The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) released a discussion paper outlining a range of topics to be covered in the new prudential standards for the superannuation industry.

The topics relate to all its regulated industries including Governance, Fit and Proper, Risk Management, Business Continuity Management (BCM), Outsourcing, Audit and Related Matters, in addition to other superannuation specific matters to be reviewed.

APRA Deputy Chairman Ross Jones said the proposed prudential standards will significantly strengthen the superannuation system.

Currently, BCM requirements and guidance material are minimal. However, APRA is proposing to expand them to encompass the differences between superannuation and other APRA regulated industries in the Prudential Standard SPS 232 Business Continuity Management (SPS 232). Particular emphasis will be placed on the obligations of the Board and senior management, the BC Plan itself as well as the industry’s high incidence of outsourcing and the subsequent implications for BCM.

Submissions relating to the APRA discussion paper’s proposals were due by 23 December 2011.

The “Prudential Standards for Superannuation – September 2011” can be found at http://www.apra.gov.au/Super/Pages/superannuation-prudential-standards-consultation.aspx

Download PDF version: Emergency Management School Forum Report 230212

Introduction

While all schools are unique, the high risk, complex nature of the school environment creates many shared challenges for managing an emergency incident. These challenges are exacerbated by the number of students, age of students, size of school premises and difficulty completing emergency training in school timetables.

A unique opportunity to share information and discuss these challenges was provided by RiskLogic during a recent inaugural Emergency Management School Forum. Held on the 23^rd February 2012 and hosted at Pymble Ladies’ College, the forum encouraged interaction amongst representatives from 8 of Sydney’s leading schools with the aim of building stronger emergency response capabilities between its participants.

This report provides a summary of the Forum outcomes, including:

• An overview of School compliance requirements
• Identification and discussion of emergency management challenges
• Discussion of solutions for the identified challenges

“I enjoyed hearing other schools’ experiences and hearing that we all have common issues/challenges” (School Forum Participant)

Forum Attendees

Schools that attended the Forum included:

• Loreto Normanhurst
• Saint Ignatius College Riverview
• Monte Saint Angelo Mercy College
• St Andrew’s Cathedral School
• Pymble Ladies’ College
• St Catherine’s School
• Ravenswood School for Girls
• The King’s School

RiskLogic facilitators included:

• Cheryl Hambly
• Grant Ziarno

Summary of emergency management requirements

Complying with best practice emergency management is important in ensuring staff and students remain safe during emergencies. The emergency management requirements are outlined in Australian Standard 3745 Planning for Emergencies in Facilities. These requirements include:

• Formation of an emergency planning committee (EPC)
• Formation of an emergency control organisation (ECO) – wardens
• Development of an emergency response plan
• Development and placement of evacuation diagrams
• Conducting of emergency response training:
  • Bi-annual chief warden training
  • Bi-annual ECO training
  • Annual staff awareness training
  • Annual EPC training
  • Annual evacuation drills
  • Annual lockdown drills

Identified challenges

“I enjoyed the willingness for all participants to be open and discuss issues at their schools” (School Forum Participant)

To identify the existing emergency management challenges within schools, participants brainstormed the issues they presently face at their school. These included:

• Staff not understanding the evacuation process
• Staff not responding to alarms
• Difficulty in securing the school premises during an emergency
• Difficulty in accounting for all persons on site
• Non-compliance of third party tenants
• Suitability of evacuation assembly areas
• Poorly documented out of hours procedures (for example Saturday sport)
• Implementing partial evacuations and lockdowns
• Lack of knowledge of emergency equipment on-site
• Evacuation and accounting for a large number of persons
• Minimal practice of evacuation process for boarding houses
• Managing emergencies during break periods
• Emergency services familiarisation with the school
• Controlling social networking communications from students during emergencies
• Communicating emergency information to all persons on site

Given the duration of the forum, it was decided that two challenges would be explored in more detail. Participants discussed in greater detail the challenges around out-of-hours emergency procedures and evacuating large numbers of people.

Out-of-hours procedures

• Assumption that wardens will be present at a Warden Intercom Phone (WIP)
• External persons on-site without warden training
• Not knowing who is on the school premises
• Lack of persons to take responsibility of each area after hours
• Communicating emergency details during functions and events
• Securing the school premises with limited resources
• Induction of external parties (for example coaches)

Evacuating large number of persons

• People on-site lacking knowledge of emergency procedures, equipment, alarms sounds, and out-of-hours assembly points
• Lack of space at the assembly point
• Lack of control at the assembly point
• Difficulty in securing the school premises
• Reduced capability of communications to outside areas
• Lack trained emergency response staff
• Keeping emergency procedures simple

Identified solutions

The following were discussed as potential solutions or actions to reduce the challenges around both the out-of-hours response and evacuating large numbers of people.

Procedures:

• Document out-of-hours procedures
• Document emergency procedures for large events
• Keep procedures simple. The same process can usually be followed, just applied to the different circumstances

Training:

• Train all wardens and all staff in the emergency response processes
• Provide safety instructions to external persons using parts of the school (may be dependent on the parts of the school they are using)
• Induct new contractors – provide them with maps and instructions on what to do and who to report to during an emergency
• Train boarding staff in responding to an emergency. This training may need to be conducted after hours to capture all staff
• Conduct after-hours evacuation and lockdown drills for boarding staff and residents

Communications:

• Communicate out-of-hours procedures to relevant people
• Control communications to parents. Think about setting up systems to SMS parents, direct lines to radio stations for broadcasting messages, internet and website messages
• Communicate to staff the existing emergency communications and processes
• Place a sticker on phones with the security response number. This would be a speed dial number and mobile number, that phones the appropriate person, and acts as one point of contact for staff
• Investigate if messages can be sent to nominated persons from the fire monitoring company when an alarm has been activated

ECO structure:

• Establish a specific warden team for large events
• Appoint whoever is in charge of the activity/event as the person to step up to the Chief Warden role if required
• Utilise non-teaching staff as wardens
• Assign people to take on the role of chief warden out-of-hours and for events. Some schools have a roster of key management personnel who are located near the school to take on this role
• Utilise security staff (if your school has them) to assist during an emergency
• Appoint two reserves for the chief warden and communications officer role
• Appoint and train regular out-of-hours staff to warden roles
• Contain the emergency early to avoid panic and secondary incidents by liaising with emergency services and controlling outside communications

Other:

• Establish a sign in system for contractors – some schools have a dual sign-in system for accounting for both during-hours visitors, and out-of-hours visitors/contractors
• Establish an evacuation kit with communications equipment, emergency procedures and other equipment that may be required at an assembly area.

