078-acci - safe work australia submissions web viewwe would also discourage the use of the word...

078 Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)

of 593rd Stage CoP - 22June 2012

ACCI Public Comment

Draft Model Work Health and Safety - 3rd Stage Codes of Practice


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT ACCI 3

1.1 Who We Are 3

1.2 What We Do 3

ACCI COMMENT ON THE CODES OF PRACTICE 6

1. Safe Design, Manufacture, Import and Supply of Plant 6

2. Working in the Vicinity of Overhead and Underground Electrical Lines

11

3. Traffic Management in Workplaces 24

ACCI COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDES 33

Draft Guide Traffic Management: Construction Work 33

Draft Guide Traffic Management: Shopping Centres 36

Draft Guide Traffic Management: Guide for Warehousing 44

4. Scaffolding Work 45

5. Formwork and Falsework 52



About ACCI1.1 Who We AreThe Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) speak on behalf of Australian business at a national and international level.

Australia’s largest and most representative business advocate, ACCI develops and advocates policies that are in the best interests of the Australian economy and community, as well as for Australian business,

We achieve this through the collaborative action of our national member network comprising:

All state and territory chambers of commerce 27 national industry associations Bilateral and multilateral business organisations

In this way, ACCI provides leadership for more than 350,000 businesses that:

Operate in all industry sectors Include small, medium and large businesses Are located throughout metropolitan and regional Australia

1.2 What We DoACCI takes a leading role in advocating the views of Australian business to public policy decision makers and influencers including:

Federal Government Ministers & Shadow Ministers Federal Parliamentarians Policy Advisors Commonwealth Public Servants Regulatory Authorities Federal Government Agencies

Our objective is to ensure that the voice of Australian businesses is heard, whether from one of the top 100 Australian companies or a small sole trader.

Our specific activities include:

Representation and advocacy to Governments, parliaments, tribunals and policy makers both domestically and internationally

Business representation on a range of statutory and business boards and committees

Representing business in national forums including Fair Work Australia, Safe Work Australia and many other bodies associated with economics, taxation, sustainability, small business, superannuation, employment, education and training, migration, trade, workplace relations and occupational health and



safety;

Representing business in international and global forums including the International Labour Organisation, International Organisation of Employers, International Chamber of Commerce, Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Confederation of Asia-Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry and Confederation of Asia-Pacific Employers;

Research and policy development on issues concerning Australian business;

The publication of leading business surveys and other information products; and

Providing forums for collective discussion amongst businesses on matters of law and policy.

ACCI‘s submission is the result of extensive collaboration and involvement:

Members are provided with the range of documents from SWA throughout the process. Member‘s views are invited on an ongoing basis to all documents. These views are incorporated and collated into an ACCI submission

Members views are discussed and incorporated via email forums, teleconferences, specific meetings;

Members views are discussed and incorporated via involvement in ACCI Occupational Health and Safety Working Party and NEOSHCF Forums; and

ACCI Reference Groups on specific topics

Written comments from our many members

Ongoing discussions with key stakeholders.

It is important to note that SMEs constitute approximately 85% of the workplaces. With this in mind, the current Codes of Practice are still far too complex for small business. They need to be simple, user friendly and concise.

Within this submission on the Stage 3 Codes of Practice, ACCI‘s comments include:

Codes and Guides should not go beyond legislative obligations and should not use prescriptive language except quote the specific clause.

Use of mandatory language is prevalent in these codes. These mandatory requirements should only reflect the requirements specified in the legislation. All other requirements must be reflected as an optional course of action and provide appropriate guidance. ACCI recommend quoting the obligations in grey box with clause numbers, consistent with other SWA documents



The Codes of Practice should encourage compliance. The purpose of the Code should be to provide guidance which enables duty holders to comply with their duties under the Act and Regulations

Codes of practice must provide duty-holders with practical ways to comply not just repeat the regulations.

Specific industry information would be far more useful and effective in guidance. Industry specific guides are recommended always wherever possible. Industry should be involved in the development of any such material.

Requirements within WHS Codes of Practice should only relate to workplace health and safety matters.

The language needs to be clear. The Codes frequently confuse mandatory actions with guidance.

There is a difference between a regulatory obligation and advice to management and PCBUs.

It is ACCI‘s view that ‘ensure‘ should not be used without the qualifier ‘reasonably practicable‘. The use of term “so far as is reasonably practicable “should be applied through - out the guide.

We would also discourage the use of the word ‘must‘ it should be replaced with ‘may' unless there is a mandatory obligation from the regulation. This should appear in the highlighted box. Both should be used consistently.

If the qualifier is attached to the ‘must‘ in the regulations, this should also follow in the code of practice. The qualifier must be repeated to add clarity and avoid confusion.



1. Safe Design, Manufacture, Import and Supply of Plant

Feedback is sought on whether: the scope and the technical content is appropriate and practical the guidance on design verification of registrable plant that is designed and

manufactured overseas is easy to understand the guidance on the responsibilities of persons conducting a business or undertaking

who manufacture, import or supply components, or remove or modify plant is adequate and easy to understand.

Overall Comments:

This Code of Practice overall covers the points required in such document however in needs to be shorter. The use of case studies and examples will highlight the practical solutions required by each duty holder to understand their obligations.

The purpose of the Code should be to provide guidance which enables duty holders to comply with their duties under the Act and Regulations. Australian Standards that apply could be listed in an Appendix with a standard introductory paragraph noting that the standards are not required but are listed for information. This was agreed at SIG-WHS. Where deemed a necessity any text from AS should be included in the Code rather than simply referencing the AS.

Section/page no. Comment1. Intro (page 5)2. Manage Plant

Risks (page 9)2.1 Identify Hazards

2.2 Assessing risks

This section has a statement which reads - A risk assessment is unnecessary if you already know the risk and how to control it This statement could be mis-leading – additional wording may assist.Suggest addition of the following wording at the end “as a result of a previous risk assessment”

2.3 Controlling the risks

Combination of Control Measures – page 11Add in ….’and providing PPE such as a face shield and hearing protection for noise.”

3. Safe Design of Plant (page 13)



3.2 The role of designers

Page 14 -Section 3.2 - ‘says a designer should have or acquire skills and knowledge listed.

Suggest the following changes to 3.2 In addition to core design capabilities, the following skills and knowledge should be demonstrated/acquired by a designer, or as a minimum, held by another person of the design team:

3.5 Design Phase

Technical Standards – page 17‘The list is not exhaustive and designers may consider using other technical standards when designing plant’. This should also include:The list is a guide for reference only.

3.6 Testing and examination of Plant

Page 17 – 5th dot point – addition “reasonable” – to read:‘Development of overload testing procedures to ensure plant safety during reasonable foreseeable misuse conditions.’

3.7 Providing Information

Page 17 – Delete - ‘The designer must also, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide this information to any person who carries out activities in relation to the plant.’

Results of calculations and tests relate to the design and development can be confidential by those with an interest in the design, manufacture and supply of plant. Further guidance is required to ascertain what is ‘adequate’.

Page 18 - Delete: In the case of registrable plant design, the information provided by the designer to the manufacturer should include the plant design registration number in order to provide evidence that the plant design has been registered in accordance with the WHS Regulations.

It is often necessary to test the plant or parts thereof as part of design development. It is not possible to verify a plant design without firstly manufacturing and testing a prototype.

3.8 Registering Plant

Design Verifier – page 20 – ACCI does not agree to with the references to the particular professional associations. This does not always guarantee competence.

Once the design is registered – page 20 – second last para – there



should be a number of options that the duty holder can provide the plant design registration number for example, printed in the manuals, stamped on the ID plates, labelled on the plant.

Also, this clause assumes that the designer is the applicant for design registration which may not necessarily be the case.

4. Design considerations (page 21)

4.2 Design to facilitate safe use

Page 21 – section 4 - this section outlines a range of factors that designers should take into account so that plant is designed to facilitate safe use. This section includes the likelihood of operator error.

Page 211st dot point – designers may not always be in a position to determine the required skill levels to operate or maintain the plant.10th dot point - ‘environmental conditions that will tend to impair….’. This should read ‘environmental conditions that may impair.’

Example page 21 – This is an example of poor ergonomic design. This example should describe the safety/stop feature that the operator should have been able to access. A solution should also be provided.Another example highlighting human error should also be addressed, where provided seatbelts are not used due to the number of times the operator in and off a piece of equipment. It should highlight the pressure/presence sensing and an interlock would prevent the operator from moving without a seatbelt. 4.3 Reasonably foreseeable misuse

Page 22 – section 4.3 - designers of plant should assess the risk of reasonably foreseeable misuse of the plant and incorporate appropriate control measures into the design. This does not appear to be consistent with the design duty at subsection 22(2) of the Act. That subsection limits the obligations of designers to any reasonably foreseeable activity at a workplace in relation to the manufacture, assembly or use of the plant for a purpose for which it was designed.

