+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

#EmploymentLaw

Former Port of Auckland CEO loses appeal against health and safety conviction

Company Law, Directors’ Duties, Employment Law, Health and Safety, Workplace Safety, WorkplaceLaw
0

The former chief executive of Port of Auckland Ltd (POAL), Tony Gibson, lost his appeal against his conviction under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) following the night shift death of a port worker, Pala’amo Kalati. Mr Kalati was crushed by a container while helping to unload a container ship. The High Court confirmed the District Court’s decision on the duties of an officer of a large organisation under the HSWA.

 

Failure to take steps to minimise risk

The High Court[1] confirmed that Mr Gibson had failed to take the steps that a reasonable officer in his position would have taken to minimise the risk of an accident occurring. The court agreed with the District Court that Mr Gibson was personally aware of the risks associated with loading and unloading containers, that the company’s documentation containing its rules for handling containers was unclear, and that the company had inadequate systems in place to determine whether its workers were complying with its rules.

The court also agreed that Mr Gibson should have been aware of the serious risks associated with handling containers following the 2018 death of one of the port’s workers.

The High Court also upheld the District Court’s decision to impose a fine of $130,000 on Mr Gibson and to order him to pay a further $60,000 in court costs.

The court’s decision confirms several principles relating to the duties of company officers under the HSWA, which were set down in the District Court’s decision. These are:

  • It is not enough for a company officer to ensure that systems are in place to protect workers’ safety. They must also ensure that work practices are monitored for compliance. They must ensure that they are aware of how their staff actually carry out their work as opposed to how they are supposed to do so, and
  • A company officer cannot simply delegate their health and safety responsibilities to someone else in their company and rely on that person to ensure compliance with health and safety rules, without proper enquiry that the organisation’s systems are adequately addressing health and safety risks. They must critically examine information provided to them by their staff relating to health and safety. They must also create mechanisms to verify the information they are receiving.

 

Maritime New Zealand, the government body with responsibility for health and safety prosecutions relating to ports, only charged POAL’s chief executive officer. The High Court observed that there were a number of different people at the port company, including directors and managers, who had obligations under the HSWA who could also have been charged.

This decision emphasises that both those involved in governance and operational matters in a large organisation may have personal health and safety obligations.

If you have any concerns about your health and safety obligations as a company director or senior employee, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

[1] Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2026.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Modern Slavery Bill

Business Law, Employment Law, Human Resources, Human Rights, Legislation, Supply Chains, Workplace Law
0

Implications for business

The introduction into Parliament of the Modern Slavery Bill has brought awareness of how modern slavery has manifested itself into New Zealand businesses. Modern slavery can rear its ugly head in a range of ways from forced labour in supply chains, exploitation (or coercion) of workers and various forms of trafficking.

The Bill has also made history as it is the first time a bill has been introduced through Standing Order 288. This allows a Private Member’s Bill to bypass the random ballot (or ‘biscuit tin’) process if it is supported by two-thirds of non-executive MPs.

This Bill was co-sponsored by Labour MP Camilla Belich and National MP Greg Fleming. This bi-partisan effort shows the importance of the Bill not only to our parliamentarians, but also to New Zealand society.

 

What is modern slavery?

Modern slavery is often seen as a global matter and, for many New Zealanders, it probably feels like an issue away from our shores. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. World Vision currently estimates that the average Kiwi spends around $77 a week on goods linked to various forms of modern slavery.[1] Walk Free’s 2023 Global Slavery Index estimated that in 2021, there were 8,000 individuals on any given day, living in modern slavery in New Zealand.[2]

In a high-profile case in the modern history of slavery in New Zealand, Joseph Matamata was convicted of 13 charges of slavery and 10 charges of human trafficking involving labourers working in orchards. After bringing the labourers to New Zealand with promises of a better life, Matamata retained their income, restricted communication and movement, and used threats of violence to ensure the labourers stayed in their jobs.[3]

The Bill

The Bill is both broad and extensive in defining modern slavery. It is defined as:

  • Crimes already understood in the Crimes Act 1961:
    – Dealing in slaves, as well as debt-bondage or sefdom
    – Dealing in people under 18 for sexual exploitation, removal of body parts, or engagement in forced labour
    – People trafficking, and
    – Coerced marriage or civil union
  • The ‘worst forms of child labour’ under Article 3 of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 182
  • Trafficking as defined by Article 3 of the United Nations Protocol
  • Forced or exploitative labour
  • Servitude, and
  • Sexual exploitation.[4]

 

Outside of the definition of modern slavery, the Bill requires the Minister to report annually on modern slavery matters, to publish guidance and to direct the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to designate modern slavery as a ‘priority area’ if necessary. The Bill will lead to the creation of a Modern Slavery Statement Register to be publicly accessible. All this will be overseen by the proposed independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

 

What does this mean for business?

