Our staff asked for an allowance, several figures were mentioned, and after some research we agreed on $400. The uptake has been good, no red tape or hoops to jump through. — Stuart Oakey

It is good to hear that you have had good uptake on the allowance, and that barriers to participating seem to be low. Have you had / ask for feedback from those that have not decided to participate? (just out of interest in why they wouldn't).

However the main point I was attempting to make is that when the value that an employee adds to a company vs the remuneration that they receive for adding that value is compared, that the value of these additional allowances are effectively a drop in the ocean and could be a lot more - but that is going to take a major (societal level) rethink of how our economic system values work/workers and how the benefits from that work is allocated to best benefit society as a whole.

agree but we already give discretionary leave, flexible working conditions where roles allow, wellness days and the organization is moving towards the living wage. Staff get lots of benefits and giving them tokens to contribute towards their health means they actually spend that money on their health which has benefits for them and us. It might be this week they can spend that money they would have spent on a GP visit to pay for extra living costs. — Jaylene Barwick

It's hard to argue the point because there is an element of truth that "well at the bare minimum they are better of with this allowance in place than without it", however it goes back to the question - who has the right to dictate what an individual spend their money on? Unless you are more genuine with the reasoning behind it, as you said your company gets the benefit of healthier workers (e.g. more productive / less "waste" / etc.) - again not denying that the workers also get benefit, but that's not really the sole purpose if we really get down into it.
Again my main point isn't that these allowances are bad, it is that they are masking what could be done to address the growing social issues in NZ (and most other "western" countries). As an example, should it really be hard that for a company with an average wage 1.7x the living wage to move towards paying at minimum a living wage to all their workers? The C-Suite of most companies (that are not owner/operator) could probably finance the extra $0.95 per hour to those currently on minimum wage (or even more) out of their own paychecks without any noticeable change in their own standard of living. Or it could be funded out of a company's net income - however for For-Profit companies this would likely have a negative affect on the company's value / shareholder dividends / etc. and therefore not be an attractive option to Boards / Senior Management that want to keep their jobs.

To clarify, I'm not saying that those that have made these small gains/wins for their employees should be doing more, or that they shouldn't be celebrated. What has been done is important and should continue. What I am saying is to be open to thinking more broadly about how companies are operated and for who's real benefit - after all when we have a company, that makes (a global average of) NZ$16,000 of profit each year out of every one of its workers, needing to take the time to figure out if giving those workers an extra $400 a year is not enough / too much it starts to become clearer who that company is really focused on benefiting.

Id be somewhat cautious about where you are getting your data from. — Andrew

I was referring to this older 2020 article in Stuff referencing a survey done by Finder (first somewhat recent source that came up). A more recent Newshub article this year refers to a survey that found 39% of NZ'ers could not cover a $5000 unexpected cost within a week without going into debt, and of the 1/4 of NZ'ers that do not current save any of their income nearly half is because the are living paycheck to paycheck.

And lets not forget the unseen Working For Families which tops up every workers pay if they have kids. — Andrew

Not every worker with kids, it is means tested. And what was the point of even bringing this up?

You may be surprised with just how much Leave without Pay our people take. — Andrew

Have you asked why so many are taking leave without pay? When I see stats like that I am curious as to why, instead of chalking it up to employees who just don't want to turn up for work.
An example is if the current minimum leave entitlements in NZ re reflective of what life in NZ is actually like nowadays for a lot of families - common point on this is with most families needing 2 working parents, how does 8 total weeks of paid annual leave cover 12 weeks of school holidays, let alone actually getting to spend time with the whole family being together.

But we fully subsidize the insurance and there are quite a number of employees who get significant benefit form it. — Andrew

Yes those employees got the benefit of the health insurance being in place, but would it be fair to say the main benefit of that insurance cover is to minimise the risk to the company of employees taking extended leave due to injuries/medical issues covered by the policy (i.e. save on costs of overtime/temp cover, retraining for other roles, recruitment costs, etc.).
Honestly is the question you and your management ask when you sit down really "should we just give them the money we'd be spending on health insureance for them", or is it more "is it better for our bottom line to cover the health insurances for our workers (all things considered)"?

