Safety Solutions RSS Feed

Mycelium leather burning experiment

Wed, 23 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Safety advantages of mycelium leather — made from fungal networks cultivated using agricultural waste and water — include durability, fire resistance, thermal insulation and ability to self‑extinguish. In this video, RMIT researchers conduct a burning experiment — with standard leather on the left and mycelium leather on the right.

To learn about RMIT’s application of the material in a wildfire jacket prototype, click here.

Video credit: RMIT University

Comcare releases suicide prevention and response guidance

Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Comcare has released new practical guidance designed to support employers to take a risk-based and trauma-informed approach to suicide prevention and response.

To manage risks and respond to incidents, it includes practical steps employers can take as well as:

a definition of suicidal behaviours;
the risk management process;
what a positive, trauma-informed response looks like;
incident notification requirements; and
Comcare’s role after an incident.

Also described in the guidance is how employers can provide support to workers and others affected by suicidal behaviours at work.

The guidance is available here.

If you are affected by any of the issues discussed in this article, Lifeline has a 24/7 crisis support service that can help. Please call 13 11 14.

Image credit: iStock.com/Scandistock. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

The day after certification: why the right glove can become the wrong glove

Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

The glove that passed the laboratory test is not necessarily the glove a worker is wearing three weeks later.

That glove may have been flexed thousands of times, dragged across rough surfaces, soaked in sweat, exposed to oil or chemicals, left in a hot vehicle, washed, dried and returned to service. Its certification marking has not changed. Its condition may have.

This is a blind spot in many hand-protection programs. Organisations invest considerable effort in selecting a compliant glove, trialling it with workers and making it available. But once it is issued, the product can be treated as though its protection remains fixed until a hole appears.

Certification is essential, but it is a starting point. It demonstrates that a new glove met a defined requirement under specified test conditions. It does not automatically tell an employer how much of that protection remains after a particular pattern of use. The distinction concerns the condition of the in-service pair, not the validity of the certification scheme.

Safe Work Australia says businesses should periodically assess whether PPE “is and continues to be effective”, as well as provide instruction in storage and maintenance.¹ That turns glove safety from a purchasing event into an operating responsibility.

Failure can begin before it becomes visible

Some glove failures are obvious: a torn seam, worn coating, hole, exposed reinforcement or loss of grip. Others are harder to see.

Chemical permeation can occur at a molecular level through material that appears intact. Degradation may cause a glove to swell, soften, harden or become brittle, but harmful movement through the barrier can begin before the wearer sees an opening. Australian guidance reinforces the need to match gloves to actual exposure. WorkSafe Queensland advises considering the specific chemical’s breakthrough time, task duration, splash or immersion contact, and expected glove life, using manufacturers’ selection guides to inform the choice.² The UK’s Health and Safety Executive provides complementary technical guidance, explaining that chemical protection is neither universal nor indefinite. It distinguishes breakthrough time, permeation rate and degradation, and cautions that data for pure chemicals may not represent workplace mixtures.³ For Australian workplaces, these considerations should inform glove selection, inspection and task-specific replacement criteria.

Movement also matters. In one controlled study using ethyl alcohol and selected disposable gloves, simulated hand movement reduced breakthrough time by 23% for the latex model and 31% for the nitrile model. Under those specific test conditions, cumulative permeation through the nitrile glove at 30 minutes increased by 111%.⁴ Those figures should not be applied to every glove or chemical. They demonstrate a more important principle: a barrier can behave differently when it is flexing on a hand.

Cleaning and reuse are equally product-specific. A 2025 study found that repeated disinfection affected latex, nitrile and PVC medical gloves differently. Some tested combinations remained comparatively stable; others showed significant changes in tensile properties.⁵ Research on laundered cut-resistant gloves has also found that yarn properties and surface condition can deteriorate even where the tested cut classification remains stable.⁶

The lesson is not that every used glove is unsafe. It is that appearance and original certification cannot, by themselves, prove continuing effectiveness.

The missing measure is retained protection

Many organisations track pairs purchased, pairs issued, unit cost and stock on hand. Those measures say little about the condition of the control in service.

A more complete hand-protection model is:

Realised Protection(t) = Certified Capability × Task Fit × Adoption × Availability × Retained Condition(t)

This is a leadership concept, not a numerical formula. “Retained condition” represents what movement, abrasion, contamination, temperature, cleaning, storage and time have done to the protective function.

The addition matters because even the right glove can become the wrong glove in three ways:

the glove changes through wear, exposure or care;
the task changes while the approved glove stays the same; or
the system makes timely replacement difficult.

A new chemical, sharper component, faster production rate or change from splash to immersion can invalidate the original selection basis without changing the glove itself. Likewise, a sensible retirement rule will fail if replacement stock is remote or workers are challenged whenever consumption rises.

Five controls from issue to retirement

Lifecycle assurance does not mean tracking every low-risk glove like an aircraft component. It means matching the assurance effort to the consequence and detectability of failure.

1. Define what must be retained

For each task family, identify the protective function that matters: cut, puncture, impact, grip, heat or resistance to a named chemical. A faded logo may be irrelevant; loss of oil grip may be critical. Condition only becomes meaningful when it is tied to the hazard.

2. Map what the work does to the glove

Observe where wear concentrates and what exposures occur. Include movement, abrasion, sharp edges, chemicals and mixtures, temperature, ultraviolet light, perspiration, cleaning and storage. Returned gloves can reveal failure patterns that specifications cannot predict.