Conclusion

The forum was a valuable learning and networking experience for all participants. Participants shared experiences and built networks, and will further enhance their existing emergency management programs by implementing some or all of the discussed solutions. Future forums will explore the remaining challenges with the aim of continued emergency resilience within schools.

Should you have questions, feedback or suggestions, please contact Cheryl Hambly or Grant Ziarno on 02 9037 1888.

From July 2012, Australian financial services firms must comply with four (4) new standards outlined by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in September last year.

The CPS 232 is one of the four new standards which consolidates and replaces the existing twelve standards contained in APS 232 [applicable to authorised deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs)], the GPS 222 (applicable to general insurers) and the LPS 232 (applicable to life companies).

The remaining three standards relate to governance, outsourcing and fitness and propriety.  In APRA’s view, the risks arising from outsourcing business continuity management, governance and the fitness and propriety of responsible persons are similar regardless of the industry.

Currently, there are three individual, almost identical, prudential standards covering the business continuity management requirements for each APRA-regulated industry. The standards essentially relay that a regulated institution must implement a whole-of-business approach to business continuity management appropriate to the nature and scale of its operations.

APRA emphasised that the process “did not seek to review the content and scope of the behavioural standards, beyond that required to harmonise application across industries.”

The regulator received a number of submissions from institutions and industry groups in a related “consultation package” that was released in December 2010.

The submissions supported the harmonisation initiative.

Other key features of CPS 232 include:

• An amendment to clarify the definition of Business Impact Analysis. That is, “a process performed to identify the critical business operations. That is, a regulated institution cannot just perform a BIA for critical business operations it must perform the analysis for all operations in order to determine which are critical.”
• Clarity around the role and obligations of the Board (or equivalent) in complying with the standard.
• A requirement for the Board of the Head of the Level 2 banking group to  ensure that all group members have in place BCM policies. That BCM is applied to each part of the group and that the business continuity policy is internally and externally reviewed at least annually.
• Extension of the application of the standard to include registered life Non Operating Holding Companies (NOHCs).
• Greater clarity around the application of the standard to foreign branches.
• Extension to life companies the requirement, currently applying to ADIs and general insurers, to conduct a periodic review of the Business Continuity Plan by the internal auditor or an external expert.
• Extension to ADIs and general insurers APRA’s ability, under LPS 232, to request the external auditor (or an external expert) to undertake an assessment of BCM arrangements.
• Transfer of requirements for Level 2 insurance groups to comply with BCM requirements from Prudential Standard GPS 221 Risk Management: Level 2 Insurance Groups (GPS 221);

The consolidated standards are found on the APRA website under the ‘Prudential Framework’ page for each industry.

Bombs and other explosive devices are becoming an increasing danger to Australian society. One need only look at the growing number of recent examples to realise that this form of terrorism is becoming more prevalent. The potential for personal injury, damage to property and disruption of processes is greater than it has ever been. Unfortunately, schools are not immune to this trend and it is more vital than ever that schools develop emergency plans and procedures to deal with bomb threats and attacks should they occur.

The potential for such an incident in Australia is great, and teachers must treat all threats seriously. The majority of bomb threats may turn out to be hoaxes or pranks, however no school should ever be complacent.

The right plans and procedures to deal with a bomb threat can minimise the risk to your school. It is important to stay calm and in control during an emergency, and especially in schools where the safety of children is involved, it is important to not make decisions based on emotions. Having a detailed emergency response plan to manage a bomb threat is critical.

Types of bomb threat

According to the updated Australian Standard 3745 (2010), bomb threats may present themselves either in writing, verbally or as a suspect object. The Standard provides the following information and guidance for dealing with each scenario.

For bomb threats made over the telephone:

• Make note of as much information as possible during the call (use a Bomb Threat Checklist)
• Attract the attention of co-workers and signal them to alert the chief warden and the police
• Do not hang up the telephone, as the police may be able to trace the call later
• After the call, make a note of any information while it is still fresh in your mind
• Keep calm

For bomb threats received in writing:

• Keep the message and any envelope or container it came with
• Avoid any tampering or unnecessary handling after the message is received
• Protect the message and accompanying materials, preferably in a plastic envelope, to retain any evidence such as fingerprints or handwriting
• Alert the authorities

In case of suspect objects:

• Use the HOT-UP catchword (see below)
• Contact police immediately

Evaluation and Notification

It is vital that police are informed of all threats immediately, no matter in what form they arrive or how empty or far-fetched they might be.

Upon receipt of any bomb threat, the Emergency Control Organisation (ECO) must evaluate the severity of the threat to determine the most appropriate response. Such factors as risk of injury or increased panic must be considered before a suitable type of evacuation is chosen.

Evacuation options

Depending on the severity of the situation, the ECO can decide on the following stages of evacuation:

• Stage 1 (Shelter in place or No evacuation): Removal of people from the immediate danger area
• Stage 2 (Partial Evacuation): Removal of people to a safer area
• Stage 3 (Full Evacuation): Complete evacuation of all people

When in doubt, it is safest to fully evacuate the school until a proper search has been conducted. It is important to maintain good communication throughout the evacuation to avoid confusion, minimise fear of students and of their relatives, and avoid bad publicity. A media management plan can be useful for this purpose, which may be incorporated into the school’s emergency response plan or critical incident plan.

No school is immune to a bomb threat. Recent incidents ranging from the phone threat at Bundaberg High School in Queensland to the bomb explosion at St Clair Public School in Western Sydney highlight the vulnerability of schools throughout Australia. The updated Australian Standard 3745 (2010) provides guidance on planning and response in case of bomb threats and should be considered in every schools emergency response plan.  Schools must have the necessary security, plans and procedures in place to minimise bomb threats if and when they occur.

It is worth listing some relevant news articles relating to recent bomb incidents in Australian schools:

This article provides a snapshot of the Incident Management training provided in South West Queensland and the effects the training had on the emergency response during the 2010/11 flood event. With Emergency Management Queensland, I was involved as a facilitator of the scenario-based training and was also an operational employee deployed to Local and District Disaster Coordination Centres during the event. Below are some of my observations after the event.

In November 2010, Incident Management Teams within district and local disaster management groups in the South Western Region of Queensland were tested on their response to an extreme weather event. It was an opportunity for these groups to test their evacuation plans, re-supply arrangements, personnel and asset coordination, internal communication protocols and external communications.

Participants responded as they would in a real event using their Incident Management Plans (IMP), standard operating procedures, supporting documentation and local knowledge.

This exercise allowed participants to identify gaps in their emergency response, which became extremely beneficial during the flood event.

