What Could Actually Kill Someone Here?

Health and safety law changes taking effect next year will place greater emphasis on critical risks. What does that actually mean, and should businesses start treating their everyday risks differently?

WorkSafe has just released new guidance ahead of changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act that come into force on 1 April 2027. One of the biggest changes is an increased focus on critical risk – the risks capable of causing the most serious harm.

From next April, businesses with fewer than 20 workers will have their main HSWA duties focused on managing critical risks. Larger businesses will still need to manage all workplace risks but must give critical risks the highest priority.

For many businesses, that creates focus:

What could actually kill someone here? What is a critical risk?

Under the amended Act, a critical risk includes a risk associated with certain regulated hazards, or another hazard which, if the risk occurs, is likely to result in death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident or a specified occupational disease.

The answer will obviously look different from business to business.

For a transport company it might include vehicle collisions or loading operations. In an engineering workshop it could include mobile plant, machinery, suspended loads or stored energy. Construction businesses might identify falls from height, excavations or contact with electricity.

The point is to identify the events that could cause catastrophic harm and make sure the strongest controls, resources and attention are directed toward preventing them.

This is the approach SBS has already been encouraging for some time.

As part of our Health and Safety Management Systems, we identify an organisation's critical risks separately and summarise them on a simple workplace poster. The intention is straightforward: someone entering that workplace should be able to quickly understand “these are the major things here that could seriously hurt or kill me” and the controls they are expected to follow.

Don't stop recording the everyday stuff

The change in emphasis does not mean businesses should suddenly ignore everyday hazards.

A wet floor in a retail store is unlikely to make the top of most critical-risk registers, but somebody can still fall, strike their head and suffer life-changing or fatal injuries. Risk is still risk.

For larger businesses, the law will continue to require management of both critical and other risks, with critical risks prioritised. For smaller businesses, the amended legislation reduces the extent of the statutory duties applying to non-critical risks, although WorkSafe expressly notes that small businesses can continue to manage those risks.

From a practical perspective, we would not recommend businesses throw out sensible controls simply because a particular hazard does not meet the new definition of critical risk.

If you already have good housekeeping standards, pedestrian controls, manual-handling processes or basic workplace rules that prevent people getting hurt, keep them.

The better approach is to add greater focus to the risks with the greatest potential consequences, not stop caring about everything else.

Traditional risk registers can become very long. A damaged extension lead, poor housekeeping and the potential for a worker to be crushed by a moving vehicle might all appear somewhere on the same spreadsheet.

They should not necessarily command the same level of management attention.

Ask:

• What are our critical risks?

• What controls prevent a fatal or serious event?

• Are those controls actually in place?

• Who checks them?

• Would our workers recognise those risks immediately?

• Could we demonstrate that those controls are working?

The 2027 changes are intended to focus businesses on exactly that kind of prioritisation. WorkSafe says the amended legislation is designed to make the most important risks clearer and give critical risks greater attention.

For businesses already operating a robust health and safety system, this should not require starting again.

It is an opportunity to look at what you already have and ask a much simpler question:

If something went badly wrong here, what could cause the most serious harm – and are we confident we have that risk under control?