today's guest is Mr.

Tom Huber.

Now we're all very

familiar with his

lovely wife, Julie.

who probably should

be in this episode

to keep us on track.

probably, but let's

see where, let's

see where it goes.

We've got three very

passionate people here.

Hey Tom, why are you

here?

it's funny.

I have, I have a, passion

for, and I'm not going

to say safety because

that is a boring subject.

I have a passion for

operational excellence.

There you go.

and for people leaving

with the same limp

that they arrived with.

I've literally just written

this down in my file.

All the safety file

is now the operational

excellence file.

I've stopped saying safety.

, it's operational

excellence.

how did you start

in this field?

Look, my, my history of,

and this could go off on

a big tangent, but I've,

generally fallen into

a bunch of my careers.

I fell into being a copper.

I was a ski instructor

for a few years and I

saw some 35 year olds in,

in the ski school that

I worked in overseas who

were probably having a

pretty good time, but they

couldn't, rub two coins

together and really had

to hustle for every single

dollar to, to try and

see them through between,

the Northern and Southern

hemispheres seasons.

And I thought, nah, I've

got to do real, right?

So my girlfriend at

the time said, Oh,

have you thought about

joining the cops?

And I went, yeah, okay.

Applied in, February

of 96 and I was

standing on the parade

ground in June of 96.

Kind of big whirlwind

anyway, went through being

a cop in two different,

departments, , joined

the AFP when I was, when

I moved to Victoria,

when I met the brains of

our household, which is

Julie,, and the unit that

I was in , kind of lost

favor, a political favor.

So there was some

redundancies on offer

and I took a redundancy.

Then I stood around

thinking, what am

I gonna do now?

And I've been a,

operational safety trainer

for quite a few years.

So I was a firearms

instructor and I ran

rangers and I was doing,

you know, all sorts

of other training for

other cops and other

operators whilst also

being an operator.

And that kind of led

to thinking, I could

probably do safety.

So I did the absolute

minimum, which

is a cert four.

In occupational health and

safety in RMIT, managed

to get myself a job in a,

construction firm, , which

I will not name any of my.

Past firms or ones

I work with now,

they didn't treat safety.

They treat it as a bit

of a bolt on, right?

Something they had to

have and something that

that they didn't really

consider as, part of

their wider business, as

part of their way to, to

make their work better.

but it was a good learning.

Learning opportunity.

So then I moved through

a couple of different

businesses and first one

after that wanted me to do

a diploma in occupational

health and safety.

So my very smart wife

said, Hey, uh, you've

got a couple of degrees.

Why don't you do a

graduate diploma and

build on those again,

shrugged my shoulders

and ended up at RMIT

again, doing a graduate

diploma of occupational

health and safety.

Got through that.

And then she suggested

that maybe I'll go

through and keep going

and get a master's.

And again, I shrugged

my shoulders, although

I did push back a little

bit on that thinking I

don't want to write any

more, papers and it was

a really good decision

because it set me up for

where I'm now, right?

So there's, there

aren't that many

safety professionals

that have a master's.

. So, what is

actually safety?

Because I think it's a

word that life, probably

sustainability, gets

thrown around a lot.

And it's probably an

area that a lot of people

would have no interest in.

There's some people

that see this podcast

potentially go safety,

boring, I'm turning it off.

what is safety and then how

do we start making it cool?

it has reputation

of being full of

safety stands, right?

So we're kind of shiny

bums who turn up at a site

every now and again and

tell people what to do and

tell them what not to do.

I'm really against

that model of safety.

And for me, as I said,

it is a way to contribute

to an organization being

excellent, In a way that

is sustainable and allows

the workers to do what

they need to do and also go

home in the same condition

that they arrived in while

doing excellent work.

Right.

So, so my idea is not

to be a roadblock.

My idea is to

be a facilitator

for better work.

think it's really

important that the whole

idea of you go to work

in one piece, you should

come home in one piece.

Because it's all very well

and said, if you're in

marketing like my wife and

you walk into an office

and you sit in front of a

computer, but construction,

whole different ballgame.

Okay.

There's so many

moving parts on a

construction site.

so, Tom and I have

obviously been friends

for a long time and,

you know, over the years

have just thought, oh,

safety bullshit, that's

just slowing stuff down

and, , just, Chatting and

talking to Tom through

some of these challenges

that we have on site, it's

really ingrained in me

that safety and quality

should be talked about

in the same sentence.

Like, if you think about

being up a scaffold,

a really well erected,

ticketed scaffolding,

how much easier that

makes your life.

And the quality that

you can get from having

a really good elevated

working platform, and

imagine doing the same

thing standing on the top

of a, eight foot ladder

with a, plank in between

trust me when I say that

that scaffolding is going

to make your life a hell of

a lot easier, and it's also

going to be a lot safer

and one of the things that,

maybe this is not verbatim

coming out of Tom's mouth,

but I think Tom said in

the past, there's a safe

way to do something, and

then there's the wrong way.

