People with hearing impairments often have much better other senses to compensate. We see this with drivers - they are much better with their peripheral vision.
If everyone on the team is aware of the person's hearing impairment, plus you have good safety practices such as flashing beacons, etc, then the risk would appear to be minimal.

Driving is one of those things that people believe they don't need to maintain their skills in.
At a minimum, you should probably check they understand the NZ road rules, and driver health and safety. There are cost-effective online courses for that.

Hi all,
In reply to Rodney's email above regarding the forklift Good Practice Guide. I contributed to the document as part of a group of trainers and others who put a lot of time into ensuring that companies and forklift operators are provided with reliable, up-to-date, relevant material. NZFIA should be commended for taking on this project.
It's undoubtedly an improvement on the ACOP but, to clarify, 'industry' does not universally want to see the determination of forklift competency to be the same as EWPs where every type of machine has a different unit standard. This proposal has a massive number of fishhooks and complications in it, notwithstanding that there is no evidence it will reduce incident rates.
It should be noted that for MEWPs WorkSafe says ONE method of determining competency is via unit standards, but that an equivalent or higher qualification will also suffice as long as it covers AS2550.10. The same applies to forklifts (i.e. do a unit standard, or do a course which covers the ACOP or better).
Introducing a new set of unit standards will decrease flexibility and increase costs for business; we all know how difficult it is to get unit standards reviewed when necessary.
NZFIA is lobbying to remove the F endorsement. This is a great idea - it's confusing for businesses to understand when they need it and when they don't, and it's pointless. The few relevant things that you learn in an F endorsement should be included in any forklift operator's certificate course.
So, to recap (from an industry and training perspective): the GPG is a great reference document, but section 12 implies that unit standards are already required, which they are not (except for the current F endorsement), and industry (companies we have polled) do not want to have a separate unit standard for every type of forklift when current competency-based training suffices. Training companies see huge issues with the proposed training and certification regime, including the increase in training costs which will actually discourage companies from getting training, and the difficulty of getting any kind of replicable standard of assessment given the hundreds of ways in which forklifts are used. Our understanding, too, is that WorkSafe will not be endorsing any more GPGs; the last one is the Sideloader GPG.

The F endorsement simply tells you legal weights and measures based on the Vehicle Dimensions and Mass rule, the obligations for rego/CoF/WoF, plus sets out a scenario of loading across a pavement into a truck. This is all irrelevant for someone driving a forklift in a warehouse. It's been on the Minister's desk for 7 years while they debate removing it because it's so pointless. Now we're having a change of government, it's probably not going to happen. The same applies with wheels, tracks and rollers endorsements - pretty much pointless having them as it should be rolled into some competency-based training and you can then drive it on the appropriate class of driver licence (class 1 or 2 depending on the weight).

@Gail Swanepoel
With the F endorsement, you only do it once, and as long as you renew it when you renew your driver licence, it stays with you forever - no point in sending people to do it for a refresher. There has been pressure to remove the F endorsement for years because it's basically pretty pointless - you can teach it in 10 minutes, and it's the kind of common sense you use when driving any vehicle on a road.
In terms of the operator's certificate (or OSH certificate), there are two things to consider:
Instructor-led training has some advantages - the instructor has had some kind of training to deliver this type of course and should be working from some kind of system. However, instructor bias is real. Language and literacy challenges make it very difficult for instructors and can impact other students. Not everyone learns at the same pace. Culturally, some people just won't put their hand up if they don't understand. You're using the training company's gear in their environment - might not be relevant for your environment. The trainee arrives back. You don't know what they've learned. Your supervisor is no wiser about how to ensure that that forklift operator continues to operate using best practices.
Online + internal assessment: training is consistent, the course can be done in your own time, watched again and again. If you have an internal assessor (e.g. supervisor) following a checklist, this can be tailored for the company's specific requirements using their gear, their SOPs, their loads, etc. Everyone understands the process better. There's literacy/language support. The downsides are that it doesn't suit people who hate online learning and you don't get the opportunity to ask questions. However, evidence suggests 20-60% better retention with online learning, so maybe it's worth persevering.
Internal training: you can make up your own course. If it complies with the Approved Code of Practice you can do the whole thing internally, including the assessment. If you have someone experienced, this can be a great way of tailoring a course 100% to your operators and work requirements, but does take a bit of work.
Bear in mind that any external training company is only responsible for the trainee while they are training them. Once they're back at your company, they're your responsibility again.
There is no legal requirement to have a forklift trainer do your forklift training, unless it's F endorsement. And there's no point in paying for an F endorsement if you don't need it - you just make your employee more employable somewhere else.
Disclaimer: we have 20 forklift trainers and an online course.

