The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, introduced by ACT Party's Brooke van Velden, has reignited debate over New Zealand's workplace safety laws. Protesters rallied against its second reading in Parliament, with unions and safety advocates warning the changes could increase workplace harm.
What the Bill Proposes
The bill marks the largest overhaul of New Zealand's workplace health and safety regime in a decade. The government argues it will reduce compliance costs, increase certainty, and refocus safety requirements. For businesses with fewer than 20 employees—which make up about 97% of all New Zealand businesses—the core duty to identify and manage hazards would be limited to “critical risks” most likely to cause death or serious injury.
Critics, including families affected by the 2010 Pike River disaster that killed 29 miners, argue the bill weakens protections. They say it could lead to higher workplace death, illness, and injury rates by shifting the burden of risk management away from employers.
From Prevention to Prioritisation
New Zealand's current safety regime was established after the Pike River Royal Commission in 2012 found the previous system failed to keep workers safe. The resulting 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act created a broad, prevention-focused model requiring employers to identify and manage all reasonably foreseeable risks. The government now portrays that framework as overly complex and compliance-heavy.
However, workplace risk is inherently complex, and simplifying regulation involves trade-offs. The bill's focus on “critical risks” for small businesses appears to contradict the 2015 Act's intent, potentially creating a two-tier system where some workers receive fewer protections. As even supportive commentary has noted, small does not necessarily mean low-risk.
Compliance Interchangeability Risks
Another key provision allows compliance with other legislation—such as building or environmental laws—to count toward health and safety duties. While intended to reduce duplication, this risks creating “systemic incoherence,” according to critics. Different laws pursue distinct objectives and are enforced through different standards and regulators. The bill does not require alternative regimes to provide an equivalent level of worker protection, only that they involve actions helping manage a risk.
This could allow health and safety duties to be displaced without maintaining the same protection level. The 2015 Act was deliberately designed to create a clear, unified duty of care after Pike River. Allowing substitution across regulatory regimes risks fragmenting that approach.
Who Bears the Risk?
The debate highlights a fundamental question: who should bear responsibility for keeping workers safe? Critics argue the bill reassigns responsibility without ensuring equivalent protections, recalibrating the balance between state oversight and organisational autonomy. The effects may fall most heavily on workers in smaller, less regulated, and more precarious employment—those with the least influence over working conditions and fewest resources to deal with failures.
The authors acknowledge the contribution of Dr Felicity Lamm, adjunct professor at Victoria University of Wellington.
