Health and Safety at Work Act 2015’s biggest overhaul in over a decade

Employment Law
Sep 14 2026

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill (“Bill”) received royal assent on 9 July 2026.

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 (“HSWAA 2026”) implements amendments to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (“HSWA 2015”). The HSWAA comes into force on 1 April 2027, with the exception of the Approved Codes of Practice in force from 10 July 2026.

The key changes include

  • Reducing regulatory burdens on small businesses operating in low-risk environments by requiring management of only critical risks and providing basic workplace facilities.
  • Reframing the purpose of the HSWA 2015 to focus on managing serious risks (e.g., death or serious injury).
  • Clarifying how health and safety duties overlap and interact with other regulatory systems.
  • Adjusting governance vs operational responsibilities to provide clearer accountability and alleviate concerns about director liability.
  • Reforming Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) framework to enhance clarity and compliance certainty.

Critical risks

The inclusion of ‘critical risks’ has been implemented into the HSWA 2015, essentially requiring a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (“PCBU”) to focus on prioritising hazards which are most likely to cause death or serious injury.

A critical risk is defined as:

(a) 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:

  1. a death;
  2. a notifiable injury or illness;
  3. a notifiable incident; and
  4. an occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

The HSWA 2015 now incorporates a Schedule 1A which defines specific hazards that are associated with critical risks.

Purpose

The purpose of the HSWA 2015 has been reframed to focus on PCBUs managing serious risks rather than simply identifying those serious risks. Assessing whether the risk is a critical risk requires focusing on the seriousness of the harm that is likely to result if the risk occurs. It is not an assessment of the likelihood of that risk arising; rather, it is the level of harm that would unfold if the risk occurred. This includes harm to mental health in instances where it is likely to result in serious physical harm.

Small PCBUs

The HSWA 2015 now defines a small PCBU as “a PCBU in whose business or undertaking fewer than 20 workers carry out work in any capacity.” If the number of workers varies in the financial year, then the business will be 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.”

Small PCBUs now operate within refined obligations, meaning they only need to:

  • Act in accordance with key health and safety duties in relation to critical risks;
  • Focus on managing critical risks; and
  • Provide the basic welfare facilities.

Whilst small PCBUs are to focus on managing critical risks, larger PCBUs are required to prioritise managing critical risks in the first instance and then lower level risks. In instances where a small PCBU shares a worksite with a large PCBU on the same job then the small PCBU must work with the large PCBU on managing critical risks and may be required to work with the large PCBU on managing lower level risks.

Landowners and recreational activities

The Act clarifies the responsibility for health and safety in recreational activities on landowner’s land. This now lies with the operator conducting the activity rather than the landowner, unless the activity is a part of the landowner’s business or work is occurring at the same time.

Officer Liability

The HSWA 2015 now draws a distinction between governance vs operational health and safety responsibilities. Officers and directors retain due diligence obligations, but the amendments are intended to reduce uncertainty and concerns about personal liability for operational matters.

The HSWA 2015 now clarifies the following:

  • An officer’s duty of due diligence applies only to their governance role as an officer. The duty does not extend to any separate operational role they hold;
  • The definition of due diligence defines what the officer is required to understand and keep up to date with and what the officer must ensure the PCBU carries out, including the processes and resources that it has in place.
  • Officers must have up-to-date health and safety knowledge.

Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs)

The ACOPs framework has been strengthened to enhance clarity and compliance certainty. Industry groups, unions and employer organisations are now able to draft codes of practice; however, these are subject to review by the regulator in the event they wish to progress the draft proposal.

Forward Planning

The ACPO provisions are in effect now (from 10 July 2026) with the remainder of the HSWAA 2026 coming into force on 1 April 2027.

This buffer period has been intentionally set until after the November general election, essentially providing time for further negotiations to the law prior to 1 April 2027. Labour has revealed that it intends to repeal it if they are elected. New Zealand First has also indicated that it intends to review portions of the legislation, irrespective of the outcome of the election. Businesses should prepare for the HSWAA 2026 to come into force on 1 April 2027, but should watch this space for any developments following the election.

