There is an overlap in this thread with one about 'vehicle mounted F.A.K.'s'

Pretty much all medical supplies these days appear to have an expiry date, understandably. I think a bandaid won't compromise health if it's expired, it just might not be 'as effective'. for our first aid kits we've removed almost all items that have an expiry (that would compromise health). Makes kit maintenance much easier.

All vehicles (were) fitted / tracked with Smartrak. The RNZ article states "The council's policy indicated anything in excess of 15km/h above the speed limit was considered excessive". In the article is a graph RNZ Article that shows they have 3 'categories' of over-speeding, so fair to assume they're monitoring frequency and seriousness. Then it's a question of what actions are triggered at what point.

Good questions @Jason Borcovsky. This old chestnut is never short a few fishhooks. Previous life, the company I worked for had over 250 field staff and 100 vehicles. We undertook an important breakdown of 'essential lifesaving resources' vs. 'comfort consumables': A tourniquet will save your life if you're bleeding out, and nothing else will do, where as a band-aid weren't quite to the same category.

The attached photos show a tourniquet, hemorrhaging bandage and a few other irreplaceable life-saving tools (permanently) mounted on the back of the passenger headrest - makes it visible, mostly out of the way, easily accessed by the driver. The bag is closed with a breakable seal, so it can be easily identified if someone's gone into it. Everything inside the bag is attached to removable plate and we added a pair of surgical gloves under the drivers visor. Nothing it the kit is a daily / routine consumable - if this kit is used, people need to be talking about the event. When aligned with training, this will save a life.

Through the process, people started to understand that the other stuff, such as bandaids are a good idea, however they can be improvised and they'd survive for a while without them. These got put in a ziplock bag in the glove box and there was an easy process for them to get them restocked, with the responsibility for doing so sitting with the vehicle user, who ultimately benefits from them being there.

We opted not to put first aid stickers on the vehicles, partly because people learnt about them in training and partly because they were quite visible.

I'm now in a manufacturing business, with different 'lifesaving' requirements and more brutal environmental conditions - we've put them into a waterproof impact resistant case, also with a breakable seal, with wall mounted brackets and they are on the routine factory floor inspections.

@Andrew - you've made some relevant points, however your opening sentence has to be challenged. Speed IS an issue. It's physics: Force = Mass * Acceleration. Specifically, the amount of force in a crash (which is a key determinate of the degree of harm that occurs) is the result of the size of the Vehicle(s) & load, and change in speed over time - braking distance.
- Speed is also a determinate of time to react.
- so yeah, speed is a huge issue. As is following distance, and choice of vehicle. Your point that 'driving to the conditions' does have relevance. All the factors other than speed are challenging to quantify though.

Fulton Hogan have open sourced a large amount of their safety IP, which form memory includes some quite good videos - Fulton Hogan Safety Know How I would recommend contact them before plagiarizing ;-)

Hi @rebecca telfer. I recently had to deal with the same / similar question. What I found is by no means the definitive answer however enough to satisfy us that we were in the right place.

The HSWA and regulations provide good info on what facilities you must provide, none of which makes any inference that smoking should be provisioned for. The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 is very clear that workplaces must be smokefree and what that actually means. I found The Ministry of Health guidance easier to interpret.

The upshot: Based on everything looked at, there is no legal requirement to provide facilities for smoking or vaping. Doing so is a business decision and must be done in a manner that protects non-smokers from second-hand smoke. Considerations are 'what will smokers do when there aren't facilities for them'? In a previous company that provided no dedicated location for smokers, they found themselves a spot out the back by the recycling. This resulted in there being a cardboard fire!

Have you taken a look at the HASANZ Register for an Occupational Health Nurse?

Hi @Fee Ewing. Survey completed. It was a good opportunity to reflect. Thanks for giving this important and often overlooked area some airtime and attention.

It is difficult to deny that New Zealand’s productivity is lagging, and you’ve dived into an important question @KeithH.

Routinely it is referred to as ‘worker productivity’ which I believe is disingenuous to the workers: daily I see people working hard for long hours across New Zealand. This language may have a (small) part in our inability to shift the numbers by placing the responsibility on the individual rather than on business.
 Many years ago I was taught an axiom that I believe has been forgotten: ‘You can stipulate the process or the output. Not both’.
 Put another way, if the task is to fell trees and the worker is given an axe they’ll get beaten by the company with a chainsaw.