The Bill currently states that ‘reporting entities’ are required to:

  • Prepare and publish annual modern slavery statements that describe their structure and supply chains
  • Identify modern slavery risks (both real and potential)
  • Outline what steps the entity is taking to deal with the identified risks, and
  • Lodge these statements on the Modern Slavery Statement Register.

A ‘reporting entity’ in the Bill is defined as a business with a consolidated annual revenue that exceeds $100 million. These entities not only refer to New Zealand entities, but also any overseas company carrying on business in New Zealand. These entities can be both public and private organisations, with government agencies also being captured under this regime.

 

How this affects New Zealand businesses

If your business is considered a reporting entity under the Bill, non-compliance with the regime could carry a strong penalty. Offences will be committed if entities fail to comply with their reporting obligations, or if they knowingly make false or misleading statements in their reports. These offences could amount to reporting entities being liable on conviction to a fine of up to $200,000.

From a civil point of view, the maximum pecuniary penalty for a contravening reporting entity is $600,000.

This also imposes personal liability for directors and individuals involved in management. If an offence occurs with the permission, knowledge or presumed knowledge of these individuals, they will be found guilty. This is particularly important if the director or management should have known it was occurring but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it from happening.

The final important note for businesses is that if they are found to be non-compliant, both the name of the business and the individuals responsible will be published on the Register for three years.

 

Preparing for the Bill to become law

Many affected by the reporting obligations of this Bill may already be familiar with its obligations, considering there are similar laws in other jurisdictions. However, potential ways to prepare for the implementation of the modern slavery legislation in New Zealand could be in the form of preparing policies and governance, reviewing supply and procurement contracts (and being particularly diligent about who your suppliers are), and potentially establishing internal whistleblowing procedures.

Other steps could involve identifying risk factors that may facilitate the exploitation of workers, and developing management plans to mitigate them. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a range of specific resources all targeted towards combatting modern slavery.[5]

 

A positive development

This Bill is widely seen as a positive development in New Zealand law. While there may be concerns on the extent of obligations imposed on entities, the benefits to victims undoubtedly outweigh the costs. If you are concerned that this proposed legislation may affect the way you do business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

[1]  https://www.worldvision.org.nz/about/media/parliamentary-rule-modern-slavery-act-for-nz/

[2] https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/new-zealand/

[3] Joseph Auga Matamata v R [2020] NZHC 1829.

[4] https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/members/2026/242/en/latest/#LMS1569519

[5] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/nz-trade-policy/combatting-modern-slavery

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2026.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Workplace Stress: An Employment Issue?

Employee Wellbeing, Employment Law, Human Resources, Legal Guidance, Small Business Advice, Workplace Advice
0

It was a busy time at Emilio’s agri business, and Sally noticed that one of his employees, Barry, appeared to be under considerable pressure.

“You should check in with him,” Sally suggested. “If an employee is struggling, you need to take those concerns seriously. Workplace stress can become an employment issue, particularly if an employer is aware that an employee’s health may be affected.”

Employers have obligations to provide a safe and healthy workplace. While they are not expected to diagnose or treat medical conditions, they should not ignore signs that an employee may be struggling.

Where health concerns arise, an employer should listen to the employee, consider whether any support or workplace adjustments may be appropriate, and seek professional advice where necessary.

The key is to address concerns early. Ignoring signs of workplace stress or failing to respond appropriately could create greater problems for both the employee and the employer.

If you are unsure how to handle a situation involving an employee’s health or wellbeing, it is important to seek employment advice before taking action.

