NZ government pushes for red tape reduction, Australia urged to do the same

New Zealand Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden has announced a flurry of changes in a bid to cut down on red tape, with many business-minded Aussies calling for something similar.

In the build-up to the 2025 federal election, an often-repeated request of business representatives and groups has been to “cut red tape”. As previously reported by HR Leader, just last week, 20 business groups called on parliamentarians to cut red tape and make Australia a more attractive investment location.

“We need to see genuine reforms that address the high costs of running a business by reducing red tape, restoring a sense of balance to our IR system, delivering a taxation system that’s competitive and sustainable, and creating a better approvals system,” Bran Black, chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, said.

The “restoring of balance” to the IR system has become a focal point within employment circles, with many arguing that contemporary compliance standards, through their stringent enforcement, are, in fact, hurting businesses and negatively impacting productivity.

David Inall, chief executive of Master Grocers Australia, claimed that these “red-tape” measures – primarily implemented by the Albanese government dating back to 2022 – are “oppressive’” for Australian businesses.

“Businesses must navigate increasingly complex and oppressive red-tape compliance and convoluted industrial relations settings. This simply cannot continue,” Inall said.

Recently, over in New Zealand, the current ministry, made up of a coalition between the National Party, ACT New Zealand, and New Zealand First, is pushing for a reduction in red tape by announcing the removal of various employment regulations in an attempt to “reduce the burden on employers”.

ACT party representative and Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced changes to these red tape measures, which included the removal of the 30-day rule and a reduction of related employer obligations.

“Currently, if a collective agreement is in place, the employee’s individual agreement must reflect the terms of the collective agreement and that applies for 30 days regardless of whether an employee chooses to join a union or not,” said van Velden.

“Not only is the status quo convoluted and confusing, the process adds another administrative cost on top of many others, and those costs are dragging down workplace productivity.”

“If a new employee chooses to negotiate the terms and conditions that suit their personal preferences or situation, they should have that choice realised from day one of employment.”

On top of that, this government also expanded the umbrella of businesses that were eligible to implement a 90-day trial – a measure that allows employers to terminate an employee without providing reasons and without the employee having the right to bring a personal grievance claim forward.

“Expanding the availability of 90-day trials was an ACT-National coalition commitment and supports workers that may struggle to gain employment and also give employers greater confidence around hiring,” said van Velden.

“I am striking the right balance between ensuring information about unions is available to new employees, protecting the personal choice of workers and reducing the compliance burden for employers.”

HR Leader reached out to Katherine Ravenswood, professor of industrial relations at Auckland University of Technology (Management, Technology and Organisation), who touched on this “mission” to reduce red tape in New Zealand.

“The [Honourable] Brooke van Velden is on a mission to ‘reduce red tape’. To date, this has focused on workplace health and safety and union condition pass-ons and notification at the start of employment. None of this is, yet, actual proposed legislative changes, just a barrage of announcements announcing changes that will be introduced later this year,” said Ravenswood.

“Rather than reducing any significant amount of red tape, these changes potentially increase the number of employees on 90-day trials (fire at will), creating huge uncertainty and risk for new employees.”

Van Velden also made numerous amendments to the health and safety requirements for small businesses, which included the removal of SMBs needing to have psychosocial harm policies in place.

“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,” said Van Velden.

“This will improve outcomes for businesses and workers by focusing the system on critical risks and getting rid of unnecessary costs, making sure there is less paperwork and more clarity on what will make workplaces safe.”

According to Ravenswood, this removal of red tape pertaining to WHS regulations sets a negative precedent for the safety of workers.

“The proposed health and safety changes could well reduce any incentive for senior leadership and governance to have oversight or health and safety,” said Ravenswood.

“In fact, they paint health and safety as an annoying issue that can be ‘back to basics’. The minister’s example of a ‘small retail store’ highlights her real lack of understanding of the complexity of workplace health and safety and ‘worker welfare’, assuming that retail workers don’t experience bullying, harassment, or violence from customers despite reports of violent ‘grab and go’ attacks.”

“These are ideologically driven changes that are not centred around increased productivity or safer workplaces, but create less safe, less certain work for workers. They also strengthen the rhetoric that the public sector is ‘bloated’ and inefficient.”

“Similarly, it attacks ‘experts’ – professionals who have extensive education and experience in health and safety, who are implied to be greedy, profiteers: the minister bemoans the growth of the health and safety industry which has increased cost to employers.”

Ravenswood claimed that the widespread removal of red tape can often reflect a “lack of trust” in employers to carry out good employment practices, which ensure that productivity and worker safety coincide.

“The proposed changes announced reflect a lack of trust in the ability of employers to be able to manage good employment policy and practices,” said Ravenswood.

“Tracking your new employees, keeping them on union terms for 30 days, and chasing them up to find out if they’ve joined the union or not is hardly going to stop the ‘productivity’ of most managers or HR managers or companies.”

“Likewise, the announced changes to health and safety assume that directors don’t know their role or have expertise and that managers can’t follow guidelines provided by the regulator.”

As the New Zealand government continues on its red-tape slash, many business leaders across Australia may look towards their counterparts across the ditch with envy. Much of this, however, hinges on the result of the upcoming federal election as opposition party leader Peter Dutton has previously committed to “ripping up as much red and green tape as possible”.

Kace O'Neill

Kace O'Neill is a Graduate Journalist for HR Leader. Kace studied Media Communications and Maori studies at the University of Otago, he has a passion for sports and storytelling.