In a recent major speech on growth strategies, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon pointed to overzealous health and safety regulations as a driver of costs and reduced productivity. He cited the overuse of traffic cones as an example—though he could have chosen many others.
This is a worrying reality: safety management in New Zealand is largely dictated by legislation, regulation, and guidance from WorkSafe NZ—whose default response is almost always to add more rules. And we, the ‘industry,’ are doing our bit; we often outdo WorkSafe NZ in making rules!
When something goes wrong, we respond by adding more administrative layers of ‘protection.’ We convince ourselves that we’ve done the right thing—often through a detailed investigation, typically using ICAM. But have we ever stepped back and challenged ICAM itself? Have we truly examined the underlying assumptions?
Sydney Dekker has long argued that we rely too much on linear cause-and-effect thinking, even though we operate in a complex system (Drift Into Failure). The Safety II movement, championed by Erik Hollnagel and others, makes the same point: simply adding more of the same—more rules, more procedures, more compliance measures—will not make things better. Nor will reactive, knee-jerk solutions.
Consider the decision to lower speed limits on major roads from 100 km/h to 80 km/h to reduce injuries. On paper, it seems logical, but research shows a driver at 80 km/h gains just 0.4 seconds of extra reaction time—barely enough to blink, let alone prevent an accident.
As for crash survivability, the harsh reality is that even modern cars struggle to protect occupants in a head-on collision at 70 km/h or higher. Whether traveling at 80 km/h or 100 km/h, the outcome is often severe. Does this truly enhance safety, or just create a false sense of control?
Perhaps the PM is right. Maybe the safety profession needs to step up and find new ways to prevent harm—ones that don’t rely on ever-expanding layers of rules and punishments. Too often, safety management leans toward enforcement. But history suggests a different approach might be more effective.
Sir Robert Peel, often credited as the founder of modern policing, argued in 1829 that effective law enforcement depends not just on strict legal measures but on the voluntary adherence to ethical standards by the public. He famously stated: “The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to secure and maintain public order.”
The same applies to safety. Real success comes not from rigid enforcement but from creating an environment where people naturally adopt good safety practices because they make sense—not because they’re forced to.
This is the core argument of my new book, Safety 2.1 – The Safety Envelope. If we truly want to improve safety outcomes, we must recognize that our most powerful tool is our people. When workers bring their knowledge and experience to perform their work safely, our role should be to empower them, not suffocate them with red tape.
The problem may be that we’ve forgotten how to trust our people—something I address in the book. If we trust our workforce to apply common sense and sound judgment, perhaps we’ll see fewer unnecessary traffic cones, fewer hi-vis vests in well-lit, low-risk areas, and fewer risk assessments completed out of obligation rather than genuine concern.
And common sense could finally be resurrected from the dead, silencing the ‘common sense is not always common’ barbs. If I have a choice, I prefer a person with well-developed common sense to a person who runs for the rule book!
Maybe then, we won’t just remove barriers to economic growth—we’ll also make real progress in improving safety. Because right now, our system is failing and we all know it. The evidence is everywhere.
The book is now available. Visit my website for more information: www.adapto.co.nz.