The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill is now before Parliament, and, if passed, this legislation would mark the most significant reform of New Zealand’s health and safety regime since 2016. The Government says the Bill is intended to reduce unnecessary compliance costs by sharpening the focus on critical risks, clarifying grey areas, and easing some obligations for smaller PCBUs (Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking).
The proposed reforms may change how businesses identify, prioritise and manage risk, particularly where operations involve serious hazards, land access issues, or smaller workforces.
Some of the proposed changes include:
- A new definition of ‘critical risk’: The Bill would introduce a new definition of ‘critical risk’, aimed at focusing the health and safety system on the prevention of serious harm. Employers need to assess whether any of the new Schedule 1A activities or hazards apply to their operations.
- Different obligations for smaller businesses: PCBUs/Businesses with fewer than 20 workers would only be required to manage critical risks. All other businesses must manage all risks but will be required to prioritise critical risks.
- Recreational access to land: In some circumstances,businesses that manage or control land would generally not owe duties to people lawfully accessing it for recreational purposes, unless the activity is connected to the PCBU’s work, or occurs at the same time and place as that work.
While the Bill may reduce compliance burdens in some areas, it is also likely to require employers to think carefully about how they assess and document risk. For many businesses, the challenge will not simply be doing less, but deciding what needs the most attention and ensuring that approach is properly supported in practice.
That makes the Court of Appeal’s decision in RH & JY Trust v WorkSafe New Zealand particularly relevant. The decision clarifies how the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 applies to trusts and trustees, and is an important reminder that health and safety duties depend on the reality of how a business operates, not just its legal structure. This has practical implications for trust-owned businesses, farms, property operations, and family-run businesses.
In other words, even if the proposed reforms narrow or refocus some obligations, employers still need accountability, active oversight, and health and safety systems that operate in practice, not just “on paper”. Businesses should ensure that health and safety responsibilities are clearly allocated, decision-making is properly documented, and those decisions are actively implemented and monitored.
The decision is now being considered by the Supreme Court, and it will be interesting to see what the judiciary says in light of the proposed reforms.
If you would like advice on how the proposed changes or this case could affect your business, or help reviewing your health and safety systems in light of these developments, please get in touch with the Ford Sumner Employment Team.