Parliament bill

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Royal assent · Introduced by Hon Brooke van Velden · ACT Party

Last checked
July 15, 2026 15:49
Source captured
July 15, 2026 15:49
Source
View on Parliament.nz

What this bill does

According to the bill’s explanatory debate, workplace health and safety effort can be diverted to paperwork and lower-consequence risks instead of preventing serious harm. The bill aims to focus health and safety duties and enforcement on critical risks—those associated with specified hazards or likely, if they occur, to cause death, notifiable harm or incidents, or listed occupational disease. For PCBUs with fewer than 20 workers, the bill limits many core health and safety duties to critical risks, while larger PCBUs must prioritise those risks across their duties. Small PCBUs must still meet worker-accommodation duties.

AI-assisted summary based on the bill text and linked Hansard debates.

Arguments raised in Parliament

AI-assisted summary of the linked Hansard debates. Each point is grounded in the cited transcript.

Arguments for

Businesses and workers will prioritise prevention of deaths and serious injury or illness because the bill defines critical risks by the severity of their potential consequence rather than their frequency.

Businesses sharing a worksite will reduce duplicated compliance and focus their joint action on serious hazards because they must consult, cooperate, and coordinate on critical risks.

Landowners can permit recreational access with fewer unnecessary restrictions because a small access fee alone will not make the activity part of their business for health-and-safety duties.

Arguments against

Nuance and qualifications

Bill text

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Version published June 16, 2026 00:00.

