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Removed legacy items: Separately, in May 2025 WorkSafe removed around 50 outdated or superseded publications (old case studies, generic definitions, template packs) to eliminate duplication and reduce confusion.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