Thank you A Rowe (sorry, don't know your given name).
I had a quick trawl through the millions of entries in the university databases (search terms were (CPR AND confined AND space) and found 3,141 citations. Many were not really relevant but 19 seemed a bit helpful. One published in 1996 was useful but not really about CPR (citation below).
The following is a quote from the article:

"If a crew is working, does the first aid kit stay behind the seat of the truck? Sites are often left without any first aid supplies when the crew truck leaves for lunch, supplies, or breaks.
Common first aid items extremely helpful in a confined space situation include: antiseptic spray or wipes, an assortment of bandage supplies, gloves, elastic bandages, tourniquet materials, portable eyewash supplies, and an insect/snakebite kit. If CPR is required on site, protection from contamination in the form of a CPR pocket mask should be available."

This gives an interesting comparison between co-pilot and the databases! How do we know that co-pilot correctly interpreted all that it found? And would you rely on co-pilot in your defence in the District Court?
Johnson, L. F. (1996, April). Providing first aid assistance in confined spaces: the Journal of Industrial Health, Occupational Medicine and the Surgery of Trauma. Occupational Health & Safety, 65(4), 34.

An interesting post on the Lexology website today about new first aid regulations in British Columbia. They include the requirement for a risk assessment. See:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=aebedfa6-18c7-4c6e-9569-70b27dd761c2&utm

In the HASANZ conference Megan Main, CE ACC, included a great presentation about reducing claims from the road transport sector.
Peter, you should follow up on that, it would make a great story for Safeguard.
I'm talking to ACC about publishing research (including on road transport) in the NZ Journal of Health and Safety Practice.

Read Regulation 13 in the General Regulations.
"... adequate first aid equipment ... workplace ... access ... facilities"
"... adequate number of workers ... trained ... workplace ..."
This looks to me like a requirement to first carry out a risk assessment.
As part of that, think about the research that shows more first aiders than legally required can lead to a reduction in harm. The research is old and none is from NZ. This could be a good research project.

One thing I dislike about risk registers (and hazard registers) is they can too easily become "wallpaper" - rarely read and maybe only reviewed annually. An approach I've seen tried is a "risk report card" that records important information about a risk. The risk owner carries it with them and it's used in team meetings and updated after discussion.
Does it work? I've no idea! But it is certainly more dynamic than some registers.
It's copyright so I can't share the article but this is its reference. It may be in a local library.
Kaplan, R. S., & Mikes, A. (2012). Managing risks: a new framework. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 48-60.

Having become an academic I no longer work in a 'frontline' health and safety role so my comments are more general.
In the 1980s, the domino theory of workplace injury causation was widely used. It was based on work by Heinrich in the 1940s and Bird & Loftus in the late 1960s but became discredited (although it is an interesting representation).
The Bird pyramid (1 fatality = X serious harms .... = hundred property damages) is also discredited. Heinrich and Bird simply didn't have the computer power to do the analysis they claimed.
So all good ideas need to be tested to see if the research supports them.
Work by psychologists has shown we can hold 7 +/- 2 tasks in our working memory. Some research shows that's 5 +/- 2. In other words we can juggle about 7 things in our working memory but adding more tasks means we drop one or more of the original tasks. The number 7 might be OK with minimal distractions but as distractions in the workplace increase the number that can be held in working memory will drop to 5 or less. When we forget to do something is that due to overloaded working memory?
So take 5 might fail if the workplace is full of distractions.
Is Havinga's research correct? I need to read it first.

that's it! Well done and thank you

Please let me know when you've found it

A few years ago in the Wellington branch of NZISM we had a guest speaker who showed a device attached to a vehicle (eg, FLT) that could detect a pedestrian wearing a reflective strip and sound an alarm so the driver could stop. Somewhere, I have the brochure and had the website address .... (my filing system has failed me!).
The technology was practicable (it exists) and the cost was minimal (reasonable) so it would meet the requirements of the Act.

PS, WorkSafe has taken an interest in some franchise operations including couriers (Aramex), construction companies (WorkSafe NZ v RLT Homes Ltd [2020] Timaru District Court), and letting agencies (WorkSafe NZ v Harcourts Timaru [2015] Timaru District Court).

Hi Donna
I can't help other than to point you to the Lexology website where you can keyword search for franshis*. I have the two attached files for my teaching at Victoria University of Wellington but checking today can see many articles from around the world.

I won't comment at this stage as I was an expert witness in the case and so have "inside knowledge". I will comment after Christmas or Peter can ask me for a comment.