3. Give workers usable retirement criteria

Combine the rules appropriate to the hazard:

visible condition triggers such as holes, coating loss, swelling or exposed yarns;
exposure limits and mandatory changes after contamination;
event triggers following significant heat, impact, cut or electrical exposure; and
validated laundering or decontamination limits.

There should be no universal replacement interval for every glove. The criteria should reflect the product, task and consequence of failure.

4. Treat reuse as a controlled process

Cleaning that makes a glove look better does not prove that it is safe. A valid process must show that contamination is adequately removed and the required protection is retained. Supplier instructions are the starting point; high-consequence or commercially significant reuse may require competent validation.

5. Learn from field condition

Record why gloves are changed, where they fail, whether replacement is premature or delayed, and whether work conditions have changed. Use the information to revalidate the glove, care process and retirement rule. Do not use consumption data to punish legitimate replacement.

Sustainability needs safety evidence

Pressure to reduce PPE waste makes lifecycle assurance more urgent. Replacing gloves prematurely creates unnecessary cost and environmental burden. Keeping them too long transfers risk back to the worker.

The better question is not, “How can we make gloves last longer?” It is:

How can we obtain the longest verified safe life from the least resource-intensive protection system?

Emerging materials, zoned construction and better traceability may help. Researchers are developing seamless gloves that place cut, impact, grip and breathable structures in different hand zones, as well as ultra-thin nitrile composites reinforced with bio-based cellulose nanofibres.^{7, 8} The European Union’s Digital Product Passport initiative also points towards more standardised information about materials, safety, reuse and recycling, although it is not currently a blanket glove requirement.⁹

For Australian workplaces, the relevance is practical: reliable product information can support suitable PPE selection and safe use throughout its life. Safe Work Australia emphasises selecting PPE for the worker and task, periodically assessing its continuing effectiveness, and providing instruction in use, storage and maintenance.¹ Although the EU initiative does not itself establish an Australian WHS obligation, it offers a useful model for improving traceability and access to product-specific material, care, reuse and disposal information.

Certification gets the glove approved; lifecycle assurance keeps it protective

The case for lifecycle assurance is not that glove standards are inadequate. Standards create the common language that makes defensible selection possible. The issue is that work continues after the laboratory test.

Safety leaders should be able to answer five questions:

What protective function must this glove retain?
What does the real work do to that function?
How would a worker know that protection may have changed?
What exactly triggers replacement or retirement?
What evidence tells us that those rules remain valid?

If the answers are unclear, the organisation may have an approved glove but not a complete hand-protection system.

The glove that passed the test deserves confidence. The glove in service deserves attention.

Certification gets a glove onto the approved list. Lifecycle assurance keeps the worker protected.

^{1. Safe Work Australia. Personal protective equipment (PPE) — WHS duties. Accessed 28 July 2026. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/managing-health-and-safety/personal-protective-equipment-ppe/whs-duties}

^{2. WorkSafe Queensland. Skin disorders and exposures. Queensland Government; accessed 15 September 2026. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/safety-and-prevention/hazards/hazardous-exposures/skin-disorders-and-exposures}

^{3. Health and Safety Executive. Choosing the right gloves to protect skin: a guide for employers. Updated 16 June 2025. https://www.hse.gov.uk/skin/employ/gloves.htm}

^{4. Phalen RN, Le T, Wong WK. Changes in chemical permeation of disposable latex, nitrile, and vinyl gloves exposed to simulated movement. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;11(11):716–721. doi:10.1080/15459624.2014.908259}

^{5. Luo M, Chen Z, He X, et al. Evaluation of the effects on the tensile properties of medical gloves after repeated disinfection. Sci Rep. 2025;15:5266. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-86934-8}

^{6. Dhyani H, Sinha SK, Kumar N. Effect of repeated laundering on cut resistance performance of hybrid UHMWPE protective gloves. Journal of Textile and Clothing Science. 2020;3(4):15–26.}

^{7. Li X, Yin H, Shen Y, et al. Development and evaluation of multifunctional knitted protective gloves. Sci Rep. 2026;16:21586. doi:10.1038/s41598-026-52814-y}

^{8. Low DYS, Mintarno S, Supramaniam J, et al. Scalable fabrication of ultrathin high-strength gloves using oxidized cellulose nanofiber-filled acrylonitrile butadiene rubber. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 2025;150:300–307. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2025.03.016}

^{9. European Commission. Digital Product Passport. Updated July 2026. https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/digital-product-passport_en}

Image credit: iStock.com/milanvirijevic. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

The fire-protection potential of mycelium leather

Tue, 22 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Made from fungal networks cultivated using agricultural waste and water, RMIT said the material — mycelium leather — has met international safety benchmarks, achieving OEKO‑TEX STANDARD 100 Product Class II certification, confirming it is safe for direct skin contact.

Mycelium wildfire jacket prototype. Image: RMIT University

“Heading into another bushfire season made me reflect on the growing impacts fire has on communities, landscapes and ecosystems,” said Dr Tien Huynh from RMIT’s School of Science. “We’re exploring how sustainable biomaterials can support broader conversations about environmental resilience, climate adaptation and regeneration.”

Dr Judith Glover (left) in the design studio with the mycelium wildfire jacket prototype. Image: RMIT University

Mycelium wildfire jacket prototype. Image: RMIT University

The material used in the prototype meets factors for gear used by firefighters, RMIT said, including durability, fire resistance, thermal insulation and ability to self‑extinguish. RMIT also said that earlier studies Huynh has been involved in (see, for example, doi: 10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2023.110419 — ‘Fireproofing flammable composites using mycelium’) also point to mycelium as a promising material for fireproof architectural cladding.

