While some aspects of the reform package offer genuine progress, the overall direction raises concerns. We must be cautious that “simplification” doesn’t become a euphemism for weakening the inroads made since Pike River.
Let me share my thoughts on four key areas:
The good: Prequalification reform
Let’s start with what’s promising. The proposal for a unified pre-qualification system is long overdue. Anyone in construction knows the frustration of navigating multiple schemes like SiteWise, Impac and Totika, each with its own cost and criteria, each client with their own preference. A streamlined, nationally recognised system would reduce duplication, save time and money, and allow businesses to focus on what matters: keeping people safe.
The concerning: "Critical risk focus"
Here's where things get problematic. The Minister's push for a "critical risk focus" sounds reasonable on the surface – only worry about the big stuff on the big jobs, and simplify for small businesses, right? But this misses the fundamental point: we already manage health and safety based on risk levels. This isn't revolutionary thinking; it's how the current system is supposed to work.
One of the most concerning aspects of the reform is the messaging that could emerge: that so-called “low-level” risks no longer matter. Take scaffolding, for example. The suggestion that ladders are a simpler alternative may sound practical, but it ignores the reality.
Falls from ladders remain one of the most common causes of serious workplace injuries. In 2024 alone, over 1,200 ACC claims were made for ladder-related incidents. These aren’t just statistics; they represent workers who didn’t go home the way they came to work.
The “simple” solution often increases risk exponentially. What takes three days with scaffolding might take ten with constant ladder repositioning, introducing fatigue, inefficiency, and greater exposure to harm. Ladders have their place but only when the risk is genuinely low, the task is short, and the controls are solid.
Simplification must not come at the cost of safety. We must ensure that any changes to the system reinforce, rather than erode, the protections that keep our people safe.
The dangerous: Weakening WorkSafe's role
The proposed shift in WorkSafe’s enforcement model from compliance to education and engagement also warrants scrutiny. While education is vital, enforcement remains essential. Some operators will always push boundaries, and without clear, enforceable standards, we risk normalising corner cutting.
The shift: Reimagining ACOPs through collaboration
The proposal to allow industries to contribute to the development of Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) and submit them to MBIE for approval is, in principle, a positive step. Industry expertise is invaluable, and codes that reflect real-world practices can improve relevance and uptake. However, this must be balanced with robust oversight to ensure that safety standards are not diluted in favour of convenience or cost-cutting. Co-design must not become self-regulation.
My advice: Hold the line
To businesses navigating these reforms: don’t drop your standards. Continue operating to current safety requirements, regardless of what the reforms might allow. The HSWA, born from the lessons of Pike River, may not be perfect but it works. It’s built on risk identification, mitigation, and care.
Reform isn’t inherently bad. Some proposals have merit. But reform must be done in partnership with industry, with clear guidance, meaningful engagement, and strong enforcement. The construction sector has made significant strides in safety culture since 2015. Let’s not undo that progress in the name of simplification.
Our workers and their whānau deserve better.
