21 Critical Issues Identified in the 2025 Draft GMR: A Technical Review for Industry Leaders

The General Machinery Regulations (GMR) have been in their current form since 1988. In recognition of technological and regulatory changes, the Department of Employment and Labour (DOEL), through the Technical Committee, revised the regulations and issued a draft for public comment on 22 August 2025.

As one of the most important sets of regulations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), the GMR affects every industry that uses machinery, which includes manufacturing, utilities, FMCG, heavy industry, and even small businesses.

At Palucraft, we reviewed the draft regulations clause by clause, line by line. We compared the existing GMR, the OHS Act, the OHS Amendment Bill, and all other recently updated regulations.

What we found was a mix of positive improvements, long-standing gaps, and several critical shortcomings that, if left unaddressed, could undermine compliance, enforcement, and workplace safety nationwide.

In this article, we share 21 key observations, concerns, and recommendations drawn from our detailed analysis. These points highlight:

• inconsistencies,

• missing definitions,

• outdated provisions,

• alignment issues with the OHS Act, and

• opportunities to modernise the GMR in line with current engineering practice, ISO standards, and South Africa’s broader regulatory framework.

Our goal is not only to critique, but to contribute constructively.

A formal submission of the comments was made to the Department as part of the public participation process, which forms a crucial foundation for strengthening the final version of the GMR.

If you are an engineer, GMR 2(1) appointee, safety practitioner, legal compliance manager, OHS consultant, or employer who operates machinery, this analysis will help you understand:

• Where the draft GMR aligns with best practice

• Where it introduces risk or uncertainty

• Which improvements must be made before final publication

• How these changes may affect your workplace responsibilities in the future

Below are the 21 key issues we identified, along with why addressing them is essential for a safer, clearer, and more future-ready regulatory framework for all South African workplaces that use machinery.

1. Regulation 1 Definition of Competent Person (c)

Observation: Regulation 1 competent person definition Paragraphs (a) and (b) correctly require “practical experience in the operation, maintenance, and safety appropriate to the class of machinery.”

Paragraph (c) (“is a certificated engineer”) omits this requirement. Certificated engineers may be mechanical or electrical. Furthermore, industries vary significantly, and the "class of machinery" differs in complexity, risk, and regulatory obligations. Without specifying relevant experience, the clause may lead to inappropriate legal appointments.

Proposal: Amend paragraph (c) to read: “is a certificated engineer who has practical experience in the operation, maintenance, and safety appropriate to the class of machinery he or she is required to supervise.”

Motivation: The proposal ensures that:

• Certificated engineers have demonstrable competence in the specific machinery they supervise,

• Inappropriate appointments are prevented,

• There is alignment with the Engineering Council of South Africa's (ECSA) Identification of Engineering Work Regulations and competence principles, and it maintains the integrity of the GCC and regulatory framework as envisioned in the Certificate of Competency Regulations.

Effect on other regulations: Reinforces the Identification of Engineering Work (ECSA) regulations and the Certificate of Competency framework by ensuring that certificated engineers are only appointed where they have relevant practical experience.

2. Absence of Machinery Definition in Regulation 1

Observation: Regulation 1 does not include a definition of “Machinery”, which is inconsistent with other OHS regulations, which restate key definitions even when they originate from the OHS Act.

The omission is problematic because:

• It breaks consistency with the format and completeness of other regulations, and

• It is inconsistent with how the draft GMR incorporates other OHS Act elements, such as GMR 7 reporting requirements.

Because the authors saw fit to include and reinforce specific Act provisions, it would also be prudent to include the central definition of “Machinery.”

Motivation: Including the definition ensures:

• Clarity,

• Alignment with other OHS regulations,

• Consistency in application and enforcement, and

• Prevents ambiguity around what constitutes “machinery,” especially in diverse industrial sectors.

Since the draft already reinforces specific OHS Act definitions and obligations. Including the "Machinery" definition maintains the integrity of the GMR and supports proper legal interpretation.

Proposal: Insert the definition of “Machinery” as contained in the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Section 1, into Regulation 1 of the draft GMR.

Effect on other regulations: Ensures alignment with the OHS Act and maintains consistency across OHS regulations that incorporate foundational definitions.

3. Jurisdiction Ambiguity for Cross-Border Machinery

Observation: Regulation 2(1) correctly states that machinery crossing provincial borders (e.g., power lines, pipelines, communication infrastructure) is deemed to be on one premises.

However, Regulation 2(8) requires employers to forward the GMR 2(1) appointment letter to “the chief director provincial operations.” When machinery spans multiple provinces but is deemed a single premise, the regulation does not specify which province’s chief director should receive the appointment letter, creating administrative and legal uncertainty for cross-province operations.

Proposal: Add a clause specifying the appropriate jurisdiction, e.g., “Where machinery crosses provincial borders and is deemed one premises, the employer must submit the GMR 2(1) appointment letter to the chief director provincial operations in the province of the employer’s head office or principal place of business.” Other practical variations thereof may also be considered in this case.

Motivation: The proposal ensures:

• Clarity and consistency in the submission of GMR 2(1) appointments for national infrastructure operators.

• It prevents conflicting interpretations, improves compliance, and supports the intention of Regulation 2(1).

• It avoids situations where different provincial inspectorates assume overlapping or conflicting authority over the same machinery/premises.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns with cross-border regulatory jurisdiction principles and ensures consistent application of GMR 2(1) across provinces.

4. Repetition of Competency Requirement in Regulation 2(1) and Regulation 2(3)

Observation: Regulation 2(1) already requires the employer to “in writing designate a competent person.”

Regulation 2(3) then repeats the exact requirement by stating that the designated person “shall be a competent person.”

This duplication adds no legal value and creates unnecessary repetition in the regulation. Good drafting practice requires that obligations be stated once to avoid confusion and potential misinterpretation.

Proposal: Delete Regulation 2(3) entirely, or remove the phrase “competent person” from Regulation 2(1). The preferred approach is to delete Regulation 2(3).

Motivation: The proposal:

• Eliminates redundancy and improves clarity and consistency in the regulation.

• Avoids interpretive problems arising from duplicated requirements.

• Ensures alignment with standard legislative drafting principles and maintains the integrity of the competency requirement within a single sub-regulation.

Effect on other regulations: None.

5. Removal of Old Regulation 2(6) Allowing Chief Inspector Approval of Non-Mechanical/Electrical Candidates

Observation: The old GMR Regulation 2(6) allowed the Chief Inspector to approve GMR 2(1) appointees who did not hold mechanical or electrical engineering qualifications but who were competent through qualification and experience.

The draft GMR removes this provision entirely, creating significant challenges because many practitioners (e.g., industrial, chemical, mechatronic, marine engineers, technologists, and experienced operations/maintenance managers) legitimately supervise mechanical and electrical machinery.

Removing the clause leaves employers with Section 40 exemptions as the only route, which is lengthy and requires ministerial approval. Furthermore, its removal unintentionally forces highly qualified practitioners into the generic competency option (a), which only requires five years’ experience and does not specify qualifications.

Proposal: Reinstate a clause equivalent to the old Regulation 2(6), allowing the Chief Inspector to approve suitably experienced and qualified persons (other than mechanical or electrical engineers) for GMR 2(1) appointments without requiring a Section 40 exemption.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Restores necessary flexibility for employers while ensuring competent appointments.

• Prevents unnecessary Section 40 applications and reduces administrative burdens for employers and the DOEL.

• Ensures highly qualified practitioners are not unfairly excluded.

• Enhances safety by allowing the Chief Inspector to assess competence on a case-by-case basis rather than relying on rigid qualification requirements.

Effect on other regulations: Supports alignment with OHS Act Section 8 (competent supervision), improves consistency with previous GMR practice, and prevents unnecessary reliance on Section 40 exemptions.

