Public Cover Sheet Inquiry into Housing Construction Sector and Related Issues Submission number: 47 Name of participant: Civil Contractors FederationDate received: 7 March 2005 Number of Earlier Submissions: Number of Pages:Attachments submitted with this Submission: Attachment A: Regional Inquiry Submission to VCEC Attachment B: Letter to Regional Inquiry Re: Draft Report – Inquiry into Regulatory Barriers to Regional Economic Development Attachment C: Aboriginal Affairs Victoria – Cultural Heritage Advisory Note 1: Consents to Disturb - Section 21U Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria – Cultural Heritage Advisory Note 2: Consents to Disturb – Applications to the Minister - Section 21U Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria – Cultural Heritage Advisory Note 3: Land Development & Aboriginal Heritage Sites and Places, To obtain copies of t hese attachments please call (03) 9651 2211 K:\VCEC\Inquiries\Inquiry - Housing Construction\Submissions\47 - Civil Contractors Federation\Submission 47 public cover sheet.doc
The Civil Contractors Federation is grateful of the opportunity to makea submission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commissionin relation to its Inquiry into the regulation of the housing construction
sector.
The Federation welcomes this Inquiry and hopes that the Federation’scontribution to the Inquiry is viewed not only in a positive light, but alsoas a genuine attempt to influence current and future regulatory regimesin the best interest of the people of Victoria.
The Federation seeks an opportunity to meet with theCommission to elaborate on the matters presented in thissubmission.
Through this submission and the formal presentation, the Federationwill outline to the Commission how the regulatory processes employedby Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards, adverselyimpact upon the cost of subdivisional works and hence the housingconstruction sector.
To avoid repetition through this submission, the Commission isreferred to the following attachments:
A. Submission – Regional InquiryB. Response to Regional Inquiry Draft Report.
In summary:
a. Approximately 60% of the work undertaken by FederationMembers involve subdivisional works.
b. The costs of subdivisional works impact directly on the costof housing and, therefore, the civil construction activitiesundertaken by Federation Members play a crucial role in thehousing construction supply chain.
c. Being at the end of the civil construction supply chain, civilcontractors’ margins are generally ‘paper thin’ and,therefore, any cost imposts as a consequence of newregulatory controls (both formal and informal) are invariablypassed through to the consumer.
d. There are a significant number of regulatory issues, both
formal and informal, that are impacting adversely upon civilcontractors, the consumer and the housing sector.
e, Many of the issues identified by the Federation through thissubmission could be addressed through an adequate
process driven approach to the development of regulatorycontrols that identifies precisely their impact upon allelements of the civil construction supply chain before thecontrols are imposed.
f. The Federation stands ready to be engaged by Governmentagencies in regard to any proposed regulatory controls thatare likely to adversely impact upon civil contractors and thethe consumer.
2. Indigenous Artifacts Protection Legislation
The implementation of the requirements of this legislation has beenone of the most significant issues facing CCF Members over the past12 months. Regrettably, until recently for reasons of ‘politicalcorrectness’, CCF Members have been reluctant to speak-out aboutthe implementation of this legislation.
An outline of the relevant legislation and related administrativeguidelines appears on the website of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria.
The principal concern of Federation Members is that there is a veryhigh level of inconsistency in the application of the legislativerequirements at both State and regional levels, contributing toincreased costs to the housing sector.
Other concerns and issues identified by Federation members include:
a. The need for appropriate quantities of IndigenousSurveillance Persons (ISP) to be trained and ready togo; lack of same is causing delays in Gippsland.
b. ISP’s should meet the same training requirements asany other worker on site i.e.:(i) They should have completed Vic Red CardTraining.(ii) They should attend appropriate site inductions.(iii) They should be required to provide and wearappropriate PPE (Safety Boots/High VisibilityVest/Hard Hat/Safety Glasses/Hearing
Protection/long Sleeve Shirts/Trousers and Sun Hat).
c. They should provide a documented outcome reportsigned off by the contractor (copy retained bycontractor) to verify any discoveries and action taken
and including start/finish times.
d. The coordinating body should provide documentationdetailing exactly what the ISP is to do on site.
e. The coordinating body should provide a detailedprocedure for the process of engaging ISP’s.
f. Legislation should clarify precisely that the ProjectPrincipal (who owns the land) has the responsibility toidentify the need for ISP’s, engage them and pay
them.
g. The coordinating body should be charged with theresponsibility to provide suitably trained ISP’s andhave a liquidated damages clause written in to theiragreement to provide services, particularly wheredelays in the provision of ISP’s cause costly delaysfor the contractor.
h. The Project Superintendent should have theresponsibility on behalf of the Project Principal (whoowns the land) to undertake the communications rolebetween the coordinating body and the Principal.
