Fletcher Building Limited

Page 1 of 64

Fletcher Building Limited

Submission on the Discussion Document:

Developing Regulations to Support the New Health and Safety at Work Act

1 August 2014

CONTACT DETAILS

Name: Hans Buwalda

Position: Fletcher Building Group Manager, Environment, Health and Safety

Address: Private Bag 92-114, Auckland 1142

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 021 226 5590

mailto:[email protected]

Submissions: Discussion Document: Health and Safety at Work Act Regulations

Page 2 of 64

About Fletcher Building Limited

Fletcher Building (FB) is a New Zealand-based company that manufactures and distributes building materials, constructs residential houses, commercial and civil infrastructure. In 2012, an asset base of $7.5 billion delivered group revenues of $9 billion. The company employs 19,200 people: 8,500 in New Zealand; 6,600 in Australia; and 4,100 in other parts of the world. In New Zealand, FB has approximately 350 manufacturing sites, offices and distribution outlets in 100 locations.

The company’s commitment to safe work practices is reflected in both individual business unit and corporate strategies. Company-wide values, beliefs and operating practices - together called the “Fletcher Building Way” - are shaped by a 100 year history in manufacturing, construction, distribution and quarrying, and in enduring relationships with our employees, contractors, customers, communities and shareholders.

Our New Zealand brands include:

PlaceMakers is the first-choice building supplies merchant for New Zealand tradesmen, operating more than 50 branches and 10 Frame and Truss facilities nationwide.

Fletcher Construction is a leading infrastructure, commercial engineering and building contractor, developing projects in New Zealand and the South Pacific.

Firth Industries is New Zealand's leading concrete company and only national masonry supplier. Operating from 78 sites, Firth’s products are used across all building sectors and environments.

Golden Bay Cement is New Zealand’s largest manufacturer of cement for ready-mixed concrete producers, concrete product manufacturers, building materials distributors, construction contractors and other major users of cement and concrete.

Operating for 150 years and with 26 locations, Winstone Aggregates is New Zealand's largest manufacturer and distributor of aggregates and sands to the roading, civil engineering, horticultural, agricultural, landscaping and drainage industries.

Winstone Wallboards is New Zealand’s sole manufacturer and

leading supplier of gypsum plasterboard. Approximately 75% of its sales are in the residential sector, with the remaining 25% in commercial construction.

http://www.fbu.com/divisions-businesses/infrastructure-products/concrete-new-zealand/golden-bay-cement/

http://www.fbu.com/divisions-businesses/building-products/plasterboard-group/winstone-wallboards/


Page 3 of 64

The iconic Pink® Batts® brand of insulation has been manufactured by Tasman Insulation in New Zealand since 1961, with facilities in Auckland and Christchurch.

Overview of FB’s position

FB views on the health and safety reforms in New Zealand reflect its position as an operator of some 300 workplaces in New Zealand. FB supports the broad intent to deliver improved regulatory oversight to health and safety in New Zealand’s workplaces.

We also note the close alignment of the current Bill and proposed regulations with the Model Work Health and Safety Act and Regulations in Australia. We support this approach. We have a number of operations in Australia, and the legislation enables a common approach to hazard and risk management within these operations, as well as enabling a common governance regime.

We support the partnership approach to health and safety, as embedded in the Bill and proposed Regulations. The most effective means for improving health and safety performance in New Zealand will be a partnership between employers, workers and the government. There is no doubt that a model in which employers, workers and regulators work together towards higher standards with participation and consensus, will deliver the best outcomes. This will require continued work on safety culture in New Zealand’s workplaces.

Several of the questions in the Discussion Document ask for an opinion on the main benefits and costs of certain proposals. This can be extremely difficult to quantify. There are two aspects that we believe are important to the issue of costs and benefits:

The cost of additional hazard controls, particularly for engineering controls. We note that the proposed Act requires dutyholders to install engineering controls unless the costs are grossly disproportionate to their benefits. We support this principal. It is likely to be addressed in Approved Codes of Practice and Guidelines, as these will specify appropriate controls for hazards.

The cost of additional regulations is often attributable to administrative costs. It is critical that administrative costs are kept as low as possible, in particular for small and medium-sized businesses. This can be achieved through ensuring that specific direction is provided to small and medium businesses through Approved Codes of Practice and Guidelines. These organizations would not be expected to have administratively complex safety management systems. Rather they would be expected to know what their significant hazards were and to have implemented relevant controls from Approved Codes of Practice and Guidelines.

We also support the introduction of the PCBU concept in the Act and the requirements for dutyholders to consult. We are aware of the increasing diversity of workplaces and working arrangements.


Page 4 of 64

We also support the principle of increased worker engagement and participation in safety management. However, we believe that there is not adequate alignment between the provisions for PCBUs and the provisions for worker engagement.

We fully support the findings of the Independent Task Force on Workplace Health and Safety that worker engagement needs to be enhanced. However, the regulatory proposals do not adequately acknowledge the increasing diversity of contemporary workplaces and working arrangements. Given this diversity, there will be numerous arrangements within and between dutyholders that enable effective worker engagement.

There is a need to consider that a range of different ways to ensure workers are involved – including in workplace safety leadership, in decision-making processes, in review and development of processes and policies, and in engaging others. Structures such as committees and defined roles have a place but not one size fits all. We are concerned with prescriptive approach. Likely to be ineffective, difficult to implement and may limit innovation. Workgroups could be difficult to identify and implement. The requirements for consulting across multiple PCBUs unclear,

Prescribing requirements in regulations can be limiting. A more effective approach may be to clearly set expectations in both legislation and regulations, supported by examples of good practice in Approved Codes of Practice and Guidelines. The Regulations should set out the principles of good worker engagement, consultation and representation and should make it clear that these principles must be adhered to. The Regulation should provide flexibility on how to achieve these principles, with a back-stop or default position for critical risk environments or for workplaces that are unable to develop their own approach. (What is prescribed might be an option).


Page 5 of 64

Question No

Page No Question Comments

Chapter 1 – Overview

1 15 Do you have any comment to offer on the proposed approach to phasing the development of regulations?

We would encourage further analysis and discussion about whether the Australian Model Regulations are directly applicable in NZ, or whether it would be more appropriate to retain the use of ACOP’s and Guidelines.

2 16 As a duty holder, do you rely on commercially-printed hard copies of regulations purchased either from Legislation Direct or selected retail outlets? Or, do you view or print off your own copies of regulations from the NZ Legislation website as needed?

We support printing from online sources

3 16 What do you think are the relative benefits and drawbacks of either: having a single set of Health and Safety at Work regulations containing all regulatory requirements in one place; or having multiple sets of regulations each focusing on a single topic (some of which will apply to everyone, and others which will only apply to a select group of duty holders)?

We support a single set of Regulations

4 16 Do you have any comment to offer on the proposed approach to identifying regulatory offences?

Enforcement should differentiate between those matters that directly affect the health and safety of workers, and administrative requirements.


Page 6 of 64

Question No


5 17 Do you have any comment to offer on the principles for identifying which requirements of the new regulations should be infringement offences?

Any fine should require balanced consideration before being issued rather than on the spot. Alternately WorkSafe could develop an enforcement policy and tool that considers the actual and potential risks before deciding to issue a fine.

6 17 Are there any proposed requirements in the regulations that you think should be infringement offences? Which ones, and why?

Infringement offences should differentiate between those that directly affect the health and safety of workers, e.g. controls on high risk work, and administrative requirements such as having a procedures for electing health and safety representatives.

7 18 Are there any other transitional issues that you think should be considered? Please explain.

We believe that organisations will need time after April 2015 to implement the new Regulations. WorkSafe should provide a transition period of 12-18 months before any enforcement occurs.

8 18 Are there any other transitional issues that you think should be considered? Please explain.

No comment


Page 7 of 64

Chapter 2 – Regulating general risk and workplace management

Question No


9 37 Do you have any comment to offer on the regulatory proposal about the process for managing specified risks to health and safety in the workplace? Specifically, do you have any comment on the Australian requirements for reviewing control measures, and which of them may be appropriate here?

Specified high risk activities we will need more formal / documented reviews to look for ways to eliminate / ALARP. There will be a cost, however this is hard to quantify.

A transition period needs to occur of 12-18 months before any enforcement occurs, to ensure ACOP’s / Guidelines are developed in conjunction with industry that detail best practice

10 37 What do you think are the main benefits and costs of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical)

No further comment.

11 38 Do you have any comment to offer on the regulatory proposal about the provision of information, training, supervision and instruction?

We believe there should be a Guideline / ACOP on what good practice looks like, developed in consultation with Industry

12 41 Do you have any comments about the proposed regulations for general workplace facilities?

