• White Island Volcanic Eruption and Dialogue About Risk
    all good points - I will be very interested to see what sort of knee jerk reaction NZ takes. There is one other point that I want to throw in the pot - and this is not intended to stir things - but ....
    I was quite embarrassed to say I am a safety professional after watching the interview with the chopper pilot that was not allowed to go back and get the bodies because of safety reasons. This is a guy who had just left the island with a load of survivors, knew the landscape, knew the risks, was experienced - yet someone remotely was doing their own risk assessment and they get to make the final call. This to me is a group of well meaning people that use case studies and data they have - but do not have the 'feel' of the individuality of this event. I get the whole thing of rescuers being exposed to undue risk - but really. Some recent events in NZ have created a lot of change - but not all of it has been good - and our stats support that. Surely a plan could of been made with those closest to the site, a risk assessment made, people kitted up with good PPE, and those bodies brought home to their families before the environment decays the bodies any more. This rescue stinks of the same mistakes from Pike River in my mind
  • Availability of good candidates to fill H&S roles
    My biggest gripe is around the lack of opportunities for people starting out in the safety space. Most employers are very nervous so want experienced people - but how do you get experience in NZ?? I have heard from a few people now that have gone overseas to entry level roles that they couldn't get here in NZ. I was also recently guilty of recruiting someone from overseas over a NZer - a first for me but it just come down to team fit and experience to help deliver a very aggressive plan. I wasn't so much looking for a person that had experience in safety - but more a person who would be a great change agent. Anyone can learn safety skills - but hard to teach someone how to create change and do it with personality ....
  • New thinking in health & safety - community of practice
    wow - love the excitement, my first reaction was to "count me in" - but recently I have seen clients / stakeholders and even our own awesome company trying to support current forums and just spend time with passionate people who want to make change - but are re-inventing ideas and have no one in the room who can actually make key decisions. The good thing is that we all want some change and are prepared to be part of that change. The problem is that there are a number of groups already doing that in isolation. One of the things I noticed a while back is that when something is broken - it is often easier to create something else than to fix the problem. So now there are safety people all over the place creating more complexity and processes to support broken processes. Then we expect people who are great at 'doing' to understand and use all of our 'thinking'. In NZ we can't even agree to standard measures / definitions (LTIFR, TRIFR, medical treatment etc). So how do we know what is really broken and where to start??
  • Draft Construction Lag Indicators for Consultation
    Hi Chris - I have noticed that SiteSafe are doing the same thing - be really good if the two bodies were working together with this. there really needs to be alignment across the industry - not the creation of yet another measure / or a different set of definitions (especially around what is medical treatment, and what is included in the TRIFR)
  • H&S Committtee Objectives
    thanks heaps for sharing Steve - this is a hard one but I like what you have done
  • Definition of "high potential"?
    I struggle with potential for fatality. Every incident has the potential to be a fatality. IE: I could trip on the mat and nearly fall - or I could trip on the same mat, fall smack my head on something and die. Once an incident has occurred we rely on our controls to reduce the likelihood that it will be a fatality - if there are no controls - we rely on luck. High potential vs high likelihood - I guess it comes down to the language that the end users of the process understand and are used to. As a safety person - anything that is identified as having any potential to hurt, is assessed and controls put in place with an end goal of reducing the likelihood and the severity. High potential with the thinking around severity seems to be a lost opportunity??
  • H&S Committtee Objectives
    This is a hard one - especially for the construction environment where our reps are on different sites all the time. Some of the objectives I have seen mentioned above are really hard to measure - in my experience - if you can't measure you can't tell if you have made a difference or not - and that is a very important part of objectives and reward and recognition. we are trying to align with lead indicators (inspections, near miss reporting, audits, observations and safety dialogues). These are easy to measure and hopefully the output of this activity is a reduction in incidents causing harm. I have learnt over the years that one glove doesn't fit everyone and really important "to hunt where the ducks are"
  • to ISO or not to ISO
    Thanks for that - really good feedback
  • to ISO or not to ISO
    at this stage I will spend this year preparing our documentation against ISO standards - then go for accreditation in 2020. I ;looked at SafePlus - but think we can go beyond that ... fingers crossed!
  • Mandatory Wearing Of Safety Glasses / PPE In General
    sorry am I missing something here? I am trying to get our people to look at PPE as a last resort - yet I see no mention here of risk assessment, engineering controls, isolation etc If it is a walkway - surely that is designed to be a safe method of walking from one point to another? If there is a risk - why is it a walkway rather than a work area?
  • Feedback opportunity
    For question one - I am not so sure it is about training workers. I think that is maybe step two or three - first step is to provide an environment for workers to feel safe bringing up concerns around safety and then to give them the ownership and support to own the problem. Every environment is quite different in this space but I see a massive difference in how manufacturing sites handle this vs construction. Granted one is a lot more predicable than the other - but why does our thinking need to be different. I also see so many example where worker engagement starts at the back end of change. If we involved our workers earlier, they would have a better understanding of the reasons for change. If this is done wrong - we can easily dis-engage our people. I have found that by using change plans & communication plans (which include identification of who the stakeholders are) it is a lot easier.