6. No Process Defined for Voluntary GMR 2(1) Appointments

Observation: Regulation 2(9) excludes specific categories of machinery from requiring a statutory GMR 2(1) appointment.

However, in practice, many employers make voluntary GMR 2(1) appointments for these excluded machinery types based on internal risk assessments, insurer requirements, contractual obligations, or corporate SHEQ policies.

The GMR does not specify how employers must handle voluntary appointments, leading to inconsistent treatment across provinces and creating uncertainty regarding their legal status.

Proposal: Add a clause requiring that voluntary GMR 2(1) appointments (made at the employer’s discretion) must be submitted to the Department in the same manner as mandatory appointments, as prescribed in Regulation 2(8).

Motivation: The proposal:

• Provides administrative clarity and consistent handling across provinces.

• Formally recognises good industry practice.

• Reduces legal ambiguity for employers and appointed persons.

• Strengthens governance and accountability for machinery oversight even when the appointment is voluntary.

Effect on other regulations: Enhances alignment with administrative processes in Regulation 2(8) and strengthens the regulatory framework by recognising voluntary safety measures.

7. Regulation 5(3) Prohibits Jewellery Without Considering Religious or Cultural Rights

Motivation: Regulation 5(3) prohibits the wearing of “jewellery or ornament” without recognising that some employees wear religious or traditional items that form part of constitutionally protected rights.

A blanket prohibition may infringe on sections of the South African Constitution relating to freedom of religion, culture, and dignity. The regulation also fails to define “jewellery or ornament,” leaving uncertainty about whether religious or traditional articles are included.

Proposal: Amend Regulation 5(3) to allow religious or traditional jewellery or ornaments where they can be safely wrapped, covered, secured, or otherwise made safe based on the employer’s risk assessment.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures compliance with the South African Constitution.

• Prevents discrimination disputes.

• Provides practical risk-based guidance.

• Aligns with labour law principles and enables employers to maintain workplace safety while respecting religious and cultural diversity.

Effect on other regulations: Supports constitutional compliance in safety regulations and aligns with labour rights as defined in the Constitution and Employment Equity Act.

8. Penalties in Regulation 9 Contradict the OHS Act and the OHS Amendment Bill

Observation: Regulation 9 stipulates penalties of “imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months,” which is inconsistent with Section 43(4) of the current OHS Act, which stipulates "imprisonment up to 12 months and a recurring fine of R200 per day."

The draft regulation is also inconsistent with Section 42(4) of the OHS Amendment Bill, which provides for imprisonment of up to 12 months, fines of up to R5 000 000, and a R200 fine per day for continuing offences.

These inconsistencies create legal confusion, weaken enforceability, and make the regulation beyond the scope of the Act.

Proposal: Remove the specific penalties in Regulation 9 and replace them with: “Penalties and offences shall be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures alignment with the OHS Act and the OHS Amendment Bill.

• Prevents contradictions, improves enforceability, and prevents invalidation of the regulation.

• Provides future-proofing by avoiding the need for amendments every time the Act is updated.

Effect on other regulations: Ensures consistency with the OHS Act's penalty provisions and prevents the regulation penalties from becoming unenforceable.

9. Draft GMR Lacks Standard Regulatory Structure Used in Modern OHS Regulations

Observation: The draft GMR does not follow the established structure used in recent OHS regulations. It omits essential components such as:

• (1) information, instruction, and training requirements;

• (2) mandatory risk assessment;

• (3) consultation with health and safety representatives;

• (4) exposure or operational analysis;

• (5) medical screening or fitness where supervisory roles are involved; and

• (6) maintenance of records.

This inconsistency makes the regulation outdated, legally weak, and misaligned with the OHS Act’s general duty framework and modern regulatory drafting standards.

