Health and Safety impressions at the Maritime Transport Association Conference
Troy Stade, associate at Dawson & Associates recently provided a legal update at this year’s New Zealand Maritime Transport Association Conference in Wellington, focusing on developments in the application of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA).
In the HSWA space there have been two key developments, namely the HSWA amendment bill and the failed appeal of Tony Gibson in the Ports of Auckland decision.
The amendment bill signals a clear policy shift by the regulators, towards managing critical risk – those most likely to cause death, serious injury, or notifiable incidents. In doing so it aligns WorkSafe’s objectives with supporting businesses to manage critical risks and suggests a continuation of a less prosecutorial stance by them and Maritime New Zealand towards operators. This is not to say that prosecutions will not happen, however it has been clearly expressed by both regulators that they are taking more of a partnership based approach to health and safety, and the amendment bill reflects this.
In terms of critical risk in the maritime sector, we already know critical risks sit with fatigue, watchkeeping, machinery interfaces, weather and operational decision‑making, deck operations, and ship to ship/shore transfers.
The relevance for boards and management is - critical risks are the ones officers are expected to understand, prioritise, and actively assure themselves about.
Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813 was an appeal by Tony Gibson, the former Ports of Auckland CEO, against a decision by the District Court to convict and sentence him under HSWA for failures to discharge officer due diligence obligations associated with the death of a stevedore during night time crane operations. Unpicking how Mr Gibson had failed to exercise due diligence under s 44 of HSWA is a complicated exercise which has implications for maritime operators.
At trial, the District Court found that while Ports of Auckland had extensive documented safety systems, reporting frameworks and risk registers in place, reasonable steps had not been taken to ensure that critical safety controls, particularly crane exclusion zones and night‑shift safety arrangements, were adequately resourced, implemented and operating effectively in practice. Mr Gibson was convicted and sentenced to a fine of $130,000, with costs of $60,000.
In appealing, Mr Gibson challenged both conviction and sentence, arguing that the District Court had applied the wrong test for officer due diligence and that his responsibilities did not extend beyond establishing governance structures and delegating operational responsibility. The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that officer due diligence requires more than reliance on paper systems or passive oversight, and that reasonable steps must be taken to verify that critical controls are actually working on the ground, even in large and complex organisations. What mattered was not whether systems existed on paper, but how oversight was exercised over them by executive officers. For general managers and CEOs, it has become a case of “trust but verify”.
For vessel and maritime operators, this presents an uncomfortable reality. If a port CEO is expected to have verified assurance about night‑shift crane exclusion zones, what does reasonable assurance look like for a director or owner of a vessel operating offshore, including where the director does not necessarily come from a maritime background themselves?
It is important to emphasise that the Gibson decision does not say officers must micromanage operations. What it does say is that mere reliance on systems is not enough. Distance does not remove responsibility, but it does change how responsibility is discharged.
For officers and directors in maritime operations, the obligation is not to know everything that happens onboard. It is to be curious and skeptical and curious enough to ask whether the systems you rely on actually work when you are not there. Trusting but verifying is as important as it has ever been, as the Gibson decision has been clear that H&S and risk data and information must be actively interrogated by officers.
Operators should not assume that just because they have an MTOP (Maritime Transport Operator Plan) and an integrated SMS (Safety Management System), they are effective. Instead, systems must be dynamic and evolving. Operators should ask themselves:
Do toolbox talks happen offshore, or only before audits? How are they recorded, and how are issues communicated up through the company?
Is fatigue policy observed when operating shorthanded, or when schedules demand more and longer trips? How are hours of rest verified and recorded?
Are the crew wearing the correct PPE? Is the correct PPE available for crew, and are any issues with it adequately communicated and resolved? How do you as executive officers know this, and verify?
The Court in Gibson was clear: mitigation strategies that exist only on paper will not satisfy the Act where risks are well‑known and high.
It is important to emphasise and this was reiterated by the High Court: HSWA does not require perfection. The test is reasonable steps. The Act does not expect officers to be onboard vessels, nor to second‑guess captains. But what it does expect is what the court described as “credible assurance” - feedback loops from vessel to shore. How does reporting test reality, are shortcomings identified outside of compliance events, and do follow-ups occur when gaps are identified?
Regulators are longer impressed by volume of documentation. They are interested in how assurance is obtained, whether, and how, critical risk controls are resourced, and whether officers can explain how they know systems work when nobody is watching.
Dawson & Associates are experts in maritime health and safety matters, and are regularly involved in matters ranging from pre-emptive reviews to immediate casualty response all the way through to defence at trial. If you have any questions about the application of the amendment bill or the Gibson appeal on your operation, or about HSWA generally, please contact Peter Dawson on +64 27 229 9624 peter@maritimelaw.co.nz, Troy Stade on +64 27 368 6730 troy@maritimelaw.co.nz.