So am I reading this right that there is no definitive number just guidelines? — Don Ramsay

Yep, because as with everything "it depends"...

OK so what about if, in that multi-tenanted building you have some tenants who are large companies (ie have their own H&S processes) and small Mum & Dad companies (who don't)....
Would you expect the Mum & Dad businesses to be guided by the landlords H&S system? (I'm thinking in the same way as a contractor can be asked to work under the principals OHSM if they don't have one) — Hilary Kearns

I would be wary of a tenant falling under a landlord's H&S system - as they really should be set up to manage different risks. Some of those risks may be the same and could/should be coordinated on, but just wrapping the smaller tenant into the landlord systems runs the chance of the tenant missing a critical risk in their business that the landlord does not typically encounter (and so doesn't have anything in place to manage it).
It should not really matter the size of the tenant, the information required to be shared with the other affected parties should be the same. The smaller companies may need help in understanding what they need to provide, which might be done through more consultation with them or sharing the examples of the tenants with more established systems.
It is different than the main contractor / small subcontractor scenario because both of those are in the same general industry with similar general risk management approaches - however we still see instances where the client takes on too much of a prescriptive approach to the contractors work mehtods and can actually create greater risk by forcing the contractor to comply with their systems than for the contractor to manage their own risk they bring to the work and site the way they know best (as the "experts" of their subcontracting field).

In general I would say yes;
Landlord should provide a safe place to work,
Leaseholder should undertake work safely.

The caveat would be for multi tenanted buildings / lots where the activities of one leaseholder could affect those of another. Example being if one leaseholder has an ammonia chiller / cold room - the other leaseholders likely wouldn't consider an ammonia release as a emergency scenario to manage but could very likely be caught up in one. Having an effective process for all party involved in the building(s) to consult, co-operate with, and co-ordinate activities is critical. So this would be were a pre-lease assessment might be needed to ensure that none of the existing tenants will be a risk due to the new tenant.

The legal duty would be under HSWA Section 37 Duty of PCBU who manages or controls workplace, with consideration of subsection (4) that the duty is limited to the extent that the PCBU is involves the management or control (in whole or in part) of the workplace, e.g. the landlord isn't responsible for the a leaseholders unguarded power tools.

There was a case a few years back where a landlord was prosecuted because they failed to manage the risk of a dead tree at a daycare centre that was operating on their land (the daycare centre was also prosecuted - WorkSafe NZ Summary and Court Records

Agree that that approach would get a better actual understanding of the ability for a contractor to do the job safely. Some complaints of the "provide a draft SSSP for the contract" tender requirement is that it is a lot of work to complete one, but the alternative is to ask for the final version of the SSSP for another similar contract as an example (should be able to get some good "metadata" insights out of that to like the frequency and total number of revisions of the plan, etc.).
The other option I have seen requesting for the contractor to provide client feedback and reference contact details for past similar jobs (just like you would for a employee interview) - generally at least in large contracts these are asked for anyway, but not specifically evaluated for H&S performance.

However the problem with these approaches though is you need someone to (fairly) evaluate the information provided and most likely would require a specific H&S resource to do it... which is why the 3rd party sales pitch of "don't worry about evaluating your contractor's H&S performance, well take care of it for you for just a small fee" looks so attractive to a lot of companies.

A single prequal for all industries would be a great solution so the information is done once and everyone can access it, but so long as we have individual systems this will always be an issue and just duplicated information that has to be updated. — Don Ramsay

I just think 3rd party pre-qualification is an poor answer to the wrong question!
Realistically shouldn't pre-qualification be a one-time process for bringing on new contractors - once they "pass" the pre-qualification and are being engaged for work then evaluation of the contractor's performance for each contract become the more useful gauge rather than what some other company thinks of their paperwork?

So either we now have to pay for a forklift licence as well as training on handling LPG separately or forklift trainers need to up their game and add more training in about LPG? — Sarah Munro

The third option is to provide the required information and training in-house and keep records of this. The regs require:

Information regarding; any operations in the worker’s work area where hazardous substances are present (i.e. lpg on the forklift trucks), and the location and availability of known reference material on the hazards, safe handling, and storage of the hazardous substances found in the workplace, including (without limitation) safety data sheets (i.e. a SOP and the current compliant LPG SDS).