4.4 Minimising human error

The deliberate action of a guard being bypassed or removed is an unacceptable breach of duty by an individual. The first two sentences almost make this action acceptable. It should be re-drafted to make it clear to the reader.



It is inappropriate in a Code of Practice to describe: “The desire for extra speed, increased production and making tasks easier are some of the main reasons……”. It is unreasonable to expect a designer to foresee or factor into the design for plant an individuals’ forgetfulness, fatigue, habits etc.

An amended Appendix C should be the only piece of information that is included as part of this section. (further comments in latter section on Appendix C).

4.5 Environmental conditions

Page 22 - Redraft 1st line: A designer should take into consideration the hazards created by the range of physical, environmental and operation conditions to which plant may be exposed…..

Second paragraph – page 22 – this section should be deleted. This has no place in a code of practice.

4.6 Erection and installation

Ist paragraph – page 22 should read – ‘A designer should recognise that hazards associated with the erection and installation of plant are identified so far as reasonably practicable identified…….’

4.7 Maintenance

Last dot point – addition of ‘sharp’ – to read:

The design eliminates or minimises the risk of inadvertently touching or coming into contact with hot, sharp or moving parts.

4.8 Emergency Stops

A simple sentence outlining the need for emergency stops and their use would be helpful.

Page 27 – ‘Once engaged, the emergency stop controls should remain that way.’ This requires further information, what does this actually mean.

5. Manufacture of Plant (page 28)

5.6 Item Registration

This section needs to clearly describe what item registration actually is, as it may confuse the situation. It should be deleted from this Code of Practice as it is already contained in the Plant Code of Practice.



6. Import and Supply of Plant (page 31)

Clear examples would be helpful in this section.

6.2 information about the safe use of plant

This section needs to clarify ‘adequate’ information. It should be noted that these calculations and testing results are confidential in many cases. How much information would be required to be provided to the end user? How much information is ‘adequate’ as per the regulations? This CoP needs to provide further information and clarify this point more clearly.

6.7 Second-hand Plant

Inclusion of the shaded box from the Plant Regulations would Section 199 would be helpful in this section.

The second paragraph states that any faults that cause risk to health and safety are rectified. The Act or Regulations do not state that all faults must be ‘rectified’. Plant needs to be without risk, so far as reasonably practicable; however, not all faults on plant could cause a risk to health and safety. The regulations only stipulate in section 199 that second hand plant faults are only identified, not rectified.

As per the third paragraph of this section needs to be re-worded to outline what regulation 199 states regarding a suppliers duty to sell second hand plant

7. Specific Risk Control (page 35)

APPENDIX A – Examples Of Technical StandardsAPPENDIX B – Registrable PlantAPPENDIX C – Design Sources Of Human Error

It is recommended that Appendix C should be retitled “Design sources of operator error”. This appendix is subjective. For example stress is a reaction which differs between person to person and the circumstances that surround it. A designer could not reasonably foresee all the difference circumstances and combinations in order to make an appropriate judgement.

Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so, what are they?



2. Working in the Vicinity of Overhead and Underground Electrical Lines

Feedback is sought on how to deal with approach distances in the draft model code. The following options are proposed for comment:

Option 1: Extend the recommended approach distances so that they cover the higher standard that applies in some jurisdictions. For example, changing the approach distances in Table 1 of the draft model code as follows:

Above 132,000 up to and including 330,000 (volts) from 6.0 metres to 6.4 metres

Above 330,000 (volts) from 8 metres to 10 metres.

These distances would then be consistent with those used in AS 2550.5-2002 Cranes, hoists and winches – Safe use – Part 5: Mobile cranes and other jurisdictional material.

ACCI notes that using 6.4m would be impractical to work with- a ‘rounded’ figure is needed to avoid such exact measurement.

Option 2: The approach distances remain as drafted, with a note stating that duty holders should also check distances with their local electricity supply authority and their local electricity safety regulator in case they apply more stringent requirements.

Option 3:

The approach distances are removed so that the code only includes a statement that local electricity supply authorities should be contacted for information on approach distances.

Option 4:

Base the approach distances on whether the electric line is mounted on a power pole or a tower. This option may make it easier for workers and untrained persons to identify where high voltage lines are situated. This option differs from Options 1 and 2 that are based on the voltage carried by the electric line.

General comment

ACCI does not support this Code in the absence of agreement from Energy Supply Authorities.

ACCI has a fundamental concern with setting requirements (such as distances) in a Code that may not apply, given that there may be overriding regulatory requirements from supply authorities. For industry this creates confusion. The Code is redundant given that regulatory requirements from local supply authorities must apply.

ACCI note that in WHS Regulations Cl166 an “unsafe distance” is mentioned and of 59

3rd Stage CoP - 22June 2012


needs clarification. The WHS Regulation including approach distances in the Code will result in significant confusion for duty holders and could lead to a situation where duty holders comply with Code but not with other legal obligations.

A code of practice can never override legal requirements imposed by a local authority. In the event of an incident in such circumstances, a Court is likely to take into consideration compliance with other legal obligations in establishing what is reasonably practicable for the purposes of the Act.

For the approach distances to be useful, co-operation and regulatory change would be required from the various jurisdictional electrical supply authorities.

ACCI encourages Safe Work Australia, through its tripartite process, to work with energy authorities to establish harmonised approach distances.

This Code should then be reviewed and re- released for public comment.

Note: If the authorities were all in agreement then ACCI would be in position to support the distances in Option 2.

Codes and Guides should not go beyond legislative obligations and should not use prescriptive language except quote the specific clause. Consistent with other documents, ACCI recommends the use of the grey box for the specific legislative requirement.

The use of term “so far as is reasonably practicable “should be applied throughout the guide.


Feedback is also sought on the type of training that is appropriate for authorised persons who carry out work closer than the recommended approach distances as well as safety observers (or ‘spotters’) who observe the work, including whether the provision of training should be limited to registered training organisations.



ACCI supports the delivery of training for authorised persons, including safety observers, who carry out work closer than the recommended approach distances by registered training organisations. ACCI believes that such work health and safety training should be delivered through the vocational education and training system.

Section/page no. CommentScope and Application (Page 4)

ACCI does not support this Code unless there is agreement from Energy Supply Authorities. Current Scope and Application therefore cannot be supported. For the approach distances to be useful, co-operation and regulatory change would be required from the various jurisdictional electrical supply authorities.

ACCI encourages Safe Work Australia, through its tripartite process, to work with energy authorities to establish a consistent approach from Supply Authorities, including harmonising approach distances.

This Code should than be reviewed and re- released for public comment. Safe approach distances should therefore not be considered as part of the Code at this stage.


The topics in Chapter 3 and on should be included in Guidance material. This is repeats Chapter 2 and involves too much repetition

Introduction (page 6) first paragraph- line 3 delete after “fatal” “and change to ‘regardless of the voltage they are carrying’- mentioning



specific voltages is unnecessarily confusing.

IntroductionPage 7, Subheading - What is involved in managing electrical risks

first paragraph – “in the vicinity of” - This needs to be clearly defined as a distance. For example – state the distance for initiation of risk management process or state as a set multiple of the unauthorised approach distance e.g. four times

second paragraph electric lines should always be treated as live – addition “unless there is verification from the electricity supply authority that the lines have been de-energised”.

sixth paragraph replace the words “instructing on and ensuring compliance with ‘no go’ zones” with “defining and ensuring compliance with ‘no go’ zones”.

IntroductionPage 8, Subheading - Safe Work Method Statements

The code is about safe approach distances. ACCI would caution about using the word “safe” in this context. “Recommended approach distances” might be more appropriate.Working “on” is not relevant to these tasks and is covered under the WHS Regulations but working “near” to energised electrical is relevant.

If Construction work then need a SWMS “if near”. What is “near” must be defined.Eg if 3m is the approach distance for overhead lines up to 132kV then how close to that distance must you be in order to have a SWMS?The answer will be subject to the controllability of the machine and maximum reach of the machine. If for example, a machine is working where the maximum reach is a distance of 5 metres from the “Unauthorised Person Zone”, is that “near”?As an analogy: an electrical worker is seen to be “near” if their reach (including tool in hand) is within 500mm.ACCI recommends, twice the nominated Approach Distance from the line as an indicative figure is point at



which need to prepare and follow a SWMS.Elsewhere the term “in the vicinity of” is used. ACCI seeks clarification of the difference between “in the vicinity of” and “near”?When and how the differences would apply or recommend SWA use the same terminology.