Companies choice what package options are included — Jaylene Barwick

They can spend on things that improve their wellbeing e.g. gym memberships, sportswear/equipment, medical/health expenses etc. — Ange White

Wellness extends to house insulation, sportswear, chiropractors etc. Equipment for hunting allows clothing and hiking/camping equipment but not firearms. — Alex

Are these examples of what Andrew was referring to as

an employer moving into an employees private life. — Andrew

What in the company give them better knowledge and understanding of hiw their employees "best spend" their money?

What's to say making their rent payment this week or being able to afford more than beans on toast for their family's dinner doesn't "improve wellbeing"? You know - the stuff that paying them a decent wage would already account for, without the need for a household to have over 2 full time jobs to support.

If you want to go further to support your employees past paying them what they need for a decent life, provide them with the information and opportunities to improve their lives rather than a $XXX wellbeing allowance token gesture. How about providing employees information
, suppport and access to courses on things like general household budgeting, or providing them with discretionary leave for important home-life appointments that have to be done during the workday (including stuff like actually getting to see their kids school performances / assemblies / sporting events / etc.).

If you have $500 to spend on employees I'd recommend subsidizing health insurance. — Andrew

With over a third of NZ'er living pay check to pay check I wonder how much employee wellbeing would be improve by just giving them the $500 extra to spend on unexpected costs or just the day-to-day expenses they face rather than dictating how they should spend their money.

Employee claims the benefit via an expense claim (so they make the purchase, keep receipt and claim the expense back). — Ange White

Has the possibility for some employees to be "missing out" on using their benefit because they can't afford to bridge the gap between the purchase and when they are reimbursed been considered?

...ask people what it is about their work that leaves them feeling unwell (physically or mentally) and then work with them to experiment on making changes to work to address their concerns? — Peter Bateman

Our people asked for the allowance, which our leadership team support. — Stuart Oakey

I would have to assume they have asked for what they expected they could get, rather than what they really want/need to improve their wellbeing. $400 a year (which most workers likely won't actually take up due to the effort and hoops to jump through to get it) is minuscule when compare to the surplus value of their labour that is shared around to those whose only effective contribution is "having an excess of money" rather than those workers actually adding value to the company. However I would also assume that no self-preserving board / C-suite would support an initiative that would be really detrimental to the shareholders, and so the token gesture of wellbeing allowances will continue.

It might mean hiring more people to spread the workload, for example. — Peter Bateman

This could lead to some unintended consequences - while most workplaces could probably do with additional workers to improve safety (less stress, less fatigue, etc.), a good number of workers I talked to rely on the overtime pay just to get by (or at least live a little bit more comfortably). Take that overtime away and I would expect those in this situation's overall stress to actually go up and well-being to go down. Essentially we have a large amount of our workforce that basically have to run themselves into the ground just to (ironically) survive.

Further to your points re: "old school thinking" does the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle that a lot of management systems (and standards) are based around exacerbate this thinking by continuing a focus on a set frequency of the management reviews, e.g. monthly / 6-monthly / annually (which may or may not be adjusted to a unique frequency for each identified risk such as is referred in the OP), rather than considering reviews when there is a change to the risk or how the risk is being effectively managed.

I've seen this commonly materialise in "XYZ period" board / senior management risks review meetings, which (after reading through the risk register for the n'th time) end up just re-approving the status-quo without any deeper thought since; everything seems alright on the surface and there hasn't been any major incidents relating to the risk and nothing else seems to have prompted this review except for it came up for its "XYZ period" review. With more frequent reviews sometimes actually make the problem worst - after all if nothing has changed but they still have to review a risk every monthly meeting then a tick-n-flick mentality can easily develop.

However if we look to the regulations instead for guidance they actually set-out a reasonably well defined list of prompts for when to review your risks and control measures in Reg 8 (of the General Risks and Workplace Management Regulations), in summary;

1. if the control measure no longer controls the risk
2. when there is a change to the workplace or how work is to be done
3. if a new hazard/risk is identified
4. if a health monitoring report indicates that there has been an unsafe exposure to a worker
5. if exposure monitoring indicates that there has been a breach of a Workplace Exposure Standard
6. due to consultation with the workers, H&S representative or H&S committee

None of the above are set by a define time period, so (technically) if you are reviewing your risks only on the basis of a set frequency you could unintentionally run afoul of the law.

