I was impressed by the range of policies she discussed with us. Though our event operates under the Chatham House rule, all the policies have now been publicly announced, so I can safely write about them in this column.
Minister van Velden has dared to do what few modern ministers anywhere would contemplate: she is cutting health and safety red tape.
For decades, workplace safety regulation has travelled in only one direction – towards more rules, more paperwork and more compliance costs. Safety bureaucracy has relentlessly ratcheted up across the Western world.
This is especially true in Australia, where construction sites drown in paperwork like ‘Safe Work Method Statements.’ These bloated documents cost millions yet, as industry experts will know, do not, by themselves, save lives. Australian regulators have also granted themselves police-style powers to enforce rules in the gig economy. Meanwhile, in Victoria, employers now face compliance demands around psychosocial harm, complete with formal documentation and risk assessments for workplace stress and trauma.
Against this global tide of regulatory expansion stands van Velden, announcing reforms that are as refreshing as they are rare. Her diagnosis of the problem is spot on: we have created systems in which genuine safety concerns are buried beneath mountains of pointless paperwork.
The symptoms of this bureaucratic disease are everywhere in New Zealand – and they are highly visible. Consider the sea of road cones, often on empty streets with no workers in sight. They have become a running joke in New Zealand, particularly in Auckland. They are emblematic of safety rules detached from common sense.
Take the plight of landowners scared to allow trampers and hunters onto their property, lest someone twist an ankle and trigger a health and safety prosecution. Or spare a thought for company directors wasting time on operational safety details.
Of course, managers should handle the details, but nobody can tell where directors’ legal duties begin and end – and so you better play it safe, lest you want to risk civil or possibly criminal liability.
To be clear, this is not to excuse people who disregard safety. But sensible citizens wanting to do the right thing frustratingly find themselves trapped in senseless regulations. Filling forms seems to matter more than preventing accidents.
Van Velden’s four-part remedy cuts through the regulatory maze. Under her policies, small, low-risk businesses will focus only on hazards that might actually kill or maim someone, not every theoretical risk. Landowners will no longer fear prosecution when recreational visitors use their land. Company boards will be able to concentrate on governance without micromanaging operational details. Businesses following approved codes of practice will know they have met their legal duties.
Strikingly, the philosophy underlying these changes is to trust adults to exercise judgement about risk, and to reject the notion that any conceivable danger requires a government-mandated process.
Not everything in life can or should be risk-free. On the contrary, risk is part of the attraction of certain activities. New Zealanders love their outdoor pursuits – hunting, fishing, tramping, climbing. These activities carry inherent dangers, and sometimes, as the Minister candidly acknowledges, “it’s the risk that makes it fun.”
Perhaps van Velden’s approach owes something to her economics training at the University of Auckland. She is one of only a handful of MPs with an economics degree. Economists instinctively understand opportunity costs and unintended consequences. They know that resources devoted to trivial hazards are unavailable for tackling serious ones. This may explain her refreshing pragmatism in a field often dominated by bureaucratic empire-building.
Critics might worry that the changes will undermine protection for workers. Such concern would be understandable but misplaced. The reforms explicitly maintain focus on critical risks – those that can cause death or serious harm. But they strip away the bureaucratic barnacles that have accumulated around genuine safety measures.
Australia would do well to watch this experiment from across the Tasman. If New Zealand can maintain worker safety while shedding unnecessary regulation, it will have achieved something remarkable – proof that common sense can prevail even in the policy area most susceptible to regulatory creep.
After years of being told to watch our step, mind our heads and fill out forms in triplicate, would that not be a breath of fresh air?
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
For decades, workplace safety regulation has travelled in only one direction – towards more rules, more paperwork and more compliance costs. Safety bureaucracy has relentlessly ratcheted up across the Western world.
