Pulling the Rug

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Feb 12, 2026

Ever since the current government of Aotearoa New Zealand took charge, it’s been threatening to reform health and safety legislation and regulations in New Zealand. With the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) earlier this week, they’ve made good on that promise.

This post provides a comprehensive look at the changes and some of the issues associated with the proposed changes.

In this post:

Background

In recent years, various sources have pointed to New Zealand’s shocking performance in workplace health and safety, including high death rates, high rates of experiences of work-related stress, anxiety, and depression, and unacceptable rates of work-related suicide. All at a massive cost to workers, whanau, businesses, and the economy.

Poor health and safety performance in New Zealand cost the country $5.4 billion in 2024, 1.3% of the country’s GDP.
Our workplace death rate is where Australia was 16 years ago, and where the United Kingdom was 40 years ago
Positively the number of workplace injuries is trending down, but time off work per injury has doubled in a decade.1

Despite these statistics, following an agreement to reform health and safety legislation during coalition negotiations that followed the 2023 general election, the government embarked on the process of that reform.

A key part of that process was an information-gathering exercise, comprised of a series of roadshows across the motu and an online consultation document, inviting interested parties to offer feedback. A summary of feedback from the 600+ attendees and 487 submitters is available online.

Read the Summary of Feedback

According to government officials, this feedback yielded the following themes:

a “need to increase certainty within the system, and reduce unnecessary compliance and red tape”
there “are discrete problems within the Act that require attention”; and
“a need for improvements to WorkSafe”2.

The Bill: Amendments & Issues

Minister for Workplace Relations, Brooke van Velden, took these themes and ran with them, drafting the Bill, which is intended to change the:

Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA)
WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013; and
Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016.

In doing so, the Bill has the following key objectives:

“reduce unnecessary compliance costs; and
increase certainty for businesses and organisations about what they need to do; and
support continued reductions in the incidence of workplace fatalities, injuries, and illnesses.”3

To achieve those objectives, the Bill introduces a whole raft of changes.

Let’s get critical

The Amendment

Some believe the current statutory framework is too broad and, consequently, “has led to confusion and overcompliance, and many PCBUs have found it difficult when…demonstrating compliance”4. In response, the Bill:

encourages PCBUs to prioritise ‘critical risks’; those “likely to result in a death, a notifiable injury, illness or incident or an occupational disease.”
makes it so PCBUs will have to check if workers’ mahi includes specific critical risks (listed in a new schedule) and check whether any other hazards at their work locations meet the new definition of a critical risk (referred to as a ‘catch-all test’); and
puts critical risks as the priority for both the main purpose of HSWA and WorkSafe.

The Issues

Taken at face value, a focus on critical risks is a good thing, but it’s really not that simple.

Many of the hazards we face at work wouldn’t meet the new proposed threshold but still cause significant harm. As the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management notes, the injuries arising from non-critical hazards (as defined by the Bill) “make up 75 percent [sic] of ACC’s work injury costs”5.

What is really hard to take is this only focus on critical risks (essential yes) but to continue to ignore the reasons why people are absent from work is really not going change anything or reduce costs…Acute injuries make up 11% of the burden of harm. What are we doing about musculoskeletal, psychosocial risks & mental health harm?6

A huge number of work-related injuries and illnesses - including serious ones - develop over time “through cumulative exposure, organisational pressure, fatigue, workload design, poor supervision, or psychosocial strain.”7

Putting the emphasis on critical risks - and prioritising their management above all else - encourages PCBUs to take their eye off the ball in terms of prevention, early intervention, and a proactive approach to health and safety.

Arguably, requiring PCBUs to assess every hazard according to the litmus test of a new definition of critical risk that includes a high degree of subjectivity (i.e., how likely serious harm is) adds compliance burden.

By narrowing the focus, the Bill risks reframing unmanaged harm as acceptable, rather than preventing it upstream.8

The little guy

The Amendment

Roughly a year ago, the Minister announced a ‘carve out’ for small businesses.

