Advocacy and Legislation

Submission on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

posted on

March 2026

To the Education and Workforce Committee

Introduction

  1. The Restaurant Association of New Zealand (the Restaurant Association) welcomes the opportunity to make a submission on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill (the Bill).
  1. This submission is made on behalf of the Restaurant Association’s members, who are predominantly restaurant and café owners and operators across New Zealand. We are the representative body for more than 2,500 hospitality businesses, with more than 50,000 employees. Our membership spans the length and breadth of the country.
  1. The Restaurant Association is an employer organisation, representing specifically small PCBUs in the hospitality sector.
  1. Feedback we have gathered from our members directly informs this submission. We draw on that data throughout to ground our views in the actual experience of hospitality operators.
  1. The hospitality industry is characterised overwhelmingly by small businesses. The majority of our members employ 20 or fewer people, meaning the provisions directed at small PCBUs are directly and significantly relevant to our sector. We note that Statistics NZ data confirms 97% of all New Zealand businesses fall within the small business threshold proposed in this Bill — our members are the very businesses this reform is designed to assist.
  1. The Restaurant Association is supportive of the Bill’s direction. We support the development of a system that is easy to follow and low-cost for businesses, while retaining a high level of safety for employees and one that does not place disproportionate compliance burden on small hospitality businesses. We believe the Bill has genuine potential to address this — provided it is implemented with clear, sector-specific guidance and appropriate support for small business owners. The Restaurant Association considers that the success of these reforms will depend on the clarity, consistency, and practicality of implementation in practice.

Our Members’ experience with the current system

  1. Understanding obligations: Around 92% of members say they understand their health and safety obligations quite well or very well. However, those who reported difficulty specifically requested industry-specific templates or guides — indicating that understanding the law in general terms is not the same as knowing how to apply it in a hospitality context. In response to this feedback, the Restaurant Association has developed its own Health and Safety programme to provide hospitality operators with clear, practical guidance tailored to their operating environment. This reflects our members’ need for resources that translate legal obligations into workable, day-to-day practices.
  1. Compliance costs: Annual compliance costs vary widely across our membership, with most paying between $5,000 and $10,000 per year. Given that most hospitality businesses are micro- or small-businesses, even the lower range is significant. Members also spend between one and ten hours per week on health and safety compliance activity.
  1. Specific frustrations with the current system include:
    • The “reasonably practicable” standard, which members often perceive as open-ended and exposing them to significant liability regardless of the reasonableness of their actions
    • Reporting and logging requirements that are time-consuming and disproportionate for small operators
    • Inconsistent interpretation of compliance requirements by different certifiers
    • A perceived imbalance in accountability, with owners bearing significant legal exposure even where employee or customer behaviour contributed to an incident
  1. Sources of guidance: When asked where they turn for health and safety information, our members ranked their sources in the following order: (1) industry associations, (2) third parties authorised by WorkSafe, (3) law or regulations, guidance, and health and safety advisors jointly, (4) word of mouth, and (5) WorkSafe directly. Only 15% had directly queried WorkSafe for guidance — suggesting the majority of the sector navigates obligations without direct regulator support.
  1. System objectives: When asked whether the system balances risks with costs, 75% of members say “probably no” or “definitely no”. When asked whether it is clear, 56% said “probably no” or “definitely no”. These results reflect genuine concern about both the proportionality and the clarity of the current framework for our sector.