Representatives of the Federation have recently met with the officers ofAboriginal Affairs Victoria and have sought the following in order toaddress these concerns:
• Clearly defined allocation of responsibilities to achievethe objectives of the legislation.
• Formalised, consistent processes agreed afterappropriate consultation with all relevant stakeholders.
• Governance auditing and appropriate reporting ofprocess compliance.
• Potentially the development of a Code of Practice toprovide a nationally consistent guideline for management
of indigenous artifacts protection issues.
3. Slow Response to Rectifying Defective Legislation
The August 2004 VCAT decision in relation to the definition of buildingwork under the Domestic Building Contracts Act had the potential tosignificantly impact upon the housing sector.
The Federation assumed a high profile role in endeavoring to addressan anomaly in the legislation through both the courts and the polity atsignificant cost to Federation Members.
Although it was a minor legislative drafting matter, a legislativeresolution of the anomaly took some 9 months to achieve. In themeantime, the housing industry was exposed to significant costs, thevast majority of which was transferable to the consumer.
The lesson to be learned from this unfortunate case is that there is aneed for a ‘fast track’ process that can deal with simple, straightforward legislative drafting matters to avoid unnecessary costs to thehousing sector and the consumer.
4. Security of Payments
A review of the Victorian Security of Payment legislation wasundertaken by the Building Commission during 2004 and it isunderstood that the Review recommendations are to be presented toCabinet shortly.
The Federation commends the Building Commission for the extent towhich it had engaged with the Federation and its Members in relationto the Review.
The Federation also appreciated being briefed on the likelyrecommendations arising from the Review and is generally comfortablewith the recommendations, except in two areas that impact uponsubdivisional (hence housing) costs.
Firstly, Federation Members regularly experience long delays and/ordiminution in final payment for subdivisional works undertaken forprivate sector developers. Indeed, this was the catalyst for the VCAT
An initial examination of the material prepared by VicRoads wouldseem to indicate that there will still not be a consistent approach byCouncils to the processing of applications for permits to undertakeworks in road reserves.
This inconsistency invariably contributes to increased costs which arepassed on to the consumer.
The Federation, therefore, believes that the whole local governmentregulatory regime should be the subject of a comprehensive reviewaimed at achieving consistency in the processing of applications forpermits for like activities.
6. Prevention of Falls Regulations
The Prevention of Falls Regulations, made under the OccupationalHealth & Safety Act, came into operation on 31st March 2004.
They were developed principally to address falls from heights in thebuilding sector.
At the time of their development, no consideration was given to theirapplication to the servicing and maintenance of earthmovingequipment. Moreover, no Regulatory Impact Statement was preparedin relation to the impact of the Regulations on the civil constructionsector and ultimately the cost of subdivisional developments.
Attachment C is a copy of a letter written to WorkSafe in response totheir proposal to address the matter of application of the Regulations tothe civil construction sector.
The Federation is seeking a meeting with the Minister for Work Coverfor the purpose of discussing a rational approach to the application ofthe Falls Regulations to the servicing and maintenance of earthmovingequipment.
This issue underscores the need for a more thorough approach to thedevelopment and enactment of regulatory controls that have thepotential of having flow-on effects to the consumer not specificallyintended during the development of such controls.
7. ‘Over-engineering’
’Over-engineering’ of subdivisional works has been a concernidentified by Federation Members, and such instances include:
OverviewThe Civil Contractors Federation is grateful of the opportunity to make asubmission to the Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.
The Federation welcomes this Inquiry and hopes that the Federation’scontribution to the Inquiry is viewed not only in a positive light, but also as agenuine attempt to influence current and future regulatory regimes in the bestinterest of the people of regional Victoria.
Through this submission and the presentation to be made at the public hearing atGeelong on 17 September, 2004, the Federation will outline to the Commissionhow formal and semi-formal regulatory processes employed by Government
agencies, Councils and Water Boards, adversely impact upon the businesses ofthe Federation members as well as consumers in regional Victoria.