These businesses will only have to manage critical risks and provide basic facilities to ensure worker welfare.
For example, a small clothing shop would still need to provide first aid, emergency plans, and basic facilities, such as suitable lighting, but wouldn’t need to have a psychosocial harm policy in place.9

This is reflected in the Bill. Small PCBUs (i.e., those with less than 20 workers) will have to:

“comply with specified provisions only in relation to critical risks”10 (i.e., prioritise and manage critical risks only); and
give workers the bare minimum (i.e., “welfare facilities” and “information, supervision, training, instruction, and personal protective equipment”11).

All other PCBUs will still need to manage all risks, “but prioritise critical risks under all provisions”12.

The Issues

If we’re approaching health and safety purely from a cost-of-compliance perspective, then this amendment is fantastic. Small business owners around the country will be ecstatic about not having to worry about health and safety unless it’s going to kill or seriously injure their staff. And the savings - great!

But what about the 17-year-old facing a barrage of abuse from customers day in, day out? Or how about the boutique fashion shop worker who has to work in an environment where psychological safety is a myth? Are we really saying that it is ok to design into our legislation that it’s fine if a small PCBU does nothing about such scenarios?

The reality is that it doesn’t matter how big a business is: workers can still be exposed to the same hazards, regardless of how many people they work with. Creating a system where there’s one rule for some businesses, but a different rule for others on the basis of an arbitrary number is nonsensical. People working in a small business deserve to be able to go to work without being harmed in any way just as much as their colleagues in large businesses.

Saving money and reducing the (perceived) hassle of compliance is no excuse for sending the message that we should tolerate or accept non-critical risks in small business environments.

Risk does not scale neatly with organisational size. A small PCBU can expose workers to the same hazards, pressures, and psychosocial risks as a large one, sometimes with fewer buffers, less redundancy, and weaker governance.13

No big stick

The Amendment

The Bill explicitly notes that “a failure to prioritise critical risks as required is not a separate offence.”14 However, there is still room for such a failure to form part of a prosecution against a PCBU in failing to meet its obligations under HSWA.

The Issues

To be clear, this amendment would make it acceptable for a PCBU to say they are prioritising critical risks but, if they’re asked to show evidence of that, there is no consequence if they cannot. Under the Bill, a PCBU can hand-wave away some of its duties. With no consequence.

What is WorkSafe supposed to do in this scenario - say “well, we asked them to do as they’re told, but they wouldn’t listen” and then shrug their shoulders?

Fundamentally, this is one of the problems of undermining WorkSafe in the way the Minister has in the past year: enforcement is just as important as being a friendly advisor (and to be clear, it’s preposterous to set up the regulator to act as advisor and enforcer).

The system needs the threat of the stick to ensure workers don’t have to rely on a PCBU’s sense of ethics or willingness to do the right thing.

What do we do first?

The Amendment

The Bill also provides a definition of ‘prioritise’, to help PCBUs ensure they are putting the critical risks first. Essentially, this means:

assessing them and establishing controls for them first
reviewing/monitoring controls more often; and
putting more resources (i.e., a greater proportion) of health and safety resources into managing those risks.

The Issue

I’m a writer; of course I like a clear definition. But, as others have noted, what’s the point of a requirement - however well-defined - that can’t be enforced?

Still confused?

The Bill also seeks to help out businesses by clearing up (what some say are) the “WTF?” aspects of health and safety.

Pick a law, any law

The Amendment

Under a new version of Clause 35 of HSWA, if there’s another enactment that has risk management requirements, and a PCBU meets those requirements, then it’s taken as read that they’re meeting the corresponding HSWA obligations.

The Issues

It feels like those who complain about ‘the confusion’ of having two related enactments are missing the point. HSWA sets out the requirements for PCBU doing whatever it can to protect and promote worker’s health and safety; a related enactment may completely ignore those requirements. This is even called out in the Bill.