#1 & #3 are probably the "hardest" to figure out when they actually are prompting a review is required, since it requires you to basically review the risks to know whether you should review the risks.
#1 is where clarification of the Check aspect of the PDCA cycle is needed. This shouldn't be (re)checking the Plan, i.e. Check isn't periodically reviewing the risks and control measures on the risk register (as is common place in most senior management risk review meetings). It rather should be checking the plan is working, i.e. monitoring the control measures are in place and are still effectively managing their related risk. Effective monitoring programs are key to ensuring the relevant information filters up to management to inform them when making decisions regarding allocation of resources.
#3 is very reliant on the other prompts - generally hazards/risks don't materialise out of nowhere, but rather when there is a change. Having a process to identify and manage these changes is key - which relies on the other points, specifically #2 and #6 (with #4 & #5 being essentially one of the means of monitoring control measures mentioned earlier for #1).

So back to the question in the OP - my thoughts; start steering our boards, senior managers, etc. to re-frame the question from "how frequently should we review critical risks" to "how confident are we that we are managing critical risks", with leading them towards how they can establish that confidence by reviewing the information that comes from the monitoring of the control measures.
This however requires that there is effective monitoring of the control measures to confirm they are in place as expected and they are managing the risk as expected. Essentially this is changing from a typical KPI regime focused on lead and lag indicators to one related to verification and validation. As an example; if you identify a risk of process upsets due to the miscommunication of process conditions during shift change-over, and you implement a 15-minute shift-handover debrief meeting between each two shifts to manage this risk - then you might verify the control is in place by recording the % of shift-changovers that these meetings are held each week/month, and validate it is actually working by recording the number of production upsets that occur each week/month (that could have been avoided if the shift had additional information from the previous shift). Reporting to management when either of these indicate the control measure isn't working as intended - so management can review and allocate additional resources as required (either to strengthen the control measure or implement an alternative).

Thanks for the extra info David.

It's frustrating that, while it was an intentional move by Standards NZ to drop 2865 as a joint standard and leave Australia to solely take the reigns on it, they didn't take the final step and actually discontinue the 2001 joint standard version from their catalogue.

Thanks Sam, really appreciate that.

With all due respect, these are only $NZ300 each to purchase and download from here. The AS/NZS standards are slightly more expensive. — KeithH

They are only NZ$108.90 and $123.30 respectively for the AS/NZS versions from Standards NZ (AS/NZS ISO 45001:2018 & AS/NZS ISO 19011:2019/)

For a company looking to be certified to these standards the cost of the actual standard will generally be a very small percentage of the actual overall cost of getting certified.

If people want to go down the path of valuing a human life they ought to at least try to do it accurately. — Andrew

But what is accurate in this endevour (and conversation) anyway - either source you choose from your figures is essentially just a thumb-suck, a somewhat arbitrary monitory value that (a sample of) society has placed on the cost it is willing to pay to prevent 1 additional death. Which is literally comparing the cost of saving lives with the opportunity cost of using that money for any other purposes.

The real issue isn't that we a placing a specific value on a human life, rather it is that we live in a system that to function correctly has to place a specific value on a human life. As you mentioned in this system we should actually be directing more of the risk reduction to those that we value more in society (the workers that can command a higher wage because of their skills) - because those workers will create more growth and returns compared to the less valued workers (which is why they are valued more in the first place), which (as judged by the system) will create more benefits to society as a whole, e.g. rising standard of living, wealth creation, etc.
[For clarity - these are my thoughts on the system, not my thoughts on how things should be].

Maybe we should look after people simply because it is the right thing to do. — Andrew

I agree with this, but it will never really happen until we actually value all people equally irrespective of their skills or what benifits they can provide compared to others. If we continue to place a "market value" on each person, then there will always be justification to look after some people more than others. Whereas if we value that each person is contributing to society the best they can, it's hard to justify looking after one person more than another.

You could crudely use the QALY x remaining life expectancy for a more accurate figure. — Andrew

H&S Professional: I recommend we spend $XYZ to reduce the risk of fatality or life altering injuries' to our workers because it is less than the calculated "QALY x remaining life expectancy" value of our workforce.
Board: Fire everyone under the age of 60 and our new hiring policy is only hire workers that are older than 60 and with existing medical conditions...

While that is absurdly extreme (and illegal from a workplace discrimination standpoint) it is one path that the discussion of the "value" of a life can take us, one that the continual measures of success of a company being based on growth and shareholder value maximisation will inevitably take us down (although we may essentially be there already).