Proposal: Introduce dedicated clauses for:

• (a) information, instruction, and training;

• (b) risk assessment;

• (c) consultation with health and safety representatives;

• (d) operational or machinery hazard assessment;

• (e) medical screening or fitness for duty where appropriate; and

• (f) record-keeping requirements.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures the regulation is aligned with modern OHS regulatory structure, strengthens legal enforceability, supports consistency across industries, aligns with Section 8 of the OHS Act, and provides clarity for employers, inspectors, and workers.

• Enhances safety culture and ensures the regulation is future-proof and operationally practical.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns the GMR with the structure of all recent OHS regulations and supports consistency within the OHS regulatory framework.

10. No Duties or Functions Defined for the GMR 2(1) Appointment

Observation: The draft GMR introduces the requirement for a legal appointment under Regulation 2(1) but does not define the functions, duties, or scope of responsibility for the GMR 2(1), which is inconsistent with other OHS regulations, all of which define the minimum duties of legal appointees (e.g., PER, DMR, CR, Lifts Regulations).

It is also inconsistent with Section 8 of the OHS Act, which requires employers to ensure competent supervision with clearly defined responsibilities. The absence of defined duties weakens enforcement, creates inconsistencies across industries, and leaves both employers and appointed persons uncertain about statutory expectations.

Proposal: Insert a new regulation or sub-regulation specifying the functions and minimum duties of the GMR 2(1).

These should include:

• ensuring safe operation and maintenance of machinery,

• ensuring compliance with legal requirements,

• supervising competent persons,

• approving safe work procedures,

• ensuring risk assessments are conducted,

• reporting defects, and

• maintaining required records.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Provides legal clarity, strengthens enforceability, and aligns the GMR with the OHS Act and other modern OHS regulations.

• It standardises the role across industries, ensuring accountability and improved safety outcomes.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns GMR with OHS Act Section 8 and standardises legal appointment structures across the entire OHS regulatory framework.

11. Regulation 3 (Safeguarding of Machinery) Is Outdated, Insufficient, and Not Aligned With Modern Machine Safety Standards

Observation: Regulation 3 on the safeguarding of machinery remains written in an 1988 style and does not reflect modern safeguarding principles, technologies, or risk assessment methods.

It omits interlocking devices, robotics safety, presence-sensing systems, safety PLCs, guard defeat prevention, ISO 12100 risk-based guarding requirements, and modern lockout/tagout practices, making the regulation outdated, difficult to enforce, and inconsistent with international safety standards.

Proposal: Replace Regulation 3 with a modern safeguarding clause that incorporates:

• (a) ISO-based risk assessment;

• (b) guarding design principles;

• (c) interlocking and presence-sensing devices;

• (d) requirements for prevention of guard bypassing;

• (e) safeguards for robotics and automated systems;

• (f) competence requirements for persons installing/removing guards; and

• (g) alignment with SANS/ISO 12100, 13849, 14120, and 14118.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures the regulation aligns with modern machinery safety practices, improves enforceability, reduces accidents, and brings South Africa closer to international standards.

• Supports engineering best practice and reduces litigation and insurance risk for employers.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns GMR with ISO and SANS machine safety standards, and ensures consistency with other modern OHS regulations that require risk-based safety management.

12. Regulation 4 (Operation of Machinery) Is Outdated and Does Not Reflect Modern Operator Competency Requirements or Safe Systems of Work

Observation: Regulation 4 focuses on traditional supervision and operator behaviour but does not include modern requirements for operator competence, training, authorisation, human–machine interaction, or safe systems of work.

It does not address automated systems, robotics, contractor involvement, or documented operating procedures. This makes the regulation outdated, difficult to enforce, and inconsistent with Section 8 of the OHS Act and modern OHS regulations.

Proposal: Insert a modernised clause requiring:

• (a) operator training and competency assessment;

• (b) written operating procedures;

• (c) documented authorisation of operators;

• (d) pre-start safety checks;

• (e) permit-to-work systems for high-risk tasks;

• (f) provisions for automated/robotic machinery;

• (g) contractor operator requirements; and

• (h) safe system of work implementation.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Aligns regulation with modern industrial practice, improves safety outcomes, and ensures consistency with OHS Act Section 8 and other updated regulations.