Providing washing facilities is not practical at all sites eg small construction sites. This requirement could be moved to under “certain places of work” where it would be desirable to have washing facilities for example dirty industries.

13 41 Do you envisage any impacts (positive or negative) as a result of not specifically mentioning things such as controlling humidity and air velocity, over-crowding, and accommodation for agricultural workers in the proposed regulations?

No comment


Page 8 of 64

Question No


14 42 Do you have any comment about the regulatory proposal for the provision of first aid facilities? Does the proposal differ greatly from how you are interpreting the current requirements? Please explain.

No comment

15 43 Should some businesses not be subject to the requirement to develop, maintain and implement an emergency plan? If so, on what basis (e.g. business size/number or location of workers/risk type) and why?

We believe that all sites should have a documented and maintained emergency, with trial evacuations suitable to the nature of the hazards and risks apparent. Where there are multiple PCBUs on a single site, then one plan would generally be sufficient, with suitable drills. However this raises the question of ownership and primary responsibility on a site.

16 Do you have any other comments to make about the regulatory proposal for emergency plans?

No further comment

17 44 Do you see any issues with including protective clothing within the definition of PPE as in the Australian model regulations?

We support having explicit requirements in Regulations

18 45 Do you think the proposed requirements on PCBUs for the provision and use of PPE, based on the Australian model regulations, are clear and detailed enough? Please give reasons.

We believe that the Australian regulations are appropriate.

19 45 Do you agree with the proposed amendment to the Australian model regulations about PPE needing to be compatible with other required PPE? What is the impact of incompatible PPE in your area of work? Please give examples.

No comment


Page 9 of 64

Question No


20 45 Do you think it is necessary to continue the current provisions enabling a worker to genuinely and voluntarily choose to provide their own personal protective clothing so long as this does not compromise their safety? Do you agree to broaden this out to include all PPE? Please give reasons.

We are concerned a worker may choose to provide their own PPE for high risk works that does not meet required safety standards.

21 46 Do you agree to continue the absolute nature of the requirement on PCBUs to provide PPE to workers and other people in the workplace, and ensure it is used/worn? What are the positive/negative impacts of this? Please give your reasons.

We support that PPE must be provided

22 46 Do you agree to maintain the absolute nature of the provisions on workers and other people in the workplace to use/wear PPE? What are the positive/negative impacts of this? Please give your reasons.

We support that PPE, where provided, must be worn

23 47 Are there any other amendments that you think should be made to the new regulations relating to PPE? Please give your reasons.

No comment

24 48 Do you support the proposal to introduce a specific requirement on PCBUs to manage risk to the health and safety of workers doing remote or isolated work? Do you think this requirement is necessary in the New Zealand context based on the meaning of remote and isolated work? Do you have examples of this kind of work in New Zealand? Please give reasons.

We support the provision of requirements for workers working alone. This regulation must be applicable to the New Zealand context, which is more about working alone than remote work.

25 48 Are there any other amendments that you think should be made to the new regulations relating to remote or isolated work? Please give your reasons.

No further comment.


Page 10 of 64

Question No


26 49 Do you have any comments to make in relation to the regulatory proposal for managing risks from airborne contaminants? Particularly, what do you think is a reasonable timeframe for keeping records of air monitoring?

At least 12-18 month transition period would be required prior to enforcement.

A period of 30 years to hold records is impractical for most PCBU’s. We believe that medical practitioners or a specific agency (rather than employers) be developed to hold this data electronically.

27 49 Do you think the proposed regulation for managing risks from airborne contaminants will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? Conversely, what are the benefits of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical)

No further comment

28 51 Do you have any comments in relation to the regulatory proposals for managing risks associated with hazardous atmospheres?

This is a complex issue. We believe that this issue is deferred for further consideration in Phase 2 (April 2017) when Confined Space Regulations / ACOPs are developed.

29 51 Do you think the proposed regulation for managing risks associated with hazardous atmospheres will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? Conversely, what are the benefits of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical)

No further comment.


Page 11 of 64

Question No


30 51 Do you think New Zealand should define an atmosphere as hazardous: if the concentration of flammable gas, vapour, mist or fumes exceeds 5% of the substance’s lower explosive limit (the Australian model approach), or based on the concentration of flammable gas, vapour, mist or fumes as classified by AS/NZS 60079.1.10: 2009, or other such standards?

Please give reasons, noting positive or negative effects.

We believe that this issue should be deferred for further consideration in Phase 2 (April 2017) when Confined Space Regulations / ACOPs are developed.

31 52 Do you have any comment to make in relation to the regulatory proposal about the storage of flammable substances at the workplace?

We believe that the statement of “lowest practicable quantity” is ambiguous, and open to varying interpretations. Several industries already have ACOP’s in place giving guidance on what the allowed storage could be. Greater clarity on reasonable expectations for various industries and the nature of the purpose of storage (dispensing, closed container storage, use etc.) would be of benefit.

32 52 Do you think the proposed regulation for the storage of flammable substances at the workplace will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? Conversely, what are the benefits of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical)

No further comment.


Page 12 of 64

Question No


33 53 Do you have any comment on the regulatory proposal about managing the risk of falling objects?

We recommend that this Regulation only come into effect with the 2nd set of regulations (1 April 2017). Alternately that there is a transition period in terms of enforcement. In any case clear guidelines need to be provided on best practice, developed in consultation with the Industry.

34 54 Do you have any comment on the regulatory proposal about managing risks associated with hazardous containers and loose but enclosed materials?

No further comment

35 56 Do you have any comment on the regulatory proposal about carrying over the current provisions for young persons?

No further comment.


Page 13 of 64

Question No


36 57 How do you think regulation 61 of the current regulations relating to the use of tractors for agricultural work by 12 year olds should be transferred to the new regulations? Do you think that this exception should be removed? Please give your reasons.

No comment

37 57 Do you think there should be a provision in the new regulations prohibiting people younger than 15 years of age from working in an area where hazardous substances are manufactured, handled or sold? Please give your reasons.

The risk to personal health is significantly different between where hazardous substances are being used, and where small quantities in closed containers are being sold. We support restricting young people in areas where they would be exposed to hazardous substances while they are out of storage containers (being used/transferred), but feel a blanket ban on young persons in all workplaces that sell hazardous substances would not bring any greater benefit, and would restrict the ability for younger workers to gain work experience, or be utilised in low risk roles such as administration or stock takes.

38 58 Do you have any comment to offer on the regulatory proposal about limited child care providers?

No comment


Page 14 of 64

Chapter 3 – Regulating worker participation engagement and representation

We support enhanced worker participation in health and safety management, as set out in our submission to the Bill. The bottom line requirement is that they develop an approach to health and safety that is appropriate to the nature, size and complexity of their businesses. Worker participation in safety management is a necessary objective and should occur in worksites with safety cultures that include open reporting, flexibility and learning. There needs to be careful consideration as to the best methods to achieve a partnership approach.

We believe that more progress will be made through business leadership and support from other Government and non-Government organisations than from prescriptive legislation. This will not enable the flexible approaches that are required to further develop reporting and engagement. We would be supportive of early guidelines that support flexible approaches and clarity on outputs of worker participation. In summary, we believe:

•All PCBUs must engage with workers

•All PCBUs must have effective worker participation schemes

•Workers may choose to have health and safety representatives.


Page 15 of 64

Question No


39 68 Do you have any comments on the proposed procedure for determining or varying work groups where there is one PCBU?

There is a lack of clarity about how many work groups could potentially be required within a workplace, and how issues would be addressed if any party were not negotiating in good faith. As it reads employees could legitimately seek to impose upon employers a complex structure of work group arrangements for similar skill sets (ie various trades), geographic areas, shift arrangements. We would seek further guidance and hope that the proposed ACoP may give greater clarity, potentially with indicative ratios without necessarily introducing new concept of Work Groups.

40 69 Do you have any comments on the proposed process for determining work groups where there are multiple PCBUs?

It is less clear how negotiations for a work group are initiated where there are multiple PCBU’s. There is some concern that there does not appear to be guidance for how issues would be addressed if any party were not negotiating in good faith.

41 69 Do you have any comments on the proposed eligibility criteria for a Health and Safety representative?

Agree, it is essential that any Health and Safety Representative is a Worker.


Page 16 of 64

Question No


42 70 Do you have any comments on the regulatory proposals for the election process for health and safety representatives?

