It's interesting that Energy Safety's "advice" on Testing and Taagging, doesn't provide for any alternative way to get to "deemed safe" Matt, and discharge the obligation that Reg 15 imposes, and thus far no one else has either, but you are correct, the absence of a tag doesn't make the item "unsafe", but it does mean the "safety" of the item is unknown — Steve H

I think that is because the WorkSafe article is raising the point that just because something is tagged doesn't mean that they will take it as electrically safe in an investigation, and there is a lot of other points they would look at to determine if a company has manage an electrical risk SFARP 9including the points you have rasied about the competency of some of those in the TnT market). Agree that their inclusion that TnT is not mandatory is a bit of a red herring.

following the get out of jail card afforded by following Reg 26 to get to "deemed safe" — Steve H

This is my point - if people are looking at TnT as a "get out of jail" then they will be focusing on that, doing the minimum to not get found guilty rather than actually managing the electricity safety risk they are responsible for.

Are There Any Instances Where Testing And Tagging Is Required? — Steve H

As I understand it, Reg90 only requires the testing of appliance that has been worked on before releasing the item to another person, no need for tagging it. And Reg80 is relating to a different (but similar) testing regime, but is specifically a one of test and Tagged at the time the appliance is offered for sale - so protecting the seller liability rather than the user.
So neither of those examples are really relating to the test and tagging we are talking about under AS/NZS 3760.

5 Using works, installations, fittings, appliances, and associated equipment

(1) A person who owns or operates works, installations, fittings,or appliances must not use, and must
not allow any other person to use, the works, installations, fittings, or appliances if the works,
installations, fittings, or appliances are electrically unsafe. — Steve H

Ahhhhh but the catch is that Reg26 about AS/NZS3760 tagging only states that an appliance with a current (legitimate) tag is electrically safe it does not say an appliance without one is is electrically unsafe. Given the gaps you have identified in the Test N Tag regime as it stands now, it is likely that if a person was electrocuted or received a serious electric shock from an appliance in a workplace the fact it was tagged would likely be of little significance to WorkSafe's prosecution.
And so is it time to rethink what it means for something to be electrically safe/unsafe. I agree that Test n Tag can be a critical part of the management of electrical appliances, but it is only ever one part of wider electricity safety measures.

In a recent post @Peter Bateman asked How to reduce 'safety clutter'? - getting ride of Regulation 26 of the Electricity (Safety) Regulations would be one of my nominations.

...who seem to barely understand what it is that they are there to do. — Steve H

I think that there is the crux of the TnT issue.
When the client sees it as a compliance requirement for their equipment to have tags, and the "CP" sees the purpose of their job as to make sure that electrical stuff has tags then there is always going to be a disconnect between the purpose of TnT and what gets done. After all if the client sees this as purely a compliance cost, why would they engage someone who is just going to increase that cost by making them service/replace some of their equipment?

To be honest - Tag n Test is a good example where blind following of a blanket rule can actually cause more risk than it controls.

think the "decluttering" idea emerged from an academic paper in 2018 (Rae, A., Provan, D., Weber, D. E., & Dekker, S. (2018). Safety clutter: the accumulation and persistence of ‘safety’ work that does not contribute to operational safety. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 16(2), 194-211. — Chris Peace

Any chance you have a copy of the paper you could share Chris?

From what I have heard Drew and Andrew talk about regarding safety clutter on their podcast the main point really is that it is oganisation specific, what is clutter to one organisation can be very much critical to another (and again key part of Peter's original question is "from your organisation" and providing the reason why).

5s, Kanban, etc. can improve efficiencies if implemented well and into a organisation that can benefit from them, but they can also be completely disastrous in the wrong orgnaisation.

As for my answer... I would suggest adding something to the process, a well defined systems audit program which includes both confirmation that the system meets the business's requirements, the system is being used as intended, and (what usually gets forgotten in an audit) the system's requirements are achieving their individual intended outcome (which means that the system requirements need to have a specified outcomes).
as an example; In the case of forms, and the want to get rid of them / move to Electronic systems - if the intended outcome for completing a prestart checklist is to provide prompts to ensure that all pre-starts are consistent then a paper form / book is sufficient. And months/years of records / moving to an electronic system is practically worthless (having a prestart checklist book for each plant with 20/30/50/?? pages, being filled in should suffice an auditor). And if the actual purpose of the form, as a tool to help the workers do their job well rather than as a monitoring tool for management, is clearly communicated to the workforce then they will likely be much more engaged with it, stop seeing it as (management-)ass-covering paperwork and use it more effectively.... I'd even go as far to say that personally I would not care if the pre-start forms got thrown out as soon as they are completed, and from an auditor's perspective as long as they can find well used forms in the site rubbish bins I would say that is a much better outcome than 5 years worth of ticked n flicked records!

