Theres always a worker to blame. Just depends how far up the organisation you are prepared to aim

Well, I guess Im not know for my sensitivity. But I am struggling to think of any Bill that was named after the originator. Anti-Smacking Bill (oops I mean amendment to S59 of the Crimes Act) wasnt known as the Bradford Bill. Even Womens Refuge recognise the Bash "There are many names for violence, including: ‘the bash’; intimate partner violence, domestic violence; family violence; ‘a domestic’; partner abuse; child abuse; elder abuse; rape; incest; and date rape.

But back to my original point. Dodged a bullet there - but the dyke is getting more and more holes. There's now the bereavement leave for miscarriage bill (or the Ginny Anderson Bill) where these private issues are potentially adding to the employer burden - and one for the OSH & Wellness people to deal with.

We dont need to be legislating for decency do we?

Interesting comment in the media today. To paraphrase ""so far as reasonably practicable" cannot have intended employers and PCBU's to identify employer or PCBU features which can only become a hazard in circumstances of operator incompetence, carelessness or non compliance...…". Seems to be opening the door to allow for human error causing the hazard to me.

I've had a look at the Safeguard Update article (but not the court decision) and I'm not sure how signing in would have either prevented the death or helped in an emergency response. (Part of the process was the orchardist didn't know so as to not influence the sampling)

We don't do exit (or pre).

We do annual checks for affected employees. And we know what exposures during a year are. We have never been questioned about an ex - employees health. If we were, we would take last annual check results and add exposure to get a sense of likely harm. Which would be virtually nil any way since the testng is showing exposures not causing any problems.

Is that the quadbike one where it was first thought the worker was taking a shortcut on sloping terain?

Why is our Prime Minister and Willie Jackson being exposed to forklift drivers with inadequate eye sight?

I'd have thought you would see a parliamentary posse from a mile away.

And wheres the Worksafe Policy Advisors - my advice would be "don't go into an active worksite"

Just doing a serious near hit investigation at the moment. Its not looking good. Pretty much all causes are pointing to a human making an error.

Hmm. 1 out of six so far reckons new Act is good. Thats no good

I'll say "no".

And maybe I'm supported by the statistics
June 2013: 28,126 ACC entitlements claims for work injuries costing $525m
June 2014: 28,702 injuries costing $550m
June 2015: 33,406 injuries costing $636m
June 2016: 34,872 claims costing $661m
June 2017: 37,183 claims costing $690m

Average cost of claims trending up.

I'd have thought Pike River would have given everyone a good kick in the goolies to encourage improvements. Seems that has no effect. What about the 2010 "Zero Harm" campaign. Nope looks like that didn't work either. Can't see why we'd expect a law change to make things better

Why use 11 syllables when 2 work just as well.

At last count there were 1,653 external personal factors that can affect an individuals ability to work safely. We already have legislation to cover them all for those employers who need legislation to do the right thing.

There is nothing in this legislation that enables a safer work environment - other than a risk is temporarily eliminated from the work place

Time for us to get real. Humans make mistakes. They make errors. They contribute to accidents. Individuals are often the authors of their own misfortune (or that of others).

Are they the sole cause of an incident - often not. But more often than not its a contributing factor.

The degree or extent of contribution will help determine any consequence that human should shoulder post event

No safety spotters here (shouldn't it be Risk Spotter?).

We have had suppliers quote that has included labour for a Spotter. This put the price of work up with no improvement in work outcome. Suppliers couldn't meaningfully articulate what value the spotter provided. So these suppliers weren't used.

If there are risks at ground level that an extra pair of eyes might see that the operator can't then there might be an argument for a spotter. Generally an exclusion area to keep people out of drop zone is enough.

I'd have thought that as a discipline it lies with Operational Managers.