I agree, programs like the Block should be using the correct safety equipment

Her In Doors is a block fan in our house, the odd times I've watched, I've cringed at the contestants trying to paint at night. I'd guess that the professional tradies would factor in normal site H&S practice, as would the site foreman, but if this was "out of hours", would it be a bit of DIY casualness?

A gray area perhaps.

Section 17 of HSWA defines a PCBU and also who is not. Given the contestants live onsite, they may be defined as being the occupants. Hence HSWA does not apply as the workplace is not their place of work. Others who do not reside there may be determined as workers so HSWA applies.

How the occupants use plant and structures, and conducts themselves onsite may be different to how subtrades, visitors, site staff etc conduct themselves.

Perhaps a judicial interpretation is required, or TV3 clarify after consultation with WorkSafe.

1. Duty of Care, Elevated Working Risk Assessment vs Landing(Feet Levels)
2. A Forklift is a Counterbalance, Diesel, LPG, or Battery Lifting & wheel driven Machine. a "Hoist" is generally air/electrical powered vertical axis lifting equipment- usually attached to a gantry or frame.
hahahahaha, unsure why its called a Hoist historically in NZ?
3. https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/working-at-height/scaffolding-in-new-zealand/#lf-doc-18752

It was a very long time ago I took anything in the media seriously. Every thing you see or hear needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

And on The Block - its just one long advertorial. If worksafe wants a spot on it they'll have to pay the bucks.

to be fair WorkSafe could just walk onto set and issue an improvement notice as per their powers under HSWA... but then imagine the negative press they would get from "busting up the iconic Block" (given Discovery/Newhub would not likely be unbias on their reporting of it). Would just be another story for the general public's perception of H&S gone mad!
Pretty sure that would never happen though as WorkSafe are likely too afraid of the bad press to do anything.

You can always make a complaint with the Broadcast Standards Authority, given the similarity with the Advertising Standards Authority decision to make Meadowfresh change their ad to stop showing a 10 year old breaking the law by riding her bike on the footpath - similar situation here just different content so different authority to deal with it...

@Garth re your 'hoist' comment take a look at today's Stuff article
When pronunciation matters - and when it really doesn't By Julia de Bres.

"Are these really their motivations? Or are they just consumed by an urge to point out that their own way of speaking is better? At best, this is obnoxious. At worst, it reflects linguistic prejudice."

When I'm working with teams I meet them as is/where is. I'll listen carefully and then deliberately use their language. This works well if you really want to understand what is happening and make incrimental change.

@MattD2 @Andrew @KeithH @EBaxter you are all right and thanks for taking the time to comment.

All legislation and approved code of practices aside, I guess it would make great TV if a contestant took a winger of a 2m scaffold in the middle of the night and took out a camera operator. Nothing like backboards and stiff necks on set for a bit of drama.

Also, Interesting to see the articles about the safety deficiencies on set at the new 'Lord of the Rings' TV series.

The Block contestants stand to earn a lot of money and the show owners are raking in the marketing/product placement dollars. To me this moves the show beyond the realms of home DIY. People are being put at risk due to poor working at heights practice and fatigue issues. Apparently, all in the name of 'good tv' this is ok in NZ.

To be fair, Wolfie did go on the rampage last night because someone hadn't signed in, which lead to a nice hazard app product placement shot.

Interestingly, the Australian Block has much higher HSE standards and a dedicated HSE person on site.

I guess it would make great TV if a contestant took a winger of a 2m scaffold in the middle of the night and took out a camera operator. Nothing like backboards and stiff necks on set for a bit of drama. — Sarah Bond

Imagine the ratings!

The Block contestants stand to earn a lot of money and the show owners are raking in the marketing/product placement dollars. To me this moves the show beyond the realms of home DIY. People are being put at risk due to poor working at heights practice and fatigue issues. Apparently, all in the name of 'good tv' this is ok in NZ. — Sarah Bond

Because signing in is going to prevent someone falling off a dodgy scaffold? I wonder how much that app paid for that product placement.

To be fair, Wolfie did go on the rampage last night because someone hadn't signed in, which lead to a nice hazard app product placement shot. — Sarah Bond

Sorry I haven't watched the block in a long time (maybe never as I am probably confusing The Block and Mitre10 Dream Home... that is how long it has been!) But I am guessing that the show hasn't "sold" the property to the contestants, so if the contestants are living in them then the show would be a landlord and since they would be engaging the contractors/suppliers/etc. then it would be definitely a workplace - and the only people who would be protected from prosecution under HSWA by calling it a "home" would be the contestants themselves...

@MattD2 yup, agree with it all.

Some good comments in here, and I found myself commenting on a few H&S faux pas myself.

It seems like (the makers) are being a little too lax in my opinion. The end result of a serious accident being, somebody is going to be to blame and I'm sure as hell it wont be the contestants. It shouldn't be too much of an issue to have a little H&S reality check in there without going OTT and still keeping some fun in it. After all, the world we live in these days is all about "I saw it on TV, so it must be ok". Common sense be damned.

Perhaps ACC should chime in on that action with their "have a hmmm" promotion.

I certainly think it's worth a mention to the Broadcast Standards Authority.

OK, so Sarah's original post has sucked me into watching a bit of The Block, and I agree there is some laxity with normal H&S practice that needs some improvement.

First step would be to draw those shortcomings to the attention of Discovery (the new owners of TV3- makers of the show) and give them the opportunity to tweak it.

Then BSA, would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Mark Richardson learns his baby is under H&S scrutiny, if we thought Grant Dalton was OTT, then Rigor's response could be volcanic

I think we are kind of missing the point a little. Who cares whether they fall within the auspices of the HSWA? Those folks could be safer while working off a mobile scaffold. A fall from 2.5 metres doesn't hurt any less coz you're not 'at work'. Its been spotted so fix it! It's the morality over legality head scratcher! I'm firmly in the morality camp :-)

It seems like TVNZ are being a little too lax in my opinion. — Stace

Just to be clear The Block is on Three, which is owned by Discovery Inc. (recently sold from Mediaworks) and not by TVNZ.

