I'd be asking what you're gaining from this, especially if it is on a per worker basis. Is it part of the induction process and the primary induction? If so, it may be okay, as long as that process is robust. I would be worried if each worker then also still had to go through your primary site's induction as a separate step, as you'd wonder what benefit each organisation is gaining (other than costs).
There are a number of third party H&S pre-qualification providers within NZ, but they work on a company to company basis, not at the worker level, as far as I know.

Hi

There is quite a bit of discussion on this topic under Contractor Pre Qualification / Approval systems on this forum

The bottom line is - its a rip-off and a classic case of contracting out your duty of care plain and simple.
Me personally - as part of my role being a Health Safety & Risk Advisor, I conduct due diligence on behalf of my company even though we participate in prequalification process with a third party organisation, at a ridiculous cost - for what? not sure. I do not trust the concept of third party ensuring safety within our organisation. if your company has a robust safety management system then you would not need to rely on a third party organisation to do your job!

That sounds very odd Brendan. Are they assessing each individual? What on earth does that 'pre-approval' involve?

That sounds very odd Brendan. Are they assessing each individual? What on earth does that 'pre-approval' involve? — Tania Curtin

Doesn't sound odd at all to me... what it does sound like is sitting a Construct Safe test (or even attending a SiteSafe Passport training).

And just to clarify, just because it sounds like the norm to me, doesn't mean I agree with this norm :wink:

how is contracting out described in the Act? I think you may be confusing “normal” terms with terms in legislation

Hi Brendan, I agree with MattD2 it sounds like a Constructsafe test, which is becoming the norm. It depends how your client spins it.