Training and instruction on:

• the physico-chemical and health hazards associated with the hazardous substances the worker uses at work (e.g. who LPG could cause them harm either physically through fire, explosion or health effects)
• the procedures for the safe use, handling, manufacture, storage, and disposal of the hazardous substances(e.g. where to store LPG bottles and how to move them around)
• practice in the safe use of plant (including personal protective equipment) necessary to manage the hazardous substances (e.g. how to swap out the LPG bottles on the forklifts, including checking for leaks and what safety equipment is needed)
• the worker’s obligations under these regulations
• the actions that the worker should take in an emergency involving the hazardous substances
• an appropriate period of practical experience of the matters described in paragraph (a), under direct supervision in the workplace (for this showing the can safely swap a bottle out, and having a LPG forklift fire as a site emergency drill should suffice)

And keep a record of training and instruction provided for each worker; which is available for inspection by a WorkSafe inspector or Compliance Certifier.

that was my point on getting the trainers comments, e.g. using you guys seems like there shouldn't be any issue with that approach.
Or even as you mentioned just have evidence of workers being trained on a internal SOP for changing out bottles.

issues receiving their DGC due to their forklift drivers not having LPG handlers training? — Sarah Munro

Does your compliance certifier happen to also provide LPG handlers training by chance?
Sorry being somewhat facetious there, but my understanding is that the new regs narrowed the scope of who required a certified handlers certificate when compared with the old approved handler. And LPG didn't make the cut.
I would be asking the forklift training to provide details of what they cover regarding handling LPG for forklifts and provide that to your Compliance Certifier as evidence of adequate training as per Part 4 of the regs.

After all in regards to fires isn't a change out the gas bottle of an LPG truck safer than changing my BBQ bottle as at least if there is a like it is more obvious with liquid LPG shooting out? (Instead of invisible bearly noticable LPG gas).

As with most legislation you need to read each clause in context with the whole. The actual wording from the act is

the collapse, overturning, failure, or malfunction of, or damage to, any plant that is required to be authorised for use in accordance with regulations; or

I've highlighted regulations as section 16 (Interpretation) defines regulations as

regulations means regulations made under this Act

So plant such as cranes that are covered under HSE PECPR Reg or critical plant in under the HSWA MHF Regs would be included and require notification, but a trailer that needs a licence/WoF under the Land Transport Act regulations wouldn't.

I only provide details when a job is starting and only to the site that requires the information, Our workers also carry the green book with quals inside and that tends to get us through. At the initial stages, I only provide that we hold the quals required for the job I even withhold names for D&A tests and just provide a declaration of the tests being done. I am not hiding anything just only providing the information required only to the parties that need it and not all an sundry — Don Ramsay

Why can't you quote for some of the jobs I'm ever involved in - too many safety plans which just dump out all training records for the whole company, and then when you question why XYZ isn't trained or it has expired the usual answer is "oh they don't work for us anymore" or "they're not on your job"!!!!

Not really sure if "Is this notifiable" is the right question.
Is it significant? Yes
Are there learnings we could take from the event? Yes
...
Get into it pre(another)incident. — Phil Wilkes

I get where you are going with your point, that we should be more focused on what we can learn from the event to reduce the chance of future similar events, rather than the classification of the event itself.
But the reality is notifying or not for a lot of companies has a huge impact on future work because a lot of tenders/contracts are still awarded with H&S assessed as how many; LTI, Notifiables, etc. with no regards to the context or the outcomes/learnings from those events. Or even some companies internal procedures that punish/reward based on incidents seriousness (and so reports get downplayed as far as possible).
Our fixation on judging based on what is easy to measure is what we needs to addressed if we want to get past significant effort being put into classification vs investigation.

I would read from the context — Don Ramsay

I would read from the context that the original post was written by a company that does external HR investigation that has PI lincences. The original decision was regarding and employment relations case rather than a H&S investigation.
As long as we stay away from investigating an individual for penalties and focus on what we can learn from the incident (isn't that what we should be doing anyway?) there shouldn't be a need for even external H&S investigators to be PI licensed.

Having read the article — Don Ramsay

Great minds! Saw this after I posted my reply.

nearly all events on site would be notifiable. — Robb

Or none of them are (unless it was so close that it actual did seriously hurt someone... but then it would like just be a notifiable injury).

immediate or imminent exposure — Robb

This is the one part that I see most used to "justify" not reporting - "yeah we dropped a tonne of scaffold poles off the hiab, but no one was walking past at the time so it's not notifiable"...
While I will accept that satisfies the immediate exposure part I would say unless there was measures in place to prevent people being in the drop zone (e.g. taped off) then there would have still been a risk of imminent exposure. I would also argue that if the area was taped of to prevent people being in the drop zone the event should be considered to have been a controlled incident with respect to any person's safety and so would fail the test for being notifiable on multiple points.