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on 1 November 2026 the day after Royal assent . However, sections 29 and 30 come into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Part amends the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. 4 Section 3 replaced (Purpose) Replace section 3 with: 3 Purposes 1 The main purpose of this Act is to provide a balanced framework for securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces that prioritises the critical risks that arise from work (including by prioritising the management of those risks by PCBUs) . 2 This Act also has the following purposes: a to protect workers and other persons against harm to their health, safety, and welfare by eliminating or minimising risks arising from work or from prescribed high-risk plant: b to provide for fair and effective workplace representation, consultation, co-operation, and resolution of issues in relation to work health and safety: c to encourage unions and employer organisations to take a constructive role in promoting improvements in …
Read full bill text
Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill The Parliament of New Zealand enacts as follows: 1 Title This Act is the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 . 2 Commencement This Act comes into force on 1 November 2026 the day after Royal assent . However, sections 29 and 30 come into force on the day after Royal assent. 3 Principal Act This Part amends the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. 4 Section 3 replaced (Purpose) Replace section 3 with: 3 Purposes 1 The main purpose of this Act is to provide a balanced framework for securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces that prioritises the critical risks that arise from work (including by prioritising the management of those risks by PCBUs) . 2 This Act also has the following purposes: a to protect workers and other persons against harm to their health, safety, and welfare by eliminating or minimising risks arising from work or from prescribed high-risk plant: b to provide for fair and effective workplace representation, consultation, co-operation, and resolution of issues in relation to work health and safety: c to encourage unions and employer organisations to take a constructive role in promoting improvements in work health and safety practices, and to assist PCBUs and workers to achieve a healthier and safer work environment: d to promote the provision of advice, information, education, and training in relation to work health and safety: e to secure compliance with this Act and regulations made under this Act through effective and appropriate compliance and enforcement measures: f to ensure appropriate scrutiny and review of actions taken by persons performing functions or exercising powers under this Act: g to provide a framework for continuous improvement and progressively higher standards of work health and safety: h to give PCBUs certainty about the scope of their obligations to comply with this Act and regulations made under this Act. 3 A person (including a duty holder and a regulator) must, in promoting the purpose set out in subsection (2)(a) , have regard to the principle that workers and other persons should be given the highest level of protection against harm to their health, safety, and welfare from hazards and risks arising from work or from prescribed high-risk plant as is reasonably practicable. 5 Section 7 amended (Application of Act to Armed Forces) In section 7(9), replace purpose with purposes . 6 Section 8 amended (Application of Act to intelligence and security agencies) In section 8(6), replace purpose with purposes . 7 Section 16 amended (Interpretation) In section 16, insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: critical risk has the meaning given in section 22A financial year means a period of 12 months commencing on 1 July and ending with 30 June large PCBU has the meaning given in section 17 prioritise , in relation to critical risks, includes— a managing critical risks before managing other risks: b monitoring, reviewing, and revising controls relating to critical risks more often than controls relating to other risks: c applying a higher proportion of risk management resources to the management of critical risks compared with other risks small PCBU has the meaning given in section 17 In section 16, insert as subsection (2): 2 Terms and expressions in Schedule 1A that are used in the relevant regulations set out in that schedule have the same meaning that they have in those regulations. 8 Section 17 amended (Meaning of PCBU) Replace the heading to section 17 with Meanings of PCBU and small PCBU . Before section 17(1), insert: PCBU In section 17(2), replace this section with subsection (1)(b)(ii) . After section 17(2), insert: Small PCBU 3 In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, small PCBU means a PCBU in whose business or undertaking fewer than 20 workers carry out work in any capacity. 4 If the number of workers in a business or undertaking fluctuates during a financial year due to the nature of the business or undertaking (for example, because a proportion of the work is seasonal in nature), the PCBU is a small PCBU if the PCBU reasonably expects the number of workers carrying out work in any capacity to be fewer than 20 in at least 9 months of the current financial year. 5 If a business or undertaking of the kind described in subsection (4) was not operating for the whole of the current financial year, the PCBU is a small PCBU if the PCBU reasonably expects that the number of workers carrying out work in any capacity in the following financial year will be fewer than 20 in at least 9 months of that year. Large PCBU 6 In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, large PCBU means a PCBU that is not a small PCBU. 9 New sections 22A and 22B inserted After section 22, insert: 22A Meaning of critical risk 1 In this Act, unless the context otherwise provides, critical risk means a risk that is associated with — a a risk that is associated with a hazard described in Schedule 1A ; or b a risk that is associated with a hazard of any kind and that , if the risk occurs, is likely to result in any 1 or more of the following: i a death: ii a notifiable injury or illness: iii a notifiable incident: iv an occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001. 2 A risk associated with a hazard referred to in subsection (1)(a) is a critical risk whether it is considered in relation to compliance with— a a regulation set out in Schedule 1A ; or b a duty under Part 2 of the Act. 3 In subsection (1)(b) , risk , in relation to a hazard, includes harm to mental health that is associated with the hazard. 22B Amendment of Schedule 1A 1 The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, amend Schedule 1A . 2 An amendment to Schedule 1A — a may be made only if it is necessary or desirable as a consequence of— i the amendment or revocation of regulations; or ii the making of new regulations (including by replacing existing regulations); and b may— i amend or delete a hazard set out in that schedule; or ii add a new hazard to that schedule. 3 An Order in Council that— a amends a hazard or adds a new hazard may be made only if the amended or new hazard is a hazard of a kind described in section 22A(1)(b) ; or b deletes a hazard may be made only if the hazard is not a hazard of a kind described in section 22A(1)(b) . 3A The Minister must not make a recommendation under subsection (1) unless the Minister is satisfied that the order is appropriate, including that the proposed amendment meets the conditions set out in subsections (2)(a) and (3) . 3B If the Minister makes a recommendation, the Minister’s reasons for making the recommendation (including why the order is appropriate) must be published together with the order. 3C When the order is published, the Ministry must publish on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry a statement explaining— a the amendment; and b the reasons for the amendment, including how the amendment meets the conditions set out in subsections (2)(a) and (3) . 4 An order made under this section is secondary legislation ( see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements). 