Health & Safety Legislative Changes

The legislative changes are to go live on 1 April 2027. The gist of the changes was to simplify and make it more relevant.

Amongst other things we have the new small business description which captures all businesses who have 19 workers or less; the introduction of Critical Risks; serious harm definitions have evolved; and ACOP’s has gone up in importance.

There are a couple of things that frustrate me.

The idea was that small businesses will need to prioritise critical risks whilst larger businesses have to cover all risks. Whether I agree with that or not, I can understand what that means.

Yet, when you read the definition of critical risk, it covers everything in Schedule 1A or anything that can result in a notifiable event, notifiable incident or notifiable disease. It also covers mental health so long it relates to the aforementioned. Mental health on its own is not deemed a critical risk.

My frustration focuses on the word ‘or’ in the definition – Schedule 1A 'or' anything that can result in a notifiable. The GOVT could have used the word ‘and’ to remove ambiguity for all.

Let’s imagine that our business has had a fatality and we are now in court. There clearly has been a failing (we are in court after all) and in our argument to the Judge, we, as a small business, state we prioritised the risks in Schedule 1A over the other risks.  In other words, we did not focus on anything that could have caused a notifiable that are not listed in Schedule 1A.

Now, let’s assume the fatality relates to something that was not in Schedule 1A but sat under the other 'or'.

My rhetorical question is what position would the Judge take? Would the Judge take that on face value, recognising there is a death and accept that, yes fair enough, you did well focusing on Schedule 1A and ignoring all other risks. Or will the Judge look at this and state, sorry, but you picked the wrong ‘or’ and someone subsequently died.

If the legislation's intent is that they are mutually inclusive, as in, we have to focus on both Schedule 1A and any risk that can result in a notifiable, how is that different from what we are doing now? 

So, what has really changed other than adding a column in your risk register that highlights it is listed in Schedule 1A? 

Personally, I support businesses having a critical risk focus and not just covering health & safety related. I am not sure though if we need it prescribed in a way that is confusing if not contradictory.