to develop a safe system of work for the subcontractors by not identifing health and safety risks and appropriate controls, and by not ensuring that AsureQuality had a safe system of work, with proper induction and training of the subcontractors and provision of proper safety equipment. Following the approach to sentencing set out in the Stumpmaster decision, the Court ordered the defendant to pay $1666 in reparations to the five victims who had provided victim impact statements. As the defendant had had to engage contractors to counter the major biosecurity risk posed by the M.bovis outbreak, it had less control than the contracting companies over day-to-day cleaning and disinfecting work. Therefore the Court found its culpability to fall within the low- to low-medium range of the low culpability band, and that its major failing was not ensuring that AsureQuality was adhering to its safety plan. The start point for fine was $50,000; with reductions for the defendant's cooperation, remedial actions, good record, remorse and guilty plea, the final fine was $30,0000 as well as prosecution costs of $3800. Judgment Date: 11 February 2021