One worker can require an election process to be initiated. It is quite possible that one worker could effectively ignore an existing well-functioning worker participation programme (for instance a Health and Safety Committee) and require Health and Safety Representatives. Where an existing system is functioning and supported by the majority of the site, it seems unreasonable that one individual can dictate a change must be made. We have some concern that there is no apparent means of negotiation or right of redress if one person requests Health and Safety Representatives. We would like to see an option for continuing with existing worker participation systems where these exist.

43 71 Do you have any comments on the regulatory proposal about the term of office of three years?

The term of office of a health and safety representative should be three years. They must be trained and have the power to issue hazard notices.


Page 17 of 64

Question No


44 72 Existing trained Health and Safety representatives are able to issue hazard notices – what additional training do you think is required in order for these Health and Safety representatives to issue PINs and direct unsafe work to cease, if any? Please give your reasons.

We believe that there needs to be industry specific training so that Health and Safety Representatives have the knowledge and skill to make informed decisions. There should be provision to enable large employers to conduct Health and Safety Representative training in-house so the training can be tailored to the specific risks and safety systems.

The current Health and Safety Representative training is very high level and generic. While we support the proposed power of the Health and Safety Representative to issue PINs, we do not believe it is appropriate for Health and Safety representatives to direct unsafe work to cease.

This is a power that may easily be subject to abuse with extraordinary commercial consequences to an employer. The provisions provide no satisfactory avenue for indemnifying an employer whose operation has been erroneously or even maliciously brought to a halt by a Health and Safety Representative. We believe that the existing right to refuse to perform a task that is unsafe provides adequate protection for employees.


Page 18 of 64

Question No


45 72 What essential content needs to be covered in training for Health and Safety representatives to have enough knowledge to effectively carry out their functions and powers? Please give your reasons.

The training needs to cover all the current material but also needs to include an increased focus on proactive communication and negotiation skills to manage any situation in-house so that referral to WorkSafe is only the last resort. Training also needs to have some practical content, ideally scenario based, within the industry so that Representatives have a better understanding of industry/site specific issues.

46 72 How do you think Health and Safety representative training should be delivered, for example online or face-to-face? Please give your reasons.

Training needs to be done Face-to-face including practical scenario based training, but could include some on-line follow-up and verification.

47 72 What level of experience and qualifications must the training organisation have in order to provide training for Health and Safety representatives? Please give your reasons.

Qualified trainers who have been assessed as competent

3 years Training experience and 3 years practical health and safety experience at the minimum of a Health and Safety Co-ordinator level.

It is essential that the trainers are not just qualified trainers but have a minimum of 3 years practical health and safety experience. 3 years would be regarded as a minimum because any less would mean that the individual’s knowledge was purely theoretical.


Page 19 of 64

Question No


48 72 What assessment should Health and Safety representatives have to undergo, if any, as part of their training to be able to exercise their powers and functions under the proposed new Act?

We believe health and safety representatives should be required to undergo an objective competency assessment.

49 73 Do you have any comments on the proposed process for Health and Safety representatives to access training and the PCBU’s obligations for training?

We advocate a fixed maximum price and fixed timeframes for training.

50 74 Do you have any comments on the proposed reasons for someone to cease being a Health and Safety representative or the process for workers to remove a Health and Safety representative from office?

We agree with the workers being able to vote to remove a Health and Safety Representative. We believe however that there needs to be a quick and effective process for an Inspector facilitating the removal of a health and safety representative from their role. Employers will need to rely heavily on the regulator for resolving claims of misuse of power and removing health and safety representatives from their role. We believe additional resources and expedited processes will be needed in order to facilitate acceptable outcomes.

51 74 Do you have any other comments on the regulatory proposals for Health and Safety representatives?

No further comments.


Page 20 of 64

Question No


52 75 Do you think PCBUs must be required to appoint at least one person to the Health and Safety committee who has delegated authority to make decisions on health and safety matters? Please give your reasons.

We would recommend that there should be at least one senior manager on the Health and Safety Committee however this does not need to be a requirement.

53 76 Do you have any comments on the proposed regulations regarding Health and Safety committees?

These requirements are prescriptive about when committees meet and its constitution (at least 50% of group to be workers), and who can make decisions etc.

We believe that there are some effective worker representation systems currently being used that do not rely primarily on representatives, but rather use committees as a broader selection of workers, which are not being given as great a focus by the proposed regulations

54 77 Do you have any comments on the proposed situations where an inspector may make a final decision about a matter? Please give your reasons.

We agree that an issue resolution process should be prescribed however believe that the employer should have the right to make the final decision as it is best placed to understand the costs and operational impacts associated with various worker participation arrangements. Employers should however be required to take into account any feedback, recommendations or guidance provided by an inspector.


Page 21 of 64

Question No


55 77 Do you have any further comments that you would like to make on the regulating of worker participation?

We strongly favour worker participation and the Act and Regulations appear to allow for some flexibility in approach to this. Unfortunately the proposed format does open the door for one person or their representative to dictate the necessity for Health and Safety Representatives without any negotiation or consideration for existing or alternative means of worker participation. Similarly, the powers provided to health and safety representatives are too broad in nature and are not balanced by effective safe guards to protect employers from misuse of those powers (even in good faith)

While one person can request a Health and Safety Representative, it requires five to request a Committee.

We believe that Committees may be the most effective means of engaging with workers. Where there is a well-functioning committee it may be unnecessary to have a Health and Safety Representative/s.


Page 22 of 64

Chapter 4 – Regulating work involving Asbestos

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

56 85 Is the approach of a general prohibition with exceptions the best means of restricting work with asbestos in New Zealand workplaces? Do you consider it would be more effective than the current New Zealand system? What would be the implications of this approach for people that current deal with asbestos?

Yes – a general prohibition with exceptions in line with the existing Australian model Act and Regulations would be the best means of restricting work with asbestos in New Zealand. A general prohibition would be more effective because the current Health and Safety in Employment (Asbestos) Regulations 1998 does not specifically reference asbestos prohibitions. This is a proven system in Australia and the UK already.

This would be a more consistent approach. It would require (possibly) a greater number of CoC holders; there would need to be some detailed guidance documents for asbestos removal workers or work processes. In addition persons undertaking asbestos removal work or asbestos related work would need to be able to demonstrate they have the relevant competencies to undertake the required work in accordance with these prohibitions.


Page 23 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

57 85 Is the definition of “work involving asbestos” comprehensive and consistent with the definition in the current regulations?

This definition is easy to interpret and very usable. The definition in the Australian model Regulations ‘work involving asbestos’ is comprehensive and consistent with the definition in ‘Part 2 Interpretation’ of the Health and Safety in Employment (Asbestos) Regulations 1998 – work involving asbestos. For example, we consider that the Australian definitions are much more specific than the current New Zealand definition. However, the range of activities described in the New Zealand regulation is consistent as the works described correlate to the Australian definitions.

58 86 Is the list of exempt activities contained in the Australian model regulations appropriate for New Zealand?

There is no need to mention jurisdictional legislation in New Zealand.

The dates would need to be removed with regard to points c and h – in Canterbury, there are properties containing ACM that have been constructed in the last 10 years, and as the import of ACM is not banned in New Zealand having a definitive date for installation is not applicable in New Zealand.

59 86 Is there a date from which it can be assumed that asbestos is not present in workplaces and from which plant or structures installed after that date could be exempted from the regulations?

No – As mentioned in the point above, it has been identified in CHRP that recently constructed homes can and do contain ACMs. An exemption date should not be specified in the regulations because asbestos is still being imported into the country, therefore material may be used in modern buildings, plant or other structures.


Page 24 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

60 86 What are the foreseeable situations where WorkSafe NZ could approve “methods adopted for managing risk associated with asbestos”?

The situations mentioned in this paragraph would equally apply in New Zealand, especially house moving and house lifting activities. However, we would always strongly recommend that any asbestos which is present and is likely to be disturbed by activities such as house moving should be removed by a licensed removalist prior to works commencing. We would also recommend that asbestos is not re-used and that any repairs would be conducted using a suitable non-asbestos equivalent material.

We consider that emergency situations, such as natural disasters may warrant exemptions to the regulations. These scenarios would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis by the regulator.

61 87 Do you support the imposition of a broad duty on all PCBUs at a workplace to eliminate the exposure of persons at the workplace to asbestos, and where this is not reasonably practicable to not exceed a workplace exposure standard? What would be the practical effect of introducing this duty?

Yes we support the imposition of this duty on PCBU.

We understand the practical effect of introducing this duty would mean that PCBU or Persons with management or control of the workplace would need to dedicate appropriate resources to ensure their workers and other stakeholders understand their role and responsibility regarding the prevention of exposure to airborne asbestos.

In addition, the aforementioned would be obliged to manage asbestos related risk and adopt safe work practices and systems/controls to prevent exposure to asbestos.