Aside from wondering if a misunderstanding of productivity is at influence, I see two drivers:
1. The economy is orientated to low value commodities – Two of our biggest overseas earners are being exported for others to add the value: raw logs and milk powder.
2. Businesses have not invested in production capability – we continue to give the worker an axe and expect them to swing it harder.

There are several stand out exceptions to this (our machinery manufacturers are revered globally, and our software and gaming industry continues to amaze). I believe there are four steps to lifting our performance:
1. Commit to the creation of higher value add products – take the raw materials and turn it into the highest quality finished item.
2. Train and educate workers to think and have vision, then
3. Liberate workers by setting an expectation of outcome. Get out of their way and let them find the best way to deliver.
4. Invest in technology and production capacity. Any repetitive task can be automated, whether it be filling in a form or moving an object from point A to point B.

NZFIA and all the people involved in developing this GPG need to be congratulated. This is a monumental piece of work that has been really well done. There are undoubtedly questions that are still to be answered or result from it, and spelling and grammar to be corrected, however it is leagues ahead of anything previously sitting in this space.

Well done and thanks for sharing.

page 28 "7.1.2 Types of forks:
Forks (often referred to as tynes) ....."

This may not be exactly what you're after @Rob McAulay, however check out the HSE's Management Standards Approach (Very unusual title). I've also added a spreadsheet tool that I built (not claiming that its any good) and used to analysis in a number of different ways.

Happy to discuss further if you'd like to hear how i used it and what worked and the limitations.

Thanks for bring it back round to the beginning @KeithH. I've been pondering what I was looking / hoping for as the responses have rolled in, and it was probably a bit of a fishing expedition - I didn't know what I was looking for, so I threw the question out just to see what came back. I do know that using the commonly accepted definition for work at height isn't getting the results I aspire to.

Workers time is a valuable commodity with lots of demands, giving us a small window of opportunity to get the message across - our elevator pitch. When the doors open, they either walk out and the doors close, or they invite as to take a walk and talk. The definition of a particular hazard is that elevator pitch.

The challenge with height as a hazard is it frequently presents itself as innocuous, many people engage with it routinely with no or limited changes in behavior and there is high normalization to the risk.

• Walking down the stairs is working at height.
• Gardening on an embankment is working at height.

Roll out the common definition of height and people are pressing the button for the next floor just so they can get away from another lecture from the elf 'n' safety police.

There is no denying that height is a significant issue to be addressed, however it is contextual, and the worker needs to be empowered to make good decisions as the scenario changes. The adage that "a fear of heights is short-sighted; the wise person has a fear of the ground' comes to mind. The real issue is actually an energy (absorbed) over time (the sudden negative acceleration upon landing) question, and the best contextual answer is 'work from a stable platform', so that you never lose balance off your feet.

• Hiking down a steep track is inherently unstable, leaving you with only one point of contact at any given time. Add a pair of walking poles and you can now maintain three points of contact.
• At a certain gradient even the poles lose the ability to keep you stable, so you introduce a rope and harness: an abseil system, creating the required stability.
• However, when you needed to perform a two-handed task, even the abseil system needs to be refined in order to be stable for the job.

This is a conversation lots of people can engage with as it validates their experience and ability to choose solutions that fit their circumstances. It just can't be delivered in an elevator.

I've been watching (reading) this thread with interest as it pertains to a lot of areas beyond forklifts. Some good thoughts have been shared. Thank you to everyone who have contributed so far.

In-house training has some immediate benefits: ease of access, flexibility and relevance to site / task specific conditions to name a couple. It also comes with some limitations and the legislative and regulatory requirements also need to be acknowledged.

One criteria I place on any critical skills training, particular when they are signing a person off as competent (permission to undertake a task independently): the trainer must have externally verifiable expertise (greater than the organization they work for) in the skill / subject they are teaching AND as an educator. What this looks like in practice:

• I'm engaging someone to teach workers to do roof work using a harness and rope / anchor system.
• I want evidence that the trainer has expertise using these tools and systems in actual work e.g. have they worked in industrial rope access? Do they have any qualifications - IRATA or similar?
• And are they a good educator e.g. hold a cert. in adult education?

A lack of external verifiable expertise can result in a situation where 'we believe we are good because we said so ourselves' and / or we believe that people know how to perform a skill because we put them in front of trainer, however the training was ineffective at embedding the skill / knowledge / understanding.

Obvioulsy, this is a high bar and needs to be applied proportionally.

"Curious though of the actual question behind your question."
The definition you've put up is one I often find, and while it does 'define' working at height, I don't like it.