One of the issues with the NZ licensing system is that we don't test for towing trailers like they do in the UK. The easiest way to find out where the gaps are in your drivers' knowledge is to have them do a driving assessment. E.g. https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/course/driver-assessment/
There are basically pillars of risk in operating a vehicle, so you should use some kind of assessment to know which ones constitute the greatest risk for you. For light vehicles, these would include:

• Road rules
• Fatigue
• Low-speed manoeuvring
• Driving in challenging weather
• Safe speeds
• Light vehicle loading
• EVs
• Defensive driving
• Trailer coupling and towing

An assessment would enable you to understand which drivers need to do which training.

We have the same issue in the driver training world around NZTA's 'Road to Zero' policies. People don't get behind unattainable goals.

If they are driving (and even though it's not heavy vehicles), you could follow the guidelines set out in the logbook and worktime rule:
No more than 13 hours of work in 24 hours with at least a 10-hour break before the next work day. I.e.
Max 5.5h work, min 0.5 break, max 5.5h work, min 0.5h break, max 2h work + min 10 hour break.
No more than 70 hours of work in a cumulative work period before they have at least a 24-hour break.
This is legislated for heavy vehicle drivers. Fatigue massively increases accident risk and decreases productivity. You won't be getting the best out of your worker as it's not sustainable to do 16-hour days + whatever commute they have.
More info here https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resources/heavy-vehicle-work-time-requirements-and-logbooks/

The main issues are:
They won't know the road rules - they can do free road rules quizzes at www.drivingtests.co.nz . There are translations on there, too.
They won't be aware of driving culture in NZ - you can explain that we are generally rule-followers here.
They probably won't know about driving in difficult conditions, or driver health and safety - there are courses here https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/courses/car-drivers

It depends on the vehicle.
Light vehicles: just a daily basic visual check is fine with a monthly check that includes tyre pressures, fluids, etc.
Heavy vehicles: these should be checked once a day using a system which is either paper or digital.
There are apps you can use on a smartphone, e.g. WhipAround (https://whiparound.com/) - search online for one that suits you. However, an app by itself doesn't teach drivers what they are looking at, so it's best if heavy vehicle drivers have some kind of training in doing a pre-start check so that they use the app properly. At TR, we ran the truck driver competition a few weeks ago where a driver's ability to do a pre-start was judged. To be honest, almost all the class 5 drivers were good, but the class 2 drivers were universally bad with all of them missing significant numbers of defects.
This online course is a cheap way of learning for class 2-5 heavy vehicles: https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/course/pre-trip-inspection/
We have a paper-based check for our yard crew, but they know what they are doing.
For forklifts and other plant, they need a check every day they are used and it's fairly specific. If you have a trailer, that should be checked along with the towing vehicle.

Clause 226(4)
"Nothing in this section prevents a person from introducing evidence of compliance with this Act in a manner that is different from the code but provides a standard of work health and safety that is equivalent to or higher than the standard required in the code."
Our understanding of this is that you follow the code's recommendations as regards recommendations for managing H&S (which includes training) or do it better than the code. Obviously you still need to ensure that workers are competent and are receiving training at an interval that suits their needs. Please let me know if you have an different interpretation of that because legislation is often worded in impenetrable ways, so we're hoping we have the right interpretation!

You only need to do the unit standard once (if at all - they can sometimes be much less flexible than other competency-based training that can be tailored to what you do, or includes more up-to-date info). Any refresher or follow up training should comply with the HSWA which basically says that if there's an ACOP or other code, do it to that standard or better, but you can choose how you do it. This gives you more options, e.g. make your own in-house training, do it online, get a trainer in, send your staff members to a public course, etc. Training intervals could be set based on familiarity with the task/equipment. If a person is doing the task every day and there is good supervision, 3 years might be fine to give them a tune up on best practice. If a person does the task only every 3 months, there's a good chance that they will forget the finer nuances and/or they are not achieving a good level of competence and that refreshers should be conducted more frequently (e.g. every year) to help cement the knowledge and reduce risks. Case in point for MEWP: I haven't used one in about a year, so I really should have a refresher (or at least an induction) before using one again because I've forgotten a lot of the info.

As others have said, a powered pallet jack is considered to be a forklift. Forklift operators usually do a 3-yearly operator's certificate which consists of theory followed by a practical assessment. This is what's recommended in the Approved Code of Practice.
However, the HSWA says that you can either follow the code or do it an equivalent or better way. Therefore, you could theoretically make up your own training (as long as it covers the info in the ACOP), or you could do https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/course/walkie-stacker-electric-pallet-jack-training/ or you could do an instructor-led course. Any training you devise yourself must at least meet the requirements of the ACOP, though. At $74+GST, the online course would likely be the most cost-effective, then you do the practical assessment yourself following the guide.

