How many employees work for your organisation?
Where does your organisation operate? Choose more than one if applicable.
What sector best describes you or your organisation? Choose more than one if applicable.
Do you support the specific proposal for slewing mobile cranes?
Why?
Yes, we are in agreement with the proposal to license slewing mobile cranes based on their function, such as wheeled vs. crawler cranes and hydraulic vs. lattice booms. This approach seems practical and aligns with the operational differences among these crane types. However, we believe it is also essential to consider the rated capacity of the cranes in the licensing process.
If the proposal above was introduced, what impact would it have for you and your organisation?For example, would it keep workers safer? Would it improve WHS or create costs for your business? Could there be unintended secondary risks?
Not incorporating rated capacity into the licensing criteria could pose significant risks. Operators might be certified to handle certain crane functions but may lack the expertise to safely manage the crane’s rated capacity. This oversight could lead to safety issues and potential incidents, thereby increasing overall risk and associated costs for the organization.
If there are other alternatives, what are these and how would they improve crane safety and the operation of crane licences?
An alternative to licensing slewing mobile cranes based solely on their function would be to implement familiarisation training programs, such as CrewSafe. This approach would ensure that operators are competent in all aspects of crane operation and have in-depth knowledge of specific crane models.
Do you support the specific proposal for vehicle loading cranes?
Why?
Yes, however, we believe this requirement should be extended to cover any capacity. Even cranes with a capacity below 1,000 kg can pose operational risks and safety concerns. By extending the licensing requirement to all vehicle loading cranes, we can ensure that all operators are adequately trained and certified, further enhancing workplace safety.
If the proposal above was introduced, what impact would it have for you and your organisation? For example, would it keep workers safer? Would it improve WHS or create costs for your business? Could there be unintended secondary risks?
Not incorporating capacities below 1,000 kg into the licensing requirement could pose several risks. Even smaller vehicle-loading cranes can present significant hazards if not operated correctly. By excluding these lower-capacity vehicle loading cranes, there is a risk that operators might underestimate the dangers associated with them, leading to potential safety incidents
Are there alternatives, including non-regulatory alternatives, to the proposal proposed? What are these, and how would they improve crane safety and the operation of crane licences?
No
Do you support the specific proposal for non-slewing mobile cranes?
If the proposal above was introduced, what impact would it have for you and your organisation For example, would it keep workers safer? Would it improve WHS or create costs for your business? Could there be unintended secondary risks?
Requiring a license for all non-slewing mobile cranes, regardless of capacity, ensures that all operators are adequately trained.
Are there alternatives, including non-regulatory alternatives, to the proposal proposed? What are these, and how would they improve crane safety and the operation of crane licences?
An alternative to licensing non-slewing mobile cranes based solely on their function would be to implement familiarisation training programs, such as CrewSafe. This approach would ensure that operators are competent in all aspects of crane operation and have in-depth knowledge of specific crane models.
Do you support the proposal for practical experience for operators?
Why?
Yes, we support the proposal to introduce a requirement for experience working under supervision before issuing a crane licence. The use of a logbook to record the operator’s supervised experience is a practical approach that ensures comprehensive training and competency. However, consideration for how the logbook method will facilitate moving up in crane capacity needs to be addressed.
If the proposals above were introduced, what impact would they have for you and your organisation For example, would they keep workers safer? Would they improve WHS or create costs for your business?
While the proposal may introduce some initial costs and logistical challenges, the long-term benefits of improved safety, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance would have a positive impact.
Furthermore, to effectively implement this proposal, clear guidance on the supervision requirements and the logbook system needs to be developed. This guidance should outline the expected level of supervision, the types of tasks to be recorded, and how to assess and verify the operator’s competency.
What factors would impact the success of a logbook system for cranes? What are the most important considerations in designing a logbook system for you and your organisation?
The logbook system should be user-friendly and easily accessible and offered as either digital or hardcopy.
Are there alternatives to the proposals proposed? What are these, and how would they improve crane safety and the operation of crane licences?
No
Under the proposal, trainee crane operators who are gaining practical experience will need to be supervised by a suitably qualified competent person in the workplace. What types of qualifications and experience should the supervisor signing off the logbook have?
The supervisor should hold a current and relevant crane license for the type of crane being operated with at least 5 years of practical experience operating the specific type of crane.
Should a person gaining practical experience have to be employed in a business that operates a crane? Are there alternative ways the person could gain practical experience?
Gaining practical experience through employment in a business that operates a crane provides real-world exposure and hands-on training.
For each of the following licence or crane types, provide an indication of approximately how long a person should work under supervision before being fully qualified.
| Hours | Days | Months | |
| Dogging | 200 | ||
| Tower cranes | 250 | ||
| Articulated mobile cranes | 250 | ||
| Bridge and gantry cranes | 250 | ||
| Slewing mobile cranes | 250 | ||
| Vehicle loading cranes | 50 |
Please provide the reasons for your views. Are there relevant examples from your workplace that demonstrate why a longer/shorter duration is appropriate?
Note: These are the minimum hours or as deemed competent by the supervising person.
1. Dogging - Dogging is an entry-level position with significant safety implications. It involves essential skills in slinging and rigging, communication with crane operators, and safety awareness. Despite being less technically complex, practical, hands-on experience is crucial for understanding rigging principles and ensuring safety.
2. Tower Cranes - Operating tower cranes involves high-risk environments and complex operations, including balance, load limits, and wind effects. Extensive supervised experience is necessary to handle the challenges of high-rise construction safely.