These findings included:

• Inappropriate size and location of Incident Coordination Centres (ICS)
• Lack of specific identified roles during an emergency including the Incident Management Team (IMT) and support staff. Lack of updated contact lists
• Communication issues between external agencies, isolated communities and other stakeholders
• Lack of Liaison officers
• The need for predetermined evacuation centres
• The need for continued training
• Ineffective information management protocols
• Under estimation of resources required to respond to an incident
• Lack of appropriate escalation points

Even though (due to the size of the affected area) some participants felt the November scenario exercise was unrealistic, the extreme weather event became a reality in December and January of 2011.

So how did the Incident Management Teams respond during the event? Did the recent training they received assist them in their response? Simply, the answer is yes.

Although there was little time between the exercise and the actual event, a great deal had been learned and major changes had begun to be implemented. The exercise meant incident management and the emergency response was front of mind and local IMTs responded quickly and more effectively than in the past.

Four main improvements could be observed during the response to the emergency; clearly defined structure, defined and communicated roles and appropriate allocation of resources and communications.

IMT Structure

Given members of the IMT had a better knowledge of the incident control system in place there was little need for further communication of the process during the response. This allowed IMTs to concentrate on an effective coordinated response to the emergency and not on the processes involved. Having the procedures, protocols, forms and boards in place saved time and reduced confusion.

Considerations regarding the scale and scope of the emergency were made and appropriate Incident Action Plans (IAP) were put in place quickly. As the emergency evolved and conditions changed, the IAPs were revised to reflect the most appropriate response.

Roles and responsibilities

The IMT was able to respond effectively and work together in a cohesive manner given the roles and responsibilities of IMT members were recently highlighted and communicated to all members. There was no question who was in command at Incident Coordination Centres and the roles of Operations, Planning, Logistics and Communications were for the most part clearly identified and allocated appropriately.

Deficiencies highlighted during the exercise had been addressed and support staff within the business as usual structure were identified and quickly utilised during the response.

Allocation of resources

The allocation of resources, especially in relation to personnel, had mostly been addressed directly after the exercise and appropriate resources were allocated immediately in the emergency. The allocation of internal resources enabled a quick response both in the development of Incident Coordination Centres but also in response to the flood event.

Identifying resources and establishment of MOUs with external suppliers enabled the IMTs to formulate responses within an IAP without having to waste time determining resource availability and cost. This was paramount in enabling a quick effective response given the magnitude of the emergency.

Communications

Although there was little opportunity to improve communication protocols before the flood event, enhancements were made during the emergency. As the shortfalls in communication were identified during the exercise, it was quickly apparent what improvements must be made and how it would be managed.

IMTs were able to recalibrate and adopt standardised forms. Communication and action logs were used effectively to determine appropriate responses. Communication protocols internally and externally were refined and contact lists were updated and added to.

These changes identified during training were quickly implemented and not only assisted greatly in the response of IMTs, but also provided a record of actions taken and the reasons for these actions.

Allowing for the fact that each local IMT had a differing ability to respond to the emergency either due to varying levels of experience or resources, as a general rule, each IMT responded more effectively than they would have previously. While some teams gained more from the exercise than others, this can be put down to a number of variables; skill level and experience before the exercise, level of participation during the exercise and the willingness of local teams to learn from the outcomes and instigate change.

The value of having Incident Management Plans in place cannot be overrated and the same can be said for testing the response by utilising these plans. Having and Incident Management structure and testing it certainly allowed IMTs across South Western Queensland to respond much more effectively than they ever could have before.

Business continuity strategies have traditionally been paper intensive, making plans cumbersome to update and difficult to access in the event of a crisis. Without the consistent attention and ongoing investment that the business continuity process requires, organisations find themselves significantly underprepared when it matters most.

While business continuity continues to embed itself into the psyche of corporate Australia, the spate of recent incidents, locally and abroad, has heightened its importance. As a consequence, the expectations placed on the performance of business continuity plans have significantly increased, according to leading business continuity firm RiskLogic.

RiskLogic Director, Joshua Shields, says many organisations have now had an opportunity to activate their business continuity programs in genuine situations. “Learning from their experiences, organisations are now demanding business continuity outcomes that are more flexible, portable and easier to execute” he says.

Mr Shields believes the accessibility and affordability of new technology holds the answer. “Technology, such as cloud computing and mobile applications, provides opportunities to significantly improve how organisations develop, control and activate their business continuity strategies,” he says.

While business continuity software is not new, previously available products have been inflexible, limited in functionality and excessively priced.

In response to this need, RiskLogic has partnered with leading UK technology provider ClearView Continuity to launch a new portable business continuity platform that allows users to control and coordinate their business continuity strategies with ease.

Developed by business continuity professionals, RiskLogic’s web-based platform ‘BC-3’ utilises the power of cloud computing and mobile applications to allow clients fast access and control of information anytime, anywhere during a crisis.

“The challenge was to deliver an intuitive, easy to use interface that provides the flexibility to adapt to the client’s unique approach and methodology. BC-3 provides a scale of functionality and degree of adaptability never seen before, and at a lower cost than competing products,” says Mr Shields.

BC-3 supports the end-to-end management of business continuity programs and seamlessly interacts with existing internal systems, such as HR programs.  It also provides automated audit trails and full compliance reporting, equipping users will full visibility and control of their programs, no matter how large or complex the organisation.

“The future of business continuity programs is in technology. Companies that do not adapt will continue to struggle to meet ever growing corporate governance and business demands,” said Mr Shields.

ClearView Chief Executive, Charles Boffin, said they are delighted to partner with business continuity specialist, RiskLogic, to provide Australian companies with a high impact, cost effective solution that has the power to revolutionise the way organisations approach business continuity.

“The combination of ClearView and RiskLogic as a recognised industry leader in business continuity creates an enviable partnership, and it is clients that will benefit most,” he said.

For further information please contact:

Joshua Shields

Phone: 1300 731 138

Email: info@risklogic.com.au

www.risklogic.com.au/BC-3

About RiskLogic

RiskLogic is a leading consulting firm delivering crisis management, business continuity and emergency management solutions across multiple sectors, including government, financial services, utilities, infrastructure, manufacturing, education, healthcare and not-for-profit, throughout Australia and New Zealand.

www.risklogic.com.au

About Clearview

ClearView is a family of web based technologies that help businesses manage their Business Continuity Management (BCM) activity and support the processes associated with Threat Assessment, Impact Analysis, plan development, exercise and testing management, approval, and measurement of BCM policy compliance. With a global client base in all sectors, we partner with best in class collaborators to deliver end to end BCM solutions.

www.clearview-continuity.com

Worldwide, 373 reported natural disasters killed over 296,800 people in 2010, affecting nearly 208 million others and costing nearly US$110 billion (CRED, 2011).

