In the case you have highlighted, one thing that I think most people forget when seeing an organisation has been audited; the audit is only good for one day - the day of the audit. Which is the issue that @MattD2 is highlighting.

I believe there are two types of audits; one shows what has been done in the past (which is what you have highlighted). My issue is previous performance does not guarantee future success. And as you have highlighted, it does not even ensure the process is embedded in the organisation.

The other audit type shows what can be done in the future. I much prefer the second one as that tends to lead to the intent of the HSWA - continual improvement.

For my two cents worth of feedback. It's not just worthy of a trial, it is exactly what needs to be done.

You raise an interesting topic; I'm surprised how few comments this has.

The statement "I still take it personally when someone is injured or fails to follow their procedures or training" is the veritable pandora's box.

Why are they not "follow[ing] their procedures or training"? Do you have any leading indicators of procedures or training?

In my opinion, huge claim cost reductions often come at the expense of something. Is this 'something' related to why people are not following procedures and training?

Also, what industry are you talking about?

Afternoon All,
The problem I find with statements like Clive Lloyd's, is there are now too many directors/managers etc., that, without a solid understanding of health and safety, use the statement to not hold people to account.

I believe we (the royal we) would be better of keeping these terms distinct from each other; learning - blaming - holding to account are not mutually exclusive. Rightly or wrongly, all three can happen at once. It is how we manage all three that counts.

Hi Don, I'm jumping on this band wagon very late, but...

A SSSP may need to be Site Specific, but I believe construction is exceptionally poor at understanding the Context of the Organisation. This idea is from ISO 45001, but one sentence sums it up for me:
The organisation shall determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and that affect its ability to achieve the intended outcomes of it health and safety management system.

As you can see from everyone in this thread, we don't produce good SSSPs where the organisation focuses on internal issues. Inside the fence, inside the hoarding, inside the site boundary.

We are terrible at looking at external issues. A recent site were I had to read their SSSP ignored external issues - they were literally next door to a school, a hospital, a library, and many other high-foot-traffic buildings.

100 pages of SSSP, not one mention of at risk groups in their vicinity that have to interact with their impacts of their site everyday, i.e. footpath disruption, traffic management, noise pollution, etc..

To that does anyone have a definitive source on what we should be exactly be talking about when we say SSSP? — MattD2

Hi Matt,
While not exactly what you were asking for, if you're a NZISM Member, there was recently a discussion on a similar topic. The answer is "unlikely".
Webinar was called: Fact Or Fiction Series With Chris Peace - Session 7: What Is A Safe System Of Work?

I think between your three answers you have encapsulated the problem giving me some good thoughts on how to tackle the problem. I had not considered the point about the ladder. That's a very valid issue.
Cheers for your input.

I think you have hit on why this section gives so many responses with differing views. The courts have not really 'dipped their toes' into this question.
This question reared its head again this week at work — a two-year-old building with underheight barriers and a fall of about 3 metres. The issue raised with the building owner, and the response was "we have a CoC for that barrier; therefore, it complies with all Acts and Standards."
If a worker fell over the barrier, would this logic stand up in court? I'm not sure it would. The issue is both reasonably foreseeable, and a remedy is practicable - well the building code thinks so anyway.

Never a more true written word regarding Health and Safety:
"The key to high-performance health and safety is to keep the focus simple."

Goodness, how often do we have to fill out several forms to go into an inherently safe area?

In addition to the comments above; this is a discussion that has conflicting issues that are exceptionally hard to reconcile.
The issue of conflicting ideologies always irked me, and The Project had a great example: One of the helicopter pilots did an interview with Paddy Gower on The Project. During the conversation, he was clearly disappointed that additional rescues had not been attempted. And I understand that sentiment. The conflict is him implying that being on the island several times a day made him an expert on when that island was safe. Clearly, this is not a definitive statement; at the time of the interview, we had five confirmed dead. Before the deaths, maybe you can say these things, but after the deaths, at least have the common decency to reflect that you may have been wrong, the industry may have been wrong, the government may have been wrong.
This conflict (or a version of this conflict) happens all the time, and people just start yelling (talkback radio went off that next day with conflict and belligerence).
Why can't we as humans just stop and say "I may have been wrong, let's talk about his and see if we can make improvements."

I agree, I hope we do have a longer look at the issues here, from all stand points.

I have to disagree with your statement, as in New Zealand, without the stick (fines, etc.), we have an unbelievable track record of harming people; mainly because there was no incentive to protect the worker. And if you were a contractor, you basically gave up any human rights what so ever concerning H&S. And this logic still exists, remember the guy who died falling off the container a wee while back? What was the companies response; He was a contractor, he had a SWMS, not our fault. And then they followed this up with; How do you even know he fell from a ladder/container? And their list of it couldn’t be us, it must be someone else - went on and on in that case.

In a capitalist society, we would be remiss to believe any organisation places their employees above their profits. Because if the company doesn’t make money, there are no employees.

The fines, (although quite sad) that they need to be given to help ‘management’ realise that not harming people, has a cost-benefit to the organisation. Companies still to this day, think no-one has hurt themselves on top of a container (insert any hazard here), why should I spend $10k on providing a safe solution.

Caselaw is now changing that statement to; do I spend $10K now or risk a $200K fine. And now 'managment' can see the cost benefit.

Scott.

Every day, the royal "we", accept risk. New Zealand hasn't grown up enough to admit we accept risk every single day. I believe once you realise there is always a risk, you then acknowledge that can never be Zero Harm or the modern "Towards Zero Harm". Both can't exist together, either you have an acceptable level of risk ergo no Zero Harm, or you have Zero Harm and no risk. They cannot be done together because risks exist.

There are companies and people that adamantly believe that Zero Harm is possible, but like your blog, what's your measure? I'm Zero Harm right now; I have not hurt myself today. Yay me.

Also, this forum is unlikely to get a real debate on this issue, as there is unlikely to be a Zero Harm believer on a progressive website. Read into that what you will.

Scott.

Hi Tania, I am interested in reading and happy to provide feedback. I have just read a book by Sidney Dekker with the same name.
scottdotwilliamsatprogressivermdotcom
Cheers.

I agree with Peter; we need to reduce the paperwork. A toolbox should be just that, talking about general items around the toolbox. I think if you're discussing issues at a toolbox you want to be documented, maybe it should be done in a formal environment. And for speed, if it must be documented, maybe the supervisor could create a note on their phone, take a photo and attach.

WorkSafe seems to agree about only documenting major items. https://worksafe.govt.nz/the-toolshed/tools/writing-health-and-safety-documents-for-your-workplace/ page 8.

"In most cases it isn’t a HSWA requirement to keep written records, although it is good practice to record how work risks are being managed.
Specific documents are required in some situations. For example:
– the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 require PCBUs to keep written asbestos management plans
– HSWA requires a PCBU to keep a record of each notifiable event for at least five years."