Updated Australian Standard: 1891 Part 4

An amendment has been released for ASNZS 1891.4 – Industrial Fall-arrest systems and Devices: Selection Use and Maintenance.The amendment is not to any content other than references to standards that have been introduced or changed since the standard was first written.

This includes:– ASNZS 5532 addition– ASNZS 1891.5 addition and removal of AS/NZS 1891.1 references to lanyards and pole straps– ASNZS 4488 removal and addition of ISO 22846

These Standards are now available for purchase through http://www.standards.org.au

A huge thank you to WAHA Members and Representatives who have worked on the SF015 Committee with Standards Australia over the last several years.

What has happened?

A small business owner has been sentenced to eight months imprisonment (plus an additional 18 months suspended), a $2,250 fine and his company fined $605,000 in the first custodial sentence for a safety prosecution in WA history. This is also the highest fine ever issued in WA for a workplace safety breach.

The Director and the company pleaded guilty to gross negligence causing the death of one worker and serious injury to another.

The Director owned and operated a small shed building company. In March 2020, the two workers were installing roofing when strong winds caused a roof sheet to lift and both workers to fall approximately 9 metres. Neither worker held a high risk work licence or wore a safety harness.

Notably, these types of incidents were known in the industry (particularly in the Esperance region) and the Director was aware of the risks. Despite the Director’s early guilty plea and acceptance of responsibility, the Court considered the failures were of the most serious type.

This decision is the first time an individual has been jailed in WA under the existing safety legislation and is significant as it:

1. clarifies the misconception that industrial manslaughter is a new concept for WA when the possibility of a jail sentence for a serious breach of safety legislation has always been the reality;
2. is a clear indication that the safety regulators in WA will be willing to use new industrial manslaughter provisions to their full extent when the new WHS laws commence (in respect of officers and persons conducting businesses and undertakings); and
3. demonstrates Courts will issue penalties for safety breaches that are in line with the new, significantly higher, penalty regimes.

Considerations for employers

While safety is often considered a purely operational matter, this decision and outcome demonstrates that responsibility for safety exists at every level of an enterprise.

Employers and officers should be taking note of this decision and the attitude of the regulator in bringing a prosecution of this type against an individual, particularly in light of the impending Work Health and Safety Act 2020(WHS Act) which places express obligations on officers in respect of safety and strengthens the framework for individual officer prosecutions.

Under the WHS Act, industrial manslaughter can result in individuals being liable for a maximum fine of $5,000,000 and/or up to 20 years imprisonment and corporations for a maximum fine of $10,000,000.

Due diligence provisions for officers require that they be familiar with the operational risks of the business, the systems to manage those risks and that they take steps to verify that the systems are in place and effective. A failure to take these steps may see officers liable for safety breaches, including where there has been a significant incident.

We recommend employers and individual officers actively review the safety arrangements currently in place and begin taking steps to ensure that they are ready for the introduction of the WHS Act.

Source: Kingston Reid

Did you know that most people who are seriously injured or killed, fall from a height of four metres or less.

Ladders, incomplete scaffolds, a roof edge or falling through fragile roof sheeting are the major causes of injuries.

More than 12,000 workers were injured after falling from a height between 2014 and 2017. 25 died and more than 240 were permanently disabled.

In this episode of the SafeWork NSW SafetyCast, our host Belinda Orriss talks falls from heights with Kane Scott, a Manager in our Construction Services Group.

Find the Full episode at: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1344256/8518062

The Takeaway at: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1344256/8518096

Source: The High Risk Work & Stakeholder Engagements Team, SafeWork NSW.

Article by Deborah Chick

Statistically, falls from heights remain one of the biggest causes of death, disability and injury in workplaces in Australia.

Any time there is a risk of a worker falling from one level to another, the worker is at significant risk of injury and needs to be protected. When each of us turn up to work, our employers have a legal obligation to provide us with a safe work place and we each have our own legal responsibility to ensure we take all reasonably practicable steps to make sure that everyone goes home at the end of the day. 

