All Workers Deserve Protection from Harm
Following a call for submissions on a review of the health and safety legislation in Aotearoa New Zealand, this week, the government has announced its first milestone in the amendment journey.
Workplace Relations Minister - Brooke Van Velden - has signalled changes to requirements for small businesses.
She said Cabinet had agreed to narrow the focus of the Health and Safety at Work Act to risks that could cause death, serious injury or illness in small enterprises.
Van Velden said small, low-risk businesses were unsure of what risks to focus on and had been struggling to meets the costs of complying with health and safety requirements.1
Alongside these changes, the minister also announced a ‘road cone hotline’.
Van Velden said she had travelled across the country to hear health and safety concerns and a common issue raised was the over use of road cones on the country's road work sites.
She said a hotline for the public to report overzealous use of road cones would be set up and Worksafe [sic] would provide guidance where problems were identified.2
Putting aside this frankly disturbing waste of taxpayer’s funds - not to mention the preposterous notion of giving our already stretched regulator the job of tracking people’s concerns about a so-called ‘sea’ of road cones - I want to focus on the former component.
A justified change?
The primary driver for watering down legislation is, apparently, the costs associated with compliance to small businesses, and - with a narrow focus on “critical” risks - helping those same organisations understand which risks they need to focus on.
Not surprisingly, business advocacy groups such as BusinessNZ, Business Canterbury, the Employers and Manufacturers Association, and Retail NZ have all come out in support of the changes.
“red tape surrounding compliance and prohibitive costs have taken away from the task at hand – that is making sure people come home from work in one piece”
“It has always been a bit of a headscratcher that small, low risk businesses need to operate using the same principles and rules as large industrial businesses. This has led to complexity and confusion that costs time, energy and money for businesses – without necessarily enhancing safety outcomes.”
“Reducing the red tape faced by small businesses will allow them to focus on the things that matter”.3
As an advocate for workers’ rights and protecting and promoting employees’ health, safety, and well-being, to me, the answer to the question ‘which risk should an employer focus on?’ is “All of them”.
Regardless of the (currently) legislated mandate to keep workers safe and healthy ‘as far as practicable’, employers of all stripes have - I would argue - an ethical and moral duty to protect their employees from harm, no matter how large or small.
True to form, the current government is ignoring the advice of experts and the current evidence. This was succinctly noted by Mike Cosman, the chair of the Institute of Safety Management:
van Velden had ignored recommendations by employers, experts, unions, academics, and representatives of high risk [sic] sectors provided to the government in October.
‘If the prime minister wants New Zealand be the best place in the world to live in by 2035 then he should make turning around our shameful workplace injury and illness record a top priority.
If he wants to grow the economy, we need a healthy workforce to do it. An injured worker puts strain on businesses, ACC and the health system’.4
What does the evidence say?
While I don’t have access to business’ submissions on any proposed changes to the current health and safety legislative landscape, other sources give an indication of why this is the wrong call for the government to make.
In the US, for example, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health highlights that those employed in small businesses are at greater risk of harm, with such enterprises seeing higher illness and injury rates.
A recent review from Spain highlights specific issues facing small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs).
research highlights limited resources, a lack of knowledge, and poor workplace processes as reasons why SMEs struggle with effective health and safety management compared to larger organisations
in Europe, SMEs “account for approximately 82% of all work-related injuries and up to 90% of fatal accidents”5
because of the barriers to effective health and safety management SMEs face, such management should be considered as more than a compliance or cost-related issue
“effective health and safety management in [SMEs] is crucial for the employees’ well-being and the company’s survival”6
“small and medium-sized enterprises frequently struggle with inadequate resources to equip their supervisors with the necessary safety leadership skills to foster and sustain a robust safety culture at work”7
“Regardless of a company’s size or business activities, the use of international standards such as ISO 45001 occupational health and safety management systems have proven to be an important working tool to implement, manage and update OHS management systems.”8
Research into sectors comprised of a large number of SMEs highlights key hazards and risks that may be missed if the government pursues an approach of focusing solely on critical risks.
WorkSafe’s 2020 review of risk factors in the hospitality sector found several key sources of harm, including:
cuts, burns, and falls
pain and musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs)
work-related diseases, including noise-induced hearing loss, dermatitis, hypertension, and cardiovascular diseases; and
psychological harm, including stress, depression, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion.
These poor psychological health outcomes are exacerbated by several distinctive characteristics of the hospitality sector such as unsocial work hours, being emotionally demanding and the long-established perception of the sector being a ‘sexualised industry’.9
SafeWork Australia notes that, between 2017-2018 and 2021-2022, small businesses “showed higher claims than medium to large businesses for wounds, lacerations, amputations, and internal organ damage [and] fractures”.10
WorkSafe has identified specific risks for those working in retail, including:
slips, trips, and falls
lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling, resulting in MSDs, vascular disorders, nerve injury, and chronic pain
germs and infections, potentially resulting in more serious health conditions
lone working, increasing the risk of exposure to violence, injury, and psychosocial harm; and
violence, including verbal abuse, physical assault, intimidation, and psychological harm.
Notably, the government is proposing a shift to health and safety legislation and, by extension, regulation for SMEs focusing on critical risks. While the examples above are not exhaustive, many of them would not meet the threshold for “risks that could cause death, serious injury or illness”11.
The cost of ignoring work-related harm
The physical, psychological, organisational, and societal burden of work-related harm is well-documented.
