If they don't assist managing hazards, IMO, place risk matrices with TRIFRs, LTIIFRs and such in File 13.

I finally read Steve Young's article - https://safeguard.co.nz/current-magazine/a-chance-in-a-million/;
Read the evolution of the OHS profession in New Zealand twice - Safety Science article by Greg Chris Felicity Helen;
And listened to Todd Conklin - Critical Risk Controls.

The underlying focus for me is the same - move the focus from outcomes for people to proactively managing hazards.
HSWA S30 may be incorrect - perhaps it should read Management of Hazards. :wink:

Phil Parkes' presentation on the NZISM site - Better Work from 30 June 2020 - is, IMHO, worth listening to.

@Robb
@Steve H
Given that Maritime NZ have a successful outcome, I'm still intrigued about what sections the biosecurity company were charged under.
I've emailed Maritime NZ asked for those details.

Cheers

Interesting article Steve
Perhaps the prosecution sets a precedent for within NZ also. Further down the media release it states -

"Maritime NZ’s investigation highlighted a series of failures that led to the incident.

Genera’s training for in-transit fumigation technicians did not adequately address the risks of working at height. There were also deficiencies in Genera’s standard operating procedures including failing to provide effective means of communication with its employees while at sea. Nor did it address the wearing of spikes while walking on log stacks. In response to this case, Genera has since changed its training practices to address the issues identified by Maritime NZ.

The Court noted Genera had also failed to ensure that the Bunun Justice had adequate first aid equipment and supplies, including having pain medication on board."
Maritime NZ article

It may now be interpreted that the employer failed in their duty to 'ensure, so far as is reasonably
practicable the provision and maintenance of a work environment that is without
risks to health and safety' HSWA 36(3)(a). If so, this could open the door for potential prosecutions within NZ.

No doubt there will be differing views and opinions, though Maritime NZ do themselves and others no favours by not revealing what sections of HSWA that Genera were charged under.

I know this is drifting OT
I see two issues here.
First - do the contestants receive payment? Yes, but it's not clear what it is for and how it is structured. Minds immeasurably superior to mine have looked at this. Contestants get an allowance - https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/the-block-nz/118047887/block-stars-urgently-wanted-for-2020-as-three-does-final-shoutout but it's not much - https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/homed/latest/107997340/want-to-be-on-the-block-nz-think-before-you-make-that-leap . And there is the final auction but that may be a gift - <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/19-09-2017/the-block-nz-is-the-perfect-way-to-learn-about-nzs-broken-tax-system/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/19-09-2017/the-block-nz-is-the-perfect-way-to-learn-about-nzs-broken-tax-system/</a>
Warner Bros may have this tied up but they're not talking.

Second - are they workers supplied with accommodation? Fine line this depending on the earlier issue. If they were then perhaps S36(4)(a) through to S36(5) apply. Again refer Warner Bros.

It's a fine line trying to define interpretations without any case law to refer to. So personally, until there is a judicial review or WorkSafe make a determination, I look at the Block NZ situation as occupants working on their own residences.



Regarding the forklift use in the KFC Double Down advertisement,
The Advertising Standards Authority have this to say about Safety in the Advertising Standards Code -
"Rule 1(e)
Obvious hyperbole may be acceptable. Advertisements showing impossible but unsafe scenes may be acceptable, provided this context is likely to be clearly understood."
The full code is here - http://www.asa.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Advertising-Standards-Code-2018.pdf

While there are a few H&S issues there, it may be that using the forklift was an amusing means for the workers to get more time to eat a burger.
The only way to find out though is to submit a complaint and get a ruling.

Simply living on site doesn't mean you're not a PCBU — Aaron Marshall

True Aaron.
However WorkSafe have determined that if the occupant - not necessarily the owner though they can be - is working on their residence the occupant is not at their place of work so HSWA does not apply.
The same is not true if the occupant "employs or engages another person to do solely residential work - HSWA S17(1)(b)(iii). WorkSafe have determined that person is either a PCBU or worker of a PCBU and is at their place of work so HSWA applies.

