Or whoever did the inspections for the CoC was negligent/incompetent/didn't actually do the inspections.

We've got a leaky building under repair now that should never have had a CoC issued.

As I said earlier, the CoC isn't really worth much legally.

I guess it depends on if the building wasn't built to code, or if the code has since changed.

I think you hit it on the head there. IF the policy is written by the accountable executive, and not merely a copy/paste exercise, then it will be useful as it forms the basis of the risk management process (the context in ISO31000 speak). It should be the driver of your company's safety goals and objectives.

The problem is, executives and professionals alike just treat it like a tick-box exercise, and then it loses its usefulness

CoC isn't worth the paper its written on. Just ask anyone with a leaky building that has to repair it. The building still has to be brought up to code.

I'm currently reading Matthew Syed's book "Bounce" which looks at mindsets, and how they affect behaviour, in particularly achievement, but it also looks at the mindset/culture/ethics link.
The way things are praised and rewarded has a direct effect on mindset, which then leads to compromising ethics. It's well worth a read.

Exactly. I hate the fact that we're having to go through the motions just to cover ourselves from potential prosecution. It makes a joke out of what we are really trying to do.

It'd be great if the MoE acknowledged that. Their attitude is that the imperative to have all children attend school is more important that staff and students safety. Worksafe, unfortunately don't want to know.

Well, that is unless you're dealing with the MoE who don't care for teacher's or students safety when it comes to enforced enrolments. The right of an individual to education outweighs the rights of the groups safety it seems.

Hmmm, I read it the other way - there are conflicts between requirements of other legislation and HSaW Act (such as the requirement for schools to take a directed enrolment from the MoE, even though it may increase risks for students and staff)

If you're assuming that asbestos is present, wouldn't that mean that whenever you're doing work, that you have to go through the process of treating any cladding, etc like it is? (and pay the associated management costs)

A couple of counter-points to your position:
The acceptable risk level depends entirely on the context of hte operation. If hte goal is to save/preserve human life, then the acceptable level of risk is far different from the acceptable level of risk for body recovery. Fire service make this distinction very clearly. I have been informed during a walk-through that they wouldn't enter the building unless there was human life at risk.
Someone who is in the midst of an adrenaline-haze may not be clear-headed enough to make a rational decision.

We seem to expect the pilot to be bale to make the informed decision to accept the risk, but all other areas of H&S we don't want people to have that choice.

As an aside, you definitely don't want them stored anywhere near buildings. Stacked pallets are the perfect arrangement for fire to spread quickly. My wife designs sprinkler systems, and stored pallets are one of the biggest problems they face.

The situation I noted was similar to a petrol station; an aircraft ramp where refuelling with avgas was taking place.

The one time I've had to ask regarding whether an event was notifiable or not, they did give clear-cut advice that it didn't need to be notified.

Regarding the HSNO spill reporting, I've seen a company policy that states an area (in square metres) for the size of spill required to be reported. It's easier for someone to estimate the size of a puddle on the ground than the volume.

My main concern here though is that they seem to be recurring spills that are accepted.

The Worksafe guidance says:
"A notifiable incident is an unplanned or uncontrolled incident in relation to a
workplace that exposes the health and safety of workers or others to a serious risk
arising from immediate or imminent exposure to:
–– a substance escaping, spilling, or leaking"
from: https://worksafe.govt.nz/dmsdocument/833-what-events-need-to-be-notified

So, if the spill is large enough that they're calling in outside specialists to clean it up, then I would think that it needs notification.
But, as others have said, its better, and fairly easy, to get clarification directly from Worksafe (in writing preferably!)

I'm interested to hear what sort of trends you are looking for here. e.g. waste oil - are you wanting it to be high (indicating more oil being collected for recycling/reuse) or low (indicating less wastage).
If you're a servicing company, then waste oil will vary depending on how busy the company is. A measure of waste oil vs. fresh oil used may be of better use; or the percentage of oil purchased in plastic containers vs. drums.

As well as measuring items, you need to make sure you're not incentivising bad practice.

'planned' means that the drop was intentional. i.e. did the operator deliberately drop the load, and was everyone aware that it was going to happen.
As an example - a helicopter carrying out lifting operations. If hte load was dropped in the appropriate place, in accordance with a plan, then no reporting. If the pilot had to release the load en-route for some reason, even if well away from people, then it needs to be reported.

IMO, this sort of definition should be company-specific. It all comes down to the company's risk appetite.
What's an acceptable risk for the Board? What do they deme to be an acceptable level of total risk?

Incidents don't only have personal outcomes, there are financial, reputational, etc outcomes as well.

How much dust comes off a chainsaw? its mostly chips isn't it?
Also, time exposure may mean that the actual exposure level is low.

Although, given the recent reduction in allowable exposure limits it may be required.

Wow, so they expect people to be able to work for 17 10-hour days in a row without suffering from fatigue?
Having worked something similar, at about 14 days you hit a low point. We were working 28 days on, 28 days off, and away from home so the dynamic was different - you were removed from home pressures, which alleviated it somewhat, but still that 14-day low was fairly common.