I sure the act includes in the definition of reasonably practicable includes what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about the hazard or risk; and the ways of eliminating or minimising the risk.
Wouldn't only relying on NZ advice potentially lead you into a situation where you do not know what you ought to reasonably know?

Also remember that reasonably practicable is based on the unique circumstances of each individual business - it is not a universal truth. The way I read @Andrew's post is an assessment of the real risk to his business and his employees (and other that are affected by their work), and then following the HoC to implement reasonably practicable controls. Is that not the basis of the Health and Safety at Work Act right there?

A reasonable worked example for your company @Andrew
The only thing I would add is the continuous review of if the risk has changed and the controls mentioned are in place and working as intended... but in saying that, that is basically H&S Management 101 anyway so I would assume you didn't mention it because it is Business-As-Usual rather than actually forgotten about!

I think we're pretty much on the same page in theory but just not in the semantics!

I agree with the point in your last post - just where you are saying "not reasonably foreseeable" I am saying " very very low risk "... but we are ending in the same place really.

(Correct me if I am wrong, but) I think you might be misunderstanding the "Community Transmission" metric - my understanding is that if they were able to link a case to another (even if those people didn't even know each other) it was classed as "Contact with known case".

Can you also explain how you jump from "these are the cases in my rgion" to "so no one in my region will have COVID-19"? iI just don't see the logic in that part.

And also are you confusing "reasonably foreseeable" with "low probability" - it is reasonably foreseeable that at this time someone who is carrying SARS-CoV-2 may visit your workplace... the likelihood of that happening may be very low though. For which you are right in saying that the management of the risk should be proportional to the risk, that doesn't mean do nothing as there are some very simple, effective and low cost way to manage a low risk, but it also does mean that you wouldn't (shouldn't) be expected to make all your employees wear full hazmat PPE (or even close to it)...

Thanks Rachael - happy Easter too. Fair enough on pulling up on the original intention of the thread.

I expect the more experienced people have been talking these plans through with MPI/WorkSafe to clarify the unsaid expectations - as I have found in the past that talking a proposed plan over with WorkSafe quickly does provide clarification.

One thing I will say is for those thinking of implementing (or have implemented) temperature monitoring checkpoints on sites, remember why you are doing it - to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 spreading through your workplace/workforce. Consider providing unlimited sick-leave for any employee that suspects they have been exposed to / infected by the virus to allow them to get tested and quarantine until the results come back. And for contractors ways of work that allows for them to work with no close contact with your staff (e.g. provide separate break/hygiene facilities) or postpone work if required. Main thing is consider if removing the pressure to turn up to work (with a slight risk of infecting others) might be more effective than trying to police workers that are likely also worried about how they are going to get through this even if they don't have to take time off work themselves.

thanks for the response Rachael - am I reading it right that there are standard measures required by MPI for manufacturing sites? Interested to read up a bit more if it is so, do you have any specific guidelines with the details? All I can find in so generic advice on the MPI website.

I do realise and understand that sometimes it is easier to just get on and do whatever they dictate to keep the wheels running - but sometimes the bureaucracy can unintentionally cause inefficiency for no real benefit in the name of "just in case", which does need to be challenged (and sometimes the bureaucrats also need to be learn to listen to what the actual problems are better).

Plus it's not our idea, it's a directive from on high. — Rachael

Should there be a challenge to the thoughts of those up high as to the validity of their request - just because you can doesn't mean you should. What have those that have made the decision based the decision on? As Jo pointed out there is plenty of chance for infected but currently non-symptomatic (or worse asymptomatic) people getting through the check-point... and then potential thinking everything is fine and putting less effort into good hygiene and other measures as if "they" really were a risk to other surely they wouldn't of been let in the door with all that rigmarole!

Also the landing card is a little surprising since one of the main controls being pushed is to limit touch point interactions where possible, but this is adding multiple places where a potentially infected person is made to handle an object that then is handled by another to check it, the potential more when they are archived (as I expect this is also in place to potentially build a "paper trial" to prove that if there was an outbreak the "patient-0" didn't let the company know so how could the company have stopped it).
Could the landing card questions could be covered without the card if it is critical that they are asked/recorded?

