Changes to health and safety law – 1 April 2027
The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill passed its third reading on 30 June 2026 and received Royal Assent in July 2026 as the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026.
From 1 April 2027, it will amend the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013, and the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016.
The Amendment Act makes what we consider to be the most significant changes to New Zealand’s work health and safety regime since HSWA came into force in 2016.
Until 1 April 2027, PCBUs (Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking) must continue to comply fully with HSWA as it currently stands.
The key changes
A system built around “critical risk”
The HSWA’s main purpose will be to provide a balanced framework that prioritises the management of critical risks to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces.
WorkSafe’s main objective is aligned with that focus, and HSWA will also expressly seek to give PCBUs certainty about the scope of their obligations.
HSWA’s guiding principle remains unchanged: workers and other persons should be given the highest level of protection against harm that is reasonably practicable.
A “critical risk” is a risk associated with a hazard described in the new Schedule 1A of HSWA, or with any other hazard likely to result in death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident, or an occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
WorkSafe describes these as risks likely to cause death, serious injury, serious illness or long term harm.
One important clarification made during the Bill’s passage concerns the phrase “likely to result”. The inquiry is directed at the consequences if an incident or accident occurs, rather than the likelihood of the event itself occurring.
A psychosocial hazard may therefore constitute a critical risk where it meets the statutory consequences test, including where it is likely to result in a notifiable mental-health injury or illness.
Two tiers of duty: small PCBUs and other PCBUs
The Amendment Act introduces a statutory category of “small PCBU”: a PCBU with fewer than 20 workers for at least nine months of a financial year.
• For the risk-management duties whose scope is altered by the Amendment Act, small PCBUs will generally be required to manage critical risks rather than all risks. They must also prioritise critical risk when complying with other applicable HSWA and regulatory obligations.
• Small PCBUs are not exempt from HSWA. Other obligations remain; after including applicable worker welfare, engagement, notification and workplace requirements. WorkSafe has specifically noted the continuing need to provide welfare facilities such as first aid, washing facilities and adequate lighting.
• PCBUs that are not small PCBUs must continue to manage all risks and must prioritise critical risks when complying with their duties. WorkSafe explains that this includes giving critical risks priority when allocating time, money and resources.
The interaction duty in section 34 is also amended. Section 34 will continue to regulate how PCBUs with duties in relation to the same matter interact, but the statutory wording changes and expressly requires it does not lower the reasonable-officer standard within that scope. co-operation between them.
The Amendment Act does not remove the practical allocation and coordination issues that arise in multi PCBU workplaces.
A large PCBU may contractually require a small PCBU to meet broader health and safety standards or to provide information and assistance concerning non-critical risks. That contractual allocation does not alter the scope of either party’s statutory duties or permit a PCBU to transfer its legal responsibilities.
Officers’ duties clarified
Section 44 is amended to clarify how due diligence applies where a person is both an officer and a worker of the same PCBU.
The amended provision distinguishes between conduct undertaken in the person’s capacity as an officer and conduct undertaken in their capacity as a worker. The officer duty is directed to governance, leadership and oversight, rather than day-to-day operational work undertaken in the worker capacity.
Officers must continue to understand the PCBU’s operations and associated hazards and risks, ensure that appropriate resources and processes are available and used, and verify compliance.
In our view, although the amendment clarifies and may narrow the capacity in which the officer duty applies, The High Court’s decision in Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813 is an important reminder that an officer’s duty is measured against the reasonable steps required in the circumstances.
The Court dismissed the former chief executive’s conviction and sentence appeals in a case concerning failures to ensure and verify adequate controls around crane exclusion zones.
The decision reinforces the importance of testing whether critical controls work in practice, rather than relying only on policies, systems or good intentions.
The distinction between strategic oversight and operational activity will remain fact-sensitive.
Overlapping statutory regimes
Amended section 35 provides for deemed compliance where a PCBU complies with a requirement in another enactment that manages the same risk, subject to the terms and limits of the provision.
Potentially relevant regimes include the Building Act 2004, Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Land Transport Act 1998.
PCBUs should check that the other enactment addresses the same risk and that its requirements have in fact been met before relying on section 35.
Approved Codes of Practice become a statutory safe harbour
At present, an approved code of practice (ACOP) may be used as evidence in proceedings. Under the amended regime, a PCBU that follows the actions in an applicable ACOP that are relevant to its role and circumstances will be treated as having complied with the corresponding legal duty or requirement.
The new deemed-compliance provision applies to ACOPs approved under the amended regime and to existing ACOPs expressly specified by the Amendment Act.
Other existing ACOPs remain available as evidence of compliance but do not attract the new statutory safe harbour.
Because the exact title and status of an ACOP matter, PCBUs should verify the approved version and commencement position before relying on it.