Yeah, look,

completely agree.

And I'll just go back

to what you said on

the quality and safety.

is intrinsically

together, right?

So if you do a quality

job, an efficient job,

you're going to do a

safe job because of the

way that you have to

structure that task.

Now think of when

quality goes bad, you

have rework, right?

When safety goes bad.

You have someone perhaps

getting hurt or you have

a bit of plant that turns

over or something that's

going to cause more rework.

So that's where those

two kind of fit in.

And what we're trying to

do now in particularly my

organization and for safety

professionals that, that,

Follow this kind of line

of thinking is we're trying

to work out why jobs go

well or what tasks go well,

not particularly why they

failed think of you have

a failure at work, right?

Or you have an accident or

incident or a near miss or

something that might be 0.

5 percent of the

tasks of that year.

So if you concentrate

on just that, all

you're trying to

improve is that 0.

5 percent of your work.

So what I'm trying to

do is push more of our,

effort into working out

why a person made these

workarounds, what made

them think that that

was a good idea, and how

that helped, and can we

share that around and

can we duplicate that.

So that classic mantra

of trying to catch people

doing the right thing,

rather than catching people

doing the wrong thing.

Because it just reinforces

that good behavior.

Yeah.

And I think, having a mind

that's open to, maybe

recognizing that what you

perceive as the wrong thing

might be, it might work

out to be the right thing.

It's just that you don't

have it yet in your

mind or it's not in your

procedures or it's not

in your processes, but

it might be the right way

to do something, right?

So, I just want to

talk about when Because

you make the point

about Safety is 5.

5 percent of the

time, whatever.

I just want to talk

about safety when it

goes wrong, because I

can actually speak pretty

closely to this myself.

So, my dad is a twin.

And I hope he doesn't mind

me talking about this.

When he was 21, I

think he was 21, his

twin brother died in a

workplace accident, had

a He's a Boilermaker, and

from my understanding,

something fell on him.

All right?

So yes, safe,

safety can hurt.

All right?

Like, it will hurt not

only the people around

you obviously the person's

no longer here, but also

it will be something some

people gotta live with.

All right?

That is a complete

worst case example,

a worst case example.

Now case two is

actually my dad.

Who, when I was probably

like 10, so he's an

electrician by trade.

He worked , at a company

just in Sunshine here.

And he was fixing

a switchboard and

the switchboard

blew up in his face.

All right, so if you meet

my daddy's guy, you can

still kind of see the

markings on his earmuffs.

His eye, like goggles,

like essentially burning

was in the Alfred

Hospital for a while.

They're like for me, I

think safety is something

that, We look at things

like a test and tag, and we

ask the question, like, why

do I have to tag my iPhone

charger, essentially?

Like, but then you look

at a bigger picture

and we start, don't

look at these little,

little, little things.

Those little things can

add up to a magnitude of

something quite extreme.

And luckily for my

dad, he was able to

survive, but his brother

wasn't, sort of thing.

I think for me, safety,

sometimes, I'm not

the greatest with it.

And there's always

room to improve.

But I always look back

at that and go, well,

, how could I potentially

looked at a case where dad

could be in a situation

that he was, or that,

that didn't happen.

Or even worst case, my

uncle, that I never got

to meet, sort of thing.

Look,

firstly, I'm sorry about

that, that, that happening.

Yeah.

Yeah, sorry.

I probably should have pre

warned you about that one,

For dad, that's something

that like, he forever has

to live with that you lose,

like, they're identical.

Like, people didn't even

know the difference.

And dad looks

at photos now.

And I still don't think

he knows which one's

him and his brother.

So that is a worst

case example and

that can happen.

And you know what?

It will happen

to someone again.

Someone will be,

someone will die at

work in the future,

no matter what we do.

Like that is just

a given, alright?

But it's, I think what

we've got to sort of

understand is that how

do we reduce that risk?

And how do we, and again,

we go back to the start

of like, how do we make

safety sexy and fun?

And I sometimes think

there's that disconnection

with safety where the

little things get taken,

like, look, let's be

honest, an iPhone charger,

when I got pulled up by

WorkSafe recently, that's

what they pulled me up

on, the iPhone charger not

being tested and tagged.

I'm like, you got to be

serious, seriously, like

there are bigger issues

here than an iPhone

test, iPhone thing.

But, I just think that we

need to sort of potentially

change our approach on

how we look at this.

to bring more people in

to, to make it something

that, again, we reduce

that risk of someone

potentially dying or

hurting themselves,

like, substantially.

Yeah.

Look there's a lot

there and I hope I

get to some of it.