(I don't mean this to come across as damning taking action - I just think we need to always challenge the actions we are taking and if they are creating other, potentially worse, risks)

Not yet had to specifically address an evacuation while under COVID-19 "rules" but for planning for it my first port-of-call would be reviewing how we are managing the other close(r) interactions aspects of the work routines, from the regular meetings to line operator interactions, to the less common permit-to-work issueing and even the "non-work-related" smoko/lunch room interactions. Then an assessment of the evacuation point and if spreading this out is achievable.
As for close interactions as everyone steams out of the fire exits - you'd hope that this would be reasonably short duration of close contact (otherwise you should probably be addressing if your evacuation routes are up to scratch in the first place) and so lower risk. Finally maybe throw a few bottles of hand sanitiser in the evacuation kit with your vests/hats/armbands/etc. for all those that dutifully held the handrails down the stair.

In brief, it shouldn't actually be to much extra work (unless it is actually unearthing non-COVID-19 issues that should have already been addressed).

This is one of the aspects that I hope that our new norms after all this are that the standard/typical format of H&S committee meetings change in the future. The comments around meetings for meetings sake and lack of (real) agendas are what bugs me about the majority of H&S committee meetings I have seen.
During the current times employees consultation is even more critical - but this is not sitting in a room together every month for 60-90 minutes going over the incidents we had last month and all the outstanding actions that still haven't been done - what is needed is to really listen to what our employees need (and a way for them to voice this efficiently) and then providing the resources to meet those needs.
I have seen this effectively happening relating to COVID-19 risks, and I hope this will continue and expand in the future for all risks to workers and work (including non-safety risks).

That is an excellent mantra and one I live with constantly. Its not just for Auditors

The trick is not to use it as a job creation exercise - its something you use sparingly and only for those "risky" exercises where a paper trail ends up invaluable. — Andrew

To me technically it is only invaluable if you need to defend yourself, it is the most effective way to communicate (either due to communicating over distance, time or to allow reflection and comment) or if it can be used to build up ontop of to create a safer system of work (i.e. standing on the shoulders of giants)... unfortunately it is usually just the first point to create a paper trail that most seem to focus solely on.

I also find it interesting that a lot of the comments of what to tell workers revolve around "we need it to get work" instead of it being in place to help you do your jobs as easily and efficiently as possible... I suppose companies who focus on improving business practices (safety or otherwise) rather than compliance tend to have less employees asking "why should we bother with this accreditation which we don't see adding value to our actual work?"

I guess it depends on if the building wasn't built to code, or if the code has since changed. — Aaron Marshall

The evidence would be if a CoC was issued then the building must be considered to have been code compliant when the certificate was issued.
Unless it was proved that the CoC was obtained fraudulently.

The question of what KPIs should my employee have is similar to asking what lead / lag indicators (KPIs) should my company use. Using a generic set of KPIs developed by others runs the risk of measuring things which don't actually provide any actionable feedback - if you see your LTIFR / TRIFR go up all you know is your company (possibly) needs to "be more safer".

What is detailed in the Position Description for your H&S Coordinator? What are their expectations or responsibilities, and what skills do they need to have (or develop)? Once you identify these you can set down KPIs related to their responsibilities / expectations / required skills, with consideration that the KPI should also be able to provide feedback on what needs to be changed/adjusted return to the desired outcomes if there is current a deviation from them.

So I would first ask - why are we hiring a H&S Coordinator, and what is the work we need the to do?
Also to consider is what the H&S Coordinator can reasonable contribute to the success of the overall KPIs of the company - so if the company has a KPI to "Improved levels of worker participation and engagement with H&S", while it would be unfair to pin this all on the H&S Coordinator you could consider that a reasonable KPI for them could be "feedback on the how it was to deal with the H&S Coordinator from a sample of the workforce is normally Positive/constructive".

