Health and Safety Reform – back to the future?

The workplace health and safety reforms proposed by New Zealand’s current government face criticism for undermining protections for workers while prioritising business interests over safety. Although the government's stated goals are to ‘streamline health and safety regulations’ to improve productivity and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, the proposed reforms risk creating a framework that shifts focus away from worker safety and toward cost-saving measures for businesses.    Nine years on from the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA), it is an appropriate time to ascertain what is working and what is not. Nonetheless, this review come at a time when New Zealand continues to suffer from an unacceptably high workplace fatality rate. Despite adopting safety legislation modelled on Australian legislation, New Zealand’s record continues to lag that of comparable countries. Many stakeholders argue that rather than simplifying the system, reforms should focus on stricter enforcement and better regulatory oversight to improve worker protection. Instead, the proposed changes seem to suggest that excessive rules, rather than poor enforcement or underfunding of regulatory bodies like WorkSafe, are the main issue. By focusing on deregulation, the government risks downplaying the fundamental need for robust safety measures and eroding protective mechanisms.​  Moreover, the ACT-led reform agenda places a heavy emphasis on the supposed burden that current safety regulations place on businesses, portraying compliance with health and safety laws as costly and inefficient. This framing, however, obscures the fact that the aim of these regulations is to prevent workplace injuries and fatalities, not merely to balance financial costs. By attempting to reduce regulatory "red tape" and simplify compliance, the government may inadvertently signal to businesses that health and safety are negotiable concerns, rather than non-negotiable priorities.   Further, the consultation process that the government initiated as part of its reform plans has raised concerns. The ongoing absence of dialogue with unions ignores the voices of the most vulnerable workers, especially those in high-risk sectors where safety improvements are most needed. There is, therefore, a very real risk that the consultation will primarily reflect the interests of employers seeking to reduce costs, rather than those of workers who rely on stringent safety measures to protect them.  Moreover, the language used by the government in justifying these reforms—such as complaints about the overuse of traffic cones or overly cautious risk management procedures—appears to trivialise the importance of workplace safety. This rhetoric minimises the gravity of workplace risks and questions whether certain safety requirements are “proportionate” to the risks involved. With this approach the government risks eroding the culture of prevention that has been developing since HSWA 2015. In addition, the reform motivation has an ideological basis and is not rooted in concrete evidence of the legislation not being for purpose.   Another aspect of concern is the potential weakening of WorkSafe’s role, which has already been subject to funding cuts. The proposed reforms, which include reassessing the responsibilities of regulatory bodies, could lead to a diminished enforcement capacity. The risk of underfunding or deprioritising regulatory enforcement is particularly alarming given that WorkSafe already faces challenges in effectively overseeing compliance across multiple industries. If the government reduces WorkSafe’s regulatory power or resources in the name of “efficiency,” the agency’s ability to ensure businesses adherence to safety standards​ is likely to be weakened.   Worker engagement and participation in health and safety decision-making could also be undermined by the reforms. The proposed changes seem to prioritize giving businesses more autonomy to make decisions without necessarily consulting their employees. By weakening the mechanisms for worker participation, the reforms could reduce the effectiveness of extant safety measures and increase the likelihood of accidents and injuries.  Finally, there is concern that the government's approach to health and safety reform is overly focused on reducing costs and “red tape” for businesses at the expense of worker protection. The prioritising of simplifying the legal framework may ignore the complexities and risks involved in various industries, particularly those where safety hazards are more pronounced. By focusing on reducing costs and simplifying compliance, the government may be downplaying the very real dangers that workers face and weakening the systems designed to protect them.