Australians are constantly reminded of their vulnerability to natural and man-made hazards. Australia’s history is punctuated by events that have caused significant destruction, community disruption, loss of life, injuries and trauma (Abrahams, 2001). 

Recent events across Australia and abroad reinforce the need for incident management teams to be adequately prepared for responding to a range of incidents at short notice. Incident management teams aim to reduce the impact of incidents on an organisation’s customers, infrastructure, the environment and community. 

Incident management varies in scope for different organisations. For large scale organisations, their priority will be to find longer-term accommodation, which could include schools, aged care facilities, motels and care for staff and occupants. They may need to relocate people, ensure their safety and then activate business continuity plans.

For essential services, for example – electricity providers, their priority will be restoring electrical networks to the community as quickly as possible while also ensuring their staff and the community are safe. Most of these organisations will have multiple locations where they can manage an incident from. 

This article aims to explore what’s required to ensure corporate Incident Management Teams function effectively. An organisation may have a combination of emergency response teams, incident management teams, business continuity teams and/or crisis management teams. To understand the relationships within this network, we must distinguish between an incident and a crisis.

Incident:

An incident relates to any event that arises that may adversely affect the organisation, persons or community and requires an immediate response. Typical examples range from bush fires, storms, floods, cyclones, earthquakes. Incident Management teams are used to respond to and manage incidents.

Crisis:

A Crisis is an event that impacts, or is likely to significantly impact an organisation’s commercial prospects and/or reputation. Business Continuity and Crisis Management Teams are used to recover an organisation from a crisis.

An incident may become a crisis if it leads to significant operational disruption, reputation loss, infrastructure damage, environmental damage or personal illness and injury. 

Incident management involves implementing plans and using personnel and equipment to achieve the tactical and task requirements of an incident response (Perry, 2003). Scalable Incident Management Teams are used to ensure it can effectively respond and address potential changes in the immediate incident environment. 

Many issues can arise for organisations during an incident. Having an incident management program will assist with mitigating the negative impacts of such issues: 

• Where there are multiple organisations involved
• Speaking with internal and external stakeholders
• Communicating with large numbers of staff and/or customers
• Injury, death or illness
• Major damage to property, infrastructure or the environment
• Resource requirements over an extended period of time
• Management of stress and trauma
• Media interest

What is needed to effectively manage an incident?

Following an industrial oil drilling incident, Crichton et al (2005) acknowledges that effective incident management requires complimentary interplay between people (social and cognitive skills) and structure (organisational and knowledge). Key elements that enable incident management teams to effectively manage an event include:

• An appropriately structured Incident Management Team
• A well structured, flexible incident management plan
• Effective leadership and team work
• Communication protocols
• Ongoing training and testing 

(i)        Incident Management Team 

To effectively manage an incident, a team should be established to maintain control and coordinate a response. The Incident Management Team should not be a rigid organisation but one that is flexible in size and composition to match the level of demands posed by an event. The Incident Management Team, however, should not become too large as it could over-extend the incident manager’s span of control. 

Should the incident cover a number of separate sites, each being individually managed, a higher-level Incident Management Team structure might be required. 

The advantages of implementing an Incident Management Team include:

• Effectively and efficiently controlling the incident
• Single management structure that brings together all resources
• Consistent application of incident management across an organisation
• Integration of activities and resources from multiple organisations
• Minimise impact on community and environment
• Ensure the welfare of people involved in the incident 

The Australasian Inter-service Incident Management System (AIIMS) outlines a standard structure for incident management including member roles, responsibilities, and operational procedures. This structure is commonly used by emergency services and can be implemented into corporate organisations. 

Key roles in AIIMS include incident controller, planning coordinator, operations coordinator, logistics coordinator and media or information coordinator. These roles must be clearly defined and communicated to all participants.   

• Planning — Gathering, maintaining and reporting of information. Assessing resource requirements, maintaining status on allocated resources and developing the incident plan.
• Operations — Assisting the incident manager in control and coordinating the incident. Assisting in the development of the incident plan and managing field teams.
• Logistics — Identifying and coordinating the provision of support, equipment and supply services for an incident.
• Communications — Establishing and coordinating communications between response teams at the incident site and to the Emergency Operations Centre (if activated).
• Media — Liaising with the media and developing a media plan for the incident (might not be part of the incident management team, but must have direct access to it). This coordinator may also coordinate communications with external stakeholders, for example managing information from the call centre to the public and customers.

Typically, members of the Incident Management Team will consist of general managers, operations managers, planning officers, internal communications staff, area managers and supervisors. Staff will step into their incident management roles to implement the incident management plan when required. 

(ii)       Incident Management Plan 

No two disasters are the same – they occur in different locations, geographies, with widely distinct infrastructure and access and different local capabilities and weather conditions (Patterson, 2006). Incident management programs should be structured to guide the incident management team but also remain flexible enough to react to any incident that may occur. 

A major challenge confronting Incident Management Team members with their separate functions, and the Incident Controller in particular, is ensuring they all share a common operational understanding, structure and consistency. This is difficult when managing extensive incidents where the separate functions (incident controller, planning, operations and logistics) aren’t located in the same room or even at the same location (McLennan et al, 2006). Therefore, incident management plans can assist with efficient information gathering and decision making. 

A suitable incident management plan allows the incident management team to respond to new developments and avoid responding in a sporadic or disorganised manner. The following provides a guide to what may be included in an incident management plan: 

• Impact assessment tools
• Trigger points indicating incident escalation points
• Staff induction checklists
• Incident Management Team roles and responsibilities
• Response procedures
• Emergency contact details
• Supplier agreements
• Incident Actions Plans
• Response checklists
• Roles and responsibilities checklists
• Information collection tools
• Communication protocols and templates
• Briefing, debriefing and post incident review (PIR) templates
• Meeting agendas
• Action logs

(iii)       Effective Leadership and team work 

Leadership principles during an incident are similar to leadership during ‘business as usual’ times. However, during an incident, leadership decisions have a greater impact due to the changing environment and stressful nature and time pressures of an incident. Effective leadership is exhibited by commanding respect, avoiding or minimising potential conflict between teams and defining a clear direction despite being under pressure (Flin, 1996 cited in Crichton et al, 2005). 

Not everyone is a leader. Hayes and Omodei (2011) suggest a combination of personal attributes and interpersonal attributes that are essential for a successful incident leader. Personal attributes should include a tolerance for stress, self awareness and good communication skills. Other skills including problem solving, effective decision making, interpersonal attributes including integrity and perseverance are also desirable. 

