104-Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce

Draft model WHS Codes of Practiceand guidance - Public Comment Response Form

Complete and submit this form by5pm AEST Friday 24 AUGUST 2012to

IntroDUCTIOn

The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce (VACC) is an employer organisation representing the interests of more than 5500 members in Victoria and Tasmania in the retail motor industry. VACC members are predominantly small businesses with 90% of the members employing less than 20 employees. The various divisions in the retail motor industry are mechanical repair, body repair (including spray painting), automotive dealers, used car traders, auto electrical, engine re-conditioners, tyre dealers, radiator services, farm machinery, motorcycle dealers, service station and convenience stores and towing operators.

VACC provides comprehensive advice and assistance to help members run their businesses more effectively. VACC, on behalf of its members, tenders this submission in response to the Issues Paper on the Draft Model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Codes of Practices that are due Friday 24 August 2012.

The views expressed in this submission have been developed through a number of avenues:

VACC’s OHS and Industrial Relations Department which have extensive experience in the practical application of OHS legislation, and its interaction with industrial instruments and other legislative provisions regulating the employment relationship in the retail motor industry;

Views of members expressed through day-to-day contact who use VACC’s advice, training and consultation services;

VACC as a member of Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has consulted through the ACCI Occupational Health and Safety Working Party; and

Discussions with other key stakeholders.

Cranes

Section/page no. / Comment
NO COMMENT
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?

Amusement Devices

Industrial Lift Trucks

Section/page no. / Comment
General Comment / The Code of Practice for Industrial Lift Trucks is generally text heavy. A Code of Practice needs to be a document that a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) will refer to and read. VACC’s preference would be for this document to become a guide instead, similar to the existing documents implemented in many jurisdictions, for example, refer to the WorkSafe Victoria ‘Forklift Safety Reducing the Risk’ guide.
It is noted that no other jurisdiction has a Code of Practice on industrial lift trucks. VACC strongly supports the need for a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for this document prior to endorsement.
Another general issue that has been identified with this document is that certain elements and sections of this Code go beyond the guidance documents. Furthermore, many sections of the Draft Code of Practice resemble training material and manufacturers specifications. The intention of the Code of Practice is to outline duty holder requirements and to demonstrate how to comply.
Section 2.4, Page 12 / In this section titled ‘Maintaining and reviewing risk control measures’, it should explain how a review of controls is conducted and give examples. VACC recommends that the following examples of reviewing of controls is listed:

PCBU should inspect:
the operation of forklifts
daily pre op checks are being completed
forklift damage and site structure damage
operation procedures are being followed
operators are wearing seat belts, etc.

Section 3.1, page 13 / In the section titled ‘Purchasing and hiring an industrial lift truck’, the sentence that prefaces the second lot of dot points should include the words ‘or retrofitting’ after the word ‘design’. There are many circumstances when an employer needs to retrofit safety features or a second hand forklift is purchased and it requires retrofitting of safety features. VACC members who own older forklifts or service/upgrade forklifts have acknowledged retrofitting of such safety features.
Section 3.4, page 16 / In the traffic management section there are no diagrams to demonstrate some of the listed traffic management controls. This section/page could insert diagrams or floor plans of ‘no go’ zones for pedestrians and lift trucks, and it could even incorporate appropriate line marking and signage.
Section 4.2, page 19 / As per the comment made above in general comments, section 4.2, this section reads as operator forklift training rather than a Code of Practice. It is recommended that the Code of Practice is minimised and should not go beyond guidance.
It is further noted that in this section a reference should be made to an example daily pre-operational checklist which can be found in the appendix. Other forklift guidance in jurisdictions had a similar document in the appendix. This checklist will assist a PCBU as a lot of companies purchase logbooks of pre-operational checklists for industrial lifts.
Section 4.5, page 20 / The section titled ‘Modification or alteration’ doesn’t provide any further guidance or information. VACC recommends that this section is expanded with useful guidance or if not, the section is removed.
Section 5.3, page 22 and 23 / In this section which focuses on work platforms and cages, it doesn’t mention the requirement of workers needing towear fall arrest protection when being raised within work platforms and cages.
Another note that should be highlighted and it has been observed in industry is that self made work platforms/cages need to be compliant. The issues VACC professionals have observed at workplaces are as follows:

Work platforms/cages made from pallets /wood or an old metal stillage that has been transformed into a work platform/cage
No load capacity rating
Uncertified harness anchorage points

VACC recommends that the Code should state that, ‘a work platform/cage attachment that will raise a person with the industrial lift truck, should be engineered-designed and certified.
Section 5.6, page 26 / In the section for ramps and loading docks, it would greatly assist if an example picture of a loading dock is placed after the text. The diagram can label and point out the safety controls that are applicable.
Section5.9 / The information contained in this section is similar to what would be contained in manufacturers, instructions and safety requirements/procedures. VACC recommends that this section should be deleted.
Appendices / As per comments above regarding section 4.2, it is recommended that an example template of a daily pre-operational checklist for an industrial lift truck should be supplied in the Appendices.
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?
VACC anticipates there will be no difference in the current cost and safety benefit of complying with this Code as the current Victorian requirements and other guidance across jurisdictions are the same.

