I've copied and pasted to a LinkedIn post on your behalf. All the best with your research.

I have copied and pasted, edited a little to fit the word limit, and posted on LinkedIn. All the best with your study!

In the age of Google, there's really no excuse!

- I would be interested to learn more about what you've been doing.

Thank you for posting this.

- that's a great start.

Many people also use audit interchangeably with inspection, which further muddies the water!!

Here's how I think of these:

Inspection: physically looking at workplace conditions and work being carried out - a simple snapshot of what is happening at a moment in time.

Audit: look at work planned (procedures and other elements of the management system) vs work done - comparison between what the system says people do and what they actually do. In an audit, we talk to people about what they do and how they do it, look at work being done, look at records of the work to verify whether or not work is being carried out as planned - completely and consistently. The auditor's findings are then collated into a report with any recommendations for follow-up actions.

Review: Analysis of relevant information from audit findings, performance data, budgets, and other factual information about relevant processes and systems, to make decisions about the effectiveness of the management systems and plan actions for improvement where appropriate.

I hope that helps a bit. All the best with your report!

Whose 'private property' and for what purpose? Is he driving for hire or reward? If so, follow this hierarchy of what would be considered 'reasonably practical':
1. Any applicable legislation or regulations
2. Any relevant industry standards
3. Any relevant codes of practice
4. Any WorkSafe NZ (or similar) Guidelines documents

Also important to conduct and document due diligence, appropriate risk assessment and work plans that consider all conditions / parameters of planned work, including:
- machinery and equipment to be used
- any / all other vehicles, machinery and equipment to be used in the same area
- site / environment conditions (ie different conditions on flat land compared to steep or hilly land, daylight vs nighttime, etc)
- people in the area doing work
- communication requirements for overlapping / interfacing work activities

It's time we developed more appropriate testing regimes to assess cognitive impairment, which is the real risk, rather than focusing entirely on presence / absence / legal limits. The same criteria should also be applied for prescription and over-the-counter medications that have the same potential for cognitive impairment yet are largely ignored in most testing regimes.

I'm sure there are already tried and proven frameworks for measuring cognitive impairment already used in research conducted for example by military personnel researching effects of hypoxia (I watched an example on the Vlog "Smarter Every Day) that could be readily adapted to workplace assessments, and most would typically have their own framework for classifying what is acceptable and what is not.

Cognitive impairment should be assessed for both mental impairment (i.e., reasoning, judgement and decision-making) and physical impairment (i.e., coordination and motor skills).

It's still too easy to give the right answers in theoretical questions typically posed for such qualifications - especially when people who have been schooled in traditional OHS dogmas and practice, on assessments based in the same frameworks and lacking sufficient grasp of meaningful competency frameworks (such as Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning), and still diverge completely from what really works for businesses in the real world. Even a simple review of the competency framework for Levels 5-6 in OHS shows significant gaps in meaningful business management and leadership skills yet the framework suggests people who have completed these levels would have the requisite skills to perform at an organisation-wide management level. They lack the people skills and strategic planning skills, and especially this training appears only to train them to perpetuate OHS frameworks that are demonstrably out of step with business needs. This is not only setting up everyone within this system for failure - both practitioners and businesses they work with - but also excluding people who are actively engaging with businesses, influencing change, doing their own independent / self-directed studies in a real world context, adapting and working out how best to achieve safe workplaces and still support businesses to thrive and adapt.

Articles in the recent Safeguard Magazine on Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) are particularly relevant to this discussion.

- yes. this is an interesting side conversation of the move to HASANZ. I personally know a few people who have completed a post-graduate diploma of occupational safety and health, who have by virtue of this qualification achieved Graduate member status in NZISM and would therefore be eligible for the HASANZ register, yet I know from personal experience that they do not have sugfficient depth of understanding, leadership skills, systems thinking or all the professionalism we would hope for from someone aiming to work as a consultant. These people would focus most on how much money they could get rather than on what was right for a client, and their need to be right and / or seen as 'expert' would see them impose bureaucratic systems that don't necessarily deliver required results.

I have even seen a consultant who had previously been a senior H&S manager attempt to deliver risk management training where he relied entirely on the text he had copied into his slides; when trainees asked questions, he just read the slide again - he clearly did not understand the content himself and had no business being in the front of the room trying to train others in it.

I also know a number of people who intuitively know how to go about this, don't over-rely on their qualifications or don't even have formal qualifications, who do their own thinking and problem-solving, make authentic connections with people and put the client's interests first. This latter way of going about their work is what HASANZ was intending but its over-emphasis on qualifications rather than skills, experience, personality traits and values seems to be taking it even further off the mark.

FYI - I have copied and pasted your request, posted as an article on my LinkedIn page and tagged you, then shared again in the NZISM LinkedIn Group. Good luck with your research - this is important work.

Genesis Energy used to have individual KPIs for reporting, including a minimum number of near miss incidents, and they could be from work or outside of work. As you might imagine, some people just took the p!ss and wrote nonsense like coming across a banana peel on the footpath when they went out to buy lunch, and a missing cloth from the kitchenette. While it would be good to aim for reporting all near miss incidents, a number of factors probably impact the effectiveness of doing so, including awareness / recognition of near miss events as they occur, attitude about having to report it and how easy / simple it is to do so, perceived value of reporting, etc. There is as much potential to learn from a good near miss report as from any other investigation findings, so most of this comes down to coaching, facilitating and leading a gradual movement toward consistent reporting.

The latest Safeguard Magazine included an excellent article based on a presentation at the Safeguard Conference, about the tendency of safety and other compliance disciplines to focus overly much on what is lacking rather than what is there. Most organisations these days are doing plenty of positive things toward ensuring a safe workplace, and it would be good to see them focusing on those in more visible ways, like signs and dashboards.

FYI - a related taxonomy system is Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy

Bloom's Taxonomy can be very helpful for identifying competency requirements to ensure learning design, training delivery and learner assessment actually deliver the level of competence required / expected.

Please count me in!

Well said.

As with so many issues, there isn't a single 'one size fits all answer'. It seems sensible that individuals should be discussing expectations and boundaries with their respective managers. If companies expect more from an individual than they think is reasonable, they have the option to discuss and negotiate, and if they can't agree, perhaps it's time to look elsewhere. If people feel they have no choice but to submit to demands imposed on them from further up the hierarchy, they would be better off to walk. Why allow unreasonable intrusion into your personal life then continue to be miserable and blame someone else?

There have now been at least 2 fatalities involving eScooters in USA. Does NZ really need to wait for its first fatalities to act??

I look at the ISO standards as a useful generic checklist. It's no substitute for actively and appropriately considering your own business context and needs and developing useful and relevant management systems accordingly. Likewise, I often suggest that the ISO standards are best used as a guidance tool rather than seeking formal certification unless demanded by customers, with the proviso that the organisation must 1) understand the requirements sufficiently to 2) apply them intelligently and appropriately to the organisation and 3) conduct sufficient organisational intelligence and management reviews to keep executive management's finger on the pulse to ensure the system continues to function as it should.