In addition to strong leadership, effective team work is essential for incident management success. Effective Incident Management Teams display a high level of monitoring and awareness. This awareness is a combination of self-awareness, where members monitor their own levels of stress and fatigue, and team-awareness, including monitoring other Incident Management Team members and anticipating their needs (McLennan et al, 2006). 

Working well together results in increased efficiency, combining individual unique skills and strengths to benefit the whole team, stronger relationships and therefore team unity. It can also promote a better sense of responsibility as team members are dependant on each other for success, increased creativity and a better feeling of support within the team. 

(iv)      Communication Protocols 

Communicating early can prevent an incident from escalating. To enable this, pre-determined templates should be established to minimise the time wasted developing communications from scratch. 

Pre-determined communications within the incident management strategy will identify all potential stakeholders, various message formats, media, frequency of communications and communications templates, including pre-formatted emails, faxes, media releases and phone messages. 

Effective communication is engaging, solution oriented, consistent, concise, factual and shows empathy. 

(v)       Ongoing Training and Testing 

Established incident management plans and teams significantly improve the efficiency of incident management. If, however, Incident Management Teams are not trained in a controlled environment the incident may not be responded to effectively. 

Regular incident exercises using incident management plans and teams will build a culture of awareness within the organisation, increase familiarity with the plans, identify gaps and deficiencies within the program and enable the organisation to effectively respond to an incident. 

To successfully meet the demands of incident management, personnel holding Incident Management Team leadership roles need a combination of personal attributes and knowledge. The findings of the Hayes and Omodei (2011) research found the key competencies required for Incident Management Team personnel include: interpersonal and communication skills, AIIMS knowledge and processes, management skills, leadership, flexible and adaptable analytical thinking and problem solving and a level head. 

These skills can be learned using a combination of structured internal external and training and role playing under controlled conditions. Exercises could include a realistic table-top exercise, a series of component testing on different aspects of the program or a full-scale exercise where all elements of the program and team are tested in as live an environment as possible. 

Do you need an Incident Management Team?  

Organisations in high risk industries as well as companies that provide essential services to the community, or organisations with a large geographical area need Incident Management Teams to provide a coordinated approach to organise the people, equipment and resources necessary to ensure an adequate response. 

For a corporate organisation to effectively respond to an incident, it needs a combination of a well-structured incident management team, a flexible incident management plan, effective leadership and team work, pre-established communications protocols and ongoing training and testing.

Contact RiskLogic or further information on how you can establish an effective incident management team.

References:

AFAC, (2005), “The Australasian Inter-Service Incident Management System´3^rd ed, Melbourne, Australia, Australasian Fire Authorities Council.

Abrahams, J. (2001) “Disaster management in Australia: The national emergency management system” Emergency Medicine 13, pp 165-173.

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), 2011, “2010 disasters in numbers”, http://www.preventionweb.net/files/17615_confpress2010.pdf

Crichton, M.T, Lauche, K., Flin, R (2005), “Incident command skills in the management of an oil industry drilling incident: A case study”, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 13(3), pp 116-128.

Hayes, P.A.J., Omodei, M.M. (2011), “Managing Emergencies: Key Competencies for Incident Management Teams”, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 4, pp 1-10.

McLennan, J., Holgate, A.M., Omodei, M.M., Wearing, A.J., (2006), “Decision Making Effectiveness in Wildfire Incident Management Teams” Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 14(1), pp 27-37.

Patterson, B. (2006) “Thailand’s tsunami: disaster management lessons for Australia”, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 21(4), pp 3-7.

Perry, R.W., (2003) “Incident Management systems in disaster management”, Disaster Prevention and Management, 12(5), pp 405-412.

Introduction:

Risk Management is a progressive and developing discipline. There are always new lessons to be learned. In this edition of ‘One-on-one with’ we speak with Ron Barnes, a 30-year Safety and Risk Management veteran. Hopefully we can learn from Ron’s experiences and gain a greater understanding of risk and the application of good risk management.

Briefly describe your current role and responsibilities.

I am the General Manager of Echelon Australia. Echelon is a specialised, international consulting firm providing services in Risk Management, OHS, health and wellbeing, workers compensation and claims management.
As General Manager I have overall responsibility for the business and take a leading role in a number of large projects. While not as ‘hands on’ as I used to be, it is still an aspect of my role. I also hold Board positions with the Statewide Mutual Board and Royal Life Saving NSW.

Describe your initial involvement in Risk Management and your progression through the ranks.

My career began after I completed a Science Degree and took a job as a Safety Officer with Eastern Nitrogen (now Incitec) in Newcastle, north of Sydney. My role focussed on managing the fire, safety and security of the chemical manufacturing plant. In 1984, I had a role with the Electrical Commission Coal Mines, which owned and operated underground coal mines in the Hunter Valley and Western Lake Macquarie. There, I provided safety assistance to the Mangers of the mines and introduced risk assessment methodologies throughout the mines.
While introducing these concepts, which are now standard practice, we initially met with significant resistance. The mentality was safety and risk management was the responsibility of the Mine Manager and since I did not have mining qualifications, I was getting in the way of people doing their job.
That led to a short stint with Alexander Stenhouse (AON), before joining Jardine Lloyd Thompson (as it is now known), of which Echelon is a 100% subsidiary. Overall I have been involved in safety and risk management since about 1980, and General Manager of Echelon since 2006.

Has the profile of Risk changed over the years?

Yes! Years ago safety was the only aspect of risk management we focussed on and risk management tended to place emphasis on insurance. When people thought or heard ‘risk management’ they immediately thought of insurance.
Risk management is now more broadly accepted and acknowledged as standard practice. The level of sophistication in the way risk is reported and managed has improved significantly. We have come a long way since the old days where safety and risk management were less of a priority. But there is still room for further improvement. There’s a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of risk (ie – the negative consequences and threats) but I believe there is a lot to be gained by highlighting and promoting the opportunities that can achieved through good risk management. A lot of organisations are now well versed at Board level and do a good job in filtering a risk management culture down through all levels of the organisation. A number of organisations we work with are now a lot savvier in the ‘consequence and control’ side of risk. Where improvements are still to be achieved is through the knowledge and understanding of the potential for ‘greater organisational resilience’ and ‘opportunity’ in good risk management.

Have Australian organisations adapted to the increased requirements for Boards and Directors to better manage risk?

