WorkSafe did not collect information to assess whether its asbestos removal licensing regime is effective. Its monitoring and compliance activities for asbestos removal licensing were not well targeted to risk and did not provide quality information for analysis and reporting. If WorkSafe does not generate and use good quality monitoring data to target and coordinate its compliance and monitoring activities, it cannot be sure it is using its resources in the most efficient manner to achieve good regulatory outcomes.
Audits of licensees are performed but are not comprehensive
WorkSafe met its annual targets of 350 audits of asbestos removal licence holders. These records-based audits involve reviewing documentation and systems at the licensees’ place of business, but they do not include inspections of worksites where asbestos is removed, which is the source of potential harm to workers and the community. While WorkSafe’s auditors check receipts from waste disposal facilities for asbestos removal jobs, this does not extend to checking for the safe disposal of materials at waste disposal facilities. WorkSafe aims to audit all asbestos removal licensees over a rolling 3-year period to check that they are complying with the conditions of their licences. Its auditors also audit demolition licensees, and WorkSafe registered assessors who assess competencies for high risk work licences.
WorkSafe could improve its audits of licensees to ensure audits are more comprehensive, effective, and focus on the greatest risk of non-compliance. We found that WorkSafe auditors were not performing all auditing procedures routinely. In addition, we also identified 4 instances (14%) from a sample of 28 audit records where there was no evidence that WorkSafe performed a follow-up audit after non-compliance issues were identified. These weaknesses could significantly undermine the effectiveness of the audit process and the overall regulatory regime.
We also found that there are opportunities for WorkSafe to better use complaint information to inform its audit program. For example, if WorkSafe receives significant complaints about a licensee, the scheduled audit for that licensee is not brought forward. By using complaints information to re-prioritise the audit schedule, WorkSafe may have better opportunities to identify licence holders who are not complying with their licence conditions.
Audits of unrestricted licensees do not check to see that unrestricted licensees notify WorkSafe when workers who deal with friable asbestos are employed or terminated. This is a mandatory licence condition. Audits will be less effective in identifying non-compliant practices, if important requirements are not checked.
There is no guidance for asbestos auditors on minimum compliance standards. To determine when a follow-up audit is required, WorkSafe uses a minimum standard for assessing compliance with licence conditions. However, this minimum standard is not defined in its audit procedures nor in any other guidance document. One consequence of this is that WorkSafe auditors are using their own judgment as to whether licensees meet the minimum standard. This could lead to inconsistent decisions about future regulatory action including whether follow-up audits are required.
On-site inspections of friable asbestos removal work were performed, but poorly documented
WorkSafe did not have policies and procedures to guide decisions about whether an on-site inspection is required when friable asbestos is removed. All unrestricted licence holders are required under their licences to notify WorkSafe when friable asbestos is removed. A WorkSafe officer assesses whether an on-site inspection is required, but this assessment is based on their professional judgement. Given that these inspections provide an important insight into whether licensees are demonstrating safe asbestos removal practices, it is critical that decisions to perform inspections are risk based, consistently made using documented policies and procedures, and transparently documented.
WorkSafe’s data suggests that 100 on-site inspections were performed from a total of 391 notifications (25.6%) of friable asbestos removal jobs in the period between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. These on-site inspections are performed by a team of 1-3 people and only involve inspections of the worksites where asbestos is removed. WorkSafe has a comprehensive Quality Inspection Policy to help guide the inspectors’ work.
We examined a sample of 20 notifications where the system showed that an inspection took place and found that recordkeeping was poor. In particular:
- no photos nor any evidence to support the inspectors’ findings were recorded. Inspectors issued improvement notices for 2 of these inspections
- there were 4 instances where there was insufficient documentary evidence to indicate that an on-site visit actually took place.
We also found that workplaces of restricted licence holders are visited but only when complaints are investigated by WorkSafe. This is because on-site inspections are not part of WorkSafe’s routine audit procedures, and currently there is no legislative requirement for restricted licence holders to notify WorkSafe of their asbestos removal jobs in advance. Performing on-site inspections of restricted licence holders will help ensure that these licensees are removing asbestos safely.
