I think WorkSafe are now using the breadth of charges as the new regulations intended them to be used, which in turn will make business work as intended

Although the number of parties involved is a surprise, I'm not sure the charges are so far out of kilter that they warrant a review prior to any decisions being made by the courts.

My own opinion is that WorkSafe will learn as much from the courts interpretation of the HSAWA as PCBUs will. The precedence's that will be set should make things a whole lot clearer, especially when looking at our areas of influence.

Well put Chris and I fully agree with your comments. WorkSafe and our PCBUs will learn plenty from the outcomes of the court cases. I just hope it doesn't drag on for months or years. We need clarity going forward. Good opportunity for Jacinda and her lot to display transparency.

I suspect that the outcome from these charges will be as clear as mud, and we won't learn as much as some might think. For instance charging GeoNet. They are an advisory service, they can't stop visitors so where is the justification? And if the charges are valid then where are the charges for the island owner for not preventing access when the volcano was at a higher alert level? My feeling is that at the end of the process's we should have a clearer idea of what needs adjusting to make the HSAWA practical for such complex tragedies.

I do agree that WorkSafe have applied the Act to the full extent as it was intended. This will be the first real test of the act for all parties concerned. For us sitting on the side lines we will be all watching with interest and potential learnings - might need to use the sieve to find the gems.
We do need to keep in mind that this was a tragedy with too many lives lost, so our thoughts should be with the victims, their loved ones and associated parties.

Why are they laying charges against GNS as they are an advisor service and cannot ban people from any activity?? They had raised the alert level and advised the affected parties who then made decisions based on that information.

Why are they laying charges against GNS as they are an advisor service and cannot ban people from any activity?? They had raised the alert level and advised the affected parties who then made decisions based on that information. — Don Ramsay

That's certainly one aspect that has me perplexed Don, just ticked a bucket list thing and did an overnight cruise on Milford Sound (highly recommended BTW). Overnight, weather brewed up a bit and I wondered, if as a consequence of the weather, would Worksafe charge the service providing the weather report to the tour boat operator, if the boat founded.

I think WorkSafe are now using the breadth of charges as the new regulations intended them to be used, which in turn will make business work as intended — Mike Saunders

I agree Mike, it will be interesting to see if they take on board the need to up their game in getting the regulations and codes of practice that they are responsible for, either updated or in place.