This is especially true in Australia, where construction sites drown in paperwork like ‘Safe Work Method Statements.’ These bloated documents cost millions yet, as industry experts will know, do not, by themselves, save lives. Australian regulators have also granted themselves police-style powers to enforce rules in the gig economy. Meanwhile, in Victoria, employers now face compliance demands around psychosocial harm, complete with formal documentation and risk assessments for workplace stress and trauma.
Against this global tide of regulatory expansion stands van Velden, announcing reforms that are as refreshing as they are rare. Her diagnosis of the problem is spot on: we have created systems in which genuine safety concerns are buried beneath mountains of pointless paperwork.
The symptoms of this bureaucratic disease are everywhere in New Zealand – and they are highly visible. Consider the sea of road cones, often on empty streets with no workers in sight. They have become a running joke in New Zealand, particularly in Auckland. They are emblematic of safety rules detached from common sense.
Take the plight of landowners scared to allow trampers and hunters onto their property, lest someone twist an ankle and trigger a health and safety prosecution. Or spare a thought for company directors wasting time on operational safety details.
Of course, managers should handle the details, but nobody can tell where directors’ legal duties begin and end – and so you better play it safe, lest you want to risk civil or possibly criminal liability.
To be clear, this is not to excuse people who disregard safety. But sensible citizens wanting to do the right thing frustratingly find themselves trapped in senseless regulations. Filling forms seems to matter more than preventing accidents.
Van Velden’s four-part remedy cuts through the regulatory maze. Under her policies, small, low-risk businesses will focus only on hazards that might actually kill or maim someone, not every theoretical risk. Landowners will no longer fear prosecution when recreational visitors use their land. Company boards will be able to concentrate on governance without micromanaging operational details. Businesses following approved codes of practice will know they have met their legal duties.
Strikingly, the philosophy underlying these changes is to trust adults to exercise judgement about risk, and to reject the notion that any conceivable danger requires a government-mandated process.
Not everything in life can or should be risk-free. On the contrary, risk is part of the attraction of certain activities. New Zealanders love their outdoor pursuits – hunting, fishing, tramping, climbing. These activities carry inherent dangers, and sometimes, as the Minister candidly acknowledges, “it’s the risk that makes it fun.”
Perhaps van Velden’s approach owes something to her economics training at the University of Auckland. She is one of only a handful of MPs with an economics degree. Economists instinctively understand opportunity costs and unintended consequences. They know that resources devoted to trivial hazards are unavailable for tackling serious ones. This may explain her refreshing pragmatism in a field often dominated by bureaucratic empire-building.
Critics might worry that the changes will undermine protection for workers. Such concern would be understandable but misplaced. The reforms explicitly maintain focus on critical risks – those that can cause death or serious harm. But they strip away the bureaucratic barnacles that have accumulated around genuine safety measures.
Australia would do well to watch this experiment from across the Tasman. If New Zealand can maintain worker safety while shedding unnecessary regulation, it will have achieved something remarkable – proof that common sense can prevail even in the policy area most susceptible to regulatory creep.
After years of being told to watch our step, mind our heads and fill out forms in triplicate, would that not be a breath of fresh air?
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
The rent seekers will be hard at work ensuring failure.
With the ever uncertain employment of today regulatory jobs are much sought after. All staff work to grow their reach and Empire build; there is no counter. Small firms were once vital; they kept the general cost structure down and the most able grew and so promoted wealth wtihin NZ. Now employment laws, holiday and sick pay, paternity/maternity leave, insurance, tax, savings deductions and...safety are now all too hard. Major organisations become the norm with huge overheads and profit often going off shore. The safety requirements around houses are now absurd. A myriad roof painters have been displaced. Near every job requires extensive scaffolding; a huge cost and often causes damage. The standing cost precludes many sole operators. Cannot even work on a low pitch roof with high grip stone coated tiles. Much maintenance is now prolonged far beyond former and intended economic interval. But workers can walk to work on a footpath a metre from trucks and buses. Or ride to work on a motorcycle (Or, near as dangerous, a bicycle).
Post a Comment