Apply legislative requirements to Height Contexts, and provide threshold examples.

https://www.change.org/good_practice_working_at_height_update_Steve_Tilling

Working at Height Good Practice Advocacy

Ask that the GPG support understanding of the legislative requirements as they apply to height work by contextualising the hierarchy of controls and other duties so that applied conduct can be more easily evaluated against.

For example, the risk balance approach outlined in the previous post could be formally accepted as one valid method, and the use of the hierarchy for evaluating and improving the context of the selected method could be demonstrated through examples for different contexts or lifecycle stages.

Further, consideration should be given to the thresholds or reasonably practicable, such that three categories of examples could be given for evaluative comparison

1.  Acceptable - This is generally agreed to show good evidence of reasonably practicable standards being met in the context under discussions
   • PPE selection is fit for purpose if it meets a recognised standard that is applicable to your use case.
2. Risk Assess - This may be acceptable, with separate justification being made in the form of a risk assessment.
   • -----The use of lifting devices and slings for fall protection applications that have been evaluated to have met the additional demands of the application. You must show what was considered and how it applies and is controlled.
3. Probhibited - these are generally acknowledged to be unfit practices, and would not meet the burden of reasonably practicable, regardless of risk assessment.
   • The use of ratchet straps as substitutes for fall protection lanyards. (I have actually seen this)

With these small additions for different contexts, the acceptance level is clear and relatable, with acceptance preferable, and risk assessment when the inevitable compromise needs to happen.

Importantly, WorkSafe cannot physically make a reasonably practicable determination, as the justice system decides what is reasonably practicable when you are being prosecuted. But it would be helpful to have shared expectations from both industry and the regulator to inform training development.

And by being commonly accepted, you would surely assume that would be reasonable? Let's define what is “commonly recognised” as acceptable across all the different contexts.

If you agree, let me be your voice and sign the petition to show support so I can advocate on your behalf.