Standard vs mycelium leather burning experiment. Video: RMIT University

“Mycelium is an extraordinary material — it potentially replaces materials with bigger ecological rucksacks and forever chemicals with a biodegradable material grown from agricultural waste — and working with it challenges us to rethink how protective clothing could be made in the future,” said Dr Judith Glover from RMIT’s School of Design.

Mycelium wildfire jacket prototype. Image: RMIT University

The jacket is currently on display at the NGV in its ‘Plant Life: The Nature of Design’ exhibition, running until 7 February 2027.

Top image: Mycelium wildfire jacket prototype. Image: RMIT University

Excavator operator fined following partial foot amputation

Mon, 21 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

A sole trader and civil demolition contractor has been convicted and fined $15,000 following a 15 November 2023 incident at a demolition site in Adelaide’s western suburbs in which the excavator he was using to uproot trees and gather green waste struck a labourer sorting building debris nearby — the labourer was struck with the excavator arm and bucket and sustained a severe crush injury to his left foot that ultimately required a partial foot amputation.

Workers could be working in close proximity to the excavator while it was operating and there was no adequately enforced exclusion zone, communication system or spotter in place to manage the risk of workers being struck by the machine, a SafeWork SA investigation found.

It was reasonably practicable for the excavator operator to enforce an exclusion zone, establish a system of verbal or hand-signalling communication, or cease operating the excavator while workers were in the vicinity, Auxiliary Judge Hannon said, noting that the excavator “came to be operating in dangerous proximity” to the labourer in circumstances where there was inadequate monitoring of an exclusion zone.

Measures such as enforcing exclusion zones or communication systems “would have either minimised or eliminated the risk” of a worker being struck and suffering death or serious injury, Hannon said.

The excavator operator was charged with a Category 2 offence under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (SA). In addition to the conviction and fine, he was also ordered to pay SafeWork SA's costs of $1210 and a Victims of Crime levy of $466.

“This incident demonstrates yet another consequence when workers and mobile plant operate too close together without effective safety controls in place,” SafeWork SA Executive Director Glenn Farrell said.

“Exclusion zones, clear communication systems and effective supervision are fundamental, and very basic controls whenever mobile plant is operating. These measures are well known across the construction and demolition industries and are critical to preventing serious injuries.

“SafeWork SA will continue to take enforcement action where duty holders fail to manage the simplest of known workplace risks and expose workers to serious harm.”

Image credit: iStock.com/Frazao Studio Latino. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Five emerging transport leaders create utilities digital platform solution

Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

A national digital platform now being piloted across Brisbane’s Olympic infrastructure program and major projects in Western Sydney and Perth began with a team of emerging transport leaders setting out to solve one of construction’s most persistent problems: accessing accurate underground utility information before work begins.

The research project, developed through the Transport Australia Fellowship, has evolved into the Before You Dig Australia (BYDA) Digital Utility Portal, which centralises underground utility data so planners, designers and contractors can identify buried infrastructure faster and make better decisions before construction starts.

The projects fellows are Clarissa Ahlberg, Qld Highways Team Lead at HDR; Ho Yee Ryan, Associate Civil Engineer at BG&E — part of SYSTRA; Anita Mumford, Principal Civil Engineer at AECOM; Brendan Rutter, Technical Director at Mott MacDonald; and Georgia Robazza, Head of Commercial and Major Investment, TasNetworks.

L–R: Ho Yee Ryan, Clarissa Ahlberg and Brendan Rutter. Image: Supplied

“A design engineer could spend a week manually interpreting up to 100 pages of maps to understand what is underground at a single location,” Ahlberg said. “The portal can complete the same task in about an hour. We wanted to develop something practical that would make everyday work safer, faster and more productive across the industry.”

The portal could save industry an estimated $22 million and 180,000 working hours each year, Transport Australia said, with more than 15,000 underground utility strikes reported in Australia each year, costing the economy an estimated $4.6 billion through project delays, service outages and lost productivity.

“Most people never think about what is beneath the ground until something goes wrong,” BYDA CEO Mell Greenall said. “The Fellows brought us strong research and a practical industry case. That work helped build momentum for a platform that can support better decisions before anyone picks up a shovel.”

Image: (L–R) Brendan Rutter, Ho Yee Ryan and Clarissa Ahlberg. Image: Supplied

Is operator competency keeping pace with EWP technology?

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

For elevating work platform (EWP) operator competency, ongoing evaluation is necessary — there are factors such as changes in machine types and configurations, increasingly sophisticated safety features, developments in work practices and updates to the standards that guide their design and safe use.

So, it is important for employers, supervisors and operators to know if their understanding of competency is keeping pace.

Competency is more than operating the controls

A competent EWP operator needs practical knowledge and judgement, not just familiarity with the control panel — and this skill starts before the machine is switched on.

Operators need to understand whether the equipment selected is appropriate for the task and the environment. They need to recognise the machine’s capabilities and limitations, including rated capacity, operating envelope (where, how and under what conditions the machine can safely operate), ground conditions and wind restrictions.

They also need to understand the hazards associated with the specific worksite. An operator who can competently manoeuvre a scissor lift in one environment cannot automatically be assumed to have the same level of competency when presented with a different machine, a different worksite or a substantially different task.

This is particularly important because EWPs are not a single category of machine. Different types require different knowledge and skills. The training framework used by the Elevating Work Platform Association (EWPA), for example, distinguishes between machine types including vertical lifts, scissor lifts, self-propelled boom lifts, trailer lifts, truck-mounted lifts and advanced booms.

Essentially, operator competency needs to match the equipment, the task and the environment.