• Provides clarity for employers and inspectors and ensures enforceability in modern automated workplaces.

Effect on other regulations: Creates consistency with national OHS frameworks and aligns operator safety with international machine-safety standards.

13. Regulation 5 Is Outdated and Fails to Incorporate Modern Lockout/Tagout, Isolation, and Energy Control Principles

Observation: Regulation 5 does not include any requirements for lockout/tagout (LOTO), energy isolation, verification of zero energy, or permit-to-work systems. It also omits references to stored energy hazards, group lockout, shift handovers, and modern electrical energized work requirements. The regulation uses outdated wording that does not align with ISO 12100, ISO 14118, ISO 45001, or modern engineering safety practice.

Proposal: Replace Regulation 5 with a modern isolation and LOTO clause requiring:

• (a) isolation of all hazardous energy forms before work;

• (b) mandatory lockout and tagout;

• (c) zero-energy verification;

• (d) group lockout procedures;

• (e) permit-to-work systems for high-risk tasks;

• (f) competence requirements for persons performing LOTO;

• (g) integration with electrical energized work requirements of the Electrical Machinery Regulations; and

• (h) risk-based exceptions with documented controls.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures worker safety, aligns the regulation with modern international standards, improves enforceability, and reduces the risk of fatal incidents.

• Brings consistency across sectors and supports Section 8 of the OHS Act.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns with modern LOTO standards, Electrical Machinery Regulations, ISO 12100, ISO 14118, and ISO 45001.

14. Regulation 7 Conflicts With Section 24 of the OHS Act and Should Be Aligned to the Act to Avoid Duplication and Narrowing of Reporting Requirements

Observation: Regulation 7 duplicates and narrows the incident reporting requirements already contained in Section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The GMR version lists fewer reportable incidents, uses outdated terminology, and creates inconsistencies that could lead to under-reporting, legal confusion, and ultra vires enforcement. Regulations cannot reduce obligations contained in the Act.

Proposal: Replace Regulation 7 with a simple clause: “Machinery-related incidents shall be reported in accordance with Section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.”

Motivation: The proposal ensures legal alignment, prevents under-reporting, removes duplication, improves consistency, and future-proofs the regulation against amendments to the Act.

Effect on other regulations: Ensures alignment with Section 24 of the OHS Act and prevents the GMR from weakening statutory reporting obligations.

15. Regulation 8 Is Outdated and Should Be Modernized to Include Digital and Accessible Communication of Regulations

Observation: Regulation 8 requires employers to physically display a copy of the GMR, which is outdated and inconsistent with modern OHS communication and documentation systems.

It does not recognise electronic access, digital safety systems, or ISO 45001 communication requirements. It also provides no guidance on accessibility, language, or training.

Proposal: Amend Regulation 8 to allow both physical posting and electronic access to the regulations. Include requirements for accessible communication, electronic document control, and ensuring workers are informed and trained on applicable sections.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Aligns with modern digital safety systems, enhances accessibility, and improves compliance.

• Reduces administrative burden and supports ISO 45001 communication and competence requirements.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns with the communication and document control practices of other modern OHS regulations and ISO 45001.

16. Schedule B Is Outdated, Contradictory, and Inconsistent With Modern Machinery Safety Standards

Observation: Schedule B is outdated and inconsistent with modern machinery safety practices.

It still focuses on working on moving machinery, fails to incorporate lockout/tagout and isolation requirements, uses outdated terminology, ignores stored-energy hazards, and is not aligned with ISO 12100, ISO 14118, ISO 13857, or ISO 14120. It also contradicts the modern risk-based approach promoted across recent OHS regulations.

Proposal: Replace Schedule B with a modern safe-work-on-machinery framework based on:

• (a) mandatory energy isolation;

• (b) LOTO requirements;

• (c) permit-to-work systems;

• (d) competency criteria;

• (e) modern guarding and interlocking principles;

• (f) stored energy control; and

• (g) robotics/automation considerations.

