New Zealanders are safeguarded by a robust and independent legal system well recognized internationally. Although New Zealand does not have a formal written constitution, it has a collection of legislations, conventions, and other key texts that collectively create its constitutional structure. Some of the primary legal systems that form the cornerstone of New Zealand law include the parliament, executive, and judiciary, which are essential components of the country’s legal system structure. The system has checks and balances to ensure that no one faction within the government may become too influential. New Zealand’s constitution specifies how Parliament, the government, and the court collaborate and share responsibilities (McGee, 2021). Legislation is drafted by the administration and approved by Parliament before becoming law or the legislature.
The legal system structure is simple and guarantees that persons, organizations, and institutions in New Zealand conform to them; New Zealand’s courts and judges are responsible for interpreting and enforcing these laws. The courts also collaborate closely with other government organizations, such as the Police and the Department of Corrections, in exercising order (McGee, 2021). Further, law is divided into two primary streams in New Zealand, one being criminal law and the other being civil law. Family law, environmental law, and commercial law are just a few of the different types available in the country. The courts of New Zealand are backed by 29 tribunals, which assist in resolving civil law issues.
The Parliament
Parliament is composed of members elected, often referred to as MPs. They enact legislation via the examination and debate of measures. Similarly, it is responsible to the public since the people choose it. On the same note, the parliament has select committees responsible for improving transparency. Additionally, select committees are composed of a limited number of members of parliament (MPs) who are experts in a particular subject area. McGee (2021) insinuates that they review and discuss legislation and listen to public comments. If a select committee determines that a draft bill should not become law, it will alert the appropriate cabinet minister, and the bill will not become law unless and until revisions are made. Parliament will next vote on the bill, which has a chance of becoming law.
Executive
Royal Assent is transformed into a statute or Act; the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, cabinet members, and government agencies comprise the executive. Through the special committee procedure, they are responsible to Parliament. The CEO creates policy and bills in draft form, publicizes statutes, and administers all enactments. Policy development is formulating a concept for new legislation or putting a new law into effect after it receives Royal Assent (Shaw, R., & Eichbaum, 2018). Drafting a bill entails formulating a proposal for new legislation after developing a policy and proposing it to Parliament. The term “publishing laws” refers to formally announcing new legislation, typically done through a publication called the New Zealand Gazette.
Judiciary
Judges and judicial officials are New Zealand’s legislation cornerstone, and the Governor-General appoints all judges and judicial officials on the advice of the Attorney-General. According to Kerr (2022), the judiciary balances the government’s authority with citizens’ rights and obligations. They are not affected by either the legislature or the government in their decisions. By hearing and determining cases, judges interpret and apply the law. If the legislation is ambiguous, they look to previous court rulings on comparable situations.
The legal structure consists of the Legislation, and the element is made of laws formed from immemorial to date. At the same time, the system consists of Legislative Instruments, and it is vital that parliament may give the executive-legislative powers. Delegation generally occurs in technical or rapidly changing fields where regular re-legislation by Parliament is impractical. These delegated laws may cover substantial areas of law. The executive, for example, sets New Zealand’s immigration policies.
New Zealand law was founded on English law for the most part from the outset. Only after the ratification of the Treaty of Waitangi and hence the English law was introduced into the country (Came et al., 2018). Both the common law and the statute of New Zealand are influenced by that background, albeit both have taken on a particularly New Zealand flavor in recent years. Because the common law is based on precedence, each case heard relies on legal concepts created in previous instances, which is the consequence of the standard law system of precedent. In an antagonistic setting, cases are heard and decided based on the law as used to the circumstances of the individual case. Judicial evolution of the law happens when the old law is applied to new facts.
The result has been an erosion of several British legal theories over time. In a similar vein, although certain English laws such as the Magna Carta continue to be relevant in New Zealand, they have been gradually supplanted by New Zealand legislation. A case in point is the domain of criminal law, where parliament has entirely governed, and customary law is deemed to have little place in criminal law after that. However, under the common law system, judicial opinion of such legislation is authoritative as law and will be implemented in subsequent instances if the interpretation is upheld. For example, the Crimes Act 1961 is often referred to be a code since it prohibits the creation of “new” crimes by the courts, and no new crimes have been introduced as a result of legislative action. Nevertheless, when it comes to giving judgment on conduct covered under the Crimes Act, courts have often relied on common law principles to assist them in reaching a verdict.
The Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety published a report in 2013 stating that New Zealand’s work health and safety system was ineffective. Because of this, New Zealand implemented its most substantial workplace health and safety reforms in 20 years, culminating in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) and the establishment of Work Safe New Zealand (James Walter, 2019). Consequently, HSWA is primarily based on Australian work health and safety legislation, with modifications to account for the variations between the New Zealand and Australian work environments. Nevertheless, it recognizes that a healthy and safe workplace requires involvement, leadership, and responsibility on the part of government, industry, and employees. Their chief purpose for forming the law was to safeguard employees and other individuals from damage to their health, safety, and wellbeing by eliminating or mitigating work-related hazards.
Moreover, the country has the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) has been in force since October 2, 2000, after the plight of the most country were underwhelming. As Rasmussen et al. (2019) accentuate that the Act outlines the essential components of employment and the legal safeguards and duties of both employers and workers. The Act also specifies the consequences for employers and workers who fail to comply with the Act’s duties. The Act’s fundamental goal is to promote a constructive working relationship by infusing good faith into every aspect of the workplace. The Act recognizes that good faith is not only codified in this Act but also relies on trust between an organization and its workers. In addition, the Act encourages bargaining rights, addresses the influence of authority in the workplace, and encourages mediation to settle any issues. Positive employment interactions are also promoted via Labour Inspectors, the Employment Relations Authority, the courts, and numerous international treaties.