Methamphetamine in farm worker accommodation

Employment Law, Farm Accommodation, Landlord Obligations, Methamphetamine Contamination, Rural, Tenancy Law
0

Providing housing for a rural workforce is often essential to run a successful farming operation, but it also puts a farm owner into the role of a residential landlord for legal purposes.

Whether the occupier is a contract milker, sharemilker or general farm employee, the same baseline responsibilities apply as they would in any residential tenancy. In recent years, however, methamphetamine contamination has become an increasingly practical and legal risk area for all landlords to manage.

 

Landlord obligations

The core legal point is straightforward: if you provide residential premises, you must meet the statutory duties imposed on landlords. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and must comply with buildings, and health and safety requirements that apply to the premises.

Landlords must follow contaminant regulations. If the landlord knows the property is contaminated and it hasn’t been properly cleaned, it cannot be let to a new tenant. As well, an existing tenant may only remain there in limited, regulated circumstances during clean-up.

 

Meth testing is now a live issue (especially on farms)

Farm accommodation is uniquely exposed to harm because it often involves high turnover, seasonal employment, limited day-to-day oversight and shared use by staff, contractors and visitors. These factors can make contamination — whether historical, accidental or intentional — harder to trace and harder to prove.

Adding to the risk, recent rural workplace testing data reported by The Drug Detection Agency in the farming media indicates drug use detected in provincial and rural workplaces has risen sharply in some regions. While workplace testing data is not the same as housing contamination data, it is a useful indicator that substance use remains a live workforce issue in parts of the rural economy, and it helps explain why farmers are increasingly thinking about worker accommodation risk management.[1]

 

Getting it right from the start

Even where meth contamination is detected, disputes often turn on evidence. When contamination concerns arise, the landlord needs evidence that contamination arose during the relevant person’s occupancy and, without a baseline test, landlords can face significant difficulty recovering costs or showing they acted reasonably.

This evidential theme is also reflected in the courts. In a 2021 case,[2] the judge observed that the ‘significant problem’ for the landlord’s claim was the absence of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy. If initial testing had shown no meth residue, the residue detected at the end could only have occurred during the tenancy.

The courts have also addressed whether testing can occur during an inspection. The High Court has indicated that non-invasive methamphetamine testing may fall within a general inspection power in a tenancy agreement. The court also noted landlords’ obligations to provide and maintain a habitable property and to comply with relevant legislative requirements, in a context where testing was used to assess habitability.

 

When testing and decontamination are mandatory

Since April 2026, regulations made under the Residential Tenancies Act provide a process for identifying and managing methamphetamine contamination in residential tenancy premises.

The regulations require a landlord to arrange testing in accordance with the prescribed method where Police or a local authority notify the landlord that manufacture has, or is likely to have, taken place, or where a valid screening assessment indicates contamination and the landlord is notified. Where decontamination work is required, the person engaged to carry out decontamination must be independent of those who performed the testing.

 

Future practical considerations for farmers

A structured, documented testing regime is a practical way to manage legal risk and reduce disputes. Recommended best practice includes:

  1. A pre-tenancy baseline meth test by a qualified tester
  2. Post-tenancy (or between-tenancy) testing, and
  3. Careful record-keeping of certificates, reports, photographs and accommodation agreements.

Finally, consider including clear testing clauses in accommodation agreements (including where housing is part of an employment or sharemilking arrangement) to set expectations and reduce misunderstandings.

Meth testing is not about assuming the worst of workers; it is about ensuring accommodation is safe, healthy and legally defensible. This is particularly important in a sector where workforce mobility, remote locations and emerging substance use trends can combine to create real operational health and safety exposure for farmers.

[1] Report on TDDA data in Q1 2026.

[2] Eren Ltd v Martin [2021] NZDC 15210.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

When Workplace Conflict Hits

Business Law, Employment Law, Human Resources, Legal Guidance, Small Business Advice, Workplace Regulation
0

Lately, Sally had noticed that Emilio seemed a little distant and distracted. She asked him what was troubling him.

“Mi vida, I am so stressed. Work is so busy. We have orders to fill and my sales manager is having an argument with my chief mechanic!”

Emilio explained that his agritech business was in its peak season and orders were pouring in, but this issue meant the sales team and mechanical team could not communicate. That led to serious delays, angry customers and frustrated suppliers.

