Health And Safety Reform: Sector-Specific Updates Signal Targeted Regulatory Relief
This tranche of announcements follows earlier signals from the Government regarding broader legislative reform, which is expected to be introduced to Parliament later this year, with new legislation enacted ahead of the next election. In contrast to the first suite of announcements, this tranche demonstrates an intention to consult with identified sectors to develop or amend safety regulations or approved codes of practices in identified areas.
Key features of the announcements
Construction
The Minister's announcement on 28 July 2025 signalled the intention to consult with the construction industry to create clearer rules and prequalification guidance to support construction. Specifically, the Minister highlighted possible changes for working at heights, the use of scaffolding and to simplify the complexity of prequalification systems, to better align health and safety requirements with actual site risks.
The Government aims to, following consultation with the construction sector, introduce a risk-based hierarchy of controls for working at height, to help businesses select appropriate safety measures based on the specific hazards of each task. It is hoped this approach will reduce unnecessary use of scaffolding, particularly in low-risk situations.
The Government has also signalled the introduction of revised prequalification guidance to improve consistency across the sector. As part of this work, the Minister has asked WorkSafe to collaborate with industry to develop free-to-use templates that support a more consistent and streamlined approach.
Additionally, work is underway to clarify overlapping duties on shared worksites through an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP), which is to be developed by WorkSafe. This decision is aimed at helping businesses better understand when coordination with other contractors is required, and how responsibilities should be managed in practice.
Agriculture
In the 29 July 2025 announcement, the Minister indicated the Government would be consulting with the agriculture sector on the thresholds for members of the family to be involved in chores on the family farm, while ensuring safety is not compromised.
In addition, the Government has also requested WorkSafe develop two new ACoPs in consultation with the agricultural sector, to reflect how modern farms operate and to support practical compliance. The first will provide clearer guidance on roles and responsibilities in agriculture, particularly around overlapping duties and PCBU obligations when multiple PCBUs are working on a farm. The second will focus on the safe use of farm vehicles and machinery, including quad bikes, tractors, side-by-sides, and two-wheel motorbikes.
As part of broader reform, the Government is also proposing changes to the ACoP model itself. While compliance with ACoPs is currently voluntary, the proposed change would give greater assurance that following an ACoP is sufficient to meet health and safety duties under the Heath and Safety at Work Act 2015 (the HSW Act).
Manufacturing
On 30 July 2025, the Minister announced that the Government will consult on how to simplify machine guarding rules, aiming to replace 'outdated requirements' with a risk-based approach. The Minister signalled that these changes are expected to benefit both manufacturers and other sectors that rely on machinery, including agriculture, horticulture, construction, and food processing.
Additionally, the Minister noted that the Government will review workplace exposure standards for substances such as soft wood dust, hard wood dust, and welding fumes. The review aims to improve clarity and ensure that exposure limits are practical.
Science and technology
On 31 July 2025, the Minister announced that the Government will consult on changes aimed at reducing regulatory complexity and better supporting innovation across the science and technology sectors for growth. The proposed changes will seek to match hazardous substances requirements for laboratories with their actual risk. It is not yet clear what form these requirements will take.
A particular focus is the introduction of reforms that support the development and use of hydrogen technologies, including:
enabling the use of internationally accepted hydrogen storage containers;
establishing safety requirements for cryogenic liquid hydrogen; and
introducing standards for hydrogen filling stations and dispensers.
These reforms are intended to create a more enabling regulatory environment, in line with the Government's Hydrogen Action Plan. Broader consultation is underway to ensure the regulations reflect the needs of researchers, innovators, and industry stakeholders.
Adventure and events
In the last announcement on 1 August 2025, the Minster announced the Government would be consulting on health and safety regulations in the recreation and entertainment sectors to reduce unnecessary compliance pressure, while maintaining safety outcomes. Following consultation, it is intended that changes would be made to the Adventure Activities Regulations and Amusement Device Regulations, with the aim of reducing compliance costs for recreation providers, event organisers, and volunteer-led groups.
One of the key proposals involves refining the definition of 'adventure activities' to distinguish between high-risk and low-risk recreational offerings. This change seeks to reduce compliance obligations for operators whose activities pose minimal safety risks. The Government is also proposing updates to the Amusement Device Regulations to focus council permitting requirements on transportable high-risk amusement devices. In contrast, fixed or low-risk devices would be exempt from these requirements.
The proposed reforms aim to clarify health and safety obligations for volunteer organisations, especially those involved in outdoor recreation or emergency response, intending to reduce administrative complexity.
Our view
Given intended consultation with industry, it is difficult to predict the full impact of the announced reforms. However it is clear that the Government is seeking to save time and cost for businesses by reducing 'red tape' and 'mak[ing] it easier to do business'.
