what is it going to take to see the trends heading downward. — Steve H

The trendis heading downward. More workers, but a constant absolute number of events means that the rate is reducing.

With some trepidation I venture to suggest that reducing the road toll is a much narrower and therefore less complex challenge than reducing the work toll. — Peter Bateman

Given that 33 of the 52 workplace deaths were 'vehicle accidents' there is a sizeable overlap.

It's also interesting to think about the fact that this is where a moments inattention, or other human failings can have drastic consequences. While we can endeavour to train, and make people aware of these, it does little to stop basic mistakes.

I think, given the discussions we've had here, it highlights that the rules aren't clear.

For those concerned, I didn't go out and party the night my isolation technically ended, I was at home for a further four days after symptoms had subsided.

No, it is confirmed at day 7, but the iso period starts from the beginning of symptoms.
My frustration was that it was impossible for me to get any other sort of test at all. I was specifically told that I couldn't get a PCR test, despite obviously being outside the typical profile.
From what I understand, the RAT test will continue to give a positive result well after the infection ceases to become active

I know that none of this make sense, but we're dealing with a government department here...

No, isolation ended at the end of symptoms. Isolation starts at either a positive test or onset of symptoms, and ends at a negative 7 day test (if no symptoms) or the end of symptoms if symptomatic.
If you have an initial positive test, then there is no further test required to end isolation.

Despite being symptomatic, and with two negative RAT tests, I was told that I couldn't get a PCR test because they weren't doing them. The impression I got was that MoH had given up trying to confirm cases.

A successful regulator is one that works with industry, not against it. We've seen in aviation that the initiatives that CAA has involved the industry in have had far more success than those that have been forced upon us.
Every time CAA gets heavy-handed or unreasonable over interpretation or enforcement, industry pushes back.

Right, so here's my personal experience of the limitations of RAT testing:
My wife had to travel to Auckland for work, and so, before having contact with anyone else outside our household after returning home, did a RAT test on day 3 - returned negative (Thursday evening)
Friday night she had minor symptoms, so did a test Saturday morning and it came back positive.

I had minor symptoms at this time as well, so did a RAT test as advised, and it came back negative.
Monday evening, more symptomatic, and I did another test - still negative. I decided to ignore the test, and class myself as positive (i hadn't had contact with anyone to catch anything else)

The next Saturday morning (after symptoms had subsided) I did another RAT test as it should have been the end of my isolation, and this one finally came back positive, but since I was asymptomatic, I was able to leave isolation?

So, RAT tests alone aren't a sure-fire way of detecting covid (particularly in vaccinated people). From what I've read, if you're vaccinated, you'll have a faster response, and earlier symptoms, sometimes before RAT test sensitivity.

"Yep, they're all good"

Agree that the strawman I put up is an unlikely situation, but was just to illustrate the point the "blaming" (while the wrong word to describe it) may be valid in some situations and shouldn't prevent learning from occurring at the same time. — MattD2

And that's at the heart of a just culture.

But, how often is it just a 'recruiting mistake'?
True learning from incidents requires some level of introspection. e.g. was it a recruiting mistake, or were you not willing to pay for someone with the experience required (which is financially driven, and not a mistake, IMO). Or did you not provide adequate training?

There are competing objectives that very rarely sit nicely together with education vs. prosecution.

On a related note, I see that Worksafe are under the spotlight for this as a result of the White Island Accidents. One of the criticisms is that of the conflict between regulator (management and education) and prosecutor.

I know from first-hand experience how much more forth-coming you are when the entity doing the investigation has no prosecution ability, and their information is specifically protected. You are able to speak freely, without having to make sure that your words are not able to be mis-interpreted or used other than you intended.

How are you assessing these risks if you do not take likelihood into account?
if one of your assessed risks is the a fatal vehicle accident, how do you treat the potential consequence, given that any accident may result in a fatality?

The other thing to consider is that the Standard calls for checks to be carried out by 'a competent person'.
Whether you consider someone competent will be up to you (and the Judge, if it all goes wrong).

I just brought this up with someone who helped write the previous version, and is looking at revising it now, and this is one thing that they've flagged as needing attention. However, qualified and competent are different things, so wording this is going to take some work.

And, this maintenance is all based on dry powder extinguishers, CO2 or other forms are different.

Anyone working in healthcare or education that is not fully vaccinated after 1 Dec & 1 Jan will not longer be employed. It won't be difficult to manage, its the law. — E Baxter

If only it were that simple...

Parents helping out for an hour at school? BoT members? School field trips/camps?

And as Sarah has pointed out, employers are not allowed to ask for vaccination status, or discriminate on health status.

As I said earlier, I agree with this in principle, however, there just isn't enough information being provided to give anyone any assurance.

most of that comes under what I would call "checking for condition"

The only option for an Adventure Tourism business :grin: — Steve H

Some people just can't grasp that...

It's caused a whole lot of confusion in education at least. Mainly due to the fact that there was no additional information available beyond "after X date it will be compulsory".

I'm on the BoT for our school, and we need to try to sort out what we're going to do, but have not been given enough information to act on (like, exactly who does it affect, cleaners, who don't come into contact with students? How about any contractors who come onto site?)

While I agree with the stance, it was only really a half-announcement.

4503 is up for review soon as I understand it.
Those dry powder extinguishers in vehicles need to be shaken monthly, as has been said previously. The vibration of a vehicle will cause the powder to settle quicker than in a building.

To be honest, there isn't much to check: condition, give it a shake, and that the pressure gauge is still in the green. And make sure it doesn't rattle when you shake it - one of the failure modes is the internal standpipe failing.
This is exactly what your extinguisher servicing people are doing, so they are telling the truth when they say that they need the same checks done.

Numbers quoted for the Aviation Industry are for every accident there are 30 near-misses, and 600 minor incidents (or opportunities to identify and prevent the incident)

Yes, whether it is notifiable or not is only relevant for those working in H&S.
The employees on the ground need to know what to report to management, which is anything that could have caused harm. Unfortunately, lengthy reporting forms mean that people will try to avoid reporting. If someone doesn't understand half the words on the form, they won't complete it, it's as simple as that.
To be honest, if I was presented with a form such as Garth's, I'd only complete it if I absolutely had to - there would be no near miss reporting.
I've got a client whose form is half an A4 page (date, what happened, who, etc). All the rest of the info is completed during discussions with the reporter.

I wouldn't have any definition that is self-referential.

Incident - unplanned or uncontrolled incident in relation to a workplace — SusiR

Here is what we have within our rule structure:

Incident means any occurrence, other than an accident, that is associated
with the operation of an aircraft and affects or could affect the safety of
operation

From CAANZ Rule Part 1

simple and straight forward. If it could cause harm, then it is an incident

The issue here is that I'm guessing a lot of those guides also participate in these activities in their off-time, so choose to use their own equipment.
From my own recreational climbing experience, I was careful about who I climbed with, and part of that was that I didn't know how they'd treated their equipment.
Heirarchy of controls tends to break down where the exposure to the risk is part of the objective of hte activity. Having a boardwalk up a glacier kind of defeats the purpose.