the HSNO regulations were definitely some of the most poorly written regulations, and the basically copy/paste into the Haz Sub regs didn't help either.

Further - it then specifically says that means you can split quantities below threshold values and not need a Compliance Certificate. — Chris Harris

Those guidelines are clear that you can consider each Hazardous Substance Location separately, however they don't actually go so far as saying you don't need a Location Compliance Certificate if you do split up you storage. It only says it may not be required:

What this means is, if you split the volume of the substances you hold into below-threshold quantities, and store them in separate locations (and at appropriate distances), you may not need a location compliance certificate — WKS-6-AGCHEM-Location-Compliance-.pdf

The regs do actually define a Hazardous Substance Location in S3 Interpretation as (paraphrasing) "an area where a quantity of the substance exceeds the relevant quantity specified in [the relevant table of threshold quantities] forclonger tgav[the applicabletimeframe]" - which does support your point that the thresholds should be consider individually per each storage area rather than the site as a whole.
What is a concern is there doesn't seem to be any specifics of what "appropriate distances" are (as mentioned in the guidelines) for the seperation of areas where substances are stored under the threshold levels. So technically you could define multiple "storage area" on your site and store 49L of petrol in eachof them, with no real separation between them and not be required to establish any Hazardous Substance Locations or get any Location compliance certificates. Although you would still likely be pulled up on a general duty to manage risks as there is other guidance that you should follow as known industry practices in this case, such as AS/NZS 3833 for The storage and handling of mixed classes of dangerous goods, in packages and intermediate bulk containers.

interested in how many workers you have - as the whole "high-risk workplace" needs to be consider with the other part of the relevant sections in the Act which is (paraphrasing) "and is carried out by less than 20 workers" - so if you have 20 workers or more, whether you are a "high-risk workplace" is a moot point anyway.

And just clarify you still require robust worker participation practices (which you have already mentioned you do have in place) as this only relates to the facts that if you have less than 20 workers and are not a high-risk workplace you can:

• S62.4 / S62.5 - refuse (with no other reason) a worker's request for HSR elections to take place (as long as you notify them as such), and
• S66.3 / S62.4 - ignore a request to establish a H&S Committee (as long as you tell them you are ignoring the request).

However irrespective of the above, regarding the H&S Committee all that is required under S66 is that the request is considered by the business and an answer be provided (which if the request is refused the answer must include why, and specifically details on how the business is are already meeting the requirements for worker participation required under S61).
And nothing in these sections removes the general duty to ensure workers are engaged and allowed to participate in the risk management decisions related to their work.

The calculator reported that because I now have 60L on site, I now need a Location Compliance Certificate. Which is against what the WorkSafe guide provided by Meihana above says. — Chris Harris

To be fair, the WorkSafe guidance says "...you may not need a location compliance certificate."
The real confusion is the fact that the regulations deal with the requirements for Hazardous Substances Locations and Location Compliance Certificates completely differently for each Class (and sometimes Sub-Class).
The WorkSafe Toolbox seems to be correct or petrol (3.1A, etc.):

• R10.26 - if you store over the threshold quantity of petrol for over the threshold time you need to establish one or more Hazardous substance Locations to store it in. So this could be 20L in three separate stores as in your example.
• R10.34 - every Hazardous Substance Location used to store petrol must have a location compliance certificate (some exemptions with limits for farms or temporary storage >2 weeks).

Therefore for petrol - once you hit the combined site limit for having to establish Hazardous Substance Location(s) then you also need to get a compliance certificate for each location(s).

Compare this with Class 5.1.1 / 5.1.2

• R12.2 / 12.8 - Similar to R10.26 quantity/time thresholds that trigger the requirement for Hazardous Substance Locations
• R12.17 - a separate set of quantity thresholds for each hazardous Substance Location that determine if each individual one requires a Location Compliance Certificate or not.

So for Class 5.1.1 / 5.1.2 oxidisers if you store over the threshold that have to have at least one Hazardous Substances Location, you can split the total to be stored into multiple locations to eliminate the need for compliance certification.

Noting however the oxidiser (and specific Class 6s / 8s) situation does seem to have confused even WorkSafe as they break WorkSafe's Toolbox, as it (incorrectly) automatically lumps "requires Hazardous Substance Location" with "requires Compliance Certificate" together.

You will be surprised by what is classed as a reward and who the recipients of it should be. — Chris Hyndman

If you are able to share it would be interesting to hear what the workers actually wanted (as rewards)?

