That one could be a bit trickier - it could just be a computer programme access licence fee with a fee based on $100 per new computer user.

I looked at this some time ago and decided the only benefit is keeping someone employed.

The value in the exercise was far outstripped by the cost associated with setting it up and updating. Just a few thoughts

- PPE goes with a hazardous task, not a role
- broadly speaking you should have no expiry dates. PPE needs to be fit for purpose. Which is usually decided by use not some dates (we replace safety boots each year - which is a poor financial decision as many boots still remain fit for purpose. We do it simply as a "feel good" exercise), other things like respirators, overalls, glasses, hearing protection all get replaced as required - when they are used / damaged to the point they are no longer fit for purpose.
- PPE should be inspected at the end of each shift by the last user- thus a reasonable time is given to allow for replacement.
- Employees have health and safety duties (as do managers). Its about time something basic like checking PPE is put on their shoulders.

I don't use a matrix. I just have a risk, within a specific work area (because the same risk may require a different solution in a different work area) and PPE is applied to that risk in that area. I am looking for a bit more precision than that found on a matrix. And a matrix only adds another bit of paper to a process.

Lets remember the Wanganui River is a legal "person" and therefore an individual with rights. If a river can be a person, then a Sub/Contractor is a person (already well established in law) and therefor an individual

(19 (b) also makes clear distinction that a Sub/Contractor is a separate person - separate from an employee or an employee of a sub/contractor

You may have a point there Stuart. But I think you need to flesh out your argument a bit more.

First go to S27 (1) which says "A PCBU must not impose a levy or charge on a worker (or permit a levy or charge to be imposed on a worker) for anything done, or provided, in relation to health and safety."

Then go to the "interpretation section 16 and go to "worker" which then leads us to S 19.

S 19 says a worker is "an individual who carries out work in any capacity for a PCBU, including work as....
(B) a contractor or subcontractor; or
(c) an employee of a contractor or subcontractor;....."

So the sub-contractor is specifically separated into two clear individuals.

No charge should apply.

(Test to see if EDITing works. Yes it does!

I don't see why not. We already have Site Safe charging an arm and a leg for any Tom, Dick or Harry to enter a construction site.

Add to that those Pre-Qual companies out to rort us.

Seems like just another opportunity to clip the ticket in the name of "safety"

I agree Monty.
Its a pretty sad day that we are relying on red/green gloves for our safety amongst moving vehicles.

I've just done the on-line assessment. (Prompted by some guy doing a telephone survey)

I was expecting a perfect result - but it doesn't do a report for one response.

It didn't take long. Banged it out in a few minutes - though the setting up takes a bit longer.

Judging from the questions it looks like I'l get a report at quite a superficial level. Eg "My organisation is prepared for emergencies and has told me what to do when one happens." Well how-about asking if the plan has actually been tested and I feel safe when an emergency does arise?

I don't think I would bother with the on-line version. Too much room for disgruntled / troublesome / uninterested employees to fudge the Results. Eg "I can get involved and have my say about health and safety" - a person who is interested but doesn't want to get actively involved would likely return a negative result. (Some people, despite opportunities to speak, don't - no matter how much encouragement)

Would be much better for an outside assessor to do it - and then drill into the evidence behind the response.

If I was going to bring in an outside assessor I'd prefer a WSMP type assessment based on observable actions rather than just a paper trail. It would have more substance.

Agree it ought not be considered as a "compliance " type tool. Its far from that.

If you want a half decent overview then the tool is fine - but as a safety practitioner we ought to be involved sufficiently in our business to know the answers.

Suggest you also contact the Recruitment and Consulting Services Association (RCSA) - the body that looks after professional agencies in that industry.

I can't make it to the Focus Group but feel free to PM me a set of questions and I'll respond

Doxing is a worse scourge. Our only worry should be the content/quality of posts, not the posters (though some here do like to play the messenger, rather than the message)

And to stay on topic it might be worth referencing Australia since they are much more up to date on safety than we are - that's why we copied their Act. From their Model code of Practice First Aid they say

"Medication, including analgesics such as paracetamol and aspirin, should not be included in first aid kits because of their potential to cause adverse health effects in some people including asthmatics, pregnant women and people with medical conditions. The supply of these medications may also be controlled by drugs and poisons laws. Workers requiring prescribed and over-the-counter medications should carry their own medication for their personal use as necessary."

Some occupations / tasks have stipulated Code or Regulation type expiry dates. As we know Forklifts = 3 years. For us, we reckon, in our risk environment, our people could do with a refresher, to bring matters back to front of mind, every 2 years. Hasno Regs have 5 years for Certified Handlers. 5 years is fine for us.