2 Approach Distances page 9-16

Page 10 – figure 1 should be amended.

It should include a line at the height of the envelope of the plant and make it clear that the distance to be assessed is the distance from that line if the plant is to be operated.

ACCI does not support this Code unless there is agreement from Energy Supply Authorities. Current Scope and Application therefore cannot be supported. For the approach distances to be useful at all co-operation and regulatory change would be required from the various jurisdictional electrical supply authorities.

ACCI encourages Safe Work Australia, through its tripartite process, to work with energy authorities to establish a joint approach from Supply Authorities including harmonised approach distances.

This Code should then be reviewed and re- released for public comment.

Hence safe approach distances should not be considered at this stage as part of the Code.

This section must be reworded to revert to advice from local electricity supply authorities to check relevant approach distances.

Australian Standards that apply could be listed in an Appendix with a standard introductory paragraph noting that the standards are not required but are listed for information. This was agreed at SIG-WHS. Where deemed a necessity, any text from AS should be included in the Code rather than simply referencing the AS.

Page 11 –figure 3 needs to be supported by additional text which makes it clear that duty holders should not lift above overhead electric lines.

Page 12 Table 1



We could now have:

Voltage In Vicinity of (4d)

Near (2d)

Approach distance (d)

<=132,000 12m 6m 3m132,000 to 330,000

24m 12m 6m

>330,000 32m 16m 8mAction when working within

Undertake risk management

Use SWMS

Need authorised training

Page 12, 2.2 Unauthorised Person Zone, para 2, line 1“the use of a safety observer should also be considered”. ACCI does not believe this to be a legislative requirement therefore ‘may’ needs to replace ‘should’. The safety observer is more related to energised electrical work – Division 4.

Page 13, Subheading – About no go Zone – second para“Before work commences in the vicinity of an energised electrical part, no go zones should be established.”Why does an unauthorised person need to know where the no-go-zone commences?They need only know what the relevant unauthorised person approach distance is.

first paragraph

“not just sideways” is confusing and unnecessary given that the sentence makes it clear that the no go zone is all around the electrical part.

ACCI recommend deleting “not just sideways”.

Page 14 first two paragraphs should appear immediately after the heading “About no go zones”.

Page 15, Subheading – Training and competence, para 3, line 2



The Code states that:

“authorised persons and safety observers should either be re-assessed or re-trained annually to ensure their ongoing competency.”

This is not reasonable and it extends beyond the requirements in some jurisdictions.

For example, in Victoria, a Spotters (Safety Observer) ticket is valid for three years.

Competence should be maintained in accordance with local requirements of the relevant electricity supply authority.

The use of “in the vicinity of overhead electric lines” and the requirement for training records would mean a different context of distance than the previous use of in the vicinity. This one would be more like “near”. These terms need specific definitions and they need to be used consistently.

The training of licensed electricians should also be recognised.

Page 16 –amended the final sentence to “Further guidance and case studies involving approach distances are in Appendix B.”

3 Operating cranes and Mobile Plant

Section 3.2

figure 5 –

Recommend figure 5 needs to be supported by additional text which makes it clear that duty holders should not lift above overhead electric lines.

Page 18 “Crane or mobile plant operation in the vicinity of overhead electric lines may also require a safe work method statement based on a risk assessment.”

The obligation to prepare a safe work method statement is determined firstly whether or not the work meets the

Page 17 of 593rd Stage CoP - 22June 2012


definition of high risk construction work and then where necessary as a result of a risk assessment. But the current statement is not clear - first determine if HR construction work and then assess whether or not a risk assessment is required.

Also note a safe work method statement is required to be prepared for construction work carried out in an area at a workplace in which there is any movement of powered mobile plant - ie it does require a SWMS

Section 3.3 Page 19 WARNING should also be “ or by a competent person”.Also the Service might be private

Page 20 – at the top of the page,

Before any barriers are erected, a risk assessment must be carried out by an appropriately qualified person to ensure the appropriate design and correct materials are used. The barrier should be erected safely. This may entail isolating the electricity supply while the barrier is installed. ACCI notes that:Regulation 166(2) requires a risk assessment to be conducted if it is not reasonably practicable to ensure the safe distance of a person, plant or thing from an overhead or underground electric line.

This does not state that risk assessment must be undertaken before barriers are erected, nor for the risk assessment to be carried out by an appropriately qualified person.

Recommend that “must” be replaced with “should” and the reference to “appropriately qualified person” be deleted.



Page 20 engineering controls – first dot point

“that mechanical stops or interlocking of the motion of the crane or mobile plant should be considered to prevent it from being moved by electricity.”

The Code should make it clearer that this is referring to inadvertent movement of the crane. This section also uses the acronym SIL without any explanation – it should be defined and acronym in brackets afterwards.

Page 20 – figure 6

This is incorrect – bunting is not attached to the electricity line but to a separate line strung beneath the line.

Page 21 – Use of Admin Controls

planning for emergencies including having fire-fighting equipment suitable for electrical fires an appropriate first aid kit readily accessible on site. Emergency rescue procedures following contact with overhead electric lines are provided in Appendix C “

Emergency planning is vital but is not a risk control measure and should appear separate from the list of administrative risk controls.

Page 21, Subheading - use of PPENot appropriate for ordinary persons to use such specialist PPE without extensive training in use, care and maintenance. If PPE of this type is required then the worker needs to be licensed and properly credentialed.

Page 22 Other workers

First para, line 3

“Safety observer zone” is introduced here and should be identified in Section 2



Also note “Minimum Approach Distance for Unauthorised Person” is mentioned.

Exclusion Zone Would be the preferred terminology. This must be used consistently and be clearly defined and used as early as possible in the document

Page 23 Figure 8

This figure shows an “Exclusion Zone”

These terms are new and unnecessary – or why not use Exclusion Zone in place of Unauthorised Approach Distance – which actually means “Minimum Approach Distance for Unauthorised Person”.

The terminology must be consistent.

So suggestion is to have:Term: Outside (Say

11,000V line)Worker Action

Outside vicinity >12m Risk managementIn the vicinity of

<12m Risk management - By competent person

Near <6m SWMS - By competent person

Exclusion Zone >3m (table 1) Unauthorised

Consider Safety Observer +

Authorised Person Zone

>1.2m (table 2)

Authorised by training

Safety observer +

No go zone >0.9m (table 3)

Licensed Safety observer, ppe +

Section 5.5 - Page 34 – the third paragraph

“The following installation conditions apply for the use of a hoarding and enclosure for reduced safety clearances:

gaps between fitted sheets of plywood should not exceed 3mm

no exposed cut or drilled holes should be permitted in the sheets of plywood

the scaffolder should be responsible for attaching plywood to the scaffold and ensuring that the arrangement can sustain an appropriate wind load

warning signs should be affixed to the safe side of



the hoarding warning of the presence of the electrical hazard on the other side of the hoarding and warning that the hoarding should not be removed

a competent person should visually inspect the hoarding and, if applicable the enclosure on a daily basis to ensure the hoarding and enclosure are in a satisfactory condition and remain impenetrable.

This implies a mandatory obligation under the WHS legislation – it is not - this is a recommended approach, not a legislative requirement.

As with other Codes of Practice a regulatory requirement should be stated clearly and in a grey box with the clause number

para 3 the dot points below figure 11 indicate that warning signs should be affixed to the safe side of the hoarding yet they are absent from figure 11.

An appropriate example figure should be used.

In addition plywood should be attached to the scaffold using non-conductive means.

4 Scaffolding Work page 35

Figure 12 indicates that 9mm marine ply or 17mm thick concrete ply be fixed securely to the face of the scaffold.

Specifying marine ply is unnecessarily prescriptive and that other weather resistant ply should and could be able to be used.

Note 17mm thick concrete ply is heavy and that this would need to be taken into account when assessing working load limits for the scaffold.

5 Agricultural Work page 36



6 Low Voltage overhead Lines near Buildings and Structures Work page 40

7 Transportation of High Loads page 44

8 Electrical Risks Underground and In buildings Page 48

Section 9 of the Code to be outside of scope as it deals with electrical risks in buildings rather than electrical risks associated with an underground electric line.

There is no link between the regulation cited at the beginning of section 9 and the material on electrical risks in buildings in that section.

There is also no indication in section 9 of the regulatory requirements applying to excavation work, including the requirement on a PCBU undertaking excavation work to obtain current underground essential services information about the area in which the excavation work is to take place.

This section should be deleted from the Code.

