Sheri, your last paragraph sums it up nicely. Way to much negative statistical information and media hype has contributed to public anxiety and herd mentality. Jacinda is providing clear 'keep it simple' what to do right now messaging and so should employers and their advisers.

Matt, maybe embarrassment, fear of getting into trouble, unfit for purpose reporting systems and the good points Michael makes. Just a thought - how about reporting and dealing with near miss incidents within teams. Senior Management just need to know lessons learned, improvements made and how they could assist.

Hi Michael, You might also consider your supply and distribution chain natural resource impacts and whats being done to make them more efficient and clean. They too, might be part of your sustainability measurements and potential carbon footprint calculations.

Hi Michael, maybe get them involved in monitoring the 'on the job' understanding & effectiveness of your controls in the risk registers, JSA's etc. Especially focus on the higher risk tasks. Does work as done agree with work as planned? The art of safety comes into play here through coaching the reps how to positively do this for their workmates without coming across as inspectors or 'know-it-alls'.

Here's a great article from Linkedin today - right on topic. Suggests we get the strategy sorted before blindly following others processes - safety is drowning in self-imposed bureaucracy. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/were-making-safety-difficult-four-ways-make-easier-harris-csp/

Hi Catherine. Instead of relying on form filling by employees - I've found that talking about near misses within their peer groups to be far more effective. The team meeting notes simply make recommendations for improvement - more proactive than counting near misses!

Maybe once one knows the range of potential risks/what could go wrong from previous incidents, then one has real data to design a stronger individual risk control program rather than generic blurb.

In the few cases so far, it's likely the officers' actions were not held to be egregious enough to warrant criminalising them on top of imposing very significant financial and reputational penalties on the company. Maybe a three strikes system could cross this line.

Good call Chris and endorse your assessment.

Great question Alana, will be interested in what others think. Yes there are a few important things missing on the example you showed. But how, out of the hundreds of risk matrix scenarios one finds on Google Images, do you choose as most appropriate to fit the risk profile of your organisation. Here's a Code of Practice that might help you. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/book/model-code-practice-how-manage-work-health-and-safety-risks

Agree with Chris and Safetylawyer. If this is not in the contract of works agreement one could treat it as a variation and charge back. What are the trade/contractor industry associations doing about this and calling out the perpetrators ??? Maybe this is about commercial arrangements and not so much about safety at all.

Like your sense of humour and independent thinking Andrew - something we need a lot more of in this space.

Agree Alan. Many employers provide access to Panadol and they are well within their rights to do so - others wonder whether they should or should not and may need to justify to their staff 'why not' hence Sharyn's post on this to get some feedback.

Sharyn, agree with Andrew. Have a look at this Medsafe SDS which has all the evidence you need to justify not allowing personal medications in workplace first aid kits. https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/p/panadoltab.pdf

Hi Chrissy - appears you do. Under Land Transport Haz Sub rules you need to have a clearly marked folder with the appropriate SDS sheets in hard copy. And fair enough too in the event of a road crash. https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/dangerous-goods-2005/

Some unbiased balance regarding the use of "health & well-being" as justification. https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/100504232/health-agencies-reveal-whats-really-in-your-slushie

Guess its time to ask Worksafe for their opinion on your scenario Bruce.

Great question Bruce. Check out the last paragraph in this link which may answer your question.
https://worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/getting-started/understanding-the-law/primary-duty-of-care/who-or-what-is-a-pcbu/

Chris it appears you need to do your own risk assessment on this. Can understand sterile eyewash (best to get single use products) but not on wound dressings & disinfectants etc. Have a look at Worksafe's First Aid Good Practice Guide (they say it is good practice to check and replace expiry dates where stated on the product) but this appears to be a 'why not' rather than a 'you should'. Agree with E Baxter - one year suggests the product supplier has sold you old stock and may not have a FIFO quality system in place. Just an observation to consider.

Furthermore here's an oldy but still a goody - bit like me! .....
https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/science/for/current-students/HR/health-safety-wellness/documents/Commercial%20and%20Industrial%20Premises%20Guidelines.pdf