Understanding our responsibilities is vital to ensure there is consistency across our industry and every workplace. 

There are a number of documents available to aid in the safe undertaking of works and to maintain our legal obligations. Let’s work our way from the top down!

An Act is legislation passed by parliament: a statue or law which in turn are supported by Regulations, Codes of Practice and Australian Standards. 

Acts set out the broad legal / policy principles. For example, the Workplace / Occupational Health and Safety Acts provide a framework to protect the health, safety and welfare or all workers at work and of other people who might be affected by the work. 

Acts are known as primary legislation; and the term legislation itself encompasses a single law or a collection of laws. 

Regulations are documents that dictate how the provisions of the Act are applied. Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) / Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Regulations specify the way in which some duties under the WHS Act must be met and prescribes procedural or administrative requirements to support the WHS / OHS Act.

Further guidance for person(s) conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) are Code of Practice or Compliance Codes. These establish and document a practical guide to achieving and maintaining standards of health, safety and welfare. Codes of Practice (COP’s) are developed with consultation with industry bodies, and are subject to review to ensure the content remains relevant and appropriately reflects current industry best practice and new equipment, technology and working practices are developed. 

A code of practice applies to anyone who has a duty of care in the circumstances described in the code. For most cases, an approved code of practice would achieve compliance with the health and safety duties in the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Like regulations, codes of practice deal with specific issues and they do not cover all hazards or risks that may arise. 

Codes of practice are admissible in court proceedings under the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Regulations. Courts may regard a code of practice as evidence of what is known about a hazard, risk or control and may rely on the code of practice when determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances in which the code relates.

SafeWork Australia has developed Code of Practice / Industry Codes to provide practical guidance on how to meet the standards required under the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Regulations: however, the Commonwealth, States and Territories are responsible for implementing, regulating and enforcing Workplace Health and Safety laws in their jurisdiction. Therein lies a notable distinction between State or National (Government) based Codes of Practice and industry based codes.

In specific reference to height safety related matters, the Working at Heights Association (WAHA) has developed  Industry Codeswhich seek to draw details of regulations, codes of practice and manufacturer recommendations together to provide guidance on the correct, safe installation, inspection and recertification of fall protection systems. These are intended to enhance, not replace, the codes of practice and provide all stakeholders with industry-best-practice methods for height safety systems. These codes are an example of industry based codes vs State or National based codes of practice.

The model laws developed by SafeWork Australia have been implemented in all jurisdictions except Victoria and Western Australia; Western Australia is currently consulting on options to implement elements of the model laws.

In the jurisdictions where the model laws have been implemented, each state and territory is expected to make variations to ensure the laws operate effectively in their jurisdictions. In some instances, states and territories have also made more substantial variations. This is why it is important to make sure you always consider the WHS laws that apply in your state or territory.

Additional guidance material is contained within Australian Standards. Australian Standards give us a set of guidelines, specifications and procedures to the purpose of ensuring products, services and systems are safe, consistent and reliable. They are not legally enforceable, unless referenced by legislation: but keep in mind that if a PCBU chooses to operate outside of the scope of these guidelines then they must establish, justify and document their reasoning. 

Within Australia, we have several industry standards that are applicable to the working at heights and confined spaces industry sector and you can view some industry specific standards here. It is worth noting that there are additional standards that while not binding within Australia / New Zealand – they do hold merit due to the international nature of the wider working at heights industry.

There are a few International Standards (ISO Standards) that have been recently adopted by Australian Standards. The ISO is an international standards body that has a number of representatives from national standards organisations and it is currently the worlds largest developer of voluntary international standards. 

Other standards that you may encounter include European Standards (EN Standards). These are developed by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) which is a non-profit standard setting organisation, which is officially recognised by the European Union. Equipment manufactured to these standards are widely recognised as providing an appropriate standard that is maintained across the industry irrespective of geographical location.

You can also encounter American Standards (ANSI Standards) which include development of standards with ASSE International, the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 

The foundation is Operational Documents. In order to keep workers safe from the risk of illness or injury companies need to have operational and site-specific procedures, forms and documentation to assist them in meeting and maintaining their legislative duties as well as their duty of care to their employees. 

