We found deficiencies in the controls used in the asbestos licensing approval process. This increases the risk that licensing assessments and decisions are not consistent nor robust.

Limited staff guidance and training does not support sound assessment decisions

We found that WorkSafe has not developed guidance for staff to follow when making licensing decisions nor do they receive structured training. Weaknesses in WorkSafe’s assessment processes could lead to licences being granted to applicants without the required skills and experience to effectively implement safe work practices (Table 1 shows the numbers of licences issued over recent years). Despite this, we did not find any licences that had been issued inappropriately. Good licensing controls, including documented policies and procedures and staff training, would help to ensure sound licensing decisions.

Guidance and structured training are key measures to promote consistent decision making about and transparency over the 200-400 licences granted each year (Table 1).

Licence type	Granted	15/16	16/17	17/18	18/19
Restricted	new	194	166	123	70
	renewed	147	306	166	162
Total number of  restricted		1,171	1,154	1,097	991
Unrestricted	new	0	1	2	1
	renewed	1	9	4	4
Total number of unrestricted		19	20	20	22
Total of both restricted and unrestricted		1,190	1,174	1,117	1,013

Source: OAG
Table 1: Restricted and unrestricted asbestos removal licences granted between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2019

Procedure documents for asbestos licensing were incomplete, out-of-date, and did not contain guidance about what WorkSafe considers sufficient work experience for applicants to meet key competencies. The lack of well-developed and comprehensive guidance meant staff relied heavily on their professional judgement when assessing applicants’ experience. A checklist and matrix are used to guide WorkSafe staff to determine whether all the required information is received before the application is approved. There are also procedural flowcharts which outline the licensing process workflow. However, the absence of clear assessment standards makes it harder to prove that licensing decisions are sound, consistent and defensible.

Guidance for withdrawn, lapsed and refused applications was limited and lacked sufficient detail to be useful for staff. During our audit, WorkSafe provided licensing staff with an email clarifying its guidance. This email outlined the differences between when an application could be withdrawn, be allowed to lapse, or when a refusal is required, and outlined processes underpinning each scenario. It is important for WorkSafe to formalise this guidance in the future to ensure reliable, consistent and defensible decisions about withdrawn, lapsed and refused applications.

Staff training about their roles and responsibilities is inadequate as WorkSafe relies on unstructured on-the-job training by more experienced staff. The importance of training is increased due to staff not having clear guidance to reference when processing and assessing applications. A lack of appropriate staff training increases the risk of incorrect and inconsistent licensing decisions.

Documentation to support licensing decisions is insufficient

WorkSafe did not retain sufficient information about its licensing decisions, as outlined in the better practice principles and provisions of the State Records Act 2000. We found that applicants were not required to provide important information to support their applications and decisions were not consistently recorded. We reviewed 49 applications submitted for new and renewed licences between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. We found:

• the asbestos removal licence renewal application forms did not request information of applicants’ systems of work to safely remove asbestos. This was based on WorkSafe’s determination that the information was not required
• licensing staff did not verify applicants’ training nor identification documents. Instead, uncertified photocopies were supplied with applications and accepted by staff
• handwritten notes on some application forms and licensing checklists gave some insight into the assessment process. However, the notes were not consistently made with sufficient detail to be able to follow the logic of how the statement of experience and other important information in the application was assessed, documented and validated.

Putting sufficient controls in place to ensure decisions are based on complete and verified information would help to ensure the licensing process is consistent with good regulatory practice.

Figure 2 summarises our findings of WorkSafe’s licensing processes.

Source: OAG using information provided by WorkSafe
Figure 2: OAG findings of the asbestos removal licensing processes

Record-keeping requires improvement and public information was out-of-date and potentially misleading

WorkSafe’s recordkeeping practices regarding its asbestos licensing decisions are inadequate. It relies on the DMIRS recordkeeping plan, which does not contain any guidance specific to managing asbestos records. We expected that WorkSafe would have a plan for keeping asbestos licence records to ensure such information could be easily identified and accessible, but this was not the case. The State Records Commission requires the recordkeeping policies and procedures of an entity to cover all aspects of their business operations.

We found that WorkSafe could not easily retrieve records because of the way they were stored. Records of restricted licence applications were held as part of a batch containing the files of multiple applicants approved at the same time. Records for unrestricted licence applications were held in discrete files. Since our audit, WorkSafe has amended the way it stores records for restricted licence approvals and now keeps a discrete file for each. This means the records can be more easily retrieved, for example, when a renewal application is received or if the licence holder is found to not be complying with licence conditions.

Although there is no requirement to maintain a public register on WorkSafe’s website, the register of licensees on the website was not up-to-date and could not be relied on by the public for accurate information. We found the register was not updated each month, as stated on the website, resulting in expired licences being listed. Because of the risk that members of the public could employ an unlicensed person or business to remove asbestos, WorkSafe removed the register from its website after we informed them of our finding. The website has been recently updated.

Improved processes for managing conflicts of interest and reviewing decisions would minimise the risk of inappropriate approvals

Management of licensing staff’s conflicts of interests required improvement. DMIRS’ conflict of interest policy requires staff to declare and manage their conflicts in a register. We found that not all managerial staff had access to the full register. Further, the declarations of licensing staff from the former Department of Commerce were not transferred into the current register following the 2017 machinery of government changes. This means the register may not hold all conflicts of interest, and any declared conflicts may not be properly managed. Properly recording and managing conflicts of interest helps to ensure licensing decisions are appropriate and unbiased.

WorkSafe relied on senior staff to review application assessments and approve them, however, there was no regular review of decisions to ensure consistency between different staff. It is good practice to perform quality assurance checks over licensing approvals, which include checking from time to time that systems and processes are operating as intended. Without consistent decisions, there is an increased chance that licences could be issued to applicants without the appropriate training and experience.