Work Health and Safety prosecution: Fraternity Club double jeopardy bid fails
April 3, 2026
McKenna v Nationwide Corporate Services: When a Workplace Injury Destroyed a Worker’s Teeth
April 3, 2026
Submitted by: HSE Direct
Principal Consultant: A. Nawaz
Website: www.hsedirect.com.au
Date: 2 April 2026
Practitioner’s Statement of Standing
HSE Direct is a specialised Australian WHS consultancy led by a Principal and a core team of senior practitioners with over 15 years of front-line industry experience across construction, mining, and infrastructure. Our team has directly managed high-risk plant compliance, HRW licensing systems, and plant risk assessments on Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects. We submit this response in the interest of proportionate, evidence-based licensing reform that improves safety outcomes without imposing unnecessary burden on operators and PCBUs.
Executive Summary
HSE Direct supports targeted expansion of the crane licensing framework to address documented safety gaps for piling rigs, telehandlers used as cranes, non-slewing mobile cranes below 3 tonnes, and vehicle loading cranes. Options that impose costs disproportionate to their safety benefit should be reconsidered. The overarching principle should be: licence where fatality and serious injury data clearly supports it, and reduce complexit..
1. Option 1 – Piling Rig HRW Licence: Support
HSE Direct supports a mandatory HRW licence for all piling rig operations without a capacity threshold. Piling rigs present serious overturn, entanglement, and structural collapse risks regardless of rated capacity. Critically, a recurring and documented hazard is the contact of piling and drilling rigs with overhead powerlines during boom or mast movement on and around active construction sites. These incidents have resulted in fatalities and serious electrical injuries and are preventable through formal operator competency requirements. The current absence of a licence class is inconsistent with the approach taken to analogous high-risk plant, and the acknowledged absence of a specific injury data code almost certainly causes under-reporting of incidents in this category.
The estimated net cost of -$2.7M PV is proportionate to the human cost of fatalities. A minimum 24-month transition period from enactment is recommended, with clear RPL eligibility criteria published before commencement, to avoid forcing experienced operators through full requalification where competency can be demonstrated.
2. Options 2 & 3 – Telehandler Licences: Support Option 3 Only
HSE Direct supports Option 3 (HRW licence for telehandlers used as a crane) but does not support Option 2 (general use telehandler) as a standalone measure.
Fatality and serious injury data for telehandlers is concentrated in crane-mode lifting operations involving freely suspended loads, where overturn, load swing, and ground bearing failure risks are most acute. At least nine fatalities occurred between 2019 and 2023 in circumstances consistent with this configuration.
Option 2 would capture approximately 45,000 operators including agricultural and logistics workers in low-risk configurations at an estimated cost of $63.3M PV, without proportionate safety benefit. If Option 2 is to be considered at all, it should follow the implementation of Option 3 and a subsequent evidence review. RPL pathways must be maximised for existing operators transitioning to Option 3 licensing.
3. Option 4 – Non-Slewing Mobile Crane (Remove 3t Threshold): Support
HSE Direct supports removing the 3-tonne threshold and renaming the licence to “HRW Licence to Operate an Articulated Mobile Crane.” The current threshold has produced a predictable market response: the proliferation of cranes rated at 3 tonnes to avoid licensing requirements. WHS risks from ground instability, overhead powerline proximity, and load path hazards are present regardless of capacity. Clear RPL criteria and a defined transition period are essential, particularly for small businesses and sole traders in regional areas.
4. Option 5 – Vehicle Loading Crane (Reduce Threshold to 1 Tonne): Do Not Support at 1 Tonne
HSE Direct supports reducing the VLC threshold and replacing the ambiguous “metre tonne” unit with a straightforward tonne-based measure. The proliferation of 9.9mt cranes mirrors the problem in Option 4 and must be addressed.
However, a 1-tonne threshold produces a net cost of -$118.2M PV against benefits of only $18.1M PV, capturing approximately 68,000 transport and logistics operators using small VLCs in low-risk delivery settings. This is not proportionate.
HSE Direct recommends Safe Work Australia model a revised threshold of 3 tonnes, which would capture higher-risk operators in construction and infrastructure environments where incidents concentrate, before WHS Ministers are asked to make a decision. The impact analysis should be rerun at this threshold.
5. Option 6 – Merge Tower Crane and Self-Erecting Tower Crane Licences: Support
HSE Direct supports Option 6. Consolidating the CT and CS licences reduces administrative burden for operators, the majority of whom already hold both. Embedding remote operation competency within the consolidated licence is sound regulatory design and future-proofs the framework as remote console systems become standard on major projects.
The cohort of approximately 387 CS-only holders requiring upskilling is small and manageable. RPL options should be made available for this group.
6. Option 7: New Licence for Remote Tower Crane Operation: Do Not Support as Standalone
A standalone remote operation licence would add complexity and credential management burden without meaningful safety differentiation. As remote operation becomes more prevalent, competency in this area is best embedded within a consolidated licence under Option 6 rather than treated as a separate licence class.
Recommendations
6.1 Introduce a HRW Licence for all piling rig operations with no capacity threshold, a 24-month transition period, and published RPL pathways before commencement.
6.2 Introduce a HRW Licence for telehandlers used as a crane (Option 3). Do not proceed with Option 2 concurrently.
6.3 Remove the 3-tonne threshold for non-slewing mobile cranes and rename the licence accordingly. Publish RPL criteria upfront.
6.4 Remodel Option 5 at a 3-tonne threshold. Do not proceed with a 1-tonne threshold without a revised impact analysis.
6.5 Merge the CT and CS licences (Option 6) and embed remote operation competency within the consolidated licence. Do not introduce Option 7 as a standalone class.
6.6 Maximise RPL pathways across all new or amended licence classes to reduce transition costs for operators and PCBUs.
Conclusion
The crane licensing framework requires targeted reform to close genuine safety gaps, including the serious and recurring risk of drill and piling rigs contacting overhead powerlines. Reform must remain proportionate: options where cost burden substantially outweighs documented safety benefit should be remodelled before progression. The recommendations above are designed to produce meaningful safety improvements while minimising unnecessary administrative and financial burden on Australian businesses.
HSE Direct thanks Safe Work Australia for the opportunity to contribute to this review.
HSE Direct
www.hsedirect.com.au