I am not convinced either that work on single-story buildings can always be safely done without scaff-holding or similar work platform. I wonder whether in making these statements, Simon has made any consideration for injury stats for falls from just a few metres or the basic need for risk assessment. — Michelle Dykstra

Maybe we just need to take him up to a 1st story balcony and push him off when he least expects it... and then see what his comments are after he recovers :wink:

My understanding is that you are not legally required to bring up a building to code when a new revision of the code is released - so they could not be prosecuted under HSWA for purely not being compliant with the current building act/code. But if someone was to be hurt (or exposed to a risk of being hurt) they courts would have to consider the current building code as evidence of the current knowledge of how to minimise the hazard - however they would also need to consider that even if the barrier was to current code would it have made a difference (e.g. it would not make any difference if a contractor was on a ladder next to the barrier), and/or if the reduction in risk outweighs the cost implemented it (e.g. if it was 100mm short of the current standard but to raise it would basically require the entire handrails to be replace it could be argued as unreasonable).

Sounds to me like the good old Hold Harmless clause. — Andrew

I was thinking that at first, but the OP is not "if you screw up on my job and get fined, don't come begging to me", but more "if you screw up and I get fined, I'm going to take it out of your pay"

My opinion - at best it would come under S28 "No contracting out" and that part of the contract would be invalid, at worst it could fall under S29 "Insurance against fines unlawful" and the company that is trying to get you to sign (and your own company) could be prosecuted and fined up to $250k...

Realistically they should not need a clause like this in their contract - all they need to do is make sure they employ suitably qualified and competent contractors, agree the scope and methodology (utilising the knowledge of both the subcontractor and themselves as best fits) and monitor that the work is being done as per that scope... simple :wink:

Nailed in in three sentences. Documentation is only useful when:
Purposeful,
Designed for the user (not the audit), and
Focussed on work as done, not imagined. — Rachael

And that is also what has lead us to where we are now - H&S policies which:

• Have a purpose, which is passing the audit,
• Are designed for the user, who is the auditor,
• Are focused on work as done, which is the checklist of requirements the auditor is looking for.

:wink:

Is the actual statement being made getting confused, possibly in part by Simon Bridge's explanation including such comments as scaffolding for low-rise residential housing not working to reduce risk?

This "common sense test" is not about removing H&S regulations and leaving it up to individuals to decide what's good enough based on an individuals common sense - it is to focus those writing our laws to make sure that regulation is the right level for the rule in question to sit in the legislative framework. To me terming this as a common sense test is not the best description of the actual intent, but I understand that this is the best way to describe it to the general public who are not up to speed on the particulars of how our H&S laws work.

My opinion is this is about ensuring that the government is utilising the full range of legislative instruments to its advantage to effectively influence how businesses in NZ operate - this goes from rigid regulations which are hard to keep current but very effective at holding businesses/people to account during prosecution, through Safe Work Instruments and into Approved Codes of Practices and Guidelines which are (/should be) better at keeping current but are a less concrete standard to hold someone accountable to.

Well that is what it should be about (and the rest of the 2-for-1 rhetoric) - but it seems like another political message that has been ballsed up by personal agenda being put over political needs.

Politically... come election time I feel that I will again be wanting to have the option of voting for "no confidence" in any of these parties...

Is part of the problem that even the government/regulator thinks it is simply a copy/paste task to tick the box? MBIE through the Business.co.nz website even has a "Policy Builder" that with a few clicks of a mouse can "write" you a policy on anything from Health and Wellbeing to Leave and Holidays...

And the worse part is the Principal is left exposed, the Board is left exposed and all they can do is try and protect themselves by pushing back on the MoE that isn't even listerning, not to make the situation better but just to have it documented they were trying to do something in case it hits the fan and they have to start defending themselves against a prosecution.
And in the worse circumstances the child themselves will not be getting the support they actually need as all they see is they are being forced to go to a school that doesn't seem to want them there...