that's it! Well done and thank you

Please let me know when you've found it

A few years ago in the Wellington branch of NZISM we had a guest speaker who showed a device attached to a vehicle (eg, FLT) that could detect a pedestrian wearing a reflective strip and sound an alarm so the driver could stop. Somewhere, I have the brochure and had the website address .... (my filing system has failed me!).
The technology was practicable (it exists) and the cost was minimal (reasonable) so it would meet the requirements of the Act.

PS, WorkSafe has taken an interest in some franchise operations including couriers (Aramex), construction companies (WorkSafe NZ v RLT Homes Ltd [2020] Timaru District Court), and letting agencies (WorkSafe NZ v Harcourts Timaru [2015] Timaru District Court).

Hi Donna
I can't help other than to point you to the Lexology website where you can keyword search for franshis*. I have the two attached files for my teaching at Victoria University of Wellington but checking today can see many articles from around the world.

I won't comment at this stage as I was an expert witness in the case and so have "inside knowledge". I will comment after Christmas or Peter can ask me for a comment.

Remember that PI insurance includes legal defence expenses, often with a small deductible. I regard it as indispensable

Hi Jason. Some thoughts from me based on spending most of the last 40 years in one form of consulting or another.
Insurance is an absolute must. Once, in the UK, a colleague made a cockup resulting in questions about my work. Happily I had evidence I had done the job properly.
A second instance arose from work for an insurance broker. On the cover of my report I wrote words to the effect that this was not an assessment of risks associated with earthquakes and, if the underwriters wanted such information they should consult a competent engineer. The building was effectively destroyed in the February 2011 earthquake at a cost of $40 million. I told my insurer about a potential problem. It never eventuated but I knew I had my insurer covering my back.
Whatever the work you are currently being offered make sure the PCBU puts you under its liability covers.
Are you on the HASANZ register? If you plan to be that requires you are a member of NZISM or NZSC. and you will require professional indemnity and public liability insurance. I think it is good form to be in NZISM and on the register.
If you are asked to do a piece of work but lack relevant competence say so and politely decline. Get it wrong causing harm and WorkSafe could prosecute you under section 45(b).
In 2003 I went freelance and activated a company name (Risk Management Ltd) that I had owned for some years. I felt and still feel it gave comfort to a prospective client to deal with a business. It also meant my website could be a very professional shop window. (I know it needs updating but I'm now an academic and I will update it to cover research projects.)
Beware optimism bias. For example, I can do this job in 3 days for a fee of $6,000 - but it actually takes 6 days meaning the daily rate was $1,000.
Final thought. What is your highest qualification? Does that really entitle you to call yourself a health and safety professional? Read the INSHPO Framework and see how you rate. You can study by distance learning for the postgraduate certificate at Victoria University of Wellington, then add some papers and get the postgraduate diploma, then round it off with an applied research project covering your speciality.
If you've got experience, the Master's gives you a generalist qualification and you can claim competence in some areas.
Hope this helps.

Hi Peter
I suggest a medium-sized business for a few years and then move to a larger business.
With your academic background I suggest studying for the post graduate diploma here at Victoria. No need to go on to the research project.
Chris
christopherdotpeaceatvuwdotacdotnz

Peter, thank you for all your support for Joanne Crawford, Danae Anderson and me at Victoria University of Wellington. You wrote about us (see the Insider) and helped raise warning flags about possible loss of tertiary education in occupational health and safety. We really appreciate you!

This week we were told we have 12 months to grow the enrolments. So, if readers have experience and a relevant Bachelor's degree or the NZ Diploma in H & S or the IG Diploma in H&S send us your CV as "evidence of prior learning". If accepted, you can enrol for study in 2024.

Hope to see your name in my inbox soon!

I've said thank you for my award in other places but am very happy to say it here, in the Safeguard forum.
Peter has been in and around health and safety for so long he is a Taonga, contributing so much, in so many ways, for so long. The awards are run by him (with much help from Annette) and help raise the profile of achievers within the OHS community and, I hope, elsewhere.
Peter thank you for my award. I will cherish it and memories of being with Anna and Sonya and other winners on 20 June.
Chris

Sarah and others, the question and some answers suggests the use of a 5x5 matrix.
Use of a matrix assumes that (a) the matrix in question was actually designed for the business or undertaking AND for the specific activity within the business or undertaking; (b) the context of the business activity is clearly understood; (c) the matrix was used without fudging the results; (d) the effectiveness of any controls is clearly understood.
If you could look a District Court judge in the eye while under oath and confirm all of the above you are in an exceptional position and should consider writing the definitive text on risk assessment and management.
Which begs another question. What do you mean by "risk"? The Act gives no definition and ISO45001 gives two definitions. I prefer the definition in ISO31000 Risk management: guidance because it makes you think. There, risk is the "effect of uncertainty on objectives". All readers, think about that definition and the words effect, uncertainty and objectives for at least 48 hours before bursting into print.
This sort of conundrum is part of the paper I am teaching in trimester 2 at Victoria University of Wellington. Please don't think about enrolling in the paper - just enrol.