Page 25 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

61 (cont’d)

87 Do you support the imposition of a broad duty on all PCBUs at a workplace to eliminate the exposure of persons at the workplace to asbestos, and where this is not reasonably practicable to not exceed a workplace exposure standard? What would be the practical effect of introducing this duty?

These systems and controls would require PCBU and persons in control of workplaces to communicate with workers and relevant stakeholders who occupy or visit the premises, and monitor these controls.

PCBU may face training and resource implications. For example, PCBU would need to ensure that workers are trained in accordance with the requirements of their role. This could include, but not be limited to, using asbestos administrative controls such as interpreting asbestos registers and asbestos management plans, and training workers to be proficient to undertake work that involves asbestos.

There would be a need for some removalists to upgrade their equipment and decontamination facilities. This is likely to increase the costs of removal activities but should also be reflected in improved removal practices.

62 88 Should the same standard be adopted for chrysotile (white asbestos) as for crocidolite and actinolite and the exposure standard brought into line with those of the Australian and United Kingdom jurisdictions?

Yes – the same exposure standard should be adopted for all types of asbestos fibre. This would bring the New Zealand Regulations into line with Australia, UK and USA where there is a single exposure standard for both serpentine and amphibole asbestos.


Page 26 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

63 88 Should the exposure standard be specified in the new regulations themselves, or in an approved code or other instrument?

The exposure standard should be in the Regulations – this will provide a higher level of enforceability, certainty and compliance than would otherwise be achieved in a code of practice or a guideline.

However, it should be clearly stipulated that the exposure standard is not an acceptable level of exposure, and that a PCBU must ensure that exposure to airborne asbestos is eliminated so far as reasonably practicable, and if it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate exposure to airborne asbestos, minimise it so far as reasonably practicable.

64 89 Should the distinction between friable and non-friable asbestos in the current regulations be removed and the Australian approach of requiring the same processes for all asbestos or asbestos-containing materials be adopted for New Zealand?

Removing the terms friable and non-friable would certainly make the regulations easier to interpret, and eliminate the current problem with who determines if a product is friable.

We consider that the distinction between non-friable and friable asbestos in the current regulation should be removed from the current regulations and consistent processes applied to all asbestos containing material and dust, regardless of friability.


Page 27 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

65 89 How should the new regulations define a “competent person” to determine/assess whether or not asbestos or asbestos-containing material is present in a workplace?

We believe that the Regulation should define a competent person in accordance with Chapter 1, part 1.1 Regulation 5 (g), which states a competent person for any case other than asbestos removal means a person who has acquired through training, qualification or experience the knowledge and skills to carry out the task.

There are qualifications available in UK regarding asbestos surveying (BOHS P402) that could be adopted. The requirement to be accredited could also be considered. UKAS in the UK accredits organizations to ISO 17020 with methodology based on HSG264. They set minimum qualification requirements (P402), a set number of surveys undertaken under supervision in each category of survey and in different industry sectors. This is all set out in UKAS document RG8. Section 2 of HSG 264 also documents competency criteria for surveyors.

We understand that at present, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is the only territory in Australia that accredits asbestos auditing via the asbestos assessor license. With the exception of ACT there are currently no accredited asbestos auditing qualification requirements in Australia. We consider that the ACT requirements could be adopted for asbestos auditing in the absence of any other criteria or approved courses. However, the UK accredited training courses for asbestos surveying like the (BOHS P402) would be more beneficial because they are specialised and specifically relate to asbestos identification, management and removal.


Page 28 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

66 90 Should an asbestos register, or statement of the non-existence of asbestos, be required for every workplace or potential workplace (including residential properties under the management or control of PCBUs) in New Zealand? What is the burden of compliance likely to be, and is the compliance burden justified?

Yes – there should be a register or statement of no asbestos present for every workplace, excluding domestic properties. Asbestos registers should also include non-asbestos items because this prevents any confusion regarding the status of building materials. We understand that referencing non-asbestos materials can also prevent delays to future refurbishment or demolition activities in the workplace because it confirms the status of materials that are visually similar to asbestos materials (i.e. non-asbestos cement sheet) and no additional sampling is required.

The statement of no asbestos is useful in that it will demonstrate that a workplace has been assessed, and not just missed or ignored in an asbestos management program. These could also be generated on building completion for new builds stating no ACMs used in construction – the cost of this would be negligible.

The difference between a workplace and a ‘potential workplace’ should be clearly defined in the new regulations. If it is decided that residential premises become ‘potential workplaces’ when under the control of PCBU’s are subject to the requirements to identify asbestos, provide a register and asbestos management plan, (i.e. not exempt from these requirements) we consider that the burden of compliance would be very large. .


Page 29 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

66 (cont’d)

90 Should an asbestos register, or statement of the non-existence of asbestos, be required for every workplace or potential workplace (including residential properties under the management or control of PCBUs) in New Zealand? What is the burden of compliance likely to be, and is the compliance burden justified?

We understand that for this reason, recent exemptions were made to Part 8.3, Section 425-430 of the QLD Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 for domestic premises. These sections relate to the provision and maintaining an asbestos register, providing stakeholders access to the register, transferring the register when relinquishing management and control, preparation and maintenance and management of an AMP.

Although this exemption is in place for domestic premises, it should be noted that there is still an obligation on the PCBU at the workplace to manage asbestos-related risk and adopt safe work practices and systems to prevent their workers being exposed to asbestos. For example, a builder renovating a bathroom for a homeowner must satisfy themselves that asbestos material is not present, and where it is identified or suspected, work in accordance with appropriate controls.

We consider that if residential properties or potential workplaces were exempt from the regulations as described above, there would not be an additional burden of compliance in this area.

There may be an issue with availability of competent building surveyors, if this were to be a requirement then there will need to be a lead in time for compliance, or to at least have a plan in place for compliance (no more than 2 years). There will be cost implications for businesses – surveys of buildings will not be cheap. However having a register for each building will be less costly than the costs incurred in having to decontaminate a property if unidentified ACMs are damaged on site


Page 30 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

67 90 Is a workplace asbestos register best addressed for all types of workplaces under health and safety regulations, or would some, such as residential premises, be better addressed through another regulatory regime, such as under the Building Act 2004?

It would be simpler to keep all asbestos related requirements under one Regulation. However, requirements for residential properties may sit better under the Buildings Act 2004.

68 91 Should the new regulations contain a requirement for a written Asbestos Management Plan in all cases? Are there some workplaces that could be dealt with by specific regulatory requirements or “rules” for types of work involving asbestos?

Yes there should be a written management plan in all cases where asbestos is identified; this should be maintained at the workplace. It would be more consistent, and easier to manage if all workplaces are dealt with the same. There should not be any exceptions.

69 91 Is there additional guidance that New Zealand workplaces would need to develop their asbestos management plans that is not available from Australia, or are there significant differences in terms of risk or practices that should be considered in developing the new regulations?

Yes – the Australian guidance document “How to Manage asbestos in the Workplace” does not give sufficient detail into surveying practices, especially with regards to refurbishment and demolition survey requirements and procedures. The UK HSE document “The Survey Guide” HSG264 should be reviewed as it is very detailed in how to actually conduct a survey, and how to report and interpret the findings.

Additional guidance outside of Australia could include, but not be limited to the following UK documents:

HSE HSG 210 Asbestos Essentials

HSE HSG 227 A comprehensive guide to managing asbestos in properties

HSE HSG 247 A Licensed contractors guide


Page 31 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

70 91 Is the process for the management of asbestos and associated risks set out in part 8.4 of the Australian model regulations as described above appropriate in a New Zealand context?

Yes – the process defined in Part 8.4 of the Australian Regulation is appropriate for New Zealand because there are reported deposits of NOA in New Zealand, therefore this risk must be addressed.

71 91 What level of accreditation is required for New Zealand laboratories, and what expertise and infrastructure would need to be in place to support an appropriate level of accreditation? Does this currently exist?

Laboratories will need to be IANZ accredited for bulk identification of asbestos in ACMs and for air sampling, fibre counting and possibly the Four Stage Clearance (4SC) process. IANZ does currently assess and accredit these testing activities under ISO 17025, but they do not accredit the 4SC process. In the UK UKAS do accredit the 4SC process under ISO 17025 with some elements of ISO 17020 (Inspection related to stages 2 and 4). IANZ would need to be consulted to see if they could accredit this.

In terms of surveying, IANZ do not currently accredit asbestos surveying, however they have indicated that this could be done under ISO 17020 as it is in UK and Australia. IANZ would need to be consulted early in the planning stages as development of new accreditation schemes can take a significant amount of time. However JAS-ANZ may be able to accredit this already as they provide ISO 17020 accreditation for Inspection.