Managing Risks of Plant used in Rural Workplaces

Section/page no. / Comment
General Comment / The Code of Practice for Managing Risks of Plant Used in Rural Workplace is limited in its scope. Although there are general plant considerations from chapter 1 to chapter 3, from chapter 4 onwards it is limited to plant such as tractors, post drivers, grain augers and quad bikes. It is understandable that the specific plant in chapter 4 have caused fatalities and serious injuries, however, this Code of Practice fails to acknowledgethe vast variety of rural plant and attachments used. It is recommended that specific plant mentioned in plant regulations such as tractors needs to be mentioned in the Code, however, it is recommended that this Code should focus on general control measures so it applies to a variety of rural plant. There is also the alternative to create specific and short guidance on specific plant as it is currently done in states.
As per the issues referenced for public comment, it is recommended that an exhaustive list of useless Australian Standards should not be referenced in the Code of Practice. Furthermore, there are many standards that can apply in parts to rural plant and it cannot be expected that a PCBU will purchase them all.VACC recommends that only Australian Standards that are entirely relevant should be referenced in the appendix.Also if the relevant Australian Standards are listed there needs to be an instruction that it’s not required to purchase nor access the Australian Standard. VACC recommends that an example of such Australian Standards to be listed, relating to rural plant, is the Australian Standard for Protective Structures and Roll Over Protection (ROP). These standards are used by the installers, suppliers and purchasers to ensure compliance and also the regulators have cited these standards for compliance.
It should also be noted that while there should be acceptance of any Worldwide Standard; the Standard used must be the equivalent, or safer than that referenced by the appropriate Australian Standard.
Also as per the issues referenced for public comment, VACC recommends the inclusion of two-wheeled motorcycles in the Code of Practice only if quad bikes are going to remain in the Code of Practice. The hazards of two-wheeled motorcycle use in rural workplaces are similar, if not the same to quad bike use. It is recommended that two-wheel motorcycle safety guidance is combined with quad bikes as the control measures of safety rules, training, wearing of a helmet and other protective gear is the same.
Section 2.2 / At the top of section 2.2, Assessing the risks, there are dot points that outline what a risk assessment can determine. It is recommended that an additional point is added stating, ‘what level of risk will remain with controls in place’. This is required as there are situations with rural plant where regardless of the controls in place there will still be a risk, for example, you can have a chain saw with chain brake and rear hand guard but there is still a high risk of a serious injury.
Section 3.1 / In this section it advises plant purchasers of information that can be sourced from the supplier. One of the information points of concern is, ‘the results of any calculations, analysis, testing or examination’, as this Code of Practice or other plant Code of Practice do not explain this regulatory requirement. The authorities cannot expect a supplier or purchaser to know the extent of calculations, analysis testing or examination information that should be supplied. It is recommended that this section of the Code of Practice should give specific examples of information that should be supplied to a purchaser. VACC Farm Machinery Dealers have queried with the VACC the general requests made for information as per the WHS Regulations from commercial customers in states that have implemented the WHS laws. The Code of Practice must provide a way for suppliers to comply with the supply of information.
Section 3.2 / In the section titled ‘second-hand plant’, it is recommended that examples of remaining faults that must be identified should be stated. This will assist a supplier and purchaser of second-hand plant to comprehend the type of faults that can be listed.
Section 3.3 / It states in this section that a person with management or control of registrable plant must keep a record for that plant; however, this section fails to explain the type of records and the timeframe of recordkeeping. It is recommended that this section is expanded to explain the types of records that need to be kept and the recordkeeping timeframes.
Section 3.4 / One of the concerns in this section is that proper examples of modifications are not explained. VACC Farm and Industrial Machinery Dealer members often come across rural plant that has been modified by a person (e.g. farmer) and there appears to be no regard for the impact. Another concern is the use and differentiation of the terms ‘simple modification’ and ‘substantial modification’. The terms are not regulatory terms and it could lead to misinterpretation. Some modifications made to some rural plant may seem simple, hence farmers conduct the modification themselves, however, the modification could have catastrophic consequences. Modifications regarding rural plant are a large issue that needs to be addressed and made clear, especially for the farmer. It is often the farm and industrial machinery dealer who needs to rectify the unauthorised and unsafe modification.
Section 3.5 / The section on guarding plant doesn’t add any value to this Code of Practice for rural plant. Other than the specific plant and guards that are mentioned in chapter 4, VACC recommends that examples of other rural plant guards should be demonstrated in this section. Some examples of other rural plant with guarding includeslashers, chainsaws, chippers, mowers, etc.
