New Zealand’s health and safety landscape is set for its most significant reform since the enactment of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (the HSW Act).
On 9 February 2026, the Government introduced the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill (the Bill). The Bill intends to give legislative effect to the Government’s review of the work health and safety system and is intended to sharpen the system’s focus on critical risks, while reducing compliance costs. We previously outlined the Government’s initial reform proposals, which you can view here.
At a high level, the Bill amends the HSW Act, the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013, and the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016. Its core themes are:
- prioritising critical risks;
- clarifying areas of uncertainty;
- strengthening the role of Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs); and
- refocusing regulator functions.
In this article, we summarise key changes proposed in the Bill and what these proposed amendments may mean for “persons conducting a business or undertaking” (PCBU) and officers.
Focusing on critical risks
Changing the purpose of the Act
The Bill represents a deliberate shift away from a system that requires all risks to be considered, to one that prioritises the prevention of serious harm. As part of this, the main purpose provision of the HSW Act is proposed to be amended ensuring the Act “prioritises the critical risks that arise from work”.1 The corresponding changes are proposed to be made to WorkSafe’s objectives under the WorkSafe Act to reinforce this shift at both the duty holder and regulator level2.
The Bill also introduces a new definition of “critical risk”, which captures two categories of hazards3:
- all hazards already governed by high risk regulatory regimes, such as asbestos, hazardous substances, mining and major hazard facilities, together with other general hazards currently addressed in regulations; and
- any other hazard that is likely to result in death, a notifiable injury, illness or incident as defined in the HSW Act, or an occupational disease listed in the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
The Bill also provides a mechanism for the list of regulated hazards to evolve alongside future regulatory changes.
Small PCBUs and proportional duties
If the Bill is enacted, “small PCBUs” (defined as PCBUs with fewer than 20 workers4) will be required to ensure that “critical risks” are identified, managed and prioritised (rather than all workplace risks)5 ,while continuing to meet baseline worker welfare requirements.
All other PCBUs would remain responsible for managing all risks arising from their work, but the Bill explicitly requires them to prioritise critical risks.6
While the Bill does not create a standalone offence for failing to prioritise critical risks, it does define what it means to “prioritise” these critical risks. In essence, this requires PCBUs to address critical risks first, to review and monitor controls for those risks more frequently, and to allocate a greater proportion of health and safety resources to their management.7
In certain circumstances, further guidance is likely to be required to practically assess what amounts to a “critical risk”. In addition, while the proposed definition captures hazards regulated under existing high risk regimes and other hazards likely to result in the specified serious outcomes, other potentially significant risks, such as certain psychosocial hazards, may not be captured unless and until there is further regulation or guidance.
Clarifying duties and reducing uncertainty
Overlaps with other legislation
The Bill addresses concerns about duplication between the HSW Act and other regulatory systems. A proposed new provision confirms that where a person complies with equivalent risk management requirements under another enactment, they will be taken to have complied with the corresponding duty under the HSW Act.8 The explanatory note to the Bill states that this change is aimed at reinforcing the fact that the HSW Act is not intended to operate as a “backstop” for public health or public safety regimes, but rather, is focused on work-related health and safety.9
Recreational use of land
The Bill provides that PCBUs who manage or control land do not owe duties to people lawfully accessing that land for recreational purposes (e.g., hiking), unless:
- the recreational activity is connected with the PCBU’s work; or
- work is being carried out at the same time and place as the recreational activity.10
This proposed change is intended to address landowners’ (both public and private) reluctance to permit recreational activities due to perceived liability risk.
Exception for earthquake-prone buildings
The Bill also introduces a specific exception for earthquake prone buildings. In particular, it provides that where a building owner is complying with their obligations under the Building Act 2004, a PCBU is not required to take any action in relation to seismic risk affecting the building, or the part of a building, included in the workplace (for example, by directing the evacuation of the building or the part of a building) unless an emergency affecting the building is occurring.11
Officer Duties
Under the HSW Act, “officers” of a PCBU must exercise due diligence to ensure that the PCBU complies with its duties under the HSW Act. The scope of officers’ due diligence obligations came under close scrutiny in Maritime New Zealand v Gibson [2024] NZDC 27975, in which a former chief executive of Ports of Auckland Limited was convicted for failures to comply with these obligations. Refer to our [previous article] for further details. Since Maritime New Zealand v Gibson, there have been calls for clearer delineation of the scope of officers’ due diligence duties.