About the Author: Deborah is the Secretary of WAHA and CEO of Eve Consulting. She has over a decade of business management experience in the industrial rope access and working at heights sector and is a former member of the IRATA International Health and Safety Committee. She holds multiple qualifications in the field including IOSH Rope Access Manager, QMS Lead Auditor and KONG PPE Inspector. 

Minister for Better Regulation, Kevin Anderson, has announced (statement here) that SafeWork NSW inspectors are targeting rooftop solar panel installation, as part of our ongoing focus on reducing fatalities and serious injuries in the construction industry.

Most serious solar installation incidents reported to SafeWork include workers falling from ladders, off or through roofs – such as polycarbonate plastic roof sheeting – and electric shock.

Inspectors continue to see unacceptable safety levels in the industry, with some installers using inadequate or no fall protections, or not isolating electrical power.

Getting help

SafeWork has worked with industry to develop a Guide to Safe Solar Panel Installation and a Solar Installers Safety Checklist.

What you can do to work safely

There is no excuse to not have fall and electrical protections in place to protect workers.

When installing solar you must:

• have a site-specific safe work method statement (SWMS) prepared for each job
• use scaffold or temporary edge protection (such as roof rails)
• harness-based systems must only be considered when scaffold or temporary edge protection cannot be used
• install controls to prevent persons falling through a roof, such as physical covers over skylights, mesh or walking platforms over polycarbonate roof sheeting
• a fall restraint system must include an anchor plan and enough anchors located in positions so that the worker can traverse the roof safely without reaching a falls hazard
• provide safe access to the roof. If using a ladder, make sure it’s fixed at the top and base, and extends 1m past the access point
• ensure the wiring of the solar panel installation is done by someone who holds an electrical contractor licence or an electrical qualified supervisor certificate, or under the supervision of someone who holds an electrical qualified supervisor certificate
• switch off all sources of electricity to the property and tag them out
• prove isolation by testing for dead and ensure workers test before they touch
• ensure workers are trained and supervised, particularly young or inexperienced workers.

On the spot fines of up to $3,600 for businesses and $720 for individuals apply for putting workers lives at risk when working at heights.

For more information on how to work safely when installing rooftop solar panels, see the SafeWork NSW solar panel installation safety webpage, or call 13 10 50.

Source: Safework NSW

Article by Richard Millar
for Sourceable

The Australian workforce has many trades and occupations that require workers to use their skills in their chosen occupation.

Such workers are expected to be trained in the skills needed to carry out the work required. In some cases, penalties apply where work is carried out by unqualified parties.

Yet despite the risks involved, there is no requirement to be trained for working at height. Often, tradespeople and others need to work at height – either above or below ground. Many times, they have little or no knowledge of the risks involved.

This is the case as there is no legislated requirement for height safety training in Australia. Instead, there is simply a recommendation in work practice documents for those who need to work at height to have had at least minimal training in recognition of potential hazards and how these can be managed.

What is Working at Height?

There are many definitions of working at height. One of these refers to any work where a person may have a requirement to have two feet off the ground after which they could potentially fall from any height and injure themselves. This could be from a ladder, a roof’s edge, through an opening, even a loading dock or truck – all of which can be considered as working at height.

In their Construction Industry Profile, Safe Work Australia indicates that the number of workers in the construction industry has grown by 33 percent over the last 11 years. Within the sector, 76 percent of workers are classed as employees and are covered by workers compensation. Whilst safety has improved over time, the number of injuries and fatalities remains unacceptably high.

Despite being aware of the risks faced by those working at height, regulators do not require a minimum standard of training. Instead, they merely recommend that those working at height are trained and rely on the PCBU to ensure that those working at height are provided with enough information and skill to maintain a measure of safety. We need to decide if this is adequate or whether we need a better way to deliver a safer outcome.

Can Lack of Height Safety Training Increase the Risk of Workplace Accidents?

Yes.

