Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill
The departmental disclosure statement for a government Bill seeks to bring together in one place a range of information to support and enhance the Parliamentary and public scrutiny of that Bill.
It identifies:
· the general policy intent of the Bill and other background policy material;
· some of the key quality assurance products and processes used to develop and test the content of the Bill;
· the presence of certain significant powers or features in the Bill that might be of particular Parliamentary or public interest and warrant an explanation.
This disclosure statement was prepared by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment certifies that, to the best of its knowledge and understanding, the information provided is complete and accurate at the date of finalisation below.
28 January 2026
Part One: General Policy Statement
The Bill amends the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (the HSW Act), the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013 (the WorkSafe Act), and the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016.
The objectives of the Bill are to—
· 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.
The Bill seeks to achieve these objectives by focusing the work health and safety system on critical risks, clarifying areas of confusion, creating greater certainty through strengthening approved codes of practice (ACOPs), and prioritising regulators’ functions.
Work health and safety system
The HSW Act applies broadly and is performance based. The duties in the HSW Act are intentionally broad to ensure coverage of all types of risks, business structures, and working arrangements. The HSW Act places the primary duty of care on a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU). Each PCBU judges what actions are reasonably practicable to manage the risks arising from its work. The work health and safety system relies on the regulator and legislation (the HSW Act and regulations made under it), safe work instruments, ACOPs, and guidance to provide PCBUs with more detail about how to meet their duties for specific risks or activities.
The WorkSafe Act establishes WorkSafe New Zealand as the primary work health and safety regulator and sets out its objectives and functions and its more specific powers and duties. Other agencies can be designated under the HSW Act to be the work health and safety regulator for a particular industry, sector, or type of work or circumstance. There are currently 2 designated agencies: Maritime New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Focusing the system on critical risks
The work health and safety system requires PCBUs to manage all their risks. The broad nature of PCBUs’ general duties has led to confusion and overcompliance, and many PCBUs have found it difficult when engaging with, and demonstrating compliance to, regulators.
Focusing the system on critical risks is designed to direct attention and resources towards preventing serious workplace harms and away from more minor issues.
Sharpening the purpose of HSW Act and WorkSafe Act
To signal the overall intent of the health and safety reform to focus the system on critical risks, the Bill amends the main purpose of the HSW Act and WorkSafe’s objectives under the WorkSafe Act to explicitly prioritise critical risks.
Defining “critical risk”
The Bill adds a new definition of critical risk. Critical risk is defined as a risk that is associated with—
· a hazard to which certain regulations apply, with those regulations and hazards set out in new Schedule 1A of the HSW Act; or
· a hazard of any kind that is likely to result in a death, a notifiable injury, illness or incident (as defined in sections 23 and 24 of the HSW Act), or an occupational disease (as defined in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001).
The first step for a PCBU is to check whether any of the regulations and hazards in new Schedule 1A apply to their work. The second step is a catch-all test, which the PCBU must use to check whether they have any other hazards associated with critical risks (likelihood of death, notifiable injury or illness, etc).
When making those assessments, the PCBU is required to take into account what they know, or ought to reasonably to know, about their business or undertaking and the potential risks from the hazards in their work or workplace. For the catch-all test, the PCBU must consider whether the hazard is likely to result in one of the serious outcomes specified in the test. If Yes, then the risk is a critical risk.
The Bill enables new Schedule 1A to be amended by an Order in Council in response to future changes to relevant regulations. New Schedule 1A needs to be kept up to date so that people can readily understand what is a critical risk and therefore the scope of core aspects of the HSW Act.
The Bill limits the power to amend new Schedule 1A to an amendment that relates to a hazard that is consistent with the Bill’s definition of critical risk as provided in the catch all test for critical risk. A hazard can be removed from the schedule only if the hazard is not of a kind described in the catch-all test.
Clarifying duties relating to critical risks
Small PCBUs are required to manage only critical risks under their duties (see sections 36 to 43 of the HSW Act) and under the requirements in the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016 to provide information, supervision, training, instruction, and personal protective equipment, and to ensure that personal protective equipment is worn or used.
Small PCBUs must continue to provide worker welfare facilities such as adequate lighting, washing facilities, and first aid in full.
Small PCBUs must prioritise critical risks over other risks when complying with other provisions.
All other PCBUs—those that are not small—must manage all risks but prioritise critical risks under all provisions.
The Bill does not create an offence for failure to prioritise critical risks.