The two papers I teach at Victoria University of Wellington require access to several standards including ISO31000, IEC/ISO31010, ISO45001, ISO19011 and the recent ISO31073. Students can access them via the library and use them during their study. ISO45003 is being adopted by Standards NZ and will also be available as soon as it is published.
As one of the volunteers who contributes to standards it is very frustrating that they are not free. Worse, MBIE (as the "parent" of Standards NZ) requires someone to pay for adoption of international standards and joint standards.

VOSL is an often used measure but we could also use, for example, QUALYS.
VOSL is the "value of a statistical life" and has little to do with real lives. It's based on how much we are willing to spend to prevent some consequence. I usually use data published by the Ministry of Transport on its website which are actually the "social costs of road crashes" and so not the VOSL. The MoT data is nearly $5 million for a road fatality.
The last time I checked that was about the same as the numbers used by the UK HSE and in Australia. That's what we should be willing to spend to avoid a workplace death. I use the $5 million as part of the "reasonable" test of "reasonably practicable" for workplace harm. It's a rough and ready measure that makes people sit up and think.
A colleague, an economist, disagrees with my approach and prefers QUALYS. That's a way of measuring the lost quality of life due to some harm. It's more difficult to calculate.
How much would you be willing to spend to avoid a workplace death?
I must stop - meetings to go to! Maybe more later.

Does it make some people feel they are helping? Yes.
Does it work? Probably not.
Does it cause harm? Sometimes.
Would you ask a first aider to treat a serious injury? No, you'd get the victim to a doctor.
Read the research evidence published by the UK HSE.
Bell, N., Evans, G., Beswick, A., & Moore, A. (2019). Summary of the evidence on the effectiveness of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training in the workplace [Research Report RR1135]. Health and Safety Executive, Sudbury https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/publish.htm
Workplace Health Expert Committee. (2021). Evaluating interventions in work-related ill health and disease [Evidence Review Paper WHEC-17]. Health and Safety Executive, https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/workplace-health-expert-committee.htm
Chris

Several comments have already said what I think. In plain English, where is the evidence that caps or hoodies cause a loss of vision? Some simple measurements might do the trick. That evidence should then feed into a risk assessment carried out jointly with the workers. Include different shifts, different work activities. You then have a defensible position in the Employment Court, District Court or with WorkSafe.
Of course the measurements alone might convince the workers of any problem.

What a shame that academics are not included in the survey!
I could offer some different insights based on the work our students are carrying out (assignments and research). Some are quite stellar!

The PSPLA decision is quite cleverly balanced. Now it is up to HASANZ and its member organisations to ensure that anyone on the register is competent to, among other things, investigate incidents.
At Victoria University of Wellington we are developing a new Master's level paper on incident investigations and hope to offer it at the end of 2023. The plan is for the paper to be available as a standalone paper (subject to entry requirements).
As a footnote, I searched the HSWA for "investig" and found that safety reps can investigate worker complaints. What if the complaints were about workplace incidents? Would there be a conflict between our Act and the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act?

Peter Drucker wrote about the "worker's letter". This was written by a senior manager (preferably the CEO) to recognise something above and beyond expectations. The senior manager would call out the recipient during a tea break or similar and present the letter. Done well everyone knew what "good" looked like and the file copy came out during the annual performance review.

Why not amend section 383 of the Companies Act to include offences under the HSWA and so enable regulatory agencies to apply to the court to disqualify a director for a period of time? This might stop an SME from trading and would hurt directors of large PCBUs. This is occasionally done in the UK.
Not a perfect solution but it would be another tool in the regulatory kit.
As a further thought, Gisborne District Council just got convictions of two forestry companies under the RMA. Those companies had been previously convicted of HSWA breaches. Officers/directors of recidivist PCBUs need to know they can lose their jobs