Poorly trained employees working at height are a danger to themselves, their colleagues, and those who will be tasked with rescuing them. This is not necessarily because they themselves have acted in a negligent manner.

There are many ways training can improve performance and reduce injury risk. On the flip side, there are just as many ways a lack of training can spell disaster.

Following are example scenarios where poor or inadequate practices can lead to greater risk of accidents:

• Employees are unqualified for their positions. While on the job training is invaluable, employers are often in a hurry to leave new employees to their own devices. This can be dangerous. Where workers have not been shown or do not understand the requirements of working at height and are unable to demonstrate the ability to work safely, the risk of accidents increases.
• Employees are not provided with adequate training about safety procedures or protocols. Just as using machinery is dangerous if workers are not clear about how it should be used or correct usage procedures, so too working at height can present hazards where workers are unsure about procedures or protocols. By contrast, danger levels are lower where workers understand safety procedures and how to respond in an emergency. This should extend beyond safety checklists and protocols and should include training about the procedures and how to follow them.
• New employees are not properly supervised. When a new worker is receiving training on the job, supervisors should remain with them and immediately stop to any action which jeopardises the safety and wellbeing of either the individual worker or those working around them.
• Employees are not provided detailed information concerning the risks that are specific to their occupations when working at height. An example is where apprentices on construction sites are not told how to avoid electrocution; how to prevent falls from scaffolding,ladders or other structures; or the type of personal protective gear which is needed.

Can Work at Height training decrease the risk? 

Yes.

It is reasonable to assume you are working at a height if you:

• Work above ground level
• Could fall off an edge, or through an opening
• Could fall from ground level into an opening or crack on the ground

There are various sectors to which this applies. These include but are not limited to window cleaners, firefighters, pilots, rock-climbing instructors, construction workers and crane operators.

These types of work are naturally hazardous. Every precaution must be taken when working at heights. This includes training.

Training is critical. Falls can result in serious injury, loss of work and lifestyle and fatalities.

Accidents happen, and employees need training to avoid falls. Organisations are liable if they hire someone without training certification or where they have not provided the training on the job. As stated previously, employers often require persons to be trained or have some qualification when working at height. Nevertheless, the Safe Work Australia data shows that the number of workers who are killed or injured from falls remains unacceptably high. This highlights the need for workers to be educated through training.

In particular:

• All employers should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses their employees possess. This begins with tracking their training and progress. When making workplaces safer, it helps if employers use their resources effectively by providing training to those who need it the most.
• Employers need to keep accurate records of the training and qualifications their employees have received. Before solving any problem, you need to be able to evaluate where you stand. All employers should be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their workers. This begins with tracking their training and qualifications. In addition to making the workplace safer, it helps employers use their resources effectively by providing training to those who need it the most.
• Employers need to determine whether an employee is suited to his or her tasks. Despite the best training, some workers may not be able to perform particular tasks and may be better utilised in areas where their skills, abilities and attributes are more suited. Ensuring that employees understand their duties and can demonstrate their proficiency will go a long way toward providing a safer work environment.

Safe Work Australia requires a PCBU, designers, manufacturers and installers of plant to manage work health and safety risks. “WHS Act section 19: Primary duty of care” states that these persons must eliminate risks in the workplace, or if not reasonably practicable minimise the risks so far as is reasonably practical.

Examples of where a PCBU will have a health and safety duty include when:

• Engaging workers to carry out work
• Directing or influencing workers in carrying out work
• Where people may be put at risk from work carried in their business or undertaking.
• Managing or control of a workplace or fixtures, fittings or plant at the workplace.

To provide an adequate level of assurance about the safety of the work to be carried out, a risk assessment involving careful examination of potential hazards enables you to evaluate whether you have taken sufficient precautions or need to do more.

Employers are required to assess workplace risk. So too, however, are any employees who have a part to play in the approval of the safety procedures. They cannot rely solely on the PCBU and must assume some responsibility for their own safety.

The purpose of the risk assessment is to minimise potential hazards and to facilitate creation of a plan to control any risks. It is important that workers understand how to carry out a risk assessment to ensure they understand any risks involved.