10 Section 23 amended (Meaning of notifiable injury or illness) In section 23(1)(a)(ii), after injury , insert (for example, a fractured skull, a blood clot or bleeding in the brain, or an injury resulting in a temporary or permanent loss of consciousness or memory) . In section 23(1)(a)(iii), after injury , insert (for example, the loss of an eye, an object entering the eye, or an eye injury resulting in total or partial loss of vision) . In section 23(1)(a)(iv), after burn , insert (for example, a burn that requires a skin graft or a compression garment) . In section 23(1)(a)(vi), after injury , insert (for example, an injury to the spinal cord, any spinal disc, or any cervical, thoracic, lumbar, or sacral vertebra) . In section 23(1)(a)(vii), after function , insert (for example, loss of consciousness, a sense, speech, movement of a limb, or the function of an internal organ) . In section 23(1)(viii), after lacerations , insert (for example, deep cuts causing muscle, tendon, nerve, or blood vessel damage or permanent impairment or lacerations requiring stitching or other treatment to prevent blood loss or loss of bodily function) . In section 23(3), insert in their appropriate alphabetical order: health practitioner has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 immediate treatment means urgent treatment, including urgent treatment by a medical practitioner, a nurse practitioner, or a paramedic medical treatment means treatment by a medical practitioner nurse practitioner means a health practitioner who— a is, or is deemed to be, registered with the Nursing Council of New Zealand continued by section 114(1)(a) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 as a practitioner of the profession of nursing and whose scope of practice permits the performance of nurse practitioner functions; and b holds a current practising certificate under that Act paramedic means a health practitioner who— a is registered as a paramedic with the Paramedic Council established by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (Designation of Paramedic Services as Health Profession) Order 2019; and b holds a current practising certificate under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. 11 New sections 25A to 25C and cross-heading inserted After section 25, insert: PCBU duties: role of critical risk 25A Small PCBUs: scope of duties 1 A small PCBU is required— a to comply with the following provisions ( critical risk provisions ) only in relation to critical risks: i sections 36 to 43 (except section 36(3)(e)): ii regulation 9 (duty to provide information, supervision, training, and instruction), regulation 15(2) (general duty of PCBU to provide personal protective equipment), and regulation 19 (duty of PCBU to ensure personal protective equipment worn or used by other persons) of the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016; and b to comply with section 36(3)(e) according to its terms; and c to prioritise critical risks when complying with all other provisions of this Act and regulations. 2 A small PCBU’s failure to prioritise critical risks in accordance with subsection (1)(c) is not an offence. 3 The provisions of this Act and regulations must, so far as they relate to the duty of a small PCBU under a critical risk provision, be read subject to the limitation set out in subsection (1)(a) . Examples The duty of an officer of a small PCBU under section 44 to exercise due diligence in relation to the PCBU’s compliance with a critical risk provision is limited to critical risks. A health and safety representative may issue a provisional improvement notice to a small PCBU under section 69 in relation to the breach of a critical risk provision only if the breach relates to a critical risk. An inspector may issue an improvement notice to a small PCBU under section 101 in relation to a breach of a critical risk provision only if the breach relates to a critical risk. 4 In this section and section 25B , prioritise , in relation to critical risks, includes— a managing critical risks before managing other risks: b monitoring, reviewing, and revising controls relating to critical risks more often than controls relating to other risks: c applying a higher proportion of risk management resources to the management of critical risks compared with other risks. 25B Other Large PCBUs: scope of duties 1 A large PCBU that is not a small PCBU is required— a to prioritise critical risks when complying with this Act (except section 36(3)(e)) and regulations; and b to comply with section 36(3)(e) according to its terms. 2 A PCBU’s failure to prioritise critical risks in accordance with subsection (1)(a) is not an offence. 25C All PCBUs: determination of critical risk 1 This section applies when a PCBU is determining, for the purposes of section 25A or 25B , whether a risk is a critical risk. 2 The PCBU’s determination must be based on an assessment that takes into account what the PCBU knows, or ought reasonably to know, about— a their business or undertaking; and b the hazard with which the risk is associated; and c whether the risk hazard , if it does not relate to a matter described in Schedule 1A , is likely to result in 1 or more of the consequences referred to in section 22A(1)(b)(i) to (iv) . 11A Section 34 replaced (PCBU must consult other PCBUs with same duty) Replace section 34 with: 34 PCBU must co-operate with other PCBUs with same duty 1 This section applies if 2 or more PCBUs have a duty in relation to the same matter imposed by or under this Act. 2 or more large PCBUs 2 If 2 or more large PCBUs have a duty in relation to the same matter, each PCBU must, so far as is reasonably practicable, co-operate with the other PCBUs in relation to that matter. 2 or more small PCBUs 3 If 2 or more small PCBUs have a duty in relation to the same matter, each PCBU— a must, so far as is reasonably practicable, co-operate with the other PCBUs in relation to any critical risk involved in the matter; but b may co-operate with the other PCBUs in relation to all other risks involved in the matter. 1 or more large PCBUs and 1 or more small PCBUs 4 Subsections (5) and (6) apply if 1 or more small PCBUs and 1 or more large PCBUs have a duty in relation to the same matter. 5 Each small PCBU— a must, so far as is reasonably practicable, co-operate with the other PCBUs in relation to any critical risk involved in the matter; but b may co-operate with the other PCBUs in relation to all other risks involved in the matter. 6 Each large PCBU must, so far as is reasonably practicable, co-operate with the other PCBUs in relation to the matter. Agreements and contracts 7 For the purposes of co-operation between 2 or more PCBUs that include at least 1 small PCBU, this section does not prevent the PCBUs from entering into an agreement or a contract that requires them to co-operate with each other in relation to any or all risks involved in the relevant matter. 8 An agreement referred to in subsection (7) — a may require a small PCBU that is a party to the agreement or contract to, so far as is reasonably practicable, co-operate with the other PCBUs in relation to risks that are not critical risks; but b must not be an agreement or a contract to which section 28 applies. Definitions 9 In this section,— co-operate means to consult, to co-operate with, and to co-ordinate activities with have a duty , in relation to 2 or more PCBUs, means that a provision of this Act or regulations made under this Act purports to impose a duty on the PCBUs (regardless of the effect of section 25A(1)(a) and (b) in the case of a small PCBU). Offence 10 A person who contravenes this section commits an offence and is liable on conviction,— a for an individual, to a fine not exceeding $20,000: b for any other person, to a fine not exceeding $100,000. Model Work Health and Safety Act s 46 (Aust) 12 Section 35 replaced (Compliance with other enactments) Replace section 35 with: 35 Compliance with risk requirements in other enactments addressing same subject matter 1 This section applies if a person is subject to— a a duty imposed by or under this Act to manage a specified risk in the person’s situation or set of circumstances (the work health and safety duty ), regardless of whether regulations also impose 1 or more specific duties in relation to that risk; and b 1 or more requirements imposed by or under another enactment (the external risk requirements ) to take actions that have the effect of managing a risk to health or safety in relation to the same situation or set of circumstances subject matter as the work health and safety duty, regardless of whether the purpose of the external requirements is to manage risk to work health and safety. 2 A person who complies with the external risk requirements must be is taken to have complied with the work health and safety duty. 3 However, if regulations also impose 1 or more specific duties in relation to the risk referred to in subsection (1)(a) that risk , the person must comply with those duties. Example A person who complies with Maritime Rule 40A.33 (petrol inboard and outboard engines) must be is taken to have complied with their work health and safety duties under sections 37 (duty of PCBU who manages or controls workplace) and 38 (duty of PCBU who manages or controls fixtures, fittings, or plant at workplaces) of this Act in relation to managing risks from dangerous atmospheres forming inside enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces on passenger vessels that are not SOLAS ships fitted with inboard petrol engines. 