Section 3.7 / Section 3.7 only highlights overhead electric line issues and fails to include underground electric lines. There have been situations of farmers using front end loaders or backhoes to dig and struck underground power lines. It should also be noted that it is referenced at the bottom of the section 3.7 that there is the Code of Practice for Working in the Vicinity of Overhead and Underground Electrical Lines, however the information in this section does not mention underground electrical lines. VACC recommends that the section is expanded to include underground electrical lines.
Section 3.9 / It is concerning that this section which focuses on the storing of plant that is not in use fails to highlight the WHS Plant Regulation of Section 207 Plant Not In Use. It is recommended that a regulation box is inserted in this section and comment is made in the section. In particular, an example and guidance should be noted in the section outlining that plant not in use or left unattended, should be left in a safe state by isolating controls and/or removing the keys out of the ignition, where it is reasonably practicable to do so.
Section 4.1, page 20 / In this section it states that a ROPS should always be used in conjunction with a seat belt, however, this Code of Practice doesn’t assist for situations where a seat belt cannot be fitted. VACC members who service rural plant have highlighted the problem of attaching seat belts where no manufacturer’s mountings are provided, or fitting seats with seatbelts where no mounting designs for the model are available. It is recommended that the Code of Practice should outline a solution or response to this problem.
Section 4.1, page 21 / In the first paragraph under the Falling Object Protective Structure (FOPS) on tractors title, it describes FOPS as ‘a system of structural members and mesh sheeting...’. This is slightly incorrect as FOPS are not commonly made of mesh. It is recommended that mesh is deleted and leave the word sheeting.
Section 4.1, page 23 / The second dot point explaining PTO guards, it states that, ‘some form of protection in the PTO drive line, torque limiters, free wheels or clutches should be located at the power input connection (implement end) of the PTO drive shaft’. This is limited as such protections are also designed to fit on the tractor end as well. It is recommended that this dot point is expanded to include the protections that are designed to fit on the tractor end.
Section 4.1, page 24 / At the top of page, the paragraph under the dots which discusses FEL attachments, in the second sentence it states, ‘Positive engagement and secure retention of the FEL attachment under different operating conditions is usually provided by quick detach...’. It is recommended that ‘is usually’ is changed to ‘may also be’ as quick detach and locking systems from the sub-frame are not usually provided.
Section 4.1, page 24 / The picture of the tractor fitted with a FEL attachment should not be displayed with the raised attachment and without an operator. It is recommended that the picture should be used with the loader on the ground with no operator in control.
Section 4.1, page 25 / In the fifth paragraph, it states that each FEL should have a decal or pat specifying its ROLS for the tractor model. It is a common problem with some rural plant that manufacturers ROL is not available. VACC recommends that some guidance should be inserted into the Code of Practice to advise PCBUs as to what they should do in these situations.
Section 4.5, page 33 / The dot points on the top of page list the major considerations when selecting a quad bike. It is recommended that an additional point can be added to this section stating, ‘If control through downhill breaking is provided through the transmission’.
Section 4.5 / VACC is of the opinion that the information provided in section 4.5 Quad bikes should remain as it is, as it outlines the appropriate information a PCBU or potential purchaser of a quad bike needs. VACC is satisfied with the fourth paragraph on page 33 which outlines the current reality and uncertainty of crush protection devices for quad bikes. VACC strongly urge that legislative guidance such as a Code of Practice should only highlight what current legislation dictates and also the safety solutions must have a truly tested safety benefit. The safety solution should not increase the risk.
Appendix A / The checklist for rural plant in Appendix A is not as complete as current checklists that exist in other rural plant guidance. WorkSafe Victoria has checklists available for rural plant employers and purchasers to use that apply across different rural plant. It is recommended that the checklist in Appendix A is cross checked against other guidance checklist. Furthermore, the formatting of the checklist needs to change as the appearance is not appealing.
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?
VACC anticipates there will be no difference in the current cost and safety benefit of complying with this code as the current Victorian requirements and other guidance across jurisdictions are the same if not more detailed.

Managing Security Risks in the Cash-in-transit Industry

Managing Risks in Forestry Operations

Guide for Tunnelling

Section/page no. / Comment
NO COMMENT
Impacts: Do you anticipate any potential costs or safety benefits of complying with this guidance material that are different to current requirements in your jurisdiction? If so, what are they?

Guide for Managing Risk in Cable logging

Page 1 of 6