Thanks to everyone who has replied - I will send out some initial information shortly.

HASANZ is just a register of accredited providers - there are no discussions or events apart from the conference (at least as far as I'm aware). Comparing to other organisations - see my reply to Jeff Mackrell

Fair point, but I would expect this to be pretty informal - no joining fees, no membership tiers, no getting involved just to get CPD points. Just a chance for people thinking in the same space to share ideas and experiences. Just like some of the other forums that are happening around the country on process safety, safety in design etc. I've also had several people from Australia interested in being involved somehow as well.

Thanks
I have had some direct messaging from people, so it’s not entirely tumbleweeds.

The LinkedIn post is simply a call for interest as well. The idea of a community of practice is a bit more involved than a simple forum, with options for workshops, meetings, definition of good practice etc, based on sharing of practical implementation of new ideas. It’s about turning good thinking into real practice and demonstrable results.

I think there is a real appetite for change, but people are not necessarily sure how to go about it. I’m trying to avoid attaching labels to it, but whether people are thinking about safety II, safety differently, HOP, resilience engineering, systems and complexity theory or just having bright ideas that are worth sharing. The sort of disruption topics that the Safeguard conference theme is about in May.

The next step is to engage with interested parties and work out what they would like to see – very user led – and then try to make that happen.

I had exactly the same experience (and response) at an open home. The only 'control' on the JHA was to take care on the stairs. I suggested to the agent she go back to the office and challenge the requirement

Taxonomy refers to a classification system. In safety there are several different ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_taxonomy) Some of these are helpful, others less so. In terms of industrial injuries, the most common would simply be classification as first aid, medical treatment etc, but there are other industry specific ones (e.g. https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Injury_Level_Taxonomy) and certain legislative-based reporting requirements (http://www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/reportable-incidents.htm).
As to the question - yes they have proved popular. Whether they have proved effective or not is a different, and more interesting, question. In theory, they should help us analyse data and improve. In practice - maybe not.

As a simple guide, look at the worst case reasonably foreseeable outcome for consequence assessment. Catastrophising every event defeats the purpose of risk management as everything becomes high potential, low likelihood.
If you don't clearly define what is high potential, then you will not be properly prioritizing where to spend your limited resources.

It does depend on your risk context. I tend to use "potential for fatality" as a rough guide, but it may be that "potential for serious injury or fatality" works more effectively.
It depends on what you are using the category for - be careful not to waste a lot of time arguing over category, rather than driving improvements. We report on all of our incidents by potential, rather than actual, so that the focus is on the degree of loss of control, rather than the outcome, which can vary according to good (or bad) luck. But we then add extra detail in the report for those deemed as 'high potential'

Even larger organisations balk at the cost of standards.
It would be nice for them to be free but cost of development does have to be recouped somehow, though. Even via MBIE it still comes back in terms of taxation - some of the very expensive ones are pretty specialist and a user pays model probably appears appropriate.
Perhaps there is a halfway house where generally applicable standards are free, including any that are referenced directly in legislation, and more specialist ones come with a fee?

Apparently a Queensland farmer slipped on the onions at a Bunnings store (according to a news report I just heard) so it is in response to an event - which does raise a more general question. How many of us are prepared to say (and defend), "Yes an accident happened. No, we're not going to do anything in response to it, because it's not really necessary."
There are systems out there that insist on an action being raised before an event can be closed. Does this drive unintended consequences?

May I refer you to your earlier post about H&S strangling business :)
This is it. Not real consideration of real risks.

@Sarah Bond Add to that list - because other people do it. It's the only reason I have found when I've asked "why" to your 1, 2 and 3. Some thoughts here

Difficult, because I can't honestly say that he's wrong. But I think it's more a case of misinformed people misinterpreting legal requirements and dodgy salespeople peddling fear of prosecution than it is H&Sper se doing the strangling.
Well thought out, well implemented, pragmatic H&S is genuinely beneficial to businesses.
Although, it is fair to say that a knee jerk response to a brand new issue prompting calls for regulation rather than a smart solution might be a part of the problem. Pot, kettle?
I don't think a pithy response is going to elicit much more than a, "yeah, right!" We just need to do it sensibly and do it well and the tide will turn - although a few links to the UKHSE myth busting page wouldn't go amiss.

@Adam Parkinson I agree. I have often said that there is no way the internal combustion engine would make it through the HAZOP stage now. "So you want to take a volatile fuel, deliberately explode it thousands of times, stick it in a moving vehicle at high speed, fill it with your family and then put thousands of them within touching distance of each other, all travelling in different directions at the same time. Denied!"

Business shows prosecutor signed form. Prosecutor asks worker, "Did you pay attention, was the tool box talk any good, or did you just sign because that's what you've been told to do and you were there even though you weren't listening?" Greg Smith cites some case law (Australian) here in making the point that the paperwork is irrelevant. Better to focus on making sure people understand than getting them to sign.

Interesting case, for sure. To me, this shows the improvement of the overlapping duties obligations when compared to the old Principal/Contractor/Controller of Place of Work approach. PCBUs should determine between them where boundaries of influence lie and operate accordingly. The approach used seems to make practical sense, but it would be interesting to find out if this was actually by mutual agreement and understanding, or simply a consequence of the structure imposed to maintain independence. So I don't agree it's 'contracting out' but do wonder whether it was properly considered and, if not, there may be a case to answer for all parties. In any event, from a practical perspective, I don't believe putting signs up to warn of steep slopes would have made the slightest difference.

The WorkSafe Act actually provides for a much broader role in facilitating improvements in safety performance than the straightforward, old-fashioned regulatory approach. There is a lot of good work happening in WorkSafe to broaden out in this way, of which this is just one part. It will be harder but, hopefully, more beneficial.

I've seen similar lights in action in a very busy factory that was old and badly laid out - they were quite effective and were red in that case.
If both are available, I would suggest you get the supplier to let you test both types to see which are most visible in your workplace under a range of conditions - it may be affected by the ambient light, floor colour etc. Or maybe even a combination?

I would urge people to take up Karl's offer of a discussion over coffee (sorry Karl if you get inundated). There are few people in NZ who genuinely understand human factors as anything much beyond 'don't forget people aren't perfect'. It is also worth reading someone like Steven Shorrock who provides some insightful knowledge in an accessible way https://humanisticsystems.com/author/stevenshorrock/ . There are lots of specialists who don't like the term 'human error' at all. At best, it is a useful marker that your investigation has further to go. At worst, just another tool in the blame the worker tool kit so beloved of many businesses.

Peter - Answered 'not sure' as it was the closest option for me.
Fundamentally, the law hasn't changed what we do in practice. There are some extra requirements (e.g. officer due diligence, WEPR), there are higher fines. But the primary duty of care is still based on a target based approach as it always was. It's now better defined in law (mostly) but, as Paul notes in his comment, I don't believe it affects what most people do day to day.