In summary, this submission demonstrates that:1. Civil construction activities undertaken by Members of the Federation play a
crucial role in the civil construction supply chain.2. Being at the end of the civil construction supply chain, civil contractors’ margins
are generally ‘paper thin’ and, therefore, any cost imposts as a consequence ofnew regulatory controls (both formal and informal) are invariably passed throughto the consumer.
3. Unnecessary and poorly implemented regulatory controls have a negative impactupon the viability of the businesses of civil contractors, with the greatest impacton civil contractors located in regional Victoria.
4. There are a significant number of regulatory issues, both formal and informal,that are impacting adversely upon civil contractors, the consumer and economicdevelopment in regional Victoria.
5. Many of the issues identified by the Federation through this submission could beaddressed through an adequate focus on and commitment to existingcompetition policy.
6. A comprehensive review of the tendering and contract management practicesundertaken by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards is necessary.
7. As an interim step to recommendation 6., Government agencies, Councils andWater Boards should be required to comply with the Department ofInfrastructure’s Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry.
8. If existing competition policy were to be strongly supported by appropriate andstructured quality processes, many of the concerns outlined in this submissionwould be ameliorated.
9. The Federation stands ready to be engaged by Government agencies in regardto any proposed regulatory controls that are likely to adversely impact upon civilcontractors.
The Civil Contractors Federation is a not-for-profit, member driven, employerassociation developed to promote and protect the interests of civil engineeringand construction industry employers. It is a decentralised National organisation
with branches in all States and Territories.
From its humble beginning at a meeting in Kensington in September 1943, theFederation has grown to represent some 2000 members nationally, ranging fromthe smallest operation to some of the largest construction companies in Australia.
The Victorian Branch represents more than 540 members involved in developingand maintaining the States infrastructure.
Today, the Federation still upholds its original aims of improving the civilconstruction industry and providing a voice for civil contractors at all three levels
of Government.
It also provides a range of member services that includes an extensive trainingprogram, OH&S, human resources and industrial relations consultancy advice,as well as the sale and implementation of integrated quality managementsystems.
Based on a recent survey, members of the Victorian Branch:• Represent approximately 45% of civil contractors working in regional Victoria• Undertake more than $2.5 billion works annually• Employ approximately 15,000 staff• Utilize some 11,000 items of construction plant
In addition:• 53% of Members have a turnover of less than $5 million (25% have a turnover of
between $5 million and $20 million)• 34% of Members employ less than 10 staff (almost 50% between 11 and 50
staff)
• 35% of Members own/operate less than 10 items of plant (50% own/operate
between 11 and 40 items of plant)
The principal works undertaken by Members include:• Earthworks 79%• Roadworks 60%• Drainage 55%• Water supply and sewage 41%• Concrete paving, etc 33%• Dams 27%• Asphalt and sealing 23%• Quarrying 21%
Reflecting one of the reasons for its establishment, the Federation seeks toinfluence public policy in the areas where new legislation or departmental policyare likely to adversely impact upon the viability of Federation Members,particularly in regard to:
• Strategic direction for the Civil Construction Industry• National Training Framework• Standards and Industry Standard specifications• Government regulations and policies• Industrial Relations and Workplace Safety• Infrastructure funding• Industry codes of practice• Contracts and Tendering Procedures• Taxation Issues• Small business viability• Urban and rural planning and development• Contractor Accreditation/Prequalification
In summary, the Federation strives to be seen as a credible and relevant industryassociation capable of influencing the political landscape to the benefit ofcontractors and the people of Victoria alike.
Further information regarding the Federation may be found on its web site atwww.civilcontractors.com.
The Threat of Over Regulation
Contractors have always exhibited an independence of spirit, a positive approachto a challenge, and a “lets-get-the-job-done” attitude.
However, this is being threatened by the veritable explosion of Governmentpolicies, regulations, rules and constrictions creating unreasonable pressures oncontractors.
Indeed, the continued viability of the civil construction sector is being questioned,which in turn is directly impacting upon the State’s economic development,particularly in rural and regional Victoria.
Since early January, 2004, the Federation has been aggressively pursuing some40 advocacy matters that impact upon contractors and, in many cases, theconsumer.