To assist PCBUs to understand how to prioritise critical risks, the Bill provides a definition of “prioritise” in relation to critical risks.
Defining small PCBU
The Bill adds a new definition of small PCBU to the HSW Act. A small PCBU is one that has fewer than 20 workers. The definition accounts for a PCBU with a fluctuating workforce (eg, seasonal workers), with the basic requirement that there are fewer than 20 workers for at least 9 out of 12 months.
Clarifying areas of confusion
Clarifying overlaps with other legislation
Overlaps between the HSW Act and other systems that manage health and safety risks have resulted in some PCBUs thinking that the HSW Act requires them to do more to manage a specific risk than is required by another system, even if there is another system that manages that risk.
The Bill clarifies that, if a person complies with relevant requirements under other legislation to manage a risk, they must be treated as having complied with the relevant duty under the HSW Act. This reinforces that the focus of the HSW Act is on work-related health and safety—not public health or public safety—and it is not intended to be a “backstop” health and safety system. An example is included to illustrate an area of overlap with the maritime safety regulatory system.
Clarifying duties relating to recreational use of land
The section 37 duty of a PCBU who manages or controls a workplace has been associated with some confusion among landowners as to whether they are responsible for health and safety risks to people they allow onto their land for recreational purposes. This has resulted in some landowners, both private and public (for instance farmers, councils, and schools) being reluctant to allow people to do things such as walk or ride horses on their land.
The Bill clarifies that PCBUs who manage or control a workplace that includes open space do not owe any duties to those lawfully accessing the land for recreational purposes, unless the recreation is connected with the PCBU’s work or the PCBU has other work happening at the same place and at the same time as the recreational users are present. For instance, a farmer does not owe a section 37 duty to people they allow to walk across parts of their land where and when no farming work is happening.
Section 37 is also amended to create a new exception that relates to workplace buildings and seismic risk regulated under the Building Act 2004. The provision clarifies that, where a building is an earthquake-prone building (an EPB) and the owner is meeting their Building Act 2004 obligations, the PCBU (owner or tenant) has no further duties under section 37. If the owner is non-compliant, the usual reasonably practicable duty applies. For buildings that are not EPBs, no action is required under section 37.
Clarifying officers’ duties
An officer of a PCBU includes a director, a partner, or anyone who exercises significant influence over the management of the business or undertaking. The officer duty is intended as a governance duty requiring due diligence to ensure that the PCBU meets its health and safety obligations. There has been some ambiguity about the extent of the duty, especially when an officer also has other roles in the PCBU, such as chief executives, owner-operators or partners.
To address this ambiguity, the Bill clarifies that an officer’s duty does not extend to activities they perform in another role within a PCBU. To reinforce that an officer duty applies to governance only, the Bill changes the current open (inclusive) list of due diligence steps into an exhaustive list of the due diligence steps required to meet the officer duty, and re-expresses some of the steps.
Clarifying notification requirements
PCBUs must notify the regulator of significant workplace events (deaths, serious injuries, serious illnesses, and incidents that expose the work or others to serious risks).
The Bill adds definitions and examples to clarify what types of events must be notified.
Strengthening approved codes of practice
ACOPs set out standards for how duty holders can comply with the HSW Act and regulations by providing the detail on how to meet the standard of “reasonably practicable” in managing specific risks. However, relatively few have been developed since the HSW Act came into force and most existing ACOPs were carried over from the previous Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992.
The HSW Act specifies that the regulators develop the draft codes of practice and submit these to the responsible Minister for approval. The Minister may approve the draft only if satisfied that the legislated requirements for consultation with unions, employer organisations, and other affected persons and organisations have been met. The same applies to amendments to, and revocations of, ACOPs.
The Bill retains the function of the regulators in developing ACOPs but also 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. The regulator must review these drafts, may amend them, and may recommend them to the Minister for approval. The regulator may not recommend approval to the Minister unless the regulator has ensured that the legislative consultation requirements have been met. The same applies to amendments to, and revocations of, ACOPs.
Under the HSW Act, ACOPs are admissible as evidence of compliance. The Bill strengthens this provision by providing that, if a person acts in accordance with an ACOP for a specific risk, they are deemed to have complied with their duty for managing that risk.
The use of ACOPs remains non-binding; a person can still demonstrate compliance through other means.