It works for us safety geeks, however I find it fails to engage the thinking of a lot of workers (who are motivated to get the job done), I suspect because it does expose all the nuance that you identified in the latter part of your response.

I looking for something that people can read / hear, that then gets them directly to thinking about the influencing factors and options to resolve - I'm just struggling to be it succinctly.

I quite enjoyed the Engage, Educate, Enforce approach. Unfortunately, as you point out, there were business that took advantage. It also wasn't always supported by some politicians, and the public who either wanted us to back off (from enforcement), generally when it was their friends, or accused us of being soft when they needed a good headline or number (they never like the nuance behind a statistic!?).

Inspectors are placed in a no win scenerio when given the expectation to 'best support businesses'. They enter a site and talk to folk, poke things, ask questions, watch and then ........ ?

• Their tools are improvement notices, prohibition notices, infringement notices or a prosecution. When they use these, they are often labeled as being a drag on business. (Kudos to the PCBU's who take these as an opportunity).
• If they don't use these tools 'society' asks: 'what are you doing then!' and 'why aren't you spending time where there are problems'
• To counter this, they have teams in the back-office writing guidance and interpretation that is accused of being 'out-of-touch'.

These are all valuable and necessary functions / activities, however doing more of one, less of the other leads to weaving down the road, rather than strong movement forward. Something new needs to be added.

Aside from building morale, confidence, mana and professionalism within the Inspectorate and WorkSafe NZ, as the CEO I'd:

• Re-launch a comprehensive myth-busting program to ensure that people are clear on what to focus on and where things are heading.
• Drive both the inspectorate and PCBU's to be absolutely focused on the "The Purpose" of the act (that the people who create the risk take responsibility for managing the risks). While there are a lot of applications for the Act on the outer edges, at this time in OCCUPATIONAL H+S development in NZ I believe it is essential that we get good at the fundamentals.
• Not settle for 'do a risk assessment' in any publication - This is such an easy throw away term. We need to assist people understand what it means and looks like to apply this in 'work as done'.
• Drive strong and direct, personal relationships and partnership between the inspectorate and the key influencers and subject matter experts - those folks on the HASANZ register and similar. They too often sit on opposition, when they are in fact working on the same problem. this isn't about having a principal advisor doing a presentation or the occasional appearance at a CPD event. They should work a problem together.

.

Hi @Julie Foote. This isn't something I deal with in my current role, however, was a significant issue in my past that I had to put considerable time into researching. I am also an active LandSAR member so see the use of sat phones, PLB, GPS Trackers and communicators, 2-way radio and cellphones in a variety of settings.

There are three components to the system (probably overly simplified):

• The network (i.e. cellphone provider, satellite provider, radio channel and repeater service). The extent of coverage and information capability (analogue vs. digital, txt, voice, data) will be primarily determined by this.
• The Service provider - they give you access to the network and also dictate the portal, or way you access and interface with the system. How a worker reports activity, how managers have oversight and receive and respond to a notification. They will generally offer you the hardware (some will support hardware you've purchase elsewhere, however it will need to be configured to their system). They are also who you pay..
• The hardware i.e. what device you use. This will include such features as being a stand-alone device, self-triggering capability, and ability to bridge with other devices - such as blue toothing with a cellphone for improved txt messaging and address books.

There were a lot of players offering services in the field, however I found a large number of them over sold the capability of their system as being able to meet my (the businesses) needs. Two stood out:

• Datacom - they had incredible technological capability. It was truly impressive.
• Track Me (https://trackme.nz/) - this is who we went with. Tony Glentworth provided outstanding service and customer interface and really went out of his way to understand our needs and ensure we understood how to use and get the most out of the system. We didn't require person-down / self-triggering devices, however he was able to supply such devices.

There is big talk coming from One.NZ and their partnership with Starlink and also the SOS satellite capability of the new iPhone 14's. The analysis that I've seen of these so far is that they won't be making huge impact to the remote areas for quite sometime still.

I see that ACC is looking for a 'Principal H+S Advisor' $139-190K. That should attract some interest.

The regulatory authority is determined by an MOU, in this case, between WorkSafe NZ and Maritime NZ - essentially, when you step off the gangplank it becomes Maritime NZ's domain.

I'll give some thought to the bigger question of 'whose responsible': first principles - the entity that creates the risk must take responsibility for the risk. therefore the Marina (Company) must ensure the marina, dry dock and boat hoist are fit for the intended purpose, and the person undertaken the repair and maintenance work must ensure its done is a manner that mitigates the associated risk. There'll be a whole lot of grey and fine print in there though.