Good documentation of on-site inspections and outcomes would help WorkSafe to assess the effectiveness of the regulatory regime. It would also assist to identify potential problems or non-compliance issues for addressing in future proactive campaigns, or to take action against operators that are exposing the community to harm.
There are gaps in monitoring and compliance activities
While WorkSafe has some proactive campaigns for managing asbestos in workplaces (refer to the proactive WorkSafe campaigns below) these are not clearly aligned with asbestos removal regulations, and we identified gaps in how WorkSafe coordinates its proactive and reactive monitoring and compliance activities. We found shortcomings with the collection and use of its complaints data to monitor and improve the asbestos removal licensing program. These gaps increase the risk that unlicensed asbestos removalists, or those using unsafe practices, may go undetected.
Proactive education and awareness raising is considered a first step in encouraging compliance and promoting good regulatory outcomes.
Proactive WorkSafe campaigns developed for properly managing asbestos in workplaces include:
|
Source: OAG using information provided by WorkSafe
WorkSafe does not know how effective its system for documenting and responding to complaints is. Its management of asbestos-related complaints, and the investigations of the complaints, is a key component of its compliance and monitoring program. However, we found WorkSafe has not:
- analysed complaints data. In keeping with good practice, complaints data should be analysed to determine whether the licensing regime is working well, to assist with identifying any unlicensed individuals and entities removing asbestos, and to inform proactive campaigns
- undertaken an internal audit or review of the complaints process. In keeping with best practice principles, we expected to find the process periodically reviewed to identify areas for administrative improvements to ensure complaints are dealt with promptly, courteously and in accordance with their assigned priority.
Further, it was not always clear how investigations of complaints not assigned a priority are completed. We found this in our analysis of 1,432 complaints made between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019 supplied to us by WorkSafe[1] (Figure 3 shows the total numbers of complaints in recent years). Over the 5-year period, we found 6.5% (93) of all complaints were never assigned a priority rating but were shown in the system as completed investigations. Management advised that this could be due to the matter being dealt with personally by the manager. However, this was not always evident from the data we were given.
Source: OAG using information provided by WorkSafe
Figure 3: Total numbers of complaints made to WorkSafe about asbestos matters between 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019
Collection and use of intelligence to inform the program could be improved
WorkSafe’s guidance and mechanisms to help staff to use information about asbestos-related issues from the public or public sector entities require improvement to better inform its proactive campaigns or identify potential non-compliance issues. For example, WorkSafe:
- receives some information on demolition approvals from local governments. However, WorkSafe told us it is not always practical to act on this information because not all local governments advise it that asbestos will be involved in demolition work.
- does not collect information about the amount of asbestos disposed at waste facilities.
A clear plan for the collection and use of information from stakeholders would improve how WorkSafe use resources to identify instances of non-compliance. WorkSafe introduced a new online tool in 2019 to address this issue.
Good quality information is not available for reporting to executive
Limitations in the way WorkSafe records and manages compliance data meant that the executive team, and other decision-makers and stakeholders, had limited visibility into whether asbestos removal regulation was effective. We acknowledge that some of WorkSafe’s systems do not have the functionality to easily report on performance and are set to be replaced when funding allows. However, we found:
- only the numbers of worksite visits for all hazardous materials are reported to executive in aggregate and no information is reported for asbestos regulation specifically or about inspection findings for any regulatory activity
- only the numbers of audits undertaken each year are reported to executive and no information is reported about audit findings
- complaint and investigation information about asbestos matters is not captured in a form that can easily be analysed to identify potential issues and trends. Consequently, WorkSafe has not done any analysis of complaints data, and does not know how many complaints relate to asbestos removal.
According to better practice principles, the outcomes of monitoring and compliance activities should be reported periodically to accountable decision-makers so they can assess if the program is effective. As we did not find this to be the case, WorkSafe may be missing opportunities to ensure the program reflects risk priorities and to address matters of non-compliance.
[1] Data extract based on a keyword search for the term “asbestos” to identify asbestos-related complaints