Part One: The Critical Risk framework and small PCBUs

  1. The Bill introduces a new category of “small PCBU” — a business or undertaking with fewer than 20 workers for at least nine of the preceding 12 months — and requires small PCBUs to focus their primary risk management duties on “critical risks”, while continuing to meet baseline worker welfare obligations (information, training, supervision, PPE, and welfare facilities such as first aid and washing facilities), and remaining subject to the overarching duty to ensure health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable.
  1. The Restaurant Association supports this reform.
  1. Some members say that the current system feels in practice as though a small café employing eight people has the same compliance expectations as a higher risk business. Members report that compliance expectations can feel overly complex, even if the legal standard is technically flexible. Members report a perception that regulators apply similar documentation or process expectations across very different business sizes.
  1. In addition, small businesses can misinterpret what “reasonably practicable” means for them, and may over-comply as a result, with some members reporting reliance on external consultants to provide reassurance on compliance (which comes at a cost to the business).
  1. We note the Bill’s definition of “critical risk” captures: (a) hazards already governed by high-risk regulatory regimes listed in Schedule 1A; and (b) any other hazard likely to result in death, a notifiable injury, illness or incident, or an occupational disease listed in the Accident Compensation Act 2001. In a hospitality context, this would typically capture higher-consequence hazards such as LPG gas systems, deep fryer and hot oil operations where there is potential for serious harm, and manual handling risks capable of causing significant injury — all of which our members already take seriously and manage actively.
  1. However, we have two concerns about implementation:
  2. The “worker” definition and the small PCBU threshold: We note that the definition of “worker” in the HSWA is intentionally broad, and includes not only employees but also contractors, subcontractors, and their employees. While this definition is well established, its interaction with the proposed 20-worker threshold for small PCBUs may create uncertainty in practice. Hospitality businesses may rely on a mix of permanent staff, casual workers, contractors for maintenance, and labour hire arrangements, often varying seasonally. It may not be clear in all cases how these different categories of workers should be counted toward the threshold. We ask the Committee to consider whether further clarity or guidance is needed on how the threshold is to be applied in these common scenarios. We also note the Bill clarifies that even for small PCBUs, the general duty to ensure health and safety “so far as is reasonably practicable” is not removed. This creates an important interaction between the overarching duty and the more specific focus on critical risks. We ask that the Bill and accompanying guidance provide sufficient clarity on how these duties are intended to operate together in practice, so that small business owner-operators can make confident, informed decisions about their obligations.
  3. Identifying critical risks in practice: Small PCBUs will need to assess which hazards in their workplace meet the “critical risk” threshold. Hospitality operators are generally very familiar with the hazards in their workplaces — such as hot surfaces, sharp knives, and slips and falls — and actively manage them. However, it may not always be clear how to determine which of these hazards are “likely to result in” a notifiable injury or death, as opposed to those that are common but lower consequence. This creates a practical “grey zone” where businesses must make judgement calls without clear benchmarks. We ask that the Committee to seek assurance that accompanying regulations provide clear, practical guidance on how this assessment is to be made, and that WorkSafe develops hospitality-sector-specific guidance as a priority following enactment
  4. Part Two: Approved Codes of Practice
  5. The Restaurant Association strongly supports both of these changes.
  6. Our members consistently identify industry associations as their primary source of health and safety guidance — ahead of WorkSafe, legal advice, and general regulatory guidance. This reflects the reality that industry bodies understand the day-to-day operating environment of their members. Our experience in developing sector-specific guidance for our members demonstrates the value of practical, industry-informed resources, and highlights the role that an ACOP could play in providing consistent, authoritative guidance across the sector.
  1. We consider that there is a strong case for the development of a hospitality-specific ACOP following the Bill’s enactment. Such an ACOP could provide practical, plain-language guidance on the critical risks most relevant to our sector in a form that owner-operators can readily understand and apply. It would help address the current situation in which our members piece together guidance from multiple sources. A hospitality ACOP would also play a critical role in providing clarity on how “critical risk” should be identified and managed in our sector.
  1. The Restaurant Association would be keen to engage with WorkSafe and other stakeholders on the development of such guidance, recognising the importance of ensuring that any ACOP reflects the practical realities of hospitality businesses.
  1. The safe harbour provision directly addresses our members’ most significant concern with the current system: the application of the “reasonably practicable” standard, which many members experience as open-ended and creating disproportionate legal exposure even for businesses that are acting responsibly. As one member put it in consultation from 2024: “If something goes to court, a prosecutor simply needs to establish that one more practicable and reasonable step could have been taken and the defendant will be found guilty.” A safe harbour linked to compliance with a sector-specific ACOP would give small business owners the confidence to focus on genuine hazard management rather than defensive over-compliance.
  2. We note that only the two most recently approved ACOPs (the Ports ACOP 2024 and the Forestry ACOP 2025) will carry safe harbour status on commencement. All other existing ACOPs will need to be reviewed and reapproved before achieving safe harbour status. We ask the Committee to consider whether the legislation should include a clear timeframe or priority programme for reviewing existing ACOPs, and for developing new ones in sectors — like hospitality — where no sector-specific ACOP currently exists.
  3. Part Three: Officer due diligence
  4. The Bill amends section 44 of the HSWA to clarify that an officer’s due diligence duties are governance duties only, confined to the listed due diligence steps in the Act and not extending to other roles the officer may also perform as a worker within the same organisation.
  5. The Restaurant Association supports this clarification. In the hospitality industry, the vast majority of businesses are owner-operated: the person who is legally the director of a company is also the person who opens the restaurant each morning, supervises the kitchen, and works the floor on busy nights. While the distinction between governance and operational duties exists in the legislation, our members report that applying this distinction in practice can be unclear.
  6. Clarifying that officer duties are governance duties — and that day-to-day operational responsibilities are managed separately as a worker — is a practical and sensible change that will help owner-operators understand their roles and reduce anxiety about their personal legal exposure.
  7. We ask the Committee to consider whether further guidance may be beneficial specifically for small business owner-operators explaining how this distinction applies in practice in their context.
  8. Part Four: WorkSafe’s functions
  9. The Bill amends WorkSafe’s statutory functions to prioritise providing guidance, advice and information on compliance with critical risks, and to refocus the regulator’s activities accordingly.
  10. Our members’ experience of WorkSafe has been mixed. When asked whether they would describe their interactions with the regulator as useful, reasonable and timely, responses were evenly split — half said yes, half said no. Only 15% of members had directly queried WorkSafe for guidance on their obligations, suggesting there may be an opportunity to strengthen engagement with the small business community in our sector.
  11. We support refocusing WorkSafe’s functions toward guidance and education. We note that the effectiveness of this Bill will depend in large part on WorkSafe’s capacity to deliver practical, sector-specific support — not just general information. This will be particularly important under a critical risk framework, where businesses will rely more heavily on guidance to identify and prioritise risks appropriately. Ensuring that support is accessible and relevant to smaller, lower-risk sectors such as hospitality will be key to the success of the reforms.
  12. Part Five: Overlapping regulatory requirements
  13. The Bill introduces a provision confirming that where a PCBU complies with equivalent risk management requirements under another enactment, they will be taken to have complied with the corresponding duty under the HSWA.
  14. We support this change in principle. Hospitality businesses operate under a range of regulatory frameworks — including the Food Act 2014, building regulations, and fire safety requirements — and the overlap and occasional inconsistency between these regimes and the HSWA has been a source of confusion and duplicate compliance cost for our members.
  15. We encourage the Government’s implementation plan to include clear, practical guidance on how the HSWA interacts with other regulatory regimes relevant to hospitality businesses. In particular, guidance should help operators understand how to assess when compliance with requirements under regimes such as food safety, building, or fire regulations may also satisfy corresponding HSWA duties. This will help reduce duplication, improve confidence, and support more efficient compliance in practice.