New section 35… applies if a person is subject to—
a duty imposed by or under the HSW Act…to manage a specified risk (regardless of whether the person is also subject to specific duties in regulations); and
1 or more requirements imposed by another enactment…in relation to the same subject matter, regardless of whether the purpose of the external requirements is to manage risk to work health and safety [my emphasis].15

Call me stupid, but surely there will be instances where the question “what else should I do to ensure my workers are safe and healthy?” needs to be asked, regardless of whether other requirements are met.

This amendment fundamentally undermines HSWA and weakens any imperative for continuous improvement.

Free roamin’…even on shaky ground

The Amendments

If a PCBU manages or controls land, under the Bill, they “do not owe any duties to those lawfully accessing the land for recreational purposes”. Unless it’s associated with the PCBU’s mahi. Or there’s work going on at the same place and time.

In addition, an amendment to s37 means that, if a building is earthquake-prone and the PCBU is meeting its obligations under the Building Act 2004, they don’t have to worry about HSWA requirements.

The Issues

Smarter people than me have flagged the problems with these ‘let’s-stop-over-reach’ amendments.

As presented, the Bill will “fragment responsibility across regimes…assume compliance equals safety [and]…rely on technical thresholds rather than lived risk”16.

When responsibility becomes unclear, prevention weakens. History shows that fragmented accountability rarely delivers better safety outcomes.17

Speak now, or forever hold your peace

The Amendment

The Bill offers more guidance - including new examples - on when a PCBU needs to notify a regulator about a serious workplace event.

The Issues

None - making it clear when a PCBU needs to notify a regulator is a good thing.

An officer and a gentleman?

The Amendment

Apparently, current requirements for officers’ duties are terribly ambiguous. An amendment to s44 will clear that up.

New subsection (4) [their emphasis] provides that, if a person is both an officer and a worker, their duty as an officer is limited to their role as an officer. New subsection (5) [their emphasis] replaces the definition of due diligence for the purposes of an officer’s duty. The new definition reorganises the definition into themes… requires the officer’s understanding of hazards and risks to be up to date, [sic] and requires the officer to have an up to date understanding of work health and safety matters as they relate to the business or undertaking rather than more broadly.18

Translation: officers’ duties will now be restricted to governance roles and changes “the current inclusive definition of due diligence steps into an exhaustive definition”19.

The Issues

As others have noted, to an extent this one’s a solution in search of a problem. As Matt Jones has identified: those “who were disengaged before are unlikely to suddenly change behaviour because of reframed obligations.”20

However, there’s a risk officers will treat their due diligence as box-ticking (unironically, a strict compliance exercise); it does nothing to ensure officers are actively engaged in ensuring the PCBU is meeting its obligations.

[The change] weakens expectations that officers engage deeply with emerging and non-traditional risks, including psychosocial harm.21

The writing is (not) on the wall

The Amendments

A long-standing gripe in Aotearoa is a lack of clear and/or up-to-date advice that gives PCBUs consistent, written guidance. There are many reasons for why this isn’t in place.

The Bill seeks to address this by facilitating the development of Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) - the resources that provide explicit guidance on how a PCBU can meet its obligations in a given sector. Under the amendments, alongside regulators, others will be able to draft ACOPs.

The Bill “allows other persons or organisations (including worker or employer representatives, or representatives of a particular industry or sector) to develop and submit draft codes of practice to the regulator.”22

Alongside this change, while ACOPs remain non-binding in nature, if the PCBU abides by a specific ACOP for one or more risks, this will be treated as though they have met their obligations. Aside from two specific resources - written in 2024 and 2025 - this ‘safe harbour’ status only applies to those ACOPs written after the law comes into effect.

The Issues

As I’ve said earlier, greater clarity for all stakeholders is not a bad thing. It’s important to note MBIE’s comments in its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) that “most generally understand their health and safety obligations well”23 (it’s ambiguous, but the authors are presumably to “most” of those who provided feedback).

