Am I right to have reservations about how the prelim audit was conducted or am I confirming what my mother thought all along i.e. I have an overactive imagination? — Jono Johnson

Absolutely, be interesting to run an unannounced audit of one of the unaudited branches, but I'd bet things aren't as tickety-boo as might be thought.

I think you're definitely right to have reservations. At face value, the auditor/audit body is satisfied that the organsation meets that particular audit requirement - in this case, the trial evacuations. As an auditor myself (in the adventure tourism industry), it seems odd to me that this auditor sees this outcome as a reflection of what 'has' occurred across every branch.

If I was auditing numerous sites or operations, I would ask to see evidence from across the board (i.e. pick several sites/operations at random) to see if it meets the requirement. Just in the same way an audit of a first aid kit or fire extinguisher doesn't tell you the condition of those same resources on other areas of the site.

One of the issues I see with external audits is that organisations are notified that an audit is taking place in these areas of their operations, so they then get time to organise, or even falsify in some cases, areas that have typically been lagging or neglected. In some ways this encourages the organisation to up their game, but often only for a short while.

But wouldn't the H&S team be conducting regular internal audits to make sure the business is meeting expectations? Who is monitoring that the basics like fire drills are getting done now? Some H&S activities impact on other things, eg. insurance, building WOF.
So, walkarounds at the different sites, sometimes to call in and have a chat and a looksee and check the first aid boxes etc (low drama visit), and then sometimes with a checklist that would cover off the external audit expectations.
Maybe 'business as usual' should cover internal checks so that an external check is not hugely problematic.

Hi Jono, you are correct when I worked for a corporate company we were given 6 months notice for the Audit and spent a week prior getting the branch up to speed. It never sat well with me given that as soon as the audit was done they reverted back to the bad habits. We signaled this to the company but all they were interested in is that they passed. And the process was repeated a few times at different branches over the years.

This is essentially the reason why they scrapped the WSMP scheme - it had become a farce where companies knew what they had to do to get certified so were just focusing their limited resources on getting that done, rather than improving the actual safety of the operations. And you couldn't really blame them as a lot of the time improvements to actual safety could have little influence of the outcome of a WSMP audit.

ACC basically said this with their findings when they reviewed the WSMP scheme where they "found there were no significant reduction in injuries and injury claims."

This is a common issue with most auditing schemes - if the focus is on getting certification for certification's sake then typically the minimum will be invested to get there. Even the ACC AEP webpage lists the first 2 benefits (of 5) as financial motivation. Same happens with ISO9001 Quality systems - if the motivation is needing it to win work or as a client/statutory requirement it is seen less as a tool to use to improve the business's operations and more rather a hurdle that needs to be jumped every 1-3 years.

To be honest my advice is to accept the AEP audit for what it is seen as for the company, a means to reduce their operating costs - but that also means that very little weight should be given to the audit's outcomes when reviewing and planning improvements to the work processes, and rather use evidence from more "realistic" sources such as your H&S committees and worker engagement processes.

Too many times the emphasis is solely on passing the audit, rather than on implementing and ensuring good practice - especially where there are financial implications. This is a key reason why the AEP / WSMP scheme failed to deliver on better injury reduction outcomes. Also too much focus on documents as 'proof' without closely examining regular daily practice and culture.

I have never done pre-audit work in places I have actually worked in. Don't advocate for it, don't support it. Think it is a fraudulent con.

If its a financial or Worksafe audit take us as you find us.

The purpose of the audit should be to highlight shortcomings so you can improve.

I already know I will pass because I do all the right stuff and managing that stuff just keeps happening.

(That said I am very good at window dressing - and have helped countless companies "pass" their audits. Its not hard when you have dim tick box auditors.)

My favourite response to an audit question was during the staff discussion. I asked how they were selected for this staff discussion? They responded proudly "I got the top score in the quiz". It turns out they had sent out a quiz of the staff discussion questions and picked those who knew the answers.

In the case you have highlighted, one thing that I think most people forget when seeing an organisation has been audited; the audit is only good for one day - the day of the audit. Which is the issue that @MattD2 is highlighting.

I believe there are two types of audits; one shows what has been done in the past (which is what you have highlighted). My issue is previous performance does not guarantee future success. And as you have highlighted, it does not even ensure the process is embedded in the organisation.

The other audit type shows what can be done in the future. I much prefer the second one as that tends to lead to the intent of the HSWA - continual improvement.

Thats one of the failings of the current audit, priming the receiving location up for the audit. We do it, although we have a separate internal assessment process which all locations are to do annually. Hopefully the very long awaited changes to the AEP will help rectify this. SafePlus for example is a much more effective audit and much more tailored to the risk profile of the organisation.

Chur Don-Don

your alive after the weekend??

[img]

Well done I saw the photos looked like a great weekend