Dismantling treated as erection in reverse
It is not. Components are being removed from beneath and beside people, ties come out before the lift does, and the temptation to drop rather than lower is strongest at the end of a job.
Erection, alteration and dismantling as their own task — because the scaffolder is exposed to fall risk during the period when the fall protection does not yet exist, and dismantling is where most scaffold incidents happen.
Instant download · Editable .docx
Scaffolding is the control everyone else relies on, which makes it easy to forget that the people building it are working at height without it. The risk is concentrated in three places — the leading edge during erection, any alteration made by someone who is not a scaffolder, and dismantling, where the structure is being progressively removed while people are still standing on it. This JSA treats those as distinct phases rather than one activity called "scaffolding".
It is not. Components are being removed from beneath and beside people, ties come out before the lift does, and the temptation to drop rather than lower is strongest at the end of a job.
A tie removed to get a window in, a board lifted for access, a handrail taken off for a lift. Unauthorised alteration is a leading cause of scaffold collapse and the control is access to the Scafftag, not goodwill.
Erecting or dismantling scaffolding with a risk of falling 5 metres or more is separately listed as particular hazardous work requiring 24 hours notice.
Working from a completed scaffold is a different task to building one. Mobile platforms and EWPs are separate again.
Word — 15 pages (three-phase JSA + handover + inspection records) · Formats: DOCX
A Job Safety Analysis is not a named statutory document in New Zealand — unlike an Australian SWMS, no regulation requires one by that name. Its weight comes from the duties it discharges, and from the fact that main contractors and prequalification schemes treat it as the expected evidence that a high-risk task was thought through before it started.
The most common alternative in New Zealand is an Australian SWMS with the branding changed. It is worth being precise about why that is a problem.
Written and reviewed by the occupational health and safety team at OH Consultant. These are drafted as New Zealand Job Safety Analyses, not as Australian SWMS with the terminology swapped. That distinction is substantive: a SWMS is an instrument created by Australian WHS regulation for high-risk construction work, with prescribed content and a statutory trigger. New Zealand has no equivalent provision, so a document presented as a "NZ SWMS" is citing a requirement that does not exist here.