Remember that PI insurance includes legal defence expenses, often with a small deductible. I regard it as indispensable

Hi Jason. Some thoughts from me based on spending most of the last 40 years in one form of consulting or another.
Insurance is an absolute must. Once, in the UK, a colleague made a cockup resulting in questions about my work. Happily I had evidence I had done the job properly.
A second instance arose from work for an insurance broker. On the cover of my report I wrote words to the effect that this was not an assessment of risks associated with earthquakes and, if the underwriters wanted such information they should consult a competent engineer. The building was effectively destroyed in the February 2011 earthquake at a cost of $40 million. I told my insurer about a potential problem. It never eventuated but I knew I had my insurer covering my back.
Whatever the work you are currently being offered make sure the PCBU puts you under its liability covers.
Are you on the HASANZ register? If you plan to be that requires you are a member of NZISM or NZSC. and you will require professional indemnity and public liability insurance. I think it is good form to be in NZISM and on the register.
If you are asked to do a piece of work but lack relevant competence say so and politely decline. Get it wrong causing harm and WorkSafe could prosecute you under section 45(b).
In 2003 I went freelance and activated a company name (Risk Management Ltd) that I had owned for some years. I felt and still feel it gave comfort to a prospective client to deal with a business. It also meant my website could be a very professional shop window. (I know it needs updating but I'm now an academic and I will update it to cover research projects.)
Beware optimism bias. For example, I can do this job in 3 days for a fee of $6,000 - but it actually takes 6 days meaning the daily rate was $1,000.
Final thought. What is your highest qualification? Does that really entitle you to call yourself a health and safety professional? Read the INSHPO Framework and see how you rate. You can study by distance learning for the postgraduate certificate at Victoria University of Wellington, then add some papers and get the postgraduate diploma, then round it off with an applied research project covering your speciality.
If you've got experience, the Master's gives you a generalist qualification and you can claim competence in some areas.
Hope this helps.

Hi Peter
I suggest a medium-sized business for a few years and then move to a larger business.
With your academic background I suggest studying for the post graduate diploma here at Victoria. No need to go on to the research project.
Chris
christopherdotpeaceatvuwdotacdotnz

Peter, thank you for all your support for Joanne Crawford, Danae Anderson and me at Victoria University of Wellington. You wrote about us (see the Insider) and helped raise warning flags about possible loss of tertiary education in occupational health and safety. We really appreciate you!

This week we were told we have 12 months to grow the enrolments. So, if readers have experience and a relevant Bachelor's degree or the NZ Diploma in H & S or the IG Diploma in H&S send us your CV as "evidence of prior learning". If accepted, you can enrol for study in 2024.

Hope to see your name in my inbox soon!

I've said thank you for my award in other places but am very happy to say it here, in the Safeguard forum.
Peter has been in and around health and safety for so long he is a Taonga, contributing so much, in so many ways, for so long. The awards are run by him (with much help from Annette) and help raise the profile of achievers within the OHS community and, I hope, elsewhere.
Peter thank you for my award. I will cherish it and memories of being with Anna and Sonya and other winners on 20 June.
Chris

Sarah and others, the question and some answers suggests the use of a 5x5 matrix.
Use of a matrix assumes that (a) the matrix in question was actually designed for the business or undertaking AND for the specific activity within the business or undertaking; (b) the context of the business activity is clearly understood; (c) the matrix was used without fudging the results; (d) the effectiveness of any controls is clearly understood.
If you could look a District Court judge in the eye while under oath and confirm all of the above you are in an exceptional position and should consider writing the definitive text on risk assessment and management.
Which begs another question. What do you mean by "risk"? The Act gives no definition and ISO45001 gives two definitions. I prefer the definition in ISO31000 Risk management: guidance because it makes you think. There, risk is the "effect of uncertainty on objectives". All readers, think about that definition and the words effect, uncertainty and objectives for at least 48 hours before bursting into print.
This sort of conundrum is part of the paper I am teaching in trimester 2 at Victoria University of Wellington. Please don't think about enrolling in the paper - just enrol.

The two papers I teach at Victoria University of Wellington require access to several standards including ISO31000, IEC/ISO31010, ISO45001, ISO19011 and the recent ISO31073. Students can access them via the library and use them during their study. ISO45003 is being adopted by Standards NZ and will also be available as soon as it is published.
As one of the volunteers who contributes to standards it is very frustrating that they are not free. Worse, MBIE (as the "parent" of Standards NZ) requires someone to pay for adoption of international standards and joint standards.

VOSL is an often used measure but we could also use, for example, QUALYS.
VOSL is the "value of a statistical life" and has little to do with real lives. It's based on how much we are willing to spend to prevent some consequence. I usually use data published by the Ministry of Transport on its website which are actually the "social costs of road crashes" and so not the VOSL. The MoT data is nearly $5 million for a road fatality.
The last time I checked that was about the same as the numbers used by the UK HSE and in Australia. That's what we should be willing to spend to avoid a workplace death. I use the $5 million as part of the "reasonable" test of "reasonably practicable" for workplace harm. It's a rough and ready measure that makes people sit up and think.
A colleague, an economist, disagrees with my approach and prefers QUALYS. That's a way of measuring the lost quality of life due to some harm. It's more difficult to calculate.
How much would you be willing to spend to avoid a workplace death?
I must stop - meetings to go to! Maybe more later.