How technology changes the competency calculations

Modern EWPs incorporate increasingly sophisticated safety systems and controls. These can provide important additional layers of protection, but they also mean operators need to understand what the technology is designed to do, and what it’s not.

A safety feature should never replace operator judgement. As new technologies are introduced, operators need to understand new warning systems, interlocks, sensors, load-management functions, secondary guarding systems and other machine-specific features. They need to know how these features affect operation and what action is required when a warning or fault occurs.

This is where familiarisation becomes critical. An operator may have extensive experience with one machine type but still require familiarisation before using a different model or configuration. Knowing how one machine behaves does not necessarily mean knowing how another machine will respond. This is why the operator’s manual remains an essential source of information for the equipment being used.

Getting across changes to standards

The operating environment is also changing, including updated Australian Standards. In 2025, AS/NZS 1418.10 was revised, addressing requirements for the design, construction and maintenance of mobile elevating work platforms (MEWPs). AS 2550.10:2025, covering the safe use of MEWPs, was also released. The latter includes requirements and guidance relating to safe systems of work, planning, selection, operation and maintenance.

The significance of these changes is not that operators suddenly need to become standards experts, but it does reinforce a broader point: that the knowledge underpinning safe operation is not static, it’s evolving.

When standards, equipment and accepted work practices are updated, organisations need mechanisms for identifying what has changed and to determine whether their people need additional information, familiarisation, training or assessment.

The EWPA’s own training program has evolved for precisely this reason, with updates in response to changes in equipment, technology and the revised standards, with greater emphasis on machine categorisation, major hazards and newer safety technologies.

**************************************************

6 questions to ask to ensure ongoing EWP competency

For employers and supervisors, maintaining competency should be an ongoing process rather than an event. There are several practical questions worth asking:

1. Is the operator trained for the machine type?

Evidence of training should be appropriate to the equipment being operated. Different categories of EWP have different operating characteristics and hazards.

2. Has the operator been familiarised with the specific machine?

Even experienced operators need machine-specific familiarisation. Controls, layouts, emergency systems and safety features vary between machines.

3. Can the operator identify and manage hazards before starting work?

Competency includes the ability to assess the work area, identify hazards and implement appropriate controls. This can include overhead obstructions, electrical hazards, ground conditions, traffic, weather, other plant and people working nearby.

4. Can the operator conduct an effective pre-start inspection?

A pre-start inspection should not be treated as a box-ticking exercise. Operators need to understand what they are checking, identify defects and know when equipment should be removed from service.

5. Does the operator understand emergency procedures?

Knowing how to operate an EWP in normal conditions is only part of the job. Operators and relevant personnel on the ground need to understand emergency lowering and rescue arrangements. A workplace must have a plan for what happens if the operator becomes incapacitated or the machine cannot be operated normally.

6. Can the activities around the machine be safely managed?

Competency extends beyond the actual operation of the EWP. Loading and unloading, transportation, positioning, setting up and securing equipment can all introduce hazards and require appropriate knowledge and procedures.

**************************************************

Employers and supervisors play a key role

It’s important not to place the entire burden of competency on the operator. Safe EWP operation is a shared responsibility. Employers, for example, are responsible for ensuring people are appropriately trained, familiarised and supervised. They also need to consider whether workers’ skills remain appropriate when equipment, tasks or workplace conditions change.

Supervisors have a particularly important role. They need to understand the equipment being used, the risks associated with the work and whether the people involved have the knowledge and skills required for the job. This includes being able to identify unsafe work practices on live worksites in, often times, complex environments.

A Verification of Competency (VOC), when appropriately designed and conducted, can provide evidence that a person’s practical ability remains suitable for the equipment and task. However, a VOC should not be confused with training or treated as a replacement for appropriate formal training.

Training providers also have an important role in keeping content current and ensuring assessment reflects real-world risks and the latest equipment.

Make competency a living process

There is a simple change that workplaces can make: instead of asking, “Has this person been trained?”, ask, “Can we demonstrate that this person is currently competent for the equipment, task and environment they are being asked to work in?”

This encourages workplaces to consider refresher training, familiarisation, competency verification and supervision when appropriate. It also encourages operators to recognise that experience alone does not guarantee competency.

The EWPA Good Practice Guide recommends regular refresher training, with the interval between training sessions not exceeding five years.¹ But competency should not simply be revisited when a card expires or a scheduled refresher becomes due.

Changes in machinery, worksite conditions, roles or procedures can create a need for additional learning well before a formal renewal point. The safest approach is to treat competency as something that must be actively maintained.

Technology will continue to change. Standards will continue to be reviewed. Workplaces will change. The challenge for industry is to ensure the people operating and supervising EWPs continue to develop their knowledge base along with them.

Genuine competency is not demonstrated by having operated a machine before; it’s demonstrated by having the current knowledge, practical skills and judgement to operate the right machine, in the right way, for the task and conditions at hand.

^{1. EWPA Good Practice Guide https://ewpa.com.au/resources/good-practice-guide}

Image credit: iStock.com/shotbydave. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

John Holland charged over Sydney Metro tunnel works serious injuries

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has filed a single charge against construction company John Holland Pty Ltd, alleging the company failed in its primary health and safety duty under the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act.

The charge relates to an 11 September 2024 incident that occurred in a section of the Eastern Tunnelling Package at Rozelle. Workers were installing additional components that added weight to a heavy electrical distribution board when the board dislodged from the tunnel wall.

An electrician employed by John Holland, the principal contractor for the project, sustained a fractured left shoulder which required surgery and ongoing rehabilitation after the 450-kilogram board fell on him.

