In the long and chequered history of legislative changes made by both sides of the House, Thursday's passing into law of the Government's controversial Health and Safety Reform Bill surely takes the cake.
Flawed to the point of being nonsensical in parts, rushed through at the finish line but with consultation apparently still required, the Bill quite simply makes a mockery of process, people and the lessons of the past.
The fact it has already taken five years since the Pike River explosions (which killed 29 men, prompted a royal commission of inquiry which found dereliction of duty by the then Department of Labour and made a raft of recommendations) to see legislative change is a disgrace.
But the haste in its final stages made no sense - particularly in light of the glaring anomalies in risk categories. It does not appear to be a matter of ''fine tuning''.
The methodology on which the industry risk categories were based is questionable, and the fact the legislation has gone through the usual gamut of research, policy and legal advice - and presumably some form of ministerial office oversight - to reach this point beggars belief.
Most average New Zealanders would be able to list our country's most hazardous industries, even if they could not necessarily name the number of injuries and fatalities within each sector.
Most right minded people would surely come up with a list that contained some or all of the following: farming, forestry, mining, quarrying, commercial fishing, construction and demolition.
They would not, in all probability, list the likes of worm farming, cat breeding and curtain hanging as high risk. The fact the legislation begs to differ is laughable, or it would be if were not for the fact that the matter is deadly serious.
To add insult to injury, the country is now facing the highly unusual promise of ''consultation'' after Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse admitted the legislation had ''thrown up some rather unusual and potentially ludicrous scenarios. But this isn't the end of the process. We haven't even started it,'' he said.
The fundamental question is why pass it then? The responsible thing would surely have been to delay the Bill and refer it back to the select committee for that consultation and removal of the ''ludicrous'' elements - before they became law.
The whole fiasco has to qualify as one of the most incomprehensible triumphs of power over process, of pressure over reason.
The Government has been left wide open to accusations of manipulation and influence and it is impossible not to view Mr Woodhouse's comments of ''striking the balance between safe workplaces and unnecessary red tape'' as anything other than hollow rhetoric.
It is clear farmers of smaller properties with fewer employees had real concerns about the bureaucratic hurdles of the legislation and the possible impact on their operations' viability.
Exempting them from the ''high risk'' category means they do not have to adhere to some of the requirements such as appointing a health and safety representative.
But the ''balance'' Mr Woodhouse seeks has not been struck. It is weighted in favour of employers, who have choices about how they work, at the expense of workers with little or few choices at the bottom of the food chain - the very people the legislation should be designed to protect.
A change of culture that embraces health and safety, and sees it as complementing, not competing with, an efficient operation is long overdue.
This country's ''she'll be right'' attitude has come at a cost to hundreds of working New Zealanders. A focus on self regulation does not help. Thankfully, the tide is slowly turning. Reviews of the forestry and adventure tourism industries have brought operators into line.
In forestry, that has already resulted in a significant reduction in workplace death and injury. Some in the industry believe the same approach could easily be adopted for farming.
Sadly, this overarching legislation provided the mechanism to do much more. It has been a lost opportunity to do right by many of today's workers and honour the memory of the hundreds killed at work in the past.
The Government must ensure its promised ''consultation'' is meaningful and changes are made so more unwanted ''red tape'' is not required to patch it up down the line.
