I think (and I could well be wrong here) that there are two different programmes being discussed here:
-the ACC Accredited Employers Programme is essentially about the business managing the injury rehabilitation and return to work of their workers. If they can demonstrate suitable capacity and capability ACC will massively reduce the levy's. This is alive and well and generally favors larger employers who have the volume of workers to sustain the investment into dedicated people to oversee the process(es)
- The WSMP programme was an external H+S audit scheme built on AS/NZS 4801 which as @TracyRichardson noted above has been superseded by ISO 45001. Based on the quality of a businesses H+S management (the highest being Tertiary) they would get a discount on their ACC Levy's. From memory, tertiary was worth 20%(?). ACC reviewed that WSMP in around 2016 and found that the cost of the programme (the discounts) was not delivering a proportionate of benefit (improvement in H+S performance). Essentially accredited business weren't having a comparable reduction in ACC claims. This was also around the time that the SafePlus programme was under development (that ACC also supported) and the publication of ISO 45001. ACC made the decision to end the WSMP (I'm not sure when the auditing, accreditation and discounts actually end).

Hmmm. I'm not sure I consider this good. 'Okay' perhaps, not great? Waka Kotahi is strongly encouraging the use of bikes here which is great to see. To a person / business that doesn't have strong H+S thinking these resources do help navigate into the space, however in some ways its a lot of what makes people repel from H+S - a whole reem of paperwork, full of jargon and tech speak, broiled in compliance and little practical application.

• If we surveyed 1000 riders, how many would a) gain any benefit from reading the risk matrix, and b) remain engaged with us for more than the second row?

The AKL Council tool has some useful dimensions.

So, much of Waka Kotahi's info is about providing support for people that are uncertain on how to enter this space, which is good to see they are providing. A good (suitable and sufficient?) risk assessment (process) must include a subject matter expert and then a lot of the barriers inherent in h+s bureaucracy falls away. Think of this:

• How many parents have a checklist for when they start putting their children onto a bike? (literally, thousands do this every year)
• How many businesses have a competency test for walking down stairs? (the majority of us do this daily - have we thought about the consequences of falling down them?)

Strip away the clutter and what is left is what really counts - in this case: suitability of the vehicle for the task and a maintenance program to keep it working.

Hi Brooke.

From pure qualifications framework perspective an L6 diploma is a 'higher' qualification than the NEBOSH cert, although not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Beyond that, it is a little more of 'what is the purpose / goal of the study'? And the match between that and the qualification will be very dependent on the training provider.

I did the NEBOSH IGC in a blended model (group / classroom time and self-directed study) and absolutely loved it - was very beneficial. I then went on to do the NEBOSH Int'l Diploma in an almost entirely remote format. I found this a very challenging format, however the content is excellent - very comprehensive and principles based, rather than regulatory focused. I was able to augment the curriculum with practical application and previous work experience. NEBOSH has an advantage of being widely recognized, so if the goal is future employment opportunities it is worth considering.

Hope that helps.
M@

This is one of those areas where H+S gets accused of being out of control. On one side of the timesheet people are being actively encouraged to be more active, to use public transport and walk and / or cycle to work. Then, the very second they step in the door we wrap them up in bureaucracy and remove any individual decision making from them.
- I am fully cognizant of the legal duty to provide for H+S at work. It has been established that the workplace extends to include a vehicle, this would include a bicycle, when being used for the purpose of work.
- This is a thinking exercise: before starting a 'risk assessment' establish the parameters (size) of the question.
- metal vs squishy thing is a lovely poster slogan. How about force? mass * acceleration? a car at 1000kg + travelling at 100km/h - force = harm. A bicycle at 12kg going 25km/h (maybe)?
- Risk Assessments need to be undertaken / include 'subject matter experts'. Unless you ride a bicycle of regular basis in a same / similar environment I question if the SME standard has been met. Its the difference between real and perceived.
- The principle(s) of safe travel: Safe driver (rider in this case), safe vehicle, safe journey.
* A safe rider is a competency and judgment question. For drivers most businesses assume that a drivers Licence is proof of this, however do little to nothing to validate this.
* Bicycles are extremely safe - highly maneuverable and excellent stopping distances. (I am being a little provocative with this claim, in order to stimulate thinking)
* It is the 'journey' that creates the risk to cyclists. A lack of cycle lanes in our city and urban spaces, and drivers that drive with a sense of entitlement over the space. How many businesses require the staff to use the 'dutch door opening' method so that they don't harm cyclists?

My personal H+S ethos is to 'never say no'. Rather I seek to embrace opportunities that the business wants to explore and to enable it.

So, when in my previous business we introduced electric bikes and electric scooters for city trips, the challenge was to introduce them with the fewest number of barriers to uptake. An organizational maintenance and inspection programme was implemented to ensure they continued to function properly. No operational rules or requirements were implemented. A 5 minute user video was produced, watching it was optional. Coaching sessions were available upon request. No requirements of when they should or shouldn't be used were put in place. People were simply empowered to make a choice for themself.

After 3 years car use for trips under 4km were down approx. 50%. No bicycle or scooter incidents had been reported (fully acknowledge that this is a weak lag indicator, however still and indicator) and no reports received for unsafe of inappropriate use. In the initial months of introduction about 45 coaching sessions were done.
- People self selected, and were empowered to make the right decision for themselves.
In the same timeframe I had in look into 4 incidents were one of our drivers failed to perceive / giveaway to a cyclist.

Cycling is awesome for people who like it, and people who don't should not feel compelled to do use them. So Garth, have confidence that people can ride bikes at work.