13 Section 36 amended (Primary duty of care) Before section 36(1), insert: Health and safety of workers After section 36(1), insert: Health and safety of other persons After section 36(2), insert: Matters included in duty After section 36(3), insert: Accommodation After section 36(5), insert: Self-employed persons After section 36(6), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 7 This section (except subsection (3)(e)) applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 14 Section 37 amended (Duty of PCBU who manages or controls workplace) Before section 37(1), insert: Duty After section 37(1), insert: Exception for persons at workplace for unlawful purpose After section 37(2), insert: Exception for recreational access 2A Subsection (2B) applies if— a the workplace includes open outdoor space that can be used for recreational purposes (including the purpose of crossing the land to reach other land to be used for recreational purposes) ; and b 1 or more persons lawfully enter the outdoor space and use it the open space for recreational purposes, including when by being expressly or impliedly permitted by the PCBU to do so. 2B The duty owed by the PCBU under subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a person referred to in entering and using the outdoor space under subsection (2A)(b) , unless— a the recreational use of the land outdoor space is part of a business or undertaking conducted by the PCBU connected to the PCBU’s business or undertaking ; or b other work connected to the PCBU’s a business or undertaking conducted by the PCBU is being carried out at the time in the open outdoor space near where the entry and use are taking place. 2C For the purposes of subsection (2B)(a) , the PCBU charging an access fee for entering the outdoor space does not on its own make that recreational use a part of a business or undertaking conducted by the PCBU. Before section 37(3), insert: Additional exception for farms After section 37(3), insert: Exception for seismic risk to workplace buildings 3A Subsection (3B) applies if — a a PCBU manages or controls a workplace that includes the whole or a part of a building; and b the owner of the building is not in breach of any duty or requirement under subpart 6A of Part 2 of the Building Act 2004 relating to— i the determination of whether the building, or the part of a building, that is included in the workplace is earthquake prone; or ii the carrying out of seismic work in relation to the building, or the part of a building, included in the workplace to ensure that it is no longer earthquake prone. 3B This section does not require the PCBU to take any action in relation to the effects or potential effects of seismic risk affecting on any building element of the building, or of the part of a building, that is included in the workplace (for example, by directing the evacuation of the building or the part of a building) unless an emergency affecting the building is occurring. Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 3C This section applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. Replace section 37(4) with: Definitions 4 In this section,— access fee means a fee that— a entitles a person referred to in subsection (2A)(b) to enter the outdoor space; and b does not— i enable the PCBU to recover costs incurred in allowing the entry; or ii provide the PCBU with any profit for allowing the entry building element has the same meaning as in clause A2 of Schedule 1 (the building code) of the Building Regulations 1992 earthquake prone , in relation to a building or a part of a building, has the same meaning as in section 133AB of the Building Act 2004 outdoor space includes cleared land, uncleared land (such as forest or scrub), and water owner , in relation to a building, has the same meaning as in section 7(1) of the Building Act 2004 PCBU who manages or controls a workplace — a means a PCBU to the extent that the business or undertaking involves the management or control (in whole or in part) of the workplace; but b does not include— i the occupier of a residence, unless the residence is occupied for the purposes of, or as part of, the conduct of a business or undertaking; or ii a prescribed person recreational purposes , in relation to the use of outdoor space, includes— a use of the space for the purposes of crossing it to reach another location to be used for recreational purposes; and b commercial and non-commercial use of the space seismic work has the same meaning as in section 7(1) of the Building Act 2004. 15 Section 38 amended (Duty of PCBU who manages or controls fixtures, fittings, or plant at workplaces) Before section 38(1), insert: Duty After section 38(1), insert: Exception for persons at workplace for unlawful purpose After section 38(2), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 2A This section applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. Duty holder 16 Section 39 amended (Duty of PCBU who designs plant, substances, or structures) Before section 39(1), insert: Duty holder After section 39(1), insert: Duty After section 39(5), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 6 This section applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 17 Section 40 amended (Duty of PCBU who manufactures plant, substances, or structures) Before section 40(1), insert: Duty holder After section 40(1), insert: Duty After section 40(5), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 6 This section applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 18 Section 41 amended (Duty of PCBU who imports plant, substances, or structures) Before section 41(1), insert: Duty holder After section 41(1), insert: Duty After section 41(5), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 6 This section applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 19 Section 42 amended (Duty of PCBU who supplies plant, substances, or structures) Before section 42(1), insert: Duty holder After section 42(1), insert: Duty After section 42(5), insert: Exception for plant that is secondhand or sold as is After section 42(7), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 8 This section applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 20 Section 43 amended (Duty of PCBU who installs, constructs, or commissions plant or structures) Before section 43(1), insert: Duty holder After section 43(1), insert: Duty After section 43(2), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 3 This section applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 21 Section 44 amended (Duty of officers) Replace section 44(4) with: 4 If a person is both an officer of the PCBU and a worker who performs a separate or additional role in the business or undertaking, the person’s duty under this section applies only to their role as an officer ( see section 45 for the duties of workers). 5 In this section, due diligence means taking reasonable steps— a to understand and keep up to date with— i the nature of the operations of the PCBU’s business or undertaking; and ii hazards and risks associated with those operations; and iii work health and safety matters generally as they relate to the business or undertaking; and b to ensure that the PCBU— i has available for use, and uses, appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise risks to health and safety from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking; and ii has appropriate processes for receiving and considering information regarding incidents, hazards, and risks and for responding in a timely way to that information; and iii has, and implements, processes for complying with any duty or obligation of the PCBU under this Act; and c to verify the provision and the use of the resources and processes referred to in paragraph (b) . 22 Section 144 amended (Private prosecutions) In section 144(5)(b)(i), replace purpose with purposes . 23 Section 151 amended (Sentencing criteria) In section 151(2)(b), replace purpose with purposes . 24 Section 190 amended (Functions and powers of regulator other than WorkSafe) In section 190, insert as subsections (1) and (2) : 1 The functions of a regulator other than WorkSafe set out in this section are subject to the regulator’s scope of designation under section 191. 2 The main functions of a regulator other than WorkSafe are— a to provide guidance, advice, and information on compliance with relevant health and safety legislation to— i persons who hold duties under that legislation; and ii the public; and b to develop, review, and recommend codes of practice; and c to develop safe work instruments; and d to monitor and enforce compliance with relevant health and safety legislation. In section 190, replace Subject to its scope of designation, a regulator other than WorkSafe has the following functions under this Act with A regulator other than WorkSafe also has the following functions under this Act . Repeal section 190(a), (b), (c), and (e). 