What's shared across the Tasman — and what's different
New Zealand's HSWA is closely modelled on Australia's model WHS Act, so the core concepts — PCBU, primary duty of care, officer due diligence, “reasonably practicable” — are shared. The main differences: New Zealand has one Act and regulator, Australia has many; and every Australian state and territory now has an industrial manslaughter offence, while New Zealand does not.
New Zealand's Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 was closely modelled on Australia's model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act, so the architecture is shared.
Australia developed a single set of “model” WHS laws in 2011 to harmonise health and safety across the country, and New Zealand drew heavily on that model when it overhauled its own law after the Pike River mine disaster. The result is that a business operating on both sides of the Tasman will recognise the same key building blocks — even though the laws are separate.
The core duties and concepts are substantially the same in New Zealand and in the Australian model-law jurisdictions.
This is why much Australian guidance reads as broadly relevant in New Zealand — but it is guidance, not the law that applies to you.
The biggest differences are structural — one law versus many — and the presence of a separate industrial manslaughter offence in Australia.
| Area | New Zealand | Australia |
|---|---|---|
| The law | One national Act, the HSWA 2015. | A model WHS Act adopted (with variations) by the Commonwealth and most states and territories; Victoria keeps its own OHS Act 2004. |
| Regulator | Mainly WorkSafe NZ (plus designated agencies such as Maritime NZ and the CAA). | A separate regulator in each jurisdiction; Safe Work Australia sets policy but is not a regulator. |
| Terminology | “Health and safety at work” / HSWA. | “WHS” in most jurisdictions; “OHS” in Victoria. |
| Industrial manslaughter | No separate offence; the most serious charge is reckless conduct (s47). | A separate industrial manslaughter offence now exists in every jurisdiction. |
| Insurance against fines | Unlawful to insure against an HSWA fine (s29). | Moving the same way, drawing partly on the New Zealand position. |
High-level comparison only. Penalty levels and details also differ by jurisdiction, and the model laws are amended from time to time. Always check the law that applies where your work is carried out.
Don't assume one system covers the other. Work carried out in New Zealand is governed by the HSWA; work in an Australian jurisdiction is governed by that jurisdiction's law.
The good news is that a sound, well-documented health and safety management system — risk management, worker engagement, records and review — satisfies the shared core on both sides. The detail you need to layer on top is jurisdiction-specific: the right regulator, the right notification rules, and local requirements such as Australia's industrial manslaughter offences.
Get a health and safety system designed around the HSWA, not a borrowed template. Book a demo and we'll show you how it works — free 30-day trial included.
Not the same, but closely related. The HSWA was modelled on Australia's model WHS Act, so the core concepts — PCBU, primary duty of care, officer due diligence and “reasonably practicable” — are shared. They are still separate laws, with different regulators and some important differences.
No. New Zealand does not have a separate industrial manslaughter offence. Its most serious health and safety charge is reckless conduct under section 47 of the HSWA, which carries up to $3 million for an organisation and up to five years' imprisonment for an individual. Every Australian jurisdiction now has a distinct industrial manslaughter offence.
The Commonwealth, ACT, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia have adopted the model WHS laws (with some variations). Victoria is the only jurisdiction that has not, and instead uses its own Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004.
Australian guidance can be a useful reference because the systems share so much, but it is not the law that applies in New Zealand. Your obligations come from the HSWA and its regulations, so always check New Zealand requirements before relying on Australian material.
You need to meet each country's law for the work carried out there. A single, well-run management system can satisfy the shared core on both sides, but you must layer on jurisdiction-specific requirements, such as the correct regulator, notification rules and Australia's industrial manslaughter offences.