I think as a professional

and I'll, call myself a

bit of a wanky term safety

professional, but it's,

kind of what we are, right?

We haven't historically

been good at speaking

about the why, like,

why are we doing this?

Why are we talking

about this?

Why are we?

talking to workers about

this particular thing,

why it's not tested and

take, how does that fit

into the big picture?

Right?

So I think that's what

we need to get better at.

And we need to have better

risk conversations with

particularly people that

are closest to the risk,

which is your workers.

they are the experts.

I'm not the expert.

I know about arc flash.

I know that LV arc flashes

is just as important as

high voltage arc flash

and that's obviously

something that affected

your dad, but we don't do

well in, in talking about

risk and the other part

of that or probably can

be contradictory is we

don't do well in talking

about critical risk in

preference to small things

like not testing and taking

an iPhone charge, right?

Is that really a critical

risk in your business?

What WorkSafe should

be doing is saying,

Hey, listen knowing you

two, you've probably

got your critical risks

beautifully squared away.

And you're constantly

learning about those

critical risks and how

to manage those critical

risks and the, you know,

the 1 percent is like

you're testing and tagging

on an iPhone charger

is probably not one of

your critical risks.

So we're going to give

you a pass on that.

But, as an aside, can

you fix that up at some

stage?

I think sometimes that

detracts from the real

problem though, like,

because there's people

who are definitely

flaunting and doing

things completely wrong.

I'll pick up on

Swims for example.

There seems to be a

Swims that you need for

absolutely everything

these days, which you only

need, I think it's only 12?

Yeah.

Technically, you

only need them.

Is It 12 or 14

or something?

Depends on the state.

There's like 18, 18 high

risk construction tasks

in the regulations that

need to be covered, that

you'd need to have a

swims for in WHS states,

a person conducting a

business or undertaking

or in, Victoria, where

we're still under the OHS

Act as a organization,

that's a question I have

here actually for you.

So what we're like,

you brought it up.

OHS versus WHS.

Can you just

explain the two

differences for people?

Because it's absolutely

stupid that depending

on the state, you

have a different

OHS or WHS policy.

Isn't safety just

fucking safety?

Yeah.

Look, , it even

confounds me.

Right?

So a few years ago this

happened in the road

safety act as well.

They tried to harmonize

across all states

and territories, the

road safety act and

all the states and

territories went now.

Now we want to do

this thing different.

We want to do this

thing different.

So, in effect, the

Road Safety Act isn't

the Road Safety Act

across different states.

So, you've got different

rules across states and

you, as a driver, you're

supposed to understand that

when you drive to New South

Wales, you just can't,

you can't just do a U turn

somewhere because it's now

unlawful where it might

be lawful in Victoria.

So, they tried to do

the same thing with, oh,

with the Occupational

Health and Safety laws.

And they took Basically

took Victoria's Act and

regulations as the model.

So SafeWork Australia

they are the organization

that's, I guess it's a

teaching organization.

They do some Commonwealth

laws for organizations

that work in under

Commonwealth laws, but

they provide Model safety

laws that the states

then choose to pick up.

So what happened is that

they created this model

act and regulations

and different states

at different times

have picked them up,

of course, with changes

that they wanted to make.

So, what's resulted in, in

that now that is that W.

A.

Is the latest so that

they've just recently

picked up the harmonized

laws as they call them.

I call them the

disharmonized laws.

Which means that WHS or

work health and safety

is now in all states and

territories, except for

Victoria, Victoria said,

nah, our OHS laws and our

OHS Act and regulations

were the model anyway, so

why would we change them?

So

I'm not really sure what

the motivation is, but

I can't see a change to

harmonized laws in Victoria

unless there was a A change

in government and what that

would give us in Victoria.

I'm not really sure there

are some, some minor

differences, particularly

around how you apply

reasonably practicable

and you've probably

heard that term before.

But that's really,

it's, minor differences.

And if you work to the

highest standard, you're

going to meet all this

laws across those states.

Tom, you just brought

up a term or a couple of

words that I have heard

you talk about often.

That is reasonably

practicable.

Can you please talk to

us about what that is in

reference to when we're

talking about safety?

Yeah.

So this really works with

what an employer must do

to cover off on the act

and regulations, right?

So as an employer,

you have, or as an

organization, you have

several duties and

obligations under the act.

So you have to provide

and maintain a working

environment that is

safe and free of risks

to health so far as is

reasonably practicable.

And as part of that, you

need to provide, maintain

safe systems of work.

So.

For instance, you

need to control your

high risk areas.

You need to have a permit

system for some of your

tasks, like confined

space entry, for instance,

or lockout tag out.

You need to ensure the

safe use of hand handling

storage and transport

of plant and substances.

So any chemicals you use,

you have SDSs on site.

So if you do have a

spill or whatever,

you can refer to those

safety data sheets.