The key matters that are relevant to this Inquiry are: Security of Payment Level of Contract Securities Use of Surety Bonds Temporary Hose System Use Unguarded Drill Rigs Falls Regulations: Trenches; Plant; Standpipes ‘No-Go’ Zones Implementation Trench Compaction Standards Drilling Rates
Standard Specifications and General Conditions of Contract Contract Management Skills Industry Entry Numbers Tendering/Contract Management by Government Agencies Introduction of Class 1 Signage Domestic Building Contracts Act Cultural and Heritage Requirements on Contract Works Non-compliance by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards
with the Code of Practice for the Building and Construction IndustryProduced by the Department of Infrastructure
Inconsistencies in Standards Across The Water Sector Road Opening Permits Reimbursement of Tendering Costs When No Tender is Accepted Cross Border Issues Relating to Red Card, Traffic Management, etc Dial Before You Dig and Private Services
The Federation’s Submission
At the public hearing on 17 September, it is proposed to expand upon thoseparticular matters where it can be shown that either formal or informal regulatoryprocesses by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards are:
impacting upon the Business outcomes of Federation Members; and/or impacting upon the consumer and in turn, regional economic
The specific issues that will be discussed at the public hearing include:
1. Compliance Costs – Unnecessarily high contract securities, inappropriateroad opening permit fees, unrealistic permit fees for indigenous featuresinspections.
2. Barriers to Investment – Unnecessarily high contract securities, inability touse surety bonds.3. Industry Skill Gaps – Insufficient focus by Governments on addressing the
serious skills gaps in the civil construction sector (e.g. plant operators,front-line managers, contract managers).
4. Direct Costs To Address Deficiencies in Implementing New Regulations,e.g. Falls Regulations (vis-à-vis trenches, plant maintenance, water standpipes) and ‘No-Go’ Zones (constraints on issuing permits).
5. Higher Overheads Due to Inconsistency in Contract Documentation andSpecifications.
6. Non-compliance With Competition Policy – Failure to comply with
Government Purchasing Policy, return to in-house provision of serviceswithout adequate consideration of all costs, non-compliance with NationalCompetition Policy.
7. Unnecessary Over-emphasis of Environmental Objectives – insufficientuse of a risk-management approach to determining environmentalrequirements.
8. Restrictions on Innovation – Antiquated tendering and contractmanagement practices, e.g. use of sewer inspection shafts in lieu ofexpensive manholes.
9. Insufficient Use of e-commerce by Agencies – Issue of road openingpermits by Councils.
10. Costs Incurred to Understand New Regulations – Member bearing costsfor educational programs.
11. Cost of Delays – Inadequate inspectors for ‘No-Go’ Zones, time taken toaward tenders, issuing of Final Certificates.
12. Over-engineering – Trench compaction standards, Falls Regulations,inadequate use of risk management practices, transfer of risk for designand quantities.
13. Unnecessary Paperwork – Inappropriate use of ‘Non Conformances’ andquality control processes.
14. Inadequate Security of Payment Legislation and its application.15. Costs to Defend Inadequate Legislation – Domestic Building Contracts
Act.16. Cross-border Issues – Red Card, Recognition of approved courses.17. Insufficient Pre-planning for Regulatory Requirements – Red Card,
Class 1 Signage, Falls Regulations, ‘No-Go’ Zones, Unguarded Drill Rigs.18. Cost of Tender Preparation – Tenderers not reimbursed costs when
project abandoned or scope significantly varied.19. Inconsistent Approach to Enforcement – With respect to OH&S issues,
20. Inadequate Dispute Resolution Processes – Emphasis on costly legalprocesses rather than partnering, conciliation and the traditional arbitrationsystem.
21. Insufficient Regulation – Application of Dial Before You Dig to privateservices.
22. Costly Use of Client Equipment – Temporary Hose System.23. Non-compliance by Government agencies, Councils and Water Boardswith the Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industryproduced by the Department of Infrastructure.
Tendering and Contract Management
It will be observed through this submission and the presentation at the publichearing that informal regulatory controls imposed by Government agencies,Councils and Water Boards through their tendering and contract managementprocesses impose unnecessary costs on civil contractors and ultimately the
consumer.
By and large, civil contractors had welcomed the competition reforms introducedby the Kennett Government in the early nineties, i.e. outsourcing, CompulsoryCompetitive Tendering, service charters, etc. The resulting tendering andcontract management regimes had introduced the level of rigor necessary toincrease genuine competition within the civil construction sector, culminating inreduced costs and enhanced quality and service delivery.