Furthermore there is a Code of Practice: Managing Electrical Risks at the Workplace (which covers work involving electrical equipment, the definition of which in the regulations includes cables and wires used to supply electricity).

Pages 48-49 fail to mention

1. the use of scanning equipment to locate services 2. the need to protect underground services where

they need to be dug up as part of the construction work.

Case studies provided in Appendix B (pages 53-54) should include examples of incidents involving buried or



concealed electrical services.

APPENDIX A – DefinitionsPage 52

Appendixes are usefulNeed to include a definition of Extra low voltage “3extra low voltage means voltage of 50V or less AC RMS, or 120V or less ripple-free DC.”

APPENDIX B – Case Studies Page 53APPENDIX C –Emergency rescue Procedure Page 56APPENDIX D – Requirements for transportation of High loads Page 59APPENDIX E – OtherPage 60Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this code that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so, what are they?



3. Traffic Management in Workplaces Feedback is sought on whether the scope and content of this Code is appropriate.

Codes and Guides should not go beyond legislative obligations and should not use prescriptive language, other than to quote the specific clause. Consistent with other documents, ACCI recommends the use of the grey box for the specific legislative requirement.

The use of term “so far as is reasonably practicable “should be applied throughout the Code and the Guides.

ACCI does not support the duplication of regulation nor obligations. The Guides must not overlap nor duplicate other regulatory requirements. Traffic flows and demands can be dependent on other agencies eg local planning requirements or trading hours. This needs to be clearly outlined in the Guides and in the Code.


ACCI strongly recommends that requirements of the Code and Guides are not applied retrospectively.

ACCI notes that the Draft Guides were released at the same time as the Code of Practice on Traffic Management, however the relationship between the Codes and the Guides is unclear. ACCI advised its members that public comment could be made on these Guides as part of comment on the Code but not until close to the end of public comment period. Many organisations that should have been involved did not realise in time. Further consultation is required.

Consultation should occur with the specific industry sector before Guides or other documents are prepared. This is especially important for specific workplace guides.ACCI recommends the term “Vehicle movement plans” in preference to “traffic management plans”.

Section/page no. Comment1. Intro page 5 Page 5 - Mobile plant

ACCI recommend a definition/examples of “mobile plant”

Page 5- 6 What is involved in managing traffic Hazards – more examples of the different duty holders actions required would be helpful.



For example, multiple PCBU situations are always complex and so an explanation of how an on-hire firm would be expected to meet their duty for traffic management would be useful.

2. Risk management page 7-

ACCI does not support the duplication of regulation nor obligations. This guide must not overlap nor duplicate other regulatory requirements. Traffic flows and demands can be dependent on other agencies e.g. local planning requirements or trading hours

This needs to be clearly outlined in the Guide and in the Code.

Page 7 – In the second paragraph. As this is a recommended course of action, ACCI would suggest the introductory sentence be changed to “Elements that should be taken into account when managing traffic hazards include”.

Additional items that could be included in the list of elements:

Identifying what type of vehicles and plant may use the same area

Visibility, shade and light glare at different times of day

Section 2.1, the fourth dot point

should read “ arrival or departures” of vehicles or plant

Section 2.1Page 8 – the second dot point

“ unsuitable and dangerous pedestrian routes – for example if routes are poorly maintained (cracked footpaths), have blind corners or inadequate lighting”

This seems to imply that cracked footpaths are an example of poorly maintained pedestrian routes. It is common for concrete footpaths to crack; such cracking does not automatically make a pedestrian route unsuitable and dangerous. The words “cracked footpaths” should be



deleted from the Code.

Page 8 –after “review security and other footage” insert “(where available)”

Page 8 – Section 2.2 – A risk assessment

…… likelihood of it happening – an example here would be helpful. For example – what is likely to happen when a forklift and a person interact.

Page 9 – Section 2.3 – first para –

“The methods for controlling risk is to rank them from the highest level of protection and reliability to the lowest. This ranking is known as the hierarchy of risk control.

You must always aim to eliminate a hazard, which is the most effective control. If this is not reasonably practicable, you should minimise the risk by working through the other alternatives in the hierarchy. “

This is unclear and many members have found this confusing The language must be consistent with the regulation and the SWA Risk Management Code.

ACCI recommends quoting the relevant regulation in the grey box with the clause number.

ACCI recommends In determining the best control measure the preferred steps are to first eliminate hazard and then implement “to level of personal protection equipment”.

In the example of a substitution risk control, replace the of 59



words “more people-friendly” with “other”.

Last para after the box before Section 2.4

ACCI continues to have difficulty with the following:

“Administrative control measures and personal protective equipment do not control the hazard at the source. They rely on human behaviour and supervision and used on their own tend to be the least effective control measures to minimise risks.”

In many cases PPE is a perfectly acceptable means of minimising the hazard – eg gloves for cold work.

Furthermore, it does not allow for what is reasonably practicable given the tasks and conditions. The “least effective” protection may be effective given the conditions.

Page 10 – Section 2.3 (cont)Use administrative controls

Case study may be appropriate to clearly show how this can be managed.

Section 2.4 Reviewing Control Measures p10

ACCI recommends quoting the relevant regulation in the grey box with the clause number.

The Regulations mandates review of controls and specifies certain circumstances in which a review is required (e.g. when there is a notifiable incident). It needs to be very clear to duty holders that it is mandatory to review control measures in certain circumstances.

ACCI queries why this section is not the same as previous



Codes.

Reference could be made to SWA Code of Practice on Managing Risks.

3. Traffic control Measures page 11

3.1 Pedestrian routes.“The safest way to protect pedestrians is to eliminate the hazard, which means removing the use of all vehicles and mobile plant in the workplace.”

As noted elsewhere, this implies removing the use of all vehicles, including powered mobile plant, or removing all pedestrians from traffic areas. Removing the use of vehicles including powered mobile plant is completely impractical. Removing motor vehicles is not a practical solution in a number of workplaces, for example in a shopping centre. This should be deleted from the guide.

To assist the audience there should be a clear distinction between the internal workplace and the movement of plant and other the vehicles externally.

Page 12 - There are speed suppression devices that could be mentioned where appropriate.

Page 13 – graphic example – further examples may also be worthwhile. It is suggested that shared driveways for warehouses, couriers, mobile plant and pedestrian access – shared and isolations zones.

Page 16 – speed and stopping distances – need practical examples in this section. Eg There are speed suppression devices that could be mentioned

Page 17 – traffic management plan – who should have access to this and how should access be given?

Page 18 – last para – traffic management planning an of 59



SWMS…. – it would be helpful to provide a case study and provide an example of a traffic management plan.

Section 3.2 Vehicle Routes

Page 12 Section 3.2

ACCI encourages the use of practical guidance for construction workplaces (e.g. that traffic routes should be surfaced with bitumen, concrete or other suitable material). This section could do with further examples and practical means of compliance

It would not be practical for example in housing construction where the size of the site and small number of workers does not enable many of the suggested control measures to be implemented.

This could be another reason for separate guidance specific to housing industry. However in this Code one size fits all will be difficult to encompass all possibilities – industry specific guidance is recommended.

First sentence

delete “where possible” and replace with “where reasonably practicable” to ensure that the code is consistent with the Model Act and regulations.

Dot point 8

“without excessive gradients – steep gradients that cannot be avoided should be clearly signposted. Forklift trucks and similar plant should operate on gradients only if they are designed to do so. “

ACCI supports the recommendation for an additional dot point -

“suitable pedestrian crossings. If the vehicle route to be crossed is a road or railway consider controls that will work with any existing measures established by the relevant



authority e.g. local council, rail authority.”

Section 3.3 Safe Crossings

Section 3.4 Safe parking

Section 3.7 Signs

Section 3.8 Lighting

Section 3.9 Forklifts and mobile powered plant

Section 3.10 Information, Instruction Training and Supervision

Page 12 change “clearly visible ground markings, lights and signs” to “clearly visible ground markings, lights or signs.

“Private vehicles should only be parked in designated areas and away from busy work areas where practicable “

Replace “where practicable” with “where reasonably practicable” and add this to the second paragraph as well

Page 13 – figure 2

This figure is confusing and should be replaced with a diagram which more clearly depicts the vehicles involved

Page 14 insert “where reasonably practicable” at the start of the first sentence.

Page 15 – in the second dot point

insert “where reasonably practicable” at the start of the dot point.

Page 15 BOX

The regulation box should indicate the clause number

After the box

“Control measures to manage the risks where mobile plant is used include:”

This introductory sentence should make it clear that these are examples of control measures and that the list is neither compulsory nor exhaustive.