And do the right

thing about it.

But aren't these

things just like a

quick Google now?

Essentially sometimes

like, I understand like

say 10 years ago when they,

you, internet was not as

accessible to everyone.

But like, for example,

my team, they go pick up

a glue and they're like,

Oh, something happens,

I can quickly jump.

It's quicker than,

probably literally

jump on their phone and

check the data sheet.

And where am I

going to find it?

Where in this file and

correct.

Yeah, that's incorrect.

So if you have a tool

that controls your, your

hazards, so you have a

safety tool on your phones

or your guys have it.

If you have your chems and

your safety data sheets on

that, that covers it off.

You don't have to have it

it's sometimes

quicker for me just

to type in Google, I.

I know this brand's glue

is like material data shit

and come up quickly before

I'm trying to find it

through my drive folder,

like it's just easier.

Yeah, true, you should

really have access to

company who supplies that

because, they have to

have a hotline for how

to manage spills or how

to manage people being

affected by that substance.

So that's important to have

Just,

so there's a bunch

of things you have to

do, but then what's

reasonably practicable,

this is where it really

gets, complicated.

So what you need to figure

out is a hazard, right?

Pick a hazard.

You have to work out

what's the likelihood of

that hazard occurring.

Okay.

What's the risk?

What's the harm of

that hazard occurring

if it happens, right?

So you're working out risk.

So likelihood versus

consequence, like it

would answer consequence.

You also need to know what

you as a business owner or

as a line leader know or

ought to know to eliminate

or reduce that risk.

So it's not just

what you know, it's

what you should know.

What are the availability

and suitability of

ways to eliminate it.

or reduce that

hazard or risk.

and this is where it gets

a little bit different

from WHS to OHS states.

in Victoria, cost of

the control of that risk

is in that whole mix.

In the WHS states, you

have to consider all

those other things first.

And only then can you

say, well, these controls.

This one's going

to cost me a bomb.

This one's going to

be a lot less cost.

Is the risk high enough

for me to have to do

this control or can I

do use this control?

And a good example

is you have to

access a roof, right?

It's a 10 minute job.

Do I float in an 11

meter boom or a boom, do

I put up a scaffold or

do I just use a ladder

with a ladder mate?

And if it's a 10 minute

job, there's probably

a good argument to say.

I'm just going to use

a ladder and do that as

safely as I can, rather

than bringing in or

putting up a scaffold

for a day, doing a 10

minute job, spending

another day, bringing

that scaffold down,

who's responsible

for safety?

Is it the employee?

Employer?

it's a mixture of both,

but you will probably

understand that the,

all the power rests in

the employer, so they

have the duties and

obligations to manage

safety on their sites,

right?

So it's.

not up to the employee

to say, I'm gonna do

everything for safety,

and the employer doesn't

meet the expectations

that's on them.

However, the employee also

has duties and obligations

under the act, which

is to follow reasonable

instructions and to use

the controls as put in

place by the employer.

Things like PPE.

If an employee is given

PPE, their duty and

obligation is to use that

PPE as instructed and to

keep it in good condition.

I understand both sides,

because you've got some

owners of businesses

who don't care, and

I'll cut any corner, and

should be held liable.

Then you've got people

who do everything the

right way, and then you

get some stupid apprentice

trying to jump off a

wall onto the insulation

bags and hurt themselves.

That's an example, and

it's probably not happened.

But, like, what, there's

got to be sometimes you've

got to take, like, you've

got to think for yourself,

and you're like, hmm,

that's probably dumb.

And I feel sometimes

with safety that the

dumbness people just think

they're invincible and

fine, I shouldn't maybe

say this, but I feel

like there's a lack of

common sense with some

younger people these days.

I'm interested in

exploring this.

My attitude to this

is I'm gonna, I'm

gonna say something a

bit controversial for

perhaps a business owner.

You will find 0.

5 percent of people come

to work to do a bad job.

So if you have people

that come to work to do a

bad job, you've probably

hired incorrectly.

your duty is a as a

employer is, is to have

training, supervision

and instruction

appropriate to the person.

Right.

So you can't expect an

apprentice to come in

and have 15 years of

knowledge and experience

in their heads that

isn't something to do.

They might think that

it's a great idea because

they're trying to do

something that they don't

know another way to do it.

Or this is a quicker

way to do it.

and I know that

Matt's pushing me

to do this today.

This is a quicker

way to do it.

you've got a power

differential, right?

So, if you tell an

apprentice who's perhaps

a young worker or, or

inexperienced or both, I

want you to do this in this

time frame, that sets up an

expectation for that person

to go, Well, I'm going to

do this as quick as I can.

And one of the ways

to, for me to save

time is not to walk all

the way around there.

Okay.

But to jump down here,

do this little thing

and then jump back up

and keep going on what

I was doing earlier.

and this is what safety

is so difficult, right?