Sally suggested that Emilio might need some employment advice about New Zealand employment law.

 

Emilio called his lawyer the next morning. He learned that employers had obligations to act in good faith. He did not realise that employers could raise concerns with employees about their performance or workplace conduct, investigate the facts, and make decisions – provided these were decisions a fair and reasonable employer could make in the circumstances.

 

With guidance from his lawyer, Emilio raised the concerns with the sales manager and the chief mechanic. Quickly, the argument cooled off. Emilio met with each of the employees, and asked them for their side of events. He learned that the manager and mechanic were old friends that had different opinions about the best kind of coffee for the tearoom. The manager had asked office staff to get his favourite Kopi Luwak coffee, and had made a cup for the mechanic, telling him it was something different. The mechanic learned about the prank and was extremely upset.

 

Concluding the investigation, Emilio decided that he would give a written warning to the manager about the prank due to the effect it had on the mechanic, and gave a verbal warning to both employees about allowing the argument to affect the workplace. Since Emilio had caught it early and gave the employees plenty of opportunity to participate, they accepted the outcome and made amends, although the mechanic now brings a thermos to work.

 

Emilio went on to have his best sales season yet, meaning he could afford a holiday to Spain to take Sally to visit his abuela.

 

Jadin Hooper

Business briefs

Commercial Law, Consumer Protection, Employment Law, Privacy Law, Regulatory Compliance, Trade & Investment
0

Commerce Commission – unconscionable conduct

For the first time, the Commerce Commission has filed proceedings under the prohibition on unconscionable conduct in the Fair Trading Act 1986. This development suggests that active enforcement in this area is underway.

Unconscionable conduct is business behaviour that falls well below accepted New Zealand standards and goes beyond ordinary commercial practice to conduct that is clearly unfair and unreasonable. This is one of several areas the Commission has identified as an enforcement priority.

The Commission has taken action against Brand Developers Limited (trading as The TV Shop) and Tech Vault Enterprises Limited (trading as HouseSmile), alleging both used high-pressure sales tactics on vulnerable consumers, including people with cognitive impairments or serious illnesses. The Commission considers this conduct a clear departure from acceptable business standards.

Businesses found in breach of the prohibition risk a fine of up to $600,000 and individuals may be liable for a fine of up to $200,000. Courts may also order businesses to compensate affected customers.

This action serves as a timely reminder to all businesses to ensure their sales practices are up to scratch, especially when they are dealing with vulnerable customers.

 

Overseas Investment Act 2005 reform

The Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Act came into force on 6 March 2026, delivering a significant overhaul of New Zealand’s foreign investment framework.

The reforms are designed to make it easier and faster for overseas investors to invest in New Zealand, while ensuring the government retains the ability to scrutinise transactions that could affect New Zealand’s national interests.

Part of the reform involved streamlining the overseas investment application process. Previously, overseas investment applications had to satisfy several separate tests. A single national interest test now applies to transactions involving significant business assets and sensitive land, other than farmland, fishing quota and residential land (for which the existing consent pathways remain). Applications are assessed through a three-stage process:

  1. Risk identification: The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) assesses the application for any national interest concerns. If none are identified, consent is granted. The statutory timeframe for decisions under this stage is up to 15 working days.
  2. Risk assessment: If concerns are identified, a more detailed assessment follows. Consent can still be granted at this stage, with or without conditions. The statutory timeframe for review under this stage increases by 55 working days.
  3. Ministerial decision: In cases where the transaction may be contrary to New Zealand’s national interest, the matter may be referred to the Minister of Finance who can decline consent. There is no fixed statutory timeframe for a ministerial decision.

For business owners looking to attract overseas investment or to sell to a foreign buyer, this framework should make the consent process faster and more straightforward. That said, the regime still applies and any agreement must be specifically conditional on OIO consent being obtained before the deal proceeds.

 

New obligations for businesses collecting personal information from third parties

On 1 May 2026, Information Privacy Principle 3A (IPP3A) came into effect, expanding the notification requirement under the Privacy Act 2020 to cover indirect collection of personal information.

Previously, businesses had no obligation to notify individuals when collecting their personal information from a third party. IPP3A has changed that.