Page 17 –first paragraph

Consistency with the regulations is required and the Code/guide should be checked for consistency with



Section 3.11 Traffic management plans

legislation and existing Codes.

“where reasonably practicable” must be added after “Ensure” in order to accurately reflect that the legislation. The regulations do not impose an absolute duty.

ACCI would also suggest emphasising the responsibilities of others.

“Other persons at the workplace, so far as they are able, must comply with any reasonable instruction that is given by the PCBU. They must also take reasonable care for their own health and safety and that they do not adversely affect the health and safety of others.”

Page 17 These plans are developed in order to meet the requirements of local road authorities for work on or near public roads. Covered elsewhere. This section could refer to “vehicle movement plan”

ACCI understands that any signage should be checked for continuing application and for any damage

Section 3.12 Specific requirements for Construction Work

Pages 17-18

Contains information that is already covered in other Codes of Practice. Reference could be made to the existing Codes.

ACCI recommends this section be deleted.

ACCI Members have also noted other inaccuracies in this section:

inclusion of the content of SWMS in information and instruction for workers is not a legislative requirement. The reference to “must” in the first sentence on page 18 should be replaced with



“should”. The requirement to prepare a work health and safety

management plan applies to any project with a value of $250,000 or more and not to “more complex construction projects” as stated in the second paragraph on page 18. The dollar value of projects is a proxy for complexity but it does not mean that work health and safety management plans will solely apply to “complex” projects.

Recommend that should this remain here, the definition and threshold from the Code of Practice be repeated here.

Traffic management plans are generally understood to apply to work undertaken on or near a road not vehicle movements within a workplace. The first sentence of the third paragraph on page 18 below

Traffic management planning and SWMS should be incorporated in the WHS management plan.

“Vehicle movement within the workplace” would be preferred

APPENDIX A – Traffic Control Checklist page 19Other : Workplace specific guides




ACCI Comments on the Draft Guides for Traffic Management

ACCI notes that these Draft Guides were released at the same time as the Code of Practice on Traffic Management, however the relationship between the Codes and the guides was unclear. ACCI advised industry that public comment could be made on these guides as part of comment on The Traffic Management Code. Unfortunately many related industry players may not have had the opportunity to comment as this was not clear.

ACCI recommends particularly for specific workplace guides that consultation is essential with the specific industry sector before Guides or other industry specific documents are drafted.

Draft Guide: Traffic Management: Construction Work

Page 1

ACCI has previously expressed concerns about perimeter fencing – particularly on housing construction sites. This is impractical in all circumstances.

The first sentence of the guide indicates that it only applies to construction workplaces enclosed by perimeter fencing. ACCI supports member’s comments that “it is not practicable, nor reasonable to have perimeter fencing on all sites in particular housing construction sites which are not close to schools, shopping centres and so on.”

The absence of perimeter fencing necessarily means that measures to control vehicle movements cannot be put into place and that the generic nature of the guide means that it could be applied to construction workplaces without a perimeter fence.”

Introduction

Page 1 First paragraph

delete “forklift, excavators” and replace with “powered mobile plant”.

Powered mobile plant also needs a definition for clarity.

Third paragraph



This paragraph indicates that the safest way to protect pedestrians is to eliminate the hazard, which means removing the use of all vehicles including powered mobile plant or removing all pedestrians from traffic areas.

Removing the use of vehicles including powered mobile plant is completely impracticable. This should be deleted from the guide.

The last sentence of this paragraph does not provide an example of elimination of the hazard rather it is isolation.

To assist the audience there should be a clear distinction between the internal workplace and the movement of plant and other vehicles externally.

Information, instruction and training Page 2

First paragraph

“PCBU must also ensure that construction industry training is provided to workers”

In all cases ACCI would encourage stating the regulation and the clause in a grey box consistent with other SWA documents.

Regulation 316 states that construction induction training to workers who are to carry out construction work must receive training.

Note other workers such as couriers, or hospitality workers at a site are not required to undergo construction induction training. This is important to operations in the workplace and needs to be made clear.

Third paragraph

The guide must be consistent with legislative requirements. To be consistent ACCI suggests “if possible” should be replaced with “where reasonably practicable”

ACCI would encourage stating the regulation and the clause in a grey box consistent with other SWA documents.

Fifth paragraph

In addition to be consistent with section 29 of the Model Act “so far as they’re able” should be replaced with “so far as the person is reasonably able”.



ACCI would encourage stating the regulation and the clause in a grey box consistent with other SWA documents.

Guides should not go beyond legislative obligations and should not use prescriptive language except quote the specific clause.

Replace “The following actions will help” with “The following are examples of ways to….”.

Page 3

ACCI recommends removal of phrase “no go zones”. This is used for energised electrical lines.

First paragraph

Scheduling work is an administrative control and the possibility of vehicles and pedestrians being in the same area at the same time can be minimised “so far as reasonably practicable”.

Third paragraph – the first dot point

ACCI firmly believes that the where there are specific obligations these should be stated and the clause noted. Statements in this guide should not go beyond guidance.

Fitness for work

ACCI supports the development of ‘fitness for work’ policies which aim to assist organisations and individuals to maintain a state (physical, mental and emotional) that enables workers to perform assigned tasks competently and in a manner that does not compromise or threaten the safety or health of themselves and others. This applies particularly to safety-critical tasks.

ACCI recommends “health” be amended to “fitness for work”

The obligations established by the Model Act and Regulations are based on “fitness for work” of operators of vehicles and plant for the task.

Conducting broad health checks is not a legislative requirement

Page 4

The Code of Practice on Excavation Work does not provide guidance on signs; certainly there is no requirement that signs be installed.



Page 5

“Vehicle movement plans” is recommended in preference to “traffic management plans”. This would assist in distinguishing them from external road traffic management authorities.



Draft Guide to Traffic Management in Shopping Centres

Guides should not go beyond legislative obligations and should not use prescriptive language except to quote the specific clause. Consistent with other documents, ACCI recommends the use of the grey box for the specific legislative requirement.

In addition terminology such as “must” should be replaced with “could consider” or as an example “consideration should be given to”

The use of term “so far as is reasonably practicable “should be applied through - out the guide.

The practical application of a guide and its use as a compliance tool must be clearly outlined.

ACCI does not support the duplication of regulation nor obligations. This guide must not overlap nor duplicate other regulatory requirements. Traffic flows and demands can be dependent on other agencies eg local planning requirements or trading hours.


ACCI has liaised with the Shopping Centre Association of Australia and can support the comments made within their submission.

Page 3 - that “all retailers must be consulted . . .”. This is qualified by as far as is reasonably practical, however the guide goes beyond the requirements to consult, cooperate and co-ordinate and is impractical.

Industry also seeks clarity on timing of application and use of guides.

ACCI strongly recommends where a requirement of the Code is more onerous than presently applies in a jurisdiction that this not be made retrospective.

ACCI maintains that administrative controls are acceptable levels of control and that there is a shared responsibility for WHS. For example signage and guidance are also acceptable controls and that in addition others - customers, pedestrians, need to exercise their own duty of care.

Further there needs to be recognition of the diversity of work and workplaces – the current guide seems to relate to “large” shopping centres. Shopping Centres can be large or small enterprises. What is practical for large organisations may not be practical for smaller centres. Likewise a change for a small organisation may be



possible but the same change in a large complex may require major amendment. The cost may well be grossly disproportionate.

Specific Comments

1. Introduction

ACCI recommends guidance on the design of car parks and loading docks, with regard to traffic management. Reference could be made to the principles of Safe Design in SWA Code of Practice. Safe design principles and use of risk management would be useful.

ACCI notes that one size does not fit all - what is suitable for a small shopping centre is not always applicable to large shopping centres and vice versa. The Introduction should emphasise the application “so far as is reasonably practicable”

The two sentences: “The safest way to protect pedestrians is to eliminate the hazard, which means removing the use of all vehicles and powered mobile plant or removing all pedestrians from traffic areas. This could be achieved for example by designing the layout of the workplace to eliminate the interaction of pedestrians and vehicles”

This is not practical for a shopping centre and current wording should be deleted.

“multi-purpose vehicle causeways including access points to train stations.” Should also be noted as well as “taxi ranks and bus stop activity”

2. Information, instruction and training

The legislative requirements relating to “other persons at the workplace” (i.e. customers) needs to be emphasised.


3.1 Pedestrian routes.

“The safest way to protect pedestrians is to eliminate the hazard, which means removing the use of all vehicles and mobile plant in the workplace.”