IANZ & JAS-ANZ are both signatories to the ILAC MRA, so an accredited body from another country should also be acceptable in NZ, so a NATA accredited lab/survey company should have the same level of competence as an IANZ one.


Page 32 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

72 91 New Zealand has limited naturally-occurring asbestos deposits. Are provisions concerning such deposits necessary in the new regulations?

Yes – New Zealand does have naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) even if it is in limited quantities, therefore the provisions relating to NOA should be included.

73 92 Are the proposed health monitoring requirements for workers carrying out asbestos removal work or asbestos related work adequate? What changes, if any, will be needed to implement them in New Zealand?

The provisions for health monitoring are adequate for asbestos removal. However, consideration should be given to clearly defining health monitoring requirements and frequencies for asbestos-related work. We understand that the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General issued a health monitoring guideline which clarifies the type of health monitoring required on the basis of the following criteria:

• The potential for exposure;

• The frequency of potential exposure; and

• The duration of the work being undertaken.

This information should be stipulated in the new regulations.

Refer to the below link:

www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/resources/pdfs/ddp-asbestosguide.pdf


Page 33 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

74 92 Are the proposed training requirements for workers carrying out asbestos removal work or asbestos related work adequate? What institutional and other resources, if any, will be needed to implement them in New Zealand?

The proposed training requirements should also include specific training on RPE selection, use, and maintenance. There should also be a requirement for periodic refresher training.

There are already set training courses for workers in the UK which could be referenced and adapted where required. We understand that Vocational Education and Training (VET) courses are required in Australia for asbestos removal supervisors for non-friable materials, reference CPCCDE3014A or CPCCDE3015A to remove friable asbestos. Refer to the below QLD link:

http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/subjects/asbestos/training-requirements/index.htm

Consideration should be given to the acceptance of qualifications and training received overseas (UK, Australia, USA for example).

We recommend that required training relating to managing asbestos risk is fit for purpose and the nature of the work being undertaken.

Any training program should have a defined syllabus, along with competent training providers. These training providers would ideally be assessed independently to ensure they are competent in this area to provide this type of training. Additionally, a licensing unit may need to be established to ensure compliance.




Page 34 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

75 93 Is the proposed prohibition on the use of high pressure water sprays or compressed air equipment on asbestos or asbestos-containing material, and the requirement for controls on power tools, brooms and other implements used on asbestos appropriate? Do the new provisions reflect New Zealand practice?

Yes – these activities/tools create surface abrasion when working on asbestos, and therefore increased fibre release so should not be used. This new provision is a tighter control on current practice, which is definitely needed in New Zealand.

76 93 Should the new regulations prescribe a mandatory process to identify and manage asbestos hazards in the demolition and refurbishment of all structures and plant? Is the process in the Australian model regulations and effective way of identifying and managing the risk? How much would this differ from current New Zealand practice?

Yes – absolutely. The proposed changes would provide a more structured and prescriptive process, leaving less to interpretation. There is an absolute need for a detailed methodology for surveying for pre-refurbishment and pre-demolition as many buildings have hidden ACM that a normal management survey would not identify. We understand that the processes in the Australian regulations are an effective way of identifying and managing asbestos risk. The UK HSE document HSG264 should be considered for methodology. This proposed change would provide a more robust framework for the identification of ACMs before major works on buildings than is currently in place in New Zealand. The requirement to have and maintain an asbestos register is key to minimizing accidental exposures.

The requirements in Australian legislation relating to managing asbestos hazards during the demolition and refurbishment are more specific than those specified in the New Zealand Health and Safety in Employment (Asbestos) Regulations 1998 and Asbestos – New Zealand guidelines for the management and removal of asbestos (3rd Edition) code of practice.


Page 35 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

77 94 Should the duty to identify and remove asbestos in workplaces that are residential premises rest with the PCBU that has been commissioned to do the work?

Yes. Under the Australian Model Regulations we understand there is an obligation for the PCBU at the workplace (including a domestic premises that becomes a workplace) to manage asbestos related risk and adopt safe work practices and systems to prevent their workers being exposed to asbestos. We consider this to be appropriate an in line with regulation in other countries.

78 94 In the absence of a date where asbestos and asbestos-containing material were banned from importation and use in New Zealand, is there a date after which structures or plant were built or installed from which they should be exempt from the process requirements?

No – There are currently no restrictions on the importation of asbestos containing materials in New Zealand therefore asbestos could be present in recently constructed buildings or structures. Within the CHRP there is evidence that ACMs have been used in homes after the suggested date, and in fact within properties built in the last 10 years. Without a total ban on the import of ACMs you cannot use a date for exemption.

We recommend a ban on the importation and use of asbestos, in line with the Australian scheme.


Page 36 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

79 95 Are the requirements for asbestos removal set out in part 8.7 appropriate for New Zealand? And what new capacity or infrastructure would be needed to support them?

Yes – these requirements are appropriate for New Zealand because, they are more specific than the existing New Zealand definitions and clearly define requirements relating to the following elements:

• Asbestos licensing requirements • training requirements, including associated records • identification of asbestos, asbestos registers and

management plans • Labelling of asbestos materials in the workplace • Asbestos removal requirements • Communication requirements (e.g. a licensed removalist

must tell persons about the asbestos removal works) • Notification requirements (e.g. to the regulator) • Signage and barricading for asbestos removal work • Decontamination of asbestos removal areas • Disposal of asbestos waste and PPE/RPE • Asbestos-related work requirements and determination • Clearance inspections and clearance certificates

In order to support this it may require a dedicated licensing unit with specialists who can assess the competency of applicants and ensure compliance. There will need to be robust criteria for both Class A & B licenses, this should include ongoing on site assessment of workers to ensure standards are maintained in line with requirements. The training element will also need to be equally robust as discussed above in point 74.


Page 37 of 64

80 96 Does the 10 square metre exemption create an appropriate threshold for the use of a licensed asbestos removalist? If not, is there an alternative means of exempting small-scale or “de minimis” asbestos removal work? If it is, are there ways of ensuring the exemption is not exceeded?

Yes the 10m2 exemption is appropriate for reasons of practicality. For example, if a plumber needs to remove a non-friable asbestos cement panel it may not be feasible or cost effective to employ a licensed asbestos removalist. However, persons undertaking asbestos removal (<10m2 non-friable asbestos) should be competent and have the relevant training to undertake the work. This would also include working in line with stipulated regulatory requirements and controls.

We consider that ascertaining minor works e.g. less than 10m2 should be determined by a competent person using the quantities specified in the asbestos register for a site (e.g. building) to avoid breaking big jobs down into small jobs. Any quantities above 10m2 would require a licensed removal contractor to undertake the work. Where there is doubt, or exemptions are required, documented clarification should be sought from the regulator.

Alternatively, the UK have exemption for short duration work designed to allow minor maintenance activities to be undertaken without requiring a license holder – this is defined in Regulation 2 of CAR2012. This is a time based exemption rather than an amount of ACM. Similarly to the Australian regulations – this is to all for low risk, short duration work to be carried out with appropriate controls to facilitate maintenance work.


Page 38 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

81 96 What information should be provided to regulator on notification of asbestos removal work?

Name and contact details of Asbestos Removal company; name and contact details of license holder or person in control of the removal site; expiry date and details of the license; description of work to be done; location of work site; type and amount of ACM being removed; removal method to be used; start and finish dates on site; details of person to conduct inspection and issue clearance certificate; details of the Client or person for whom the work is being performed including name and contact number; trading name of business / person in control of the workplace; number of workers to be used for the asbestos removal work, and the names of workers including their competency details; actions taken/to be taken to advise neighbours of intended asbestos removal work, details of person completing form and their position within business or undertaking including phone number.

82 96 What level of ITO or other training should be required for asbestos removal license holders and removal workers for the two classes of licensed asbestos removal work?

The ITO should be NZQA recognized.

The asbestos removal training for supervisors or workers should be in line with the requirements stipulated in Australian VET courses and relevant to the class of removal work being undertaken, these should be recognized unit standards.


Page 39 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

83 96 Should there be a link between licensing and the appropriate disposal of asbestos waste?

Yes. Any link should be in the form of documentary evidence that the waste has been disposed of appropriately. There needs to be a clear chain of custody including the details of the licensed asbestos removal contractor, the type and quantity of waste, location of removal site and details of the disposal facility.

84 96 Is there currently the industry capability to provide for licensed asbestos removalists?

Yes. Worksafe NZ could look at how the current CoC restrictions may be aligned to Class A & B licensing.

85 96 Is it appropriate that businesses, as distinct from individuals, are licensed?

