The Health and Safety in Employment Bill had its first reading in Parliament on 5 December 2001. The Bill, among other things, extends the definition of 'harm' and 'hazard' to confirm that they cover mental harm and hazards arising through mental or physical fatigue. This means employers may be liable for workplace stress where they fail to identify the hazard causing stress, or having identified it, failed to take all practicable steps to minimise the risk to that person or to other employees.

The law already places an obligation on employers to address workplace stress. In Gilbert v Attorney General, the Employment Court confirmed that there is an implied term in all employment agreements that employers must take reasonable care not to cause employees physical or psychological injury, by reason of the volume, character, nature or circumstances of the work required to be performed.

In recent cases, the Court has held employers liable for workplace stress arising from the inherently stressful nature of work (Brickell v Attorney General), excessive workload (Gilbert v Attorney General), and the employer's managerial style (Commissioner of Police v Cartwright).
Various commentators have raised concerns about workplace stress being covered by the Bill, given the difficulties in identifying it or measuring it. Concerns have also been raised about whether employers will be liable for stress arising out of an employee's personal life. It is unlikely employers will be liable for stressors that are out of their control, however, workplaces stress is a complex issue. Employers can reduce their exposure to liability by taking the following steps: