Approved Industry Codes of Practice Offer Unique Benefits
New Zealand’s former chemical management regime included a popular key resource which enabled business operators to readily demonstrate compliance, without unnecessary cost and inconvenience.
Developed by the NZ Chemical Association using the same robust process for ISO Standards, Approved HSNO Codes of Practice:
• Identified the performance requirement;
• Explained the preferred solution;
• Standardised training, compliance assessments and enforcement, transcending Government ‘silos’;
• Provided accurate, low-cost best industry practice advice;
• Surpassed mere compliance by enabling superior, allencompassing best practice.
Simplifying prescriptive, complex and inflexible regulations, industry codes are pragmatic,
user-friendly, inexpensive and most importantly, easily updated to enable desired outcomes. They deliver accurate advice – first time, every time.
HSNO Codes were abandoned without discussion in favour of diluted and often confusing ‘guidance’ material, often requiring expensive consultants and relying on selfappointed advisors replacing former knowledgeable workplace inspectors.
For example, the widely used RCNZ
GHS Segregation Code provides ‘at a glance’ answers, replacing hundreds of pages of regulatory material.
Restoring Government approved industry codes eases pressure on risk-averse regulators and their resource-poor target audiences by explaining standardised best industry practice in ‘plain language’ guidance material, thereby sharing responsibility for safely managing chemicals throughout the product life cycle.
WorkSafe gets its third CEO in a year
Sharon Thompson, who brings leadership experience from the Financial Markets Authority and Inland Revenue, will now lead New Zealand’s health and safety regulator, taking Steve Haszard’s place as WorkSafe Chief Executive
WorkSafe New Zealand Board
Chair Jennifer Kerr’s appointment of Sharon Thompson as WorkSafe’s new Chief Executive comes eight months after the resignation of former Chief Executive Phil Parkes.
Steve Haszard was appointed to take Parkes’ place in October 2023 for a term of up to 18 months. He will finish in the role on 12 July 2024.
Kerr says Haszard has completed the priority tasks he was brought in by the Board to undertake.
“I’m grateful for Steve’s clear and decisive
leadership during a challenging time. WorkSafe now has improved financial discipline and a new strategy with a targeted focus on serious risk and harm.
“Under Sharon’s leadership, WorkSafe will continue to influence businesses and workers to better manage those risks, reduce harm and deliver better health and safety outcomes for all.
“Sharon has extensive public and private sector experience leading business transformation programmes and building highly engaged teams to overcome challenges and
deliver results,” says Kerr.
“Sharon is well placed to drive the delivery of WorkSafe’s new strategy and operating plan, which sets out how we will undertake our role as Aotearoa New Zealand’s primary work health and safety regulator.”
Sharon Thompson will join WorkSafe from her current role as Executive Director, Transformation and Operational Delivery, at the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) where she leads the operations and capability functions. Previously, Thompson was at Inland Revenue, where she led a nation-
wide customer facing and operations team through a major transformation as Deputy Commissioner, Customer and Compliance Services.
“It’s an honour to have been appointed as WorkSafe’s Chief Executive,” says Thompson.
“I look forward to the privilege of working with the WorkSafe team, and with government and sector partners, businesses and workers, iwi, unions, and everyone who can help influence better health and safety at work in Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Graphic Designer Rachel Loo rachel@infrastructurebuild.com
No-one was more excited at the prospect than the Chemical industry. Relieving New Zealanders of expensive and complex regulations (causing widespread frustration over the absence of any tangible benefit from highly prescriptive regulations) would indeed be welcome.
Regulation Minister David Seymour notes New Zealand is overregulated and has too many departments making regulations of poor quality. The fledgling Ministry for Regulation (MFR) was established with $16m and almost 90 staff, inherited from the disestablished Productivity Commission.
Critics were quick to highlight a generous budget, an expensive communications team and speculate about the Ministry’s ability to analyse and improve complex regulatory performance standards, often involving multiple government agencies.
A Regulatory Standards Bill requiring a comprehensive cost benefit analysis of new regulations will wend its laborious way through the legislative process.
Meanwhile, there are many opportunities to accelerate achieving the desired efficiencies in productivity without jeopardising workers’ health and safety or incurring additional expense.
No more fixing something that isn’t broken
The first priority for the chemical industry would be a return to approved industry codes of practice (ACoP).
A robust development process reflecting A/NZ
Where There’s a Will, There’s Always a Way
A highlight for business operators scrutinising the otherwise largely bare cupboard of the May budget was the intention to reduce red tape while improving the quality of outcomes.
Standards requirements and the New Zealand chemical industry association’s user-friendly HSNO Approved Codes provided the optimum solution. It encapsulated international best practice, delivered through credible training, enabling compliance and simplifying enforcement.
There was no explanation
as to why industry codes did not survive the creation of WorkSafe NZ. The incomplete transition from HSNO legislation to the HSWA Act and the complex, often irrational HSW (Hazardous Substances) Regulations frustrate compliance. Abandoning the sensible but inconsistently delivered HSNO Approved Handler requirements
qualification while retaining a few exceptions for niche chemical handling roles, has deprived more than half a million SMEs of a useful, in-house chemical safety adviser.
Our association has consistently opposed the present approach to regulating industry, namely: • Decide without consultation there is a problem;
• Issue a ‘consultation’ document remarkedly like a draft regulation reflecting the
resources to enable implementation; and
• Include industry in developing user-
present mix of unyielding, prescriptive compliance requirements, variable interpretation and too often
associations helps establish and confirm safe workplace practices, enabling regulators to effectively
The first priority for the chemical industry would be a return to approved industry codes of practice .
STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR WORKPLACE CHEMICAL SAFETY OBLIGATIONS
inexplicable loss of industry Approved Codes of Practice and the Approved Handler concept.
immediate relief.
Effective options to rapidly enhance workplace and consumer chemical health
There was no explanation as to why industry codes did not survive the creation of WorkSafe NZ.
Industry covers the bases while regulators have other priorities
Fortunately, the chemical industry’s customised Competent Chemical Handler courses not only ensure workers can safely use workplace chemicals, but also provide employers with in-house, basic workplace chemical safety advice.
Whilst regulators grapple with many pressing concerns, chemical safety is not a priority for WorkSafe NZ - all the more reason for key regulatory agencies to harness the expertise and support available by collaborating with the
and safety include taking advantage of industry expertise and recognising the value of proven and inexpensive industry developed ‘compliance tools’. Reinstating enforceable, low-cost industry approved codes to enable and support training, compliance and enforcement costs Government nothing.
The absence of workplace chemical safety in the new WorkSafe NZ priorities for the next two years is an unintended boost for easy solutions provided by industry codes.
A rapid return to robust, approved industry
Dismantling the silo approach by working collaboratively with proactive industry associations
chemical association in joint endeavours. The common aim is to protect people and our environment from the mis-use and mismanagement of chemicals. Responding to business lobby groups, the Government is opting for the massive task of reviewing the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Meanwhile, simply dismantling the traditional Government agency ‘silo approach’ by working collaboratively with proactive industry associations provides
solutions.
When it comes to audience appeal, “Slashing red tape” will always guarantee media attention, however solutions are harder to find.
Stakeholders will all
benefit from proven industry expertise, resources and support –bringing rapid relief to the backbone of New Zealand – the 545,000 small and medium enterprises.
Barry Dyer Chief Executive Responsible Care NZ
compliance tools implemented by competent workers will quickly overcome concerns about inadequate performance, ease pressure on resources of risk-averse government agencies and increase respect for proactive participants and their achievements.
The good news? We need not wait for chemical safety to feature on legislative priority lists, avoid the new regulation queue, or bleat about diminishing resources. Benefit from proven industry compliance
Care is a global voluntary chemical industry initiative developed autonomously by the chemical industry for the chemical industry.
Chemical suppliers continue to help customers achieve workplace chemical safety aspirations through product stewardship initiatives.
To help solve the in-house chemical compliance dilemma in New Zealand, Responsible Care NZ delivers specialist and cost-effective Certified Handler standard training, complete with a certificate.
Responsible Care NZ site compliance assessments are non-threatening, effectively capturing and assessing chemical safety performance in a variety of workplaces.
+64 4 499 4311 info@responsiblecarenz.com www.responsiblecarenz.com
Responsible
This indispensable selection includes a handy compliance checklist poster together with the Safe Storage Code displaying the essential user-friendly information you, your valued employees and customers need.
Together with our customised Approved Handler Training this valuable set of international pictograms and labels plus a useful checklist enables you and your team to comply with workplace chemical safety responsibilities.
Brett Murray
Site Safe is offering up to 24 scholarships to the health and safety leaders of tomorrow. Their Health and Safety in Construction programme has been growing year on year and is for anyone keen to achieve their goals of higher-level learning. Successful participants will be awarded with an NZQArecognised New Zealand Certificate in Workplace Health and Safety Practice (Level 3).
Site Safe Chief Executive, Brett Murray, says the scholarships are a great opportunity for aspiring health and safety leaders to gain valuable skills and qualifications.
“We are proud to support the next generation of health and safety champions who want to make a positive difference in their workplaces and communities. The scholarships are a way of recognising the diversity and talent within the construction sector and encouraging more people to pursue a career in health and safety."
Site Safe’s scholarships are open to anyone who works in the construction industry, regardless of their role, experience, or background and aim to support diversity in the industry. Applicants can apply for one of six categories: Māori, Pasifika, Under 25, Women in Construction, Accessibility,
Each year, Site Safe awards scholarships to motivated learners to complete their Health and Safety in Construction programme
This initiative is part of Site Safe’s dedication to supporting the construction industry’s next generation of aspiring health and safety leaders.
and Open (to anyone).
Each recipient receives regular, ongoing support
providing continued guidance throughout their learning journeys. Over the
from Site Safe as they go through the programme. A dedicated team of experts assists students each step of the way, planning their course pathways and
years, Site Safe has seen successful graduates of the Health and Safety in Construction programme and go on to become industry leaders in health
and safety.
Graduates frequently tell Site Safe that the programme boosts their confidence and helps them apply new safety skills on site. Feedback also shows that learning in the classroom with peers from the construction industry allows for valuable discussions.
To acknowledge their achievements, successful scholarship recipients are invited to Site Safe’s flagship event, the Evening of Celebration in Auckland in March 2025 to receive their scholarship award and connect with those already established in the health and safety industry.
Pro g ramm e
Scholarship applications now open
Scholarship Categories
• Māori
• Pasifika
• Under 25
• Women in Construction
• Accessibility (any age, gender or ethnicity)
• Open (any age, gender or ethnicity)
For more information on the Health and Safety in Construction programme, or to enrol, contact us on 0800 SITE SAFE, email programme@sitesafe.org.nz or visit our website sitesafe.org.nz.
Examining the role of work factors in suicide
Work-related suicide is a significant yet underexamined issue, but a new WorkSafe report aims to shed light on its prevalence
In three sections, the report looks at how work factors may contribute to suicidality. It considers the questions: What is workrelated suicide? What is the prevalence and nature of work-related suicide in New Zealand? And finally, What actions might help us understand and respond to work-related suicide?
Section 1: Understanding WorkRelated Suicide
Section 1 of this report
provides a literature review to clarify what is known about workrelated suicide. The review reveals that while there is a considerable amount of research examining general suicide rates within or across particular industries, there is a clear lack of research into work-related suicide. In the suicide literature more broadly, studies that look into the relationship between work and suicide typically focus on the absence of work (that is, unemployment) as
a risk factor, while failing to consider aspects of work that may increase suicide risk.
There are, however, a small number of studies examining the role that work factors may play in suicide. These studies do not appear to use an explicit definition of workrelated suicide or agreedupon criteria. Instead, each study generates its own set of criteria, based on slightly different assumptions about what work-related suicide is. As a result, findings from
these studies cannot easily be compared or collated. Internationally, the lack of research is accompanied by very limited recognition of work-related suicide as a social and legal issue. Official data collection regarding such suicides is also scarce. There appear to be several reasons for this lack of recognition, including: the conceptual ambiguity of work-related suicide; the causal complexity of suicidality; and the current emphasis on mental illness in
explanations of suicide.
The review then discusses work factors that have been identified in the literature as potentially elevating suicide risk. Perhaps the most widely commented on connection between work and suicide relates to situations where a person’s work facilitates their access to and/or familiarity with lethal means.
The literature also considers socioeconomic factors – such as low job status, low education levels, and low income – and how these appear to be associated with particular psychosocial stressors, such as job insecurity and low job control. Less explored, is the question of whether jobs that are considered ‘high status’ are also associated with unique psychosocial stressors that may contribute to suicidality.
Work-related psychosocial stressors are therefore seen as an important type of work factor. The review summarises the specific work stressors that appear most commonly in the literature. Presently, evidence for a causal relationship between work-related psychosocial stressors and suicide appears inconclusive. This inconclusive evidence should be viewed in the context of various methodological challenges, including: problematic research designs, issues with data quality, and the statistical rarity of suicide. Where work factors more broadly do contribute to suicidality, the impact they have will not be uniform. The review discusses the elements that appear to contribute to variability in which factors are impactful and the extent
of this impact. These elements include the different interpretations and resources of individual workers, as well as the gender and career stage of workers. Findings in some studies also suggest that different work stressors appear to be more highly correlated with different forms of suicidality (that is, certain work stressors may be correlated more with suicidal thoughts, while others may have a stronger association with suicide attempts or suicides). Finally, the review looks at existing efforts to conceptualise the relationship between work and suicide. These efforts are currently limited, which not only impedes our understanding of work-related suicide, but may also contribute to the inconclusive findings in some empirical studies.
The attempts that have been made include the application of models of work stress (demandcontrol model, effort-reward model, conservation of resources theory, job characteristics model, and the organisational justice model), or the application of general theories of suicide (the interpersonal theory of suicide, psychache theory, and Émile Durkheim’s sociological theory of suicide) to help explain the means by which workrelated factors are thought to influence suicidality.
Section 2: Occurrence of WorkRelated Suicide in New Zealand
Section 2 of this report examines the occurrence of work-related suicide in New Zealand, with findings from a study of coronial
data. This study undertook a review and qualitative content analysis of all available coroners’ findings for suicides that occurred in New Zealand between 2017 and 2021.
In this study, a suicide was considered work-related if either of the following two criteria were met:
1. work-related stressors played a significant role in the person’s suicidality, and/or
2. the means of suicide were distinctly related to the deceased person’s work.
Using these criteria, the study found that of the 1678 applicable cases of suicide that were reviewed, there were 197 work-related suicides. Such suicides thus represent 11.7% of all suicides that occurred in New Zealand between 2017 and 2021 (for which a coroner’s finding was
available in mid-August 2022).
For all suicides that involved at least one work factor, this study assessed the significance of these factors by contextualising them within the wider circumstance of the case. This contextualisation process enabled the further finding that of the 1,678 applicable cases, 17 (1.0%) were cases in which work factors appeared to play a predominant role and were central to explaining the suicide. In the remaining 180 work-related suicides, work factors appeared to play a notable role and were relevant to explaining the suicide. Finally, of the applicable cases, there were 49 (2.9%) in which work factors were present but appeared to play a non-significant role, such that they were not clearly relevant to explaining the
suicide. These 49 cases did not meet the criteria above and were not included as work-related suicides. Section 2 also presents basic demographic, geographic, and industryspecific data associated with these work-related suicides. Although the case numbers are too small for reliable inferences, these findings are of interest and may point to areas for future research. Of the 197 people who died by work-related suicide, 162 (82.2%) were male and 35 (17.8%) were female. Their ethnicities were: New Zealand European, 141 (71.6%); Māori, 28 (14.2%); Asian, 9 (4.6%); and all other ethnicities, 19 (9.6%).
The mean age of those who died, at the time of incident, was 45.4 years old.
The agriculture, forestry, and fishing industry (and, more specifically,
the occupation ‘farmer/ farmworker’) was particularly prominent in these findings. This is partly due to the prevalence of work-related means among suicides by farmers. However, this industry still appears overrepresented even when only cases involving work stressors are included. The study also found that of the 197 cases of work-related suicide, 38 (19.3%) were by people who were not employed at the time of incident. This finding points to the ability of both work stressors and work-related means to continue having an effect after a person’s employment has ended.
Section 2 also offers insights regarding the three categories of work factors: the presence of work stressors, the use of work-related means, and the occurrence of a suicide
in the workplace of the deceased. All three work factors are defined, with elaboration on the types of stressors, means, and locations this included. Explanations are also provided as to how the study contextualised the significance of work factors, and why the criterion of a suicide in the workplace was considered insufficient, by itself, for classifying a suicide as work-related. The most prominent work stressors, means, and location types are presented, along with broader themes in these work factors, and points of interest that warrant further research.
By way of a summary, of the 1678 suicides that were reviewed in this study, 170 (10.1%) involved significant work-related stressors; 43 (2.6%) involved workrelated means; and 41 (2.4%) occurred in the workplace of the deceased. Themes derived from the prominent work stressors included: ‘work burden’, ‘conflict and mistreatment’, and ‘undermined competence and security’. Prominent forms of workrelated means included: the use of firearms by farmers, or by members of the police or armed forces; and certain instances of the use of pharmaceutical drugs by health professionals. Finally, although the occurrence of a suicide in the workplace of the deceased was considered insufficient, by itself, for classifying a suicide as work-related, there appeared to be a high correlation between these workplace suicides and the presence of work stressors. This suggests that the occurrence of a suicide in the workplace can serve as a ‘red flag’ for a possible
Section 3: Recommendations
Section 3 of this report provides recommendations that arise from the findings of Sections 1 and 2. These recommendations are intended to support consideration of responses
actual work-related suicide were presented on the previous page. In contrast, a potential work-related suicide is one that involves any of the following three criteria:
1. the suicide occurred in the deceased person’s workplace
2. the means of suicide appear to be related to the
to work-related suicide, including by a workplace health and safety regulator. The first recommendation is to adopt an explicit definition and clear criteria for work-related suicide. Specifically, the report suggests that a workrelated suicide be defined as a suicide in which workrelated factors significantly contributed to the suicidality of the deceased. This definition should be accompanied by clear criteria. Section 3 points to (and recommends the retention of) the distinction between a potential work-related suicide and an actual work-related suicide. The criteria of an
suicidality.
The second recommendation is for the routine assessment of potential work-related suicides. It is suggested that several aspects of the research methodology described in Section 2 could be adopted or adapted by an assessing agency, such as WorkSafe New Zealand, to support robust findings. Finally, this recommendation includes exploring the source of notifications of potential work-related suicides, which might include government agencies as well as businesses.
deceased person’s work, and/or
3. there is circumstantial evidence (such as a suicide note or witness statement) indicating that workrelated stressors were a contributing factor.
As the criteria for a potential work-related suicide do not require a detailed assessment, they enable the immediate identification of suicides that appear to involve work factors. The criteria used to determine an actual work-related suicide then narrow this down to cases in which the role of work factors has been confirmed and appears significant in explaining the person’s
Thirdly, the report discusses how the routine assessment of potential work-related suicides should be accompanied by the careful collection and dissemination of findings from these assessments. This may support improvements in data quality, and thereby support wider efforts by coroners, researchers, and policymakers to prevent work-related suicide. This could include keeping an official record of workrelated suicides to enable monitoring of the ongoing prevalence of these deaths.
Finally, Section 3 of this report outlines several recommendations for future research. Improved understandings of workrelated suicide – achieved through both further research and more frequent workplace investigations – would likely facilitate greater recognition of workrelated suicide and allow for the development of tailored suicide prevention initiatives, to reduce the occurrence of these deaths.
Read the full report
Rescue scenario offers invaluable learnings
This summer, Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s specialist high angle rescue team was called in to ‘rescue’ a Watercare staff member from the Wairoa Dam valve tower in the Hūnua Ranges
Auckland’s water and wastewater service provider Watercare has been working closely with emergency services to put its rescue plans to the test before they’re needed.
Watercare headworks manager James Talbot says the exercise – which was months in the planning –was designed to test the team’s valve tower rescue plan through all its stages.
“A valve tower is the structure that allows water
from our lakes to enter the raw water pipelines. It contains valves and pipework that attach to a series of intake screens, and the Wairoa valve tower is 43 metres high, with six levels.
“Normal access into the tower is by a series of ladders. If someone can’t use a ladder, it becomes quite challenging to get them out.”
The tower’s remote location and thick concrete
walls mean there’s no form of communication from inside, so whenever someone goes in by themselves, they must call in to say what they’re doing and when they’ll come out.
“If they haven’t come out by the specified time, we initiate a response to find out if they’re ok or if there’s an incident. If we can’t get hold of them, we send another team member to see if they can find them. If a rescue is required,
we would then call the emergency services,” Talbot says.
The exercise started with a 111 call after Watercare dam technician Hēmi McGuinniety volunteered to be rescued.
“He had put together the logistics of the exercise and was keen to get firsthand experience of the rescue from the patient’s perspective,” Talbot says.
Fire and Emergency assistant commander
Brendon Irwin says fire crews attended from Hūnua, Ōtara, Papakura and central Auckland.
“When Watercare first approached us as part of their emergency response plan we jumped on board and saw it as a really good opportunity for us to test our procedures as well.
“It grew some legs, which was great. Normally we’d just involve our Papakura crew, but we extended it a bit further and had our Hūnua volunteers as well – they were the first responding truck.
“We also got Auckland Westpac Rescue Helicopter involved as well. They transported our specialist lines rescue team from Auckland City – we generally try to put them on a helicopter when the rescue is more than 45 minutes away from town, where they’re based.
“A number of our fire crews have the ability to go down on a rope to a patient. Our specialist lines team has the ability to bring them up again.”
Talbot says it took just over three hours from the 111 call to the ‘patient’ being rescued, due to the remote location and technical nature of the extraction.
“We’re really happy with the response and how smoothly it went. We’ve done rescue exercises before but not on this scale and we hadn’t tested the full response,” Talbot says.
“The procedures worked well but there were learnings too. We’re now much more conscious of where we park our vehicles when we’re at the valve towers because if there is an emergency, the fire trucks need a lot of space. We can also look at how we could modify the valve towers to make it easier
for Fire and Emergency to carry out a rescue.”
McGuinniety’s feedback was that it was cold waiting in the tower, which emphasised the importance of wearing layers to stay
important in breaking down barriers.”
Fire and Emergency New Zealand also works closely with Watercare’s Ardmore Water Treatment Plant team on scenarios that practice
has since been on standby while one of treatment plant’s reactor-clarifiers underwent maintenance.
Watercare head of production Peter Rogers says that while no one ever
warm.
Irwin says the exercise was also a good training opportunity for the Fire and Emergency team.
“It went really well. There were a couple of things that stood out, from our perspective and for Watercare, but that’s why we test these plans. Now, if the real thing drops, we’re all better prepared for it.
“We’re doing more and more of these sorts of exercises with outside agencies, and they’re really valuable. Whakawhanaungatanga –building connections – is so
the response to a chlorine gas leak.
A rescue scenario held at Watercare’s Māngere Wastewater Treatment Plant last year trialled a new scaffold structure for use in deep tank rescues.
Rescuers strapped the ‘victim’ – a pair of overalls filled with about 80kg of sand – to a stretcher and carried it up the new scaffold structure to get out of the 8m-deep tank.
The trials went well and an improved version of the scaffold structure – with wider stairs to help get a stretcher around corners –
wants to receive a report that someone has been injured, it is important that staff are appropriately trained and prepared for such an event.
“These simulated events are invaluable as they enable staff to practice response procedures and find gaps where improvements can be made. Having the support of emergency services really amplifies the value of the training exercise, and this is definitely something we’ll be doing more of across our different sites.”
E v e r y p e r s o n , e v e r y c a n c e r
895,115 Kms driven to get people to appointments
46,600 Bed nights for people receiving treatment 5,742 People attending supportive care programmes
0 8 0 0 C A N C E R ( 2 2 6 2 3 7 )
Enforceable undertaking sees self-driving vehicle address safety concerns
WorkSafe has dropped charges against Mercury NZ following a health and safety incident, now that the company has committed $1.15 million to resolving the issue
While the so-called ‘steam hammer’ event did not injure anyone, it could have seriously harmed workers if they had been in the area at the time. Steam hammer is created when steam meets cooler liquid in pipework and fittings, causing severe vibration that can lead to catastrophic failure.
A WorkSafe investigation found shortcomings in plant installation decisions and risk assessment by Mercury, and ineffective communication between offsite control room operators and personnel onsite.
“The loss of containment was incredibly dangerous. The pipework had been exposed to extreme forces, with an intensity that ejected flange bolts, split valve bonnets, and tore welded fixings,” says WorkSafe’s regulatory support manager, Catalijne Pille.
“Businesses must do everything they can to meet their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work Act.”
In response to the incident, Mercury has now applied to WorkSafe with a binding commitment to improve safety. The plan, known as an enforceable undertaking, includes:
• Trialling a self-driving vehicle for plant inspections
• Delivery of a leadership programme to promote a proactive safety culture
• Introduction of training focused on hazard awareness and safety in high-risk environments
• Sharing the resources developed and lessons learned from the incident with industry.
“Emerging technologies have huge potential for health and safety. Mercury plans to trial self-drive vehicles to supplement in-person operator rounds which can only be good for safety. The data insights will aid decision-making and help with continuous improvement of processes and procedures,” says Ms
As a result of the agreement WorkSafe’s charges against Mercury have been discontinued. WorkSafe will regularly monitor progress on the commitments which have been agreed and can resume prosecution if necessary.
“The investment from Mercury is the preferred solution in this case. It demonstrates a substantial commitment to health and safety with benefits to workers, community, and the industry that may not have been achieved by prosecution.”
Read the decision document
Read more about geothermal safety Mercury’s Executive General Manager Generation, Stew Hamilton says the health, safety and
wellbeing of its people is front of mind
“We’re constantly working to improve on our performance in this space.
“While no one was harmed in this event, it is important that we reflect on this incident and how we can continue to improve on our safety performance. This Enforceable Undertaking is an opportunity for us to do so, and fits into our wider vision for world class safety performance and achieving our goal of safety citizenship.
“The programme has now kicked off, and we expect it to complete in February 2026. Key work within this will include further education and coaching, autonomous inspections of certain sites, mechanisms to share learnings with others, donations to emergency service providers and support of a health and safety scholarship. We expect this will deliver benefits to not just our people, but our sector as well as the community.
“We are looking forward to working with WorkSafe to help continue to build strong safety performance across the industry.”
Pille.