Motivation: The proposal aligns the GMR with modern engineering and safety standards, improves enforceability, reduces risk, and ensures machinery safety practices reflect current global and local industry expectations.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns GMR with ISO machinery safety standards, improves consistency with Electrical Machinery Regulations, and supports Section 8 of the OHS Act.

17. The Draft GMR Fails to Address Contractors, Service Providers, and Temporary Workers Who Work on Machinery

Observation: The Draft GMR does not include any provisions for contractors, subcontractors, service providers, OEM technicians, or temporary workers who work on machinery.

This is inconsistent with Section 37 of the OHS Act and all modern OHS regulations (DMR, PER, HCA, CR, MHI, etc.) that impose competence, training, oversight, and compliance requirements on contractors. The omission creates enforcement gaps and does not reflect modern industrial practice.

Proposal: Insert a dedicated clause specifying contractor and service provider obligations, including:

• Competence verification, contractor training, site induction, participation in permit-to-work and LOTO systems,

• Supervision requirements, and

• Enforcement of Section 37(2) agreements.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures alignment with the OHS Act, improves legal clarity, strengthens safety governance, and ensures that all persons working on machinery (internal or external) are competent, trained, and supervised.

• Reduces the risk of incidents arising from outsourced maintenance.

Effect on other regulations: Ensures consistency with Section 37 of the OHS Act and aligns GMR with other updated OHS regulations mandating contractor controls.

18. The Draft GMR Fails to Specify Competency and Minimum Training Requirements for Persons Performing Maintenance, Repairs, Installation, Inspection, or Modification of Machinery

Observation: The Draft GMR does not define competency requirements or minimum training standards for persons performing maintenance, repairs, installation, inspection, modification, or commissioning of machinery.

This omission is inconsistent with all modern OHS regulations and undermines enforcement, safety, and clarity for employers and inspectors.

Proposal: Insert a dedicated clause defining competency requirements for maintenance personnel, installers, repairers, inspectors, and technicians.

Include requirements for accredited training, documented competency, refresher training, and OEM-specific training where applicable.

Require the GMR 2(1) to ensure that only competent persons perform these tasks.

Motivation: The proposal:

• Aligns GMR with modern OHS regulatory frameworks, supports Section 8 of the OHS Act, improves safety outcomes, and ensures competent execution of high-risk tasks.

• Provides clear legal expectations for employers, contractors, and GMR 2(1) appointees.

Effect on other regulations: Ensures consistency with competency frameworks across all OHS regulations and aligns with ISO 45001 training and competence requirements.

19. Regulation 2(6)(a) Uses the Term “Competent Person” Without Linking It to the Definition in Regulation 1 or Clarifying Competency Requirements

Observation: Regulation 2(6)(a) requires the appointment of a “competent” person to assist the GMR 2(1), but does not clarify whether this competency refers to the definition in Regulation 1 or to a different competency level.

Regulations 2(4) and 2(5) clearly link GMR 2(1) competency to Regulation 1, but 2(6)(a) does not. This creates legal uncertainty and inconsistent interpretation across industries and among inspectors. Employers currently use varying approaches, leading to potentially inappropriate appointments and safety risks.

Proposal: Clarify competency by either:

• (a) explicitly stating that the competency for 2(6)(a) aligns with 2(4) and 2(5); or

• (b) introducing a separate competency definition for GMR 2(6)(a); or

• (c) introducing a new term “trained person” aligned with modern OHS regulations (trained, informed, qualified, and conversant with the regulations).

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures clarity, consistency, and enforceability of the GMR. Prevents inappropriate appointments, aligns with modern OHS regulatory terminology, and supports proper supervision structures under GMR 2(1).

• Reduces legal ambiguity and improves safety outcomes.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns the GMR competency framework with other modern OHS regulations, ensuring consistent interpretation and enforcement across all sectors.