This further highlights the need for workers to have the training to provide the skills to work with PCBU in ensuring that potential hazards are recognised along with the procedures and equipment which are needed to help with carrying out work safely. How can anyone who is not trained understand the equipment, work practices and attachments that may be needed and provide knowledgeable input into managing the risks involved?

The working at heights risk assessment template is normally an assessment designed to assist workplaces in managing fall hazards in the workplace.

This includes activities where people are working:

• off the ground (e.g., up ladders, on work platforms, or on roofs)
• on the ground close to deep holes (e.g., excavations) edges or ledges (e.g., retaining walls)
• openings through which people could fall (e.g., skylight or other openings)
• in areas where objects may fall from higher levels and cause injury or dislodge a worker from their workspace.

Whilst having a template to work with is useful, it is still recommended that those who undertake risk assessments have training to enable them to identify any hazards which may be present and be able to put in place any necessary safeguards.

Training can provide expertise in height safety which can help to minimise the possibility of falls.

When preparing to work at height, some do’s and don’ts are listed here, but are limited to the greater range of knowledge required by persons working in areas of potential risk:

DO as much work as you can while you are on the ground.

DO make sure that the employees can safely move to and from the area where they are working at height.

DO ensure that the equipment that you’re using for the job is strong, stable and suitable enough to get the job done. Inspect and maintain them regularly.

DO be careful when you are working near to a fragile surface.

DO ensure that you are protected from falling objects.

DO make preparations for emergency evacuations and rescues.

Do make sure that the PPE is in good order and fit for use

Do make sure that the worker understands the risk

Do ensure that the worker is properly trained 

———————————————–

DON’T overload the ladders that they are working on, with equipment or materials.

DON’T try to reach too far when you’re on a ladder or stepladder.

DON’T use ladders or stepladders to do work that entail heavy or strenuous tasks. Only use them to do work that’s quick and light.

DON’T allow incompetent workers do any work at height.

DON’T lean or place the ladder on or fragile upper surfaces.

DON’T stay quiet when you feel someone is compromising their own safety or the safety of others

Note 

Do not use PPE that you cannot confirm its suitability or your ability to use it safely, another important reason to have had the training required to ensure that PPE is in serviceable condition and you know how to use it.

Despite all these approaches to injury prevention, ‘Working at Height’ activities have consistently been the second or third highest cause of fatality at all workplaces across Australia over the past 12 years**.

Working at Heights Association Australia continues to play a part in assisting in the reduction of these fatalities through the process of awareness, education, training and standards of work practices and installations for information and assistance in the area of height safety visit their web site www.waha.org.au.

Article by Deborah Chick

The topic of performing Equipment Inspections on working at heights PPE and equipment is one of the most widely discussed within industry, and yet it comes with a layer of uncertainty. 

Why? Well … there still seems to be confusion.

A lot of people vaguely remember a minor element of training when undertaking the a Work Safely At Heights qualification here in Australia. They may remember that they need to inspect their gear before use and might know that the ASNZ 1891.4 2009 standard requires that all personal use equipment and common use equipment to be inspected … but who is actually competent to perform those inspections? What quantifies that competence? 

By definition, a competent person is a person who, through a combination of training, knowledge and experience, has acquired knowledge and skills enabling that person to correctly perform a specified task.

How important is it to regularly inspect your equipment? The simple answer is: it is very important.

Equipment can fail. 

Without training in inspection, and having inspection & maintenance procedures in place, items of equipment can have faults that remain undetected for pro-longed periods of time. This may result in an increased risk of injury or harm to technicians, plant and/or equipment.

Two of the biggest issues that companies and individuals face when it comes equipment are time and money, closely followed by the availability of a competent person to perform equipment inspections.

Training to perform equipment inspection may be attained via the manufacturer or through an accredited equipment inspection training provider. 

Be aware – some RTO’s here in Australia will advertise a PPE inspection course based off the MEM1500B – Perform Inspection unit of competency under the AVETMISS / ASQA education framework; however this specific unit of competency specifically states that it is “This unit is not intended to be applied to maintenance personnel carrying out their day-to-day activities”. This course is intended for inspection mid manufacturing. 