Light vehicle load security: https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/course/load-restraint/
Heavy vehicle load security: https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/course/truck-load-security/
If you need a trainer, TR Group can run courses with or without the unit standard: https://www.trdrivertraining.co.nz/courses/load-restraint-load-unload-a-goods-service-vehicle/
You might also want to look at trailer coupling training if you're also doing trailer swaps

There's more of an issue with trailers than just the coupling part. Nobody gets taught anything about light vehicle load security for trailers, roof racks, utes, etc, or where the centre of gravity should be.
There are courses available (in-class or online), e.g. https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/course/load-restraint/, but how many people actually take the time to learn this? Not many, because the risks are not well-articulated.
I had a ladder fall off a roof rack right in front of me on the motorway and narrowly avoided it; the car behind me ran over it. You see all kinds of items that have blown out of trailers sitting on the sides of the motorway and on the roads.

For those who grew up in the UK, I was on Crackerjack aged 10 and won. My mum was fortunately spared the gunk tank, but my face was covered in treacle and Rice Crispies.

The biggest risk your remote team has is being injured in a vehicle accident, so don't scrimp on that training. Make sure they know the road rules. They can check for free on http://www.drivingtests.co.nz (there are courses, too, which cover things like driving in bad weather, load security, low-speed manoeuvring etc)
Talk to them about fatigue management and the impact of their lifestyle choices/circumstances on that.
Don't give them unrealistic schedules to get places - meetings, etc - people rushing to meet deadlines means they increase their risk while driving through either speeding or multitasking.

Motor vehicles are by far the most dangerous workplace equipment. Something like 30% of road deaths involve a vehicle being driven for work. We wholeheartedly advocate continuing driver education, especially as there are several major issues with the current licensing system:

• No retraining is required by law - you can get a full licence at 18 and still be driving at 60 with no intervention unless you do something contravening the law (and get caught and lose your licence) and there's no reason to seek improvement even if you never get caught
• Immigrants from 26 countries can arrive here and swap their overseas licence for an NZ one without taking a test. This includes many countries where you might say that the style of driving is 'exhilarating' to say the least
• Drivers can learn in one car (e.g. Suzuki Swift) and immediately progress to a substantially different car towing a sizeable trailer (e.g. Ford Ranger ute towing a caravan) with no additional training
• We aren't taught vehicle load security (many people are injured each year due to loads shifting in the vehicle when braking or in an impact, plus there are instances where things roll under people's pedals, etc.)
• Migrants can take a theory test in the language of their choice, despite English being the only language on our road signs and markings; we know that there are many drivers out there who don't understand the Road Code, and we have drivers of forklifts come in to get an operator's certificate who have to have a translator.

Anyway, that's getting off-topic. Our trainers train for competency and it's not a box-ticking exercise, but we have definitely heard stories of other training companies shuffling trainees in and out in less than half an hour.

If you see the standard of some of the forklift drivers we see, you'll understand why they need to be retrained. Some companies have only a few drivers and the supervisor or owner doesn't necessarily know best practice. Bad habits creep in. Opinions about what is 'right' vary wildly. The same logic applies to general driving on the road - how many people drive like they're in a driving exam?
In the UK, professional truck drivers have to do 40 hours of CPC every 5 years, so I do think that a B train driver should have at least a refresher of the road rules and perhaps logbook rules (a couple of thousand logbook infringements are given every year - https://www.drivingtests.co.nz/resources/logbook-work-time-offences/)
If you have a D endorsement in NZ, you have to refresh that every 5 years.
Using your example of nursing, 5% of practising nurses have to complete a recertification every year. Pilots have regular sim tests. I reckon there would be many industries with continuing professional education or refreshers that are either mandated or recommended.

P23 and P49 of the ACOP refers to trainees, not instructors. Clause 7 says it's recommended that retraining be undertaken every three years... P50 gives a sample certificate with the same wording.
You are correct that the ACOP also says that trainers should be recertified every 3 years, but it talks about trainees in 3 places in relation to this, not trainers.
Your final paragraph is spot on: our opinion is that it's best to do a theory refresher online and then do practical assessment and training in the workplace on the forklift they would usually use, lifting the loads they would usually lift, adhering to the SOPs, etc, that are relevant in their workplace - that's why we give the tools to help a supervisor conduct the practical assessment as part of our online course.
Our other opinion is that getting 80% correct when you're dealing with a machine that can cripple or kill is not the optimal solution. We insist on 100% correct.