The Catalyst for Change: Unveiling the Lab Safety Overhaul

New Zealand's higher education sector is poised for a significant boost following Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden's announcement of targeted reforms to laboratory regulations. These changes address longstanding frustrations with the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017, commonly abbreviated as HSWR, which inadvertently imposed industrial-scale requirements on university research, teaching, and testing labs. Universities across the country, including the University of Auckland, University of Otago, and University of Waikato, have long advocated for updates that recognize the unique nature of academic lab work.

The reforms promise to avert compliance costs estimated between NZ$1.5 billion and NZ$3 billion, funds that could otherwise support cutting-edge research, faculty hires, and student programs. This overhaul is not about compromising safety but empowering expert scientists and lab managers to implement risk-based controls tailored to their environments. As New Zealand universities grapple with funding pressures and international competition, this development signals a pragmatic shift toward efficiency in higher education infrastructure.

Understanding the Roots of the Problem

The issues stem from amendments made in 2017 to the HSWR under Part 18, which governs hazardous substances such as flammable liquids, oxidizing agents, and self-reactive materials. Originally, research labs had a dedicated compliance pathway via an approved code of practice, but this was removed without a suitable replacement, forcing academic facilities to adhere to rules designed for high-volume industrial operations like petrol refineries or pesticide manufacturing.

Consider a typical university chemistry lab: researchers handle small, diverse quantities of substances—perhaps 100 milliliters of a solvent one day and a gram of a reagent the next—under strict supervision and with advanced ventilation systems like fume hoods. Yet, the regulations demanded features like ground-floor placement for labs with certain chemicals (despite upper floors offering better evacuation routes during spills) or a mandatory three-meter separation between storage cabinets for flammables, often requiring larger spaces or more frequent material transport, which heightens handling risks.

Over 2,000 public research laboratories nationwide, nearly all university-affiliated, faced non-compliance. Retrofitting would involve rebuilding walls for fire ratings, relocating equipment, or demolishing viable structures—costs ultimately passed to taxpayers funding Crown research entities.

🔬 Minister Van Velden's Bold Announcement

On January 28, 2026, Minister van Velden declared these rules "nonsensical" and a "major pain point," pledging immediate action. "Research laboratory work is typically smaller-scale and often uses a larger range of hazardous substances than industrial operations," she explained, highlighting how rigid prescriptions could paradoxically increase dangers.

The government's response includes Cabinet approval for amendments via the Expenditure and Regulatory Review Committee, with legislation targeted for mid-2026 implementation. This forms part of broader health and safety reforms post the 2010 Pike River mine disaster, which emphasized principles-based regulation over box-ticking.

Key Changes in the Regulations

The overhaul introduces flexibility while upholding the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) core duty to manage risks 'so far as is reasonably practicable.' Here's a breakdown:

• Labs can develop site-specific risk management plans for oxidizers, flammables, and self-reactives, replacing prescriptive storage and handling rules.
• Connected storage areas follow the same standards as labs, streamlining compliance.
• Trained lab workers exempt from hazardous substances certification, recognizing university-level training.
• Managers must be 'available' for oversight, not constantly on-site.
• Manager knowledge focuses on safety risks per substance and equipment, not exhaustive substance lists.

A new Approved Code of Practice (ACOP), co-developed with WorkSafe, universities, and industry, will guide implementation—mirroring successful UK models.

Universities NZ Leads the Welcome

Professor Neil Quigley, Chair of Universities New Zealand and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Waikato, hailed the move: "Minister Van Velden’s changes... are consistent with a continued focus on safety in our universities’ mostly bespoke and small-scale laboratories." This echoes sentiments from the New Zealand Association of Scientists, whose co-president Troy Baisden noted alignment with international norms where trained professionals shape protocols.

Universities NZ full statement underscores taxpayer relief, freeing funds for innovation.

Individual unis like Victoria University report relief; senior lecturer Mathew Anker described past absurdities, such as a $1 million relocation for solvent equipment due to regulator disagreements despite expert consensus on safer alternatives.

Real-World Case Studies from Kiwi Campuses

At Victoria University of Wellington, compliance threats halted projects: students ferried tiny solvent volumes across buildings, risking spills, instead of using centralized purification systems proven safe by fire experts.

University of Otago's chemistry labs faced rebuilding mandates for fire separations, diverting resources from biomedical research. Auckland University's engineering testing facilities grappled with ground-floor rules ill-suited to multi-story buildings. These cases illustrate how mismatched regs stifled progress; now, risk plans allow continuity.

WSP Research's Wendy Turvey called it a "pragmatic solution," co-developed collaboratively.

Broader Impacts on New Zealand Higher Education

Savings enable reinvestment: hiring more higher ed jobs like research assistants, upgrading tech, or expanding scholarships. Amid global talent wars, agile labs attract top postdocs and professors—check university jobs in NZ for openings.

Student training benefits: practical experience without bureaucratic hurdles fosters skills for industries like biotech. Statistically, NZ universities produce 20,000+ science grads yearly; efficient labs amplify this output.

Government press release details fiscal wins.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Safeguards

WorkSafe endorses the ACOP for clarity. Independent Research Association of NZ (IRANZ) shares cost concerns. No opposition noted; even skeptics like Baisden stress monitoring amid funding cuts.

• Pros: Cost savings, expert-led safety, research boost.
• Risks: Potential oversight gaps—mitigated by HSWA duties and audits.
• Comparisons: Aligns with Australia/UK risk-based approaches.

For career advice on thriving in reformed labs, see higher ed career advice.

Timeline and Next Steps

January 2026: Announcement. Mid-2026: Amendments via Cabinet Legislative Committee. Late 2026: ACOP rollout, rules effective. Universities prepare risk plans; WorkSafe trains inspectors.

Sector consultation since September 2025 shaped this.

Future Outlook for NZ University Labs

This overhaul positions NZ higher ed competitively: expect surged publications, patents, startups. With savings, unis invest in AI-protein labs or climate research. For profs/lecturers eyeing NZ, explore professor jobs or lecturer jobs.

Long-term: integrates with digital lab mgmt, sustainability. Rate your experience at Rate My Professor.

Times Higher Education analysis.

Photo by Katie McBroom on Unsplash

Why This Matters for Students, Staff, and Society

Students gain hands-on training; staff focus on science over paperwork. Taxpayers save billions, funding public good. In Kiwi context—innovative yet pragmatic—this reform exemplifies effective governance.

Engage via comments; discover roles at higher-ed-jobs, rate-my-professor, career-advice.