Skip to content
maintenance work at reserve bank lobby

SSSP requirements in NZ explained

What makes a good SSSP?

SSSP need to reflect the specific site – that’s why there are 3 “S’s”. Too many contractors roll out the same material for every site.

It’s ok to use a standard risk register as a baseline but remove what is irrelevant. Reviewers don’t appreciate reading through things that don’t apply. And ensure the site-specific risks are both included and appropriately worded in the risk register. Further, ensure the risks / hazards advised by the main contractor are included.

Same with Safe Work Procedures – ensure they describe the work accurately.

Ensuring workers are competent is fundamental to ensuring safety. To this end the SSSP needs to be clear with detailing competencies. “Height training” for example, is meaningless. Further generic courses such as a Site Safe Passport might sound good but do not establish any particular competence. What is required is documentation which details formal recognised technical training and details the nature of practical experience. We have a separate post on how we establish competency.

solar panels

Common sense is a poor H&S policy

We smile when we see a sign claiming, “Our HSE policy is common sense.” Then, we grimace. Are these organizations brave, or simply ignorant?
While individuals bear the primary responsibility for their own safety, they do not carry that burden alone. Businesses that adopt a “common sense” policy make a fundamental mistake: they assume everyone possesses an equal measure of it. This policy functions perfectly until someone leaves their judgment at the gate and a serious accident occurs. An accident is a brutal, expensive lesson—a risk no responsible business should take.
The Illusion of Low-Risk Environments
Even office-based organizations—where the most critical risks seem to be RSI or paper cuts—cannot hide behind “common sense.” Every workplace harbours hidden dangers:
• Fire hazards and blocked exit routes.
• Faulty electrical appliances and data-cabling trip hazards.
• Traffic risks as workers navigate parking lots and commutes.
Relying on common sense suggests an organization has lost control of its critical risks. It indicates a leadership team that relies on luck or is simply too lazy to manage safety proactively.

Can you really D.I.Y with health and safety

The reality for many businesses is they can’t afford health and safety support so they do it themselves on a best endevours basis. What we recommend is you look at the following – and record it somewhere as you may need to demonstrate you have done it.
Identify and document your critical risks
Maybe do this with your workers to get their views.
The key question are
~ what is it that could be fatal or cause long term incapacity?
~ might this reasonably occur in the next 20 years?
You don’t want to have more than 5 – if you do, rank them.
Ask what you do to manage or control these risks
The key questions are
~ what are the controls and how do we know they are in place and working?
~ where they are not working, how do we fix it?
~ what extra could we be doing to further reduce the risk?
~ what is the plan for improving our controls – who and when?
Implement monitoring
Develop a checklist of things you need to check to ensure controls for critical risks are in fact in place and working. Add anything else you might want to check like fire extinguishers, chemical storage etc.
Assign someone to do the checks (no less than quarterly) and keep a record.