It depends on how prescriptive the SOP is.
If you have to undertake steps in prescribed order then not following the order is a breach of the SOP (and probably unsafe). However if the order does not matter and we let workers operate safely within the SOP framework it is a different story.

I have seen many SOPs that have no safety information, only how to undertake the task!

We have submitted
At 160+ pages I doubt many workers or SMEs would actually read this.

Yes, but kajonk operators still stick their hand (or another appendage) in kajonk machines.

Robb, you are so right that this transcends SOPs, JSAs, SWMS, (insert acronym of your choice here), etc. which only deal with the how. The 'why' must be personal and authentic to the worker which is why it is magnitudes harder to establish than procedural safety (which still relies on the worker following instructions).

In my opinion we should ignore all the peripheral hazards and minimal risks, and focus on what kills or maims us, and ensure those controls are solid as as far up the hierarchical chain as possible.

I agree with Sheri;
Getting the answers correct on a multi-choice test given by their trainer, during a training session is not competent, it is trained (how many times and different ways should we test understanding?).

We should not expect truly competent people to follow a process or procedure just because 'they will be in trouble with H&S' if they don't. If we can educate them as to the 'why' when they do take process or procedure shortcuts they understand the limitations and risks of those shortcuts.

I'm lucky that my industry takes competency vs training very seriously, but we still have trainers and assessors out there who don't get it. We have deliberately made procedures less prescriptive and more about freedom to think and act within a critical risk control framework.

There are some standards that are cited by Regulations, so they do have legislative status.
However most standards are voluntarily used to demonstrate compliance or good practice (such as ISO 45001:2018).
Some industries are highly-regulated with external auditors loving standards to audit against.
I have an issue with Standards NZ as they don't keep up: for example they still list AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 as current.

Hi Kimberley
we use the Provention First Move programme.
Feedback from our staff has been overwhelmingly positive, and we have seen a 93% reduction in injuries over the last five years.
We liked how the programme was tailored to what our tasks were (and the underlying context), rather than a generic course.

regards
Stephen.