Key Takeaways
- The Safety at Work Amendment Bill would exempt businesses with fewer than 20 employees from legally managing non‑critical safety risks.
- Minister Brooke Van Velden argues the changes bring common‑sense clarity, lower compliance costs and better focus on serious hazards.
- The NZ Institute of Safety Management warns the move undermines everyday safety practices, adds complexity and will not improve New Zealand’s poor international safety record.
- Small firms make up about 97 % of NZ businesses; minor injuries such as slips, trips and strains generate millions of ACC compensation days each year.
- A “dual‑speed” clause creates different risk‑management obligations when small firms work alone versus with larger organisations, raising concerns about consistency and enforceability.
- Critics, including seasoned safety professionals, contend the bill’s definitions of “critical risk” and “small firm” are vague, forcing businesses to make additional judgments rather than simplifying compliance.
- The Institute hopes cross‑party MPs will reject the bill, arguing it sends the wrong message that safety only matters for extreme incidents.
- If passed, the legislation could weaken preventive safety culture, potentially increasing long‑term injury rates and harming NZ’s standing against Australia and the UK.
Overview of the Proposed Legislation
The Safety at Work Amendment Bill, introduced by Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Brooke Van Velden, seeks to amend existing health and safety statutes by carving out an exemption for businesses that employ fewer than twenty workers. Under the proposal, these smaller enterprises would no longer be legally required to manage risks deemed “non‑critical,” such as minor hazards that commonly lead to slips, trips, sprains, strains or superficial wounds. The bill’s framers argue that focusing regulatory attention on the most serious, life‑threatening dangers will streamline compliance and ultimately reduce workplace fatalities and serious injuries.
Minister’s Justification for the Bill
Minister Van Velden has defended the legislation as a matter of common sense, asserting that it will increase certainty for employers, ease the administrative burden associated with health and safety compliance, and improve overall safety outcomes. She contends that the current regime obliges all businesses—regardless of size—to devote resources to a broad spectrum of risks, many of which have low likelihood of causing severe harm. By narrowing the legal obligation to critical risks, the minister believes firms can allocate time and money more efficiently, thereby fostering a safer work environment without unnecessary red tape.
Exemption Criteria for Firms Under Twenty Employees
The bill’s core exemption applies specifically to enterprises with a headcount of fewer than twenty employees. This threshold was selected because such firms represent a substantial portion of New Zealand’s business landscape—up to 97 % according to the Institute of Safety Management. For these entities, the legislation would remove the duty to conduct formal risk assessments, provide protective equipment, or deliver training for hazards classified as non‑critical. Proponents argue that this acknowledges the limited capacity of small businesses to implement extensive safety programmes while still expecting them to address dangers that could cause death or serious injury.
Institute of Safety Management’s Concerns
Mike Cosman, board chair of the NZ Institute of Safety Management, expressed strong reservations about the bill’s potential impact. He warned that exempting small firms from managing everyday hazards sends a dangerous signal: that health and safety is only pertinent to catastrophic events, not to the routine harms that affect workers daily. Cosman emphasized that the proposed changes would do little to lift New Zealand’s lagging safety performance when measured against international benchmarks such as Australia and the United Kingdom, where comprehensive risk management is standard practice even in small enterprises.
Economic Burden of Low‑Severity Workplace Incidents
Cosman highlighted data showing that less serious accidents—slips, trips, sprains, strains and wounds—account for roughly 4.7 million days of weekly compensation paid by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) each year. These incidents, while individually minor, collectively impose a significant economic cost on businesses through lost productivity, medical expenses and compensation payouts. By removing the legal requirement to mitigate such risks, the bill may inadvertently increase these costs over time, counteracting any short‑term savings from reduced compliance paperwork.
Doubts About the Bill’s Ability to Improve Safety
Drawing on 46 years of experience as a regulator, policy‑maker, consultant and expert witness, Cosman questioned the bill’s underlying logic. He argued that determining what constitutes a “critical risk” and defining a “small firm” are both complex judgments that will require businesses to make additional, case‑by‑case decisions. Rather than simplifying compliance, the legislation could generate more uncertainty, as employers must continually assess whether a particular hazard falls inside or outside the newly drawn legal boundary.
Complications Arising from the Dual‑Speed Risk Management Approach
A further layer of complexity was introduced late in the drafting process: a page‑long clause that creates a “dual‑speed” system. When a small business operates solely with other small entities, it would only need to manage the reduced set of risks prescribed by the exemption. However, if the same small firm engages in work alongside a larger organisation, it would suddenly be obligated to manage the full spectrum of safety risks. Cosman criticised this arrangement as neither common sense nor clear, predicting that it would lead to inconsistent practices, confusion over responsibilities, and ultimately fail to reduce injury rates.
Prospects for Parliamentary Resistance
In light of these criticisms, Cosman expressed hope that either a single party or a group of MPs would break ranks with the governing coalition and vote the bill down. He suggested that cross‑party opposition could arise from legislators who prioritise worker protection and recognise that diluting safety obligations for the majority of businesses may undermine broader public health goals. The outcome of the select committee’s review, which was released today, will likely shape the intensity of any parliamentary debate and the likelihood of amendments or rejection.
International Comparisons and Long‑Term Outlook
If the bill proceeds in its current form, New Zealand risks widening the gap between its workplace safety performance and that of peers such as Australia and the United Kingdom, where even small employers are expected to maintain proactive safety cultures. Experts warn that a regulatory shift that treats everyday hazards as optional could erode preventive behaviours, increase the latent risk of severe incidents, and harm the country’s reputation for responsible business practice. Ultimately, the legislation’s success will hinge on whether its promised efficiencies materialise without compromising the fundamental aim of keeping workers safe from harm—both the spectacular and the everyday.