Digging up this old thread since there has been some new developments - specifically the decision made by the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority (PSPLA) that H&S Consultants that carry out investigations are considered Private Investigators, but they agreed that HASANZ, NZISM or similar are better suited to "regulate" H&S Consultants. Therefore if you are registered with HASANZ or a member of a HASANZ member organisation you are exempt from needing to be licensed.
(Also it clarifies auditors and employees who conduct investigations for their employer are not considered private investigators)
Update including links and previous updates are on the NZISM website -
https://www.nzism.org/blog/accident-investigators-and-the-psppi-act-2010/
Like most of the above comments I think this is not the best outcome, while it is good there is some clarity I think the arguments made missed some key issues (similar to those made here).
1.
The definition of a private investigation in the act is [paraphrasing] someone (or a business) who collects information regarding;
- the personal character, actions, or
- behaviour; or the financial position; or
- the occupation or business; or
- the identity or whereabouts
of another person to provide to a client - in other words their core business is providing information about one person to another person.
The act also makes an number of exceptions, one of which is where the information is gathered "only as a necessary, usual, or reasonable incident of any other activity by that person that is not described in [the definition of a private investigator]"
Investigation into a
workplace incident is the activity that H&S practitioners undertake, with gathering the types of information above being incidental to that as necessary - we do not collect the information primarily to provide it to another person in and of itself. This should have been the main argument made to the PSPLA
2.
The exclusion of "in house" H&S practitioners solely on this fact alone is potentially illogical as a large proportion of "in-house" H&S investigations, while conducted by the employer regarding their own incident, have the ultimate purpose of providing the information to others - mainly clients but this could even include for WorkSafe in the case of duty holder reviews (but not sure if this would be exempt as providing information to the Crown as they are a Crown Agent).
3.
It is also potentially illogical to say that the HASANZ / HASANZ Member Organisations are better positioned than the PSPLA to regulate/manage H&S Consultants that conduct H&S Investigations, but if you are not a member of such organisation then you need to be licensed by the PSPLA - surely the logical outcome of the first part of this statement would be PSPLA does not regulate any H&S practitioners, and leaves HASANZ, etc. to regulate all H&S Investigations / H&S practitioners. Unfortunately this is a much bigger issue relating to the professionalisation of the H&S industry in NZ.
One final point is that I do completely agree with the comment made by
@Mike Cosman that there is need to for our industry as a whole to improve knowledge and understanding of NZ's privacy laws and how they relate to H&S Investigations.
Interested in hearing others opinions on this decision.