Training for 4WD off road use is essential, particularly now more of these are automatic. At DOC we have just completed a 4Wd familiarization programme as the characteristics of the automatics which are now being supplied to us are quite different than the manuals, and if people are unaware of this then that becomes a significant safety issue.
Interestingly at DOC we have very few off-road 4WD incidents and feel we manage this well. However on-road incidents are high and a critical risk for us. We have developed a GPS tracking programme, on-road online module training and better targeted practical training.
Early days yet but we are starting to notice a decrease in our driving risk.

It's very good as you can use it as your hazardous substances inventory, as we do. This then meets the legislative requirement for an inventory. It's only as good as what you put in, you need to understand the naming conventions etc of your substance. It's not a risk register.

We have used ICAM successfully for several years. However potentially it may have limitations when considering unrelated systems and any changes made to those systems which unknowingly at the time can create unsafe conditions elsewhere in a system. I have been researching the investigative systems theory around the STAMP and FRAM system investigation tools - very hard to get ones head around quite frankly. I don't think we would drop ICAM as such but may look at the Organisational Factors part of ICAM and integrate STAMP or FRAM systems theory. So basically I am wondering if anyone else has had exposure to STAMP or FRAM and can offer any advice.

We were probably one of the first organisations, certainly the first government department, to undertake the full assessment. While both my organisation and company undertaking the assessment (being a first for both of us) learnt a lot and may do some things differently next time, at DOC we highly valued the assessment. Do not go into it as a compliance tool - it is not. Focusing on the key criteria of the assessment was great You need to go into it open minded and be prepared to learn from it. I highly recommend it if you are doing it for the right reason.

Explain that they are a free lesson!

How many lives has contract prequal saved I wonder? The three C process under the HSW legislation is a far superior method to reduce risk in my opinion.

We have used Risk Manager from Impac for many years. Very happy with it.

We require JSAs and toolbox talks in the field. They are lead by the team leader who records who is there, but no signatures required, which would indeed be safety clutter. I don't believe WorkSafe require signatures. Afterall it is about doing the right thing to keep people safe rather than introducing bureaucratic nonsense in case you think something may go wrong and you want to cover your behind.

Our definition, kept fairly simple is "any hazard or risk where if control is lost the consequence has the potential to be one or more fatalities"

On the contrary there is a lot of validity in this testing , particularly hearing tests. First for the individual themselves whether its work related or not. And secondly while it may be difficult to establish work relatedness, for hearing there are questionnaires that the employer completes, the individual completes and the GP completes. ACC then pro-rata costs. This works pretty well in our experience and fairly establishes what is work related and what is not. If baseline testing was done at start of employment, and if the employer could clearly establish controls in place, then any loss would likely be after hours. So the value of this testing shouldn't be dismissed

Mostly this will come from a lack of leadership and poor culture. So like many organisations you have some work to do here!
Also look for informal leaders / champions who can help communicate positive messages about the day and h&s generally.

The cost of the AS/NZS is a small investment compared to the risk faced. You need to ensure you comply with it. We have recently updated our uniform and used this as the standard for the hi vis component. I have both the standards if you want to contact me separately.

Certainly exit monitoring for those exposed to noise is essential, both for the person themselves and to establish the level of noise induced hearing loss (if any) when they left the company so as to mitigate future very expensive ACC claims. We have a policy to do that, but to be fair it's often overlooked.
As part of our health monitoring programme we do undertake pre-employment monitoring (there are different levels) which include establishing a baseline for hearing loss.

Competenz is the national body who could help with this.

We use 1m but I hope very few organisations that are worth their salt use this metric in any meaningful way. It's shown to be flawed, subject to manipulation and a very poor indicator of performance. Have this in the background to measure your low consequence injuries for sure, but don't use this as a measure of success, or indeed failure.

Safe Plus isn't an accreditation system and I don't think it should be used for that. It is an assessment of performance against the three main pillars of h&s - leadership, risk management and worker engagement. We have just had one done - it's very good and I would certainly recommend it if done well. It has little to do with compliance and shouldn't be used that way in my view.