The distribution board fell because bolts different from those specified in safety instructions for the job were allegedly used to fasten it to the tunnel wall, Comcare’s investigation found.

Comcare said it will be alleged John Holland failed to minimise risks to health and safety, including carrying out a site validation to confirm the correct bolts were used to secure the distribution board before workers carried out modifications.

The charge is a Category 2 offence under the act, carrying a maximum penalty of $2.32 million. John Holland Pty Ltd is a licenced national employer in the Comcare scheme and subject to regulation under Commonwealth WHS laws.

The matter is listed for mention in Downing Centre Local Court on 27 October 2026.

Image credit: iStock.com/prabhjits. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

National Safe Work Month activity kit now available

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Ahead of next month’s National Safe Work Month, Safe Work Australia (SWA) has released the activity kit, including a flexible program of weekly activities, videos and discussion guides.

This year’s theme, safe work is for life, highlights that WHS is about more than preventing harm in the moment — “it’s about protecting workers’ lives, health and future throughout their working lives,” SWA said.

Aligned to the campaign’s focus areas, the kit is designed to be used in team meetings, toolbox talks, health and safety committee meetings, training sessions or informal get togethers throughout October.

The kit is available to download here.

Image credit: iStock.com/Goodboy Picture Company. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

WHS prosecutions decline but average financial penalty reaches record high

Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Safe Work Australia (SWA) has released new work health and safety prosecutions data, which shows that while the number of WHS prosecutions declined in 2025, the average financial penalty reached a record high, with a 33% increase from 2024 on the average financial penalty per prosecution. This was $147,985 — the highest annual average recorded.

SWA’s prosecutions dashboard provides national information on criminal prosecutions for breaches of WHS laws and regulations since 1 January 2020, including incidents, offences and sentencing outcomes. Key insights from the data include that following four consecutive years of increases, the number of WHS prosecutions fell to 308, down from 321 in 2024.

Other key insights include that construction, manufacturing and mining were the three most common industry divisions among defendants — at 43%, 20% and 6% of cases, respectively. Updated annually, construction and manufacturing have remained the most common industry divisions among defendants since data collection began in 2020.

You can find the latest WHS prosecutions data at data.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/interactive-data/topic/whs-prosecutions and other WHS dashboards on SWA’s interactive data website, Our Data. Your Stories: data.safeworkaustralia.gov.au.

Image credit: iStock.com/Andrey Semenov. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Myer and supplier charged after robot warehouse fatality

Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

After a 27-year-old man sustained fatal injuries after coming into contact with an energised and operating automated robot at a distribution centre, WorkSafe Victoria has charged Myer Pty Ltd and a warehouse robotics supplier.

For failing to provide or maintain a safe working environment, Myer faces two charges under section 21(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and for failing to ensure persons other than employees were not exposed to health and safety risks, it faces two charges under section 23(1) of the Act.

WorkSafe alleges that, when it failed to ensure access points to the grid where the automated robots operated were guarded by an interlocked physical barrier, Myer breached section 21(2)(a) of the OHS Act by failing to provide or maintain safe plant.

The company breached section 21(2)(a) of the OHS Act by failing to provide or maintain safe systems of work when it failed to ensure access only occurred after the grid was de-energised and locked-out, it is further alleged.

Under section 21(1) of the Act, a warehouse robotics supplier faces two charges for failing to provide or maintain a safe working environment. WorkSafe Victoria alleges the supplier breached section 21(2)(a) of the Act by failing to provide or maintain a safe system of work by failing to ensure access to the grid only occurred once the automated robots were de-energised.

The company breached section 21(2)(e) of the Act by failing to provide necessary supervision to ensure that its employees did not access the energised grid, it is further alleged.

The matters are listed for a filing hearing at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 28 September 2026.

Image credit: iStock.com/niuniu. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

ATSB Chief Commissioner publishes open letter on Sydney Airport investigations

Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Following recent reports of traffic conflict and coordination incidents at Sydney Airport, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Chief Commissioner Angus Mitchell has published an open letter explaining how the ATSB is approaching its six investigations into these matters.

“I understand the high level of public interest in these occurrences, particularly among travellers, aviation workers and the broader community, who all rightly expect Australia’s aviation system to operate safely and reliably,” Mitchell’s letter read.

“Foremost, I would like to stress that our highest investigation priority is incidents involving large air transport aircraft carrying fare-paying passengers. This priority directs our resources where there is likely to be the greatest public benefit.

“I want to assure the travelling public and those in industry that we are applying the ATSB’s robust investigation methodology: gathering the evidence carefully, testing it thoroughly, and preparing for the first series of preliminary reports to be released by the end of the month. These preliminary reports will be a publication of the facts we have established in the first weeks of the investigations.

“The desire for quick answers is entirely understandable. When incidents occur at a major airport, people want to know what happened, why it happened, and whether they can continue to have confidence in the system. But in transport safety investigation, speed cannot come at the expense of accuracy. Our ability to improve safety depends on evidence-based investigations that are comprehensive, defensible and trusted.

“Our investigators are continuing to retrieve and examine recorded data, including air traffic control communications and aircraft recorders where relevant. They are conducting interviews with flight, cabin, ground and air traffic personnel. They are reconstructing the timing and sequence of events, and the flow of information. And they are examining the safety defences in place during each incident.

“In all six incidents, safety defences operated in some form. Pilots, air traffic controllers or ground crews took appropriate action at a point in time, preventing more serious outcomes. That is reassuring, and it shows that important layers of defence were effective.

“However, that reassurance does not remove the need to understand why those interventions were required in the first place.