Last year, the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum released its 2024 State of a Thriving Nation report. This report set the cost of work-related “lost lives, lost earnings, serious injury costs to ACC and health issues”12 at $4.9 billion. The authors also note that, while it is improving, New Zealand’s health and safety performance is poor and is well behind that of the countries we typically compare ourselves to.
Short- and long-term effects on workers’ health are particularly concerning.
WorkSafe NZ estimates at least $2 billion in health costs annually from work-related health, which is the impact work can have on people’s health (mental and physical, short and long term). It is estimated up to 900 people die from work-related causes every year and that there are 5,000–6,000 hospitalisations from work-related health risks and gradual process injury claims such as hearing loss.13
While the quote above zeroes in on health effects, it’s clear the cost to workers, businesses, and society at large cannot - and must not - be ignored, regardless of whether this risk is ‘critical’ or not.
A case for supporting psychological health in SMEs
During her announcement, the minister made a - to me - chilling statement:
For example, a small clothing shop would still need to provide first aid, emergency plans, and basic facilities - such as suitable lighting - but wouldn't need to have a psychosocial harm policy in place [my emphasis].14
This is the clearest example the government is actively ignoring the evidence base.
The benefits of providing mentally healthy work - and the cost to individuals, teams, businesses, and society of not doing so - are now incontestable.
Providing mentally healthy work ensures employees ‘experience higher job satisfaction and morale, better physical and mental health, greater motivation, and the ability to manage stress more effectively.’7 Recently, interviews with 57 workers from Aotearoa highlighted that for ‘most participants the psychosocial factors of work were...perceived as potentially more harmful than physical health and safety risks.’8 15
As well as the legal imperative to protect workers from psychosocial harm set by the current legislation, SMEs need to consider the burden of not addressing these risks. A recent review from the US identified the economic burden of work-related psychosocial harm as sitting in the billions, with the expectation this will rise to the trillions by 2030. According to the Mental Health Foundation, similar findings have been shown in Aotearoa, Australia, and the UK.
Conversely, “research shows that for every dollar we invest in the wellbeing of our workforce, on average there is a $12 return”16.
Furthermore, when businesses invest resources in promoting workers’ psychological or mental health and well-being:
the incidence of health-related issues, such as cancer or CVD - which may be fatal - is reduced
employees experience a more positive quality of life
the societal and economic burden - on social and healthcare systems and businesses - is reduced; and
businesses see a direct return related to improved productivity and reduced absenteeism, presenteeism, and turnover.
This supports the argument for all businesses - regardless of their size - being required to develop policies and practices that protect workers from psychosocial harm.
It is undeniable that SMEs face challenges with meeting the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act (2015), particularly where processes and procedures become overly administrative in nature. However, the answer is not to undercut the protections in place for workers in small businesses.
Clearly, New Zealand’s poor record in work-related health and safety needs to be addressed, but watering down legislation and regulations - and setting up a hotline for the use of road cones - is not going to achieve this. Instead, the government’s actions will put more people at risk, inevitably causing significant harm that won’t be captured via a narrower focus.
The government needs to invest in leadership, stewardship, adequate resourcing, education, partnership, robust research, and evidence-based interventions that support mentally healthy work. In doing so, Aotearoa can realise a vision of ensuring all workers go home safe, healthy, and well.
The government should consider this question: don’t you think that ensuring all workers in all businesses are protected from all types of harm is the right thing to do?
Bibliography
Association of Consulting and Engineering (2021, September 23). Mental Health isn't about Preventing Sickness - it's about Flourishing.
Mental Health Foundation (2023, June). Statistics on Workplace Mental Health and Wellbeing.
NZ Business (2025, March 31). Health and safety reforms set to cut red tape for small businesses [online news article].
Radio New Zealand (2021, March 31). Govt to cut health and safety requirements for smaller businesses [online news article].
SafeWork Australia (2024, September). Did You Know? Small Business [campaign brochure]
Salguero-Caparrós, F. M., Sánchez-Teba, E. M., Bermúdez-González, G., & Rubio-Romero, J. C. (2025). Where is occupational health and safety management research in small and medium-sized enterprises headed? A thematic evolution and bibliometric analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2482021
Schulte PA, Sauter SL, Pandalai SP, et al. An urgent call to address work-related psychosocial hazards and improve worker well-being. Am J Ind Med. 2024; 67: 499-514. doi:10.1002/ajim.23583
Umbrella Wellbeing (2023, November 30). Psychosocial Risk Management and Governance Responsibilities.
Walker, M. (2024, May 3). Spotlight on Mentally Healthy Work.
WorkSafe (2020, January). Risk Factors in the Hospitality Sector [Literature review]. WorkSafe New Zealand: Wellington.
WorkSafe (2024, May 9). What risks look like in your industry: Retail stores. WorkSafe/Mahi Haumaru Aotearoa.
Radio New Zealand (2025, March 31).
Ibid
NZ Business (2025, March 31).
Radio New Zealand (2025, March 31).
Salguero-Caparrós, F. M. et al. (2025, p.2).
Ibid.
Ibid, p.15.
Ibid, p.16.
WorkSafe (2020, p.3).
SafeWork Australia (2024, September, p.3).
RNZ (2025, March 31).
BLHSF (2024, p.2).
Ibid, p.16.
RNZ (2025, March 31).
Walker, M. (2024, May 3).
Association of Consulting and Engineering (2021, September 23).