And I think it was James

Reason who said it.

Safety is not

rocket science.

It's harder than that.

And I think he was

referring to because

you're dealing with people.

And people are

stupid sometimes.

No I'll push

back on that one.

people can do things

that seem stupid.

But.

In my experience, it's

often that they don't

know any better and it's

not that they're stupid,

it's that they don't have

experience in that thing.

this where consultation

is really important, Tom?

I love it.

I love it.

And I think I spoke about

this earlier in that

you really need to keep

those risk conversations

alive with the people who

are closest to the risk.

that's not me.

And that may not even

be you anymore because

you guys are less

on the tools, right?

But you really need to

speak to your people

and have them have risk

conversations all the

time and keep that risk

conversation alive.

I use that term all

the time, keeping risk

conversations alive.

for them to talk about

the risk as they do

the things, right?

So it's not fair on

someone to say, go

and do that thing.

And you guys all

do the thing.

take your time.

Just do it now.

And this is what

the whole take five

thing was built on.

Take five minutes to

actually talk about it.

Talk about what

the risks are.

Talk about how are we going

to manage those risks And I

think you guys spoke about

it earlier and when, not

if, when something goes

wrong, how do we ensure

that we don't get hurt

or that the asset doesn't

fall over or the scaff

doesn't fall over or that

we cause a quality snafu

that we have to go back

and fix over the next week?

So I got a real

life example.

This actually happened

on my job site.

So for about three

years ago, we had.

A first year apprentice

jump on board.

He'd previously worked

as a apprentice somewhere

else at another company

and he come to us because

he was more interested

in what we're doing.

So we set him up

on the clout gun.

My main lead set him up.

We showed him how to

use it, showed him

that this is the bump.

Do not change it.

Do not take the pin out.

You leave it.

Like you shoot one at

a time, you take it.

We actually documented

this by luck.

and I'll be honest,

we don't really

document these things

that often sometimes.

So we showed him

how to do it.

So he, we set him

up on all the ply

to shoot it all off.

And then five minutes

later, he shoots

himself in the hand.

With the cloud con and

he's like, how did my,

like, how did you do it?

He's like, well, I

changed it to bump.

Cause I seen other people

on other jobs do it.

And it's just easy.

It's faster, but he was

specifically told, do

not change it from bump.

This is it.

but he went and did that.

So WorkSafe to me, well,

like, well, what more

can you actually do?

Essentially like

you've literally

told him not to do it

this is why it's

difficult, right?

So you're working against

what in his mind was a more

efficient way to do it.

but that's why I say

people are stupid too,

because it's a strict

instruction not to do it.

how much more black and

white can you really

sometimes get with people?

And this is where I go back

to ownership and sometimes

you've got to like listen

and have ownership and I

understand that he maybe

has come from a background

where he never listened

and he's never listened

growing up and stuff like

that, but I still feel that

you are responsible for

your actions sometimes.

Oh, 100%, 100%, right?

so he's, probably worked

in that other business

for a significant number,

a significant time and

don't know, and probably

you don't know how he

was treated when perhaps

as an apprentice, he

learned not to bump it.

And they said, nah,

this is bullshit.

We're going to, we're

going to do that.

And.

You're going to

do it, right?

So we all do it.

You're going to do it.

And it's just something

that's infiltrated in in

his task or the way it

goes through that task.

And he's just gone.

Yeah, this is a

faster way to do it.

So this is why you have

to have really good

conversations and perhaps

that, you know, talk

about the wise, and you

can't cover everything,

but talk about the wise

of, we don't do this

here because of this.

I'm not saying that

you didn't have that

Yeah.

put it this way, he's

no longer with me.

I

would let him

go very quickly.

so there's two

things here, right?

So one is that, you

can't cover everything.

And I don't think you

should structure your,

operational excellence

practice by outliers.

So that, that was

obviously an outlier.

A hundred percent.

Yeah.

can't cover everything.

oh, and I, when I got

the call, I was like,

did you like, I was

like, what did you do?

How'd you show him?

And he's like, literally

he's like, funny

enough, we, I logged it.

Like, and we literally, we

got him to do it properly.

And there was multiple

people on site that were

showing up to see him

being trained properly.

I don't know, maybe I'm

the type that when I was

younger I was like, you

just listen sometimes.

And I feel like sometimes

the younger generation, and

I'm not shit canning all

of them, but they can be

quite opinionated on things

they don't just know yet.

they're very good at

thinking they know

everything when they

might not know everything.

And that was definitely

a classic case of it if

my old boss said, this

is how you do it, and

this is how you cut with

a power saw, I followed

exactly how he told me.

I literally followed

every little bit of it.

If you showed me wrong,

that's on him, but they

showed me the correct way.

Yeah.