Yes – there would need to be personnel requirements also to ensure that the organizations have suitably competent employees that the organization is then responsible for their employees’ actions on site working under the conditions of the company license.

86 96 Should there be a requirement to have an asbestos removal supervisor always present during class A work and available for class B work?

Yes – higher risk work must be appropriately supervised, class A removal work should always be supervised by an on-site supervisor due to the high risk of the material. It would be best practice to also have a supervisor available for class B work.


Page 40 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

87 96 What level of qualification is appropriate for licensed asbestos assessors?

This term “Asbestos assessor” should be fully defined.

A certificate level (Level 3 or 4) would be suitable.

There are already available qualifications/syllabus in Australia and UK (BOHS provide proficiency modules in Air sampling; fibre counting; bulk analysis; asbestos surveying etc., they also plan to offer these as International qualifications which could be used in New Zealand).

We understand that currently in Australia there must be evidence that the applicant has acquired through training or experience the knowledge and skills of relevant asbestos removal industry practice; and

• A copy of a certification held by the applicant in relation to the specified VET course for asbestos assessor work; or

• Evidence that the applicant holds a tertiary qualification in occupational health and safety, industrial hygiene, science, building construction or environmental health.

Note the above definition is not present in the Australian Model Regulation but we understand that it is specified in Section 495 of the QLD Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011.


Page 41 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

88 97 How should a PCBU be able to determine if asbestos is being assessed by a “competent person”?

A PCBU should request evidence of:

Accreditation - IANZ could accredit this activity to ISO 17020 and/or ISO 17025

Insurance requirements for any asbestos work should also be assessed as part of suitability to undertake work – to cover negligence.

UK HSE document HSG264 section 2 has a whole section on determining surveyors’ competency which can be referenced

In terms of removalists – they could look at being members of a trade association such as NZDAA; assessment by 3rd parties; qualifications; references etc.

89 97 Should a clearance certificate be required in all cases of asbestos removal, or is there scope for the issuing of exemptions?

Yes - a clearance inspection certificate should be issued by a licensed assessor or competent person for all licensed asbestos removal works to demonstrate that removal works were satisfactorily completed. For external work that is done outside of an asbestos enclosure – for example removal of cement debris from a hole in the ground, there could be a visual clearance criteria for this type of work, without associated air testing. Internal work or work conducted within an asbestos enclosure under negative pressure must have a thorough visual inspection and an air test.

On completion of asbestos removal, clearance certificates should also be used to update the asbestos register for the site to ensure that it is current.


Page 42 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

90 97 What would the expected demand be for independent licensed assessors to meet these requirements? And what will be necessary for the regulator and asbestos removal industry to meet this demand?

This would increase the demand for assessors, which will increase project costs. There would be an increased need for IANZ accreditation which would reduce the demand on the regulator if the accreditation process was sufficiently robust.

The asbestos removal industry will need to increase their standards of work. All friable work would require an independent licensed assessor to conduct air monitoring and provide a clearance certificate.

The regulator may need to increase the number of professionals to meet this demand e.g. establish a dedicated licensing unit to assess applications, issue licenses and monitor compliance.

Enacting these requirements may require a lead in period, similar to that in Australia which we understand was approximately 2 years.

91 97 Does the membrane filter method provide the best means of air monitoring for class A asbestos removal work?

Yes – this is the accepted methodology within Australia and the UK. It is a relatively quick and less expensive that the alternatives which would be SEM or TEM analysis.

92 97 Are the thresholds of 10 percent and 20 percent of the workplace exposure standards for asbestos dust appropriate for the investigation and review and ceasing of class A asbestos removal work respectively?

Yes – these limits are suitable. When you consider <0.01f/ml is the clearance indicator level and that the fact that this also allows for 20% of those clearance pumps to be <0.015 and still be acceptable for reoccupation. 0.02f/ml should definitely be considered a maximum concentration when work must cease. We understand that they have been proven to work and are current practice in Australia.


Page 43 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

93 98 Should class A asbestos removal work apply to the removal of all occurrences of friable asbestos and asbestos-containing dusts above minimum quantities? Are there other situations in New Zealand workplaces or residential premises that it should apply to?

All high risk removals should be conducted by a class A asbestos removalist. This would also include degraded cement products which can become highly friable and removal work associated with asbestos in soils.

94 98 Are the steps required for the removal of friable asbestos in the regulations appropriate in a New Zealand context? Having considered the materials in support of the Australian model regulations, what additional guidance or resources would be required in New Zealand?

Yes – there should be a support guidance document or ACoP specifically related to asbestos removal techniques and methodology. The current Safe Work Australia document “How to Safely Remove Asbestos” would be a suitable document to adopt.

95 98 Is the list of asbestos-related work (as defined by the exemptions to the prohibition on work involving asbestos) comprehensive enough for New Zealand?

Yes – please refer to answer to Q57.

Supporting codes of practice and standards would also provide additional guidance on the regulations and work practice.

96 99 Are the minimum standards for asbestos-related work contained in part 8.9 of the Australian model regulations suitable for the asbestos-related work carried out in New Zealand?

Yes they are suitable – although does New Zealand have laundries capable of cleaning asbestos PPE?


Page 44 of 64

97 100 Are the requirements and processes for the licensing of asbestos removalists suitable for the New Zealand industry and workplaces?

Consideration should be given to on site practical assessment following application for a license to ensure that the applicant is competent.

The time requirements with regard to 3 years for class A and 1 year for class B should be reviewed – in Christchurch with the amount of work someone may get the equivalent of a years’ experience in say 5 months – maybe a work portfolio assessment could also be included to document experience.

It may also be prudent to have first time applicants issued with a short term license rather than a full 5 years straight away. In the UK the HSE can issue a 1 year license to new applicant or applicants of concern rather than the full 3 year license they have. This system allows for tighter control of the license holders.

98 100 Are the requirements and processes for the licensing of asbestos assessors suitable for the New Zealand industry and workplaces?

The requirements would still be suitable if Worksafe NZ does run the licensing scheme for assessors. We understand that this arrangement works well in Australia.

However these would not be required if this was the remit of the accreditation body (IANZ) for example.

99 100 Is there an agency, other than WorkSafe NZ, that is most suited to the maintenance of the licensing regime in New Zealand? Or should the regime be operated by the regulator?

Due to the high risk nature of asbestos removal work it would be prudent to leave the licensing requirements and management of the scheme with the regulator rather than defer it to another body. This is a proven method in both Australia and the UK.

The licensing of assessors could be covered under IANZ accreditation as an alternative, as discussed in previous points.


Page 45 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

100 100 Would the asbestos removal industry and supporting infrastructure be able to meet the new requirements?

If there is a suitable phasing in time for implementation and compliance, of 2 years as was the case in Australia, then yes they would be able to meet these requirements.

101 100 What, if any, requirements are superfluous, or are missing from the licensing process?

For assessors there should be some requirement for quality control checks.

For all license holders there should be requirements on refresher training and maintaining competency.

There should be on site assessment for removalists prior to issuing a full license.

There should be a requirement for documented CPD/portfolio

For Class A licenses the regulations require a competent person – the competency criteria for this must be fully defined.

102 100 Are the qualifications and experience required for each category of licence in the Australian model regulations suitable for the New Zealand industry?

As discussed above – the experience time requirements may need to be reviewed due to work load in different areas of the country – a portfolio/work log system could be used to supplement this or in lieu of the time requirements.

There would need to be specific training courses developed and available in New Zealand to supplement this requirement. Qualifications/training from overseas should be accepted if equivalence can be demonstrated.


Page 46 of 64

Qu. No.

Page No

Question Comments

103 101 Should any further terms be defined in the new regulations?

The following definitions currently referenced in the Australian Model Regulations, should be considered for the new legislation:

Asbestos removal work, asbestos removalist, asbestos waste, certification, Class A asbestos removal license, Class A asbestos removal work, Class B, asbestos removal license, Class B asbestos removal work, Asbestos Assessor, clearance certificate, clearance inspection, competency assessment, competent person, control measure, exposure standard, friable asbestos, health monitoring, independent (in relation to clearance inspections), in situ asbestos, licensed asbestos assessor, licensed asbestos removalist, licensed asbestos removal work, membrane filter method, IANZ, IANZ-accredited laboratory, naturally occurring asbestos, non-friable asbestos, respirable asbestos fibre, Specified VET (or New Zealand equivalent) course (in relation to asbestos removal work and asbestos assessor work)


Page 47 of 64

Chapter 5 – Hazardous substances

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

104 110 Do you have any comments in relation to the regulatory proposal requiring a PCBU to prepare and maintain an inventory of hazardous substances?