Whether WorkSafe would show leniency towards a friend assisting the occupant has, I do believe, yet to be determined by WorkSafe.

How do I know this? Because within the first six months of HSWA coming into force, I was subcontracted as a sole trader to assist a homeowner who was also the occupant and the main builder to boot. After an accident onsite, the homeowner/occupant was admitted to hospital. I was only cautioned (lucky me) by WorkSafe for incorrect construction of a timber scaffold while the homeowner/occupant was advised no action would be taken as he was the occupant.

So while the occupant may be the owner, the owner may not be the occupant. In the first instance, if the occupant is working on their residence, they are not at their place of work so HSWA does not apply. In the second instance, the owner is going to do work at a property (that they own) so HSWA applies since they are at a place of work and not their residence. Simple.

All the following is my humble observations and opinions.
Starting from end before moving to the start, I don't know what Peter Blake may have said. What I'm aware of after observing several Americas Cups on TV is there are many roles that people have on the boat/yacht. I have yet to observe the helmsperson doing grinding. I can only conclude that if people have roles and do their tasks within the context of the objective (providing the objective is clearly outlined) then the boat should go faster. Of course there are some presumptions there since a vast array of factors have not been mentioned.

Getting back to H&S, would defining the roles of people in the H&S profession "prevent more worker illness and injury?". Possibly yes, maybe no. My thoughts are defining roles would have an effect beginning at management level.

I think H&S governance in NZ is still in it's infancy. The focus appears to be on production with reduced labour. H&S at governance level appears to rely on statistics that bear little relevance to manage risk. The reliance on overseas methodologies and preponderance of safety documentation are an attempt, I believe, to primarily safeguard management from legal liability. WHS lawyer Greg Smith talks about the delusion of health and safety reporting here - https://safetyrisk.net/everything-is-green-the-delusion-of-health-and-safety-reporting/ . The comments from the Pike River Royal Commission still ring true today.

I agree Peter, there is a lot of surplus words in the framework. Once I'd read it I took out what I needed, namely pages 11 and 16-21. I already knew about 46-47.

If H&S roles were defined as on pages 16 to 21 of the INSHPO, management should have a clearer picture of what the person being employed can do. HR departments could identify the position requirements. Applicants would know what they are applying for.

Defining the roles between Practitioner and Professional opens a pathway for H&S representatives to follow. Not only is there a difference between tactics at worker level and strategy at management heights, but also the training beginning with vocational. Academic studies need to be worked towards once people get out of the mode of learning.

According to MBIE there are 530,000 small businesses that make up 97% of all enterprises. For this, a small business is 1-50 people. The full data is here - https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/business/support-for-business/small-business/ . These guys require value for money since they generate 25% of NZ's GDP. By defining roles and profiles as described in the INSPO Framework a number of issues may addressed.

These include opening a new market for the H&S profession, standardising H&S objectives, revising positions from fulltime to contract, businesses getting what they need and improving cultural maturity.

For the remaining 3% of enterprises that are large, generate the remaining three quarters of the GDP and employ the other 72% of the workforce, the requirements that management and workers need become clearer so the issues above are addressed. Then possibly H&S could be worked towards risk management (https://safetyrisk.net/proving-safety/) and starting when safe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2ROcAdoGDU)

How would it work? Could it work? That would depend on if the H&S profession was looking at the doors that will close rather than watch for the opportunities that will open up.

Gee that's a lot of rambling . . .

Hey Riki
All things are possible.

Here in NZ there do not appear to be any legal precidents regarding the legal liabilities of H&S Professions. The nearest I can find is one in the UK - there may be others - https://www.shponline.co.uk/safety-management/director-safety-consultant-jailed-labourers-death/#:~:text=after%20labourer%27s%20death-,Lauren%20Applebey,excavation%20in%20Ellerby%20Street%2C%20Fulham.