What your business must disclose: From now on, when your business collects personal information indirectly, you must take reasonable steps, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to make the individual aware of the:

  • Fact that their information has been collected
  • Purpose of the collection
  • Intended recipients of the information
  • Name and address of the agency, or agencies, collecting and holding the information
  • If applicable, which law authorises or requires the collection, and
  • Rights of the individual to access and correct their information.

Exceptions: IPP3A does not require notification in all circumstances. Exceptions include, but are not limited to, where:

  • The individual has already been notified
  • The information is publicly available
  • Compliance is not reasonably practicable, and/or
  • It is necessary for law enforcement or court proceedings.

Please note the above is to be treated as a guide rather than an exhaustive list. We recommend seeking tailored legal advice before relying on any exception.

Next steps: If you haven’t already, you may want to consider building notification into your existing policies and this should be communicated clearly to individuals. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has released guidance on IPP3A which provides a helpful starting point for understanding your obligations. Non-compliance may result in a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, which may lead to a formal investigation and have potentially significant consequences for your business, so it is important you take steps now to ensure your processes are up to date.

For more detailed information about IPP3A together with examples of how it works, click here. If you have any questions about how IPP3A applies specifically to your organisation, please feel free to contact us.

 

Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 – key changes

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 came into force on 21 February 2026, introducing some significant changes to the New Zealand employment law framework. Some of the key changes of which businesses should be aware are listed below.

Independent contractors: The Act introduces a new gateway test to determine whether a worker is an employee or a contractor. To qualify as a ‘specified contractor,’ five criteria must be met that cover matters such as having a written agreement, freedom to work for others, flexible hours, the ability to decline work and having had a reasonable opportunity to seek legal advice. There is more information about the test here.

Personal grievances: Where an employee’s conduct amounts to serious misconduct and has contributed to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance, no remedies will be awarded. Where the conduct falls short of serious misconduct but still contributed to the grievance, remedies may be reduced by up to 100%.

High-income earner: Employees earning $200,000+ per year in total remuneration will no longer be able to bring a personal grievance or file proceedings in relation to an unjustified dismissal. A 12-month transitional protection applies to those already in roles when the legislation came into force.

Collective agreements: The requirement to apply collective agreement terms to new employees during their first 30 days, and the automatic sharing of new employee information with the union, will no longer apply.

Justification test: The section 103A justification test has been amended to take into account whether an employee obstructed the employer’s process. Significant procedural failures will no longer render a dismissal unjustifiable where the employee was not actually treated unfairly.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of how this new legislation affects your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

 

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Employment Law, Government & Policy, Health and Safety, Regulatory Compliance, Risk Management, Workplace Regulation
0

Expected to be enacted in the spring

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament on 8 February 2026 and passed its first reading on 12 February 2026. It is currently before the Education and Workforce Select Committee. Submissions closed at the end of March and the committee is scheduled to report back to Parliament by 12 June 2026. It is anticipated that the Bill will be passed before the election (early November).

If enacted, the Bill will represent the most significant reform of health and safety law in New Zealand since the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) was passed in 2015.

 

Purpose of Bill

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, the Hon Brooke van Velden, said that the Bill is intended to reduce compliance obligations, focus on preventing serious harm and clarify businesses’ obligations under the HSWA.[1] The key proposed changes in the Bill are:

  • Increased focus on preventing serious harm
  • Reducing compliance obligations for small businesses
  • Clarification of the health and safety obligations of landowners, and
  • Clarification of the relationship between health and safety legislation, and other legal requirements.

 

Introducing ‘critical risk’

The Bill introduces a new defined term of ‘critical risk.’ Small businesses must focus on avoiding critical risks. All other businesses must manage all risks but are required to ‘prioritise’ critical risks.

The Bill defines a ‘critical risk’ as a risk associated with one of the matters specified in Schedule 1A of the Bill; this lists a number of specific high-risk activities such as working with asbestos and other hazardous substances. A critical risk also includes any hazard that is likely to result in death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident or an occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

Identifying what the critical risks are for a particular business is likely to be one of the more challenging aspects of the new legislation.

 

The impact on small to medium-sized businesses

The most significant change contained in the Bill is the narrowing of the duties of small to medium-sized businesses, referred to as ‘small PCBUs,’ to risks that are defined as critical risks under the Act.