“These investigations will seek to provide assurance about the procedures in place at Sydney Airport for the movement of aircraft. They will also examine whether there were common operational elements in play at the time of the incidents, what is the significance, or otherwise, of six incidents in a short timeframe, and whether strengthening any specific parts of the system will reduce the risk of recurrence.

“Once the ATSB has established the factors leading to each incident, my priority will be to establish, or rule out, whether broader systemic safety issues that pose future risk may be present across these six investigations. We have not yet reached any such determinations.

“In aviation safety, events that almost happen — such as near collisions, conflicts and procedural breakdowns — invariably provide invaluable insights. They help identify what may be precursors to accidents. That is why investigating these incidents thoroughly and deliberately matters.

“Recent overseas airport-related accident investigations show a recurring pattern: where known procedural breakdowns are not addressed, the risk of a serious event increases significantly. Reassuringly, Australia’s strong commercial aviation safety record and culture means that such potential warning signs are not ignored.

“Robust safety systems are those that can accommodate human error because multiple safety defences are in place.

“No safety system is perfect. But the measure of a strong system is whether it keeps learning, strengthens its defences, and acts before warning signs become something worse. That is how transport safety is protected — and how public confidence is earned,” the letter concluded.

One such incident under investigation was a 9th August near-collision involving two passenger jets — a Jetstar A320 was taxiing prior to a planned flight to Gold Coast Airport when its flight crew observed a Qatar Airways Boeing 777, under tow from an aircraft tug, in close proximity on a crossing taxiway, as was reported to the ATSB. More information on this particular incident is available here.

Image credit: iStock.com/SCM Jeans. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

MYZEL by Pilz machine lifecycle software package

Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Staying compliant shouldn’t be a scramble when an audit is around the corner. Yet for many manufacturers, critical machine information is scattered across spreadsheets, paper records, training files and disconnected systems. The result? Time-consuming document searches, compliance gaps, uncertainty and increased operational risk.

MYZEL by Pilz is designed to bring together machinery, documentation, workflows, safety information and employee qualifications in one secure digital environment. By connecting data across the entire machine lifecycle, MYZEL is designed to provide a single source of truth that makes compliance status, safety documentation and operational records visible, accessible and traceable at any time.

With real-time access to critical information, operators, machine builders, maintenance teams and safety professionals can quickly verify machine status, demonstrate compliance requirements and respond confidently to audits, inspections and safety reviews.

Instead of reacting to missing records or chasing documentation, organisations can proactively manage compliance, reduce administrative effort and maintain clear accountability across their operations. MYZEL is designed to help ensure that the right people, with the right qualifications, are authorised to work on the right machines, while maintaining a transparent record of activities and decisions.

Built on a secure cybersecurity foundation and designed for the evolving demands of modern industry, MYZEL is intended to transform fragmented data into actionable insight, turning compliance from a burden into a competitive advantage.

For more information, visit MYZEL Lifecycle Platform — Pilz AU or email: sales@pilz.com.au

WA commences prosecutions in relation to four workplace fatalities

Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Under the Work Health and Safety Act 2020, WorkSafe WA has commenced prosecution proceedings against six companies in relation to four workplace incidents that occurred in the state in July and August 2024. All four incidents involved fatalities and are before the courts in September.

Listed for first mention in the Fremantle Magistrates Court on 7 September 2026 involves an auction facility incident in which a member of the public was struck by a tow truck and died. The company has been charged with an offence alleging a failure to comply with a health and safety duty and, by that failure, causing the death of a member of the public.

This will be followed by a matter listed for first mention in the Laverton Magistrates Court on 10 September 2026 that involves an employee delivering caustic soda at the Thunderbox mine who was exposed to a solution containing cyanide and later died. Two companies have been charged with an offence alleging a failure to comply with a health and safety duty that exposed individuals to a risk of death, injury or harm to health.

Then on 14 September, a matter listed for first mention in the Katanning Magistrates Court involves an incident in which a worker fell through a roof and died, with a company having been charged with an offence alleging a failure to comply with a health and safety duty and, by that failure, causing the death of a worker.

Finally, in the Armadale Magistrates Court on 15 September, the matter listed for next mention involves an incident in which a worker died while pruning a tree. A company has been charged with an offence alleging a failure to comply with a health and safety duty and, by that failure, exposing a worker to a risk of death, injury or harm to health. The prosecution does not allege that the alleged contravention caused the worker’s death, WorkSafe WA said.

As the matters are before the courts, WorkSafe WA said it will make no further comment.

Image credit: iStock.com/MarioGuti. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Could 'swarms' of giant cyborg cockroaches be the future of disaster sites care?

Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +1000

To assist people trapped in collapsed buildings, caves or other places too dangerous for rescuers to reach, Australian researchers have fitted cameras and miniature medical injectors to ‘swarms’ of cyborg cockroaches who, they say, are capable of administering supervised emergency care.

Developed by University of Queensland biorobotics researchers working with biomedical engineers at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), about the ‘paraborgs’, UQ biorobotics engineer Dr Thang Vo-Doan said their research transforms the cyborg insect from a mobile sensor into a tiny rescue platform, while critical medical decisions remain under human control.

“Cyborg insects have been designed for ‘search and explore’ missions for the past couple of decades,” Vo-Doan said. “We wanted to take the next step. Once they find someone, can they actually help?”

Biorobotics researchers from UQ have transformed North Queensland giant burrowing cockroaches (Macropanesthia rhinoceros) into miniature cyborg paramedics. Credit: The University of Queensland

North Queensland giant burrowing cockroaches (Macropanesthia rhinoceros) were equipped with lightweight electronics and either cameras for visual feedback or remotely activated auto-injection systems custom-made for the species.