That’s not to say that training doesn’t cover some similar inspection methods, but it isn’t actually specific to working at heights equipment. The closest course we have within the ASQA framework is the PUAEQU001 – Prepare, maintain and test response equipment unit of competency, but even then – due care is needed when selecting your training provider to ensure that they are undertaking training with equipment relevant to the working at heights and confined spaces industry. 

Outside of attending a course, it is also possible for persons conducting or undertaking business to develop internal training programs. This is evidence of training and competency. 

But it often it falls to senior management and working at heights supervisors to ensure that they are doing the best that they can, in so far as is reasonably practicable. And sadly, there can be a lot of resistance to improvement, because of the time and cost of implementing changes.

Operators should be aware that their lives depend on the efficiency and durability of the equipment and proper inspection is their first line of defence against the hazards of faulty equipment.

So we would invite you to ask yourself the following questions:

• Have I undergone formal training on pre-use and thorough inspections?
• What do I know I need to look for when inspecting textile materials vs metal?
• What information do I need to record and when?
• When was the last time I performed a thorough inspection of PPE and Equipment?

If you were unable to confidently answer any of those questions – it is an exciting opportunity to up-skill!

And there are other points to consider on the day to day management of equipment; The sign off each day by all workers through the SMWM’s or related safety documentation should include inspection of all PPE, whether owned by the company, individual or provided by the facility where the work is being undertaken. The definition of the competent person needs to be clearly defined by the company. If in doubt, ask – after all it is your life at risk.

From some employing companies, there can be push back to make employees and contractors undertake inspection of their own equipment, however – if there is an incident they may be involved in subsequent litigation. You really do need to maintain a record of all equipment on site and when it was inspected, whether you own it or not. This means you need a detailed record, or a safety manual in place to ensure that inspections are scheduled and dates are recorded; and who the competent person was who performed the inspection. These schedules of inspection may need to be flexible depending on the environment the equipment is used in as it may be subjected to more aggressive wear and tear than ‘normal’.

This creates an opportunity for businesses to develop and refine exisiting systems to ensure they have something in place to offer guidance for inspection, be it a manufacturer’s safe use and inspection instruction, or Appendix C and D from AS/NZ 1891.4 standard, or even from other associations such as Annex H from IRATA International. The resources are there for companies to integrate into their workplace.

Ultimately all working at heights equipment and PPE should be inspected prior to first use; this includes visual and tactile inspection, as well as a function check. This is the very first inspection new equipment undergoes, and therefore it should be recorded. It is important to include the unique identifier, date of first use, manufacturer, and other relevant information as listed in AS/NZS 1891.4 2009.

From this very first inspection and start of record keeping – we move on to our on-going equipment inspections.

It is vital to ensure equipment is safe to use prior to undertaking works – this means that there needs to be a visual and tactile inspection, as well as a function check performed before you use any piece of equipment. This inspection is often referred to as the “Pre-Use Inspection”.

Thorough inspections, should be carried out every 6 months in accordance with ASNZS 1891.4 2009, or as specified by the manufacturer. 

Equipment and PPE needs to be retired in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions; typically this is 10 years from date of manufacture for textile items (webbing, harnesses, fall arrest lanyard etc). If the tag on the equipment is illegible, and you have no record of date of manufacture, then the item needs to be retired / removed and destroyed to prevent it from being used, as you no longer have evidence of date of manufacture. 

Metal items typically do not need to be retired from service, unless the item in question has failed inspection criteria. In many cases they may also be able to be retired to a service agent for repair prior to being returned to service. Manufacturer’s guidance / technical notices provide additional information for inspection.

Inspections shall be by sight and touch and shall include the opening of any equipment where access for daily inspection is provided to ensure that the internal components are in good condition.

Where equipment is considered in any way doubtful by the competent person, it should be tagged out of service. A label should be attached to the equipment indicating the defect and referred to a height safety equipment inspector for further action.