In preparation, PCBUs should determine

  • The number of workers they have and whether they fit into the small PCBU category;
  • What critical risks it has;
  • Whether they share a worksite with other PCBUs of varying sizes;
  • The ACOPs that may be relevant to their industry; and
  • What health and safety responsibilities are in place and who they sit with across the board and management.
AUTHORS
You may also like ...
Performance Improvement Plans: turning problems into progress
What is a Performance Improvement Plan? The term ‘Performance Improvement Plan’ — or PIP — is now widely recognised by both employers and employees. In today’s fast paced and constantly evolving workplaces, employers increasingly expect staff to perform consistently and add value. But while the concept of a PIP may be familiar to some, the practical realities are often far more complex. In practice, a PIP is a highly contentious area of employment law and mistakes in the process can quickly lead to workplace disputes, personal grievances, or costly litigation. In short, a PIP is not simply a tool for exiting an employee. Careful planning, transparent communication and clear documentation are essential to mitigate legal risk. For employees, being placed on a PIP is rarely welcome. Equally, for managers, preparing and overseeing one can be stressful, administratively heavy and fraught with potential pitfalls. Regardless of which side of the table you sit on, PIPs create pressure — and both parties must navigate the process carefully while upholding their respective obligations. What makes a PIP fair and legally compliant? To be compliant, fair and justifiable, a robust PIP must meet several legal requirements under New Zealand employment law and follow a fair and reasonable process. This generally includes: Adequate notice; Clear communication of expectations; Genuine and structured support; Opportunities for feedback and response. These components become especially critical if the process ultimately results in dismissal. Employees undergoing a PIP are entitled to a process that is fair and reasonable, particularly where poor performance concerns could lead to dismissal. This generally means: You should not be placed under undue scrutiny or required to meet unrealistic standards within unreasonable timeframes. You are not expected to demonstrate sudden improvement without clear guidance, structured support and adequate time. Performance concerns must not be confused with misconduct, which requires a different process with distinct legal tests and procedural steps. While these principles set the framework for what a fair PIP should look like, the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court regularly assess whether employers have actually met these standards in practice. Lessons from recent employment law cases Recent employment law decisions continue to highlight the importance of process, documentation and meaningful support when managing performance concerns. One example is Lowings v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canterbury[1] where the Employment Relations Authority considered whether a dismissal following a PIP was justified in circumstances involving allegations of bullying and unfair procedure. The Authority ultimately found that the University had run a robust and fair PIP. Importantly, it highlighted that the employer had: Appointed a different manager — not the person accused of bullying — to oversee the PIP and provide daily support. Given the employee meaningful opportunities to comment on, and contribute to, the PIP process. Set out the performance issues and required standards in a clear, structured PIP document, including timelines, targets, training and support. Held weekly review meetings and provided written reports after each meeting. Conducted monthly review meetings and notified the employee of ongoing concerns. Extended the PIP to accommodate periods of leave and provide further opportunity for improvement. The Lowings decision illustrates the importance of transparent documentation, consistent communication and demonstrably genuine support. When employers meet these standards, they are far better placed to defend the fairness of their actions. Conversely, many cases show how quickly a poorly drafted or inconsistently applied PIP can unravel and how easily gaps in process, communication or support can undermine an employer’s position. The legal principles that apply to dismissal for poor performance are well summarised by the Employment Court in Trotter v Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd[2], which confirms that an employer may dismiss for performance-based reasons provided it has acted in a manner that is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. Managing performance issues effectively Our employment law team regularly assists both employers and employees with performance management and all aspects of Performance Improvement Plans, from drafting and implementing compliant processes to advising employees on their rights, risks, and options. Whether you are overseeing a PIP or undergoing one yourself, we can guide you through the legal, procedural and practical steps to ensure the process is handled fairly, transparently and lawfully. [1] Lowings v Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canterbury [2025] NZERA 189. [2] Trotter v Telecom Corporation NZ ltd [1993] 2 ERNZ 659.
Read more
The real relationship revealed: Uber drivers’ employment status confirmed by the Supreme Court
On 17 November 2025, in a majority decision, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Uber’s appeal, confirming that the four Uber drivers who brought the proceedings were employees, not independent contractors. This brings an end to this dispute which has been ongoing since 2021, and in which Uber has now been unsuccessful in each of the relevant Courts. Importantly, in reaching its decision the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the existing legal tests for determining whether someone is an employee or a contractor. There has been no change in this respect. The Court is imposed with the duty of establishing the real nature of the parties\' relationship which will override any contract which was entered into by the parties. This includes looking at intention, control, integration and “economic reality”. Despite Uber’s terms and conditions describing their relationship as one of company and contractor, the Court meticulously dissected the language of the document. It was evident that the agreement was drafted in the manner of a “take it or leave it document”, essentially prohibiting negotiation of its terms and disguising the reality of the parties\' relationship. The Supreme Court, therefore, concurred with the Court of Appeal that the contractual terms were “fictional” as they failed to reflect how the actual relationship between Uber and its drivers operated in practice. The Supreme Court noted that a passenger could not reasonably be expected to think they were contracting with the driver when they get into the car. They ordered the service from Uber and agreed to pay Uber for it. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that Uber’s contracts were “window-dressing.” This means that the contracts were designed to give the appearance of a different relationship than the one that actually exists, to the extent that it asserts that Uber is a mere facilitator of transport services between drivers and users. The Supreme Court held this is not the true relationship nor what unfolds in practice. The Supreme Court also agreed with the Court of Appeal that Uber exercised very close control over the Uber Drivers delivery of their services, particularly through controlling how the drivers performed, their route selection, their performance, their policies, their behaviour, the fare prices, the terms and services, complaints and refunds, as well as the rating system. Drivers lack control over the quantity and quality of work, the price they are paid for their services and their inability to build goodwill, despite being the face of Uber’s business and having a relationship of co-dependency with Uber and its Drivers. The decision highlights that when determining employment status, the assessment is very much fact-specific. We also note that the Supreme Court decision comes as the Government is separately proposing its Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This would specifically exclude workers from claiming that they were an employee if they have signed a written agreement confirming they are an independent contractor. The Select Committee is due to report back to Parliament on this next month. If you have any questions regarding this decision and what it may mean for your business, please reach out to one of our employment team members.
Read more
Employment Relations Amendment Bill: big changes for employment law
Significant changes to employment law are one step closer, with the Government introducing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill to Parliament on 17 June 2025. This Bill sets out the changes flagged by the Government earlier this year, and provides further detail as to how those changes will work.  The Bill still needs to go through the Select Committee stage and various readings in Parliament before it becomes law, so there is potential for some details to change, but the core aspects are likely to remain the same.  If passed, the Bill would significantly rebalance key areas of employment law in favour of employers. The proposed “contractor gateway” test would introduce a new test for determining whether a worker is an employee or a contractor. A number of criteria will need to be met, and if they are, then the worker will be automatically deemed to be a contractor.  However, it is unclear whether many businesses who engage contractors will be able to meet these criteria.  In particular, the relevant contractor cannot be restricted from working for other businesses, except while performing work for the principal business.  It is common for businesses to want to restrict working for others where a conflict of interest could arise, e.g. the contractor providing services for a competitor at the same time.  Further, the business can’t require the contractor to work particular hours, unless it permits the contractor to sub-contract the work.  Where businesses have engaged a particular individual to perform the work, they are likely to be reluctant to allow another individual to step into the contractor’s shoes.  If only a limited number of businesses can meet the test, then the changes may do little to achieve the Government’s goal of greater certainty around contractor status.  If a business can’t meet the new test, the current “real nature of the relationship” test will apply, which is very fact-specific and involves a greater degree of subjectivity. The Bill also targets remedies for personal grievances, aiming to reduce or even remove remedies where the employee has themselves behaved poorly. If an employee’s behaviour has contributed to the situation then they will not be eligible for reinstatement or distress compensation, but other remedies, e.g. reimbursement of lost wages, may still be available.  However, any remedies may be reduced by up to 100% depending on how bad the behaviour was.  If the behaviour rises to the level of serious misconduct the employee will not be entitled to any remedies at all.  This latter position could have unintended consequences, as it may incentivise employers to dispense with complying with their fair process obligations prior to dismissal where the employer is comfortable the employee has committed serious misconduct.  A penalty may be available for breach of the good faith duty in such circumstances, but penalties tend to be at a far lower level than other remedies.  We may also see an increase in creative claims seeking damages for breach of implied terms of employment agreements, in lieu of personal grievance remedies being available. The annual income threshold above which an employee will lose the statutory right to raise an unjustified dismissal personal grievance has also been confirmed to be $180,000, although this will be adjusted yearly in line with changes to average earnings. This figure includes the employee’s base salary/wages, but does not include any other forms of remuneration such as bonus payments.  Employers and employees may agree to opt back into the statutory dismissal grievance regime, or alternatively can agree their own arrangements around termination of employment.  The Bill has clarified that by default an employee would also not be able to bring any “other legal proceedings” in respect of a dismissal, meaning alternative claims e.g. an unjustified disadvantage personal grievance, or breach of employment agreement claim, would also be barred.  If the Bill is passed, the change will apply to new employment agreements, but employees on existing employment agreements will have a 12-month transition period to allow them to negotiate with their employer regarding the arrangements around termination of employment.  We expect that most employers will not want to opt back into the statutory dismissal grievance regime, but in return senior employees are likely to want greater contractual protections against the impacts of a sudden dismissal, e.g. pre-agreed severance payments, longer notice periods, etc. Finally, the Bill contains a number of other more minor changes, including to the way that the Employment Relations Authority or court approach the “test of justification”, which is the central test in determining whether an employee has a valid personal grievance.  A key change is that in applying the test, the Authority or court will be required to consider whether the employee obstructed the employer from following a fair process prior to taking an action (e.g. dismissal). Businesses, employees and contractors should keep an eye on the Bill’s progress, and if the changes are passed, seek advice on the implications for their employment or contractor relationships. This article was published for the Bay of Plenty Times, 7 July 2025.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top