At a high-level, these sector-specific updates reflect a desire to move towards a risk-based regulatory approach and a willingness to respond to industry feedback. However, while the intended areas of reform offer some clarification and modest compliance relief, they appear to fall short of delivering the clarity many stakeholders have been calling for.
While it is promising to see a continued focus on regulation in areas where the greatest risk is presented, some of these reforms, such as those around guarding, relate to areas where significant risk is present and where New Zealand has been susceptible to poor health and safety performance.
From a practical standpoint, how these reforms are implemented will be critical. Legislative changes alone will not be enough, and clear guidance, consistent support and enforcement, and meaningful engagement with industry will be essential to ensure that the intended benefits are realised 'on the ground'. A continued programme of keeping these standards up to date to align with best practice will also be vital, to ensure New Zealand does not fall further behind its Australian and English counterparts in health and safety performance.
Nonetheless, businesses should take this opportunity to engage with the consultation processes to ensure the input and feedback required is received to inform the development of these codes of practice and regulation.
We will continue to watch with interest as the Government continues its work to improve health and safety, and as Cabinet makes decisions on other aspects of the reform.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
4 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Labelling rules ease for genetically-modified food made without adding new DNA
Simultaneously, the Government was considering a new regulatory regime for gene technologies used outside the laboratory, after it attracted 15,000 submissions during a select committee earlier this year. GM food or GM-free: a consumer's choice? Hoggard told RNZ last week there was some opposition to FSANZ's P1055 proposal during public consultation from those who 'don't believe in [genetic engineering]'. 'There was still some vocal opposition, so that was taken on board,' he said. 'Obviously, there was support from a lot of industry and scientific groups.' Hoggard said that in removing the requirement, producers could still choose to disclose gene technologies used throughout production on the label. 'There's nothing stopping anyone who is producing food that doesn't have any new breeding technologies to label it as such. 'We're not outlawing that people don't have to put these labels on.' He said it came down to the consumer's choice. 'So if the organic sector, for example, doesn't want to allow these new breeding techniques in their production, then people who also think they don't want to consume food that's had new breeding techniques used in them, then they can just buy organic and know that 'okay, that hasn't been used'. 'If this is something you're not worried about, then just go ahead shopping as normal. 'If it is something you are concerned about, producers who will be using the old methodologies will still be able to highlight on the packaging that, 'hey, we don't use the X, Y and Z' or 'we don't do this or that'. And you just need to go and look for that food.' Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard says producers can still choose to disclose gene technologies and label items as such. Photo / RNZ, Angus Dreaver Hoggard said to the best of his knowledge, no health issues had been raised from the consumption of GMO products, such as soya bean, for example. Meanwhile, GE-Free New Zealand spokesman Jon Carapiet said the eased labelling requirements took informed choices away from the consumer. 'It's really fundamentally unethical to take away the ordinary consumer's choice in the supermarkets,' Carapiet said. 'It's all about trust, and to say 'we're not gonna even trust you to make your own decisions anymore'... is really wrong.' He said the assertion that shoppers concerned about GM food would simply buy organic food instead was 'disingenuous'. 'The average consumer certainly can't afford to go and buy organics on an everyday basis. I wish they could, but they can't,' he said. 'So to say all the ordinary people of New Zealand don't deserve the right to choose, I think that's very wrong.' Carapiet said supermarkets could ask their suppliers to disclose the use of gene technologies throughout production to ensure transparency and to inform shoppers about the product they were buying. 'I think that in the coming months, if this does go ahead, companies will have to go above and beyond the food authority standards. 'If the food authority FSANZ says 'no, you can have GM crops and GE foods unlabelled in the supermarket', then it's going to be for the supermarkets to voluntarily label it.' Supermarkets commit to compliance In a written statement, a Foodstuffs spokesperson said it took food safety 'very seriously' and complied fully with the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, including all labelling requirements. 'Customers have the right to know what's in the food they're buying,' they said. 'As part of our supplier agreements, we require partners to disclose country of origin information, and any environmental or social claims must be accurate and substantiated.' They said the same approach applied to food made using gene technologies, including GM ingredients. 'Any changes to regulation in this space will be carefully reviewed, and we'll continue to ensure our labelling provides customers with accurate and transparent information, so they can make informed choices.' A Woolworths New Zealand spokesperson said it will make sure its retail items comply with labelling rules. 'If the labelling rules in New Zealand change, then we would ensure all products comply with labelling requirements,' they said. – RNZ
Scoop
16 minutes ago
- Scoop
