Industry Forum Q&A
School safety issues - questions & answers

Are there any concerns that the tile-type benchtop heat mats we use in science labs may contain asbestos? We know about the issue in gauze-type mats but is there an issue with benchtop tile mats?        

ESN A: 

1. ​​DET VIC picked up on potential sources of asbestos containing material (ACM) in school science labs, including in gauze mats and tile heat mats a couple of years ago and issued an alert recommending that schools pull heat mats not verified as ACM-free out of service, contain them, and obtain certified testing to confirm or deny ACM. Verified ACM-free mats can go back into service, but verified ACM-present mats are to be disposed of (according to asbestos disposal regs)

2. A ​US law firm representing the family of a man who developed mesothelioma while working with ACM equipment (including benchtop heat mats) in science labs gives this general advice ​

Based on these, the earlier alert issued in Australia re asbestos in ceramic gauze-type heat mats should be extended to include benchtop heat mats that are not verified, or cannot be verified, as ACM-free.

Does anyone have a CCTV policy or protocol for security CCTV in schools, and information about a school's duties?      

ESN A: 

ESN has researched CCTV policies, procedures and management requirements, and based on those, has developed a security CCTV management package for schools, including: 

1. CCTV policy

2. CCTV management checklist 

3. CCTV footage view request and record form 

4. CCTV signage

The CCTV package is available from the ESN via the ESN Hub.

Do you have any safety information on access to boiling water from a zip lock tap in a senior student cafe area? We can't reduce the water temperature below 68 degrees, and can't find any school-relevant info about temperature regulations.      

ESN A: 

The building's hot water system may pose a greater safety risk than the zip lock tap in the student cafe, which can be assured for the most part by obtaining and following the particular tap manufacturer's instructions for safe installation, use and maintenance. Here's a sample from one manufacturer that includes safety guidelines and warnings.

The real risk may be the >= 68o hot water storage temperature not only at the cafe tap but also at the other hot water taps in the building. This temperature meets the minimum 60o hot water storage required to prevent Legionella but significantly exceeds the maximum prescribed tap outlet temperature of 50o and exceeds the maximum prescribed school bathroom hot tap outlet temperature of 43.5o . At the building's >= 68o hot water temperature at the taps, there is a significant risk of severe scalding and burning. 

Source information and regulations in answering this question are as follows: 

1. Australian building legislation calls up the Plumbing Code of Australia which is actually Vol 3 of the National Construction Code

2. The Plumbing Code calls up AS/NZS 3500.4:2025 - Plumbing and drainage heated water systems

3. Public Health Association of Australia hot water policy includes reference to water temp-at-tap requirements

4. Australian Hot Water safety web page refers to regulations for hot water systems, including for tempering devices on hot water taps   

Recommend 1) and 2) as your action references. Apart from the authority they carry, they will almost certainly include the detail the school needs for the safety of its hot water system.

Do any schools or colleges that have school-owned indoor climbing walls have any documentation or advice about wall (and component) safety inspections?

School A1: 

Australian Standard AS 2316.1.2 2021 covers this. Similar to outside play equipment, periodic condition checks by competent people are required.

School A2:

We would seek confirmation that the climbing wall meets the Australian standard, then abide by any manufacturer's maintenance schedules. And Kidsafe provides pre- and post-installation inspections and reports, and can provide helpful advice around any type of playground equipment.

School A3: 

A few of our schools have climbing walls, and we apply the risk management requirements of the standards for outdoor play equipment to them.

School A4: 

I know some schools have external providers for wall climbing activities, and they bring in their own equipment. Needs due diligence in obtaining contractor sign-off that the equipment meets Australian standards for certification and maintenance. The same standards would apply to school-owned walls.

Inspector A5:

  We inspect and certify to AS2316.1: Artificial climbing structures and challenge courses. Aspects of our inspection include:

• Safety of structural components (e.g. steel and timber design, construction, workmanship, and integration with wall-holding structure)

• Quality and condition of climbing holds, wall hardware, ropes, and climber equipment

• Climbing zone safety, including impact, entrapment, or impalement risks

• Fall zone adequacy, safety, and clearance from adjacent structural elements and walls

• Adequacy of belay and fall attenuation systems and landing mats

• Engineering load analysis

• Adequacy of instruction for climbers and belayers 

• Risk assessment of overall climbing setup and system

• Logbook documentation review, including inspection and maintenance schedules

• Based on the inspection, corrective action recommendations

Our school was told by a CPR Course instructor that all NSW government schools ​keep a spare Epipen, provided by the Department, in their sick bays. He advised our school to do the same. My questions are: 

1. Is this a requirement for our school to keep spare Epipens and administer these on instruction from the triple 000 operator? 

2. If 'yes', what is the exposure and liability for a member of staff who administers an Epipen if the student then has an adverse reaction to the adrenaline?