25 Section 219 amended (Procedure for making regulations relating to definitions, exclusions, or exemptions) In section 219(1)(a), replace purpose with purposes . 26 Section 220 amended (Regulator may grant exemption from compliance with regulations) In section 220(2)(b), replace purpose with purposes . 27 Section 222 amended (Approval of codes of practice) In section 222(1), after may , insert , on the regulator’s recommendation, . In section 222(1)(a), delete by the regulator . In section 222(2),— a replace the code with the recommended code : b after developed , insert or reviewed : c replace between with with . 28 New section 222A inserted (Development of approved codes of practice) After section 222, insert: 222A Development of approved codes of practice 1 A draft code of practice, a draft amendment to an approved code of practice, or a proposal to revoke an approved code of practice may be developed by any person or organisation , including— a the regulator; or b a union or other worker representative, an employer organisation representative , or a representative of a particular industry or sector. 2 The regulator that develops a draft code of practice, a draft amendment, or a proposed revocation may recommend the draft or the proposal to the Minister for approval. 3 A person or organisation other than the regulator that who develops a draft code of practice, a draft amendment, or a proposed revocation may must, if they wish to progress the draft or the proposal, give the draft or the proposal to the regulator for recommendation to the Minister. 4 The regulator that receives a draft or a proposal under subsection (3) — a must review the draft or the proposal; and b in the case of a draft code or a draft amendment, may amend the draft; and c may recommend the draft or the proposal to the Minister for approval. 4A When reviewing a draft code of practice or a draft amendment to an approved code of practice, the regulator must assess— a the accuracy of the draft’s technical content; and b the draft’s consistency with what the regulator considers to be compliance with the relevant duty; and c whether the draft meets relevant requirements under other enactments. 4B The regulator must consider only the matters assessed under subsection (4A) when amending a draft code of practice or a draft amendment to an approved code of practice. 5 The regulator may not recommend a draft or a proposal to the Minister without first ensuring that a consultation process of the kind referred to in section 222(2) has taken place. 29 Section 226 amended (Use of approved codes of practice in proceedings) In section 226(1), replace No code of practice issued or amended under this Part confers with An approved code of practice does not confer . Replace section 226(2) with: 2 However,— a a person with a duty under this Act relating to a specified risk in the person’s situation or set of circumstances risk or any other matter , who acts in accordance with an approved code of practice that relates to the same risk and the same situation or set of circumstances person and the risk or other matter , must be is taken to have complied with this Act and regulations in relation to that risk or other matter ; and b an approved code of practice is admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding as evidence of whether a duty under this Act or regulations has been complied with. In section 226(3), replace The court with In addition, the court . 30 Schedule 1 amended In Schedule 1,— a insert the Part set out in Schedule 1 of this Act as the last Part; and b make all necessary consequential amendments. 31 New Schedule 1A inserted After Schedule 1, insert the Schedule 1A set out in Schedule 2 of this Act. 32 Principal Act This Part amends the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013. 32A Section 3 amended (Interpretation) In section 3, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: critical risk has the same meaning as in section 22A of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 33 Section 9 amended (WorkSafe New Zealand’s main objective) In the heading to section 9, replace main objective with objectives . In section 9(1), after workplaces , insert that prioritises the critical risks that arise from work (including by prioritising the management of those risks by PCBUs) . 34 Section 10 amended (WorkSafe New Zealand’s functions) In section 10, insert as subsection (1): 1 WorkSafe New Zealand’s main functions are— a to provide guidance, advice, and information on compliance with relevant health and safety legislation to— i persons who hold duties under that legislation; and ii the public; and b to develop, review, and recommend codes of practice; and c to develop safe work instruments; and d to monitor and enforce compliance with relevant health and safety legislation. In section 10, replace functions are with functions are also . Repeal section 10(c), (e), (ea), and (f). 35 Principal regulations This Part amends the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016. 36 Regulation 9 amended (Duty to provide information, supervision, training, and instruction) After regulation 9(3), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 3A This regulation applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 37 Regulation 15 amended (General duty of PCBU to provide personal protective equipment) After regulation 15(2), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 2A Subclause (2) applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. In regulation 15(3), replace subclause (2) with this regulation . 38 Regulation 19 amended (Duty of PCBU to ensure personal protective equipment worn or used by other persons) After regulation 19(1), insert: Small PCBUs to manage critical risks 1A This regulation applies to a small PCBU only in relation to critical risks. 1 New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1 of Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 3 Provisions relating to Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 28 Interpretation In this Part, commencement date means the date on which sections 29 and 30 of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 come s into force. Effect of section 226(2)(a) 29 New approved codes of practice 1 On and after the commencement date, section 226(2)(a) Section 226(2)(a), as inserted by means of the replacement of section 226(2) by section 29(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 , applies only in relation to an approved code of practice that is approved on or after that the commencement date. 2 For the purposes of subclause (1) , However, when approving a new code of practice on or after the commencement date, the Minister may be satisfied about consultation under section 222(2) whether the consultation took place before, on, or after the commencement date. 30 Existing approved codes of practice Despite clause 29 , on and after the commencement date, section 226(2)(a) applies in relation to the following approved codes of practice as in force immediately before the commencement date: a Approved code of practice for loading and unloading cargo at ports and on ships (2024), approved on 27 June 2024 and notified in the Gazette on 27 June 2024 and 8 July 2024 and available on an internet site maintained by Maritime New Zealand: b Approved code of practice: Safe practice for forestry and harvesting operations (2025), approved on 28 July 2025 and notified in the Gazette on 29 July 2025 and available on an internet site maintained by WorkSafe. 