Summary of Recommendations

  • The Restaurant Association asks the Select Committee to:
  1. Support the critical risk framework for small PCBUs as a meaningful and proportionate reform for small hospitality businesses.
  2. Clarify how the “worker” count for the small PCBU threshold applies to casual, seasonal, contractor and labour-hire workers commonly used in hospitality.
  3. Seek assurance that the Bill clearly communicates that the general duty of care is not removed for small PCBUs, but that the scope of specific duties is limited to critical risks, so owner-operators have certainty rather than residual anxiety.
  4. Support the ACOP reforms, including the safe harbour provision and the ability for industry bodies to develop sector ACOPs.
  5. Consider whether there should be a clear approach or prioritisation for reviewing existing ACOPs and developing new ACOPs in sectors, like hospitality, where none currently exist.
  6. Support WorkSafe’s implementation plan including sector-specific guidance for hospitality as a priority.
  7. Develop practical guidance on officer duties as they apply to small business owner-operators who occupy both governance and operational roles simultaneously.

About the Restaurant Association of New Zealand

The mission of the Restaurant Association of New Zealand is to be the link between good food and good business so that our Members’ restaurants and cafés can succeed. Since 1972, the Association has worked to offer advice, help and assistance in every facet of the hospitality industry. We are the representative body for more than 2,500 hospitality businesses, with Members covering the length and breadth of the country.

More submissions by the Restaurant Association can be accessed here.