So that,

straight, but yeah.

you are right and

wrong at the same time

in

that.

that.

this is kind of a a

misconception about

safety as well.

, we've seen historically

as the safety police

and I've worked in.

companies where I was

expected to be the safety

police and walk around

a site all day and pull

people up on stuff.

Now that is such an

inefficient way to work.

, what I'm trying to do

is multiply my work in

getting other people

engaged in this stuff.

and this is where I'll

get a little bit academic.

So they don't work

extrinsically by

being praised or

being shouted at.

They work intrinsically

by thinking to themselves,

Hey, this is a better way

to do something, or this

is the way to do something.

And I'm doing

it for myself.

I'm not doing it for praise

or to stop being shouted at

or to, to whatever, right?

That should be every task

on site though, really.

Okay.

Shouldn't it be like,

hey, like, isn't that

just like, give them

the responsibility

to do their job right

and just do it right?

I think, how long

should, should be, but I

don't think particularly in

small businesses, a lot of

businesses do it that way.

They either go with the,

Hey, just do it and push

people aside and just

go and do it, or they

go with the old school.

I'm just going to shout

at people until they do it

right or sack people until

everyone does it right.

And I think that's taken

me to another little bit.

We've pulled in a bunch of

principles They were first

developed by the nuclear

power industry by a couple

of really big thinkers

in the space like Todd

Conklin and Rob Fisher and

those sorts of guys.

So there's, there's

five principles, right?

And, these are the

lenses that we now

look at operational

excellence, right?

And some of them

are pretty, pretty

controversial.

The first one is error is

normal, which basically

means people will make

mistakes and they should be

expected to make mistakes.

You will never get

rid of error where

a person is involved

and you want people

to be involved, right?

Your machines can't

think through a task and

you guys would be well

aware of this, right?

So your, your guys having

had renovations quite

recently, all day they

are problem solving.

And the machine can't

do that, not yet,

at least,

not yet.

not yet.

and in that there

will be error.

And the only difference

between something that

works well and something

that has a, let's call it a

failure is that the outcome

is different, but there

will be errors in both.

So there's that second one

is context drives behavior,

which means when someone

comes into your business

and you have a good culture

or a good operational

excellence culture and

people and things are

talked about and things

are open, does get pulled

along in that system.

So there's that.

The next one is

blame fixes nothing.

And then this is a good

one that this kind of

works with what we've

been talking about.

So blaming individuals for

mistakes doesn't improve

operational efficiency.

All you're getting there

is you're getting less real

talk from those people,

so they will come to

you less with a mistake.

that they've just made

that you can then fix

or make it better or

improve your processes.

And then that goes to how

you as a leader respond

to failure matters.

So if you as a leader, one

of your workers comes to

you and says, Oh, look,

I've just made this mistake

or I have a problem and

you screw up your face.

You'll lose that

source of info.

I heard a really

good example of this.

Just recently and I don't

have kids, but it kind

of struck me as true.

If your kid was to come

to you with their first

boyfriend or girlfriend or

their first partner, right?

And you screw up your

face at that partner

because they've got a nose

ring or they've got more

tattoos than you'd like.

You won't see the

second partner, right?

And you want to engage

with those partners.

You want to make sure

that your kid's partner

treats them well.

if you screw up your face

at the first one, you

won't see the second one

and you won't get that

opportunity to do that.

There's like,

checkmate.

the last one is learning

and improving is vital.

So this kind of leads

into you have two choices.

When responding to failure,

you can learn and improve.

Or you can blame

and punish.

You cannot do both.

So you can't think that

you can blame and punish an

individual in your business

and then learn from the

failure that just happened.

Choosing to learn is

strategic and it's

a plan to improve.

So there's, five

and they're called

human organizational

performance principles.

what's been quite

relevant as we've been

recording this podcast

is that I've got a crane

on site today, lifting

some steel into place.

just sent all the team to

fill out a swims right now.

Fill out that swims.

as, we're talking.

about this, I'm

like, Oh shit.

I wonder if Rory

got the team to sign

into Hasidco or not.

So as we're sitting here

chatting before, I flicked

a message to Rory and just

said, Hey, has this company

signed into Hasidco?

And his response was shit.

I forgot.

I'll do it now.

And this is really relevant

because this stuff happens

all the time, right?

And like, we're pretty

good with safety.

I think we're pretty

good with safety.

But I think the point I

want to make here is that

sometimes we do

make mistakes.

So Tom, what is the

best way for me to

approach this with Rory?

Like in my mind, I'm

thinking this is a

really amazing learning

opportunity for the team.

how would you

approach this?

Sack him.

I'm

joking Rory.

sack him, and then

parade him around to

everyone and say, This

is what happens when you

make a mistake, right?

I have put a

cross on his back.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This is a learning

opportunity and

it's a conversation.

