Winston Peters has said NZ First will make reversing the Government's health and safety law overhaul a post-election priority, even as the party votes for the legislation in Parliament.

Speaking on 23 June 2026, Peters described being required to support the Bill as "very unfortunate" and said NZ First was "looking very hard" at the changes, according to RNZ. He stopped short of opposing the legislation in this term but made clear he intends to seek changes if NZ First returns to government after the next election.

The legislation at the centre of the dispute is an omnibus Bill amending both the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013. The Bill makes changes to WorkSafe's operational focus and the expectations placed on the regulator — details set out in Cabinet papers released by the Beehive.

Peters' public reservations expose a live tension inside the coalition. Under the confidence and supply arrangements binding the three-party government, NZ First is obliged to vote with National on agreed legislation. That obligation holds here — but it does not stop a coalition partner from registering dissent for the record and flagging a different course after the election. That is precisely what Peters is doing.

The significance of the move is procedural as much as substantive. A minister or party signalling in advance that it will seek to repeal or amend legislation it is simultaneously passing is not unheard of in coalition politics, but it is unusual to do so publicly and explicitly. It puts National and Act on notice that the overhaul may have a shorter shelf life than its architects intend — contingent, of course, on the electoral arithmetic after the next election.

The health and safety reform sits alongside other recent activity in the regulatory space. Health and safety regulations supporting hydrogen development were introduced as part of the Government's 2024 Hydrogen Action Plan, with those rules given effect in mid-2025. Separately, the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill makes legislative changes to improve safety and well-being for children, young people, and adults in care — a distinct track flowing from the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care.

Peters' comments are directed squarely at the WorkSafe-focused omnibus, not those other instruments. His objection appears to be with the direction of the regulatory reform rather than with the legislative mechanism itself. He has not publicly detailed which specific provisions he wants changed.

For those tracking coalition dynamics heading into the election cycle, the episode is a data point worth holding. NZ First's willingness to advertise internal disagreement on a piece of agreed government legislation suggests Peters is already positioning for a campaign in which the party can present itself as distinct from its coalition partners — particularly on economic regulation, where its constituency has consistently prioritised accessible compliance frameworks for small and medium businesses.

Whether the overhaul survives a second term, and in what form, will depend on who is at the table after the election. Peters has made sure voters know where he intends to stand.