Hi Amber. We have used EnableHR for some years with our "medium-sized" business (25-50 FTE depending on seasonal requirements). We have found it is very good for keeping employment and H&S records in one place where everyone can access them: storing, linking and updating documents is one of the strengths of the system. The incident and hazard reporting functions for all staff with the Self Service module work okay, although these lack some of the "ease of use" you get from other purpose-built reporting apps/services. As a cost-effective off-the-shelf product, I can recommend it from our experience. Hope this helps! :smile:

Hi @Christina Carroll. Quote from the FENZ Online Services page re evacuation schemes:

"The requirement to maintain your evacuation scheme by either conducting training or completing a trial evacuation is suspended while New Zealand is at Covid-19 Alert level 4. An amendment to the regulations allowing building owners to defer the completion of training and trail evacuations was passed into regulation earlier in the year. This means that at any time when the Alert level for Covid-19 requires physical distancing, the requirement to complete trail evacuations and deliver training programs is suspended.
Once physical distancing requirements are removed then building owners should resume their normal requirements for maintaining their evacuation scheme."

The Ministry of Health is better suited for Covid-19 response and information — Chris Anderson

I agree with this entirely - in a country the size of NZ, the last thing we want with Covid-19 is different government departments, all very well-meaning and all with a slightly different focus, clouding the issues and information for workplaces. I believe WorksafeNZ has indeed been involved with "frontline" organisations including MIQ facilities, and in relation to other workplaces is entirely right to focus on just reinforcing the messages from the Ministry of Health.

we are considering having different depths of investigations and feedback dependent on the incident, i.e. basic and full. — Chrissy Roff

We do something very like this - basic investigation is built in to every incident report, including injuries and near misses; then the responsible supervisor/manager/health & safety rep will decide if a "full" investigation is required. This is based on the actual or potential harm (hitting thumb with hammer would not rate very highly here), and the equipment/tools/scenario involved (we already know what our major risks are, so we would focus on these for a "full" investigation). Full investigations require consultation with staff, feedback through the health & safety committee, in-depth information gathering etc.

Testing and tagging is one tool to help us make sure electrical equipment is safe, but must not be used in isolation. If a power lead with a current tag on it becomes damaged, and electrocutes the next person to use it, Worksafe is going to ask why we allowed the use of a damaged cord, and what our process is for pre-start checks, not whether Jim's Test and Tag know what they are doing (which I am sure they do). Our approach is to implement a realistic timeframe for testing/tagging, based on the conditions in which we use our equipment (which aligns with our employees real-world experience rather than an arbitrary standard), and then focus on training our staff to constantly check their equipment for themselves - which is far more likely to find problems (and is a far better way to "cover our asses") than a 6-month/12 month/18 month/5 year testing schedule.

"Not a legal requirement" in and of themselves, however toolbox meetings (or a version thereof) are used in many workplaces as an effective means to enable front-line workers to participate in health and safety - which most certainly is a legal requirement. If someone is challenging a lack of toolbox meetings, the answer is to show them exactly how workers are enabled to take part in discussing and responding to safety and health issues on a regular basis - and if this is not happening as well as it could, there is a real question to be answered, and maybe an opportunity to improve this practice.
As an added comment, I have never found it practicable or meaningful to get anyone to "sign off" on minutes at a front-line level - simply record who was there, and a some notes on what was discussed. Important safety issues can't be "signed off and away" - they need to be addressed in practical terms on a daily basis, and maybe at more than one toolbox meeting :-)