So it's a conversation

between you and Rory to

say, how did you forget?

Why did you forget?

And how can we

make sure that that

doesn't happen again?

won't be surprised by

that conversation and

kind of go, Oh, what's

he asking me for?

Cause I don't really know.

You'll probably have some,

some good feedback on,

yeah, I forgot because

of this or this happened,

or I had to do these

three things at once.

And that kind of ate into

the, my brain space to make

sure that this happened.

do we have a system

encourage me to do this

, as part of our process?

That sort of thing.

What you want to do

is build systems to

try to avoid errors.

So I'm conscious

on time as well.

So I've got two more

questions here and this

one, I don't know if I

want to bring this one up

because it could really

go down a rabbit hole.

Now you said before about

safety machines and that

technology can't do it.

But how do you

see AI starting to

come into safety?

That might potentially

improve the industry

because I feel like it's

the one thing in our

industry that's one way

AI, especially on site

would definitely be able

to help our industry.

Big time.

I'm pretty solid on this.

That It is most

probably going to be

a fantastic thing for

operational excellence.

And I'll give you one good

example that's already

come up on my radar.

Uh, And that I've started

using a little bit there's

a company that I've

worked with a little bit

and we'll work with them

more that have developed

a plug into chat GPT and

you can upload all your

process documents and it

will pick out error traps.

Yeah.

And when I say error

traps, I mean one

document is contrary

to another document.

It's where people

paint themselves into a

corner and they follow a

directive or a procedure

in one document that

says you have to do this.

but then they're in a

corner where another

document says, Oh,

you can't do that.

Or when you get to this

point, you have to do this.

And they've painted

themselves in a corner.

They've got nowhere to go.

So that AI is really

valuable in helping.

The people who write

procedures, which

stupidly is still pushed

to people like me.

I don't have the

expertise at whatever

task it is, right?

So I push back on that.

I make our operators

do that sort of thing.

I'll give you a little tip.

It doesn't matter the

language that procedures

are written in.

In fact, if you write

procedures in the language

of your workers, you're

doing them a favor.

You don't want

academic language

in your procedures.

You want the language of.

Whatever they say.

I don't want, I don't

want you to put ski in

it or Riz or whatever.

Write it in the language

and, those error traps,

if you can drag those out

already, you're, you're at.

WorkSafe guy that come

on a few years ago, he

actually made a really

good point with us, with

SWIMS, and he's like,

don't go buy those ones

that have 40 pages for

something, because if you

don't follow one of those

things, you are in trouble.

He's like, you're

Yes,

super basic.

you're setting yourself

up for failure and it's

good you brought it back

to Swims because I have

a real big, hate of any

companies that, that make

you do a Swims for every

single task that you do.

Cause that's one,

it devalues the

idea of a Swims.

You really want it for

those critical risks

Like you want it exactly

for the task that you're

doing today, right?

Not every time

you do a lift.

So you have a 40

page document.

we've all seen blokes

come in that haven't

seen the swims.

And invariably they'll

pick up a sheet of

paper to the last one,

sign it, and walk away.

Without understanding

what's in it.

So, what a lot of

construction companies,

and I, I don't

particularly work in, civil

construction at the moment.

But we get contractors

to do that now is a

lot of the T1s have now

started refusing any

swims that come to them

that are longer than

four to five pages.

So I'll go, nah, nah.

Your guys cannot have

read all that today.

if that's a specific

swims to here.

if it's not simple,

it won't be followed.

anything like you need to

make it simple and easy

for people to follow.

And really for construction

work, what we do, Hamish,

I've just got them up

here in front of me on

my other screen, so high

risk construction work,

there's probably four here

maybe for what we do in

residential that would

apply, and they would

be, there's a risk of a

person falling two metres

which you probably don't

even need to do every, you

could just do it, what,

maybe once a month as a

part of your check in,

that you could say, hey,

just guys remember that

you've got to be careful

when you're walking up

high make sure you're

using correct batteries,

is all the equipment right,

would that be suffice?

Like you don't need to do

one every single day for

working at two metres.

Remember, it has to

be, it has to be site

and task specific.

So , if your task changes,

so if you are going

from say, using a scaf

to using a boom or a

scissor, , then that swims

either should reflect

all that or needs to

So is it the method,

say scaffold or a boom?

Because like hypothetical,

if you are doing cladding

on a wall, on a scaffold,

or you are cutting on

battens, on a wall, on

a scaffold, you're still

on the scaffold working.

Is it just a bit the

thing you are working

on, or is it the

task you are working,

working on the scaffold.

Yeah.

The task, right?

Okay.

to me, that becomes

super complicated,

so to some point

So you, you can have

all that in the swims.

The way you cover

off on that is to

have a conversation

before you start that

task that's changed.