This does not mean that small businesses have no obligations in relation to other risks. They are still required to provide adequate facilities to ensure the safety of their employees.

A small PCBU will be defined as a business with fewer than 20 employees. Businesses that have a fluctuating workforce will qualify provided that they have fewer than 20 employees for at least nine months of the year. This change is likely to have a significant impact on the compliance obligations of businesses in New Zealand, given that approximately 97% of businesses would qualify as a small PCBU.[1]

 

Obligations of landowners and recreational activities

Potential exposure to prosecution under health and safety legislation in New Zealand has long been a concern for landowners who wish to make their land available for recreational activities.

In the past, this has been a particular concern for rural landowners who have often avoided providing access to their land due to such concerns. It has also discouraged public landowners, such as schools and councils, from allowing their land to be used for recreational activities.

The potential liability of landowners was recently highlighted by the prosecution of the owner of Whakaari/White Island following the eruption in 2019, which resulted in the deaths of 22 people. The landowner was initially convicted in the District Court under the HSWA, despite not directly operating the tours to the island.[2] The High Court overturned this conviction on appeal.[3]

The passing of the Bill would mean that landowners would not generally owe health and safety obligations to people using their land for recreational activities.

 

The Health and Safety at Work Act and other legislation

The Bill would clarify the relationship between general health and safety legislation, and other legislation that applies to specific industries such as the aviation and maritime sectors.

In the past, there has been confusion as to whether or not businesses in industries covered by specific legislation have additional duties under the HSWA. The Bill clarifies that compliance with industry-specific legislation or approved industry codes of practice is also compliance with the HSWA, so there are no additional obligations.

The Bill also states that the owners of earthquake-prone buildings do not need to take additional steps under the HSWA, provided that they comply with the requirements of the Building Act 2004.

The Bill is intended to reduce the compliance work that is required by businesses under current health and safety legislation, which has become an expensive ’tick-box’ exercise for many. However, it will still be important for small businesses to identify the ‘critical risks’ in their businesses and to take steps to mitigate them.

If you have any concerns about the impact that this proposed legislation may have on your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

[1] New Zealand business demography statistics at February 2025, Statistics New Zealand.

[2] WorkSafe New Zealand v Whakaari Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 4149.

[3] Whakaari Management Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2025] NZHC 288.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commerical eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commerical eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Over the fence

Employment Law, Government & Policy, Rural & Agricultural Law, Succession Planning, Trusts & Asset Planning, Wills & Estates
0

Biosecurity overhaul

In July 2025, the Ministry of Primary Industries released its proposed ‘Biosecurity System Action Plan.’ It is intended to guide new legislation to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993, and to overhaul current biosecurity regimes to improve process, obligations and rights. This will impact importing/exporting, practices on farm and government accessibility to farms.

The action plan is presented in two tranches. The first focuses on immediate priorities – clarifying roles, modernising processes and providing training tools. The second tranche will build on successful initiatives, consider social and cultural impacts and develop long term resolutions. Significant progress on both tranches by 2030 is proposed.

Key proposed amendments following submissions and consultation include:

  • Placing greater decision-making discretion with regional councils and management agencies – including the ability to create exemptions, issue permits for pests and produce small scale management plans
  • Increasing and introducing new penalties, including for obstructing a lawful search
  • The ability to grant one-off or ad hoc permits for imported goods, and
  • Removing the need for the current exemption for regional councils to enter private land to manage pests.

A draft bill is anticipated to be presented to Parliament in late 2026.

To read more on the Biosecurity System Action Plan, the steering group workshops and the proposed next steps, click here.

 

Employee v contractor

On 21 February 2026, a new ‘gateway test’ was introduced to determine whether an individual is an employee or a contractor in terms of employment law. The gateway test does not apply retrospectively.

Gateway test: An individual is a contractor if they meet all the gateway test criteria. These are:

  • There must be a written agreement stating they are an independent contractor or are not an employee
  • No restriction from working for others (except while undertaking agreed work)
  • They are not required to work at a specified time/period OR they can subcontract the work, subject to legally required or justifiable vetting
  • Additional future work can be declined without the arrangement being terminated, and
  • There has been a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into the arrangement.