As noted elsewhere this implies removing the use of all vehicles including powered mobile plant or removing all pedestrians from traffic areas. Removing the use of vehicles including powered mobile plant is completely impracticable. Removing motor



vehicles is not a practical solution in a shopping centre. This should be deleted from the guide.

To assist the audience there should be a clear distinction between the internal workplace and the movement of plant and other the vehicles externally. Traffic management external to the workplace can be regulated by other agencies.

Other dot points for minimising risk, such as that to ensure that vehicles cannot physically enter pedestrian space are not possible in a shopping centre

3.3 Safe crossings.

WHS is a shared responsibility and responsibilities of others need to be recognised and acknowledged


Adequate signage should be sufficient in most cases. Other examples as listed would be impractical and costs considered prohibitive.

3.5 Safe loading and unloading/ 3.6 Safe reversing.

ACCI support the following member statement

“Modification of loading bays and loading and unloading systems is problematic in a shopping centre. Many major retailers have long leases (20 years or more) and removing or altering space from a lease to a major retailer in order to modify a loading dock is a very difficult task and impossible if the retailer says won’t agree to a lease variation.”

3.10 Information, instruction, training and supervision.

The mandatory language of this section is inappropriate. It is not possible for a PCBU to “ensure” all that is listed.

PCBUs can be encouraged to provide information at induction and as appropriate to assist where reasonably practicable that others ….are aware of the traffic management procedures and have information and instruction on designated safe routes, parking areas, no-go zones and speed limits.



There is a shared responsibility and customers and public cannot be a PCBU’s total responsibility.

The legislative obligations for others can be noted.


ACCI also recommends the terminology “no-go Zones” be deleted as this term is used for energised electrical lines.

3. Truck and van deliveries, loading/unloading docks and scheduling

Police are not able to enforce speed limits on private property. For Shopping centres that are on private property it is therefore impossible to enforce speed limits. This is especially difficult where there are visitors, customers or others or even other PCBUs involved.

Note: There are speed suppression devices that could be mentioned.

Preventing public access to loading/unloading docks would be very difficult to achieve given the location of many loading docks. Prominently displaying signs regarding unauthorised access should be sufficient.

Scheduling deliveries to avoid times of heavy vehicle and pedestrian traffic will not be commercially viable at all shopping centres and is usually out of the control of the PCBU.

ACCI notes obligations for others in the workplace should also be emphasised in this section:


4. Shopping trolley collection

ACCI recommends the wording “person contracted with responsibility for trolley collection”.



Industry has commented that:

1. the suggestion of “placing shopping trolley collection areas away from heavy traffic areas” conflicts with human behaviour since it is obviously in heavy traffic areas that empty trolleys mainly congregate (after customers have loaded their purchases) and where designated collection areas are usually most needed.

2. Also question the need for “a person with the necessary training, qualifications or experience guiding a reversing vehicle to ensure pedestrians are protected.” This is typically, at present, a one person task. It will be commercially onerous on the contractors to suggest this now becomes a two-person task.

6. Pedestrian, cyclist and passenger vehicle traffic

ACCI notes the following comments from industry:

1. As already noted, enforcement of speed limits is not possible although speed suppression devices that could be mentioned.

2. The location of parents with prams parking should be in areas away from major traffic flow as children can wander about whilst parents are loading the car. Ideally they should have a minimal number of crossings to negotiate.

3. Elderly parking and disability parking should be located close to crossings and entrances.

7. Traffic management plans

“Vehicle management plan” would more accurately reflect the intention for vehicle management in the workplace and not external to the workplace.

ACCI support the recommendation that this section be moved to the start of the Guide since all other references to risk controls should flow from a proactive and planned approach to vehicle management.

ACCI also note the following comment from industry:

The Draft Guide states that “all retailers must be consulted, so far as is reasonably practical . . . on the development of the traffic management plan”.

This is more onerous requirement than in the Draft Code which simply suggests a traffic management plan “may be developed” and “may include” certain details. A mandatory consultation requirement is unrealistic. Often such traffic management



plans will be developed during periods when a shopping centre is being developed or redeveloped and leasing of shops may not be far advanced. It would be unrealistic, and may be far too late, to wait until all shops are fully leased before traffic management plans are developed.

Consultation, co-operation and co-ordination can occur “so far as is reasonably practicable”



Traffic Management Guide for Warehousing

Guides should not go beyond legislative obligations and should not use prescriptive language except quote the specific clause. Consistent with other documents, ACCI recommends the use of the grey box for the specific legislative requirement.

In addition terminology such as “must” should be replaced with “could consider” or as an example “consideration should be given to”.

The use of term “so far as is reasonably practicable “should be applied throughout the guide.

The practical application of a guide and its use as a compliance tool must be clearly outlined

ACCI does not support the duplication of regulation nor obligations. This guide must not overlap nor duplicate other regulatory requirements. Traffic flows and demands can be dependent on other agencies e.g. local planning requirements or trading hours


Industry also seeks clarity on timing of application and use of guides.

ACCI strongly recommends where a requirement of the Code is more onerous than presently applies in a jurisdiction that this not be made retrospective

ACCI maintains that administrative controls are acceptable levels of control and that there is a shared responsibility for WHS. For example signage and guidance are also acceptable controls and that in addition others - customers, pedestrians, need to exercise their own duty of care.

Further there needs to be recognition of the diversity of work and workplaces – the current guide seems to relate to “large” warehouses. Warehouses can be large or small enterprises. What is practical for large organisations may not be practical for smaller warehouses. Likewise a change for a small organisation may be possible but the same change in a large complex may require major amendment. The cost may well be grossly disproportionate.

Ventilation especially where gas powered forklifts are used should also be noted



4. Scaffolding Work Feedback is sought on whether:

the technical elements of the Code are appropriate and relevant for the types of scaffolds described and the scaffolding work to be undertaken

the competencies required under high risk work licensing are adequate for an appropriately licensed person(s) to undertake swing stage scaffolding work safely and deliver a swing stage scaffold that is safe for others to use, and

there is a need to specify a training course for swing stage scaffolds, as currently applied in Queensland.

ACCI support the development of nationally recognised units of competency for the erection/installation and use of swing stage scaffolds.

The current Queensland courses could be used as the basis for developing the nationally recognised units of competency but should not themselves be specified as the courses to be completed.

Overall Comments:

As there is only a Code of Practice Code that is similar in Queensland on Scaffolds and that no scaffold code of practice currently exists in NSW, ACT, the Northern Territory, South Australia, Victoria or Tasmania, industry therefore recommends that a regulation impact statement is required for this Code if it is to be approved as a Code of Practice. It would be far better placed for the material contained in this code of practice to be produced as guidance.

Section/page no. Comment1. Intro page 5 Page 5 – Definition of scaffolding work is different in this code of

practice as that used in the Model Regulations. The Model Regulation defines scaffolding work to mean: erecting, altering or dismantling a temporary structure that is or has been erected to support a platform from which a person or object could fall more than 4 metres from the platform or the structure.

Using a different definition will cause confusion. This must be rectified.

Page 7 – the first paragraph states that workers in a supervisory role should be experienced and trained in scaffolds and scaffolding work. It should be clear that this applies to workers involved in the direct supervision of the scaffolding and not to other workers in a supervisory role. A site supervisor for example cannot be trained and expert in every aspect of construction work.



Page 7 – last paragraph – further guidance is required within this section for competent persons where a licence is not required. Guidance is required on how duty holders can ascertain and establish the competence of workers who carry out certain work.

2. Managing risks with Scaffolding page 8

2.4 – Reviewing the risk control measures

This section is misleading to duty-holders as it does not make reference to other specific risk control requirements that may apply. For example, the specific electrical safety provisions of the regulations. The following should be included:

“You must also find out whether the WHS Regulations require any specific control measure to be implemented, as these requirements must also be complied with.”

3. Planning Scaffolding Work page 10

Page 10 – second paragraph – It is recommended that the following - “Consultation should include discussions on the:” be replaced with “Consultation may include discussions on the:”

The final dot point in this paragraph should be deleted as the provision of amenities would not be relevant to a discussion about planning of scaffolding work, these matter are covered in the construction code.

Section 3.1 Scaffolding Plan

The recommendation to prepare a scaffolding plan may not be relevant to some scaffolds. Accordingly all instances of the word “should” need to be replaced with may.

It is also not necessary in every circumstance to consult with all of the persons listed in the dot points on page 10. ACCI member Master Builders states that it does not consider that it is necessary to also consult with an engineer. ACCI therefore agree with the MBA recommendation that the Code be amended so that there are examples of persons who may need to be consulted when developing the plan.