There are always exceptions, but predominantly yes. Naturally with increased regulation comes a greater level of emphasis and focus. Most organisations now have processes in place to identify, assess and control risk. But like anything, some organisations do a better job than others.
In my opinion there is a typical scale that exists. At the top end, about 20 percent of organisations ‘eat and breathe’ risk. They are sophisticated and knowledgeable in their approach, resourceful and are now incredibly experienced risk practitioners. Then there are the 60 – 80 percent of organisations who ‘participate’ in risk management but rely on expertise of others, and around 10 per cent who are not familiar with the need or have not embedded risk management into the standard operations of their business.
But I believe there’s a new generation of managers with a far greater knowledge of risk management principles who are well educated and have been exposed to the concepts for many years. In some instances, risk management decision making has now been given to the ‘internal audit’ areas of organisations. This has allowed senior managers and Directors to better quantify risk and focus their practices using financial models. This can be very valuable but it can also present challenges. There is a risk that methodologies will be too financially focussed and not enough emphasis will be placed on the ‘human’ or operational aspects that are imperative to good risk management.
I have also witnessed a better ‘spread’ of risk management knowledge and information across organisations. There’s now a lot less reliance on individuals having the knowledge and experience. Retaining significant knowledge and know-how in any one individual is a risk in itself. Risk management is most effective when the knowledge and information is shared and exists as ‘standard practice’ at all levels of the organisation. A ‘good’ organisation has risk related experience and knowledge across all levels of the business.

Do some industries manage risk better than others?

Without being specific, in my experience some industries better understand their risks than others, which naturally puts them in a better position to manage them. In saying that, there is no one industry that does a better job of managing risk than others. Within any industry there are good and bad examples. In my opinion, some ‘Industry Groups’ do a great job of promoting risk management across their membership. In my experience working with Local Government, they are very proactive and have a solid grasp of risk management. Their knowledge and application is both complex and diverse.

What are the biggest ‘risks’ or ‘threats’ that Australian organisations face today?

The biggest ‘risk’ to businesses is the lack of certainty in decision making. Uncertainty is difficult to manage and in a globalised world, where decision making is often required instantly, knowing what information to listen to is crucial to any business. Outside influences place huge pressure and risk on the outcomes of those decisions. The risk is that critical decisions will be rushed or based on incorrect or un-validated information. With so much information now available to decision makers, knowing which to follow is a challenge. So, uncertainty is the big issue. An obvious example is climate change. This is a relatively new concept that is beginning to register in the thoughts of risk-based decision makers. There is a lot of information available, but deciding which information is valid and should be acted on is the challenge. Significant decisions, especially those involving long-term strategy, must accommodate the ‘uncertainty’ of the impact climate change might have on the environment and therefore ‘markets’ in the future.

What are the benefits of dedicating more time and expense to better risk management?

Dedicating more resources to risk management hopefully develops a greater understanding of your risks. Knowing your risk appetite and the environment you operate in is priceless. Knowledge allows an organisation to maximise the potential of good risk management as opposed to just focussing on the potentially negative consequences.
But there is a risk that dedicating more resources to risk management will result in an over-complication or over-engineering of risk management practices to the point where frameworks and information become complex and over-bearing. My experience is over-engineering risk management does not lead to better outcomes. Good outcomes occur through good decision making and that process occurs with high-quality information.
Organisations should focus their efforts on collecting and verifying relevant information and data. This will give greater certainty to the decision making process and allow for the objectives of an organisation to be maintained and achieved.

What makes a good risk manager? Who is your ‘champion’ of risk?

A good risk manager is someone who is not afraid to ask ‘stupid’ questions. They can challenge and won’t take offence. They have a thick skin. Someone who can be sure of the questions they’re asking and drive thought – What if? What about this? Have you thought about that?
A good risk manager is the ‘conscience’ of an organisation. They are the ones who should be prepared to question decisions. They must be prepared to work with the business but at the same time be able to step back from it and almost independently assess the decisions being made (hence the decision for a lot of risk managers to now be housed within ‘Internal Audit’).
Thirty years ago when I was involved in the chemical manufacturing industry, I had a fantastic mentor by the name of Jimmy Watson. He taught me that as a ‘risk manager’ “you can never assist the business you’re in by stepping over risk”. You have to be the one to stop and assess the situation while others around you steam roll ahead in their quest to achieve the objectives of the business.
Setting a good example is vital for a quality risk manager. It will help to embed risk management into the thinking and culture of all staff across an organisation. A good risk manager is someone who can influence, educate and effectively juggle the relationship between the objectives and consequences.
Ultimately, a risk manager should ensure organisational objectives can be achieved but also work towards embedding the principals of good risk management into standard operations and practices of an organisation and its staff.

Article appeared in the July/ August 2011 BCI Journal.

Introduction

Jodie Wentworth emphasises the importance of building ‘people-focused’ continuity plans to the overall ability of an organisation to recover from a crisis

When managing a crisis, the focus will often be placed on the reinstatement of infrastructure and the recommencement of critical processes, with the assumption that staff will automatically adapt as required. However, experience tells us that organisations must plan to build and support individual resilience. Failure to do so may result in the inability of staff to perform at such a critical time, and may also result in increased absenteeism or resignation post the crisis itself.

We are all different and react to crises in different ways. Emotional reactions to a crisis can be varied: a sense of loss, anger, frustration, isolation or empowerment and achievement. Therefore creating ‘people-focussed’ continuity plans can be challenging, as prescriptive responses won’t be adequate. Not only will plans need to be scalable to respond to the nature and extent of the crisis, they also need to consider the individual.

The emotional resilience of staff to cope with the stresses of the rapid and uncertain change that is a crisis will significantly contribute to an organisation’s ability to respond, adapt and recover from such an event.

Build familiarity

For those who have experienced disruptions or crises, the experience often provides a heightened awareness of the realities of the impacts of a crisis on the self and that of the organisation. In most cases, this learning creates an increased understanding of what they can expect of themselves and the others around them, and can therefore prompt individuals to implement their own strategies for ensuring future resilience, including the creation of personal contingency plans.

So it is important to provide opportunities for experience by including staff in events such as crisis management exercises and tests. Rehearsing the plan helps build familiarity so that when there is a crisis, an individual’s stress levels are less likely to impact their ability to respond because they won’t feel like they are responding for the very first time. By negating that ‘unknown’ factor some of the stress that is inevitable might be reduced.

Gather feedback to identify the challenges (emotional and practical) and subsequent improvements and changes required for both the organisation and individuals. Exercise debriefs can also provide an opportunity to set expectations and encourage people to take responsibility for implementing techniques and plans to build their own emotional resistance to stress.

Raising awareness and managing stress

Implement an awareness programme to ensure staff understand the organisation’s plans for managing a crisis including the constraints that the organisation might experience at the time. It is important that staff understand what to expect and understand their own responsibilities. This will enable them to better prepare – emotionally and practically.