If all criteria are satisfied, the individual is a contractor. If any of the criteria is not met or for claims brought prior to 21 February 2026 the common law test (below) applies.

The four factors below are considered together to determine whether an individual is a contractor:

  1. Intention – what did the parties intend the relationship to be? Consider entitlements received – for example, contractors are not entitled to holiday pay.
  2. Control v independence – high employer control over hours, work and methods may be indicative of an employer/employee relationship
  3. Integration – is the role fundamental to an employer’s business and continuous in nature, and
  4. Fundamental/economic reality – does the economic reality reflect a person in business on their own account? Consider fee structure, tax obligations, ability for the individual to profit and who bears financial risk.

The distinction between an employee and contractor is highly relevant for the rural sector as you may have both contractors (such as sharemilkers and contract milkers) and employees (farm hands, managers, etc) working on your property.

 

Wills and EPAs: essential for rural sector

For people who are responsible for farms and other major assets, it is important to ensure you have a current will and Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs). If you don’t have these and you die unexpectedly, lose mental capacity, or are unable to attend to your personal affairs for a period, it could lead to not only farming operations being disrupted, but also family uncertainty and having to spend time and money on sorting things out.

Will: Your will sets out your instructions about the distribution of your property to your family after you die. Even if you have a will, it is good practice to regularly review it, so it reflects your current situation and wishes.

If you don’t have a will, there is legislation[1] that decides how your estate is divided up; this arrangement may not be what you would wish. To prevent this, it’s optimal (and much easier) to ensure you have a valid will that reflects your wishes. Your family will thank you for it.

EPA: An EPA is a legal document that allows a trusted person (your attorney) to manage your affairs and personal care. There are two forms of EPA – one covering property affairs and the other about your personal wellbeing. An EPA for personal care only applies if you lose mental capacity, while an EPA for property can also apply while you have capacity.

For a property EPA, your attorney could be a trusted friend or relative, or you could appoint a trustee company to manage your property matters.

For a personal care and welfare EPA, you can only appoint a person as your attorney.

We can help you set up EPAs and a will or, if you already have them, review them so they reflect your current situation.

[1] Administration Act 1969.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Navigating redundancy

Employment Law, Human Resources, Regulatory Compliance, Risk Management, Workplace Regulation, Workplace Rights
0

Understanding the legal process for employers

Redundancy refers to a situation where an employee’s position is deemed superfluous to an employer’s needs. Understandably, a redundancy proposal can bring stress and uncertainty to those affected. Unfortunately, it is a term that many New Zealanders may be familiar with.

We provide a summary of the required process, and obligations by you, as an employer, in proposing a potential redundancy in your organisation.

 

Lawful redundancy

For a redundancy to be lawful, it must be both justified and carried out through a fair process. A redundancy is justified only where there is a genuine commercial reason for it; redundancy cannot be used as a means to dismiss a poor performing employee or as an alternative to a disciplinary process for misconduct.

‘Genuine commercial reasons’ may include a downturn in work/revenue, declining financial performance, organisational restructuring, or the merger or acquisition of a business. Courts are increasingly applying scrutiny into the ‘commercial rationale’ for a redundancy.

However, even where a genuine reason exists, the dismissal will not be lawful unless the correct process is followed.

 

Process

The process that all employers must follow includes:
• Providing your employees with relevant information about the proposed change and the potential impact on their employment if the proposal is adopted
• Consultation with your employees and considering their feedback (and enabling your employees opportunities to seek advice or support within the consultation period)
• Considering alternatives to redundancy, and
• Following any additional procedural requirements specified in the relevant employment agreement or policy documents.

 

Providing information

The Employment Relations Act 2000 sets out that an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of one or more of his or her employees, is required to provide the affected employees with access to relevant information about the decision.

The term ‘relevant information’ will depend on the specific circumstances. It includes, however, information necessary for employees to understand the rationale for the proposed change and to enable them to provide informed feedback. Your employee is entitled to ask for additional information relevant to your proposal. While an employer is not required to provide confidential information, they must be able to genuinely demonstrate that disclosure would cause actual, unreasonable prejudice, and must show that they have explored alternative options for confidential consultation.