They are expensive but very good — Michael Wilson

Yeah the cost does bite, but they can also help be more efficient with stock movements too when you done have to worry about the plastic dragging and moving stacked items on pallets, etc.

Can you elaborate on why a roller door has been considered impractical? In a lot of cases like this I have seen rapid roller doors installed (the canvas/fabric type). I can see a normal roller door being impractical, but the rapid ones are really built for this problem.
https://ultigroup.co.nz/products/ulti-group-product-range/door-systems/high-speed-doors
Just an example, don't take it as a product endorsement :wink: (but the Fastrax name seems to ring some bells!)

I'll remind you all. Eliminate, Substitute, Administrate. — Bruce Tollan

I always find the hierarchy of control interesting when it is simplified to the basic EIM (or more like EIEngAPPE) - When in fact the regs state if you cannot eliminate a risk you must either Substitute, Isolate or Implement Engineering Controls (or a combo of those) ... then if there is still a residual risk administration controls need to be implement and where require suitable PPE provided.
So for this car park before sticking up the sign what did they do to either Substitute, Isolate or provide Engineering Controls to minimise the risk to pedestrians?

but it seems to me a bad idea to normalise seeing children in the road that you don't have to react to. — Craig Marriott

Or the potential to be distracted from an actual risk by the sign, or to cause evasive action that results in an incident to happen if surprised by the sign...
I wonder how much more some speed bumps or other similar physical (engineering) controls would have been for the car park?

↪Don Ramsay I'm not sure I see the relationship between the two. — Andrew

I think @Don was meaning the software called Weld Eye, not the damage to eyes from intense UV.

Getting in contact with the Maintenance Engineering Society of NZ (MESNZ) might be a good idea as they might be able to point you in the direction of a few companies that could give you some insight into what they use.

I had a quick look at some of the Weld Eye videos, one thing I would be cautious about is they seem geared at the US/EU market, which might catch you out if any contracts are specifically using AS/NZS standards.

I would suggest really nailing down the reason for needing any software before looking at options - if all you need the software for is to record and monitor weld procedures and welder qualifications/tests (i.e.you already have a solid process for developing weld procedures and the resources to develop them) then an off the shelf software package is likely going to have to many extra bells and whistles (that you'll have to pay for but never use). Talking with a local application developer may provide a cost effective solution to what you need (without being tied into a long term licencing contract such as Weld Eye) - especially if you already have the spreadsheet examples of what it is that you need to be tidied up.

I thought that the Ghost chips add was NZTA, not Worksafe — Don Ramsay

Yep, Ghost Chips was NZTA - I was meaning they seem to be chasing their own ghost chips moment.

I really don't like the concept - with its potential to reinforce the negative stereotype that if someone gets hurt that they or their workmates failed to look out for them.
How much has WorkSafe NZ spent on these failed "viral" ad campaigns over the last few years (chasing the ghost chips)?

I expect that with the reference to the 'Business Leaders Forum Benchmarking...' that the question is due to external reporting requirements.
I think there really is only one "person" that can definitively answer the question and that is who you are providing the reports to, although I wouldn't be surprised if you don't get much of a clear answer as I have found that determination of LTI days to be one of the worst detailed parts of these sorts of reporting systems (and even worst when it comes to what to do about subcontractors!)


If I had to decide myself, my approach would be to set the LTI days to what has been detailed by the medical professional without consideration of when the project finishes or the subbie was due to leave site - reason being is the injured person will not be returning to work until "better" - so even if the subbie had a job lined up to move straight onto after yours, the injured worker wouldn't be starting on the new job, i.e. the injury on your project has taken that person out of the collective industry workforce for however long they are out of it for irrespective of your companies project timeframes.

However I would expect that there is a good chance that any company that is benchmarking themselves against others would very much not want to take the above approach... which would then just make me question why you are bothering to benchmark yourself at all - as your own results would not be meaningful, and worst still if you'd do it then logically you should trust any or the other results (as it should be expected that they are fudging the numbers too)... but that gets into Craig's response.

The UK's HSE has a FAQ which provides a list of points to consider as part of your risk assessment specific to your pregnant workers - https://www.hse.gov.uk/mothers/faqs.htm#q19
Just keep in mind that this is based on UK law and so some of the requirements might not apply in NZ, such as leave obligations.