Remember, also, to provide assurance that there is a plan in place and the organisation has thought through the process for retaining control and minimising the impacts.

It is important to educate staff on ways of managing stress in a positive way. This knowledge can be incredibly valuable in the day-to-day operations of any organisation, let alone during a crisis. Training should include information about:

• The physiological and emotional signs of stress and understanding individual responses.
• Tips for managing stress such as relaxation techniques, physical exercise, healthy eating.
• Tools for managing tasks and prioritising activities.

If you aren’t able to conduct training for all staff, then consider making this information available on the intranet, in booklets or as part of team meetings. Providing information to staff will help to identify stress in themselves and those around them, and trigger any support activities that may be required.

Create robust people policies

Consider the people-related policies and procedures that are in place – will they provide adequate guidance during a crisis?  Has the organisation considered policies for issues such as the ongoing payment of staff who have been sent home, the provision of over-time or time off in lieu arrangements for staff working abnormal work hours, as well as how the organisation will respond to death in service requirements? Consider how these policies will be perceived by staff and pre-plan the appropriate communications.

Insufficient policies (and hence responses) may have a detrimental impact on an individual’s emotional state and also in their sense of value to the organisation. Ultimately this may result in industrial relations issues, loss of key staff through resignation or absenteeism, and reduced capacity.

During the disruption

Ensure open lines of communications with staff – When the organisation is in recovery mode, it is important to provide opportunities for challenges, lessons and successes to be shared and captured along the way, rather than waiting for a post incident review. Not only will this provide an important mechanism for retaining a positive focus, but will also enable the organisation to respond to important issues in a timely way. Listening to, and acting upon, staff feedback in this way may also provide a sense of empowerment to staff, which can promote a sense of control and help to reduce stress. 

Monitor stress levels – During and after the crisis, provide guidance to staff about being alert to their emotional response and seeking assistance if required. Harness existing structures to monitor and understand how staff are coping. Social structures are vital to supporting our need to belong. By ensuring staff are part of a supportive community, they will retain a feeling of being part of the organisation and be strengthened by the support of their colleagues.

Provide staff with access to other support mechanisms if they require it. Most companies have access to organisations that provide specialist counselling as part of the overall staff support plan. However, it is important that the provision of external support does not replace internal support mechanisms – remembering that every individual is different.

Also, provide a range of options for people to discuss their issues such as: one-to-one meetings; discrete access to external resources as suggested above; or questionnaires that enable individuals to remain anonymous, but help the organisation to implement appropriate actions.

It is important not to underestimate the impact of an incident, however ‘small,’ on any one individual.

Establish routines – Work is also an important part of our daily routine and can define who we are. Take the individual away from that structure and purpose, and the sense of isolation and disconnection they can feel may be harmful, both emotionally to the individual and to how they perceive the organisation. By quickly establishing daily and weekly routines, the perceived threat of change can diminish. Routines that can be introduced include: 

• Regular planned briefings regarding recovery efforts via face-to-face, email, social media forums or teleconference.
• Re-establish operational activities as soon as is practicable. The sense of getting on with the job can provide a sense of comfort and focus to staff.
• Regularly get teams together including those staff who are not working. It will provide an opportunity for everyone to catch up, share their stories, and feel a part of the social structure that is work.
• Remember, too, the social structure that exists outside of work, particularly for those who are working longer hours. Consider introducing shift work (if practicable) so you can have more people working albeit at different times, allowing individuals to have the time to engage in the vital support that friends and family, and personal routines provide.

Value the contribution and experience of all staff – Feeling valued by the organisation can increase an individual’s sense of loyalty and can be a key motivator when performing under difficult circumstances. Regularly communicate to all staff and thank them for being involved in the recovery effort, or for being patient and understanding for those staff who are at home.

Returning to normal operations

Take the time to learn from the experience – Engage staff in the post incident review process and ensure the outcomes are communicated beyond the board or the crisis team. Learning is hugely important for individuals to be able to put their experience into perspective. Advertise improvements and changes as they are implemented so that there is a sense that the organisation, and hence the individuals, have grown from the experience.

Return to work – Emphasising the importance of having appropriate people policies in place, it is important that the organisation undertakes return to work activities, particularly as some staff may not have been at work for a considerable time.

Implement an ongoing process to monitor how people are coping. Encourage the sharing of stories and experiences so that individuals don’t feel isolated in their feelings. And keep an eye out for any longer-term stress-related problems.

Whilst some of the above ideas may seem time consuming, and to some unnecessary, the failure of an organisation to prepare and support their staff throughout a crisis will have detrimental impacts on how the organisation recovers, and how it is perceived by staff in the longer term. Taking the time to build the emotional resilience of individuals will ultimately serve to strengthen the resilience of the entire organisation.

Pull quotes

For those who have experienced disruptions or crises, the experience often provides a heightened awareness of the realities of the impacts of a crisis on the self and that of the organisation

Ultimately this may result in industrial relations issues, loss of key staff through resignation or absenteeism, and reduced capacity

Feeling valued by the organisation can increase an individual’s sense of loyalty and can be a key motivator when performing under difficult circumstances 

 Contact us to discuss how you can build emotional resilience in your workplace.

Introduction

The Australian Government has identified work health and safety as a priority area for reform. One of the key elements of the reform agenda is harmonisation – moving towards one set of work health and safety laws across Australia.

Currently all states, territories and the Commonwealth are responsible for making and enforcing their own OHS laws. Although these draw on a similar approach for regulating workplaces, there are some differences in the application and details of the law.  This issue has been addressed through an intergovernmental agreement where, for the first time, governments from each state and territory and the Commonwealth have formally committed to the harmonisation of the OHS legislation. 

After a long and extensive consultation process, the Model Work Health and Safety Act (Model Bill) was finalised in November 2010.  The Model Bill (to be endorsed by each State, Territory and Commonwealth) is intended to ensure the main principles, obligations and procedures in OHS are consistent across all jurisdictions. On January 1, 2012, the new OHS Act, Regulation and Codes of Practice will commence in each State, Territory and the Commonwealth. Although the national OHS legislation does not ‘go live’ until this date, it is important for organisations to keep track of key developments and to consider preparing for the transition to the new legislation.

Recap on key changes in the Model Work Health and Safety Act

In most cases, the model Act draws on existing state OHS requirements.  However, it also introduces some new additions or clarifications.  Some of the main changes included in the model legislation are outlined below:

Broader definition of “worker” 

• The new Act recognises the changing choice of work options and provides a broader definition of ‘worker’ and work environments.

Due diligence 

• The model Act clarifies that the officers of corporations have an obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure the company’s duty of care. 