Notably, in Part 1, Section 24 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 exacerbates the importance of maintaining workers’ health risks in industries. If the perspective does not dictate alternatively, a reportable incident is defined as an unscheduled or unchecked incident in the workplace. As a result, the incident exposes an employee or other person to severe risk to their health or safety due to immediate or consequential exposure to fire while performing their job duties, unless the context otherwise necessitates (Hughes & Ferrett., 2021). The law provides that when such an incident occurs, it must notify the appropriate Departmental Health and Safety Officer (DHSO), Health and Safety Representative, or Head of Department (HOD), Line Manager, or Supervisor. If the occurrence is a Critical Event, the Emergency Management Team will also be contacted (Farret al., 2019). Afterward, the DHSO will report and record the investigation accordingly.
On the same note, Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 emphasize the need for industry owners to their responsibility for maintaining fire escape routes for workers on duty. In presenting the property’s escape route from fire, they can enhance it by ensuring that they are kept free of barriers at all times; and that their emergency exits are not barricaded to prevent any of the occupants of the building from exiting. Importantly, their smoke-control and fire-stop doors should always be kept open to comply with building standards. Furthermore, the ACT is critical in supporting an exiting procedure for the danger; for example, in the case of a fire emergency, the industry owner must have a system in place for the safe, timely, and efficient evacuation of the building’s residents. The approach must include evacuating the people to a secure location to identify all of the building’s occupants.
The country is critical of the safety of workers; hence they ensure that all the protocols of danger measures are adhered to, failure to which the industries must face the consequences, for instance. In this sense, reckless conduct in performing a duty that puts a person in danger of significant damage, illness, or death, the organization will be charged with five years in prison or a $300 000 fine. Moreover, the ACT penalizes $150 000 for failure to perform a responsibility that puts an individual in danger of significant damage, illness, or death.
A case example includes; when an explosion burst through the isolated Pike River mine, located on the South Island’s western coast; 29 workers were killed. The incident, as a result, fueled the compensation of the families of the victims and two individuals who survived the accident. Consequently, they were ordered to pay a total of NZ$3.41 million (US$86,000 and £57,000) to the victims families and two men who survived the tragedy at the South Island colliery (McManus et al., 2018). However, since the company is under receivership, it is unclear whether or not this can be paid in full. The mining tragedy was the worst to strike New Zealand in almost a century. An official study conducted last year determined that the incident at the mine, which is located on the west coast of the South Island, was caused by a methane gas explosion on November 19 (Bowring, 2019). It was discovered that Pike River Coal had failed to recognize warning indicators while attempting to increase output at the colliery.
For many firms, workplace injuries continue to be a source of worry. Healthwise, due to the adjustments and adaptations to health and safety standards in recent years, there have been considerable gains for worker safety in the industry sector. Since 2000/01, the number of non-fatal injuries recorded by self-reported and employer-reported workers has decreased by around half (Ding & Chea., 2021). Further, there has been a decrease in serious injuries or deaths in numerous sectors. Moreover, this represents a decrease in the number of injuries sustained, but it also means a boost in other aspects of a company’s operations. Companies dedicated to caring about their employees’ health also benefit from the following: Absenteeism and sick leave are expected to decrease, increased retention of highly qualified employees, and a better reputation amongst your rivals is one of the most important benefits.
However, in the perspective of employment in industries, the Employment Relations Act 2000 has been fundamental. The ability for workers to work securely and with fewer interruptions will result in increased productivity. Insurance and legal expenses may be saved because of reduced employee claims or actions. The implementation of health and safety measures in the workplace assists in assessing possible risks and the identification of serious hazards. You will also be better equipped to put safeguards in place to protect your employees and the environment in your organization. Employing health and safety at work principles to the greatest extent possible will help build a safe workplace, but it will also save the company’s time and money in the long run.
New Zealand’s legal system is a solid, all-inclusive institution that upholds the rights of its citizens and protects their property. Furthermore, it contains essential aspects of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the Employment Relations Act 2000. These two pieces of legislation have subsequently saved the lives of countless residents in the United Kingdom of Great Britain. They underline the need to check on employees’ predicament, and it is thus necessary to check on them.
References
Bowring, Jacky. “An Affective Absence: Memorializing Loss at Pike River Mine, New Zealand.” Emotion, Space and Society, vol. 41, 2021, p. 100845, Web.
Came, H., Cornes, R., & McCreanor, T. (2018). Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand public health strategies and plans 2006–2016. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 131(1469), 32-37. Web.
Ding, D. K., & Chea, Y. E. (2021). Executive Compensation and Firm Performance in New Zealand: The Role of Employee Stock Option Plans. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(1), 31.
Farr, D., Laird, I., Lamm, F., & Bensemann, J. (2019). Talking, listening and acting: Developing a conceptual framework to explore’worker voice’in decisions affecting health and safety outcomes. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 44(1), 79-100. Web.
Hughes, P., & Ferrett, E. (2021). International health and safety at work: For the NEBOSH international general occupational health and safety certificate. Routledge.
James, P., & Walters, D. (2019). Health & safety at work: time for change. Institute of Employment Rights Journal, 2(1), 58-85. Web.
McGee, D. (2021). Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand. Oratia Media Ltd.
McManus, R., Walter, T., & Claridge, L. (2018). Restoration and loss after disaster: Applying the dual-process model of coping in bereavement. Death studies, 42(7), 405-414. Web.
Rasmussen, E., Bray, M., & Stewart, A. (2019). What is distinctive about New Zealand’s employment relations act 2000?. Labour & industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 29(1), 52-73. Web.
Shaw, R., & Eichbaum, C. (Eds.). (2018). Ministers, minders and mandarins: An international study of relationships at the executive summit of parliamentary democracies. Edward Elgar Publishing. Web.