At WAHA we strongly encourage the ongoing development of skills and knowledge – even if you have undertaken a training course in the past, how long ago was it? If it’s more than three years ago it might be time to revisit your training! Technically a nationally recognised competency issued from a reputable RTO does not expire, however the WAHA recommends refresher training for operators every 2 years to maintain currency and to account for manufacturer changes in product designs and materials.

If you would like to learn more, we have details of the ASNZ 1891.4 2009 Australian Standard and additional information about Inspection and Maintenance of Equipment on our website: https://www.waha.org.au/technical-bulletins/inspection-and-maintenance/

Deb is the Secretary of WAHA and CEO of Eve Consulting. She has over a decade of business management experience in the industrial rope access and working at heights sector and is a former member of the IRATA International Health and Safety Committee. She holds multiple qualifications in the field including IOSH Rope Access Manager, QMS Lead Auditor and KONG PPE Inspector. 

Nearly all national safe work codes of practice have been reviewed and updated by the Queensland Government and other states and territories, to come into effect 1 March 2021.

This is in line with a nationwide agreement in 2015 that all Australian work health and safety regulators will review the codes of practice every five years.

In consultation with industry stakeholders, the 21 Queensland codes of practice that are based on national codes of practice have been updated and approved for this state. This process ensures the new codes reflect Queensland specific legislation and laws, so that workers, businesses and the economy will all benefit.

The new codes commence on 1 March.

This review was limited to technical accuracy, usability and readability—content was not reviewed at this stage. Some matters in the codes therefore do not represent a contemporary understanding of the work environment and these will be addressed with Safe Work Australia and industry stakeholders in the near future.

The following Queensland codes of practice have been approved and will take effect on 1 March 2021:

• Abrasive blasting code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.16 MB)
• Confined spaces code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.44 MB)
• Demolition work code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.66 MB)
• Excavation work code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.9 MB)
• First aid in the workplace code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.48 MB)
• Hazardous manual tasks code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.39 MB)
• How to manage and control asbestos in the workplace code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.99 MB)
• How to manage work health and safety risks code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.65 MB)
• How to safely remove asbestos code of practice 2021 (PDF, 2.21 MB)
• Labelling of workplace hazardous chemicals code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.26 MB)
• Managing noise and preventing hearing loss at work code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.58 MB)
• Managing risks of hazardous chemicals in the workplace code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.24 MB)
• Managing risks of plant in the workplace code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.67 MB)
• Managing the risk of falls at workplaces code of practice 2021 (PDF, 3.93 MB)
• Managing the work environment and facilities code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.57 MB)
• Preparation of safety data sheets for hazardous chemicals code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.05 MB)
• Safe design of structures code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.73 MB)
• Spray painting and powder coating code of practice 2021 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
• Welding processes code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.96 MB)
• Work health and safety consultation, cooperation and coordination code of practice 2021 (PDF, 0.43 MB)
• Electrical safety code of practice 2021—Managing electrical risks in the workplace (PDF, 1.25 MB)

Source: WorkSafe QLD

Article by Michael Biddle

I am often asked by asset owners how they can assure that the contractors they engage for working at height on their building and structures are up to the task. It’s not always an easy question to answer, as the reality is that there are many factors that determine a person’s competency. 

There is a natural deferral point to this question – if the person holds a ‘Work Safety at Heights’ qualification with a Nationally recognised competency from a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), then surely this is the simple answer? In truth, it is only part of the answer to the question, and in many respects it might be that whilst people naturally defer to this answer, they may be ignoring the deeper risk in making decisions like this without considering all the key issues.

I have detailed below a summary of a number of key questions to consider when making a full assessment on whether to engage a contractor for working at height tasks or not and assess whether you’re placing yourself or your company at risk by using that person to perform tasks whilst working at height.