I think you have summer used it nicely there Peter.
I see a conflict here with "H&S" wanting to claim the field should be more focused on people relationships than technical knowledge, but also wanting to be seen as a real profession.

As a Profession there needs to be a basis of technical competency (as well as a code of ethics, etc.), and for H&S I see this needs to include knowledge on both specific risks and management of those risks (e.g. confined space, warehousing and logistics, food and pathegens, etc.) as well as general business management (risk management, costs/benefits analysis, etc.) - which would define a competent H&S Professional in their specific field (just like you wouldn't ask an electrical engineer to design you a bridge).
The People side come in regarding what makes a capable H&S Professional - being able to recite chapter and verse what the legislation or code of practice say regarding a specific situation and no more does not make you capable (even if you are competent), having the ability to use you knowledge to understand a situation and development the best approach to take (e.g. the influencing and collaboration aspects of " about people") that make a capable Professional.

If in doubt - Fill the form out.

Nobody has ever gotten into trouble for over reporting — Chris Hyndman

In the first few months of HSWA I remember reporting a potential notifiable incident to WorkSafe where the person on the phone seems a little puzzled as to why I was reporting it (as in this ain't a serious harm injury...) but that was basically my answer "I don't know if it is or isn't, but there a fine for not reporting but no fine for (reasonably) bothering WorkSafe... so hence the call"

Would it not be considered an insecure load so come under the land transport act, so would not be reportable to worksafe — Don Ramsay

Again it would potentially depend on if the incident happened during road transport (or after it was considered secured for transport) or during loading/unloading. It looks like there is a offense in the Land Transport act for failing to secure a load (and strict liability if you do fail to), but there seems to be no obligation in the act to specifically report a lost load to the regulator (NZTA or applicable RCA) so unless caught red handed you could get away with it.
But given that the one of reasons for the insecure load offence must be to reduce the occurances of people being exposed to a the risk of serious injury from insecure loads falling of vehicles then would an item falling from a vehicle while being transported not have to be consider notifiable if it were to occur???

The item was a metal fuel pump. WorkSafe have said no. — Michael Wilson

What questions did WorkSafe ask you, relating to the event?
Just curious because I don't think I have ever gotten a straight answer to a question from WorkSafe, mostly it's a reciting of the section of the act and then "you need to decide..."

Where's the "it depends" option?
Really comes down to if it was unplanned / uncontrolled and if it could of potentially put a person's safety at risk?
Was it a 3L bottle of juice or was it a 1T pallet?
Was it within a designated loading zone (and thus access around the truck is prevented) or on the side of the road?
Was it while the truck was moving or stationary?

That's a huge part of the whole issue Matt, we have an Electrical Regulator that isn't fit for purpose, it lacks the resources to get Regulations citing Standards updated to the latest versions, much less investigate instances of non compliance, or provide clear guidance on alternative solutions to safe outcomes that will comply with the various provisions of the regulations that it is responsible for . — Steve H

But can the answer to bureaucratic failure ever be more bureaucracy (more regulations, NZQA standards, etc. for who can TnT)? You already rightly point out that the electricity regulator is stretched to regulate what is currently on their plate (and so is WorkSafe). Adding more can't help that.

To be honest, I see a similar thing has happened with HSWA. We have had a "major" rewrite of our H&S legislation expected to be administrated by a still under-resourced regulator, and unsurprisingly little has really come of it. And that is because the rewrite is basically following the same format as the old legislation that was failing, which was definitely not help by a regulator that was trying to go back to what it knew - HSE (I personally found it infuriating when the WorkSafe mantra was all about identifying your critical risks that could kill or seriously harm and controls those, which was basically a regurgitation of HSE's significant hazards requirements and didn't actually follow the "risk based approach" the new legislation was apparently putting forward... but that's off topic, sorry)

My suggestion is to actually clarify the electricity safety regulations by removing the term "electrically safe". This would remove the paradox where as per the regulation an appliance could be deemed to be electrically safe and electrically unsafe at the same time. And so the regulations would be focused on what is considered electrically unsafe, such as for the repair or sales regs - that an appliance is deemed electrically unsafe until tested as per the regulations.

The approach to ensuring that appliances are not electrically unsafe (so far as reasonably practicable) would be better placed within an Approved Code of Practice, which can better detail the wider range of measures required (and is somewhat easier to update as/when required, rather than having to go through the parliamentary processes.

And fair enough on the mandatory 3760 TnT never being claimed, I think I just got distracted by the "is there mandatory testing requirements" post.