Regrettably, however over recent years, civil contractors have witnessed adiminution of the benefits that had accrued through the competition reform,including a move away from the truly competitive environment and themaintenance of a level playing field.
Being at the end of the civil construction supply chain, the margins for civilcontractors are severely constrained, albeit ‘paper thin’. Accordingly, increasedcosts incurred by civil contractors as a consequence of poor tendering andcontract management practices are invariably passed through to the consumer.
The Federation, therefore, submits that this situation must be addressed, as amatter of priority, in the best interest of the wider Victorian community. To thatend, the Federation believes that a comprehensive review of tendering andcontract management practices undertaken by Government agencies, Councilsand Water Boards is not only necessary, but will also remedy many of theinformal regulatory issues that are adversely impacting upon civil contractors,regional economic development and the consumer.
Such a review is currently underway in New South Wales and the experiences ofthat review would undoubtedly be adaptable in the Victorian context.
In the interim, however, explicit compliance by Government agencies, Councilsand Water Boards with the Code of Practice for the Building and ConstructionIndustry would go a long way toward addressing many of the issues raisedherein.
The 1999 edition of the Code was developed by the Department of Infrastructureand released by the Minister for Planning and Local Government. In addition tothe Minister, nine employer organisations (including the Federation) aresignatories to the Code.
It is understood that a review of the Code is substantially advanced.
Quality Control
Recognising the importance of quality management processes to theconstruction and maintenance of infrastructure, about 5 years ago the Civil
Contractors Federation developed a highly effective, low-cost qualitymanagement system for use by civil contractors for works up to $3m in value. Infact, VicRoads, Water Authorities and Councils readily accept contractors havingachieved certification of the CCF system as meeting their prequalificationrequirements. The system, which has proven to be extremely popular amongstcontractors and a number of Councils across Australia, is capable of certificationto either the Civil Construction Management Code and/or international qualityassurance standards. The system is also now being rolled-out in New Zealand.
In demonstrating a commitment to quality management, civil contractors find it ananathema that many Government agencies, Councils and Water Boards do notthemselves genuinely pursue the positive outcomes achievable throughaccredited quality management systems, i.e. the elimination of waste, rework,duplication and non-value-tasks.
If existing competition policy were to be strongly supported by appropriate andstructured quality processes, many of the concerns outlined in this submissionwould be ameliorated.
Consultation and Engagement
The experiences of the Federation and its members over recent time havehighlighted the impact that inadequate engagement with the relevantstakeholders can have in regard to the implementation of regulatory controls,both formal and informal. The Falls Regulations, ‘No-Go’ Zones, trenchcompaction standards are but a few of the new regulatory controls that wereintroduced without sufficient input from the practitioners to which they apply.
It is accepted that in some instances, the Federation may have been consulted inregard to proposed regulatory controls; in other instances it was not. But
consultation without adequate engagement will almost certainly lead to thesituations that have been the catalyst for the concerns expressed herein.
For its part, the Federation has recently developed an effective internal processto ensure that it can move quickly to respond to any invitation to be engaged in
regard to proposed regulatory controls.
It is now incumbent upon Government agencies to establish and structure theirconsultative processes to ensure that the Federation is adequately engaged priorto imposing new regulatory regimes.
Regional InquiryVictorian Competition and Efficiency CommissionG.P.O. Box 4379Melbourne Vic 3001
Dear Sirs,
DRAFT REPORT – INQUIRY INTO REGULATORY
BARRIERS TO REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the aforementioned Draft Report.
We appreciated being able to present a submission to the Inquiry and we notewith satisfaction that a number of aspects of our submission have been includedin the Draft Report.
Generally, we support the tenet of the Report and the resultingrecommendations, however, we make the following comments in relation thereto:
1. The recommendations regarding the administration of land-useplanning are appropriate but unless the performance pay of CouncilCEO’s and State bureaucrats are directly linked to the specifiedperformance measures, the recommendations will be ineffective.
2. We would have preferred to see a specific recommendation thatrequired the Local Government Division of the Department for VictorianCommunities to establish a taskforce, which should include the CCF,to examine and identify ways in which there can be a consistentapproach to administering the issuing of permits common to allcouncils.
3. A similar approach to 2 should apply to permits issued by watercompanies.
4. The question of when a RIS is required needs to be put beyond doubt.
At a recent meeting of the Government Reference Group, it was statedthat an RIS was not required for the new Worksite Safety TrafficManagement Code of Practice. Whilst the CCF supports the
objectives of this Code, it will nonetheless add costs to projects(estimated to be upwards of 6% in some cases) which will be passedon to the consumer.
5. The non-compliance by Government agencies, water companies andcouncils with Regulations and Codes is impacting negatively uponCCF Members, causing increased costs to be passed on to theconsumer.
I would be more than happy to elaborate on these issues to assist you inpreparing your final report.
It is accepted that it was not in the Inquiries Term of Reference to review thetendering and contract management practices of Government Agencies, watercompanies and councils. However, as you will observe from the attacheddocument, which provides case summaries of questionable tendering andcontract management practices, this issue is having a considerable impact on theefficient delivery of projects in Victoria.
Accordingly, we submit that there is urgent warrant for the Commission toinstitute a Review of the tendering and contract management practices ofGovernment agencies, water companies and councils. We submit that such areview would result in substantial benefits to the people of Victoria throughsavings generated in delivery of construction and maintenance projects.
To assist to the Commission to understand the gravity of the problem, I would bepleased to arrange for Commission representatives to meet with a group of CCFMembers, at a time and venue convenient to the Commission.
Yours sincerely
Bob SeiffertExecutive Director
Encl. Case summaries – Questionable Tendering and Contract ManagementPractices
Ms Liz HolzschusterWorkSafe VictoriaConstruction and Maintenance Program
Level 23, 222 Exhibition Street
Melbourne Vic 3000
Dear Liz
Re: Draft Guidance Note – Mobile Plant
Thank you for providing an email copy of draft guidance note dated 5 January 2005 andwe wish to take the opportunity to provide some initial comments before a more complete
submission in the near future.
I must however, express my concern about how this matter has progressed to date.This matter was raised July 2004 and as a result of discussions directly with WorkSafe
staff, a joint grant proposal with the Australian Associated Equipment Distributors
(AAED) and the Civil Contractors Federation (CCF) was submitted in August 2004 toWorkSafe in an attempt to deal with this matter proactively within this industry.
Even after numerous enquiries as to its progress, no formal advice has been received
regarding its status. It is assumed that it has been unsuccessful.
The matter of consultation generally is also an area of concern. It has taken several
months for WorkSafe to produce a guidance note with only superficial contact with major
parties in the industry and yet a response is sought by WorkSafe within one week’sturnaround. The guidance note itself has been produced without any input from CCF and
this is reflected in the current draft.
It would seem that any early comments made at previous meetings have been ignored.The current draft is too broad and attempts to cover a diverse range of industries without
addressing any satisfactorily, particularly in the earth moving sector.
Accordingly, the draft guidance note provided is totally unacceptable in its present form.
CCF’s current position, as expressed by our members, is that earthmoving equipment
should be exempt from the Falls Regulations.
There are a number of other reasons for this position. Firstly, plant and equipment seemto be adequately covered by the Plant Regulations and we do not believe it was the intent
of the Falls Regulations to incorporate plant and equipment. This is demonstrated by thesignificant reference to the housing sector in the regulations and no reference to plant and
equipment.
Exemptions appear to be nothing new. This can be demonstrated by the fact that roof
workers can work up to 3 metres with only the establishment of a clear area around apotential fall zone. These workers can work a full shift with this exposure where asworkers in the earthmoving sector will have only minimal exposure. We would therefore
argue that the controls that have been developed by the industry adequately address any
potential risks.
Secondly, there have been no demonstrable examples of a falls issue in this sector with
the available information.
Thirdly, implementation of some of the suggested controls in the draft guidance note (i.e.
attaching platforms to plant and equipment) may create secondary safety issues and are
solutions to a problem in one sector that do not translate to another readily. Even if certain fixed items were recommended to be fitted by a guidance note, it is arguable that
the Plant Regulations should have priority whereby the working environment and the age
of the plant and equipment would make it inappropriate to fit such items in some
circumstances.
In summary, the proposed draft guidance note is unsatisfactory in its current form. The
earthmoving sector should be dealt with separately and exemptions should beconsidered. CCF would welcome the opportunity to engage with WorkSafe to progress
this matter in a meaningful way involving true engagement.
Yours sincerely
Bob SeiffertExecutive Director
Civil Contractors Federation
K \VCEC\I i i \I i H i C i \S b i i \47 Ci il C F d i \S b i i 47 Ci il
