Hi Alan - maybe some pointers in this?
https://worksafe.govt.nz/search/SearchForm?Search=Guideline+on+facilities+at+construction+&action_results=Go

Give it to your work teams to sort out by taking a learning and coaching approach. Then they make a basic report on a quarterly or 6 monthly basis on what they have learned or adopted from near miss discussions within the team.

Here's a link that clarifies this scenario Janet.
https://www.lawlink.co.nz/article/health-safety-obligations-clubs-societies-charitable-trusts/
You could also inform the relevant NZ Golf District Association http://www.golf.co.nz/About/DistrictAssociations.aspx
I'm sure you'll know what to do next.

Find this a rather disturbing outcome Mike? Wondering why the other workers could not have simply testified the injured person was at the toolbox meeting. Suspect the fine was based on some other factor.

Suggest adding this resource to your thinking about what to measure and monitor. https://www.zeroharm.org.nz/resources/monitoring/

Nice summation Tania - as usual.

Great share Sarah. Pragmatic inspiration for many.

Natalie and Alan, the irony is that the first two paragraphs of my post are word for word from the WORKSAFE NZ Myth-busters web page.

Please correct me if I'm wrong folks, but doesn't the law state or imply that a worker becomes a hazard when under the influence of certain drugs or alcohol? Therefore in dealing with the hazard we are legally required to assess the risk and then apply the hierarchy of controls. So the debate is probably more about which control to use. e.g. What control should we use for administrative staff v drivers v machinery operators? - Same or different?....

Great post Tania - this is the sort of authentic thinking and honest analysis that's lacking in the health & safety community. Canterbury PCBU's are lucky to have you available to provide smart health & safety leadership and support.

Good on you Rachael - so true - great advice.

Cat - after all, the client only needs to know 3 things to show due diligence in selection. The rest is sorted on the job on the day.
Rob - perfectly articulated, a lesson those with health & safety jobs should try harder to understand.
Ian - of course ISO 45001 should satisfy any PCBU or court that the company had an independently audited management system much more robust than WSMP provided.
Steve- your trade industry or organisation should have sorted this out by now. Safety in numbers. It's a rort.
G Gillard - agree entirely, a client had me for 8 hours a week sorting out hundreds of pre-qual enquiries for corporate health & safety paper pushers quoting bogus legal requirements and contracted pre-qual operations with pages of forensic like detail which the contractor had to pay for and repeat every 2 years. Someone needs to sort this out and the obvious champions to do this are risk adverse to give advice or rock the boat of the vested interests, - so lets see what case law can come up with.

Tracy - have a look at 'Trello', Microsoft Teams or Realtime Board collaboration apps. Clever stuff.

MYTH: The new law just means more paperwork for everyone.
Health and safety isn’t about completing endless forms and having health and safety systems in a folder sitting on a shelf. In fact, under HSWA there are only two documents that you are legally required to have – an accident register and a list of all of the hazardous substances kept on your business premises.

You are required to have a system which identifies and manages the risks created by the work you do. The system doesn’t need to be complex, it just needs to clearly identify the risks, record the steps you have put in place to manage and communicate the risks. If a notifiable event occurs, then you will be required to keep a record of the event for five years. Notifiable events are those workplace incidents that result in a death, serious injury or serious illness.

Major industry surveys in Australia show 60% of health & safety compliance costs are actually self=imposed by industry itself through their health & safety people or external consultants.

Totally agree Simon - my evidence concurs also.

Here's the newsletter: - https://mailchi.mp/220f08f43b19/update-from-the-ceo-january-1091729?e=66d8359f8b

Simon. You are quite right - how dare you think outside the academic safety bureaucracy line. If you want a laugh at how ridiculous the health & safety profession has become - just read this stunningly self obsessed, inward looking and stuff the members newsletter concocted by the NZISM leadership social club.

Nicole Rosie nicely explains how to define critical risks and why we should prioritise our focus on them.
https://youtu.be/fRVlTL5_hJ8

James - do your risk assessment then do what you think is the right thing. How can you be accused of discrimination on best practice safety grounds? The UK has buckled to PC and given an exemption on religious grounds and the Canadians say no way. First port of call could be to discuss a PPE exemption on religious grounds with Worksafe NZ. They surely would have already sorted this. Lets know how you get on.