1. Understand the tasks to be completed for the specific site / location – one of the first things to understand are the core tasks to actually be completed at height. Is there a possibility that these tasks can be done without having to work at height? Are there equipment or access methodologies to use that prevent the person from placing themselves at the risk of a fall in the first place? Ask your contractor to offer solutions or prescribe these methods before commencing work. That way you can assess if their proposed methods are valid / lowest risk.
2. Are suitable documentation and procedures in existence to support the work to be carried out? – Can the contractor provide you with a suitable risk assessment of the individual site conditions that might be encountered during their work? What methods of access are they proposing and control measures will they implement to mitigate the risks? Typically the provision of well-documented Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) incorporating methods of risk mitigation including rescue will be important to see. They should also detail the types of equipment to be used to perform the tasks and how and why these methods are used to mitigate the risks identified during the risk assessment process.
3. Are they both theory and practicality qualified to perform the work at height? – A qualification is one thing, however with the current vocational training system in place, an RTO can deliver a ‘Safe Work at Heights’ qualification in alignment with the requirements of a Nationally recognised competency, however they do not need to prove their course is delivering safety of students. 

The RTO system does provide adequate and relevant frameworks for the delivery of consistent training, however it does not participate in the quality control of the training itself. Once issued, a qualification does not expire. Technically therefore you could have successfully completed a course 10 years ago, however not be obliged to re-train or refresh your skills to gain a re-certification of your qualifications. 

Additionally, quality training providers will also be able to demonstrate that their students have undertaken a practical assessment of a person’s ability to use height safety equipment and work safely. The qualifications for competent operators will also likely reflect training in rescue techniques, the deployment of temporary access systems and using ladder climbing techniques such as using twin lanyards, rope adjustment and diversion anchors. Vendors issuing these qualifications that do not provide practical training are not fully executing on their duty of care to their students. If you can imagine a person undertaking an online course or half day course on working at heights might be issued the same qualification as someone with the same competency issued for a 1-2 day course. There is therefore going to be a major inconsistency between the standard of both courses.

One of the best examples to illustrate why this is important is someone achieving their drivers license. You are obliged to study content and then sit a theory exam before you can then undertake a practical test of your skills to follow the road rules and perform the safe operation of a vehicle. These conditions are mandatory for all drivers, and yet are not mandatory for people working at height. So therefore the need to assess the merits of a qualification are the responsibility of the asset owner/their representative, in the absence of a formal / mandatory assessment process.

This issue is one of the greatest faults of height safety training in the VET system, as in my view as it gives both holders of the qualifications and the customers/companies they serve a false sense of security. To mitigate this risk, review the list of WAHA endorsed training providers and request other leading providers of training to provide evidence that they conduct/recommend refresher training at least every 2 years to overcome this area of concern.

4. Does the person have previous experience in performing the specific work required to a high standard? – Experience is always a useful indicator of competency, but again, it’s only a part of the equation. Just because you have been doing a task for 5 years – perhaps you have been taking unnecessary risks in the way you’re performing those tasks and you’ve just been lucky that something serious hasn’t happened. Therefore do not rely solely on experience to make your decision.
5. Does the company /operator promote the use of two-person teams when working remotely and at height or are they relying on someone using their mobile phone to call for help? – There are a significant number of companies that do not engage teams of two people to perform inspections at locations. Their belief and explanation is always – ‘if there is an incident, the operator can simply make a call for help from their mobile phone’. 

What happens if the person has a heart attack and cannot move? What happens if the person falls over an edge and is injured in the process or drops their phone? How will a rescue be performed on that person if they are seriously injured and no-one knows of their injury for several hours? The use of single operators for inspection work may well be deemed appropriate if the inspection task can be done without other risks however you should be encouraged to contemplate this seriously in your decision making process before relying on a single-person operator or inspector to perform such tasks.

This list of areas for review is of course not exhaustive however it should provide adequate guidance for most decision making to assess a person / company’s ability to complete work at height. So I can only encourage you to look ‘beyond the ticket’ as a sign of capability to reduce your risk when choosing a company/person to perform work at height.

Michael Biddle has been the Chairman of the Working at Height Association (WAHA) for over 10 years, and has over 17 years experience in the height safety industry as a manufacturer, RTO Manager and Director of a height safety installation and distribution business.