3. Slewing Mobile Cranes - The slewing capability adds complexity to crane operations. Operators need to be proficient in load planning, stability, and interpreting load charts. Extensive supervised experience ensures operators can manage these complexities effectively.
4. Vehicle Loading Cranes - Vehicle loading cranes are less complex compared to other crane types. Although less hazardous, adequate experience is needed to ensure safety and competence, especially since operators also perform dogging tasks.
5. Articulated Mobile Cranes - The articulated section adds complexity to operations. Operators must understand both mobile crane principles and the unique articulation mechanics.
Do you support the proposed new licences for telehandlers, piling rigs and straddle carriers?
Why?
Yes, we support the proposal to introduce a telehandler licence covering the operation of both slewing and non-slewing telehandlers with common attachments such as forks, bale spikes, grapples, and buckets. However, we believe that lifting attachments, such as work platforms and suspended load attachments, should not be treated as elective. Including these attachments in the standard licensing requirements ensures that all operators are adequately trained and competent in handling these potentially hazardous tasks, thereby enhancing overall safety
If the proposals above were introduced, what impact would they have for you and your organisation For example, would they keep workers safer? Would they improve WHS or create costs for your business?
The introduction of these licences would likely enhance worker safety and improve workplace health and safety (WHS) by ensuring that operators are adequately trained and certified.
What factors would impact the success of the proposed new licences?
The effectiveness of the new licences will depend on the quality and comprehensiveness of the training programs.
Are there alternatives to the proposals proposed, including non-regulatory options? What are these, and how would they improve crane safety?
No
For each of the licences or crane types proposed, provide an indication of approximately how long a person should work under supervision before being fully qualified.
| Hours | Days | Months | |
| Piling rig | 250 | ||
| Telehandler | 100 | ||
| Straddle carrier | 250 | ||
| Telehandler (suspended load elective licence) | 1 | ||
| Telehandler (work platform suspended licence) | 1 |
Are there specific types of plant or models that should or shouldn’t be included in the scope of each proposed licence?
Note: We believe that the telehandler elective licenses should not be treated as an elective. Furthermore, the hours outlined above are the minimum required or as deemed competent by the supervising person.
Do you support the proposal for structural changes to align training to specific skills and crane functions?
Why?
Yes, we agree with the proposal. However, we believe it is also essential to consider the following:
1. Including the rated capacity of slewing cranes in the licensing process, alongside their function.
2. Incorporating the fly jib as part of the standard training for obtaining a slewing crane licence, rather than treating it as an advanced elective.
3. Gaining further clarity on what constitutes ‘complex lifting’ and why it is categorised under non-slewing cranes only.
4. Understanding how competence is assessed once an individual has completed the elective, and whether a logbook is required to document their experience.
5. Gaining further understanding of the transitional requirements for those with existing licenses and the process when they are due for renewal.
If the proposals above were introduced, what impact would they have for you and your organisation For example, would they keep workers safer? Would they improve WHS or create costs for your business?
The introduction of these licences structure would likely enhance worker safety and improve workplace health and safety (WHS) by ensuring that operators are adequately trained and certified for specific machinery
What factors would impact the success of the proposed new crane licence model?
The willingness of employers to invest time and resources into supervising the training of workers.
Are there alternatives, including non-regulatory alternatives, to the proposals proposed? What are these, and how would they improve crane safety?
No
How much experience should an operator have operated a standard slewing mobile crane before being allowed to apply for advanced elective licences (see Figure 4)?
Minimum 1 year
Does the removal of any of the current crane licences and incorporation into the new model create any WHS risks?
Not incorporating rated capacity into the licensing criteria could pose significant risks. Operators might be certified to handle certain crane functions but may lack the expertise to safely manage the crane’s rated capacity. This oversight could lead to safety issues and potential incidents, thereby increasing overall risk and associated costs for the organisation.
Should all bridge and gantry cranes (regardless of the number of functions) be licenced?
Should the piling rig licence be separated from the slewing crane base licence?
Why?
Yes. Piling rigs and slewing cranes have distinct operational requirements and applications. Separating the licences ensures that operators receive specialized training tailored to the specific equipment they will be using.
Do you support the proposal for operating cranes on vessels?
If the proposals above were introduced, what impact would they have for you and your organisation For example, would they keep workers safer? Would they improve WHS or create costs for your business?
The new course would likely enhance safety by ensuring that operators are specifically trained to handle the unique challenges of working on vessels, such as stability and dynamic conditions.
What factors would impact the success of the proposed new crane licence model?
The effectiveness of the course will depend on its ability to address all relevant aspects of operating cranes on vessels, including practical and theoretical components.
Are there alternatives, including non-regulatory alternatives, to the proposals proposed? What are these, and how would they improve crane safety?
No
Are the activities and equipment listed still relevant to rigging work or should they be removed from Schedule 3?
Are there any other activities or items not currently covered by a rigging licence that you think should be licenced?
Yes, installation of chain blocks
Which of the activities and equipment listed could be included in a ‘base’ rigging licence (i.e. activities all riggers should be competent to perform)?
Which activities or equipment listed could be elective licences that only some riggers would need to know how to perform?
What impact would change to the rigging licence framework have on you or your business?
We do not support replacing the current basic, intermediate, and advanced rigging licences with a single ‘base’ licence. The existing tiered system aligns with industry standards and effectively addresses the varying skill levels required for different rigging tasks. There is no evidence that the current system is inadequate or problematic.
Published name