Any ACOP approved after commencement of the Bill will be afforded the new “safe harbour” status. Most of the existing ACOPs were not drafted with this status in mind, and the Bill provides, therefore, that only the 2 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 operations (2025), will be afforded safe harbour status from commencement. Other ACOPs will retain their current status until reviewed and reapproved by the Minister.
Prioritising regulators’ functions
The HSW Act and the WorkSafe Act set out the functions of the regulators, with no indication as to whether any functions should be prioritised. While these functions reflect the necessarily broad scope of the regulators’ roles, the lack of prioritisation in the legislation has not supported regulator decisions on how to balance their assistance and enforcement roles.
To prioritise the existing functions of WorkSafe, the Bill reorganises section 10 of the WorkSafe Act and sets WorkSafe’s main functions as being to—
· provide guidance, advice, and information on compliance with relevant health and safety legislation:
· develop, review, and recommend codes of practice:
· develop safe work instruments:
· monitor and enforce compliance with relevant health and safety legislation.
WorkSafe’s other existing functions remain as additional functions.
Section 190 of the HSW Act sets out the functions of designated agencies (currently Maritime New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority). These functions replicate section 10 of the WorkSafe Act, except that WorkSafe has several additional functions as the primary regulator.
The Bill applies the same prioritisation to the functions of the designated regulators as is the case with WorkSafe.
Commencement
The Bill will commence on the day after Royal assent.
Part Two: Background Material and Policy Information
Published reviews or evaluations
|
2.1. Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill? |
YES |
|
As part of the policy development process the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety led a Government consultation seeking feedback on what is working well, and where improvements can be made. This consultation featured the Minister undertaking a series of roadshow meetings across 11 towns and cities, 23 meetings and 15 site visits, inviting discussion and feedback from over 600 attendees. A consultation document and online survey was also released, seeking feedback on the purpose and performance of the work health and safety regulatory system, across five focus areas covering different parts of the work health and safety system. 487 submitters responded. Key themes were there is need to increase certainty within the system and reduce unnecessary compliance and red tape, discrete problems within the Act require attention, and there is need for improvements to WorkSafe. A summary of feedback from Roadshow meetings and submissions to the Public Consultation can be found at: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/30982-have-your-say-on-work-health-and-safety-summary-of-feedback-from-roadshow-meetings-and-submissions-to-the-public-consultation-june-to-october-2024-pdf A detailed summary of feedback from roadshow meetings can be found at: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/30938-have-your-say-on-work-health-and-safety-detailed-summary-of-feedback-from-roadshow-meetings-june-to-october-2024 |
|
Relevant international treaties
|
2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill? |
YES |
|
The following Regulatory Impact Statements were prepared: · Regulatory Impact Statement: Work Health and Safety Reforms, The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 12 March 2025. · Regulatory Impact Statement: Work Health and Safety Reforms – Further Policy Decisions on the Reform Bill, authorised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 20 May 2025. The RISs are accessible at: |
|
|
|
|
|
2.3.1. If so, did the RIA Team in the Ministry for Regulation provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements? |
YES |
|
A panel comprising officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Regulation reviewed each Regulatory Impact Statement and provided the following ratings, in relation to the quality assurance standard: · Regulatory Impact Statement: Work Health and Safety Reforms: partially meets. · Regulatory Impact Statement: Work Health and Safety Reforms – Further Policy Decisions on the Reform Bill: partially meets. |
|
|
|
|
|
2.3.2. Are there aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill that were not addressed by, or that now vary materially from, the policy options analysed in these regulatory impact statements? |
YES |
|
Two aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill were not explicitly addressed in the regulatory impact statements previously considered by Cabinet and represent limited refinements that arose during drafting. First, the Bill includes a change to limit the application of the upstream duties in sections 39 to 43 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 for small PCBUs so that, when these duties apply, they are required to be complied with only in respect of critical risks. The regulatory impact statements did not analyse an option to limit the scope of these upstream duties in this way. Previous regulatory analysis and departmental advice assumed that the limitation to critical risks would apply only to the general duties in sections 36, 37, and 38, with upstream duties continuing to apply to small PCBUs subject to a requirement to prioritise critical risks over other risks. During drafting, it became apparent that leaving the upstream duties outside the express limitation to critical risks for small PCBUs could create uncertainty for small duty holders about the scope of their obligations and cut across Cabinet’s intent to simplify and clarify duties for small businesses. In practice, the risks addressed by these upstream duties are overwhelmingly those that are likely to result in death, serious injury or illness, notifiable