The Bill does not change the definition of “officer” (which includes directors, partners, and others with significant influence over the management of the business). The Bill also retains the due diligence obligations. However, the Bill includes proposed amendments to the scope of officers’ due diligence duties. In particular, it provides that where an individual holds multiple roles (for example, as a director and chief executive), an officer’s duty is limited to the person’s role as an officer.12 The Bill also includes some amendments to the due diligence requirement imposed on officers by replacing the current open ended list with a comprehensive list of requirements.13
Notification requirements
PCBUs have a duty to notify the regulator of certain serious workplace events, including specified injuries, illnesses and incidents. The Bill aims to reduce uncertainty around this obligation by expanding current definitions and adding clear examples - such as serious head, eye, burn and spinal injuries, to illustrate when the notification threshold is met.14
Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs)
ACOPs play a central role in explaining how duty holders can meet their obligations under the Act. While regulators will retain responsibility for reviewing and recommending ACOPs, the Bill allows for other persons or organisations to develop and submit draft ACOPs for consideration. The regulator must review these drafts, amend them if necessary, and may recommend them to the Minister for approval.15
The Bill also aims to strengthen the role of ACOPs by introducing “safe harbour” status, meaning that a person who acts in accordance with an ACOP for a specific risk is deemed to have complied with their duty to manage that risk.16 However, given that most existing ACOPs were not drafted to operate as safe harbours, the Bill limits safe harbour status on commencement of the Act to the two most recent ACOPs, (the Approved Code of Practice for Loading and Unloading Cargo at Ports and on Ships 2024 and the Approved Code of Practice: Safe Practice for Forestry and Harvesting Operation 2025). All other ACOPs will keep their current status until they are reviewed and reapproved by the Minister.17
The use of ACOPs remain non-binding; a duty holder can still demonstrate compliance with obligations through other means.
Regulators’ functions
Finally, the Bill contains amendments to the statutory functions of WorkSafe and designated regulators (such as Maritime NZ and the Civil Aviation Authority) to explicitly prioritise core regulatory activities.
The Bill describes the main functions of these regulators as:
- providing guidance and advice;
- developing and reviewing ACOPs and safe work instruments; and
- monitoring and enforcing compliance.18
Next steps
The Bill represents a significant change to the health and safety regime that currently operates in New Zealand, with a narrowing of certain key duties that are currently owed under the HSW Act. These changes were well signalled last year, and the Bill now provides more detail as to how they are intended to be applied.
The Bill is at an early stage in the parliamentary process, and will need to advance through that process, including consideration at select committee, before becoming law. While the Government has indicated an intention to progress the reforms within the current parliamentary term, the existing legislative regime continues to apply. In the meantime, duty holders should continue to comply with current health and safety obligations until any changes are enacted.
Bell Gully will continue to track the progress of the Bill.
If you have any questions please get in touch with the contacts listed or your usual Bell Gully adviser.
1. Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, clause 4.
2. Clauses 4 and 33.
3. Clause 7.
4. The Amendment Bill, clause 8. This accounts for PCBUs with fluctuating workforces (e.g. seasonal workplaces) with the requirement that there be fewer than 20 workers for at least 9 out of 12 months of the year.
5. Clause 11.
6. Clause 11.
7. Clause 7.
8. Clause 12.
9. The Amendment Bill, Explanatory Note, at 3.
10. Clause 14.
11. Clause 14.
12. Clause 21.
13. Clause 21.
14. Clause 10.
15. Clause 29.
16. Clause 29.
17. Schedule 1, Part 3, clause 30.
18. Clause 24 and 34.
Disclaimer: This publication is necessarily brief and general in nature. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.
