Plant, Structures & Working at Heights | Plant, Structures & Working at Heights

Aug 2019 - Thank you to all members who contributed to our submission on MBIE's 'Better Regulation: Plant, Structures & Working at Heights' Discussion Paper.

The NZISM response on behalf of members has now been submitted to MBIE.

1 of 18

NZISM Response to MBIE Plant, Structures &
Working at Heights Discussion Paper
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views, knowledge and experience on the proposed regulations
for Plant, Structures and Working at Height. As the largest, leading professional body representing more
than 1700 health and safety professionals and practitioners across New Zealand, we have a huge amount to
contribute.
We have engaged our members in a formal consultation process and this submission is the result of that
engagement. We focused on efforts on the four sectors most impacted by the members. These were
construction, manufacturing, agriculture and forestry. The response below covers all four sectors except
where we have specifically segmented out our response because there are differences in the required
response for the sector.
General Comment
We think that the rationale for new Regulations to improve PCBU performance in relation to a number of the
matters covered by this DD is weak. Simply asserting that machinery and plant causes a lot of injury and
death is not sufficient explanation as to why Regulations will improve this. Is it poor understanding of current
duties, lack of skills to apply standards, weak enforcement or a combination of all 3? Taking a primary duty
in the Act and simply using the same terminology in Regulations (i.e. upstream duties for suppliers etc of
plant) is unlikely be effective on its own. Updated regulations on their own will not affect the behaviour
change or cultural shift required in some of our industries.
Equally we are unclear if Regulations, rather than ACOP’s or guidance, is the best approach for matters of
detail that may need to adapt and change regularly. Making recognised Standards Safe Work Instruments
gives them enhanced legal status - however access to Standards at no or low cost is a critical factor, especially
for SMEs. While we acknowledge that this is a balancing act and requires a trade-off, we are hesitant to
recommend too much prescription in a Regulation document.
Many of the proposed new requirements will create the need for specialist expertise to implement. Detailed
planning will be required to ensure there is a pipeline of people with the required skills to meet increased
demand i.e. for equipment inspectors and certifiers. This was not handled well in relation to the HSWA Haz
Subs Regs.
On the term of competent, while the practice of determining who (as in a worker), is ‘competent’ to perform
a task or operate machinery, should be determined by the PCBU there needs to be further clarification as to
what the definition of competent includes.
We consider that a risk-based approach should apply across the board so that where situations with the same
or similar risks exist in different industries then common standards/approaches should be applied. For
example, work at height does not just apply in construction, powder actuated tools exist in other sectors
(captive bolt guns), etc.

1 of 18