2 New Schedule 1A inserted in to Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 1A s 22A Hazards associated with critical risk Adventure activities The provision of an adventure activity as defined in regulation 4 of the Health and Safety at Work (Adventure Activities) Regulations 2016. Amusement devices The following hazards to which the Amusement Device Regulations 1978 apply: a construction of an amusement device: b erection of an amusement device: ba operation or taking charge of an amusement device: c material alteration of an amusement device ( see section 21A(10) of the Machinery Act 1950): d repair, of a kind described in section 21A(10) of the Machinery Act 1950, of an amusement device . : e operation or taking charge of an amusement device. Asbestos The following hazards to which the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 apply: a working with asbestos ( see regulation 7(5) of those regulations): b airborne asbestos ( see regulation 9): c the use of equipment on asbestos or asbestos-containing material ( see regulation 18): d the demolition or refurbishment of a structure or plant to which subpart 4 of Part 2 of those regulations applies ( see regulation 19): e asbestos removal work ( see Parts 3, 4, and 6): f asbestos-related work ( see Part 5). General risk and workplace management The following hazards to which the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016 apply: a remote or isolated work ( see regulation 21 of those regulations): b atmospheres with potential for fire or explosion ( see regulations 22 and 23): c raised and falling objects ( see regulations 24 and 25): d containers of liquids with an associated risk of drowning ( see regulation 26): e loose but enclosed materials with an associated risk of becoming trapped or engulfed ( see regulation 27): f substances that are hazardous to health ( see regulations 28 to 31): g a person aged under 15 years— i carrying out the manufacture or preparation of goods for trade or sale, construction work, logging or tree-felling, the manufacture, use, or generation of hazardous substances, or any other work likely to cause harm to the health of a person aged under 15 years ( see regulation 43); or ii being present when any work described in subparagraph (i) is being carried out ( see regulation 44); or iii carrying out work that involves lifting any weight, or performing any task, if doing so would be likely to be harmful to the worker’s health ( see regulation 45); or iv working at or with any machinery or assisting with such work ( see regulation 46); or v driving a vehicle, riding upon a vehicle while it is drawing an implement or has an implement attached to it, or riding upon an implement drawn by or attached to a vehicle ( see regulation 47): h a person aged under 16 years working between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am the following day ( see regulation 48): i suitability of workers at limited-attendance child-care centres ( see Part 5 of those regulations). Geothermal energy The following hazards to which the Geothermal Energy Regulations 1961 apply: a design, construction, operation, and maintenance of bores and pipework ( see regulation 26(1) and (2) of those regulations): b maintenance of bores and the equipment used in geothermal work ( see regulation 26(3)): c geothermal work involving severe heat ( see see regulation 26(4)): d geothermal work in an atmosphere containing or likely to contain hazardous gases ( see regulation 28(2) and (3)): e design of geothermal works with an associated risk of the accumulation of hazardous gases ( see regulation 28(1)): f the use of explosives ( see regulation 29): g drilling bores ( see regulations 31 to 33): h security and condition of bores ( see regulations 34 and 35). Hazardous substances and gases under pressure The following hazards to which the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 apply: Hazardous substances a storage and handling of hazardous substances: b use of hazardous substances: c manufacture of hazardous substances: d transportation of hazardous substances: e disposal of hazardous substances . : Gases under pressure f design, manufacture, importation, supply, use, repair, and maintenance of gas containers: g manufacture, importation, and supply of cylinder fittings: h charging of gas containers and tank wagons. Major hazard facilities The following hazards to which the Health and Safety at Work (Major Hazard Facilities) Regulations 2016 apply: a use of large quantities (for example, a threshold quantity) of specified hazardous substances at a major hazard facility: b storage of large quantities (for example, a threshold quantity) of specified hazardous substances at a major hazard facility. Mining and quarrying The following hazards to which the Health and Safety at Work (Mining Operations and Quarrying Operations) Regulations 2016 apply: a ground or strata instability ( see regulation 65, in particular, regulation 65(a)(i), and paragraphs (16) to (19) of Schedule 5 of those regulations): aa inundation and inrush of any substance ( see regulation 65, in particular, regulation 65(a)(ii)): b mine shafts and winding systems ( see regulation 65, in particular, regulation 65(a)(iii)): c roads, other vehicle operating areas, and the use of mobile plant ( see regulation 65, in particular, regulation 65(a)(iv), and paragraphs (26) to (31) of Schedule 5): d tips, ponds, and voids ( see regulation 65, in particular, regulation 65(a)(v)): e use of explosives ( see regulation 65, in particular, regulation 65(a)(viii), and paragraphs (32) to (35) of Schedule 5): f air quality and ventilation, including the presence of methane or any other gas ( see regulation 65, in particular, regulation 65(a)(vi), subpart 3 of Part 5, and paragraphs (7) to (10) of Schedule 5): g the presence of flammable or combustible gas, dust, or other material ( see paragraphs (1) to (6) of Schedule 5): h electrical systems and plant ( see paragraphs (36) to (38) of Schedule 5). Miscellaneous hazards regulated by Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995 The following hazards to which the Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995 apply: a noise in the workplace ( see regulations 10 and 11 of those regulations): b cleaning, maintenance, or repair of machinery ( see regulation 17): c use of woodworking and abrasive grinding machinery ( see regulation 18): d use of self-propelled mobile mechanical plant ( see regulations 19 and 20): e use of powder-actuated tools in construction work ( see regulation 52): f scaffolding, in particular,— i its construction, suitability, and sufficiency ( see regulation 22): ii its erection, maintenance, repair, or dismantling (see regulation 53): g working at heights ( see regulation 21): h faces and depth of excavations in construction work ( see regulations 23 to 25): i occupational diving ( see regulations 47 to 49). Petroleum exploration and extraction The following hazards to which the Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016 apply: a production installations and non-production installations ( see regulation 8(1)(a) of those regulations), including any of the following: i the condition and performance of wells ( see regulation 70(b) and (e)): ii the presence of hydrocarbon vapour, petroleum liquids, and other substances that could cause a serious risk to health and safety ( see regulation 70(c), (d), and (h)): iii the condition and performance of safety-critical elements ( see regulation 70(f)): iv the stability of the installation and of any plant at the installation ( see regulation 70(i) and (j)): v the condition of the seabed or ground ( see regulation 70(j)): vi weather conditions, earthquakes, and other natural events ( see regulation 70(l)): vii the movement of vessels, aircraft, and vehicles near the installation ( see regulation 70(m)): viii the buoyancy of the installation ( see regulation 70(n) and (o)): b work and other activities carried out on production installations and non-production installations ( see regulation 8(1)(b)): c release and accumulation of hazardous liquids, vapours, or gases ( see regulation 11): d disposal of waste petroleum, vapours, or gases ( see regulation 12): e sources of ignition ( see regulation 13): f any major accident hazard ( see Part 3) : g management or control of a well operation ( see Part 6), including— i the conditions below ground ( see regulations 59 and 60); and ii the design and construction of a well ( see regulations 61 and 62); and iii the suitability of well control equipment and associated control systems ( see regulation 63). Pipelines The following hazards to which the Health and Safety in Employment (Pipelines) Regulations 1999 apply: a release or accumulation of hazardous liquids, vapours, and gases ( see regulation 6 of those regulations): b design and construction of pipelines ( see regulations 8 and 12): c operation and maintenance of pipelines ( see regulations 8 and 12): d suspension and abandonment of pipelines ( see regulations 8, 12, and 14): e hydrostatic testing of pipelines ( see regulation 13): f work on, in, or around a pipeline ( see regulation 16). Pressure equipment, cranes, and passenger ropeways The following hazards to which the Health and Safety in Employment (Pressure Equipment, Cranes, and Passenger Ropeways) Regulations 1999 apply: a operation of pressure equipment, cranes, and passenger ropeways ( equipment ) ( see regulations 10 and 12 of those regulations): b repair or alterations of equipment ( see regulation 11): c condition of equipment ( see regulations 12 to 15): d design of equipment ( see regulation 18): e manufacture of equipment ( see regulation 19): f supply of equipment ( see regulation 20). 1A Hazards associated with critical risk