“Augmenting their natural biomechanics could allow these cyborg insects to deliver timely emergency assistance when direct access to people trapped in narrow, debris-filled spaces isn’t possible,” Vo-Doan said.

The paraborgs achieved 95% success with close-range injection — positioned within 15 centimetres of the target — in proof-of-concept testing at UQ’s School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, the university said, with the complete navigation-and-injection task succeeding 72% of trials.

The giant burrowing cockroach provides greater capacity to carry specialised rescue and medical equipment. Credit: The University of Queensland

“The cyborg insect has to navigate to the target, position itself accurately and remain stable enough to perform the injection,” UQ PhD candidate Hai Nhan Le said. “A lot of people might not like the sight of a giant cockroach scurrying towards them, but if you’re trapped in rubble or stuck in a cave and need help, it could make a real difference between life and death.”

The longer-term vision was to deploy swarms of specialised cyborg insects, with individuals performing complementary roles, Vo-Doan said. “Some could carry cameras and environmental sensors, while others could carry specialised emergency or medical equipment,” Vo-Doan added.

“The vision is not to replace first responders, but to give them another way to see, reach and potentially help people when direct access is impossible,” Vo-Doan said. “Hopefully, within the next 5 to 10 years, we could see cyborg insect rescue teams deployed to help people in real emergencies, provided we have the resources to accelerate the research and field testing.”

The study was published open access in Advanced Science and you can read it at doi.org/10.1002/advs.76973.

Top image: PhD candidate Hai Nhan Le said accurate positioning of the paraborgs was one of the key engineering challenges. Credit: The University of Queensland

$800K fine after pedestrian fatally struck by reversing reach stacker

Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Following a defended hearing, a company has been convicted and fined $800,000 in the District Court of NSW as a result of a prosecution by SafeWork NSW. It was over an incident that involved a type of mobile plant used for handling shipping containers; on 21 April 2022, a pedestrian was struck by a reversing reach stacker and sustained fatal injuries.

The company was found guilty of an offence pursuant to section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 for failing to comply with its health and safety duty to other persons under section 19(2) of the act. The company has the right to appeal against its conviction and sentence.

“Risk control measures for working with moving plant and fixed machinery are well known. Being injured when working with fixed machinery is a preventable hazard we see across our State and across all industries,” said SafeWork NSW Commissioner Janet Schorer.

“Preventing injuries caused by mobile plant, vehicles or fixed machinery is an area for action in SafeWork NSW’s regulatory priorities,” Schorer added. “Having an awareness and assessment of the risks, along with implementation of safe systems of work, is key to reducing the number of incidents related to fixed machinery.”

Resources to help business owners and workers manage the risks of working with plant, machinery and equipment is available here, on the SafeWork NSW website.

The judgment against the company is available here, on the NSW Caselaw website.

Image credit: iStock.com/Sorapop. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

The air receiver registration duty most sites don't know they have

Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +1000

There’s a good chance the compressor sitting in your plant room is running a pressure vessel that legally has to be on a register, and that nobody at the site has ever registered it.

Air receivers are so ordinary that people stop seeing them. They sit in the corner, they hiss occasionally, and they get treated as plumbing rather than as what they actually are: a steel vessel holding a large volume of gas under pressure, with enough stored energy to do real damage if it fails. The law recognises that. A lot of sites don’t.

Why a receiver counts as registrable plant

Under the harmonised Work Health and Safety Regulations, which now apply in every state and territory except Victoria (Victoria runs its own OHS Regulations with equivalent pressure equipment provisions), certain pressure vessels are “items of plant” that must be registered. Whether yours makes the cut comes down to its hazard level, worked out under Australian Standard AS 4343.

AS 4343 sorts pressure vessels into five hazard levels, A through E, where A is the most hazardous. The level is driven by how much energy the vessel stores and how dangerous its contents are. For plain compressed air, which is a non-harmful gas, the maths comes out unusually clean.

The standard’s hazard number is pressure multiplied by volume, adjusted by factors for the type of fluid. For compressed air those factors collapse to a single rule of thumb you can do in your head:

Hazard number = working pressure in bar × receiver volume in litres.

That’s it. A receiver’s data plate gives you both numbers. Multiply them.

Over 1000: Hazard Level C or higher. The vessel needs design registration and item registration.
Between roughly 316 and 1000: Hazard Level D. The design needs registration, the item does not.
Under about 316: Hazard Level E. No registration duty.

Put that against a typical workshop compressor running at 8 bar. Multiply 8 by the tank size and you cross 1000 at about 125 litres. So a run-of-the-mill 8-bar receiver of 150, 270 or 500 litres is squarely a registrable Hazard Level C vessel. A small 40- or 50-litre reciprocating unit usually isn’t. The line sits lower than most people assume, which is exactly why so many mid-sized receivers slip through.

One point worth being precise about: the boundary values fall to the lower hazard level, so a receiver landing exactly on 1000 is a Level D, not a C. It’s the ones clearly above the line you need to worry about.

The inspection duty that comes with it

Registration is only half the obligation. A registrable receiver also carries a standing in-service inspection duty under AS/NZS 3788, and this is the part that tends to lapse quietly once the vessel is a few years old.

For a receiver above roughly 150 megapascal-litres of stored energy, which covers most compressed air receivers past about the 200-litre mark at normal working pressures, the standard sets an external inspection every two years and an internal inspection every four years, with a hydrostatic test on an extended cycle. Smaller vessels are inspected at an interval a competent person determines rather than on a fixed clock, but “no fixed interval” is not the same as “no inspection”.