And at the same time, it increased an esoteric number called the VoSL – the Value of a Statistical Life – from $4.88m to a somewhat breathtaking $12.5m. That's an even bigger increase. — Steve H

I can't find any other sources stating that they have increased their VoSL to $12.5M - and from the section in the report it is referring to the 2021 VoSL which was still $4.88M (Social cost of road crashes and injuries June 2021 update.

Damage costs in Table 9 have been calculated based on the 2021 value of life years (VoLY) derived from the 2021 value of statistical life (VoSL) of $12,500,000 (NZ$)... — NZTA's Monitised benefits and costs manual V1.6

That sentence is a bit ambiguous and the $12.5M might actually be referring to the value of life years (VoLY) which (from my understanding) is more of a health based value, which makes sense as the section it is referrenced in is regarding the costs of damage due to emissions (i.e. it is factoring in both fatalities and decreases in health outcomes into the cost).

When I was a NZDDA (TDDA now) tester, it was well known in our industry that saliva testing was the least reliable and only identified recent use. — Mandy Gudgeon

Shouldn't we only want to identify recent use? I.e. detect impairment?

From some quick reading a article referring to a University of Sydney study reported that impairment from THC was generally around 4 hours after use (or 6-7 hours if high doses or complex tasks are being done), and another source stated that oral THC test can detect use up to 12 hours prior (or longer for heavy / long-time users). Other drugs such as amphetamines or MDMA were detected for around 2 days after use. Seems like the decently matched situation to use oral testing to check for the potentail for impairment, without overstepping into a workers home life. After all we should really be focusing on managing workplace health and safety risks - rather than morally judging our workers private lives.

Why not ask the rep what additional training they would like to do? — Robb

And also what they remember from the HSR1 training, if they can:

• Explain the role and functions of the Health and Safety Representative under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and its Regulations;
• Explain the role of a Health and Safety Representative as an advocate for workers;
• Identify the obligations of a PCBU and WorkSafe New Zealand towards the Health and Safety Representative;
• Describe the risk management process and the importance of communication with workers and management;
• Describe the purpose, procedures and obligations applicable to a Provisional Improvement Notice (PIN); and
• Describe the rights and process for ceasing unsafe work.

Then there is little real value in sending them on a HSR1 course again, if they can't then they likely would get value out of the course.

the HSNO regulations were definitely some of the most poorly written regulations, and the basically copy/paste into the Haz Sub regs didn't help either.

Further - it then specifically says that means you can split quantities below threshold values and not need a Compliance Certificate. — Chris Harris

Those guidelines are clear that you can consider each Hazardous Substance Location separately, however they don't actually go so far as saying you don't need a Location Compliance Certificate if you do split up you storage. It only says it may not be required:

What this means is, if you split the volume of the substances you hold into below-threshold quantities, and store them in separate locations (and at appropriate distances), you may not need a location compliance certificate — WKS-6-AGCHEM-Location-Compliance-.pdf

The regs do actually define a Hazardous Substance Location in S3 Interpretation as (paraphrasing) "an area where a quantity of the substance exceeds the relevant quantity specified in [the relevant table of threshold quantities] forclonger tgav[the applicabletimeframe]" - which does support your point that the thresholds should be consider individually per each storage area rather than the site as a whole.
What is a concern is there doesn't seem to be any specifics of what "appropriate distances" are (as mentioned in the guidelines) for the seperation of areas where substances are stored under the threshold levels. So technically you could define multiple "storage area" on your site and store 49L of petrol in eachof them, with no real separation between them and not be required to establish any Hazardous Substance Locations or get any Location compliance certificates. Although you would still likely be pulled up on a general duty to manage risks as there is other guidance that you should follow as known industry practices in this case, such as AS/NZS 3833 for The storage and handling of mixed classes of dangerous goods, in packages and intermediate bulk containers.

interested in how many workers you have - as the whole "high-risk workplace" needs to be consider with the other part of the relevant sections in the Act which is (paraphrasing) "and is carried out by less than 20 workers" - so if you have 20 workers or more, whether you are a "high-risk workplace" is a moot point anyway.

And just clarify you still require robust worker participation practices (which you have already mentioned you do have in place) as this only relates to the facts that if you have less than 20 workers and are not a high-risk workplace you can:

• S62.4 / S62.5 - refuse (with no other reason) a worker's request for HSR elections to take place (as long as you notify them as such), and
• S66.3 / S62.4 - ignore a request to establish a H&S Committee (as long as you tell them you are ignoring the request).