Depends on the role/ If admin role and not in workshop/manufacturing area closed shoe fine if in low risk areas i.e. walkways and office areas. — TracyRichardson

This is a good point that (surprisingly) hadn't been mentioned till now - has the need for safety footwear been reviewed to ensure they are actually required and are actually minimising a real risk? Especially important if the requirement to wear safety footwear is due to a site-wide blanket rule.

Also if the employee medical condition is being aggravated by the employer's requirement to wear safety footwear could this then now (potentially) be considered a workplace risk/injury. Makes it even more critical to work with the employee to reach a practical solution (even if that ends up needing to be redeployment/redundancy).

Three pillars of sustainability: people, planet and profits. — Jane

Jane you nailed it. The Triple Bottom Line - People (your staff and their welfare), Planet (your impact on the environment) and Profit (meeting your investors/customers/consumers needs). — Tony Walton

Is simplifying ESG to a triple bottom line of "People, Planet, Profit" missing a big part of the point that ESG is a separate way to evaluate a prospective (or current) investment to limit the risk of investing into a business which looks good by the numbers - but is essentially achieving those numbers through unsustainable business practices? i.e making sure that the return on investment is not being made through screwing over the environment (E) or employees/suppliers/customers (S) or by lying to their shareholders (G).
Raising this point to make sure we don't loss sight of the for the reason separation between traditional economic assessment of an investment (e.g. profit/loss, share price, dividend yield, etc.) and ESG. And that with an increased focus on ESG over time it could actually allow us to transition away from GDP/growth being the main indicators of an economy's health towards an indicator of the actual social health of an economy - i.e. are we making the world a better place for all rather than is the world becoming richer, and then assuming that richer overall equates to better for all people (which is doesn't).

Do we know what the actual trend is though - is it they are accepting less (as a percentage of total applications), or are there less applications for EUs being made to begin with?
Maybe companies are looking at the cost/benefit of an EU compared with pleading guilty / going to trial - and EUs are no longer "worth the cost" given it seems like you would typically be looking at 3x the dollar value of a guilty plea sentencing (and I would guess potentially about the same legal costs for preparing and administering the EU compared with preparation for sentencing).

Another oxygen regulator explosion/fire recently. This time at Waikato University. A worker at the University was hospatilised with burns and hearing loss after an old regulator exploded when opening for use. Having old regulators myself I was unaware the risk that these pose. The people know of this the better — Grant Franklin

While the final nail may likely have been adiabatic combustion / contamination - it is interesting that the failure was at the valve stem and that it looks like it has failed from fatigue ("shiny" outer "rings/" with a rough inner section). Most other adiabatic combustion / contamination failure points seem to be through the diaphragm/bonnet or the gauges (thinner parts where there is also a larger surface area for the increase in pressure to act on).

If it is fatigue failure of the stem, and given this type of failure is due to cyclic loading (pressurisation/depressurisation, rotation, etc.) I would be considering what inspection/maintenance plans are in place, and if there is any replacement policy/procedures for their pressure equipment.

@Grant Franklin would you be able to get/share any follow up information on this incident from the University?

I can make good use of one side of an A4 piece pf paper. — Andrew

That "good use" is very subjective though :rofl:

Its a real drama when I get asked for our Health and Safety policy. I have to fossick around and make one up. — Andrew

Please tell me that you have had to take up smoking just so it can be "written on the back of a ciggy pack"

Yet New Zealand remains content to try to manage this huge quantity of asbestos in situ, lacking the ambition to seek to remove it from the built environment — The State of Asbestos - Safeguard Article

This goes hand-in-hand with @Stuart Keer-Keer's comment below

They think that if they incur the cost of doing this it puts them at a disadvantage with their competitors that don't do it. — Stuart Keer-Keer

Can we really blame them though, given those that propose to do the "right thing" will be priced out of the market by those that are offering the quick-fix (or actually the cheaper fix) - since both are technically legal - especially in residential buildings and renovations.
The requirements to do it the right way, both for removal but also just managing the risks in asbestos related work, are often seen as costly and a delay to the actual work, so isn't it not unexpected that there will be some that will fill the niche in the market to provide "more affordable" services (just look at some of the recent asbestos prosecutions over the last few years to see this).
Most of the options in the report seem to be focused on more awareness and training (including strengthening the licensing and surveying aspects) - but they won't really do anything to actually encourage the removal of (high-risk) asbestos as the preferred option, e.g. from residential buildings and other areas where the presence/risks will be less known to the owner/occupiers/operators. And to be honest the only way to encourage this (without unintendingly delaying needed maintenance work if you just outright legislate asbestos has to be removed during renovations/maintenance) is for the government to subsidise (most likely fully) the costs of removing asbestos.

If you can (i.e. they are still in business) I would be asking the manufacture for advice rather than an internet forum (although I assume your question is more to gauge what is normal than specific advice). If you can't contact the manufacture, then you may get some good advice regarding periodic maintenance and checks from someone at the Maintenance Engineering Society of NZ (https://mesnz.org.nz/).

the checks I am referring to are documented checks rather than a pre-operational visual check. — Brendon Ward

rather than "documented checks" the better evidence would be to have a (working) Preventative Maintenance program and the proof being maintenance work records (e.g. work orders or POs) to inspect/identified, and carried out maintenance work as required.
(I am assuming that the gantry crane has a current certificate of inspection, and your question is regarding what is practical above the minimum statutory requirements)

Agree that it is essentially an interpretation issue, however Section 226 is addressing how ACoP can be used in criminal or civil prosecutions/proceedings, but not (directly) addressing any specific duty or obligation under HSWA. Although if I was summarising how ACoPs fit into the HSWA legislative regime to a business owner I would use (and have) a statement such as yours.
However the full section reads:
226 Use of approved codes of practice in proceedings
(1) No code of practice issued or amended under this Part confers rights or obligations capable of enforcement in any civil or criminal proceedings.
(2) However, an approved code of practice is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings as evidence of whether or not a duty or obligation under this Act has been complied with.
(3) The court may—
(a) have regard to the code as evidence of what is known about a hazard or risk, risk assessment, or risk control to which the code relates; and
(b) rely on the code in determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances to which the code relates.
(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person from introducing evidence of compliance with this Act in a manner that is different from the code but provides a standard of work health and safety that is equivalent to or higher than the standard required in the code.
Which is to say:

1. You don't have to do what the ACoP says,
2. But if you do what the ACoP says you have complied with the relevant duties/obligations,
3. If there is an ACoP you can't say you didn't know about the risk or what to do about it,
4. But you can manage the risk in a way that is different to the ACoP as long as you have managed the risk

The hard part is the subjective nature of determining what is a "better" / "higher" standard?
Example is WorkSafe NZ have a Good Practice Guideline on Health and Safety in Welding (about 32 pages of actual "safety" information), compared to the Weld Australia's Technical Note 7 on Health and Safety in Welding which has over 150 page of "safety" information (and is actually one of the listed sources of the WorkSafe NZ Guidelines) - but even though it is likely more thorough does the Australian document actually specify a higher standard of safety. (and yes I know I am referring to a GPG and not a ACoP, but MBIE / WorkSafe NZ haven't release many ACoPs since HSWA was enacted, and mostly have revoked existing ones to be replaced with GPGs instead)
The easier example to point to is if the ACoP says retrain every 3 years then if you retrain every 2 years you must be safer, the problem is that could actually do very little to raise the standard of safety if the retraining is of little value to begin with.
And on that last point - could more frequent retraining actually have a negative impact on safety? One of the biggest issues workers raise with me when they get called up for retraining is "the added stress from needing to make up the day lost to training"... and what sort of "shortcuts" are going to be made to make up that time?

We have D endorsed drivers and the 'legal' requirement is a 5-yearly refresher which is too long. — Kate Thompson

To take that example even further - you only need to be retested for your drivers license in NZ once you hit 75 years of age... I'm sure most of us know a licensed driver that isn't exactly still a competent driver...

Any refresher or follow up training should comply with the HSWA which basically says that if there's an ACOP or other code, do it to that standard or better, but you can choose how you do it. — Darren Cottingham

Where in HSWA does it say that?
HSWA basically just says that a PCBU has to provide training when relevant. And the regulations essentially just reword that vague statement to the equally vague "workers must be adequately trained in the safe use of what they need to use to do their work" - even when the regualtions cover specific circumstances like first aid the requirement is still a nondescript "trained to administer first aid".
Regarding the ACoPs - HSWA is actually saying that compliance with an ACoP can be used as evidence that a duty/obligation has been complied with, not that you should/must follow the ACoP. However on the flip side an ACoP can also be used as evidence of what is known about a hazard or risk and what should be considered reasonably practical to manage that risk. i.e. follow the ACoP and you should be able to successfully argue you have fulfilled your duty, but also if there is a ACoP relating to the work then you will not be able to argue that you are not guilty because you weren't / couldn't have been aware of the hazard/risk or how you could of reasonably control it.

To often (and this thread is one example of it) we confuse training with competence - there can easily be situations where no matter how many times a person is trained and retrained on a task they will never be competent at that task, or on the other hand another person may be competent in that task with little to no training (due to having experience/competency in other similar tasks).

To go back to the original post - there is no "definitive rule for refreshers", as the act/regulations address the "requirements" as workers must:

• be competent to do their work (i.e. having the knowledge and experience), or if they are not competent that they are supervised by someone who is competent, and
• They have received training on the safe use of what they use to do their work.

Each company then needs to determine how they will comply with these requirements - which could be to outsource the training to a PTE, which could use refresher training as the assessment of current competency. Or it could bean in-house training program.

The only "definitive rule for refreshers" I have actually come across is has been in principle contractor / subcontractor situations (or sometimes client / principle contractor), where the rule is being dictated by the company you are doing the work for (because that is what is written in their H&S Management System) - however this more often ends up in a focus on compliance management rather than risk management.

if i was cynical i would say that it inceases thier FTE funding by a large amount. — Stephen Small

The other cynical viewpoint on refresher training is doing it to cover your ass if something was to happen, i.e. (irrespective of if the refresher training is of any value) companies consider it valuable to be use it as evidence of "taking all reasonably practicable steps" to manage the risk and if an incident were to happen they should not be prosecuted/convicted of any breach of duty... however the reality on this one is it is more likely that companies know/want to do what they can to make sure their workers are competent and the "refresher training" has just become the standard practice. And if they think about stepping outside of this "normal way of doing things" they feel exposed to the risk of prosecution if something were to go wrong.

As a footnote, I searched the HSWA for "investig" and found that safety reps can investigate worker complaints. What if the complaints were about workplace incidents? Would there be a conflict between our Act and the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act? — Chris Peace

Likely in the same situation as for H&S Consultants - given to be eligible to be a HSR under the Worker Engagement regs you have to be a worker in the workgroup then the PSPLA would have to conclude the same "in-house" exception would apply. Regarding the disclosure of information clause 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of HSWA provides rules around what information a HSR can disclosed and when/who they can disclose it to. Which is what I would rather had seen in the PSPLA decision rather than a seemingly arbitrary line in the sand drawn based on employment status or membership of certain organisations

↪Steve H I do believe the UK determination does not apply here as the ACOP is the NZ reference or am I wrong?

He is also using one as a workbench so it is probably above the 300 heights — Don Ramsay

Even if the pallet jacks come under the definition of a "forklift" in the ACoP - there is nothing in the ACoP that states operators have to complete "forklift training" (which I am assuming @MichaelWilson is refering to an external NZQA Unit Standard 10851 training coarse) - all it says is workers need to be trainined on the equipment they used, and that employers shouldn't authorise an employee to use a forklift until they are satisfactorily trained. The NZQA training is satisfactory for typical forklift use, but for the pallet jacks used in Michael's workplace it may actually be better for the training to be in-house and specific to the equipment being used.
@MichaelWilson the ACoP does provide some good guidance for developing a training program in section 5 if you go this route - ACoP TRAINING OPERATORS AND INSTRUCTORS OF POWERED INDUSTRIAL LIFT TRUCKS (FORKLIFTS)

The exact wording from the decision is:

HASANZ and its member organisation are better placed than the PSPLA to regulate and have oversight of health and safety professionals. Therefore, any person who is on the HASANZ register or is a member of a HASANZ member organisation is not required to also hold a license or certificate with the PSPLA, and complaints against them for failing to do so will not be accepted by the Authority.

The wording from PSPLA is clear that any member of NZISM is covered. To clarify, the PSPLA policy is based on the HASANZ member organisations having their own "codes of ethics" and complaints processes - since these apply to all members of NZISM (not just graded members) it would stand that all members of NZISM are covered by this exemption.

Any information released should be de-identified. So, the information provided relates to the incident, and causes. While the information collected will include a lot of personal info, this should not be released to the customer. — Aaron Marshall

I agree with you completely @Aaron Marshall, and that is my point that H&S investigation should not be included under the types of investigations covered by the Act's definition of a "Private Investigator" as the private/identifiable information that may need to be collected for the investigation of the event either doesn't need to be included in the final report or can be de-identified/anonymised.

Unfortunately the decision that has been made from the discussion between the PSPLA / HASANZ / NZISM / etc. has just focused on:

• the business relationship involved (distinguishing between a H&S Practitioner that is consultant/contractor and an employee), and
• simply the type of information being collected (rather than the purpose for which it is being collected).

Which has unfortunately meant that the PSPLA, using this basis, has concluded that H&S Consultants are considered Private Investigators under the Act.