Summary of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill Select Committee Report

Executive summary

The Education and Workforce Committee recommends, by majority, that the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be passed, with all recommended amendments also made by majority. The bill’s stated aim is to improve New Zealand’s work health and safety system by reducing unnecessary compliance costs and making clearer what businesses and organisations must do. It does this by refocusing the system on critical risks, clarifying drafting, strengthening approved codes of practice, and prioritising regulator functions.

The committee’s core rationale is that the bill should make health and safety duties more targeted and clearer, especially for PCBUs, while preserving mechanisms for worker protection, regulatory guidance, and legal certainty. However, the Green Party and Labour Party dissent strongly, arguing the bill weakens worker protections, especially for small businesses, psychosocial risks, and overlapping regulatory duties.

Main decisions and rationale

1. Commencement delayed to 1 November 2026, except ACOP court-use provisions

The bill as introduced would have commenced the day after Royal assent. The committee recommends delaying most of the Act until 1 November 2026.

The rationale is practical implementation. Regulators will need time to update guidance for PCBUs, and affected parties need time to prepare. The committee also says implementation will require a culture change in the sector, so it encourages WorkSafe to provide guidance before moving to compliance and enforcement.

The exception is clauses 29 and 30, concerning the use of approved codes of practice in court proceedings. Those provisions would still commence the day after Royal assent because the committee considers they do not require the same lead-in time.

2. Purpose clause amended to make PCBU management of critical risks explicit

The bill replaces the purpose statement in the Health and Safety at Work Act. The introduced wording said the Act would provide a balanced framework that prioritises critical risks. The committee recommends adding that this includes prioritising the management of those risks by PCBUs.

The rationale is that merely saying the framework prioritises critical risks was not specific enough. The committee wants the Act’s purpose to make clear that PCBUs themselves must prioritise management of critical risks. It also recommends a corresponding change to WorkSafe’s objectives under the WorkSafe New Zealand Act.

3. “Critical risk” definition clarified

A central feature of the bill is the concept of critical risk. The committee says submitters indicated the definition needed clarification.

The committee recommends clarifying that, when determining whether a risk is critical, the relevant test is not how likely the risk is to occur. Instead, the test is whether, if the risk occurs, it is likely to result in serious harm such as death, notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident, or a listed occupational disease. The rationale is to avoid PCBUs misunderstanding the test as a probability-of-occurrence assessment rather than a severity-of-consequence assessment.

The bill text reflects this by defining critical risk as either a risk associated with a hazard listed in new Schedule 1A, or a risk associated with any hazard that, if it occurs, is likely to result in one or more specified serious outcomes.

4. Mental health included, but only within the critical-risk framework

Some submitters wanted more focus on mental health and social wellbeing. The committee says the existing Act’s definition of health already includes mental health, so it considers mental health can already be considered when assessing risks. However, it recommends making clear that harm to mental health can be a risk associated with a hazard.

The rationale is to ensure mental-health-related hazards are not excluded from the concept of critical risk where they may lead to serious physical consequences. The report gives the example of traumatic work situations impairing judgement or reaction time, making serious incidents such as vehicle crashes or equipment misuse more likely.

This is narrower than some submitters sought: mental health is recognised, but the committee’s framing links criticality to whether the mental-health harm is likely to result in the specified serious harms.

5. Ministerial power to amend Schedule 1A retained, but with safeguards

The bill allows the Minister, through Order in Council, to amend the list of hazards associated with critical risks in new Schedule 1A. The Regulations Review Committee advised that this is a Henry VIII power, because it allows secondary legislation to amend primary legislation.

The committee accepts that the power is appropriate in this context, but recommends stronger safeguards. The Minister must be satisfied the order is appropriate and that statutory conditions are met. The Minister’s reasons must be published with the order, and the Ministry must publish a statement explaining the amendment, the reasons for it, and how it is necessary or desirable because of regulatory changes.

The rationale is to preserve flexibility to update the hazard list as regulations change, while improving transparency and accountability around a constitutionally sensitive power.

6. Small and large PCBUs treated differently

The bill categorises PCBUs as small or large. A small PCBU is generally one with fewer than 20 workers, with special rules for seasonal or fluctuating workforces. Large PCBUs are those that are not small PCBUs.

Small PCBUs would have more limited duties: they must comply with specified critical-risk provisions only in relation to critical risks, while still prioritising critical risks when complying with other provisions. Their failure to prioritise critical risks is expressly not an offence.

Large PCBUs must prioritise critical risks when complying with the Act and regulations, but again, failure to prioritise is not itself an offence.

The rationale is to reduce compliance burden and focus effort on the most serious risks, particularly for smaller organisations. However, this is one of the most contested policy choices in the report.

7. Shared PCBU duties rewritten to reflect the small/large distinction

The committee recommends inserting a new clause 11A to replace section 34 of the Act, which deals with PCBUs consulting, co-operating, and co-ordinating with other PCBUs that share duties.