Union rights 

• Unions will lose the power to prosecute for an OHS offence, which is currently allowed in NSW.
• Unions will have the right to enter any workplace to:
  • Investigate suspected breaches of the OHS Act or regulations.
  • Consult with and provide advice to workers on OHS issues.
  • Consult with the person in control of a workplace on OHS issues.
  • Health and safety representatives will have the power to direct work to cease where they feel the work will pose an immediate threat to any person. They can also issue provisional improvement notices. These powers would be new to New South Wales and Tasmania.

OHS consultation 

• Health and safety representatives will have the power to direct work to cease where they feel the work will pose an immediate threat to any person. They can also issue provisional improvement notices. These powers would be new to New South Wales and Tasmania.
• Clearer guidelines will be provided on employee consultation requirements. This includes the need to consult when:
  • Identifying hazards and assessing the risks of work performed.
  • Making decisions about ways to eliminate or control those risks.
  • Proposing changes that may directly affect the health and safety of workers.
  • Making decisions regarding OHS procedures.

Incident notification 

• Incident notification requirements will be uniform across all states with the employer having responsibility to notify the regulator immediately when there is a fatality, serious injury, serious illness or a dangerous incident.  

Role of inspectors and regulators 

The role of inspectors and regulators will be nationally consistent and will include: 

• Inspectors will be able to:
  • Investigate suspected breaches of OHS legislation.
  • Issue infringement notices, improvement notices and prohibition notices.
  • Provide advice and assist in the resolution of issues at workplaces.
• A regulator will be able to:
  • Seek an injunction when there is an ongoing breach of a prohibition notice
  • Compel compliance with an improvement notice after the time period has expired.
• Codes of Practice will be used to help courts decide what is reasonably practicable in certain circumstances. However, employers will also be able to demonstrate compliance through other ways than those prescribed in relevant Codes of Practice.  

Model Work Health and Safety Regulations and Codes of Practice 

Safe Work Australia has developed draft model Codes of Practice to provide further clarification on a number of priority areas within the Regulations.  A new Issues Paper provides an overview of the proposed Regulations and Codes. 

In addition, a Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) has been released which discusses the changes involved for each state to comply with the proposed model WHS Regulations and Codes as well the potential cost impacts of these changes to business. 

Model Regulations 

The model Regulations include detailed requirements for the elimination or minimisation of risks from various hazards, and administrative matters such as licensing and registration. 

Matters covered by the regulations include:

• Representation and participation of workers (including issue resolution and union right of entry)
• General workplace management (including facilities, first aid, emergency plans)
• Hazardous work
  • Noise
  • Hazardous manual tasks
  • Confined spaces
  • Falls
  • High risk work
  • Abrasive blasting
  • Electrical work
  • Diving
• Plant and structures
• Construction work (including high risk work and principal contractor obligations)
• Hazardous chemicals (including inorganic lead and asbestos)
• Major hazard facilities
• Mines
• Registration and licensing (including plant, major hazard facilities and persons) 

Priority codes of practice 

The priority Codes of Practice are those which are considered to be the most significant, or are necessary to aid a proper understanding of specific regulations.  The priority Codes are:

• How to manage work health and safety risks
• How to consult on work health and safety
• Managing the work environment and facilities
• Managing noise and preventing hearing loss at work
• Hazardous manual tasks
• Confined spaces
• How to prevent falls at the workplace
• Labelling of workplace hazardous chemicals
• Preparation of safety data sheets for hazardous chemicals
• How to manage and control asbestos in the workplace
• How to safely remove asbestos
• Facilities for construction sites 

Penalties under the new legislation 

It is proposed that there will be four levels of penalties for breaches of the regulations, commensurate with the significance of the breach.  These levels are: 

• Offences that are ‘linked’ to the model WHS Act, specifically to either the general duties or the authorisations provisions, with penalties up to:
• $3 million for reckless endangerment by a corporation, and
• $1.5 million for breaches giving rise to a risk of death or serious injury.
• Stand-alone offences that are specified in the model WHS Regulations as shown below: 

Provision will also be made for infringement notices to be issued with penalties set at between $1,200 and $3,600 for a corporation. 

Compliance with codes of practice will not be mandatory, but they may be used in proceedings to demonstrate what was known about hazards, risks and risk controls.

Anticipated changes by state 

A survey was conducted for the Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement that identified the degree of change required within individual states to enable compliance with the model regulations.  The following table indicates key areas where “considerable change” was anticipated by states to enable compliance: 

Cost impact 

It is anticipated that there will be some initial costs for all businesses to adapt to the new regulations.  However, for companies operating in multiple states, these costs are likely to be offset or even reduced by the implementation of harmonised regulations and Codes of Practice rather than having multiple state–specific requirements.  Moreover, these benefits will be ongoing with any future changes being conducted on a single, nationally coordinated basis.  

Preparing for the transition 

In order to prepare for the transition to the new OHS legislation, employers should begin to address the following key considerations: 

• Current policies and procedures – Consider the impact the new OHS legislation may have on your current policies and procedures (e.g. consultation arrangements, election of health and safety representatives, training etc) 
• Transitional preparations – Consider the possibility of your existing projects continuing past the implementation date of January 1, 2012. The transitional arrangements (which are expected to maintain some of the current obligations for a certain period) may be relevant to you. 
• Senior managers and directors – Consider who in your organisation is an ‘officer’ (an ‘officer’ not only includes company directors, but also includes partners and the most senior operational staff, or the key persons responsible for ensuring positive health and safety practice within the organisation) 
• Monitor key developments – Keep track of what is happening in jurisdictions in which you organisation operates. Both Queensland and New South Wales have made minor amendments to the Model Bill, with other States, Territories and Commonwealth expected to follow. 

Organisations can begin the process by assessing their current OHS management system/program, evaluate the level of change required, and strategise methods of implementation. This will help to ensure a smoother integration to the new OHS legislation and minimise potential gaps in your OHS management system/program after January 1, 2012. 

Click here to view copies of the draft model regulations, codes of practice or supporting documents can be obtained from: 

For information on the Work Health and Safety Act in your state/territory, visit: 

• SafeWork Australia – Model Work Health and Safety Act revised June 23, 2011
• WorkCover NSW – Overview of the Model Work Health and Safety Act (NSW)
• SafeWork SA – Model Work Health and Safety Act introduced into parliament
• WHS QLD – Harmonisation of WHS Laws
• WorkSafe ACT – Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 tabled
• WorkSafe VIC – National Work Health and Safety reform
• WorkSafe NT – Model OHS Laws 

 For Further information about how these changes effect your organisation please contact us