This is already a requirement now and as such will add no cost unless non-compliance is the current status.

105 111 Given that this proposal seeks to codify existing good practice, do you think the proposed regulation, requiring a PCBU to prepare and maintain an inventory of hazardous substances, will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? Conversely, what do you think are the main benefits of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical).

As this requirement is largely already in place under current HSNO regulations, there shouldn’t be significant costs associated. The benefits for locations not already doing this include a greater visibility on a sites risk profile from hazardous substances

106 112 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposed regulations setting out processes and considerations for managing the risks to health and safety associated with using, handling, generating or storing a hazardous substance at a workplace?

The risks that a worker is exposed to while using, generating and storing a hazardous substance will vary greatly between the three categories. As such, we suggest that any regulations reflect the varying levels of risk presented between the three categories.


Page 48 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

107 113 Given that employers are currently required to manage significant hazards in accordance with sections 8 – 10 of the HSE Act, do you think that the proposed processes and considerations for managing the risks to health and safety associated with hazardous substances will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? Conversely, what do you think are the main benefits of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical).

No further comment.

108 113 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the requirements of the Classes 1 to 5 Controls regulations and parts of the Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances transfer notice into the new regulations?

No further comment.

109 113 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the controls on class 1 to 5 substances that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

The moving of Schedules 8 and 10 of Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances Transfer Notices - across into the model regulations from the outset. These are currently off to one side when searching for correct controls, and yet are totally integral to ensuring the correct controls are implemented. They are not referenced well and yet hold a considerable amount of valuable detail around controls.


Page 49 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

110 114 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the requirements of Schedules 4, 5 and 6 of the HSNO Fireworks, Safety Ammunition, and Other Explosives Transfer regulations into the new regulations?

No further comment

111 114 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the controls on fireworks, safety ammunition, and other explosives that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

No further comment

112 115 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer regulations 7 – 10 and 29 and 30 of the HSNO Classes 6, 8 and 9 Controls regulations into the new regulations?

Page 114 - Regulations 45-51 - Physical workplace controls are included, and as such should go to Worksafe to set and enforced by Worksafe.

113 115 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the controls on class 6 and 8 substances that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

The proposed change to include specific segregation requirements between class 6 and 8 products would be unpractical in many situations, especially where a single product is classed as both class 8 and class 6.


Page 50 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

114 115 Do you think that workplaces storing classes 6.1A, 6.1B, and 6.1C (substances that are acutely toxic) and class 6.7A (substances that are known or presumed human carcinogens) should be required to establish a hazardous substance location and obtain a test certificate for that location?

Yes. These substances are incompatible with several other classifications and mixing can have disastrous outcomes. In isolation they are acutely harmful and require strict controls. 6.1A – C are currently tracked and it would align storage controls with this safety control regime. Alignment to existing classifications that require a Location Test Certificate makes sense.

115 115 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the requirements of Schedules 2 and 3 of the HSNO Fumigants transfer notice into the new regulations?

No further comment

116 116 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the controls on fumigants that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

Moving Gazette Transfer Notices into Regulations and Codes is an urgent need in the transition period. This will ensure clarity during this period of change

117 116 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to require a PCBU to ensure that a hazardous substance used, handled or stored at the workplace is correctly labelled in accordance with the HSNO Identification regulations (8 to 30, 32 and 33) and the HSNO Emergency Management regulations (8 to 10)?

Labelling is the responsibility of the manufacturer and supplier as prescribed in Regulations currently. This is not a key role for a PCBU other than to ensure original labels remain in good condition and decanting activity includes processes to ensure the safety information is captured on the label of the new substance container.


Page 51 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

118 116 Do you think there are any other immediate improvements that should be made to workplace labelling requirements?

No comment

119 118 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposed regulations requiring a PCBU to obtain and make available the current safety data sheet for a hazardous substance?

Already a requirement placed on a ‘controller of the workplace’ (HSE Act 1992as a performance based outcome) and it must remain. The timeframe of availability, and appropriate storage medium requires defining. E.g. Computer based Safety Data Sheets are permitted as long as access is available for emergency services reference as part of an Emergency Response Plan process when site is evacuated.

120 118 Do you think the proposed regulations, requiring a PCBU to obtain and make available the current safety data sheet for a hazardous substance, will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? Conversely, what do you think are the main benefits of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical).

This is already a requirement, and as such should not pose significant additional costs.


Page 52 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

121 118 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the existing signage requirements set out in the HSNO Identification regulations (51 and 52), and Emergency Management regulations (42) into the new regulations and merge into a single obligation?

No comment

122 119 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the signage requirements that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

No comment

123 119 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the requirements of the HSNO Compressed Gases regulations into the new regulations?

No comment

124 119 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the requirements for the design, manufacture, verification, testing, and filling of compressed gas containers that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

No comment

125 119 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the requirements of the HSNO Tank Wagons and Transportable Containers regulations into the new regulations?

No comment


Page 53 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

126 120 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the requirements applying to tank wagons and transportable containers regulations that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

No comment

127 120 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer Schedule 8 of the HSNO Dangerous Goods and Scheduled Toxic Substances transfer notice into the new regulations?

This is needed urgently.

128 120 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the requirements applying to stationary container systems that are being transferred into the new regulations (before the review is carried out)?

There should be clarification between Stationary Containers and Process Containers

129 120 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the HSNO Exempt Laboratories regulations into the new regulations?

No further comment

130 120 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the requirements applying to laboratories that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

No further comment

131 121 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the HSNO Tracking regulations (excluding regulation 4(2)) into the new regulations?

No further comment


Page 54 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

132 121 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the tracking requirements that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

Include Class 6.7A and 6.7B, as these are not currently controlled to the high level of other Tracked Substances. They present an acute health issue and industry believes they should be more strictly controlled including Location Test Certification.

133 122 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to transfer the existing emergency preparedness requirements set out in the HSNO Emergency Management regulations (21 – 41) into the new regulations?

All plan contributors should be in a position to make written recommendations toward an Emergency Response Plan, as opposed to restricting this to just the NZ Fire Service. Having the emergency management requirements tie in with the required evacuation scheme will simplify the process, and ensure consistency between the different regulations.

134 122 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal that an emergency response plan, or any part of an emergency response plan, could be part of any other management documentation for an emergency whether — required by the general risk and workplace management regulations made under the proposed new Act; or required by some other Act; or undertaken by a PCBU for some other reason?

Having a central plan for managing emergencies ensures clarity and consistency for the PCBU

135 122 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal that an operator who is required to prepare an emergency plan for a major hazard facility in accordance with new regulations covering major hazard facilities would not be also required to prepare an emergency plan by the new regulations covering work involving hazardous substances?

Agree as appropriate


Page 55 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

136 123 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to require a PCBU to revise their emergency response plan, if the Fire Service makes a written recommendation about the content or effectiveness of the plan?

This should not be limited to the NZ Fire Service, but all who support the Emergency Response Plan.

137 123 Do you think that we should retain the current prescriptive list of matters to be addressed in an emergency plan (as set out in regulations 29 and 30 of the HSNO Emergency Management regulations) or should we adopt the more flexible list of matters used in Australia (regulation 43 of the Australian model regulations)? Why/why not?

Retain a prescriptive list of what is required, so that industry has a clear understanding of matters to be addressed.

138 123 Do you think that we should retain the current prescriptive set of requirements in relation to fire extinguishers (as set out in regulations 21 – 24 of the HSNO Emergency Management regulations) or should we adopt the more performance-based requirements used in Australia (regulations 359 and 360 of the Australian model regulations)? Why/why not?

Remain prescriptive as industry will struggle to make, performance based decisions on fire protection without prescriptive guidelines to adhere to. The subject has objective and scientific complexities. Very difficult for a PCBU to interpret the actual resource and firefighting medium to fight hazardous substance fuel or exposure related fires.

139 123 Do you think there are any immediate improvements that should be made to the emergency preparedness requirements that are being transferred into the new regulations before the review is carried out?

No further comment


Page 56 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

140 127 Do you have any comment to make about the regulatory proposal to revoke the existing approved handler requirements and replace with duties in relation to the provision of information, training, instruction, and supervision?

Strongly disagree with the removal of the Approved Handler. An existing externally provided re-assessment and performance checking mechanism, with a five yearly renewal. To leave this level of quality control up to the PCBU is inviting a downstream effect of skills, safety, and health dilution and compromise, with potentially a diverse range of knowledge being applied in industry .

141 127 Do you think the proposal to revoke the existing approved handler requirements and replace with duties in relation to the provision of information, training, instruction, and supervision will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? Conversely, what do you think are the main benefits of this proposal? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical)

We do not agree with this proposal to revoke the Approved Handler requirements.