A registered vessel with no inspection history is a live compliance gap and, more to the point, an unverified pressure vessel that people work next to every day. Corrosion on the inside of an air receiver, where condensate collects, is not visible from the outside. That’s the whole reason the internal inspection exists.

Who is actually allowed to sign it off

This is where sites get caught out, because the answer is not “our maintenance team”.

In-service inspections have to be carried out and certified by a competent person as defined in AS/NZS 3788, which in practice means a suitably qualified, independent pressure equipment inspector, not in-house fitters signing their own work. Design registration likewise rests on a competent person verifying the design before it’s lodged. The registration itself is lodged with your state WHS regulator, SafeWork, WorkSafe or the equivalent in your jurisdiction, by the person with management or control of the plant.

Victoria is the one genuine exception to keep in mind. It abolished item registration for plant back in 2014, so Victorian sites deal with design registration only. Everywhere else, both apply.

**************************************************

The two-line check for this week

You don’t need a consultant to find out whether you have a problem. You need five minutes and a torch.

Walk to the compressor and read the receiver’s data plate. Note the working pressure in bar and the capacity in litres. If there’s no legible plate, that’s your first finding.
Multiply the two. If the answer is over 1000, that vessel should be on your plant register and should have a current inspection record. Pull both. If either is missing, you’ve found a gap worth closing before your next audit does it for you.

Run that across every receiver onsite, including the forgotten one behind the packing line and the standby unit nobody’s turned on since 2019. It’s the cheapest risk sweep you’ll do all year, and for a category of plant that fails rarely but fails hard, it’s the one worth doing properly.

**************************************************

Image credit: iStock.com/ProfessionalStudioImages. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

ARX MKII Handheld Raman Spectrometer

Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +1000

The Serstech ARX MKII is a handheld Raman spectrometer designed for materials handling, distribution, and energy, waste and recycling teams that need fast, onsite identification of unknown powders, liquids and solids. One-button operation in a compact, rugged format is designed to help verify incoming goods, spot contamination and respond to incidents — without waiting for off-site lab results.

Key features include material libraries for common industrial chemicals and plastics/polymers, advanced fluorescence reduction for difficult real-world samples, Deep Scan functionality to help detect trace components and low-level contamination and ChemDash Mobile connectivity for quick report creation and sharing.

Typical applications include inbound and outbound goods verification in warehouses and distribution centres; waste acceptance screening and incident response at transfer stations, MRFs and recycling sites; and sorting support for plastics and polymers to reduce cross-contamination and improve quality.

Using ChemDash Mobile on a smartphone, ARX MKII connects wirelessly to capture results and generate shareable reports, which is designed to support consistent documentation across sites and shifts. Training typically takes only a few hours and user errors are intended to be minimised through intuitive interaction. Night vision mode is designed to ensure compatibility with most night-vision goggles. ARX MKII is backed by a five-year warranty and delivers up to 12 hours of battery runtime.

CARVE Safety Eyewear range

Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Designed for Australian worksites and everyday trade environments, the CARVE Safety Eyewear range is intended to combine compliant eye protection with the style and comfort to be worn on and off the jobsite. The range is designed to cater to a variety of industries, including building and construction, mining, health care and other environments where compliant eye protection is required.

CARVE’s Safety range includes four styles — Volley, Vendetta, Smoko and Chippy. Each style is made from shatterproof, high-grade polycarbonate frames and lenses designed to meet Australian and New Zealand AS/NZS 1337.1:2010 safety standards, and US ANSI Z87.1+.

A selection of lens options is available, including clear, yellow, rose, grey, iridium and photochromatic, allowing workers to choose eyewear suited to different lighting conditions and applications. All lenses provide UV400 protection, blocking 99.9% of UVA and UVB rays.

For many workers, safety glasses are worn for long periods across demanding conditions, making fit, durability and wearability critical. The range has been developed to offer a more fashion-forward alternative to traditional safety eyewear, intended to help bridge the gap between standard PPE and lifestyle eyewear that is not designed or certified for workplace use.

EXAIR Dual Hazardous Location Cabinet Cooler Systems

Wed, 26 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +1000

The EXAIR Dual Hazardous Location Cabinet Cooler Systems are designed to provide a powerful, maintenance-free solution for protecting large electrical enclosures in hazardous environments.

Designed for classified areas, including Class I Div 1, Groups A, B, C and D; Class II Div 1, Groups E, F and G; and Class III, these high-capacity cooling systems are designed to prevent overheating of sensitive electronics while eliminating the need for costly air conditioners or vortex fans. With cooling capacities up to 5600 Btu/h, Dual Hazardous Location Cabinet Coolers are suitable for oversized control panels, motor control centres and other electrical enclosures exposed to explosive gas or combustible dust atmospheres.

Dual Hazardous Location Cabinet Cooler Systems use two engineered Cabinet Coolers working together to evenly distribute cold air throughout large enclosures, which are designed to maintain safe operating temperatures for critical electrical components. The systems are UL tested for hazardous locations and are designed to preserve the enclosure’s integrity by mounting through standard electrical knockouts.

Each system includes an automatic drain filter separator to prevent moisture from entering the enclosure, while optional electronic temperature controls are also available. With no moving parts to wear out and no refrigerants to maintain, the systems are engineered to provide long-lasting protection in the harshest industrial environments.

Dual Hazardous Location Cabinet Cooler Systems are part of EXAIR’s family of Cabinet Cooler Systems, offering solutions for NEMA 12, 4, 4X and ATEX-rated enclosures ranging from 1000 to 5600 Btu/h.