MBIE calls for recall of unsafe heaters
Energy Safety, WorkSafe’s regulatory arm for electricity and gas usage, has extended its clampdown on a brand of wall-mounted bathroom heaters associated with fires and overheating, prompting a response from MBIE
Earlier this year the sale, use, installation, and importation of Serene Classic S2068 wall mounted bathroom heaters was prohibited. This has now been extended to cover all units imported, sold, or installed since June 2018, as well as the following Serene models: S2068, S207T, and S2069.
Serene models S2068, S2069, and S207T are all non-compliant with safety standards and cannot legally be imported, sold, or installed. Energy Safety is working with MBIE to contact known suppliers.
Simon Gallagher, National Manager, Consumer Services at MBIE, says retailers of these products are encouraged to undertake a voluntary recall.
“The Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) guarantees that products must be of acceptable quality, including safe to use and fit for purpose. Where a product is not of acceptable quality, you have the right to a refund, repair, or replacement.
MBIE recommends that consumers who have the S2068 contact the business they purchased it from to arrange for its return under the CGA. Consumers who have the S2069 or S207T and are concerned may also wish to contact the supplier to seek a remedy under the CGA,” Gallagher says.
If you have a bathroom
heater in your home, Energy Safety recommends checking the make and model of the heater.
If it is a Serene model S2068, do not use it. If you can’t unplug it from a wall socket, you should arrange for removal by an electrician.
Serene S2068 heaters are unsafe. Testing has found these heaters are non-compliant with safety standards. A series of fires and overheating incidents are associated with these heaters. More recently, events have occurred outside the previously prohibited serial number range.
There is a significant risk of people being seriously harmed or property being damaged through use of these heaters.
The prohibited S2068 heater is described as follows:
• Wall mounted fan heater with step-down thermostat with pull-
cord on-off switch, for fixed-wired installation in bathrooms and similar locations.
• Available finishes include mirror polished stainless steel metal shell with die cast grille, and also known to come in a range of colours including white and black.
• Dimensions: 300 mm wide, 210 mm high and 110 mm deep.
If your heater is a Serene model S207T or S2069, Energy Safety considers there is a low risk from continued use. However if you observe an unusual smell or noise from the heater, do not use it and contact an electrical worker to check it over.
Testing has found Serene S207T heaters are non-compliant with safety standards. There is a low risk they may be unsafe, however Energy Safety is not aware of any fires or overheating events with
these heaters.
The prohibited S207T heater is described as follows:
• Wall mounted fan heater with step-down thermostat control.
• Available finishes include stainless steel or white with gray wall bracket and cast metal grille.
• Approximate dimensions: 375 mm wide, 220 mm high and 140 mm deep.
Energy Safety has prohibited sale, installation, and importation of Serene S207T wall mounted bathroom heaters. This prohibition applies to all units imported, sold, or installed since January 2018.
Serene S2069 wall mounted bathroom heaters imported, purchased, or installed after June 2018 have also had their approval withdrawn. This confirms they cannot be legally sold in New Zealand.
Serene S2069 heaters are non-compliant with safety standards. Energy Safety are currently investigating a reported fire associated with one of these units.
Energy Safety will continue to monitor for incidents involving any of the above Serene models, and may take further actions if necessary.
Further action on Serene bathroom heaters | WorkSafe
Hard work gets results
The success of Rapid Facility Services is driven by a team that combines experience, commitment and a professional skillset that covers every aspect of facilities management with personal service
The team was forged by three friends working in the industry who realised that the key thing stressed building managers, business owners and landlords needed was to make a single call and get a reliable and qualified support team that would cover any aspect of facilities management.
The Rapid trio set down a business philosophy that “we will do what others can’t or won’t do “ and set about assembling a highly trained, efficient and safety-conscious team of professionals who get the job done right, the first time.
Today that service stretches from food manufacturers’ audit cleaning, all aspects of industrial cleaning, painting, building and floor safety management to anti-microbial and moss
Having worked in the industry for many years, three friends, Paul Schoch, Robyn Schoch and Andrew Chan realised that by combining their skills, they could create a company unlike any other
and mould treatments to prevent surface damage to roofs, ceilings, walls, floors and specialised equipment.
Team members Darren, Brandon and Akeli
The activity is footpath construction on two corners of a no exit street, off a side street, off a very busy Auckland urban road. The Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) dictates a 30km/hr temporary speed limit, shoulder closures, pedestrian detour and up to 100m taper in each direction. The TTM workers did a nice job of setting out the cones and signs and were pleasant to deal with while the road needed stop/go on the first day. They worked long hours in the fierce sun and were first onsite and last to leave, as you’d expect.
