And that is what is so perplexing Steve - if the curtain has by all accounts fallen on it then it should be struck from the legislation. Let's face it, if it all turns to custard the mechanisms could quite easily be brought back on line.

Continued..

"notify us if a worker contracts COVID-19 and work activities are a significant contributing factor to their infection" then it might be reasonable to consider many worker infections could indeed be notifiable in that the only common thread to workers is the workplace itself.

Of course it is impossible to determine where cross-infection occurs but if workers are under the same roof then it cannot of course be ruled out.

Thanks all to those replying - appreciate it!

thanks Thomas - a good spot I hadn't seen however there remains no sense of scaling towards those more severe cases that Australia seems to have focussed notification wants on. Indeed if we focus on the wording - namely "notify us if a worker contracts COVID-19 and work activities are a significant contributing factor to their infection"

That's brilliant Jo - thanks for the insight. Am dealing with some handwringing over accuracy of tests and perceived risk to those performing the tests. If they are being used in that casual contact space then it is easy to see where reassurance can be had.

Any latest user experiences - good, bad or indifferent - with regard to RAT here in NZ?

Thanks all

Favourites include workers being required to complete a form on a one-off basis which includes a declaration that they have not been at a place of interest even though the list can be updated several times a day.

Latest cab off the rank is "you've been at a place of interest? Then self-isolate for X days" and they are saying it irrespective of what MoH may be saying about the very same potential exposure situation.

As to your query @MattD2, whilst we may choose to release our info to our own paymasters, one might say we at least have a bit of an eye on one's own organisation so as to be comfortable. If however that info is being sought by customers of one's employer and is released then one might say the genie is out of the bottle and control of certain personal info lost forever.

For anyone curious I'd thoroughly recommend the good e-learning training offered by of all people The Privacy Commissioner. Privacy and Health 101's and ABCs too for those who are keen. Nevermind the ten commandments or the seven deadly sins, one can get to grips with the Thirteen Principles of Privacy ;-)

This is a good if overdue move. When pinching WHS from across the ditch we took the lite version only and left many regulations behind. This step serves to address some of those gaps through greater prescription. The opportunity to feedback and contribute to their shaping is a good thing indeed although we shall doubtless see it become to a degree political in a similar way that HSWA did six or so years ago.

thanks for the insight Jon - much appreciated.

Thanks both KeithH and Steve H for your views - appreciate it indeed.

Interesting in recently putting an Rfq response was that membership of a certain prequalifying agency was an immediate barrier to entry. Ok so we are indeed a member and therefore over the first fence but there was not even the scope to offer ISOs including 45001 as an alternative to that prequal ticket. As a consequence, the cost of doing business seems to have got cranked up just a little further.

A bit late to the party with a reply here Steve but in referring to Reg 31 you can see that monitoring is only required if the substance hazardous to health to be used is prescribed in a Safe Work Instrument. Take a look at WorkSafe's collection of SWIs and you'll see very few.

If this at first sight seems to give a free pass to hazsubs not yet captured by SWIs and indeed non-hazsubs things that can damage health - such as noise - then look no further than S.36(3)(g) of HSWA to see that very similar is written through the Primary Duty of Care lens.

Timely this as I have just been discussing the merits (or otherwise) of opt-outs. A ray of light is shone on S.28 at this point.

One can look much closer to home to see some key facts and figures. In isolation the figures appear to rise year on year in spite of the inception of WorkSafe and the adoption of WHS as our very own HSWA in April 2016.

Might it be the case that aside to lagging WHS by a few years (during which time we all find our feet) we did not take the whole package of regulations that supplemented WHS when hauling it across the Tasman? Might Australia perform more safely for the sake of more vigorous regulation in areas such as construction?

A good discussion point - here are those local numbers

https://data.worksafe.govt.nz/graph/summary/injuries_week_away

https://data.worksafe.govt.nz/graph/summary/fatalities