Richmond Chambers’ Tim Clarke comments on the Government’s newly announced health and safety law reforms, and what they might mean for New Zealand workplaces.
Q: Can you briefly explain what the Government has just announced regarding the health and safety reforms in New Zealand?
Tim Clarke: On Monday, 31 March 2025, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced what the Government is calling the first tranche of reforms to New Zealand’s health and safety system. The key changes include a carve-out for small, low-risk businesses from general Health and Safety at Work Act requirements, focusing them only on managing critical risks and providing basic facilities. The Government has also announced clarification that landowners won’t be responsible under health and safety laws if people are injured while doing recreational activities on their land.
Additionally, the Minister has today (2 April 2025) announced changes to clarify the distinction between governance and operational management responsibilities. This aims to reduce directors’ fear of liability and address overcompliance by specifying that day-to-day management of health and safety risks should be left to managers, while directors and boards focus on governance and strategic oversight. These changes are part of the ACT-National coalition agreement to reform health and safety laws, with legislation expected to be introduced before the end of 2025 and passed in early 2026.
Q: What’s your initial assessment of these changes?
Tim Clarke: These reforms represent the most substantial changes to our health and safety framework since the Health and Safety at Work Act was introduced in 2015. The intention to reduce administrative burden on small, low-risk businesses has merit in principle, but it’s important the reforms do not result in a dumbing down of the importance of health and safety. We know from working with clients that there’s frustration about administrative compliance that doesn’t necessarily translate to safer workplaces. The Minister has also announced proposed clarifications between governance and management responsibilities, which many business leaders have been seeking. However, the challenge will be in the implementation – defining what constitutes a “small, low-risk business” and what qualifies as a “critical risk” will be crucial.
Q: Do you think these reforms strike the right balance between reducing compliance costs and maintaining worker safety?
Tim Clarke: That’s the central question. The goal of ensuring everyone returns home safely after work is one we all share. What I’m carefully watching for is how the regulatory framework will maintain appropriate safety standards while reducing what the Government calls “tick-box” compliance. The focus on critical risks makes sense, but the details matter. A psychosocial harm policy, for example, might seem like paperwork to some businesses, but workplace stress and mental health issues are very real workplace hazards in certain contexts. I’d like to see the specifics of how these distinctions will be drawn.
Q: What about the changes regarding recreational activities on private land? Do these make sense from a legal perspective?
Tim Clarke: This clarification addresses a genuine concern many landowners have had. The fear of liability has led some landowners to refuse access for recreational activities. Making it clear that health and safety responsibilities for recreational activities rest with the organisations running them rather than landowners is helpful; however, it does not acknowledge that landowners have the most influence and control in managing risks arising out of hazards from the land.
Q: The Minister has specifically addressed governance and management responsibilities. Why is this significant?
Tim Clarke: This will be received as a welcome clarification for many of our clients who serve on company boards. The current legislation has created uncertainty about the extent of directors’ personal involvement in health and safety matters. Many directors have been concerned about personal liability and the extent to which they need to be knowledgeable about and involved in operational matters.
The reforms should help create clearer lines of responsibility by explicitly stating that managers should handle the day-to-day management of health and safety risks at an operational level, while directors focus on governance and strategic oversight. This doesn’t diminish the importance of director engagement with health and safety – rather, it should help boards focus their attention at the appropriate governance level.
For businesses, this could mean more efficient health and safety systems where responsibilities are appropriately allocated. Directors can focus on setting the right tone from the top, ensuring appropriate resources and systems are in place, and monitoring performance, without feeling they need to be involved in operational details that are better managed by those closer to the work.
Q: What should businesses be doing now in response to these announcements?
Tim Clarke: For now, it’s important to remember that the current law remains in effect until these proposed changes are enacted by Parliament, which the Government indicates will be in early 2026. Businesses should continue meeting their existing obligations while staying informed about the development of these reforms. I would caution against making premature changes to health and safety systems. This is a good time to review current practices and identify where genuine safety measures might be distinguished from administrative processes that add less value. When the legislation is finalised, businesses will need targeted advice to understand how the changes apply to their specific operations.
Q: Looking at the broader picture, how do you see these reforms affecting New Zealand’s health and safety culture?
Tim Clarke: That’s perhaps the most important consideration. The Government says it wants to focus resources on critical risks, which is sound in principle. The challenge will be ensuring this doesn’t inadvertently signal that health and safety is less important overall. Effective health and safety isn’t just about compliance with laws – it’s about creating a culture where safety is valued and prioritised. The best outcomes will come if these reforms can reduce unnecessary administration while maintaining that strong safety culture.
Q: As an employment law specialist, what will you be advising clients during this transition period?
Tim Clarke: I’ll be advising them to take a measured approach. Continue meeting current obligations, contribute to consultations on the new regulations if possible, and prepare for changes by understanding which aspects of their current health and safety systems address critical risks and which are more administrative in nature. For many businesses, particularly those with higher inherent risks, maintaining robust health and safety systems will remain important regardless of these changes. Each business will need to consider its specific context and risks. We at Richmond Chambers will be closely monitoring these developments to provide timely, practical advice as the reforms take shape.
