Health & Safety at Work Act: Reforming or Regressing
Note: The views expressed in this article are that of the the Henderson Demolition HSQE Manager and do not necessarily reflect those of the company.
In June 2024, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) initiated a comprehensive consultation process to gather feedback on New Zealand's work health and safety regulatory system. This initiative aimed to assess the system's effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. The consultation sought input from businesses, workers, and other stakeholders on various aspects, including decision-making processes, legal clarity, and worker participation.
Key Objectives of the Consultation
Focus on Critical Risks: Emphasizing the management of significant hazards that could lead to severe harm.
Reduce Compliance Costs: Alleviating unnecessary financial and administrative burdens, particularly for small businesses.
Enhance Outcomes: Improving health and safety results for businesses, workers, and the broader community.
Increase Certainty: Providing clear guidance to businesses on compliance requirements.
Following this consultation, on 4 April 2025, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the first set of changes to the health and safety system. These reforms are part of a broader effort to refine New Zealand's health and safety laws and regulations.
Proposed Changes
Clarification of Roles: Distinguishing between governance responsibilities of company boards and operational duties of management to ensure accountability at appropriate levels.
Simplified Requirements for Small Businesses: Tailoring compliance obligations to the size and risk profile of businesses, aiming to make it easier for small enterprises to meet health and safety standards without undue burden.
Refined Incident Reporting: Adjusting notification requirements to focus on significant incidents, thereby streamlining processes and allowing regulators to concentrate on critical issues.
Landowner Liability in Recreational Use: Clarifying that landowners are not liable for injuries occurring during recreational use of their land, provided their business activities do not directly overlap with the recreational activities.
Addressing Overuse of Traffic Management Measures: Directing WorkSafe to issue new guidance on the use of road cones and similar devices, including establishing a public hotline for reporting excessive use.
A Legacy at Stake: Remembering Pike River
In 2010, the Pike River mine disaster claimed the lives of 29 men and became a national symbol of regulatory failure. It led to significant changes in workplace health and safety law, shifting responsibility towards stronger governance, proactive risk management, and a duty of care across all levels of an organisation.
The current reforms risk undermining this hard-earned progress. Both the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum and the Pike River families have voiced deep concern. They point out that these changes may reintroduce the same blurred lines of responsibility and under-resourcing that contributed to the disaster in the first place.
The concern is not merely symbolic. The reforms propose carving out low-risk businesses from certain obligations, softening reporting requirements, and separating governance from operational accountability—all elements that may reverse course on lessons learned post-Pike River.
The Role of Boards and Officers: Duty or Delegation?
A controversial aspect of the reforms is the redefinition of the role of officers (directors and senior leaders). Current law requires officers to exercise due diligence in ensuring the business meets its health and safety duties. The reforms would allow officers to focus more narrowly on strategy and oversight, while delegating operational detail.
Some welcome this as a way to clarify roles, but others believe it weakens a vital layer of accountability. When directors are too far removed from what’s happening on the ground, safety risks may go unrecognised until it’s too late.
Consultation vs. Concern: Who’s Being Heard?
While the government has opened the reforms for public consultation, some critics say the process has been rushed and limited. There are calls for a more thorough review that includes engagement with families affected by workplace deaths, unions, health and safety professionals, and small business owners.
A key worry is that deregulation could be implemented without fully understanding the consequences.
Potential Risks and Criticisms
Despite the intended benefits, several concerns have been raised:
Erosion of Safety Standards: Simplifying compliance requirements might lead to a perception that safety standards are being lowered, potentially increasing the risk of workplace incidents.
Ambiguity in Risk Classification: Determining what constitutes a "low-risk" business can be subjective, and misclassification could result in inadequate safety measures for businesses that actually face significant hazards.
Reduced Incident Reporting: By focusing reporting on only the most serious incidents, there is a risk that patterns of less severe but still important safety issues may go unnoticed, hindering proactive hazard management.
Public Reporting Mechanisms: Initiatives like the road cone hotline, while aiming to address overuse, could lead to unintended consequences such as increased public hostility towards workers implementing necessary safety measures.
Final Words
As New Zealand considers significant changes to its health and safety legislation, it is essential to strike the right balance between simplicity and safety. While small businesses may welcome reduced complexity, we must not lose sight of the foundational principles forged through past tragedies. We’ve seen what happens when safety is treated as an administrative burden rather than a duty of care. The Pike River disaster showed us what can happen when systems fail and oversight is weak.
Reform should support clarity and accessibility, but not at the expense of accountability, consistency, and prevention. True progress means safer workplaces for all—not just those deemed high-risk.
