DOC volunteer work

I'm seriously considering volunteering to help DoC as I'm retired and have much spare time. As a retired builder and cabinetmaker I consider myself very competent and, as an older wiser version of myself, I'm also very good at knowing my limits. I suspect that, at some point, I will run up against RULES which will raise my hackles and quite possibly make me decide to chuck it all in. Which, for all concerned, would be a shame. I'm really pleased that I'm out of the industry now as I know I would not cope with some bureaucratic zealous young twerp telling me what to do, or not do. No wonder many in the industry are getting out. http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/78915418/experienced-tradesmen-weigh-up-their-options-following-new-health-and-safety-rules

My understanding is both deaths on Raoul island were volunteers but one was caught in a totally unexpected eruption I doubt there was much that could of kept him safe while doing the job he was doing except going there 30 minutes earlier or later The other was fishing on a rock. Was he working or was this free time? I dont know

Mihai Muncus-Nagy was carrying out water temperature readings. He is presumed swept off the rocks and drowned.

DOC believe, (probably rightly) that they have the same obligations to volunteer health and safety, as they do for theyre own staff Therefore, the restrictions placed on volunteers ie using chainsaws, also apply likewise to their own staff. (be qualified in chainsaw use - tree felling/windfalls etc) There are also basic rules about working alone, reporting to HQ daily, etc, Some of those don't happen with volunteers, (and many volunteers would object), but the day that say a volunteer is seriously injured and no one knows, will see DOC in a predicament. Work Safe will be after them we take a DOC radio on out hut work, and are supposed to report in daily. pretty low risk work, but track work has a lot more hazards and I would expect DOC to tighten up on safety (with volunteers) Not the sort of stuff volunteers want to get into, but the basic fact is, DOC is responsible for volunteer safety

I would imagine under the Helath and Safety at Work Act 2015 (effective as of this month) that DOC would fall under the catagory of both a PCBU and "landlord". (Unless for some reason they are excluded but I wouldn't think that was the case.) If they are included they would be responsible for the health and safety of their own staff as well as volunteers and presumably anyone else on their property/land.

there's so many good options now for communications devices to use to signal for help there's no excuse not to equip people working alone with them. The responsibility for that should lie with the organisation the work is done for, eg DOC. PLB's are a one off purchase that are good for years, no extra costs..

Ignoring the law for a moment, what do people feel the arrangement *should* be in a moral or ethical sense? To me it seems perfectly reasonable that when DOC's flogging its core business off to volunteers, then DOC should be taking responsibility for making sure those volunteers have a safe working environment. Otherwise there's an even greater incentive for DOC to ditch paid staff and contractors in favour of a work-force who are cheap in a large part *because* they're not guaranteed a safe working environment. When a volunteer died on Raoul Island, he was very clearly doing work requested by, arranged by, and on behalf of DOC, despite not being paid for it. I think it's reasonable that DOC should be responsible for ensuring a safe working environment (as does the law, it seems). If there's ambiguity it seems to be around where recreationalists just want to do stuff, compared with what is DOC's core business that it *should* be doing (either directly or by coordinating others). If you reckon it's worth cutting (or re-cutting) a track because it makes a good natural line between A and B, does DOC need to take moral responsibility for ensuring your safety? Is making that track available part of DOC's core business, thereby meaning it's shouldering something off to volunteers? Or is this just something that volunteers want to do on the side? How about comparisons with recreation? If a mountaineer falls off a mountain, even if they're unskilled, DOC's not typically considered responsible. It's a risk they chose to take. Unlike clearing a new track, though, DOC's also not required to give permission for any random person to climb a mountain, which is a right guaranteed under law. (Incidentally, this is a serious consideration, imho, around the implications of DOC being allowed to close access to or impose entry fees on parks, at least if freedom of exploration is valued! It creates a situation where DOC gives permission to enter, which leads to ambuguous stuff around further moral obligations.) Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that DOC is not adequately funded to accomplish its core business. So it doesn't do stuff, and it also doesn't authorise volunteers to do that stuff because the H&S also costs (unless volunteers somehow tick all the boxes themselves). DOC gets underfunded for doing what it's required to do, and so nobody's allowed to do it.

I dont know what happens when trampers clear tracks but I know that when the 4wd clubs do work on 4wd tracks in Doc estate ie Sutherlands Track chainsaws and bush bars are permitted but it is absolutly required that the operators have the apropiate NZQA qualification and all safety gear is worn always. 300mm log over the track used to be a 5 minute job to clear now by the time you suit up etc its gong to take 30 minutes plus. Also the number of chainsaws in use has dropped considerably. Good or bad? I suppose it stops someone unqualified and inexperienced with a chainsaw which probably isnt silly and keeps the cowboys out but it adds time and increases the workload of those that can do the job. Wellington Regional council has much the same rules in its parks

@geeves isn't that the way of the world now?