Safety vs. Simplicity: Why NZ’s Compliance System Needs Smarter Oversight, Not Just Fewer Rules

The New Zealand Government’s review of workplace safety compliance requirements has sparked a much-needed conversation about regulation, cost, and responsibility. While industry voices call for leaner systems and lower training costs, there’s a deeper issue beneath the surface - how safety training is delivered, and whether it’s genuinely meeting its intended purpose.

Employers have a valid point: compliance training is costly and often inflexible. Mandatory courses can pull staff off-site for a full day or more, with minimal customisation to reflect real risks. And yes, red tape can make even low-risk tasks subject to high-cost obligations. But it’s not just about the cost - it’s about the quality and integrity of what businesses are paying for.

A glaring example is the misuse of NZQA unit standards. These qualifications are based on a system where 1 credit equals 10 hours of learning. Yet many courses - like a forklift training unit 10851 worth 7 credits - are routinely completed in a single day. That raises serious questions. Where are the other 62 hours of learning coming from? In theory, those could be covered by on-the-job experience or self-directed learning - but only if proper evidence is collected and recorded, as required by NZQA and the Tertiary Education Commission.

In reality, some training providers appear to be cutting corners. They issue nationally recognised credits with little to no supporting evidence. This not only undermines the credibility of qualifications, but potentially opens up legal exposure if an incident occurs and training records are scrutinised in court. It’s a systemic issue - one that raises the question of whether unit standards are still fit for purpose in day-to-day workplace training.

For many employers, the answer is increasingly "no". Unit standards may still make sense for apprenticeships, trade training, or structured programs like those run by the Department of Corrections. But they’re no longer practical for upskilling existing staff - especially when a 10-credit Elevated Work Platform (EWP) course, nominally requiring 100 hours, is offered as a generic one-day session for $500, with no guarantee it reflects the equipment being used or worksite conditions.

Instead, many are turning to Verification of Competency (VOC). VOC is a more tailored, practical, and cost-effective solution. It focuses on assessing real competency - on the actual machines and in real environments - without being bound by credit hours.

Done correctly, VOC aligns with best practice guidelines, industry codes, and relevant regulations. It’s also faster, cheaper, and defensible in court, especially when delivered by qualified risk management professionals.

The government’s review should focus not just on reducing compliance costs, but on raising the quality and relevance of workplace safety systems. That means cracking down on poor training practices, encouraging competency-based approaches like VOC, and ensuring that qualifications - when awarded - are earned, not sold.

Cutting red tape is one thing. Turning a blind eye to training fraud is another.