The Language of Safety – Risk Assessments “Why it’s always a team game.”

“Who writes your safety procedures?”

It’s a question I often ask and commonly find they are written in isolation by the trainer, safety rep or even engineer often based remotely from where the work is done.

“Why aren’t they written and reviewed on site”, tends to be my next question and it is no surprise to hear the aged old answer, “We don’t have time.”

That single exchange explains why so many safety systems fail. Not necessarily because the people writing the materials lack expertise, but because they lack context and provide a single (remote) perspective.

I have seen machine operators narrowly avoid injury using procedures developed and approved by persons not entirely familiar with the job and just as importantly, the location where it is performed. The gap between the documented process and operational reality can be dangerously wide because the writer lacked the operator’s experience and understanding of the environment.

Safety documentation written in isolation protects no one.

The Legal Requirement for Collaboration

This isn’t just my opinion. It’s the law.

Section 49 of the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act 2011 explicitly requires consultation with workers when identifying hazards, assessing risks and deciding how to control those risks.

The legislation recognises what I’ve seen proven countless times: safety is never a solo endeavor.

Three Critical Stages, Three Different Teams.

Effective risk assessment isn’t a single process. It’s three distinct stages, each requiring different perspectives:

1. Risk Identification

This first stage depends on the people who understand the tasks, are familiar with the environment they are performed in, and are capable of identifying the potential hazards.

I recently worked with a mining operation where management had identified six key risks associated with a complex, multi-party activity. When feedback was sought from the maintenance technicians and operators who were familiar with the tasks, that number jumped to thirteen. Those additional risks weren’t trivial—they included activities that could result in potentially serious personnel injury, significant process failures or catastrophic equipment failure.

Different perspectives. Different dangers identified.

2. Risk Analysis

Here’s where the real work happens. Analysing identified risks requires input from people at multiple levels:

• Workers with hands-on experience.
• Supervisors with oversight perspective.
• Safety specialists with technical knowledge.
• Skilled facilitators to keep everything moving.

Last year, I watched a risk analysis session for a construction company’s upcoming crane lift. The safety officer raised equipment inspection and certification. The site supervisor identified time pressures. The crane operator recognised that depending on the time of the day the lift was performed could result in vision issues due to sun glare.

While many other potential hazards were identified, what this highlighted was the involvement of persons with different perspectives promotes the capture of a broad range of hazards to consider and control.

3. Risk Evaluation

This final stage brings everything together. Here, decision makers:

• They miss risks experienced workers would raise.
• Tend to over or underscore a risk, leading to either over complex or a lack of useful controls.
• They create controls that look good on paper but fail in practice, or worse introduce new, more dangerous hazards.

After a serious event at a mine site, I was asked by the onsite superintendent to review the risk assessment. It was poor. Over scored the risks. Implemented controls that would not work due to equipment constraints and introduced new controls that were more likely to seriously injure the operators than the original incident.

This risk assessment had been written by senior executives from the city office. They had never actually worked in a mine, let alone this specialised area. There had been no request for input from the operators.

It goes without saying that there was significant pushback, leading to new effective control measures to protect the operators, taking months longer and significantly more costs to implement than would have been the cause had the risk assessment been done properly in the first place.

Making the Team Game Work

Effective team-based risk assessment isn’t just about gathering people. It’s about gathering the right people and working with them:

1. Include representatives from all levels affected by the risk.
2. Create an atmosphere where team members feel safe to speak freely.
3. Value operational experience as highly as technical knowledge.
4. Document different perspectives rather than rushing to consensus.
5. Monitor controls and seek feedback on their practicality and effectiveness.

Safety documentation isn’t just about compliance. It’s about communication between all levels of your organisation. When that communication flows freely, protection follows.

Appreciate you staying with me to the end. Your time spent on safety content like this makes a real difference.

How we write that’s different

Write Safe AU’s approach is built on collaboration. We don’t just write safety documentation, we seek out real conversations that reveal the complete risk picture.

Our facilitators bring together operators, supervisors, safety specialists and management to capture a broad range of perspectives. We translate these diverse viewpoints into clear, actionable and consistent language that works for everyone, from the factory floor to the boardroom.

This team-based methodology means our documentation doesn’t just satisfy auditors, it genuinely protects your people. Because safety isn’t created in isolation. It’s built through collective wisdom, captured clearly and communicated effectively.

When safety becomes a team game, everyone wins.

This is The Language of Safety. Clear documentation. Safer workforce.

Write Safe AU