Greenpeace Turns On NZ First Over Its Support For Corporate Land Grab Bill
During today's public submission hearings on the ACT Party's Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, Greenpeace took direct aim at NZ First, highlighting the hypocrisy of NZ First's support for the Bill at first reading - despite its long-standing opposition to foreign ownership. The party's sole representative was notably absent for most of the hearing. Greenpeace accused the party of abandoning its values and backing a law that would see some of the country's most ecologically sensitive land sold to multinational corporations, even if those corporations have a criminal history and have broken environmental laws in other jurisdictions. "If NZ First does bend the knee to another of ACT's ideological policies then so be it," said Toop. "The voters' cards will fall as they may, and they may very well fall under 5%, but that will be the bed that NZ First makes for itself by signing up to a Bill that would see New Zealand being sold off to the highest bidding foreign corporation." The organisation opposed the bill on several grounds including that it removes the requirement that the Government check whether a foreign buyer of sensitive land has committed serious crimes abroad, such as breaking environmental or labour laws, or evading paying taxes. Sensitive land is outlined in Schedule 1 of the Bill and includes the conservation estate, offshore islands, lake beds, the marine and coastal zone, wāhi tapu and other culturally significant sites, and land adjoining these areas. "The Bill makes it harder for the government to decline the sale of lake beds, offshore islands and the conservation estate to multinational corporate cowboys," says Toop. "If this Bill is enacted the Government will no longer be able to impose the bare minimum of environmental conditions on the sale, things like biodiversity protection, heritage preservation, and allowing ongoing public access to public lands." The organisation also condemned the move to scrap the special tests for foreign forestry investment, pointing out that much of the devastation caused by the forestry slash and erosion, such as during Cyclone Gabrielle, is caused by foreign-owned forestry companies. Toop pointed out that Global Forest Partners, the 8th largest landowner in New Zealand in 2019 was registered in the Cayman Islands and asked whether the committee thought the forest industry had paid their fair share to rebuild bridges and roads destroyed by their industry. She suggested they hadn't and "were instead metaphorically - or literally - bathing in the Cayman Islands' warm, tax-free waters while New Zealand taxpayers footed the clean-up bill." "Greenpeace believes that all corporations, whether New Zealand owned or overseas owned, should be regulated to ensure that they don't harm the environment, but the Overseas Investment Act currently provides an additional tool that enables the Government to regulate overseas corporations, in particular, to achieve better environmental and community outcomes." "It is simply not reasonable to pass an amendment bill that says offshore forestry investments - which have already brought such demonstrable harm to the country - will receive less scrutiny and have fewer conditions imposed on them," Toop said. In a pointed moment during the hearing, Toop held up a placard reading NO, referencing Winston Peters' infamous "NO" placard and stated: "If the NZ First member of the committee had shown up he might recall that sign. Or perhaps it's been forgotten - as NZ First does seem to have forgotten a few things lately, like what it is they purportedly stand for." "This ACT party bill literally removes the benefit to New Zealand test so that it is easier to sell off New Zealand to multinational corporations. You'll have to forgive me for failing to see how that, by any stretch of the imagination, puts NZ First." Toop also criticised the Government's rushed consultation process - with the Government only allowing five hours of oral submissions on the Bill, all via Zoom. "It is undemocratic, but it's not surprising - especially from a Government who recently engaged in voter suppression. Add to that the new FBI office in our capital city, and you'd be forgiven for thinking you hadn't woken up in Aotearoa - you'd woken up in Trump's America." "Is it really too much to ask that this Government start governing for New Zealanders, not governing in service of foreign corporations and their offshore shareholders?"
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Privatising Road User Charges Risks Higher Costs For Drivers
The Government's plan to privatise the collection of Road User Charges, at the same time as moving all vehicles on to the system, risks adding to the cost of living for New Zealanders, the PSA says. Fleur Fitzsimons, National Secretary for the Public Service Association Te Pūkenga Here Tikanga Mahi says "it is concerning that the Government is moving to privatise a key government role - revenue collection - without presenting a clear, evidenced justification. "Administration fees on Road User Charges are already low, about 1% of the revenue collected, and do not make a profit for NZTA. Putting RUC in the hands of private companies, who will need to make a profit on the transactions, is a recipe for higher fees for drivers." "Ramping up driving costs at a time when the Government is failing to control inflation makes no sense. This is another example of the Government's reckless focus on privatising provision of public services, even if it increases costs to New Zealanders. "As we have seen time and again, privatisation means less accountability to the public and Parliament. It will result in less public control over how much drivers are charged. "Privatisation is a problem masquerading as a solution. The only people who will see any benefit from this scheme are the corporates who take their cut to gather the tax," says Fitzsimons.