The proposal may require more people to be trained to a standard, but because they will not be required to use the training on a regular basis the knowledge may not be well retained. We agree that a basic knowledge and understanding of what to do regarding hazardous substances is fundamental and should be covered for all workers involved in handling, storing or manufacturing hazardous substances, however not all workers may need to be trained to the level of an Approved Handler.

If hazardous substance training needs to be undertaken by a third party provider then this would impose significant costs and there are unlikely to sufficient trainers available in the short term.


Page 57 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

142 129 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposed regulation requiring a PCBU to carry out workplace exposure monitoring where it is necessary to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of measures introduced to control exposure to substances hazardous to health?

Proposed workplace monitoring by the PCBU is a must if the proposed Reform is to achieve tangible gains in combating Occupational Illness and Deaths

143 129 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposed regulations for establishing health monitoring for any worker who may be exposed to a substance hazardous to health?

Review and include the existing albeit aged Approved Code of Practice ‘Managing Substances Hazardous to the Health.

Enable the Worksafe NZ ‘Departmental Medical Practitioner’ full access to ‘personal exposures and test results outside the workplace’ if an individual test result is inconsistent with the work environment.

144 Given that employers, in accordance with sections 10(2) of the HSE Act, are currently required to monitor an employee’s exposure to significant hazards (i.e. substances hazardous to health) and, with informed consent, monitor the employee’s health, do you think that the proposed regulations for carrying out workplace exposure monitoring and establishing health monitoring will impose any additional costs on PCBUs? (Please quantify any impacts identified and express in dollar terms to the extent practical)

If this requirement is complied with, yes it will incur considerable additional cost to the PCBU. Current costs associated with environmental monitoring is prohibitive to large employers, making it fiscally impossible for the target reform audience of ‘small to medium employer’ segment. It is required in its entirety, and cannot be avoided if society is to address the Occupational Illness mortality rates.


Page 58 of 64

Chapter 6 Major Hazard Facilities

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

145 137 Do you have any comment to make on the proposed definitions? Both the European and Australian frameworks have common elements: This list of points fails to include 'Hazardous Processes' which is a key to underpinning the MHF focus.

Definition of - 'Major Accident' should include, the concept of 'potentially significant asset damage. The rationale for this is to widen the focus from simply injury / fatal potential as the key driver and threshold trigger, to one that better defines a 'Major Accident' scenario which include significantly damaging outcomes, whether or not injuries occur.

146 138 Do you have any comments on the types of facilities that are proposed in scope or are proposed to be out of scope?

The in-scope facilities focus on storage of hazardous chemicals. They do not appear to include sites with high temperature processes which are at risk of fires or fuel explosions.

147 139 Do you have any comments on the proposed notification process? No comment


Page 59 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

148 141 Do you have any comments on the proposed review procedure? No comment

149 142 Do you have any comments on the proposed process for establishing the suitability of the facility operator or the proposed process for notification by new operators?

No comment

150 148 Do you have any comments on the proposed threshold quantities for individual hazardous substances or categories of hazardous substances?

As noted above, these are based on the presence of hazardous substances, and do not appear to consider quantities of fuel used.

151 148 Do you agree with the proposed threshold calculation? Why/why not?

See above

152 150 Do you have any comment(s) on the proposal to require operators to carry out a formal safety assessment for the operation of a major hazard facility?

We support this proposal. We require a “Safety Case” for any of our operations that contain process safety hazards. A Safety Case is defined as A document that describes the physical and software controls that prevent the process safety hazards from leading to an incident (ie. to reduce its risks to ALARP) and how the control’s performance and integrity is maintained

153 151 Do you have any comments on the proposal to require operators to establish and implement a safety management system for the operation of a major hazard facility?

See above. In our operations, we have some plants with 2-3 processes with process safety hazards. We require safety cases for management of these hazards, (rather than the overall operation). Other hazards such as overhead gantry cranes, also require controls, but these do not require documenting in a safety case.


Page 60 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

154 153 Do you have any comments in relation to the matters that would need to be included in an emergency plan?

No further comment

155 154 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposal that would require an operator to consult with the local council, when preparing an emergency plan, in relation to the off-site health and safety consequences of a major accident occurring?

We support this proposal. By definition, process safety incidents can affect off-site land uses.

156 154 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposal that would require an operator to provide a copy of the emergency plan to every person identified in the plan as being responsible for executing it (or a specific part of it) and to every emergency service provider?

We support the proposal. We support this proposal, particularly with regard to emergency services.

157 154 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposal that would require an operator to test their emergency plan at least every 12 months in order to demonstrate that every procedure or action in the plan is workable and effective?

In general, we support the proposal. Further clarity about the elements that require testing on a 12 month basis is required, because it may not be necessary to test all elements of the emergency plan, every 12 months.


Page 61 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

158 154 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposal that would require an operator to test their emergency plan within 3 months of any change to the persons, procedures, or actions specified in the emergency plan in order to demonstrate that the changed persons can perform their functions under the plan and each changed procedure or action is workable and effective?

We believe that this requirement is too onerous. There are likely to be regular changes to people and roles within the plan. In practice, compliance with this requirement is likely to require emergency testing every 3-6 months. Requirements for effective induction and management of change processes are likely to be more effective.

159 155 Do you have any comments on the proposal to require operators of proposed major hazard facilities to send a design notice to WorkSafe NZ after initial design for the facility has been completed and before making a final investment decision?

We support this proposal. This provides an opportunity to ensure that safety considerations are inherent in the design process.

160 155 Do you have any comments in relation to the particulars that would need to be addressed by a design notice?

A 'Design Notice' should be formatted in such a way, and permissible, to use or support a resource consent application.

161 159 Do you have any comments on the proposal that would require the operator of a proposed facility to provide WorkSafe NZ with a completed safety case at least six months before commencing operations at the facility?

We support the proposal that a safety case be provided to WorkSafe before operations commence. However, we believe that requiring this six months prior to commencing operations, is likely to be too onerous. Much of the detail required for a safety case may not be available then.


Page 62 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

162 159 Do you have any comments on the safety case process including comments in relation to the information that a safety case should contain or the proposed safety case assessment process?

We support the proposals.

163 159 Do you have any comments on the proposal that WorkSafe NZ would have power to withdraw acceptance of a safety case?

We support the proposal. However, the prerequisites for withdrawal of acceptance and the process following this, must be explicit

164 159 What do you estimate to be the benefits of the proposal, in terms of avoided costs associated with a major accident? (Please quantify these impacts and express in dollar terms to the extent practical.)

No comment. This is difficult to quantify.

165 160 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposal to require operators to review and as necessary revise the safety assessment, emergency plan, safety management system, and safety case?

We agree with the proposals for review, with the exception of requiring a review if it is requested by a health and safety representative. Process safety and safety cases require a level of training and experience that is beyond that of a health and safety representative.


Page 63 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

166 161 Do you have any comments on the proposal to require operators to provide the local community and the council (for the district in which the major hazard facility is located) with information about the facility, its operations, how the community would be notified if a major accident occurs, and what the community should do if a major accident occurs?

We support this proposal. This process should be aligned with processes for informing stakeholders of the emergency response plan.

167 162 Do you have any comments in relation to the proposal to require operators to notify WorkSafe NZ of dangerous incidents?

We do not support the extension of the list of notifications contained in the proposed Act.

For regulatory notification processes to work effectively there must not be any ambiguity about the events to be notified to the regulator. This is achieved by the list of incident descriptions in the proposed Act. However, the incident categories contained in the Discussion Document are all open to interpretation.

We also believe that it is confusing to have lists of notifiable incidents in both the Act and Regulations. Given the specificity of incident descriptions in the Act, we believe that the Act should contain a single list of all types of notifiable incidents.


Page 64 of 64

Qu. No. Page No

Question Comments

168 163 Do you have any comments on the proposal to require an operator to implement a safety role for the workers at a major hazard facility?

We support the inclusion of workers (operators) in processes to develop safety controls and safety cases.

We do not believe that the Regulations need to specific particular roles; rather the objectives for worker participation should be set out.

169 163 Do you have any comments on the proposal to require an operator to consult with workers at the facility in relation to the implementation of the workers’ safety role at the facility?

We support consultation with workers about their safety roles.

170 164 How should coordination between councils and WorkSafe NZ be encouraged in relation to potential major hazard facilities and developments in the vicinity of existing major hazard facilities?

Councils are able to establish panels with experts to assess resource consent applications. This provides an opportunity for the Safety Case to be considered, (in the context of minimising the risk of off-site effects resulting from the operation).

Documents

Fletcher Building Limited