Page 10 – 4th para – second dot point - the builder or principal of 59



contractor should assess the location of underground drains or pits. The scaffolding contractor may be in a better position to know where the plates will be located and therefore should have the responsibility to assess ground conditions. The reference to pits and underground services is too narrow and the Code should be amended to refer to ground conditions including pits, underground services etc.

The use of the term “the builder” may be confusing.

Page 10 – 3rd dot point - replace “health and safety committees” with “work health and safety committees” for consistency with the regulation.

Section 3.3 – Designers

Page 12 –the section on safety reports does not appropriately separate between scaffold design by manufacturers and scaffold design by installers.

The reference to a designer’s “Safety report” (page 12) must be qualified by if the work is construction work, as some scaffolds may be erected in exempt settings, e.g., manufacture of plant, minor repair testing or maintenance. The paragraph under the shaded box should state that the design report duty would not apply to every scaffold.

The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph under the shaded box should be removed. This section is it is not about “design of construction projects” but about design of the scaffold.

The third paragraph should be removed or reworded to reflect the requirements in the regulations, i.e, there is no specific requirement for a person who commissions “scaffold work” to provide a report to a principal contractor.

Page 13 – technical standards needs to clearly guide that there is a difference between the design of prefabricated scaffolding components and the design by installers complex scaffolding structures.



Page 13 – Plant design registration – 1st para - the reference to the Australian Standard is not required.

3.4 scaffold designPage 13 –Australian Standard reference in this section should be deleted.

Pages 12-13 – ACCI recommends that this section on Scaffold Design requires further clear guidance for designers. It should provide clearer guidance for the housing sector. ACCI member, Master Builders has described in their submission that in relation to scaffolding, PCBUs at different stages of the design process are likely to have designer duties.

Page 16 - 9th dot point. The requirement that “verification is to be kept on site” replaced with to verification may be kept on site.

3.4 - working platforms

Page 17 – 3rd paragraph - lapped scaffold planks - “These planks generally many not need to be secured, provided the following are met:” This is not a requirement, just a recommended approach and therefore it needs to be couched in such a way.

3.6 Unauthorised Access page 18

“The control measures, such as barriers and warning signs, must be used….” Redrafted to read “may be use”.

4. Controlling risks of Scaffolding Work page 19

4.1 Safe Erection and Scaffold

Page 20 –first dot point - specific tasks should be allocated to each scaffolder if more than one worker will be on the scaffold at the one time. This is not practical and should be amended to: “follow a methodical work sequence.

The figures on page 20 are confusing.

Figure 4 should be deleted as it does not show a safe work method. The Code also does not provide practical guidance on how a person can safely access the top platform because the end



rails in figures 4, 5 and 6 would prevent access.

The erection sequence is unclear and in figure 5 it is not clear where the platform installed in the previous step is.

The use of a ladder to install scaffold platforms figures 5 and 6 on page 20 show a worker using a ladder to perform a two-handed task. This is inconsistent with the safe use of ladders outlined on page 36 of the Code of Practice: Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces. Diagrams in the NSW industry standard “Erecting, altering and dismantling scaffolding” are more appropriate and should be incorporated into this Code.

Section 4.4 Falling Objects and Falls

Page 22 - “fall arrest platform” should be changed to catch platform for consistency.

Page 22 – Figure 7a does not allow for safe access of the roof from the fall arrest platform because of the distance between the platform and the roof. The Code needs to provide guidance on acceptable methods to access the roof.

Page 23 – the second paragraph states that scaffolders should not climb standards externally, this paragraph should be deleted.

Page 23 - “Ladders” - 3rd dot point – “trap door is to be provided” replaced with “a trap door may be provided”. And To state that “strict control should be implemented to ensure that the trap door remains closed” required further guidance or deleted completely from the CoP.

Page 26 – reference to an Australian Standard should be deleted.5. Types of

Scaffolding and Risk Controls page 27

5.2 Tower Scaffold - Page 27 – definition of tower scaffold is not clear. A clear diagram would be appropriate.

Page 28 – wording “are to be” mandatory use of language, needs



to be amended.

5.5 Frame Scaffold

Page 30 – use of “do not”, last dot point 3 rd para need to be replaced with a non-mandatory requirement.

5.8 Suspended (swing-stage) scaffold page 31 - method of fixing needles uses the phrase “is to be” in several places, these references need to be replaced with non-mandatory requirement.

Page 32 – Figure 10 is not clear, an earlier version of the Code accurately aligns with the text.

Page 33 – many references to Australian Standards, any reference to AS must be justified and necessary.

6. Inspection and Maintenance page 36

6.1 Handover Inspections

2nd para – ACCI member HIA states, that the requirement in the last paragraph to provide a “handover certificate” is not a requirement of the WHS laws and is not accurate in relation to the types of scaffold that require verification. It is recommended that it be changed to:The person responsible for the erection of the scaffold from which a person or object could fall more than four metres or the erection of a suspended, cantilevered, spur or hung scaffold should provide the principal contractor written confirmation that the that construction of the scaffold has been completed. This may take the form of a handover certificate which should be kept at the workplace until the scaffold has been dismantled (see Appendix F).

6.2 – Frequency of Inspections

3rd para – there is a recommendation to keep inspection records and other details on site. This is not always practical. Recommend that this be changed to ‘should be available’. Page 36 – sections 6.2 and 6.3 text boxes only apply to suspended, cantilevered, spur and hung scaffolds and other scaffold from which a person or thing could fall more than 4



metres. All shaded boxes need to reflect this.

APPENDIX A – Definitions page 38

Appendix A should reflect the definition in AS/NZS 1576.1:2010 without calling up the Standard itself.

APPENDIX B – Scaffolding Licence Classes page 41APPENDIX C – Technical Standards and other references page 42APPENDIX D – Safe use of suspended (swing-stage) scaffold page 43

This Appendix contains a number of matters that are framed as mandatory requirements where no such requirement exists under the WHS laws. Terms include “must”, “is to”, “is to be”, “need to” “shall have” and similar mandatory terms. All such ‘requirements’ are inconsistent with the scope of the code and must be removed or replaced with recommendations or optional actions as appropriate and reflect the legislative requirement.

APPENDIX E – Scaffold Inspections Checklist page 54APPENDIX F – Scaffold Handover Certificate: >4m page 56

The words “scaffold over 4m” should be removed from the heading as this is not accurate. A note should be included to indicate that the certificate is for the types of scaffold that require verification, i.e, suspended, cantilevered, spur or hung scaffolds and any scaffold from which a person or object could fall more than four metre rather than the height of the scaffold itself (refer to regulation 225(1)(e)).

All references to “handover” should be changed to handover/ inspection, as the requirement is for an inspection before use and after repairs etc.




5. Formwork and Falsework Feedback is sought on whether the scope and technical content contained in this Code is appropriate, useful and easy to understand.

Overall ACCI believes that the Draft Code of Practice: Formwork and Falsework is prescriptive and also may not assist with compliance or improve health and safety outcomes.

It should be noted that consideration should be given as to whether this document would be more appropriately drafted as a guide. If it is to remain as a Code of Practice then a RIS should be conducted.

This Code of Practice must clearly outline the target audience and be restructured as it is confusing at times. Small businesses need to be recognised such as that for the housing sector. Although the Code appears to be aimed at formwork and falsework for civil and commercial construction, further examples must also recognise work in housing construction – e.g. in concrete slabs. This Code should provide practical guidance for the housing sector, or it should be excluded from the scope of this Code, with separate guidance developed on use of formwork and falsework in housing construction.

Overall CommentsThe purpose of the Code should be to provide guidance which enables duty holders to comply with their duties under the Act and Regulations. Australian Standards that apply could be listed in an Appendix with a standard introductory paragraph noting that the standards are not required but are listed for information. This was agreed at SIG-WHS. Where deemed a necessity any text from AS should be included in the Code rather than simply referencing the AS.

Section/page no. Comment

1. Intro page 4 1.1 What is Formwork and Falsework?Page 4 – Industry believes that the definitions of formwork and falsework should be amended.

ACCI supports its member MBA redrafted definitions as:

In the first paragraph delete “parts” and insert “cast in situ concrete structures, and in some cases”.

In the second sentence add “shoring and” after “parts”

In the definition of formwork, delete the last dot point as



this is falsework

Add an additional dot point to the definition of falsework – “The supports, bracing, foundations, footings and access are known as falsework”.

1.2 Who has health and safety duties relating to formwork and falsework activities?

Page 5 – designers – this section should clearly differentiate between designers of permanent structures and designers of temporary structures such as formwork/falsework.

ACCI concurs with the wording provided by its member MBA:

Designers of permanent structures must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the permanent structure is without risks to health and safety when used for a purpose for which it was designed.

