The simple answer to this is (as far as I know) since there are currently no hazardous substances that are defined in a safe work instruments to require health monitoring there is no requirements to provide WorkSafe NZ with any health monitoring reports (as per the regulations).
Note: Seems like there is at least one SWI going through the process that will require health monitoring for ethanedinitrile (EDN)

How would an insurance company not view H & S consultant as "no longer an approved profession"? Has something changed and have we become more than a "Professional" without notification? — Ian Clark

It is nothing to do with their view on H&S being a profession or not, it is related to the risk of covering PI for those types of services. I would think that the talk of increased legal liability for those providing H&S advice in Australia might have spooked them.

Has a P2 filter - so its filtered air hitting their faces. Will be nice in summer with a bit of a breeze going by. — Andrew

Also a benefit that with the supply air drawn from the waist it is not directly in the fumes as a normal P2 respirator would be.

NZISM have an agreement with an insurer for H&S Consultants. Made the application process much easier and the premiums seemed reasonable from what I was told to expect for PI, etc. insurance.
If you are a member of NZISM it should be at the bottom left of your main page once you log in (would provide more details but waiting for my membership to come back active!).

...written to meet audit requirements and not necessarily the business needs... — Alex

Oh but it was written to meet their business needs... the "business need" to reduce cost by getting the 20% discount on their ACC levy.

'I went down to the planning department and looked up the height in the building records.' — Steve H

Ahhhhh the fallacy continues - the GM and Safety Officer were only concerned about what was planned, the physicist and engineer were concerned with the reality of the situation...

more likely today the H&S Officer would be taking the ladder away because "this siege has a no ladders policy"

Are you sure you haven't missed a couple of zeros for the rest of world figures? Seems like most are at 0.005mg/m³, or maybe confusing between hexavalent and trivalent/divalent chromates which still have a TWA limit of 0.5mg/m³. With a lot of government advisory groups recommending the 0.00002mg/m³ TWA limit that WorkSafe have adopted.

MBIE did some consultation on this about 18 months ago, but there has been no real mention of it since.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/have-your-say/implementing-the-health-and-safety-at-work-act-better-regulation-plant-structures-and-heights/

My honest opinion is it is more to bring all the H&S regulations under the HSWA title rather than still having the '95 regs and the PECPR sitting with an HSE title.

Also, although the overall incidence appears higher in NZ, the percentage of injuries above 6 weeks time off is far higher in Australia and >1year is three time higher over there. Is this to do with the injuries, or the way the different compensation schemes work? If the injuries, does this mean we're actually performing better over here in terms of those very long term/permanent major injuries? — Craig Marriott

Or is it the case of the Brodie Helmet - Australians survive what would be a fatal incident in NZ but suffer longer term injuries as a result.
Also I would expect that NZ's ACC system shouldn't have much of an influence on this data as Australia has a statutory requirement for all employer to have Workers Compensation Insurance, so basically ACC but for work injuries only.

The important question to me is not the comparison, but why the NZ figures have gone up significantly... — Craig Marriott

I completely agree with this Craig. We need to stop the pissing contests and concentrate on what matters - not the numbers at the end of any given the day, but what we are doing to improve in general.

Risk Manager (from Impac) is another common one, and I also know of Mango as well (but never used it).

What is your actual research question (if you don't mind sharing) - as this will likely be some very interesting research/findings. Generally what I have seen in the past is that, despite what is claimed on the box, most H&S management systems boil down to and incident management system (reporting and recording injuries, near misses, etc.) and/or a risk register. A lot have "additional functionality" but in reality these hardly get utilised as much as they are promoted by the system provider. One glaring hole in the Digital H&S Systems market is the availability and functionality of actually useful APIs to be able to integrate the system with the wider organisation's systems.

Somewhat related to the start of this thread, I am interested to see how the current pre-qualification schemes available in NZ stack up in regards to the Totika Bronze/Silver/Gold standards. However can you explain the difference between a Silver and Gold assessor as from the Assessment Scheme standard they seem to be identical (i.e. they require the same information/standard).

Please visit www.chansz.org/totika — Jon Harper-Slade

Hey John - think there is a typo in that link :wink:
I'm guessing you meant www.chasnz.org/totika

So am I reading this right that there is no definitive number just guidelines? — Don Ramsay

Yep, because as with everything "it depends"...

