Verifying working competence
Importance of verifying working competence
The recent tragic fatal forestry incident in Dannevirke, reminds us that businesses should be verifying worker competence. It provides an important reminder that all businesses have obligations to ensure their workers are competent and well-trained, particularly those working in safety sensitive areas.
In November 2023, Tejay Alan Debenham died while carrying out tree-felling work on a rural property near Dannevirke. Mr Debenham was working alone and without supervision when he was struck by a falling tree limb, causing him to fall from a nearby cliff. The worksite contained several significant hazards, including large wind-damaged trees, suspended and interlocked branches, limited escape routes, and trees located close to an eroded cliff edge.
On 7 September 2026, the Dannevirke District Court ordered Mr Debenham's employer, Trevor Beale, to pay $254,740 in reparation to Mr Debenham's family. Mr Beale was also ordered to pay legal costs of $1,000 and was fined $5,000.
The prosecution of Trevor Beale identified four reasonably practicable steps that were not taken by the employer:
1. confirming Mr Debenham’s experience, training and qualifications
2. completing an adequate induction;
3. ensuring appropriate supervision; and
4. putting an adequate check-in and check-out procedure in place.
Under section 9 of the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016, a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) is required, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that workers receive appropriate and sufficient information, training, instruction, and supervision to enable them to carry out their work safely.
Different types of work require different levels of information, training, instruction or supervision. Certain work activities require higher levels of training or supervision for workers, such as:
- working at heights;
- working with substances hazardous to health; or
- remote or isolated work.
Businesses must, so far as is reasonably practicable, make sure that anyone who carries out work, uses plant or handles substances that could create a risk in the workplace either has the knowledge, skills or experience to do that work safely without harming themselves or others, or is properly supervised by someone who does.
Businesses must also make sure workers are properly trained in the safe use of any plant, equipment, objects or substances they may need to use or handle. This includes any personal protective equipment (PPE) they are required to wear or use.
Following this case, WorkSafe's Central Region Manager, Nigel Formosa, made the following comments on worker-competence in the forestry industry.
“An induction must be more than a conversation. It should be structured, documented and checked for understanding, with clear task limits and controls that are reinforced throughout the work."
“If a worker is inexperienced or not yet competent, they must receive training and close supervision. High-risk work must not proceed simply because the usual supervisor is unavailable."
“Where people work alone or remotely, businesses need a reliable check-in and check-out system that reflects the level of risk, assigns responsibility for monitoring, and triggers action if contact is missed. Those arrangements must be confirmed - not assumed.”
Businesses have an overriding responsibility to ensure the health and safety of all workers, as provided for in section 36 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA). Included in this duty is the obligation to provide training, instruction and supervision to protect all persons from risks to their health and safety.
Ashcroft Mitchell McGregor recommends that businesses adopt a competency framework to ensure that all workers are fully competent before they begin their role, to help prevent situations like what happened to Tejay. This should not only be limited to businesses in the forestry industry, as risks can apply to all businesses. A competency framework can set out the specific competencies required for employees in each specific role (such as required qualifications, skills, experience etc.). Without defining the competencies involved in each role, your business can risk recruiting employees who are unfit and unqualified to perform their duties. This risk is heightened in safety sensitive and dangerous roles, where an employee who lacks competence can lead to serious outcomes. Additionally, businesses are required to establish that they did everything that was ‘reasonably practicable’ to ensure that a worker was fully competent before they started their role. Establishing a clear competency framework allows businesses to evidence that they ensured the worker was fully competent prior to commencing work.
Offences and penalties under HSWA are significant. The most serious offences are for failures to comply with health and safety duties under sections 36 to 46 of HSWA. The most serious penalties fall under section 47 of HSWA, in relation to reckless conduct in respect of duty that exposes an individual to a risk of serious injury, serious illness or death:
- If the individual is not a PCBU or officer (e.g. a worker or other person at a workplace), they could be subject to up to five years in prison or a $300,000 fine, or both.
- If the individual is a PCBU or an officer of a PCBU (e.g. self-employed) they could be subject to up to five years in prison or a $600,000 fine, or both.
- If it is any other person (e.g. an organization that is a PCBU), they could be subject to a $3 million fine.
The consequences can therefore be serious on two fronts. Competency failures can lead to loss of life or serious injury, and it can also expose business, and individuals, to substantial fines and even imprisonment.
Ashcroft Mitchell McGregor is able to assist businesses review their current health and safety frameworks and implement a competency framework, to ensure compliance with HSWA and that all workers are provided for. Feel free to get in touch with any inquiries for assistance.
