HSR of the Year.

admin • March 3, 2025

The Annual WorkSafe Awards night was held last week. As always, the highlight was the Health and Safety Representative of The Year Category. We all know what amazing work HSR’s do every day across Victoria to keep workplaces safe and it was great to see a handful of them called out for their great work.


The finalists for 2025 were:

  • Barry McKenna – from United Petroleum Hastings Terminal
  • Cameron Barber – from Delcon Civil
  • Cameron Middleton-Else – from Wodonga Middle Years College
  • Danny Humphrey – from Qenos
  • Mick Puche – from Glenelg Shire Council
  • Sue Healey & Melissa Courts – form Echuca Regional Health


Each of these HSRs was nominated for the award by someone who had seen their outstanding commitment to health and safety. They each had a particular challenge to deal with at work and had persevered until they got the right safety outcomes for their co-workers.

This year, the winner of the award was Mick Puche. As a plant operator and with a previous workplace injury where he lost a finger at work, he is a dedicated advocate for health and safety. Find out more about Mick here: HSR of the Year - Mick Puche | Glenelg Shire Council


Another award on the night was the Worker Return to Work Achievement. The finalists were:

Matthew Manley – from Kinross Farms

Nicholas Johansen – from Mainstream Aquaculture

Steel Anderson – Steel Anderson Carpentry


The award went to Matthew Manley. Find out more about Matthew here: Worker Return to Work - Matthew Manley | Kinross Farms

All three of these workers had suffered severe injuries in their workplace. It was such an important reminder of how important safety is. This award focused on their return to work, but we all know that there are many workers who are so severely injured, physically and mentally, that they will never make it back to work. The work of all HSRs is targeted at preventing such terrible incidents – so that no one has to endure what these three workers, and countless others, experience.


HSR’s, as the workers' representatives, are integral to genuine and meaningful consultation in the workplace. Every workplace should have legally elected and trained HSR’s, with safety structures in place. One can’t help but wonder how much safer the workers of Victoria would be if every workplace had HSR’s!


If you need help with setting up safety structures in your workplace, running HSR elections, or HSR training and support – don’t hesitate to get in touch: HSR Training and support | BeSafe | Regional Victoria

Reasonably Practicable?

By admin • March 25, 2025
The Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 requires that the employer has a duty to ensure a healthy and safe workplace. This duty must be met as far as reasonably practicable. But what does this actually mean? The following must be considered when determining what is reasonably practicable: (according to section 20(2) of The Act): (a) The likelihood the hazard or risk concerned eventuating; (b) The degree of harm that would result if the hazard eventuated; (c) What the person concerned knows, or ought to reasonably know, about the hazard or risk; (d) The availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or reduce the hazard or risk; (e) The cost of eliminating or reducing the hazard or risk. This is often an area of confusion – primarily because the test for what is ‘reasonably practicable’ is in fact objective. When we consider this, it is best to look to WorkSafe for guidance. WorkSafe Victoria provides some clarification in their Position Statement on the matter: ‘a person is to be judged by the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable person in the duty-holder’s position who is required to comply with the same duty and is: • Committed to providing the highest level of protection for people against risks to their health and safety. • Proactive in taking measures to protect the health and safety of people.’ - WorkSafe position statement - reasonably practicable There must be a weighing up of each of the 5 points listed under section 20(2) of The Act (above), but with a clear presumption in favour of safety. This means that the likelihood of harm occurring, and the seriousness of the potential outcome, must be the most important factor. The cost must be considered to be the least important factor when deciding what is reasonably practicable. ‘If the degree of harm is significant, e.g. death or serious injury is highly likely, then it is extremely unlikely that the cost of eliminating or reducing the risk would ever be so disproportionate to the risk to justify a decision not to implement an available and suitable control measure.’ - WorkSafe position statement - reasonably practicable When considering what the person concerned should reasonably know about eliminating the hazard, the state of knowledge regarding hazards and controls must be considered and this must be applied in line with the ranking under the hierarchy of control. The definition of what is ‘reasonably practicable’ is often one which causes some contention. It is important to go back to the WorkSafe position statement to make sure that you are making decisions in line with the intentions of The Act . Of course, it is always required that the highest level of protection from a hazard is provided in order to ensure a safe workplace. To read more about this: How WorkSafe applies the law in relation to Reasonably Practicable | WorkSafe Victoria

10 Pathways to Death and Disaster

By admin • March 18, 2025
Michael Quinlan’s book ‘Ten Pathways to Death and Disaster’ includes a review of fatal mine incidents. What he found was that the each disaster was preceded by common causes. There are 10 recurring reasons why disasters happen in the workplace. He describes 10 pathways: Pathway 1: engineering, design and maintenance flaws Pathway 2: failure to heed warning signs Pathway 3: flaws in risk assessment Pathway 4: flaws in management systems Pathway 5: flaws in system auditing Pathway 6: economic or reward pressures compromising safety Pathway 7: failures in regulatory oversight Pathway 8: worker or supervisor concerns that were ignored Pathway 9: poor worker or management communication and trust Pathway 10: flaws in emergency and rescue procedures In most cases, at least 3 of these pathways will be present. However, some cases will have features of all 10. The 10 pathways don’t just apply to mine incidents – they have been applied across other high hazard workplaces and have found to be equally relevant across industries. Ultimately, this shows that death and disaster in the workplace is predictable and preventable – so why do major industries continue to kill in the same old ways? If the 10 Pathways approach defines the issues which lead to major incidents, then why aren’t these being used to prevent such events? In other jurisdictions, the 10 Pathways Theory has been used to inform prevention. Perhaps it is something which regulators, employers, and also HSR’s could consider when thinking about how to prevent death and injury in Victorian Workplaces.  Ten Pathways to Death and Disaster eBook - The Federation Press
Share by: