HSWA section 36(3)(f) requires "provision of ... instruction ..." and section 61 requires "practices that provide reasonable opportunities for workers who carry out work for the person having control of a business or undertaking to participate effectively ..." I think toolbox meetings fit these requirements provided workers are able to participate (eg, Q&A).
Toolbox meetings may fit best with work that is carried out intermittently, or that requires a permit-to-work and in many situations a toolbox meeting might be the simplest way of making sure that workers are reminded of the work practices they should/should not follow in a given situation. It s not a substitute for appropriate training.
Should those present be asked to sign the minutes? That might not be practicable. The minutes might not be available to sign for a day or so and might not include all that was said. Could the meeting be recorded (audio or video)? I would certainly be reasonable to have an attendance list, especially if the work is high risk.

A few years ago I looked at each of the Australian, UK and NZ numbers for the "value of a statistical life" (VOSL) - what we should be willing to pay to prevent one statistical death. A statistical life is not you, your child or (for me) any of my grandchildren. After allowing for the exchange rates at that time each of the values was about NZ$ 4.5 million.
Working as a consultant, my advice to clients was to inflate that to $5 million. Sometimes this caused a change in a system of work, sometimes no change because the number was too large. One client doubled that value to $10 million to force through change. So how much should Pike River been willing to spend on the ventilation system to remove methane? Each shift normally had 30 workers underground. Should they have been willing to spend 30 x $5 million = $150 million? I think the cost of the system was about $2 million. A bargain, unless that would bankrupt the business. Are you then entitled to gamble workers' lives?
Now working as a Lecturer in OHS at Victoria University I am revising the content of the Master's paper on "Hazard and risk" in trimester 2. As part of the teaching I will ask a health economist to talk to the students about the concepts of VOSL and alternatives such as Disability adjusted life years and their application to "reasonable" in the reasonably practicable test.
Perhaps the ultimate valuation test is to get your CEO to think how they would feel if being cross-examined by Crown Law in a prosecution following one or more fatalities. Ask them how much they would wish they had spent. Unsurprisingly, economists refer to this as regret. Read Kahneman's book "Thinking, fast and slow" for more on that.
PS, Victoria has a free fees offer in trimester 2 for study. It's subject to conditions but could be worth using for CPD.

My response would be that she or he needs to think about how they meet the objectives of their client, other workers and the law. There might be a way that meets them all.
Example: running up and down, and moving a ladder might be tiring and inefficient. Using tower scaffolding might be less tiring and more efficient.
Think safe system of work in section 36(3).

See section 29(2)(b) and (c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. What you're describing is illegal, WorkSafe could prosecute the two parties and no court would uphold a claim by one against the other.

I agree with pretty much all of the above. But nobody cited the definition of health in the Health and Safety at Work Act. It "means physical and mental health".
So, anything that could cause mental ill-health must be dealt with under section 36(3)(a) "... work environment that is without risks to health ...". Given the allegations about misconduct in Parliament I wonder if the MPs and officials who wrote the Act thought about that. Sexual harassment and abuse can result in lifelong harm, just as much as physical trauma.
In the first semester I'm teaching Principles of Health and Safety Management at Victoria University (part of the new MA in OHS programme) and have asked a Health Psychologist colleague to talk during the Block Course about mental health and its place in OHS management.
PS. Professor Joanne Crawford, the WorkSafe Professor of OHS arrived this week. Yay!!!

But Andrew, you didn't ask for my consent to use my family name!
It was bad enough in the 1960s with Hippies coining Peace and Love but then along came those Greenpeace people who roguishly squatted on my name.
It is, perhaps, fortunate that my friend Bruce Lovejoy and I did not set up a consultancy Lovejoy and Peace or we would have had a disagreement with the Salvation Army who, some years ago, used our good name to promote goodwill during the Christmas season. Bah!!! Humbug!
I shall consult my lawyers, Sue, Grabbit and Run to find out what restitution I can seek!!!

I cannot speak to the current status of the Taranaki common permit. I knew about it 2000-2003 when I was the corporate Risk Manager for what was then Natural Gas Corporation. Your knowledge is therefore more up to date than mine.
Maybe someone else in the forum with current knowledge can comment?

I have searched my database and found the following. Some are ancient and some are reports of events. Two in bold are joint Australia/NZ standards and may be relevant and available.
There used to be a common permit system in Taranaki for the oil & gas industry.
Hope that's some help
DoL. (1985). Dust Explosions in Factories: precautions required with combustible dusts. Wellington: Department of Labour.
DoL. (1988). Hot Work on Drums and Tanks. Wellington: Department of Labour.
Wakakura, M., & Tamura, M. (1991). Explosion and fire caused due to insufficient purging during inspection work on a continuous extractor. Retrieved 22 December 2014, from http://www.sozogaku.com/fkd/en/cfen/CC1000088.html
HSE. (1995). Hot work in docks. Information Sheet Sudbury: HSE.
SA AS 1674.1:1997. Safety in welding and allied processes Part 1: Fire precautions. Sydney: Standards Australia.
HSE. (2000). Hot work on small tanks and drums. Information Sheet Sudbury: HSE. Retrieved from www.hsebooks.co.uk
CSB. (2001). Refinery Incident – Motiva Enterprises LLC. Incident Investigation report 2001-05-I-DE Washington, DC: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board. Retrieved from http://www.csb.gov/
SA/SNZ2865:2001. Safe working in a confined space. Wellington: Standards New Zealand.
GAPS. (2003). Cutting, welding and other hot work. Guidance Note Avon, CT: Global Asset Protection Services.
Manz, A. (2003). Welding, cutting and other hot work. In Cote, A., Hall, J., Powell, P. & Grant, C. (Eds.), Fire Protection Handbook (19th ed., pp. 6-211 - 216-220). Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, Inc.
HSE. (2005). Guidance on permit-to-work systems: A guide for the petroleum, chemical and allied industries. Guidance Note: General Series Sudbury: HSE Books. Retrieved from http://books.hse.gov.uk/
DoL. (2006). Health and Safety in Welding. Wellington: Department of Labour.
FM Global. (2006). Hot work management. Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet Johnston, RI: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fmglobal.com
GAPS. (2009). Loss prevention and control for cutting, welding, hot work operations. Guidance Note Avon, CT: Global Asset Protection Services.
HSE. (2009). Safe work in confined spaces. Guidance Note Sudbury: HSE Books. Retrieved from http://books.hse.gov.uk/
Hayes, J. (2010). Safety Decision Making – Drawing a Line in the Sand. Working Paper 74 Canberra: Australian National University. Retrieved from www.http://ohs.anu.edu.au/
Marmo, L., Piccinini, N., Russo, G., et al. (2013). Multiple Tank Explosions in an Edible-Oil Refinery Plant: A Case Study. Chemical Engineering & Technology, 36(7), 1131-1137.
Burlet-Vienney, D., Chinniah, Y., Bahloul, A., & Roberge, B. (2015). Occupational safety during interventions in confined spaces. Safety Science, 79, 19-28.
Jahangiri, M., Hoboubi, N., Rostamabadi, A., et al. (2016). Human Error Analysis in a Permit to Work System: A Case Study in a Chemical Plant. Safety and Health at Work, 7(1), 6-11.

I echo Andrew's comments but ask the question "Why is Hi Vis clothing required?". I regard PPE as an admission of failure unless it can be demonstrated to be the only solution. That can result in some creative arguments leading to, for example, segregation of vehicles and people on larger sites, either spatially or by time.
In relation to Hi Vis generally, there is research showing it is of limited value under some circumstances and, in some cases, can act to cause confusion. For example, a worker may be unable to get the right depth of field when looking at a busy worksite at night due to so many reflective strips and colours moving.
Maybe move the discussion from Hi Vis as PPE to uniforms for workers with company names and/or badges printed onto jackets, Tee or long-sleeve shirts that are also Hi Vis? Pride in who workers work for?
Perhaps an article for Safeguard magazine that is research-based and informed by some good case studies?

Thank you and on 3 September I will be presenting this article at the Wellington NZISM Branch.

Well said Mark!
Using a matrix without some reliable calibration is ridiculous. As an analogy, my Toyota Yaris has a top speed of 1,795. What?!!! KPH, MPH? None of the above. It's relative to the number of snails I can pass in 270 seconds. But that's a stupid way of measuring speed.
Without some generally accepted calibration for a matrix (not THE matrix) we cannot compare "risks". And as soon as two of us write down what we mean by the scales and design of matrices we have differences. "But mine is correct" - for the whole organisation, for all organisations?
So, stop worrying about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and ask what is risk. Using the ISO definition ("effect of uncertainty on objectives") gets us into fruitful discussions about the objectives of the organisation, activity, plant, etc (and see how many people can answer those questions). Then ask where are there uncertainties about achieving the objectives. Can we do that "on time, in full 95% of the time" (OTIF95). No? What effect does that have?
And where will that get OHS practitioners? Away from arcane discussions about the matrix and into organisational improvement.
Which loops back to Mark's comments about worker engagement.

I think this all misses a key point: the risk matrix is a reporting tool, not an analysis tool. To use it you must have estimated the consequence of interest and then estimated the probability of that consequence. This is made clear in the soon-to-be published edition of ISO31010 "Risk Assessment Techniques". (Please note, we are interested in the probability of the consequence, not of the event: think Canterbury earthquakes.)
The word estimate is deliberate: it is impossible to give a consequence or probability with any certainty. There will be a range of consequences and a range of probabilities. Each range will depend on the effectiveness of the controls and that effectiveness will itself be a range (perhaps lick a finger and stick it in the air?).
Trying to use words to specify the likelihood leads to each user interpreting the words differently. This was clearly pointed out by Sherman Kent: you can read his article at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sherman-kent-and-the-board-of-national-estimates-collected-essays/6words.html . Research has since confirmed this many times. But if you're happy with a licked finger and wild inaccuracy, no need to read this article.
The matrix is about as accurate as using a faulty speedometer to get some idea how fast you are driving. Then try explaining speeding to a traffic police officer - or the inaccurate risk assessment to a WorkSafe inspector.

Pretty much as Jared has written but we are dealing with a standard so we should check the definitions in the standard and, if there are none, the ISO definitions. But first, the status of 4801.
AS/NZS4801 is due to be superceded by AS/NZS ISO45001. I've asked Standards NZ when that will happen.
Audit is defined in 4801 but not review.
For recent definitions we should look at ISO19011 "Guidelines for auditing management systems" to be used when auditing a management system standard such as 45001. ISO19011 defines an audit as a “systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled”. Audit evidence is then defined.
Review is an “activity undertaken to determine the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the subject matter to achieve established objectives”.
And beware: ISO19011 has been revised and is now the 2018 edition but Standards Australia and NZ have not yet adopted it so we are still on the 2014 AS/NZS. More on that later.

Thank you, it's so easy to forget the lessons of history.
I just ran a search in my database and found about 15 HSE research reports that mention neurotoxins, and a recent IOSH magazine article about ototoxins that damage the otoliths in the ear, exacerbating noise-induced hearing loss.
So, Peter, here's a challenge: how many Safeguard readers are studying for academic qualifications and could be persuaded to write well-researched, 2000-word articles that cite free-to-access reliable literature? Safeguard could offer an annual cash prize for the best article (by readers' vote).
Maybe WorkSafe could be persuaded to support the initiative?
Why academic? Because they have access to tertiary libraries. But maybe make it open to anyone.
The authors would score CPD points and have something good to add to their CVs, something that might contribute to their study, and we the readers would gain knowledge.
There is so much information "out there" that we don't find or remember.
Just a thought.

Many thanks, will do

Did you mention section 45(b) to them?
And the Fair Trading Act?
I am reminded of my comments in another posting about developing a single "management system" based on Annex SL, ISO9001, etc and (of course) ISO45001. All applied using the KISS principle.

Hello to all readers who provide OHS consultancy services to SMEs. Help them develop effective ways to run the business that include embedded OHS systems.
Compliance will follow.

I had another look at the Act.
Section 37(1) seems to me to cover a local authority who manages or controls a workplace such as a footpath. I think that section 37(4) limits that duty in such a way as to leave wide open the duty of a local authority.
Section 42 imposes a duty on (in this case) Lime in relation to "plant that could be used at a workplace" and extends the duty to 42(2)(f) "persons who are at or in the vicinity". If a juicer who is at work or a Lime user is at work and harms such other people there would seem to me to be a breach.
Maybe there is a proper lawyer out there who can comment?

Reportedly these scooters can go 2 or 3 times faster than running pedestrians. They are a smaller target for bus drivers to see - er, avoid - so there might be more mangled scooterists than pedestrians.

Next week Wellington City Council is considering whether to allow another E-Scooter business to operate in the CBD but with certain restrictions. I have wondered if they considered their position under section 37 HSWA because they control most roads and footpaths and these are workplaces.
Where was the risk assessment that is an implied requirement of the reasonably practicable test?

I agree the cost of standards is sometimes pretty steep and (as the NZISM representative on two joint standards committees) often wonder where the money goes. Committee members are all volunteers and we pay our own expenses (unless someone else is willing to pay them). When a standard is published we get one free hard copy and electronic copy for our personal use.
Over the last year there has been a battle about who pays for adoption of ISO and IEC standards when they are proposed to be joint standards. MBIE started off wanting someone to sponsor such adoption. Things were getting farcical at one stage but there is now a chance that MBIE will pay.
In Australia, the private sector company that sells standards (SAIG) might be distressed if joint standards were made free of charge but they also earn money by selling other documents and providing consultancy services. Standards Australia is funded by the federal government.
International standards are copyright ISO and/or IEC. The IEC dependability standards are important but few people buy them, perhaps because of cost?
When running training courses I always reference the relevant standards and, in 2019, will be cross referencing to the common structure of management systems standards set out in Annex SL. These include ISO45001, ISO9001 and ISO14001. Annex SL is free but you need to know where to find it.
I should stop here: this is making me depressed!