Interesting Steve H. Something I personally and I imagine quite a few others know little about yet, other than the fact that a lithium fire is extremely dangerous. The aerosol extinguishing technology you highlight sounds like an installed fixed system - is this the case. Can you offer any advice on what the best way to deal with a lithium battery fire in the workplace would be, whether that be an extinguisher or a blanket or whatever??

"use this activity as a way of checking in with the team as they turn up for shift, asking them how things are, hows the family etc.... "
I do this too. Wander around with my contactless temperature gauge and zap everyone. Never had a temperature but it is a great way to engage with the staff, have a chat, check their psychological condition, give them a chance to talk about their Covid concerns, etc. Enables me to understand where everyone is at whether there is anything more we can do. Working at Level 4 can be quite stressful for some people.

Risk assessment is not scientific, its subjective (and personal), which is why it should include a number of people.
It not the the definition of risk that counts but the controls used to mitigate it.
It is quite easy for those that prefer, to flip "quite likely" to 70-80% if that's helpful.
Its a tool to be used to gain the results.
Any HS professional that "will be concerned about the views of executive management and so will skew the results to give give an acceptable result and avoid adverse comment" instead of focusing on the health and or safety of their subject is in the wrong job.

I find the risk matrix to be an excellent tool.
It enables you to define risk in a way that people understand.
Stuff that kills you will always be Critical or Extreme but other than this its all about qualitative assessment which for 95% of risk is probably all we have.
Riki Brown did exactly that, he just didn't label his assessments but he started at Critical and presumably ended at High, Medium or Low.
The end result is then determined by what the controls are and this in turn controls how often the controls need to be checked. Easier if they have labels (eg high = 3 monthly, low = 12 monthly, etc)
When dealing with Critical risk, scenarios should be considered, then the controls for those scenarios, the supporting controls, specific responsibilities; also where to find the specifications/procedures.
All of this is best achieved, in my opinion, with the use of a risk matrix. If nothing else, the process is at least consistent.
Once at this point, the residual rating can always be changed if the controls are found to have gaps upon review.
But it is not the rating that counts its the controls and how you can measure whether they are working.
Safety risks are pretty straight forward based on how many injuries occur despite controls. But when it comes to health risk, measurement practices are also controls - eg: eyesight, hearing, lung function testing, etc - whatever is required to measure the effectiveness of any controls designed to prevent acute/chronic health issues.
I would like to see a standard risk matrix, one not only specified by WorkSafe but also by ISO and used across all standards (9001, 14001, 45001, etc). I believe this would make risk more understandable and people would develop a greater in-built sense of risk, a bit like they have an in-built ability to determine distance, time, etc.

Mike Massaar - Is there any charge for that please?? What is bowtierisksolutions.com.au all about and what is the the access criteria please??

One of the biggest issues is that a "sore back" is couple of days to a week or more off work and if it is a workplace accident then its paid by ACC. This is not helped by GPs who are more than willing to sign off on the classic "strained back" for five days. Back injuries are probably over reported because of this type of behavior.

As a responsible employer we do hearing, vision, blood pressure and lung function tests on our factory staff annually. This is because we have noise in the factory but also use hazardous substances. The question you pose as to why we are carrying out hearing tests on workers if the noise is at an acceptable level is basically the same question I have asked.

I hope that NZ will resist the urge to simply enact politically-pressured and expedient legislation that slides off surface issues and misses the opportunity to dig in a bit deeper, not only to understand the many factors and context of this very sad event, but also to dig deeply enough to understand underlying contributing factors such as values, economics and other perfectly normal human parameters that played a part in this. — Sheri Greenwell

A very pertinent comment Sheri.

And when it come to deep seated understanding, this also should be considered.... from the NZ Herald:

"Last year, the Whakatane business was named New Zealand's Safest Place to Work in the Small Business category of one group of workplace safety awards."

Well done Tania. The industry has been waiting for a guideline like this.

SDS are still a bit of a shambles. I thought by now suppliers were legally required to supply New Zealand supplier contact details and HSNO hazard classifications. Is this not correct? Because they certainly don't do either of these yet either.

Good topic Jo. I have been thinking about this too lately. I would be interested in systems that have quality and environment management capabilities included as well and health and safety. Maybe the magazine could do some reviews on what's available...

Hard yards (read lots of time, effort and money) to get a successful prosecution against a landlord so any action would have to be relevant (in term of making a statement/example) and have a high chance of success before any Government agency would consider it. Greater responsibilities for landlords in the HSWA legislation may see this change now that specific failings are easier to pinpoint, however, already landlords are putting it back on tenant with their compliance record books, etc.