On a slight tangent / extension, I was recently asked to look into work methods to undertake environmental monitoring a a large forest area, with an extensive network of cycle trails. They were proposing using motorbikes or quad bikes and were concerned about being hit by mountain bikers! To do the work on foot would take in excess of 40hrs. It could be ridden in less than a day. The motorbike expert assessed the terrain as 'highly challenging requiring an expert level of skill'. The monitoring is being done by mtn bike. The requirements: any monitoring personnel must have undertaken a competency assessment from an SME, their bike must have been inspected / serviced by a suitably skilled person (bike mechanic) and they must keep their wheels on the ground. They love their work day (although I'm sure they'd love to jump a little more ;-).

Thanks, that's a great lead - I'll give them a test run. M@

We were considering using an austringer / falconer to keep pigeons off our building.

Hi Rebecca,

I don't, however I'm very interested in what one might look like. I haven't thought about how I would flowchart fatigue. What do you envisage one would contain? If no one else has one I might give it shot to develop.
Thanks
Matt

Hi All,

We have a fleet of E-Scooters, along with E-Bikes that folk can use to get ot various meetings around the city. While I believe society is in a learngin phase with the scooters in particular I have we have determined that no additional policies or rules were necessitated for them. How we got to this point is longer than i can put in this post, however our Critical Risk Rules - Transportion incorporated their issues adequately. The only additional information we've put together is some 'equipment orientation' material.

I urge caution on this specifc item. "In a Flash" is a reasoanble dramatisation, that tells a tale of how a day out can turn bad, however it isn't "the true story". It doesn't accurately reflect all or the actually events of the day. The fact that it doesn't align with the courts account of the events, or the Coroners findings or any of the recommendations is telling.

Interestingly, I think this event, the investigation and subsequent prosecution support your points in the discussion thread on the Liabilty / Prosecution of Officers.

Hi Brook,

My immediate recommendation is the 'Management Standards Approach' - Rather than orientating to the individual factors associated with stress, that are highly variable and personal it focuses on 'whole of organization' and factors that can be influenced: Demands | Control | Support | Relationships | Role (clarity) | Change.

I've been able to use this in a wide range of ways with great outcomes - informing policy, ensuring reasonable expecations when developing position / job descriptions, through to identifying points of weakness that can be adjusted when problems appear.

A good place to find out more about this is https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/

I hope that helps and let me know how you get on.
M@

I like the thread of questioning. Consider this:

Two independant objects, each with a mass of 1 tonne travelling towards each other at 50km/h + (Force=Mass*Acceleration). The only thing preventing them from colliding is a social convention (the controller of the object will stay to the left).

If we consider safety to be the control of energy does this actually sound like a reliable safety approach? Would we accept this in any other aspect of work? And the single preventative control in place to avert a catastrophic failure is possibly the most prone to task overload?

While the mobile phone is a clear issue, any solution to this distraction requires compliance on the part of the oprator. It won't address the mirade of other forms of distraction (kids fighting in ther back of the car), task (over) loading and production line presures that the driver faces. And we still haven't adress the other dimensions of the equation - all the other road users.

So mobile phones aren't the hazard, risk or vector, rather a symptom. The only true or viable engineered control I am aware of on the hrozon is self driving vehicles.

Of course we could eliminate the risk and take up walking ;-)

Hi Michelle.

I'm undecided if HR and H+S are natural / comfortable co-functions or need to maintain a collaborative tension. It's a questoin of the philosphy and paradigm that the organisation puts in place when establishing the functions and the expecations and desicion making authoirity that each funciotn holds. Again, this is somehting I'm still mulling over and considering.

My experience has most certainly been that the two functions are in tension with each other, in part by my philosphy around H+S. The businesses I've been involved with the HR function hs been protectionist: holding infromation close, looking for 'whose at fault', holding the worker accountable for under performance - ignoring the working environment. This runs contrary to my H+S approach of openly sharig experinece and insight, examining the work environment in order to optimise work and understanding the underlying drivers for worker performance, enabling the capacity to 'fail safely'. It has been an uncomfortable tension, however one that consisently produces robustly test positive outcomes. The catch though: if one team / function was subservenant (reports through) to the other, the power imbalance results in poor, even bad outcomes.

My opinion, based on a large pool of data, is the NZ workpalces absolutley have to improve their H+S performance. They must change. And you don't generate chage by placing your change agents (H+S Practicioners) inside a well established business unit that has no driver for change.

As a part of suite of methods to assist the officers to keep cool as well as raise (even if only fractionally) morale I think the slushie machines could be a great tool. I'd be looking very closely at the sugar content and the negative helath effects that this would then present.

Turning it into a polictical football really got my hackles up. The public have yet again been sent the message that the health, safety and welbeing of front line workers and the acceptable work conditions of public servants is not worthy.

Hi Bruce,

The status of clubs and volunteer organisations has been an arena of much contention and debate. While the primary focus of HSWA is to protect workers and address matters in the Workplace, in todays society clubs can easily cross into this space, even though that isn't / may not be their intent. this makes it challenging to legislate and specific answers are incredibly conditional. I suspect you are very aware of this.

Based on what you've detialed I would say that the club in this scenerio is not a PCBU - they are 'contracting' the band, rather than employing them. It is likely that the venue and the band are and the duties will fall on them. The Club is in an influential position to facilitate these two to work out the detials though.

My answer is also on the basis that the club doesn't employ an administrator or event coordinator or similar. Engaging an accountant to review / audit the books is fine.

Hope that helps. Matt

Hi Graham. To the best of my knowledge there is no license requirement to operate a Manitou (telehandler). There are unit standards that establish a persons training / competence, however they are not a mandatory requirement, rather act as evidence to the workplace that the person has been trained to use one. Then it falls onto the PCBU(s) to meet thier H+S duties as Sheri has outlined.

Hi Andrew - Manitou is a brand of telehandler - it looks like a cross between a forklioft and a crane.