The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill (Bill) received Royal Assent on 9 July 2026, completing the most significant overhaul of New Zealand’s health and safety regime since the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) was enacted. Now the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act (Amendment Act), most of its provisions will come into force on 1 April 2027.

The overarching intention of the Amendment Act is to focus a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) on preventing serious harm in the workplace. This is achieved via the introduction of the concept of ‘critical risks’ - those that can result in death, serious injury, or illness.

Below we outline key changes that were made following Select Committee scrutiny and practical considerations for PCBUs.

Focus on critical risks

The new concept of ‘critical risk’ survived Select Committee scrutiny and will be the key principle of the reformed regime. Rather than requiring PCBUs to manage all risks with equal rigour, the Amendment Act directs attention to the hazards most likely to cause death or serious harm and makes that prioritisation express throughout the legislation.

A ‘critical risk’ is defined as “a risk that is associated with a hazard of any kind and that, if the risk occurs, is likely to result in any of the following”:

• Death;

• A notifiable injury or illness;

• A notifiable incident; or

• An occupational disease under the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

A new Schedule 1A also lists hazards automatically treated as critical risks, including asbestos, hazardous substances, amusement devices and mining and quarrying operations.

Some changes have been made to the ‘critical risk’ framework based on recommendations made by the Select Committee:

1. The purpose statement has been amended to expressly require PCBUs to prioritise the management of critical risks, not just the risks themselves, clearly establishing that HSWA demands active management more than mere identification.

2. The assessment of ‘critical risk’ requires a focus on whether serious harm is likely to result if the risk occurs, not how probable the risk is to arise.

3. The meaning of ‘critical risk’ has been clarified to expressly include harm to mental health where it is likely to result in serious physical harm.

Proportionate compliance for small businesses

The Amendment Act creates a new “small PCBU” category: businesses with fewer than 20 workers, or fewer than 20 workers for at least nine months of the financial year, where workforces fluctuate.

Small PCBUs operate under a narrower set of obligations:

• They only need to comply with core health and safety duties in relation to critical risks;

• They must prioritise critical risks above other risks; and

• They must still provide basic welfare facilities (first aid, drinking water, lighting and ventilation).

The practical effect is that small businesses are no longer expected to apply the full weight of the health and safety regime to low-level risks that are unlikely to cause serious harm. Larger PCBUs retain full obligations but must treat critical risks as their first priority.

The Select Committee recommended minor changes to the provisions relating to “small PCBUs”, specifically introducing a framework for discharging duties for shared worksites with a small/large PCBU divide. Where a small and a large PCBU share duties on the same matter, the small PCBU must cooperate on critical risks and may cooperate on risks below that threshold.

Recreational land use and landowner liability

The Amendment Act clarifies that landowners will not generally owe health and safety duties to recreational users of their land. Health and safety responsibility sits with whoever organises or conducts the recreational activity.

This carve-out does not apply where the recreational use forms part of the landowner’s own business or undertaking, or where other work by or for the business is being conducted in proximity at the same time.

The Select Committee recommended tightened this drafting, replacing recreational use “connected to” the landowner’s business (as initially introduced) with the more precise “part of a business or undertaking conducted by the PCBU”, and confirming that a nominal access fee does not of itself bring the landowner’s duty back.

Duties of officers in governance

The Amendment Act draws a clear distinction between an officer’s health and safety responsibilities in their governance capacity and those arising from any operational role they hold in the same organisation.

These changes come against the backdrop of the conviction of Tony Gibson, former chief executive of Ports of Auckland Limited, for his failure to comply with the officer due diligence duty, which was upheld by the High Court on appeal.

Under the Amendment Act:

• An officer’s duty to exercise due diligence attaches to their governance role only; it does not extend to any separate operational role they may also hold;

• The meaning of “due diligence” is clarified, setting out in clearer terms what governance-level engagement with health and safety actually requires; and

• Officers are expected to maintain health and safety knowledge that is current and appropriate to the nature of the business or undertaking.

Other significant changes

The Amendment Act introduces other significant changes, summarised below:

• Interaction with other regimes: Compliance with specialist frameworks (eg maritime or aviation rules) will satisfy equivalent HSWA duties, where those requirements manage a health and safety risk in the same situation or circumstances.

• Approved Codes of Practice (ACOP): ACOPs are substantially strengthened. Industry groups, unions and employer organisations can now develop draft codes and must give their draft to the regulator if they wish it to progress. Additionally, compliance with an ACOP for a specific risk creates a safe harbour: the person is taken to have satisfied their HSWA obligations for that risk. The Select Committee recommended adding review requirements for WorkSafe when assessing externally developed drafts. Notably, the Ports’ ACOP (2024) and the forestry ACOP (2025) have immediate “safe harbour” status from the day after Royal Assent.

• WorkSafe’s functions: These have been rearranged to focus on critical risks, guidance and codes of practice, with an educate-first function. Prosecution is considered as a last resort.

What happens next?

The Amendment Act comes into force on 1 April 2027, with the ACOP “safe harbour” provisions applying from the day after Royal Assent (10 July 2026).

The commencement date is itself politically significant. The Select Committee had recommended 1 November 2026, but New Zealand First, which backed the Bill under the coalition agreement with acknowledged reservations, pushed the date back to April 2027. This means commencement occurs after the November general election (allowing time to negotiate further changes before the law takes effect).

The Amendment Act’s future is uncertain. Labour has committed to repeal if it is elected to govern the country, and New Zealand First has signalled it wants to revisit aspects of the legislation, regardless of the election outcome. Businesses should plan for 1 April 2027 but keep a close watch on post-election developments. WorkSafe guidance is expected to be developed ahead of the commencement date.

What should businesses be thinking about?

There are a number of considerations for PCBUs in the lead up to 1 April 2027:

• What their critical risks are. This will be the central compliance question under the reformed regime.

• Whether they meet the definition of a “small PCBU” (particularly where workforce numbers fluctuate), and if so, the practical implications for their existing health and safety management systems.

• Whether they operate on shared worksites with other PCBUs of different sizes, and how the new cooperation framework affects existing consultation, cooperation and coordination arrangements.

• How health and safety responsibilities are structured between the board and management, given the Amendment Act’s separation of governance-level and operational duties for officers.

• What ACOPs are potentially relevant to their sector, and whether “safe harbour” status affects their compliance approach.

Get in touch

Please get in touch with one of our experts about anything discussed in this article.

Special thanks to Law Graduate, Eve Munro, for her assistance in preparing this article.