One of the criticisms from some is that “the process of developing new ACOPs can be slow and arduous”24. Fundamentally, the Bill only changes the first step of this process (who can draft an ACOP); given this - and the fact all requirements for approving an ACOP still need to be met - it’s unclear how this change will speed up the process or make it any less arduous.

Furthermore, the initial RIS was given a ‘partially meets’ label for meeting quality assurance requirements. This was because the argument that ACOP amendments (alongside other changes) will achieve the stated objectives of the Bill “are less well-developed”25.

While ACOPs can provide improved clarity (for the apparently small number who need it), their use skews risk management from a dynamic, responsive process to a box-ticking exercise that focuses on minimum compliance.

Finally, there’s a worrying white elephant:

ACOPs, by nature, lag behind evolving work practices, technology, and emerging risks, particularly psychosocial risk. Granting them deemed compliance status risks entrenching outdated controls as legally sufficient.26

I shot the sheriff

The Amendment

Under the Bill, the functions of WorkSafe and related regulators have been amended. Under this change, s10 of the WorkSafe Act 2013 and s190 of HSWA will explicitly identify the functions of a regulator as:

providing “guidance, advice, and information on compliance”
developing “safe work instruments”; and
monitoring and enforcing compliance with legislation.

All other functions will “remain as additional functions”27.

The Issues

When changes to WorkSafe’s focus were announced in mid-2025, alarms sounded around a softening of the regulator’s approach and the signals this sends to businesses.

In many years of writing about workers killed at work, I’ve seen no evidence that a kinder and less punitive regulator would have helped keep those workers alive. Indeed, there is considerable evidence that such an approach contributes directly to the avoidable deaths of workers.28

Let’s be clear: no one is suggesting an either/or situation; everyone agrees that WorkSafe needs to balance advice and support with enforcement. These amendments don’t do this - they send a clear signal of a hierarchy of focus areas and, in doing so, swings the pendulum too far in the other direction.

Importantly, while the RIS makes reference to feedback expressing dissatisfaction with WorkSafe’s operations, there is no analysis of the effects of the amendments within that resource. Similarly, throughout the reform process, the Minister has failed to put forth any evidence that such a change will fundamentally improve the nation’s approach to health and safety.

These changes blunt the teeth of an already-under-resourced regulator. PCBUs will be empowered to do less and/or the bare minimum because it knows the threshold for enforcement is so much higher. This is doubly concerning when taken alongside:

a lack of consequence for not prioritising critical risks
limitations on what PCBUs need to focus on; and
changes proposed under the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2025.

A strong regulator should be able to educate, set standards, and guide PCBUs toward better practice. But there is also a risk that by formalising this softer identity, the pendulum swings too far. When a regulator is positioned primarily as a helper rather than an enforcer [their emphasis], it can unintentionally invert the accountability structure [sic] and the tail can quickly start wagging the dog.29

A Litany of Issues

No one denies our health and safety framework needs to be improved. Work-related deaths, illness, and injury statistics bear that out, even before you get to business’ frustrations with compliance processes.

This Bill is not the way to achieve those improvements.

PCBUs may have greater certainty, sure, but at what cost? It’s not appropriate that workers are put at risk just so it’s a bit easier for businesses to meet their obligations.

In any case, arguably, the Bill doesn’t provide the improvements some are calling for. PCBUs will need to exercise judgement in their interpretation of hazards and risks, including how ‘likely’ serious harm is. At the same time, the risk of ACOPs not keeping pace with industry and/or hazard and risk developments remains high.

Speaking on behalf of the NZISM, veteran expert Mike Cosman said it best:

We see this as a significant missed opportunity to improve New Zealand’s patchy record on health and safety…

These changes are likely to increase harm to workers, families, businesses, communities along with cost blowouts for the Government books in ACC, health and welfare.30

What can you do?

In short - have your say. Overnight, the Minister celebrated the passing of the first reading of the Bill.

Now this (unfortunate) milestone has passed, the Bill will progress to the select committee stage, during which you can make a submission on the amendments.

We’ll be sure to let you know when this process opens - keep an eye out in our updates and/or other articles.