20. The Draft GMR Definition of “Competent Person” Is Incomplete and Not Aligned With All Modern OHS Regulations

Observation: The Draft GMR’s definition of “competent person” omits key wording used in all modern OHS regulations, specifically the clause stating that a competent person must have the required knowledge, training, experience in the task or work, and be conversant with the Act and applicable regulations, creating inconsistencies across OHS legislation, weakens enforcement, and may lead to inappropriate or inadequately trained persons being appointed to critical machinery safety roles.

Proposal: Align the definition of “competent person” with that used in other modern regulations by adding the wording: “a person who has, in respect of the work or task to be performed, the required knowledge, training, and experience, and who is conversant with the Act and applicable regulations.”

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures consistency across OHS regulations, strengthens legal clarity, supports enforcement, and ensures that competent persons have both technical and regulatory knowledge.

• Enhances machinery safety and aligns the GMR with modern regulatory drafting practice.

Effect on other regulations: Ensures consistency with national OHS legislation and harmonises legal terminology across all regulations.

21. Regulation 5(1) Uses “Competent Person” Without Providing a Task-Based Competency Definition Appropriate for Work on Moving or Electrically Alive Machinery

Observation: Regulation 5(1) permits only a “competent person” to work on moving or electrically live machinery.

The only definition of “competent person” in Regulation 1 is tailored for GMR 2(1) appointments (as evidenced by Regulation 2(4) and 2(5)). This definition is inappropriate for artisans, technicians, electricians, and maintenance personnel who perform hands-on work on machinery. The regulation, therefore, creates ambiguity and may lead to incorrect appointments or non-compliance.

Proposal: Introduce a separate task-based definition of “competent person” aligned with modern OHS regulations, such as: “a person who has, in relation to the task to be performed, the required knowledge, training, and experience, and who is conversant with the Act, these Regulations, and the hazards and risks associated with the activity.”

Motivation: The proposal:

• Ensures clarity, aligns with modern regulatory standards, prevents misinterpretation, and ensures that only appropriately trained personnel perform work on moving or live machinery.

• Supports enforcement and reduces legal ambiguity.

Effect on other regulations: Aligns competence definitions with modern OHS regulations and ISO 45001 competence requirements, ensuring consistency across national safety legislation.

Conclusion

The Draft General Machinery Regulations represent an essential step in modernising machinery safety in South Africa, but the analysis above shows that significant work remains before the regulations can fully support the country’s evolving industrial landscape.

The gaps we identified (e.g., outdated definitions, omissions in competency requirements, missing LOTO provisions, inconsistencies with the OHS Act, etc.) highlight the need for a more integrated, risk-based, and future-ready regulatory framework.

During a recent Department of Labour workshop, the Chief Inspector emphasised that one of the Department’s strategic pillars is the establishment of a comprehensive Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) across workplaces, of which the proposed Section 7(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill echoes the same sentiment and envisions a formalised and structured OHSMS as a mandatory requirement for employers.

Many of the shortcomings identified in the Draft GMR relate directly to the Department's and Chief Inspector's vision. The absence of risk-based approaches, inconsistent competency requirements, limited focus on training and supervision, outdated safeguarding requirements, and missing modern engineering controls are all issues that an effective OHS management system would naturally address.

By aligning the GMR more closely with OHSMS principles (which typically include clear responsibilities, documented procedures, competency verification, risk assessment, continual improvement, and integration of ISO-aligned standards), South Africa can ensure that the regulations support both legal compliance and practical safety improvement.

As the Department continues refining the Draft GMR, we hope that these insights contribute meaningfully to the development of a final regulation that is modern, enforceable, aligned with the OHS Act and OHS Amendment Bill, and capable of supporting South Africa’s industrial growth safely and sustainably.

The goal is not simply compliance. It is the creation of workplaces where engineering excellence, operational discipline, and safety management systems work together to protect people and machinery every single day.

At Palucraft, we remain committed to supporting this process and empowering industry stakeholders to understand, interpret, and implement these regulations effectively.