However irrespective of the above, regarding the H&S Committee all that is required under S66 is that the request is considered by the business and an answer be provided (which if the request is refused the answer must include why, and specifically details on how the business is are already meeting the requirements for worker participation required under S61).
And nothing in these sections removes the general duty to ensure workers are engaged and allowed to participate in the risk management decisions related to their work.

The calculator reported that because I now have 60L on site, I now need a Location Compliance Certificate. Which is against what the WorkSafe guide provided by Meihana above says. — Chris Harris

To be fair, the WorkSafe guidance says "...you may not need a location compliance certificate."
The real confusion is the fact that the regulations deal with the requirements for Hazardous Substances Locations and Location Compliance Certificates completely differently for each Class (and sometimes Sub-Class).
The WorkSafe Toolbox seems to be correct or petrol (3.1A, etc.):

• R10.26 - if you store over the threshold quantity of petrol for over the threshold time you need to establish one or more Hazardous substance Locations to store it in. So this could be 20L in three separate stores as in your example.
• R10.34 - every Hazardous Substance Location used to store petrol must have a location compliance certificate (some exemptions with limits for farms or temporary storage >2 weeks).

Therefore for petrol - once you hit the combined site limit for having to establish Hazardous Substance Location(s) then you also need to get a compliance certificate for each location(s).

Compare this with Class 5.1.1 / 5.1.2

• R12.2 / 12.8 - Similar to R10.26 quantity/time thresholds that trigger the requirement for Hazardous Substance Locations
• R12.17 - a separate set of quantity thresholds for each hazardous Substance Location that determine if each individual one requires a Location Compliance Certificate or not.

So for Class 5.1.1 / 5.1.2 oxidisers if you store over the threshold that have to have at least one Hazardous Substances Location, you can split the total to be stored into multiple locations to eliminate the need for compliance certification.

Noting however the oxidiser (and specific Class 6s / 8s) situation does seem to have confused even WorkSafe as they break WorkSafe's Toolbox, as it (incorrectly) automatically lumps "requires Hazardous Substance Location" with "requires Compliance Certificate" together.

You will be surprised by what is classed as a reward and who the recipients of it should be. — Chris Hyndman

If you are able to share it would be interesting to hear what the workers actually wanted (as rewards)?

Depends on the role/ If admin role and not in workshop/manufacturing area closed shoe fine if in low risk areas i.e. walkways and office areas. — TracyRichardson

This is a good point that (surprisingly) hadn't been mentioned till now - has the need for safety footwear been reviewed to ensure they are actually required and are actually minimising a real risk? Especially important if the requirement to wear safety footwear is due to a site-wide blanket rule.

Also if the employee medical condition is being aggravated by the employer's requirement to wear safety footwear could this then now (potentially) be considered a workplace risk/injury. Makes it even more critical to work with the employee to reach a practical solution (even if that ends up needing to be redeployment/redundancy).

Three pillars of sustainability: people, planet and profits. — Jane

Jane you nailed it. The Triple Bottom Line - People (your staff and their welfare), Planet (your impact on the environment) and Profit (meeting your investors/customers/consumers needs). — Tony Walton

Is simplifying ESG to a triple bottom line of "People, Planet, Profit" missing a big part of the point that ESG is a separate way to evaluate a prospective (or current) investment to limit the risk of investing into a business which looks good by the numbers - but is essentially achieving those numbers through unsustainable business practices? i.e making sure that the return on investment is not being made through screwing over the environment (E) or employees/suppliers/customers (S) or by lying to their shareholders (G).
Raising this point to make sure we don't loss sight of the for the reason separation between traditional economic assessment of an investment (e.g. profit/loss, share price, dividend yield, etc.) and ESG. And that with an increased focus on ESG over time it could actually allow us to transition away from GDP/growth being the main indicators of an economy's health towards an indicator of the actual social health of an economy - i.e. are we making the world a better place for all rather than is the world becoming richer, and then assuming that richer overall equates to better for all people (which is doesn't).

Do we know what the actual trend is though - is it they are accepting less (as a percentage of total applications), or are there less applications for EUs being made to begin with?
Maybe companies are looking at the cost/benefit of an EU compared with pleading guilty / going to trial - and EUs are no longer "worth the cost" given it seems like you would typically be looking at 3x the dollar value of a guilty plea sentencing (and I would guess potentially about the same legal costs for preparing and administering the EU compared with preparation for sentencing).