It shouldn't be too much of an issue to have a little H&S reality check in there... — Stace

the problem is that there already is a "H&S check" within the show as shown by the site supervisor's (Wolfie is it?) rant about having to sign in. The issue is that this seems to still be the reality of H&S within the residential building industry, not actual risk management but superficial actions... however the main cause for this (in my opinion) is a lot of the H&S advice being offered in this industry is of the "we'll take care of H&S for you" type rather than "we'll help you manage your risks" type

Section 17 of HSWA defines a PCBU and also who is not. Given the contestants live onsite, they may be defined as being the occupants. Hence HSWA does not apply as the workplace is not their place of work. Others who do not reside there may be determined as workers so HSWA applies. — KeithH

Simply living on site doesn't mean you're not a PCBU. I work from home, but am definitely a PCBU.
They do not own these properties, and are doing this for profit, so it's hard to see how individual contestants would not be considered a PCBU in this case.

The limitation on occupants is to prevent homeowners or tenants from being liable if a builder they engage to do work hurts themselves, due to something the homeowner likely had no knowledge/control over.

I agree with your comments Sarah. Instead of having a two palm moment what about sharing your concerns with the Broadcasting Council and raising both instances as being against the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and ask for the ads to be removed?

Simply living on site doesn't mean you're not a PCBU — Aaron Marshall

True Aaron.
However WorkSafe have determined that if the occupant - not necessarily the owner though they can be - is working on their residence the occupant is not at their place of work so HSWA does not apply.
The same is not true if the occupant "employs or engages another person to do solely residential work - HSWA S17(1)(b)(iii). WorkSafe have determined that person is either a PCBU or worker of a PCBU and is at their place of work so HSWA applies.

Whether WorkSafe would show leniency towards a friend assisting the occupant has, I do believe, yet to be determined by WorkSafe.

How do I know this? Because within the first six months of HSWA coming into force, I was subcontracted as a sole trader to assist a homeowner who was also the occupant and the main builder to boot. After an accident onsite, the homeowner/occupant was admitted to hospital. I was only cautioned (lucky me) by WorkSafe for incorrect construction of a timber scaffold while the homeowner/occupant was advised no action would be taken as he was the occupant.

So while the occupant may be the owner, the owner may not be the occupant. In the first instance, if the occupant is working on their residence, they are not at their place of work so HSWA does not apply. In the second instance, the owner is going to do work at a property (that they own) so HSWA applies since they are at a place of work and not their residence. Simple.

In this case, the prime reason they're on site is the construction. My thought is that this is closer to working on a ship. Yes, you're living (temporarily) in board, but if it wasn't for the work, you wouldn't be there.
The more I think about it the question should be "are they PCBUs or employees of the production company?"

I know this is drifting OT
I see two issues here.
First - do the contestants receive payment? Yes, but it's not clear what it is for and how it is structured. Minds immeasurably superior to mine have looked at this. Contestants get an allowance - https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/the-block-nz/118047887/block-stars-urgently-wanted-for-2020-as-three-does-final-shoutout but it's not much - https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/latest/107997340/want-to-be-on-the-block-nz-think-before-you-make-that-leap . And there is the final auction but that may be a gift - <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/19-09-2017/the-block-nz-is-the-perfect-way-to-learn-about-nzs-broken-tax-system/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/19-09-2017/the-block-nz-is-the-perfect-way-to-learn-about-nzs-broken-tax-system/</a>
Warner Bros may have this tied up but they're not talking.

Second - are they workers supplied with accommodation? Fine line this depending on the earlier issue. If they were then perhaps S36(4)(a) through to S36(5) apply. Again refer Warner Bros.

It's a fine line trying to define interpretations without any case law to refer to. So personally, until there is a judicial review or WorkSafe make a determination, I look at the Block NZ situation as occupants working on their own residences.



Regarding the forklift use in the KFC Double Down advertisement,
The Advertising Standards Authority have this to say about Safety in the Advertising Standards Code -
"Rule 1(e)
Obvious hyperbole may be acceptable. Advertisements showing impossible but unsafe scenes may be acceptable, provided this context is likely to be clearly understood."
The full code is here - http://www.asa.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Advertising-Standards-Code-2018.pdf

While there are a few H&S issues there, it may be that using the forklift was an amusing means for the workers to get more time to eat a burger.
The only way to find out though is to submit a complaint and get a ruling.

Thank you to everyone that has put thought into their response on this thread.

To be honest, when I posted this I'd had a head wrecking day with a client 'discussing' mobile scaffolds and JCB/forklift safety.... come home exhausted, turned on the TV (to relax) and had 2 x WTF moments in quick succession. I seriously thought that shat on my star sign!

I'm crazy busy at the moment and don't have time to write complaints to the broadcasting authority. However, what I needed was my professional 'tribe' to make me feel like I wasn't going nuts and the topic was worth discussing. Your posts all support this.

Stay safe everyone.

SB

Been watching The Block lately Sarah? Seems to be a little more interest in H&S, and the Wolf is on the prowl :smile:

But watching these DIY, Renovate It From The Ground Up For 50 Quid And A Bag Of Rice type shows, they probably all should come with a H&S warning from our friendly workplace heath & safety regulator.

Watched one the other night where a young stone mason was renovating an old barn to live in. At one point, he was cutting sand stone to make some cantilevered steps to a first floor he planned to build, no dust mask, no blade guard on the angle grinder he was using to cut the stone, and for the trifecta, no safety glasses.