 

Consultation

You are not only required to provide a potentially affected employee with all relevant information, but you must also ensure there is a genuine opportunity for your employee to comment on that information before any decision is made. This includes providing sufficient time to provide feedback.

You must approach this process with an open mind and genuinely consider any feedback received before deciding whether to proceed with the proposed change. Without genuine consultation, the redundancy may be deemed a pre-determined outcome, and a breach of your obligation as their employer to act in good faith.

 

Selection criteria

In circumstances where you are reducing a number of same/similar roles, a fair and reasonable selection process must be followed to decide which of your employees will be appointed to the remaining roles. Clear and relevant selection criteria should be provided to your employees in advance, and their feedback sought. This includes providing details as to how that criteria will be assessed and weighed.

 

Redeployment

If a role is disestablished, you have an obligation to consider redeployment opportunities within your organisation for any of your affected employees. The affected employee/s continuing employment must be considered before a new or vacant role is advertised externally. Redeployment must be considered for an affected employee, even if some (reasonable) training or upskilling may be required.

Your obligation to consider all redeployment options, stems from an employer’s statutory requirement of good faith – to be active and constructive in maintaining the employment relationship, including being responsive and communicative.

 

A challenging time

Proposed redundancy can be a challenging and uncertain time for all; but understanding the legal framework and the required process can help you to navigate this with more confidence.

It is also important to carefully review employment agreements and relevant workplace policies to carefully identify any relevant provisions, including any entitlement to redundancy compensation.

If your organisation is contemplating redundancies, we recommend you talk with us at the outset; this will help you and your employees better understand their rights and obligations.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2025.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Disputes arising out of a first job

Dispute Resolution, Employment, Employment Law, Legal Guidance, Personal Grievances, Workplace Rights, Youth Law & Guidance
0

Sally met up with her sister Samantha and her niece Sarah for coffee at a local café. Sally was excited to see Sarah, as she had recently landed herself her first weekend job working as a waitress in another café in town. Sarah, normally bright and chatty, barely looked up when Sally arrived.

Sally gently asked Sarah how things are going and whether she is enjoying her new job. Sarah quietly answered that she no longer worked at the café. She explained that even though she really enjoyed working at the café, her boss didn’t give her a written employment agreement recording the terms of employment that they agreed on, he never paid her, and he didn’t give her copies of her timesheets when she asked for them. Sarah was too embarrassed to keep asking her boss to give her the documents and to pay her, because he made her feel like she was annoying him and wasting his time. She started feeling really uncomfortable at her job and eventually just stopped going in and she hadn’t heard from her boss since.

Clearly annoyed by Sarah’s work situation, Samantha said that she was going to post about the café and their poor treatment on the local grapevine page.

Sally recalled an article written by Edmonds Judd dealing with defamation and recommended that Samanatha and Sarah rather set up a meeting with her lawyer at Edmonds Judd to get advice on how to resolve the issue.

The team at Edmonds Judd confirmed that Sarah is entitled to all of the basic rights that protect employees, regardless of her age and that this was her first job. Sarah’s boss breached the terms of her employment agreement.

Sarah’s boss was required to:

  • provide her with a written employment agreement;
  • pay her according to the agreement which should provide her hourly wage, frequency of pay and method of pay;
  • keep records in a written form showing for example: time records (including days and hours worked), wage records (including wages paid and how the wages were calculated), and holiday and leave records;
  • record Sarah’s age in his usual wage and time records; and
  • provide Sarah with copies of her employment records if requested.

The team at Edmonds Judd explained to Sarah that given her age and limited time working for her employer, she is entitled to the starting-out minimum wage, but that the parties should have recorded her hourly rate and terms of payment in her employment agreement.

Even though a couple of weeks had passed since she left her employment, she had the right to approach her boss about her dispute. Employees must raise their personal grievance with their employer within 90 days of the issue arising or coming to their attention. If she can’t resolve her dispute with him directly, she is entitled to apply to the Employment Relations Authority for assistance to resolve the dispute.

Her lawyer explained that the first step is to give her boss a written letter setting out what her personal grievance is and how she suggests that the parties resolve it. If communicating with her boss directly does not resolve the matter, then she can apply to the Employment Relations Authority.

Kristin O’Toole

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]