Several days later, during a long weekend, I was passing by and noticed several hazards had occurred, so I took the opportunity to look at the picture with a wider lens. Some might say I did a quick risk assessment. I noticed the following risks. Several signs had blown over in the strong winds we had, with two blocking the footpath (a busy access road to a popular beach) – now hazards for pedestrians and children on bikes. An elderly man was seen struggling to move a sign blocking his driveway. The pedestrian detour signs had blown over, making the setup unclear.
With approximately 300m of residential road affected by the CoPTTM-prescribed cone layout, the workers supposedly had to knock on doors (time consuming) to get residents to move vehicles off the street for several days (it’s usually packed with parked cars) –potentially congesting other narrow local roads. Some vehicles owners apparently couldn’t be contacted, and several vehicles remained
What a ‘riskbased approach’ really means for temporary traffic management
Civil Contractors New Zealand Technical Manager
Michelle Farrell observes a real-life scenario of temporary traffic management and how it aims to reduce risk, but in some ways achieves the opposite
parked in the coned off areas throughout the works.
Cars drove through the area at speed – by removing parked cars either side of the road, the usable carriageway width is significantly wider, meaning vehicles are travelling faster
with the TTM in place than they would on a normal day. Later during the long weekend when the weather cleared, all the cones delineating the no parking taper along the whole road had been moved aside and cars lined both sides, as
public blatantly ignored what was perceived as unnecessary TTM to access the popular beach.
To summarise some risks that were observed during a three minute walkover (i.e. what can I see here that could potentially
become a hazard?): high winds knocking over signs, therefore lack of signs making the
being in place for longer than needed? Is a shoulder closure necessary, or would a bulky physical barrier (eg
be staged on either side of the weekend; they might consider bulky physical barriers to protect the
directions to road users and pedestrians unclear; signs and cones being hazards in themselves; vehicle drivers ignoring the temporary speed limit and in fact travelling faster than usual due to increased carriageway width; public moving cones to park cars in zones that were supposed to be blocked off. It occurred to me, that the TTM in place (in accordance with CoPTTM) may have been achieving the opposite of its intention, due to the particular situation. What is the purpose of the long taper of cones? Would removing these cones increase risk to anyone? Or would it in fact decrease the risk of road users ignoring temporary speed limits, moving TTM out of the way and potentially becoming more desensitised and disrespectful. In turn potentially leading to abuse of the TTM staff.
Could the work be planned differently (timing, staging, construction methods) to avoid TTM
a small truck) parked in front of the works actually provide better protection for the workers? Is the unattended site’s TTM working as intended, is it necessary or is there a better way of doing it?
It seems to me the required CoPTTM setup is potentially creating more risks in this scenario than the works themselves. And if an incident occurred due to this set-up, who would be held responsible?
If we treated traffic management in the same way we treat other high risk activities in a public urban residential area, we might see someone coming to site to view what the street usually looks like (parked cars on both sides, traffic forced to slow down due to this narrowing effect and a busy beach access, including for children on bikes); they might consider the proposed timing of the works (the day before a four day summer weekend beside a popular Auckland beach) and wonder whether the works could
works and to force road users to both slow down and go around the works; they might even realise that letting the cars stay parked along the ‘taperzone’ where works were not actually happening could help calm traffic, rather than hinder the works.
Often this information isn’t available during the planning stage and when the contractors turn up to site to start the works they might notice other risks, such as the high winds or the increased carriageway width or realise that delays have occurred to the works starting and now the works will straddle a 4-day weekend.
A pre-start or quick toolbox meeting held in the morning, including the physical works contractor, the STMS, and perhaps a client representative could identify these new risks together and collectively make a decision of how best to minimise them.
The decision would then be appropriately recorded and communicated to
anyone affected by the changes, perhaps with a note for the STMS to keep an eye on one of the controls (how are pedestrians acting for example, is the layout working as intended?) and to give the contractor project manager a ring if they’re concerned. Actually, it reminds me a bit of the three C’s: “consultation, cooperation and coordination” as well as Worksafe advice that a risk-based approach can help parties “reach a common understanding and establish clear roles, responsibilities and actions”. Some food for thought, as we try to understand how the risk-based approach can be applied to temporary traffic management. Who needs to be involved in these decisions and at what stage? What processes are in place, or need to be added for success? How do we make it easier for people to make smarter decisions based on the specific environment and activity they’re working in and not just lay out cones according to a book and a traffic management plan they’ve been handed for the first time that morning. And remember, both the contractor and the TTM provider in this case have followed their longpractised approach of applying stock-standard thinking and done everything just as they should under CoPTTM, this is in no way a poor reflection on them. This is why it’s time for a change.
Pssst – what do they mean by a risk based approach for temporary traffic management? | Civil Contractors NZ