The new process also allows persons and organisations outside the regulator, including industry, worker and employer organisations, to develop and submit draft ACOPs for regulatory assessment and potential ministerial approval.
Other changes
The workplace management duties are narrowed in relation to recreational users of land, subject to statutory exceptions where the recreational activity forms part of the business or undertaking, or relevant work is being carried out at the same time and place.
Notification requirements are clarified, and regulators’ functions are reprioritised towards guidance, the development and review of ACOPs and Safe Work Instruments, and monitoring and enforcement.
Our view
Narrowing a duty does not narrow the underlying risk
A reduced statutory obligation does not reduce what can go wrong. Nor does it remove contractual, insurance, common law, employment or ACC consequences.
A small PCBU that scales its systems
Overlapping PCBU duties remain a practical issue
back to the statutory floor may still fall short of contractual commitments, industry expectations or prudent risk management.
The small-PCBU threshold requires careful assessment
The Act retains HSWA’s broad definition of “worker”. Depending on the working arrangements, the count may extend beyond employees on payroll to contractors, subcontractors and people working through them.
Businesses should apply the statutory definition carefully rather than relying solely on employee headcount.
The nine-month test also means that fluctuating or seasonal workforces require attention.
PCBUs should assess their status well before 1 April 2027 and repeat that assessment at least annually and after material workforce changes.
Classification is itself a compliance exercise
Every PCBU will need to identify which hazards meet the critical risk test based on what it knows, or reasonably ought to know, about its work.
That front end classification exercise may be demanding, particularly for smaller organisations without specialist capability.
The classification should be reasoned, recorded and revisited when the work, available knowledge or applicable Schedule 1A requirements change.
ACOPs may be a game changer, but only where one applies
The statutory safe harbour is potentially the most practically valuable reform. Its usefulness will depend on whether an applicable ACOP exists and whether the PCBU has followed the relevant actions for its role and circumstances.
It is not a blanket answer to every issue addressed by a code.
The industry led pathway creates an opportunity to put operational knowledge into recognised standards.
Developing an ACOP takes substantial effort. However, codes must be maintained as work practices, risks and technology change.
Sector bodies seeking greater certainty should consider starting development work now and building in a formal review cycle.
The reforms clarify the boundary between HSWA and other enactments, but they do not eliminate practical complexity where several PCBUs have duties in relation to the same matter.
Principals are likely to continue carrying a significant coordination burden and may set contractual standards above the statutory minimum.
Small PCBUs should not assume that the minimum scope of their HSWA risk-management duties will define every contractual or commercial expectation placed on them.
Industry criticism
The reforms attracted sustained opposition from parts of the health and safety profession.
In its March 2026 submission, the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management (NZISM) said the Bill should not proceed without major changes.
Its concerns included the small PCBU carve-out, the definition and prioritisation of critical risk, the interaction with other enactments, and the legal status of ACOPs.
Other business, worker and professional bodies also raised concerns during the legislative process, particularly about whether reducing the scope of duties for small PCBUs would create unequal protection and whether the critical risk framework would simplify compliance in practice.
Those views should be read alongside the Government’s stated objectives of reducing unnecessary compliance costs, increasing certainty and maintaining progress in reducing workplace harm.
What happens next
The commencement date shifted during the legislative process: from immediately after Royal Assent in the Bill as introduced, to 1 November 2026 as recommended by the select committee, and finally to 1 April 2027 in the enacted Act.
As a general election is scheduled before then, the reforms may remain politically contested.
Businesses should monitor further legislative and policy announcements.
There is an obvious temptation to wait and see. We would caution against it.
WorkSafe guidance is still being developed, and the preparatory work the Act calls for identifying your critical risks, confirming whether you meet the small PCBU definition, reviewing officer governance processes and checking which ACOPs apply to your sector improves your position under the current Act whatever happens in November.
Recommended actions before 1 April 2027
- Identify the organisation’s hazards and determine which meet the amended critical risk test.
- Confirm whether the organisation qualifies as a small PCBU, applying the statutory worker definition and 9 of 12 month test.
- Review officer due diligence processes, with particular attention to assurance and verification of critical controls.
- Map overlapping statutory regimes and identify where amended section 35 may apply.
- Review contracts between PCBUs to ensure responsibilities, information sharing and expected safety standards are clear.
- Identify applicable ACOPs and verify whether they will attract the new deemed compliance protection.
- Monitor WorkSafe guidance, Schedule 1A and any further legislative or policy developments
If you have any questions, please contact a member of our national health and safety team at Duncan Cotterill.
Special thanks to Partner Olivia Lund and Senior Associate Sanja Marin for preparing this article.
Disclaimer: The content of this article is general in nature and not intended as a substitute for specific professional advice on any matter and should not be relied upon for that purpose.