Section 7 of the UK HSWA 1974 appears to equate to Section 45 of New Zealand's HSWA.

Courts may look at whether a H&S Professional has 'significant influence' over the activity. That may relate to the position within a business as well as responsibility.
NZ often looks to Australia and the UK for case law.

Others may know more - Chris Peace is a valuable resource.

Why don't H&S people manage risks? Dump irrelevant paperwork including risk matrixes. Talk with the guys in the field. Discuss what will kill or injure them. Find out when things go pear-shaped what will stop them from getting killed or harmed.

IMHO, most controls utilised are from the bottom two levels of the Hierarchy of controls usually because of ease, simplicity and cost. How many come from the top three levels?

Why not start really managing risks rather than manipulating people.

Hey Riki
Biological, psychological, physical, ergonomic and chemical are all hazard types not health classifications as WorkSafe have alluded to on their website. Psychological is commonly referred to as psychosocial. Also, safety is missing. See NIOSH, IOSH, IOHA and to a lesser extent the link in Steve's second post.
In the MBIE info, the difference between the meanings of hazard and risk are considerably blurred. Not unusual for the untrained. Check the ISO definitions database here - https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#search

To determine how you categorise health outcomes, might I suggest you decide the classifying criteria health outcome or hazard type.
In your example I see the outcome (the risk) as cancer and the hazard as environmental exposure which makes the hazard type as physical and the health outcome (the risk) as biological.

If I am wrong, sorry. Just my ramblings.
Cheers

A gray area perhaps.

Section 17 of HSWA defines a PCBU and also who is not. Given the contestants live onsite, they may be defined as being the occupants. Hence HSWA does not apply as the workplace is not their place of work. Others who do not reside there may be determined as workers so HSWA applies.

How the occupants use plant and structures, and conducts themselves onsite may be different to how subtrades, visitors, site staff etc conduct themselves.

Perhaps a judicial interpretation is required, or TV3 clarify after consultation with WorkSafe.

Hmmm. My ramblings.
Consider the context that the outputs of risk matrixes are displayed.

Outputs go into hazardous substances registers and risk assessments to determine the effectiveness of activities based on the hierarchy of controls. So based on the 'traditional' approaches, the outputs of risk matrixes are required.

But are risk matrixes based on objective and agreed criteria? Here in NZ, possibly not. Qualitive and generic assessments are frequently used. Less common are quantitative and dynamic. I believe site specific assessments are included in qualitive.

So back to qualitive assessments. Because they are based on personal opinions and experience, these types of risk matrixes will definitely vary between industries and even contractors within the same industry. Because they are subjective and personal, are they worth the paper they are printed on? Or are they relevant for the organisation?

And who are the outputs for? Really for? If it's for workers - and in a format relevant for them - kool. But most of the time it's not. And usually that's because documentation is requested by management and written with little or no engagement with workers.
And then presented to workers. Keeping in mind that as a result of disengagement, these same workers view H&S as negative, bureaucratic and compliance exercise. Hence no buy-in.


Is the problem the risk matrix or the way outputs are determined and presented? Personally, I don't believe it is the matrix but you are free to differ.

Hey Riki

ISO have used the World Health Organisation definition released in 1948 -

health
state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity
[SOURCE: WHO:1948]

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:tr:12773:-1:ed-1:v1:en:term:2.16

Consider why policies are required and how wide or narrow the scope is. The objective is important.
Consider also what is wanted and what is needed. Are they identical.

The Road Code
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/what-waka-kotahi-is-doing/education-initiatives/driver-distraction/driver-distraction-resources/legal-mobile-phone-use-while-driving/

Enforcement
https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-services/driving-and-road-safety/being-safe-road-rules-and-reasons

Hi Helen
I completed the certificate but not through SIT.
I'd be interested in comparing thoughts on delivery with the provider I used and SIT
Cheers

Hi Fiona
I've sent you an email.
Cheers

Easy as. Look forward to hearing results, outcomes and proposals