In the absence of Code/Regulation it is for you to consider your risk and set your own time limits to ensure your people are trained and safe.

It gets a bit complicated when you have training providers (Such as First Aid) put a two year limit on their training, but if you look at literature, such as the Australian Code they reckon 3 yeas is fine. So in this instance you adhere to the training provider standards

Like most things its situation dependent and you need to make your own call - worksafe won't ping you if you can show you are managing a risk through training. The time limit will, broadly, become irrelevant because if they come to investigate a serious accident there will be more apparent factors/fault that led to the issue.

Cool. Thanks for that - a feature I'll make a lot of use of!

roflmao. Thanks Adam. Needed the laugh.

Lets face it Jonathan. There are three types of risk assessments.

Theres your Theoretical / Imaginative Assessment.
To do this you need a safety qualification and belong to a safety club, be in a safety job and draw a safety wage. You need to do a review of the literature and an analysis of all relevant research, codes, regulations, books and any other current or historical information; form a safety group and review options after first multiplying, adding and subtracting values on variables and then come to a view which is that your coldest prison in the middle of winter will be at risk of heat related illness therefore we need to provide slushy machines in summer.

Then theres your Realist Assessment. Here you take your hottest prison in the hottest ever summer with the largest ever prison muster and end up with no serious heat related incidents

And then theres your Two Sense Assessment which is if it looks like a turd and smells like a turd it is most probably a turd. Proof of concept has shown that if it looks like a pudding and smells like a pudding then pudding is the risk..

I shant be bothering with a further OIA as the answers are in the original answer. And by your own admission (teachers coffee machines) we already know tax payers are being ripped off so not much point confirming what already is known.

Sorry Mike - got no names for you. But we have been through this. First was creating a mind set of no vehicle moments on the floor. Once we got over that hurdle in was then just a matter of applying thought to re-engineering processes to achieve that. In the end it wasn't that hard. Vehicle movements now reduced something like 95% (and still not a high viz to be seen anywhere - hurray!)

Hey Admin. Email to you bounced back undelivered. Only option on three dots is "share" icon.

Alan. I totally agree with you. Employees should put their big boy and girl pants on. If they know they get headaches they should bring their own medication. If its a rarity they should know to have something in their car, purse or desk.

Do you want to supply every little thing for employees. Hanky dispensers (we provide tissues) tampon dispensers (we dont), incontinence pads (we don't - but there is a need) or all manner of personal health related stuff? Its a slippery slope.

Most importantly, paracetemol is a terrible, terrible drug."After the death of 22-year-old Amber Nicol, who had taken paracetamol for a toothache, Dr Nigel Miller told the Coroner: “Paracetamol is highly toxic in only modest doses. It’s readily available as a medication for general sale [which] may give an unwarranted reassurance of its safety, whereas it can cause severe illness and death at doses only modestly above the recommended maximum.” Do you really want to be monitoring prior intakes and subsequent hand outs. Good luck with that. I cannot stress enough the low dose levels which are easily exceeded which can lead to irreparable damage and death.

And look at my position. How can I fire people for selling drugs and alcohol on the premises if I am busy handing out drugs - that's hypocrisy of some great magnitude.

I fully appreciate the discomfort corrections officers must feel. Its why I have so much respect for this guy: https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/110824214/panting-puffing-and-pushing-through-1300-runners-take-to-the-port-hills-for-memorial-run


And yes - its seems not to be so much of an issue with police. They are happy with 32 degree heart and a drink of water. Only one heat related complaint from 600 staff.

Seems the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little has a threshold he is happy to move well past past. 50 vest related injuries and over $27,000 in accident costs is "absolutely nothing' according to Andrew Little. Http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/354847/Stab-proof-vests-blamed-for-police-injuries

Just as well since Corrections only had "significant discomfort"

If you are looking for an electrolyte replacement you really can't go past nature. Bananas - $0.50 cents a pop. (Check out any running marathon event - you'll see them doled out at the end. And for good reason)

If you want a cold slushy, defrost a 10 pack of popsicles for $5.75 a box.

Versus a slushy machine at an annual running cost of $2,900 per machine (ex ingredients)

I totally understand and appreciate "The vests that the Corrections Officers wear prevents their bodies to recoup from heat as this traps the heat."

Despite that, the evidence provided by Corrections in the OIA (which presumably relates to all their different work areas, and potential "stress") is that the worst that happened was "significant discomfort".

(Manufacturing is like the energizer bunny - it just keeps on going. Until such point a safety issue arises - there were none. There is no wandering outside where it is hotter or taking unscheduled smoko breaks. Shipping waits for no one)

As an aside I wonder how many Slushy Machines NZ Police have?