Oh gawd, I thought these were an artefact from a bygone era!

Tony, yes there is a charge of course, depending what level of the software you want (basic through to advanced). The information you ask for is on their website.

We use the same tool that Stuart advises - bowtiexp, through RPS https://bowtierisksolutions.com.au/ . They provide pretty good support and I think have established a small office in NZ. I like the tool and has been of considerable value to us as a central part of our critical risk programme, although we only scratch the surface of what it can be used for.

Not many people are skilled at undertaking risk assessments - it's a specialist area. Risk assessments are open to manipulation to get the result that one wants. Often like minded people do the assessment, and therefore know the outcome they are after, and of course will arrive at that. Good risk assessments need social process so you get multiple views in the room.
So in my view it doesn't really matter if and what sort of matrix they use, as long as what they use is in the organisational context.

The original question is around fire extinguishers in vehicles. Generally we have removed them but allow Managers to install in special circumstances only (e.g. if flammables are being carried). Most of the advice you will see is not to attempt to extinguish a fire in a vehicle - first response is to remove yourself from the scene. You should never attempt to extinguish a fire inside an EV.

We have GPS monitoring for vehicles including thresholds for speeding and fatigue. It also includes thresholds for individual performance and the consequences for that. Happy to share if you want to contact me separately Michael.

WSP NZ or GHD NZ can do this, they have representation in SI

We ran a successful Safe to Start programme after the lockdown last year. No-one could start work until they had been through the programme, including this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCr3I5ErXfw . We also ran a similar Stop for Safety campaign at the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2VT787mDw
Incidentally a reduction in lost time injuries and ACC costs, while certainly positive, isn't a measure of h&s performance or risk, hence the silly near misses that could lead to much more serious incidents.

I think you are probably looking more at a peer support network. Try this from Canada https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/sites/default/files/peer_support_guidelines.pdf.pdf
.

Actually Peter we have started this process through our CR verification programme, just in the process of designing governance reporting at the moment once we begin the verifications. Maybe we can chat later about it?

Hi Jan, personally I think Safeguard should ban conversations that promote the use of LTIs, TRIFR etc :-)
Seriously though, I don't think your approach is the right thing to do. Rather than focusing on the little and often injuries you should focus on the potentially major but infrequent events. Little and often is mostly within an organization's risk tolerance level, while major and infrequent isn't. The approach you suggest held us back for years until we finally convinced the higher-ups otherwise. Yes we did reduce many of our lesser injuries which is of course a good thing - you don't ignore these - but it did noting for our serious incidents which seriously hurt or were fatal.
A focus on critical risks, as Alex says, is essential.

Very little. The organisation I work for covers 30% of NZ land area and we get lots of minor injuries such as twisted ankles, abrasions, small cuts, knocks and bruises etc etc. They are 80% of our incidents - and we report quite well. We just can't spend all that time investigating these. A broken bone would almost certainly always get investigated, but possibly at the learning team level, not a full ICAM investigation unless the incident had potential for something greater. .

While our view is that getting hurt working for us is not acceptable, reality is that many can't be avoided and for most there is little to learn from. We have a very good reporting system based around risk classifications, part of body, age, gender, work task, actual safety outcome and risk potential etc etc so we can generate very good and useful reports. For those low consequence incidents we do report back to those districts with recommendations on injury reduction. Despite our increasing staff numbers we have reduced these injuries reasonably significantly, but our focus is on the big stuff, and this has really hurt us in the past.

While you need to have a system to measure the competence etc.of your contractors, I don't think these large formal and expensive prequalification systems have saved anybody's lives.

Get rid of them quickly. One of the worst things you could have to measure safety performance.

We triage our incidents through the incident system we have (there are a set of system rules in behind that determine the level of investigation through the safety outcome, potential outcome and the risk classification of the incident.) This means that many (over 50%) require no investigation, with most of the remainder being learning team processes and a smaller amount of formal ICAM investigations.

The introduction of the learning teams process has been highly successful with us because it involves the teams that had the incidents to be involved. The teams enjoy this and the opportunity for learning is far greater.

Nothing wrong with the AEP - you can choose options and levels within it. Make sure you go in for the right reason - looking after your staff. It's the financial gains that organisations tend to use to get it across the senior leadership line though. The audit side of the AEP is terrible, ACC have been reviewing this but have been very slow - in fact we just don't hear anything anymore.

WorkSafe NZ actually have quite a pragmatic approach, https://worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/electricity/testing-and-tagging-electrical-appliances/ . Test and tag is not mandatory. We have changed our policy so that office stuff is just subject to a visual check of cords, plugs etc. which anyone can do, while workshop and field equipment is subject to test and tagging according to the AS/NZS Standard.

We have moved away from TRIFR. It's a very flawed metric and takes the focus away from what is important, critical risks based on risk potential of incidents.

You won't find anything that says toolbox talks are a legal requirement, because they're not. This means of course they are not a legal requirement, just one of those reasonably practicable steps an employer should consider.
Our workers find them of great benefit. We do not require each person to sign off, but the person leading the talk is required to record those attending into the booklet.

People want to know what's in it for them. Once they see that, e.g. a near miss is a free lesson and a positive not a negative or punative thing, behaviours will change. We had a 300% increase over a couple of years, it's not perfect but we're pretty happy generally with our near miss reporting.