Designers of a Formwork/Falsework system must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the system is without risks to health and safety when used for a purpose for which it was designed. Also note that pre-fabricated formwork requires plant design registration in accordance with the WHS Regulations.

The Designer of the Formwork/Falsework installation must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the installation is without risks to health and safety when used for a purpose for which it was designed and must give the person who commissioned the design a written safety report (see section 3.2 3.3 of this Code).

1.4 Training, Information, instruction and supervision

Page 7 – the code needs to make it clear with regards to assessing competence of workers and of persons who train workers.

It should be clear where it applies only to workers involved in the direct supervision of the work. For example supervisors cannot be trained in all aspects.

2. Managing Risks Formwork and



Falsework page 8

3. Planning Formwork and Falsework Activity (page 10)

3.1 Construction Project and Principal Contractor

Page 10 – delete ‘formwork/falsework contractor’ in the first paragraph and replace it with installers of formwork/falsework.

Page 11 –3.3 designers – this section needs to be redrafted to reflect the differences between designers of the plant and structure formed by the plant. ACCI agrees with the recommended amendments proposed by member MBA:

A designer of a formwork or falsework installation is responsible for the planning and design of the structure. This includes the design of the formwork support structure (falsework), the formwork deck(s) and connection details. There are two design activities relating to formwork and/or falsework being the design of:

the items of plant (the formwork system), and

the structure formed from the items of plant (installation of the system).

In relation to the manufacture, assembly, construction, use and proper dismantling/disposal of plant and structure, formwork designers have a duty under the WHS Act to:

carry out, or arrange the carrying out of, any calculations, analysis, testing or examination that may be necessary for the structure to be without risks to the safety of persons, and

provide adequate information to each person who is provided with the design to give effect to it concerning any conditions necessary to ensure that the structure is without risks to health and safety.

A formwork and falsework designer must be a competent person, i.e. a person who has the necessary skills, qualifications, competence and experience, such as a suitably qualified engineer.

Page 12 – 2nd paragraph Safety Report - provides information about the role of the client in relation to the safety report



however, commissioning formwork and falsework is more likely to be undertaken by the principal contractor. ACCI recommends the following:

A person commissioning the construction work must consult, so far as is reasonably practicable, with the designer of the whole or any part of the structure about eliminating and controlling risks. Formwork/Falsework is construction work. The person commissioning the erection of formwork/falsework (in most cases is likely to be the principal contractor) must obtain a safety report or similar document from the designer of the formwork/falsework installation.

Page 12 – ‘falsework’ should be added to the second paragraph under the plant design heading.

Page 12 – plant design registration - some formwork and falsework was designed and manufactured before design registration was required under relevant State and Territory OHS law. Therefore it is recommended that the paragraph be amended with the addition:

If you are hiring prefabricated formwork or falsework, the supplier must provide the design registration number, usually with the supply docket or agreement. This will need to be kept at the workplace. Where design registration is not applicable, the supplier should provide other quality management documentation.

Page 13 – a clear delineation between the designer of the permanent concrete structure and the designer of the temporary falsework/formwork structure is required.

Page 13 – in the second last paragraph replace “falsework designer” with “designer of the formwork/falsework installation”.

Page 14 – 9th dot point - varying floor depth can be related with strength requirements.

Page 14 –last para – addition – If required, details of the of 59



construction and erection sequence should be included on the drawings.

Page 15 – in the second sentence in the section on falsework design, delete “design engineer” and replace it with “designer of the formwork/falsework installation”.

Page 15 – 2nd dot point - superimposed load, delete “equal to 25 per cent of the all up weight of any mechanically operated plant” and replace it with “in addition to the imposed weight of any mechanically operated plant acting on the formwork”.

page 16 – 2nd paragraph – this should mention that bracing is required also during erection, and not just when the final loads are applied.

4. Formwork and Falsework Methods and Systems (page 19)

4.1 Traditional and modular formwork systems Page 19 –Figure 3 requires explanation or otherwise deleted.

5. Formwork and Falsework Activity (page 23)

5.2 Erection of Formwork and Falsework

Page 23 – Amend: “Where relevant, the erection of formwork and falsework must comply with the requirements for the erection of scaffolding, including the use of appropriately licensed scaffolders” to read: “Where scaffolding is used in the erection of formwork and falsework, it must comply with the requirements for the erection of scaffolding, including the use of appropriately licensed scaffolders.”

There are a series of technical amendments proposed by ACCI member MBA for this section page 23- 27. ACCI recommends that the industry recommendations are adopted. They are as follows:

Pages 23-24 –recommend that the following changes be made to the erecting formwork frames section:

The inclusion of a diagram to demonstrate the fall risk that can exist on edges of formwork frames during their erection.

Clarification of the term “lift” in the fourth paragraph. If a lift is defined by the frame height,



fully decking each lift may encourage form workers to climb up the outside of the frames. An intermediate deck could be fully decked; however allowance would need to be made for working and access decks. Master Builders considers that a diagram should be included to explain the use of catch decks, working/access decks and intermediate decks.

In the last two paragraphs, replace the word “planks” with “scaffold planks or other suitable decking”.

Page 24 – the section on the formwork false deck does not provide sufficient detail. In particular, the Code does not provide information about work platforms where formwork and falsework is undertaken at heights of less than 2 metres. Master Builders recommends that the Code indicate that a 2 plank (450mm) work platform should be recommended where formwork and falsework is undertaken at less than 2 metres.

Page 25 – figure 7 would be clearer if there were labels for the various components of the diagram.

Page 26 – symbols > and < be replaced with “greater than” and “less than” for clarity.

Page 26 – in the second paragraph on fall protection from the formwork deck add “or formwork screens” after “scaffolding edge protection”.

Page 27 – the word “elevator” should be replaced with “lift” as this is the more commonly used term in Australia.

Page 27 – add “and/or safety screens” at the end of the first sentence in the first paragraph.

Page 27 – the first sentence in the second paragraph is not accurate – see paragraph 7.42 above for comments on this issue.

Page 29 – recommends cast-in metal mesh for small diameter penetrations. This does not provide clear guidance to duty holders and should include information on maximum penetration size for



which cast-in metal mesh is an appropriate control measure.

Page 29 –paragraph five insert “The cover should be firmly secured to the concrete and be designed for potential loads that may be applied e.g. workers, materials or plant that may travel over the cover”.

Page 31 – add the following to the second dot point “Particular care needs to be taken with very heavy materials such as packs of reinforcing steel and post-tensioning coil and frame”.

Page 31 – in the last sentence on this page, delete “before it is loaded” and replace with “before placement of concrete”.

Page 32 – 3rd para - the sentence “No person should be placed beneath the formwork deck during concrete placement” is not practicable and therefore spotters/observers should be acknowledged in this code of practice.

6. Special Formwork Control Measures (page 35)

Page 35 - Access Platforms – 3rd para – amend to read –

“All mobile work platforms should have their castors locked at all times except when relocating the mobile platform. Platforms should also be designed to resist any side loading that may be applied during a concrete pour to ensure the platform does not collapse or overturn. Aluminium scaffolding may not have adequate self-weight to prevent overturning.”

Page 38 – Working Platforms and penetrations – 1st dot point – add “and clearly identified” to read:

“All penetrations should be covered by formply that is secured in position and clearly identified or should be provided with leading or perimeter edge protection”.

Page 38 – 2nd last paragraph - signs should be fixed to the platforms that state the maximum load permitted in kilograms. Queensland Code on recommends signs only where the design load is less than 2.5kPa. This will create additional red tape.

Page 39 – 5th dot point - Instruction and Training - add “and equipment” to read:



“Fire fighting procedures and equipment to be used in emergency situations prior to fire fighting personnel arriving at the scene.

Page 40 – Emergencies - rescue procedures are too detailed.

APPENDIX A – Definitions (page 41)APPENDIX B – Technical Standards (page 43)

Page 43 – there is always a risk with any list that other information may be missing. In this case references to other standards may also be appropriate such as: AS 4100 Steel Structures, AS 1720 Timber Structures, AS 2269 Structural Plywood, AS 1577 Scaffold Planks and AS 1576 (Parts1 to 6) Scaffolding.


Other comments



6. Issues PaperSection/page no. Comments relating to each point as addressed in the Issues

Paper relating to each individual Code of Practice is outlined at the top of each related section within this paper.

1. Intro2. YOUR

OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT

3. DRAFT MODEL CODES OF PRACTICE: OVERVIEW AND ISSUES

APPENDIX A – MODEL CODES OF PRACTICE


078-acci - safe work australia submissions web viewwe would also discourage the use of the word...

Documents