The rationale is that the introduced bill created a new small/large PCBU distinction but did not update section 34 to explain how shared duties should work under that new structure. The committee therefore recommends new provisions for different combinations: large-large, small-small, and mixed large/small PCBU situations.

Small PCBUs must co-operate on critical risks, but may co-operate on non-critical risks. Large PCBUs must co-operate more broadly. The committee also allows PCBUs to contractually agree that a small PCBU will co-operate on non-critical risks, provided the agreement does not negate duties or become an unlawful contracting-out arrangement.

8. Compliance with other enactments clarified

Clause 12 replaces section 35, dealing with how HSWA duties interact with other legislation. The committee accepts the policy intent that, where another regulatory regime requires managing a health and safety risk in the same situation or circumstances, compliance with that external regime should count as compliance with the HSWA duty.

However, it considers the introduced drafting unclear. If interpreted too broadly, regimes that do not actually manage risks could be captured, leading to inadequate risk management. If interpreted too narrowly, the provision would have little practical effect. The committee therefore recommends limiting the provision to external requirements that require actions which have the effect of managing health and safety risks, and that apply to the same situation or set of circumstances, not merely the same subject matter.

The rationale is legal precision: avoid both over-capture and under-capture.

9. Recreational access exception clarified

The committee recommends amending the workplace-control duty in section 37 to clarify when a PCBU’s duty does not apply to people using outdoor space for recreation.

The bill as introduced referred to “open space” and recreational use “connected to” the PCBU’s business. The committee considers that unclear. It recommends using “outdoor space” and asking whether recreational use is part of a business or undertaking conducted by the PCBU.

The rationale is to better describe the full range of recreational land use, including cleared land, uncleared land such as forest or scrub, and water. The committee also clarifies that charging a mere access fee does not by itself make recreational use part of the PCBU’s business, provided the fee does not recover costs or generate profit.

10. Seismic risk exception narrowed and clarified

The bill includes an exception for seismic risk to workplace buildings. The committee recommends more precise wording about what a PCBU is not required to do and in relation to what issues.

The rationale is to avoid the exception being read too broadly. The committee wants to clarify that the exception relates to seismic risk affecting building elements, and does not remove PCBU duties relating to workplace contents or other non-building items. It also recommends defining “building element.”

11. Approved Codes of Practice strengthened and opened up

Approved Codes of Practice, or ACOPs, currently may only be developed by the regulator. The bill would allow any person or organisation to develop a draft code, draft amendment, or revocation proposal.

The committee recommends clearer wording around who may do this, referring to “a union or other worker representative” and “an employer organisation.” It also recommends that anyone other than the regulator who wants a draft or proposal progressed must give it to the regulator for recommendation to the Minister.

The regulator’s review role is also tightened. The regulator must assess technical accuracy, consistency with compliance with the relevant duty, and whether the draft meets requirements under other enactments. The regulator may consider only those matters when amending a draft code or amendment. The stated rationale is to improve the transparency and robustness of the review process.

12. ACOPs given stronger “safe harbour” effect in proceedings

Clause 29 provides that a person who acts in accordance with an ACOP in relation to a specific risk is taken to have complied with the Act for that risk. The committee recommends drafting changes to align the provision better with enforcement and prosecution sections of the Act, especially sections 142 to 148.

The rationale is clarity and alignment with existing enforcement architecture. The committee recommends replacing “other matter” with “set of circumstances” to aid understanding.

Schedule 1 also limits the new section 226(2)(a) effect primarily to codes approved on or after commencement, while preserving that effect for two existing ACOPs: port cargo loading/unloading and forestry harvesting operations.

13. Regulator functions reprioritised

The bill amends the WorkSafe New Zealand Act and provisions for other regulators. WorkSafe’s objectives are updated to include prioritising critical risks and their management by PCBUs. Its main functions are framed around guidance, advice, codes of practice, safe work instruments, and monitoring/enforcement.

The rationale is to align the regulator’s role with the bill’s overall critical-risk focus and to put guidance and clarity at the forefront.

Committee process

The bill was referred to the committee on 12 February 2026, with a report-back deadline of 16 June 2026.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety gave oral evidence on 25 March 2026. The committee received and considered 335 submissions and heard oral evidence from 77 submitters.

Advice was provided by MBIE, WorkSafe, the Office of the Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and the Regulations Review Committee.

Overall assessment

The majority’s approach is to make the health and safety system more targeted, risk-based, and administratively clearer. The rationale across most amendments is clarity, proportionality, and implementation practicality: clarify definitions, give regulators and PCBUs time to adjust, reduce duplication with other regimes, and make ACOPs more useful.

The central policy trade-off is that the majority accepts a more differentiated, critical-risk-centred system, especially for small PCBUs. The dissenting parties view that same shift as a weakening of universal health and safety duties and a potential erosion of worker protection.