Seems to be taken from the EU directive for safe working conditions for expecting mothers (if you want more detail but don't mind reading what a lawyer thinks is "normal english") - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992L0085:EN:HTML
and their guidelines for it https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52000DC0466:EN:HTML

So I can understand his reaction when asked to sit thru a hazard meeting. — Amy Richards

I expect that he's had to sit through a number of them in the past... and I can imagine him thinking in them " are we here to manage risk or do we just care about the liability?"

only way to manage HAVS is through measuring, monitoring and ensuring exposure times are not exceeded. — Gary Clarkson

Or firstly trying to eliminate or isolate the source of the vibration in the first place - balance shafts, dampers, tighter tolerances (which are one of the reason certain brands cost more), electric vs 2-stroke powered, etc.

It really isn't that hard. And its a stepped approach. And an approach where you preferably get the person to admit they have a problem rather than you invasively testing for what might not be a problem - drugs in a system does not = impairment. — Andrew

The focus should be on helping people to rehabilitate / get through any addiction that interferes with their ability to keep themselves and others safe. Much of the debate on cannabis reform is on personal rights, but as employers we have a duty of care to everyone in the workplace and to the public if we interact with them. — Steve Fursdon

The main issue I take with the current norm is that it assumes any indication of cannabis use equates to that person having a "drug problem". And really this can only be based on the incorrect assumption that "illegal equals always bad", i.e. companies are basically saying "I don't care if you're actually impaired or not, it was illegal for you to smoke that joint 2 weeks ago so you need to be disciplined..." (being forced to take part in a "rehabilitation program" is still a disciplinary action).

This becomes completely hypocritical where in the eyes of the same company it is completely acceptable for a worker to get black-out drunk every day they have off (likely destroying their liver and health in the process) as long as they have sobered up enough by their next shift.

And to be honest - most "problematic" drug use (including alcohol and legal/prescription drugs) is a symptom of other socioeconomic or phycological issues that need to be resolved if you are looking for any sort of long term solution... "helping" people with substances abuse purely through abstinence programs is just a band-aid on the real problem.

At this stage, I've yet to meet a client who will be voting yes, purely because they don't know what that will mean for them and their workers or don't like where they think it's going. — Karen

That would be a huge red flag to me that those companies are not actually effectively managing the risk due to impairment from drugs, even if they had a "robust" Drug & Alcohol policy in place. The legality of a substances that alters your mental and physical state does not at all affect the need to have in place means to identify, monitor and manage the risk - after all if it did (and I hate using this argument because it is stupid) then they wouldn't be able to control the risk of their workers being drunk?
Out of interest - how many of those 5 companies a week use the Land Transport Act's limits for alcohol impairment and how many use the Zero Tolerance / 100µg per litre breath limit, and how many that include random testing have assessed and include the safety critical tasks / areas of their work?

By the way - I'm voting yes as the socioeconomic problems caused by a prohibition approach to cannabis has caused more damage to our countries people and economy than has been prevented by it. Mostly regarding the long lasting affects on the opportunities and prosperity for those convicted for cannabis possession, i.e. often the punishment does not fit the crime when considering all the effective outcomes. Often leading to wider socioeconomic issues such as an increase likelihood of unemployment due to a perceived lower "employability".

Some of the stuff I sometimes read (even on this forum) makes me cringe — PaulReyneke

I always cringe when at any conference or similar event the MC always starts with
"First let's just get the usual H&S stuff out of the way..."
"fire exits..." - ok
"evacuation assembly point..." - alright
"toilets..." - yeah, good to know
"break times..." - hmmmmm
"morning tea / lunch will be a buffet of..." - huh?
"parking will be validated..." - wait, what? When did getting free parking become part of safety?

A big part of the issue is a lot of what is perceived to be related to H&S is actually just H&S being used as an easy out to justify something needing to be done without actually having to justify it, aren't we are all sick of hearing "we can do XYZ because of H&S"

This means that many (over 50%) require no investigation — Mike Massaar

What happens to these that don't get looked at (and what is an example of the worse case that wouldn't be investigated)?
And are these seen as just a normal part of doing business that can't really be avoided? And is there any review of trends in the non-investigated reports?

Does anyone have any research to back up the claims that "...days since last..." signs are a deterrent to reporting of incidents?

My reason for asking this is most of the claims that this is the case seem to be based on intuition - "surely you wouldn't want to be the one to reset the clock to zero", but my personal experience with these signs when working in a non-safety specific role was they were mostly ignored and insignificant.

While I definitely would never recommend installing one, I also definitely wouldn't go on to say that they would cause a significant affect on non-reporting. There might be a correlation between sites with these signs and significant non-reporting rates, but I would bet on most cases that it would have to do with a hidden 3rd variable than direct causation.

From that gender split and the info in table 3 of the 2019 published report (Total full time included = 405, Male = 201, Female =203) that it would appear that the gender split for those in part time H&S jobs would be nearly 4 females to every 1 male.