QHSE Logo Expert Solutions for Health & Safety, Quality & Risk Management

Latest News and Information

 

Rethinking Regulatory Styles: New Zealand’s Shift Toward Engagement Compared to the UK, Australia, and Canada

 

New Zealand’s WorkSafe regulator has recently moved from an enforcement‑heavy model to one prioritising early engagement and clearer guidance. In June 2025, Minister Brooke van Velden announced reforms to support businesses in managing critical risks collaboratively rather than through punitive measures.

 

New Zealand: Guidance‑First with Enforcement Backstops

 

  • Updated guidance: As part of the new strategy, WorkSafe revised and re‑issued more than 50 key guidance documents—streamlining content, clarifying duties, and ensuring all advice reflects current practice.

  • Removed legacy items: Separately, in May 2025 WorkSafe removed around 50 outdated or superseded publications (old case studies, generic definitions, template packs) to eliminate duplication and reduce confusion.

  • Enforcement tools retained: Improvement and prohibition notices, infringement fines, and prosecutions remain as backstops for serious or wilful breaches.

This dual approach reduces the “culture of fear” and confusion: businesses get clear, up‑to‑date guidance while enforcement powers remain to deter non‑compliance.

 

Great Britain: Proportional Enforcement Underpinned by the EMM

 

  • Enforcement Management Model (EMM): Guides Health and Safety Executive inspectors to apply consistent, proportionate sanctions based on harm potential and culpability.

  • Balance: Detailed guidance documents support inspectors; improvement/prohibition notices and prosecutions maintain deterrence.
     

Australia: National Policy, Principles‑Based Consistency

 

  • National Compliance and Enforcement Policy (NCEP): Sets principles for WHS regulators across jurisdictions, promoting consistency under Model WHS Laws.

  • Tools: Infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, and prosecutions—chosen based on risk and context.
     

Canada: Fragmented Jurisdictions with Criminal Penalties

 

  • Westray Bill (Bill C‑45): Criminal liability—including fines and imprisonment—for negligence leading to workplace injury or death.

  • Dual system: Provincial Acts empower inspectors to issue orders, fines, and prosecutions; federal regulation covers Crown entities.

Comparative Insights

 

Aspect New Zealand Great Britain Australia Canada
Primary ethos Guidance‑first; enforcement backstops Proportional enforcement via EMM Principles‑based consistency Criminal deterrence + admin enforcement
Consistency tool Road‑cone hotline; updated guidance Enforcement Management Model National Compliance & Enforcement Policy Westray Bill (Criminal Code)
Engagement Early support; streamlined guidance Inspector guidance documents Advisory & education Inspector orders; criminal prosecutions
Accountability Notices, fines, prosecutions Notices, prosecutions Infringements, undertakings, prosecutions Fines, orders, criminal charges

 

 

Stakeholder Feedback

 

NZISM (New Zealand Institute of Safety Management): Warns the reforms “tinker at the margins,” noting New Zealand’s fatality rate remains 1.6 times Australia’s and 6.4 times the UK’s, and that cutting nearly one in five inspectors undermines enforcement capacity.

EMA (Employers and Manufacturers Association): Calls the shift “long overdue,” expecting reduced fear of punishment and greater focus on genuine risk management.

Unions: Caution that softer enforcement risks complacency, demanding guaranteed inspection numbers and clear performance metrics.

 

Conclusion: The Way Forward for WorkSafe NZ

 

WorkSafe NZ’s guidance‑first, engagement‑driven reforms—updating over 50 guidance documents and removing around 50 legacy items—signal a mature, trust‑based approach.

 

Positives

  • Reduced compliance burden

  • Improved trust and reporting

  • Balanced accountability (serious breaches still attract sanctions)

Negatives / Risks

 

  • NZ$2.2 million funding cuts and staff realignment may weaken enforcement capacity

  • Removal of legacy templates and case studies may disadvantage SMEs lacking in‑house expertise

  • Reliance on self‑regulation could lead to uneven adoption and complacency

Success depends on regulators monitoring impact and restoring resources if enforcement gaps emerge, and on organisations embracing proactive safety stewardship—leveraging early‑warning tools, embedding self‑audits, and fostering open dialogue. If these conditions are met, New Zealand’s model could become a global blueprint for intelligent, balanced health and safety governance.

 

References

 

  1. RNZ. (2025, June). Brooke van Velden shifts WorkSafe’s focus from enforcement to advice. – Confirms Minister van Velden’s June 2025 announcement and details of the strategy shift.
  2. Beehive.govt.nz. (2025, June). WorkSafe makes significant shift to rebalance its activities, launches road cone hotline. – Government release on the launch of the road‑cone hotline and reallocation of funding.
  3. WorkSafe NZ. (2025, May). Guidance removed from WorkSafe website – May 2025. – Lists the legacy guidance documents removed in May 2025.
  4. HCA Mag. (2025, June). Govt announces major change to WorkSafe approach. – Reports on industry and stakeholder reactions to WorkSafe’s new engagement‑first model.
  5. HCAMag. (2025, June). Business and unions at odds over WorkSafe engagement refocus. – Summarises contrasting views from employers and unions on the shift away from enforcement.
  6. Bolton Council. (2013). Enforcement Management Model (EMM) [PDF]. – Source describing the HSE’s Enforcement Management Model for proportional enforcement.
  7. Safe Work Australia. (2024). National Compliance and Enforcement Policy. – Outlines Australia’s principles‑based framework for compliance and enforcement under WHS laws.
  8. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. (n.d.). The Westray Bill (Bill C‑45) – Overview. – Provides details on Canada’s criminal liability provisions for workplace negligence.

```