Hansard

June 24, 2026

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill — Second Reading · Full day report

Second Reading Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:26): I move, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to begin by thanking everyone who made a submission to the Education and Workforce Committee on the bill, and, in particular, those who made suggestions to improve its workability. The feedback received has been important in making sure that the bill does what it’s intended to do: focus effort on preventing the most serious harm. I also want to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee for its work on this bill. The committee has tested the detail carefully in response to submissions, and the changes it has made improve clarity and make the bill more workable in practice. This bill delivers on a commitment in the ACT-National coalition agreement to reform work health and safety law and regulations, restoring clarity and common sense to the system. Importantly, it reflects what we’ve heard from people across the country. I’ve heard from small-business owners, workers, and operators across this country, through submissions, engagement, and direct conversations, that the current system can be co…
Read full Hansard debate
Second Reading Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:26): I move, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to begin by thanking everyone who made a submission to the Education and Workforce Committee on the bill, and, in particular, those who made suggestions to improve its workability. The feedback received has been important in making sure that the bill does what it’s intended to do: focus effort on preventing the most serious harm. I also want to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee for its work on this bill. The committee has tested the detail carefully in response to submissions, and the changes it has made improve clarity and make the bill more workable in practice. This bill delivers on a commitment in the ACT-National coalition agreement to reform work health and safety law and regulations, restoring clarity and common sense to the system. Importantly, it reflects what we’ve heard from people across the country. I’ve heard from small-business owners, workers, and operators across this country, through submissions, engagement, and direct conversations, that the current system can be confusing, time-consuming, and, at times, focused on the wrong things. Too often, effort goes into paperwork and process rather than into the actions that actually keep people safe. That is what this bill is changing. Put simply, this bill is about making the rules clearer so that businesses and workers can focus on what matters most: preventing deaths and serious injuries and illness. There are many technical changes in this bill, but I want to focus on three that will make the biggest difference in practice. The first is about making it clearer that effort should be focused on the risks that can cause the most harm—that is, critical risks: the risks likely to result in death, serious injury, or serious illness. There was a confusion about what “likely to result in” meant. Some people thought this was about how likely a risk is to happen. That is not the point. This bill now makes it clearer that it’s about the consequence; how bad the outcome would be if a risk goes wrong. Even if a risk is unlikely to eventuate, if it is likely to cause serious harm or death, it should be a priority. For example, a catastrophic machinery failure may be unlikely, but, if it occurs, it is likely to result in death; that is a critical risk. By contrast, a more common but low-consequence hazard would not meet that threshold. This is an important distinction. It helps businesses cut through the noise and focus on the things that really matter: the risks that seriously change lives. We’ve also made it clear that this can include psychological harm, where that harm is likely to lead to serious physical harm. This is about keeping the focus where it should be: on real-world outcomes. The second area is where multiple businesses are working together—for example, on a construction site or a shared operation. Under this bill, small businesses are required to manage only critical risks, while continuing to meet all worker welfare obligations. The committee has clarified how this works in practice when multiple businesses are involved in the same work. I’ve heard that this can be one of the more confusing parts of the system. People are not always clear about who needs to do what, and that can lead to duplication or unnecessary complexity. This bill does not make that more complicated. In fact, it does the opposite. It reinforces that businesses need to work together on the critical risks to consult, cooperate, and coordinate, but without duplicating effort or over-complicating things. If a business would prefer all firms on their worksite to manage the same duties, they can. The bill enables them to contract other firms to manage all health and safety risks, not just critical risks, putting the power in the hands of those with boots on the ground rather than Wellington bureaucrats. The goal here is straightforward: less confusion, less overlap, and more focus on the risks that actually need managing. The third change is about recreational access. I’ve heard concerns that the current settings can lead to unnecessary restrictions on people accessing land, whether that’s for walking, hunting, or other outdoor activities. That’s not a good outcome. New Zealanders value access to the outdoors, and landowners need clarity about when work health and safety duties apply. This bill makes that clearer. For example, charging a small access fee won’t on its own make that activity part of your business and subject to work health and safety duties. The aim is to remove unnecessary barriers while still making sure protections apply where work is actually taking place. Across all of the changes within this bill, the goal is the same: to make the system easier to understand, to reduce unnecessary compliance and duplication, and to make sure that time and effort are going into preventing serious harm, not into navigating complexity. This bill does not lower standards. It strengthens the system by making it clearer and more practical. Finally, I again thank the Education and Workforce Committee for its work and all those who contributed to the process. This is a practical set of changes informed by the people who use the system every day. It reflects a Government that has listened, and to a lot of people who usually don’t get consulted, and that is focused on getting results—clear rules, less confusion, more focus on what keeps people safe. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (21:32): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Throughout the course of this term of this Government, we’ve had quite a number of employment bills and legislation moving through the House. It has been one hit to workers after another. There have been times when I’ve stood here and I’ve said I’m willing to work and willing to look at how we can make legislation better. This is not one of them. This is perhaps one of the worst pieces of legislation that we’ve seen come into this House. This bill does nothing but weaken protections that keep people safe on the job. It risks more injuries and deaths and does nothing to reduce New Zealand’s already unacceptable rate of workplace fatalities. Last week in our scrutiny hearings, we questioned the Minister about this bill and perhaps the budget that goes alongside it, or non-budget that goes alongside it, to implement it, and we got told, “Perhaps people need to stop being so pessimistic.” What an awful thing to say when we’re talking about protecting people’s lives and keeping them safe at work. This is a terrible piece of legislation. We’re not standing here trying to say, “Oh, it’s bad.” just for the sake of it being bad. This is a piece of legislation that is going to put people’s lives more at risk than what they currently are. Simplifying legislation does not make it better. In fact, in this particular case, simplifying it is only making it worse. The Minister knows that on her desk when she was coming in as Minister were the completed plant and structure regulations. But I believe that, being from a party that doesn’t believe in regulations, they were put aside for this horrible piece of legislation. In fact, the Minister has been told by business, by workers, by employer advocates, by unions that the Act itself, as it stands at the moment, works quite well, but it’s the secondary legislation that needs to be put in place. Why that wasn’t listened to? Only the Minister can answer that, but by not listening to those people and those experts, she is putting more people in this country at risk and more people at risk of not coming home at the end of the day. I don’t normally sit on this select committee, but I sat in for many of the submissions. The vast majority of submitters were against this bill, and, actually, they came from all different walks of life. We had many businesses who were against it, employer advocates, and some of those employer advocates would normally be on the side of the Government and support the Government and their agenda, but, actually, this time they said, “No, we cannot support this, because we want our workers to come home safe.” We also heard from workers, we heard from unions, who were united in that this bill is going to be a bad bill and a bad piece of legislation for workers in this country. Again, at the scrutiny hearing last week, the Minister alluded to the fact that maybe many of those people who are opposed are making money as consultants, as health and safety consultants. How insulting to those people that care about their workers and care about people coming home safe that that statement would be made about those people who were opposing this bill. The other part that’s really insulting in this legislative statement, and was also present in the departmental report, is a statement that says the submissions revealed considerable misunderstandings of how the bill is intended to operate. I say it’s insulting because many of those people are the most passionate and most skilled people in the health and safety at work area. Many of those people have spent their life’s work fighting, fighting to make our conditions better so that we can improve our horrific standards of safety in this country at work. Yet it is stated that they’ve misunderstood how the legislation is to work. They haven’t misunderstood it. They have actually said to the Minister it works well now; we just need to have that secondary legislation in place. People deserve to come home safe from work. The health and safety Act as it stands at the moment was put in place after one of the most horrific workplace events that caused the most fatalities in the modern era in this country. Of course, we all remember that, and you too, Madam Speaker, being in your electorate—the Pike River disaster. It was a horrific stain on our history in this country. We came together as a Parliament back then and put that legislation into place, knowing that there was more work to do. Why are we not doing that work and continuing that work? Why are we weakening this now to pre - Pike River conditions? The Stand with Pike River people have been here in Parliament over the last couple of days. Standing out the front, listening to them today and listening to their rationale—Sonya and Anna—of why they have fought and fought and fought to get our workplaces safer so that no one else ever has to go through what they have to go through was one of the most emotional times that you can spend, or I have actually ever spent, as a politician. I watched people in the crowd out there today with tears in their eyes. They know that this bill has come back from select committee no better than what it went to select committee as. This bill is a backward step for health and safety at work in this country. It is a backward step, especially for small businesses. The small carve-out for persons conducting a business or undertaking from some of their health and safety duties runs counter to the evidence that they are often less safe than their larger counterparts. We have the evidence that shows that, the ACC data shows that, and yet some arbitrary figure of 20 was put in place, rather than looking at the safety of the businesses themselves. I read a Spinoff article this week that showed just how stupid that is. You could have an abseiling company of 12 to 15 people or less, and you don’t have the same health and safety requirements put on you as an accounting firm with 21 employees. That just makes no sense whatsoever—20 is an arbitrary figure. The other side know that this is silly, they know that this doesn’t work, and they know that this will mean more accidents and fatalities in this country, but they have to go through with it because it’s in their coalition agreement. Well, I’m going to turn to New Zealand First and say that that coalition agreement is not with you, and I know that New Zealand First members feel that they have to abide by the others, but they have also heard from those Pike River people. They could put an end to this bill right now, and how much more harm has to happen in this country—how much more? It is not OK to sit there and say, “We will do something about it after the election.” This bill does nothing—nothing—to address our poor record on health and safety in this country. The big fear here is that we are going to see more issues after this bill is in place and, unfortunately, more people not coming home from work. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (21:42): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose this bill. The proposed changes within this bill weaken the system designed to keep workers safe and healthy. New Zealand already has disastrously bad workplace health and safety outcomes, and this bill is likely to make that worse. It is a reasonable expectation of whānau and families that when their loved ones go to work, they come home alive, and when their loved ones go to work, they come home unharmed, and it’s also a reasonable expectation of families, whānau, and communities that this House passes laws which improve work safety. This bill does not do any of that. I want to acknowledge the many people that came to the Education and Workforce Committee to share their views—and I acknowledge what has been said before me, as well. They came from a wide range of perspectives. We had unions, we had businesses, and we had health and safety experts, as well, and next to none of them supported this bill. In fact, everybody that I listened to had some sort of criticism of this bill. The range of organisations and businesses that oppose this bill, or that at least raise significant concerns about its impact and workability, demonstrates the significant failings of this legislation. The fundamental issues of critical risk and the small employer carve-out for persons conducting a business or undertaking were widely opposed by many business groups, individual businesses, unions, lawyers, and health and safety specialists. As all good select committees do, the select committee did try to knock some of the rougher edges off this piece of legislation, but, as we have seen through the passage of this Parliament when we’ve had anti-worker piece of legislation after anti-worker piece of legislation come through the select committee process, all of a sudden, it then just gets rubber-stamped at the end of it. I am concerned about the number of concerns that have been raised about the amount of legislation that has come through that select committee where, basically, the ACT Party shows up and they’ve got an anti-worker piece of legislation, and then the National Party tries to knock some of the edges off, as well. So my challenge to the parties on the other side of the House is to do the right thing and actually see this for what it is. We’re getting closer to the election, and people can tell. People can tell that, actually, the National Party needs to stand up. They need to stand up to their bosses in the ACT Party, because, once again, we’ve got another bad piece of legislation which is going to be worse for workers and bad for their work health and safety, as well. I was out on the steps of Parliament today, where we were joined and, actually, led by the Pike River whānau, and, if I could remind the House, the changes that were brought in by the 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act were passed in response to the Pike River tragedy. We all remember that. We all remember that; in fact, some of us were here in the House when the legislation was passed—including yourself, Madam Assistant Speaker Pugh—and if anybody knows what happens when you don’t do things properly and when you don’t get things right, it is those families and it is those whānau. It is those families, and when they raise their voices, it is important that we listen, it is important that we take stock, and it’s important, if we need to, to pause the process and to really reflect on what is being done here. I listened very carefully to what was being said outside. I’ve got a quote here from Anna Osborne, who spoke outside, on the front of Parliament, and this is what she said. “This will undoubtedly lead to more injuries and people may take shortcuts where there is no requirements to comply with the laws that larger workplaces must adhere to. We have seen the consequences of ignoring health and safety, look at Pike River.”, she said. “Because of Pike we fought hard to toughen up these laws. We devoted our time to try to save the lives of workers in New Zealand to make sure Pike never happened again.”, and she ended with this: “We urge every member of Parliament to listen to evidence, take these warnings seriously and”—New Zealand First, this is for you—“vote this bill down.” The whānau who we were listening to outside were angry and concerned about this bill, but there has also been other commentary—a wide range of commentary—in opposition to and critical of this bill, as well. I’ve picked up the comments of Mike Cosman, the spokesperson for the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management, who has said—and I think he put it succinctly—that this is a “dog’s breakfast” of a bill. A “dog’s breakfast” of a bill is how he has described it, and he went on to describe the many problems with the bill. He outlined them and he focused on four different parts, and I’ll read those out: “The bill would exempt 97 percent of New Zealand businesses from having a legal duty to manage many of their most significant risks, the non-critical ones.”—97 percent is what he said. “Small businesses have a 24 percent higher injury rate than larger firms. Carving them out makes no sense.” I did pick up the comments made by the Minister about one of the amendments, amongst a number of amendments that were made by the select committee, which I don’t feel will resolve the issue, where you’re going to get larger firms who will be able to work with smaller companies to try to adhere for some of these issues. What that does is it actually places more compliance on those worksites, because if you’ve ever been to a worksite, often there are small contractors working with other medium-sized contractors and sometimes with bigger contractors, and if, all of a sudden we’re pushing the responsibility on to that group, that doesn’t provide clarity; actually, that gives the potential for more confusion. So there, on that side of the House, they’re all about trying to get rid of the tape, and I think they call it the red tape and the green tape. But here we have yellow tape and blue tape, and the potential confusion of it. The other thing that Mike Cosman also talked about was the main risk that workers in some of those businesses will no longer be protected against musculoskeletal risks—so ergonomic slips, falls—and psychosocial harms, and that was brought up a number of times by submitters, as well. These are the Nos 1 and 2 causes of workplace harm. We also noted that ACC strongly opposes the carve-out of musculoskeletal risks because they pay out more than $3.6 billion every year for such injuries in small businesses. Actually, during scrutiny week, our Green MP Mike Davidson, I believe, was scrutinising the Minister for ACC by asking these questions directly to the Minister for ACC about what potential this bill will have, because what it will do is shift the responsibility on to the workers but also, potentially, overburden the ACC system. The response, from what I could gather, from the Minister for ACC was the hospital pass back to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, who had a lacklustre response at scrutiny week in front of the Education and Workforce Committee. When we asked her directly about this, she kicked the can down the road. There’s another thing that’s waiting for us in the future. If no one’s going to be taking responsibility and there won’t be any direction from that side of the House, then, actually, there’s going to be the potential for it to become another layer of weight and burden on the ACC system there as well. Mental health and workload management are also very unlikely to be captured by the new focus on critical risks. We did prosecute this also in scrutiny week as well. It’s all very good and well to point to particular moments where things get particularly stressful, which could lead to, in some cases, workplace suicide, but what we know is, actually, that can happen over a number of years—it can happen over a number of years. Mental stress and the impact on mental health and wellbeing can happen over a number of years as well. This can was also kicked down the road as well. We had different groups coming to the select committee, and I want to acknowledge all of them. We had people working in the forestry industry, as well, who are really, really concerned about how this would impact some of their industry. You have sometimes small contractors working there—sometimes one or two people—but those are often high-risk jobs as well. This will add extra confusion to that. The problem with this bill—and there are many of them; and if I could use the words of somebody who came to the committee, who said, “It’s like having a two-tier system.” It is going to be a two-tier system and a confusing one at that. Different cars are driving on the road. Some are having to stop at traffic lights, but others are not. This will just create problems, and this will create further risks in the health and safety system. The Greens do not support this bill. In fact, this entire House should listen to the Pike River whānau and oppose this bill. We do not, at all, commend this bill to the House. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (21:53): I’d like to build on the last member’s analogy and actually say that what this is is a road with multiple different lanes—a bus lane, a T3, and general traffic. Actually, sometimes the bus lane and the T3 need to get some shortcuts so that they can get ahead and make efficiencies. That is what this is about. The answer that is going to take our businesses ahead and take our industries ahead to protect these sectors, especially the high-risk ones, are the approved codes of practice (ACOPs). I want to draw attention of members opposite to the very strong provision of the ACOPs, which has been called for by industries. We heard that in submissions. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (21:53): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First on this Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill to offer what I could generously describe as tepid support for this second reading. It is, I would emphasise, a coalition agreement between National and ACT. We do agree with the Minister’s intention. Health and safety has been too bureaucratic and burdened with too much focus on clipboards and not practical solutions. The current system is not working. Our injury rates are far too high, certainly in comparison to our international comparators. Too many New Zealanders are injured at work. For some, they don’t come home. It was poignant to hear the Pike River families this morning, reminding us. Even minor injuries take a high human toll. They’re debilitating, they’re irritating, and they’re inconvenient. The Crown picks up an eye-watering ACC bill—$3.6 billion for those minor injuries. It is a drag on our nation’s productivity. Workplace safety is, essentially, a culture issue, and it is important that this Parliament does not send the wrong signal. In the first reading, New Zealand First, through myself, indicated that this was a difficult issue and the stakes were high. Unfortunately, New Zealand First is not represented on the Education and Workforce Committee. I emphasised that New Zealand First would be listening very carefully to what the feedback was from that hearing. This is where our problems with this bill began. The bill was universally slammed in select committee. We had a literal conga line of organisations in our offices, raising the alarm bells—not just the usual suspects of the unions and those that might be described, possibly unkindly, by Jan Tinetti as “professional clipboard operators”. I’ll give you this, from the submission of the Employers and Manufacturers Association: “The Bill as presented will not reduce red tape, reduce harm or make compliance easier for small employers. Rather than making ‘minor tweaks’ we feel the Bill introduces structural changes that we believe will undo all the progress to date. It makes systemic changes that will create (by design) a two-tier platform where a large number of employees may be at risk and receive a lower level of protection. This appears inconsistent with the intent of the Health and Safety at Work Act’s purpose that all workers receive the highest level of protection against harm.” And this is from Safer Farms: “Safer Farms is concerned that the proposed amendments may not achieve improved health and safety outcomes for agriculture and may introduce unintended consequences. In particular, the narrow definition of ‘critical risk’, the subjectivity introduced by the term ‘likely’, and the proposed exemption for small PCBUs risk diminishing attention on the harms that occur most frequently and cost [our] sector the most.” I would question the select committee because this report did not come back reflecting the overwhelming weight of the submissions. What we heard was that the characterisation of “critical risk” was a major problem and that the carve-out for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) created a problematic two-tier system. The term “likely” in clause 9, as opposed to the current—I’ll skip over that because that’s not clear in my notes; I want to be accurate here because this is an important issue. Adding the term “likely” in clause 9 creates uncertainty in the probabilistic assessment. We heard concerns about the lack of requirement to consult for changes to the New Schedule 1A list; that overlapping enactments seemingly create a loophole; and that removal of safe harbour provisions stops innovation with the approved codes of practice (ACOPs) and, essentially, gives them a status that sits above regulation. We heard some concern from port operators about the requirements in the bill as it stands to coordinate all PCBUs on those dangerous workplaces. We heard sensible suggestions that WorkSafe be split between education and enforcement. The lessons from Pike River were that the labour department was both culpable and the prosecutor. If there has ever been a case that we step back and reassess after listening to feedback to the select committee, this is it. The risks of getting this wrong are high. We continue to seek constructive dialogue with the Minister and our coalition partners before the committee of the whole House stage. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is adjourned. We’ll resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.

Documents and supporting material