OK so what about if, in that multi-tenanted building you have some tenants who are large companies (ie have their own H&S processes) and small Mum & Dad companies (who don't)....
Would you expect the Mum & Dad businesses to be guided by the landlords H&S system? (I'm thinking in the same way as a contractor can be asked to work under the principals OHSM if they don't have one) — Hilary Kearns

I would be wary of a tenant falling under a landlord's H&S system - as they really should be set up to manage different risks. Some of those risks may be the same and could/should be coordinated on, but just wrapping the smaller tenant into the landlord systems runs the chance of the tenant missing a critical risk in their business that the landlord does not typically encounter (and so doesn't have anything in place to manage it).
It should not really matter the size of the tenant, the information required to be shared with the other affected parties should be the same. The smaller companies may need help in understanding what they need to provide, which might be done through more consultation with them or sharing the examples of the tenants with more established systems.
It is different than the main contractor / small subcontractor scenario because both of those are in the same general industry with similar general risk management approaches - however we still see instances where the client takes on too much of a prescriptive approach to the contractors work mehtods and can actually create greater risk by forcing the contractor to comply with their systems than for the contractor to manage their own risk they bring to the work and site the way they know best (as the "experts" of their subcontracting field).

In general I would say yes;
Landlord should provide a safe place to work,
Leaseholder should undertake work safely.

The caveat would be for multi tenanted buildings / lots where the activities of one leaseholder could affect those of another. Example being if one leaseholder has an ammonia chiller / cold room - the other leaseholders likely wouldn't consider an ammonia release as a emergency scenario to manage but could very likely be caught up in one. Having an effective process for all party involved in the building(s) to consult, co-operate with, and co-ordinate activities is critical. So this would be were a pre-lease assessment might be needed to ensure that none of the existing tenants will be a risk due to the new tenant.

The legal duty would be under HSWA Section 37 Duty of PCBU who manages or controls workplace, with consideration of subsection (4) that the duty is limited to the extent that the PCBU is involves the management or control (in whole or in part) of the workplace, e.g. the landlord isn't responsible for the a leaseholders unguarded power tools.

There was a case a few years back where a landlord was prosecuted because they failed to manage the risk of a dead tree at a daycare centre that was operating on their land (the daycare centre was also prosecuted - WorkSafe NZ Summary and Court Records

Agree that that approach would get a better actual understanding of the ability for a contractor to do the job safely. Some complaints of the "provide a draft SSSP for the contract" tender requirement is that it is a lot of work to complete one, but the alternative is to ask for the final version of the SSSP for another similar contract as an example (should be able to get some good "metadata" insights out of that to like the frequency and total number of revisions of the plan, etc.).
The other option I have seen requesting for the contractor to provide client feedback and reference contact details for past similar jobs (just like you would for a employee interview) - generally at least in large contracts these are asked for anyway, but not specifically evaluated for H&S performance.

However the problem with these approaches though is you need someone to (fairly) evaluate the information provided and most likely would require a specific H&S resource to do it... which is why the 3rd party sales pitch of "don't worry about evaluating your contractor's H&S performance, well take care of it for you for just a small fee" looks so attractive to a lot of companies.

A single prequal for all industries would be a great solution so the information is done once and everyone can access it, but so long as we have individual systems this will always be an issue and just duplicated information that has to be updated. — Don Ramsay

I just think 3rd party pre-qualification is an poor answer to the wrong question!
Realistically shouldn't pre-qualification be a one-time process for bringing on new contractors - once they "pass" the pre-qualification and are being engaged for work then evaluation of the contractor's performance for each contract become the more useful gauge rather than what some other company thinks of their paperwork?

So either we now have to pay for a forklift licence as well as training on handling LPG separately or forklift trainers need to up their game and add more training in about LPG? — Sarah Munro

The third option is to provide the required information and training in-house and keep records of this. The regs require:

Information regarding; any operations in the worker’s work area where hazardous substances are present (i.e. lpg on the forklift trucks), and the location and availability of known reference material on the hazards, safe handling, and storage of the hazardous substances found in the workplace, including (without limitation) safety data sheets (i.e. a SOP and the current compliant LPG SDS).

Training and instruction on:

• the physico-chemical and health hazards associated with the hazardous substances the worker uses at work (e.g. who LPG could cause them harm either physically through fire, explosion or health effects)
• the procedures for the safe use, handling, manufacture, storage, and disposal of the hazardous substances(e.g. where to store LPG bottles and how to move them around)
• practice in the safe use of plant (including personal protective equipment) necessary to manage the hazardous substances (e.g. how to swap out the LPG bottles on the forklifts, including checking for leaks and what safety equipment is needed)
• the worker’s obligations under these regulations
• the actions that the worker should take in an emergency involving the hazardous substances
• an appropriate period of practical experience of the matters described in paragraph (a), under direct supervision in the workplace (for this showing the can safely swap a bottle out, and having a LPG forklift fire as a site emergency drill should suffice)

And keep a record of training and instruction provided for each worker; which is available for inspection by a WorkSafe inspector or Compliance Certifier.

that was my point on getting the trainers comments, e.g. using you guys seems like there shouldn't be any issue with that approach.
Or even as you mentioned just have evidence of workers being trained on a internal SOP for changing out bottles.