The Work Health and Safety Reform Bill Misses the Mark: A Legal and Policy Critique
Earlier this month, the Government introduced the Work Health and Safety Reform Bill (Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill 244‑1, 2026), describing it as a long‑awaited simplification of New Zealand’s health and safety regulatory system.
The Bill claims it will reduce compliance costs, increase certainty, and refocus the system on “critical risks.” However, upon closer examination, the reforms risk undermining the very objectives they purport to advance.
Below, BuckettLaw unpacks the Bill’s stated intentions and highlights structural flaws that threaten to weaken worker protections, increase ambiguity, and shift legal and operational burdens in counterproductive ways.
1. Narrowing the System to “Critical Risks” Undermines Prevention
The Bill’s narrow focus on “critical risks” undermines the objectives of the act; The Bill directs PCBUs to focus primarily on “critical risks” those likely to cause death or notifiable harm. This is presented as a solution to confusion and supposed over‑compliance under the current broad, performance‑based duties of the HSW Act.
However, narrowing duties in this way fundamentally misconceives how workplace harm actually occurs.
Industry experts have repeatedly warned that most harm does not arise from initially “critical” hazards. Instead, it develops cumulatively through routine work, degraded controls, and normalised deviation. Psychological harm leading to suicide is a clear example of cumulative harm not captured by a narrow risk definition.
Similarly, the Institute of Safety Management has cautioned that the proposed definition excludes the most frequent and costly forms of harm musculoskeletal injuries, psychological injury, aggression, and occupational illness. These would fall outside the new framework despite their significance.
In effect, the Bill recasts non‑critical harm as acceptable harm a regressive, outdated approach that undermines the prevention‑focused architecture of the HSW Act.
2. The Bill Creates More Ambiguity, Not Less
A key objective of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary compliance and increase certainty for businesses.
Yet the mechanisms used to achieve this have the opposite effect.
Under the reforms, PCBUs particularly SMEs must determine:
What qualifies as a “critical risk”
What does not
Which controls and duties no longer apply
This is framed as simplification, but in practice it introduces new layers of judgement and increases the space for inconsistent interpretations. Uncertainty creates bad law.
As a result:
PCBUs with fewer resources will shoulder more interpretive and legal burden
Variability across industries will increase
Under‑estimation of hazards becomes more likely, especially where harm sits just outside a strict “critical” definition
This is not simplification—it is a devolution of responsibility without adequate guidance.
3. “Small, Low‑Risk Business” Settings Introduce Dangerous Loopholes
The Bill introduces special rules for small, low‑risk businesses, requiring them to manage only critical risks and provide basic facilities and oversight only for those risks.
However, the terms “small” and “low risk” are not clearly defined.
This creates significant issues:
Businesses may downplay risk profiles to reduce obligations
Workers may lose access to training, supervision, and PPE for non‑critical harms
Frequent injuries slips, strains, stress may fall outside mandatory controls
The Bill risks incentivising avoidance behaviour rather than improving safety.
4. Industry‑Led ACOPs Risk Weakening Standards
The Bill aims to create “greater certainty” by strengthening approved codes of practice (ACOPs). On its face, this seems positive.
However, the Bill allows industry groups to initiate ACOPs, with government sign‑off.
The risks are clear:
Industry‑led ACOPs may prioritise commercial convenience over robust safety
Compliance with an ACOP will constitute compliance with the law, even if the ACOP is flawed or outdated
Variable industry standards may become entrenched
WorkSafe’s regulatory authority may weaken
A tool intended to reduce confusion may instead create fragmentation and inconsistencies in worker protection across sectors.
5. The “Over‑Compliance” Narrative Is Misleading
The Bill repeats the narrative that the current regulatory system generates over‑compliance and fear of enforcement.
However:
Nationwide consultation indicated duty holders wanted more guidance—not less
Many critics argue WorkSafe has been too soft, not too aggressive, especially regarding officers and directors
By reframing essential safety duties as bureaucratic burden, the Bill risks weakening deterrence and diluting organisational accountability.
6. Governance vs. Operational Duties – A Troubling Shift
The Bill attempts to distinguish more sharply between governance duties and operational duties to reduce perceived liability fears among directors.
However, such blurred boundaries can create:
Gaps in accountability
Confusion about due‑diligence requirements
Reduced director involvement in safety leadership
Given the Pike River tragedy—which directly informed the HSW Act weakening officer duties risks undermining the very governance cultures the Act was designed to strengthen.
This is a concerning shortcut at a time when the Pike River regulatory legacy remains unresolved.
7. The Bill Moves NZ Further Away from Australian Best Practice
Despite being introduced a decade after the HSW Act, the Bill moves New Zealand further away from the Australian model that inspired the original legislation.
Australia’s harmonised WHS laws impose a broad, risk‑based duty to eliminate or minimise all foreseeable risks, not just critical ones.
Australia recognises that catastrophic harm rarely emerges in isolation—it stems from chains of ordinary hazards that accumulate over time.
By contrast, the Bill:
Limits duties for “small, low‑risk” businesses
Allows gaps in training, supervision, and PPE for non‑critical risks
Embeds a tiered system that will create variability between industries
This creates regulatory drift between NZ and its closest comparator.
That divergence matters. For trans‑Tasman businesses, this increases compliance complexity and unpredictability. For workers, it risks a two‑speed system New Zealand cannot afford.
While reducing unnecessary compliance and clarifying responsibilities are worthy goals, the Work Health and Safety Reform Bill suffers from structural weaknesses that undermine the very objectives it sets out to achieve.
By narrowing the duty of care to critical risks, devolving interpretive burdens to SMEs, and enabling inconsistent industry‑led standards, the Bill risks creating:
More ambiguity, not less
More loopholes, not fewer
Greater harm, not improved safety outcomes
Greater legal involvement
BuckettLaw will continue to monitor the Bill’s progress through Parliament and will provide further analysis as amendments and debate unfold. With current data supporting stability and the status quo, the Bill demands robust critical scrutiny. Health and safety remains a serious issue in all New Zealand workplaces.
If you would like advice on how the proposed changes may affect your business or governance responsibilities, please get in touch.
