Health and Safety reforms answer some questions, but pose more
2025 saw WorkSafe thrown into the spotlight by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The regulator was directed to shift its priorities away from enforcement and focus on supporting businesses through education and guidance. The Minister also signalled a series of amendments to come throughout the year.
The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was published in early February and gives us all some detail about changes in the pipeline. We take a look at whether the Bill might achieve the goal of getting businesses more focused on the risks that matter.
Focus on critical risks
The Bill puts the concept of “critical risk” front and centre. Critical risks are risks associated with a hazards that are likely to result in death, serious injury or illness, or certain other occupational diseases and hazards specific to particular industries.
This new approach to critical risks would require PCBUs to be proactive in monitoring a schedule to see whether any listed regulations and hazards apply to their work. PCBUs will also need to examine all their workplace hazards to consider whether they might lead to any of the serious outcomes.
At face value, the new focus on critical risks may help PCBUs to reassure themselves they are concentrating their resources in the right place and ultimately meeting their obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Having said this, it remains to be seen whether the new legislation will deliver sufficient precision and certainty and also avoid the problem of significant (but not necessarily “critical”) risks falling by the wayside and generating exposure in other areas of the business.
A bone for “small business”
The focus on critical risks will be particularly relevant to businesses meeting the definition of “small PCBU”: these will be required to manage only critical risks and to comply with limited obligations relating to providing information, supervision, training, instruction, and PPE to workers.
As an engine room of New Zealand’s economy, the definition of a “small PCBU” might be ripe for debate as the bill goes through consultation and refinement. At this stage, a “small PCBU” is proposed to be defined as a PCBU with fewer than 20 workers carrying out work in any capacity for at least nine months of the year.
One obvious difficulty here is the broad definition of “worker” in the Health and Safety at Work Act, which can include contractors and subcontractors as well employees. For PCBUs in the transport and logistics sector, considerations around whether they still meet the definition of a “small PCBU” could quickly become confusing.
Increase in approved codes of practice (ACOPs)
One potentially significant upside of the bill is its effort to expand the quality and availability of guidance through the use of ACOPs. ACOPs are essentially industry-specific, Minister-approved guidance which give specific detail about how to discharge duties under the legislation, in recognition of the Act’s duties generally being expressed very broadly. Compliance with ACOPs means PCBUs are deemed to have met their health and safety functions – referred to as a “safe harbour”.
PCBUs with established health and safety systems and industry organisations should see this indication about increasing the use of ACOPs as an opportunity to influence work practices and establish norms to benefit industry generally. While presenting that opportunity, this does pose something of a resourcing question: development of ACOPs will require some real elbow grease from industry leaders.
Innovation and technology in ACOPs
Engineering controls – methods of managing risk which aim to design human error out of human interactions with machinery – will likely be a key focus for WorkSafe and the Minister when assessing ACOPs.
In an ever-evolving technological landscape, we can see tools such as AI fatigue-monitoring systems, lane departure warnings, collision avoidance systems, and geo-fencing tech becoming increasingly embedded and expected by the regulator as the means by which PCBUs discharge their duties. Keeping ACOPs and other expectations current will prove challenging: an ACOP approved in 2026 might include engineering controls that within a few years might be totally out of date. Industry and the regulator will need to be careful about keeping ACOPs current and workable.
At a level of principle, the Bill’s goal of clarifying health and safety obligations is obviously to be welcomed. Likewise, the pathway for PCBUs to play an active role in setting standards for their industries through the ACOP process would allow for a wealth of industry knowledge and experience to be brought to the table in determining what these standards should be.
Key areas to monitor will be the Bill’s new foundational concepts – “critical risks” and “small PCBUs”. And in time, we see ACOP development as a potential game-changer.
For further advice, please contact a member of our health and safety team.
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.
