We have internal "Safe People" training and I run monthly drop in calls x3. They don't work brilliantly for everyone tbh but the opportunity is there.

I'm glad I escaped the dinosaurs lol!

We've got a formal competency assessment for connecting a light trailer (amongst other things). Its a practical assessment but we've also made a video to go with it if people need a reminder: https://fultonhoganknowhow.co.nz/connecting-a-light-trailer/#moving-plant

Can't promise but that's what we've seen so far...

Sure. We've had 3 invalid tests, 5 positive and three of these confirmed positive with PCR. Hopefully its OK for me to share some MoH stats from pharmacy testing over the summer break - from memory they did 41,000 tests got 19 invalid, 26 positive of which 9 confirmed positive with PCR.
I find it useful to think about RATs as testing for being infectious rather than infected, like a canary in a mine - they give us a chance to find someone who is infectious before they show symptoms and hence reduce the exposure time to everyone else.

Updated gazette for businesses to be able to purchase RATs: https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2022-go201?stageDraft

We've administered just over 6000 RATs now within our business. It's part of the puzzle as others have said but is really useful for giving reassurance to people who are in the "monitor for symptoms" groups after casual contact.

Hi Jo - we have something coming up but will require a fair amount of travel within NZ too. Email me your contact details if you'd like to find out more jo.prigmore@fultonhogan.com

Great question. I haven't checked up on this but we've tended to notify once the injury / damage / disease has been confirmed as work related; usually via the ACC claims process. We're tertiary AEP accredited though so that link might be easier because of that?

not a cave dweller, more likely a practioner who has to work in the real world rather than an academic setting. Its something I'm increasingly frustrated by. Maybe we could create a drive for change by just simplifying the language we choose to use.

I agree. We aren't the target audience. I think it has already worked in terms of getting people talking about it :)
If people don't agree with the message and have a conversation that's still a good thing isn't it?

We haven't quite been able to abandon it as many clients ask for it. However, we're actively trying to shift the focus from TRIFR (where a broken leg counts the same as a fatality) to severity where we focus on high risk events. When comparing benchmarks just be careful of the calculations - we divide by 1 million but some places divide by 200,00. There's some good info on the business leaders forum

I've used a similar tactic to Mark and / or asked about the example they're setting to younger / less experienced workers. Like "I know you might be OK doing that but what about the young guy over there. He'll follow what you do; how do we set him up not to get hurt"

The WHO mythbusters page confirms that people can be contagious way before they develop a fever. I'd be worried that we get complacent about handwashing & good hygiene techniques if we think everyone is OK because they didn't have a temperature
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters

I would recommend going on a standard work at height course with some of your workers and then follow up with a bit more research. That way, you know what they (should) know and you're all using the same language. I've always found you get quite a lot of kudos from the team by doing that too.

My friends have been known to physically step back & hold their breath if someone tells me something can't be done because of "health and safety"! I will always ask why, on what grounds, where is the risk assessment etc. I hate that phrase being used as a management cop-out.
I don't know about the detail in your post but am sympathetic to the sentiment.

You can contact SpecSavers for a company discount too, they offer some really good deals. I hate wearing over glasses, they make me feel seasick which creates a different risk!

I think its very exciting that our Regulator has appointed someone so well recognised in the Safety II space. It may allow us to be more innovative and move from always chasing the AU or UK processes