This article discusses the concept of "reasonably practicable" as it relates to health and safety obligations for volunteer associations under New Zealand law. It defines reasonably practicable as doing what a prudent person would do to ensure health and safety, taking into account factors like the likelihood and potential harm of hazards, ways to eliminate risks, and whether the costs of doing so are disproportionate to the level of risk. The article uses the example of using an angle grinder to illustrate how to analyze risk and what control measures may or may not be reasonably practicable. The author aims to clarify this least understood but important concept in health and safety compliance.

1. ar cle, I outlined the
health and safety obliga ons of PCBU
Volunteer Associa ons. To recap, if
your associa on is a PCBU, you have a
primary duty of care. This means, so far
as reasonably prac cable, you must
ensure the health and safety of your
workers, workers who are influenced
by your associa on’s work ac vi es
and other people who come into con-
tact with your associa on’s ac vi es
such as members of the public and
members of your club.
Within that primary duty of care there
are other du es which must be met
such as providing adequate infor-
ma on, training and supervision to
your workers.
In this ar cle, I’m covering off a very
important concept that was raised as
part of the primary duty of care; the
topic of ‘reasonably prac cable’.
In my view, it is the least understood
and most widely ignored/forgo en
concept within the Health and Safety
at Work Act. Not just by PCBUs, but
also by journalists, and at mes, by pro-
fessionals in the health and safety
field.
What is “Reasonably Prac cable”?
We’ll start with the defini on provided
under Sec on 22 of the HSWA:
“That which is, or was, at a par cular
me, reasonably able to be done in
rela on to ensuring health and safety,
taking into account and weighing up all
relevant ma ers, including— the likeli-
hood of the hazard or the risk con-
cerned occurring; and the degree of
harm that might result from the hazard
or risk; and what the person con-
cerned knows, or ought reasonably to
know, about— the hazard or risk; and
ways of elimina ng or minimising the
risk; and the availability and suitability
of ways to eliminate or minimise the
risk; and a er assessing the extent of
the risk and the available ways of elimi-
na ng or minimising the risk, the cost
associated with available ways of elimi-
na ng or minimising the risk, including
whether the cost is grossly dispropor-
onate to the risk.”
Let’s pick this defini on apart to see
what it really means.
Reasonably able to be done
The term “reasonable” simply means
what a prudent person exercising due
care would do under the same circum-
stances.
Unlike what some overzealous journal-
ists would have us believe, it doesn’t
mean:
· doing everything humanly possible
to prevent incidents, injuries and
illnesses
· purchasing the most expensive
equipment available
· spending more me on health and
safety than you do running your
volunteer associa on
While you don’t need to go overboard,
doing nothing is not an op on either. If
you think about it in terms of managing
the things your associa on can control,
you’ll be on the right track.
Likelihood of the hazard or risk occur-
ring and the degree of harm that might
result
Possibly the simplest way to explain
this criterion is to use a Hazard and
Risk Matrix. You simply line up the ap-
proximate probability of any illness or
injury occurring with the worst possible
consequence to get the overall risk
ra ng.
Worst possible consequence if no
controls are in place
For example, a volunteer worker has
been provided with an angle grinder to
help with some handy man tasks
around the venue.
In my opinion, the likelihood of any
injury occurring while using an angle
grinder probably sits about the feasible
range (including scratches and minor
cuts). Grinders o en kick back, create
sparks and their discs have been
known to sha er at high speed. The
worst possible consequence of using a
grinder, believe it or not, is death. So
the overall risk ra ng is extreme.
On the other hand, in my office envi-
ronment I occasionally suffer a paper
cut. It happens less than 2% of the
me so it is a rare occurrence and the
worst that could happen to me is that I
‘reasonably practicable’
Being ‘reasonably prac cable’ is one of the least understood
and most widely ignored and forgo en concepts in the
Health and Safety at Work Act, writes BARB HUTCHINSON

2. have a minor injury. So the overall risk
ra ng is low.
What the person concerned knows or
ought reasonably to know
If my normal day job is an office worker
and I’ve been given an angle grinder to
use I’m not likely to know much about
the what could go wrong and even less
about how I can mi gate for the hazard
or risk posed by the grinder.
If, however, I am a sheet metal worker
with 20 years’ experience, there is an
expecta on I would know a lot about
the hazards and risks of the angle
grinder as well as ways to mi gate for
those hazards and risks (whether I ac-
tually do or not).
The availability and suitability of ways
to eliminate or minimise
Wherever possible we want to elimi-
nate hazards, so that means removing
the hazard altogether. If the hazard
isn’t available, then it can’t hurt anyone.
However, it simply isn’t possible to
eliminate all hazards.
If it isn’t reasonably prac cable to elim-
inate a hazard, the next step is to em-
ploy one or more of the following strat-
egies (examples provided):
Instead of using an angle grinder, ask
yourself, could a set of pneuma c met-
al sheers do the same job but more
safely?
Only work in a designated area with
limited access by other people.
Ensure any factory-fi ed guards on the
grinder are being used as per the man-
ufacturer’s specifica ons
If the above strategies s ll aren’t rea-
sonably prac cable, our last resort is to
implement one or more of the follow-
ing (these strategies should also be
used in conjunc on with the above
strategies):
E.g. limi ng access to the angle grinder
to people who have appropriate skills
to use it.
E.g. ensuring the skills of the people
with access to the grinder have been
assessed as competent to use it, have
been provided with copies of the man-
ufacturer’s specifica ons and are aware
of the hazards and risks associated with
the angle grinder as well as appropriate
safety measures to mi gate those
risks
E.g. ensuring the people who will use
the angle grinder have access to, and
use appropriate personal protec ve
equipment such as safety glasses,
gloves etc
The cost associated with elimina ng
or minimising
There are two very important points to
note about this part of the defini on:
Cost is the very last considera on a er
all the other criteria have been as-
sessed. It should never be the first con-
sidera on.
It has nothing to do with budget or
available cash on hand. Instead, it is
about whether or not the cost is dis-
propor onate to the risk. For example,
if subs tu ng the angle grinder with
pneuma c metal sheers was going to
cost $1000 and this would eliminate
the risk of death, it is likely this cost
would be considered a reasonable cost
to spend.
If your associa on chose not to spend
the money because there wasn’t
enough money in the ki y this would
not be a defence in the event someone
died from using the angle grinder.
Stay safe and healthy!
Hopefully this ar cle has helped to
clarify the expecta ons about how far
you need to go with Health and Safety
in your Associa on.
In my next ar cle, I’ll be providing some
informa on about where you can go
for further guidance. Un l then, stay
safe and healthy!
If you are s ll finding the concept of
Reasonably Prac cable a li le confus-
ing or you’d like further guidance about
your obliga ons under the Health and
HARM-LESS WORKPLACES DIRECTOR
BARB HUTCHINSON