incidents, or occupational disease if not properly managed. As such, they will almost always meet the definition of “critical risk” as provided in the Bill. Secondly, the Bill will include an express clarification of a PCBU’s duty in relation to seismic risk affecting workplace buildings, where the building owner is complying with their obligations under subpart 6A of Part 2 of the Building Act 2004 relating to earthquake‑prone buildings. The regulatory impact analysis addressed the policy intent of avoiding duplication and overlap between the HSW Act and other legislative regimes and referenced earthquake‑prone buildings as an example of this approach. During drafting, this clarification was more explicitly codified by inserting a targeted exception in section 37 of the HSW Act. This change gives legislative effect to the policy intent already agreed by Cabinet and does not introduce new policy effects beyond those contemplated in the regulatory impact statements. |
|
Extent of impact analysis available
Part Three: Testing of Legislative Content
Consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations
|
3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations? |
|
The proposals being introduced in the Bill have been assessed by both the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade against New Zealand’s International Labour Organization (ILO) and international trade obligations. The 1981 ILO Occupational Safety and Health convention imposes a general obligation to develop a general duty on employers to, so far is reasonably practicable, ensure safety at the level of an undertaking. MBIE’s view is that the convention leaves ambiguity about the nature of the risks a general duty should cover, and that states are enabled to adopt a national view on this. Other jurisdictions have included thresholds around materiality of risk in enforcing any general duty (with more limitations than what is being proposed, such as requirements to keep risks as “low as reasonably practicable”). While MBIE considers the proposed exclusion is arguably consistent with the convention, given the lack of ILO guidance or precedent on this specific topic, it will depend on the ILO’s view of the materiality threshold in the Bill and there is potential for the ILO to take a different position. MBIE does not consider that risk to be material. Nevertheless, there is potential for a complaint to the ILO about the compliance of the proposed small PCBU duty limitation. The Convention requires social partners to be consulted on regulation for implementing health and safety policies. Taking the Bill through the Select Committee process will provide these consultation opportunities. |
Consistency with the government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations
|
3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? |
|
During the policy development, we considered whether the Bill was likely to raise any issues and concluded that it was unlikely to raise Treaty of Waitangi interests. |
Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
|
3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990? |
NO |
|
Assessment of the Bill’s consistency with the Bill of Rights Act is in progress. |
|
Offences, penalties and court jurisdictions
|
3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove: |
|
|
(a) offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)? |
NO |
|
(b) the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill? |
YES |
|
As noted in 2.1, a public consultation took place seeking feedback on what is working well, and where improvements can be made in the work health and safety system. Summaries can be found at: · A summary of feedback from Roadshow meetings and submissions to the Public Consultation: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/30982-have-your-say-on-work-health-and-safety-summary-of-feedback-from-roadshow-meetings-and-submissions-to-the-public-consultation-june-to-october-2024-pdf · A detailed summary of feedback from roadshow meetings: https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/30938-have-your-say-on-work-health-and-safety-detailed-summary-of-feedback-from-roadshow-meetings-june-to-october-2024 Targeted consultation on policy issues was done with the following agencies: Department of Internal Affairs (Local Government and Community and Volunteers), Department of Conservation, Ministry of Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Ministry for Primary Industries (Rural Policy), Ministry for Regulation, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Building Performance and Resilience, and Small Business and Manufacturing), WorkSafe New Zealand, Civil Aviation Authority, Maritime New Zealand, the Treasury, and the Ministry of Health. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was informed. The work health and safety regulators, WorkSafe New Zealand, Maritime New Zealand and the Civil Aviation Authority, were consulted on policy issues and the draft Bill. |
|
|
3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete? |
YES |
|
As noted in response to 3.6, the Bill’s drafting has been tested for workability with WorkSafe New Zealand, Maritime New Zealand, and the Civil Aviation Authority as the regulators who will implement this proposal. |
|
Part Four: Significant Legislative Features
Compulsory acquisition of private property
|
4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property? |
NO |
|
|
|
Charges in the nature of a tax
|
4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively? |
NO |
|
|
|
Strict liability or reversal of the usual burden of proof for offences
|
4.4. Does this Bill: |
|
|
(a) create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence? |
NO |
|
(b) reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person? |
NO |
|
|
|
Significant decision-making powers
|
4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests? |
NO |
|
|
|
Powers to make delegated legislation
Any other unusual provisions or features
|
4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment? |
NO |
|
|
|