Yeah, and I think the part

where I see coming in is

that conversation can be

verbal and transcribed

into a document that

everyone disagrees to.

That's where I really

see that it can change

as long as everyone is,

and I think Amish used it

earlier, consulted, right?

It's not just talking

at people, it's getting

their views and opinions

on is this the right

way to go about it?

So the other one for

domestic, and this one here

I actually think needs to

be a reword, in an area

where there's artificial

extreme temperatures.

I just think that should

be extreme temperatures,

not artificial.

Because I do think

that people need to

be, if it's 30 degrees,

you need to be smart

enough, or 35 degrees,

not working on Earth.

I think the word

artificial is the word

here that should be

personally changed to

to suit the climate

sometime we work in.

I think they're talking

more about working

in freezers, for

Okay.

But then there's no

difference if it's 38

and people are outside

digging with, at the end

of the day, like it's still

an extreme temperature.

, that's covered off

in the act, right?

So, it's up to you as

the business owner to

provide a workplace that's

, free of risk as far as

reasonably practicable.

If it's going to be 38

degrees and your schedule

says these guys are going

to be working on the

roof, you're probably

not meeting that part of

Yeah, okay.

From my understanding,

there's nothing in the

act that talks about

the risk of skin cancer.

So this

exposure

at temperature.

because in my eyes,

working outside and getting

sunburned every day, can

you see it on all those

states where people are

rocking around with their

big reflective sunglasses

and, little shorts and,

and their singlets on.

And I'm thinking, what the

fuck are you doing guys?

Like you are

getting sunburned.

But they look cool.

where does the

responsibility

lie with that Tom?

Like if this is my building

site, cause I don't, I

refuse to buy singlets.

And I always provide

sunscreen for

the team on site.

And I'm very

conscious of saying,

have you got

sunscreen on?

you refuse singlets, you

just let them go bare top?

absolutely.

Bare top,

sun's our guns out.

I'm worried that, and

hopefully none of my

employees are listening

to this and starting

to think about it, but

I'm worried in 20 years

time when some of my

team has skin cancers,

am I liable for that?

, this is very similar

to, let's say

asbestos exposure.

Yep.

It's a chronic condition.

It's not acute.

It's not like breaking

your leg on site.

It's an acute condition.

So let's say X employees

20 years down the track

has a melanoma and makes

a worker's compensation

claim, then they will

look back at, where did

you get that exposure?

And if that exposure is

because you allowed your

blokes to go up on a roof

at 38 degrees all summer.

without a shirt on

or without a singlet

on your work clothing

is part of your PPE

in that sense, right?

guys will be aware that

every big construction firm

and every big organization

is long and long, right?

, and I know that it gets a

bit of bad press or, you

know, I've got to wear

long and longs, but it's to

cover off on that exposure

, to the sun and UV.

And by the by, there's a

lot of bullshit talk about

electromagnetic radiation,

so EMFs that don't cause

cancer , that don't cause

an electron to jump off.

But there is one thing

that causes cancer, right?

We know that it causes

cancer because it's a

radiation that does that.

And that's the sun.

And there are some easy,

well, not easy, but simple

ways to control that.

And it goes back to

providing your workers

with a workplace that's

free of risks to health

and safety as far as

reasonably practicable.

Now, is it reasonably

practicable that you,

through your supervisors,

through your line leaders

say, listen, we're not

going to get up here in

singlets and you guys are

going to put sunscreen

on and you're going to

top it up during the day.

And I'm going to make sure

that I talk to you guys

about that and I'll talk

to you about the risks.

You might have a toolbox

talk on UV exposure, right?

, and yes, it looks cool to

be tanned in summer, but

it does not look cool to

have half your shoulder

ripped out because you've

got a melanoma or then

dying, of a skin cancer.

You've just got to have

those conversations and

ensure that your blokes

Aware of the risks and

that you have controls that

are reasonable and that

you enforce those controls

Totally agree.

think it's just being

smart and applying a

level of common sense.

It's all very well and easy

for me to say that from an

office that I'm not going

to get burnt compared to my

team on site sort of thing.

Like I'm sitting here, it's

got the aircon on today.

we haven't even

started talking about

psychosocial risks

Yeah, I think we're gonna

get you back for one

more, another episode

because this has gone

probably longer than

we, uh, anticipated.

But I've got one final

question before we

finish up, because

I am time conscious.

What is the dumbest thing

you have seen before

from a safety thing

that you were just like,

what were you thinking?

Is there something

that just comes

straight to mind?

You're just like,

how did you do that?

stupid were you to do that?

I'm going to pass

on that and give

you the reason why.

some of my peers,

they like to put out.

inductions slides that have

people doing stupid shit,

I don't like doing that

because What it does is

people go, Oh, I wouldn't

do that shit because I

just wouldn't do that shit