School 1 A: 

1. ​I don't know of anything that specifically relates to a requirement for schools in your State, but I can find a number of references for other States that align with the NSW approach of keeping spare Adrenaline Auto-Injectors (AAI's) at school. The number of AAI's kept should take into account the number of students at the school and certainly the number of students for whom there is an anaphylaxis plan in place (provided by the parent/guardian(s)). 

2. My feeling is that being a legislated requirement in at least one State and a departmental requirement in others, even if there is no strict requirement, it would very much something that ought to be done in the spirit of schools' primary duties under WHS legislation.

3. In VIC schools it's a requirement that staff are trained every 2 years in recognising signs of anaphylaxis and using an auto-injector.

4. It's important to note that all AAI's have an expiry date, so some kind of schedule would need to be implemented to ensure the school's devices are kept in date. 

5. The question of personal liability is an interesting one. My understanding is that the notion of vicarious liability is the same across Australia – i.e.. in the unlikely event that an adverse reaction brought about some kind of serious consequences, then any subsequent liability action would be taken against the school or organisation, not the individual. 

School 2 A:

1. The current ASCIA Guidelines for Schools provide an approach that can be adopted with reasonable confidence. ASCIA clearly recommends that schools keep and carry general-use auto-injector devices for emergency use   

2. Regular staff training in anaphylaxis prevention, recognition and management and auto-injector administration is also recommended - face to face, and/or though ASCIA's online training course - https://training.ascia.org.au/

3. I have no qualified opinion about liability exposure for persons administering emergency aid auto-injectors. My personal opinion is that if a member of staff has been suitably trained to recognise and respond to an anaphylactic reaction, and to follow their organisation's procedure to do so, the far greater risk and tragedy would be if they did not then do so. ​

School 3 A:

I think the question of personal liability associated with rendering assistance to others is well answered in the ACT's Civil Wrongs Act -s5, under which a Good Samaritan rendering assistance in good faith and without recklessness to someone in need of assistance is not personally liable.

I am just wondering if any schools have banned MDF from use by TAS students and if anyone knows what the DoE's position is in relation to this material being used in schools.  I have just had an enquiry from a secondary school Principal. 

School A: 

From my previous experience as a TAS Teacher, I would use an alternative. Advice from the DET Curriculum support document as follows: 

"Particle board, plywood, laminated timbers and medium density fibreboard (MDF) are made with formaldehyde-based adhesives and therefore require careful handling. Formaldehyde is toxic by all routes of exposure and is considered to be a probable carcinogen. Inhalation of, or skin contact with, the dust released during cutting and machining should be avoided. 

MDF and hardboard produce dust which is much finer and more readily dispersed than dust from solid wood, plywood or particle board. MDF must not be machined in schools unless all occupational health and safety issues are addressed, including the use of a SafeWork NSW approved extraction system. Schools generally do not have the facilities to control the hazards from the dust created when MDF is machined.

The risks associated with the use of manufactured timber products are significant. A risk assessment must be completed for all projects involving the machining of MDF." 

June 2023

Our school relies on parents, often car pooling, to transport students to rep sports events. Before any parent drives other students in their car we've required written permission from students' parents, a copy of the driver's license and proofs of their vehicle's CTP and comprehensive insurance. We've been told that parental permission is all that's needed. Does anyone have any information or advice about this?

School A1:

We work along the lines of best practice & ensuring duty of care is covered. If the school is sending out permission slips, parents should be able to rely on the fact that the school knows the proposed driver is capable and their car is roadworthy. Therefore, license and CTP/rego checks are also needed    

School A2:

Parental permission is required, but I think our duty of care also extends to ensuring proposed drivers are licensed, fit and experienced to drive students and that vehicles to be driven are registered (associated CTP insurance compensates people who are hurt, and registration verifies mechanical soundness)

School System A3: 

1. We require written permission from parents of students to be transported, and we have a Transporting Students in Staff or Parent Volunteer Cars form that we ask school staff and volunteer drivers to complete annually and when any of their relevant details change 

2. The form outlines parent drivers' responsibilities, and requires drivers' license details (license number, expiry); CTP, registration and comprehensive insurance details (insurer, policy number, date); verification of the driver's medical fitness to drive; driver's signed and dated agreement to fulfill their responsibilities (set out on the form). We keep these completed forms on file at the school

3. We do not allow students to travel in vehicles that are not comprehensively insured.

ESN A4: 

Alternative transport to school activities is recommended unless transporting students by private vehicle is unavoidable.  

1. Education Victoria has a Private Vehicle Use Policy that only allows transporting students in private vehicles if doing so is unavoidable. The Policy includes strict safety and documentary requirements  

2. If private vehicles must be used for activities that are school-endorsed, parent drivers could be considered volunteers, their vehicles as work-related plant, and the students being transported as 'other people' to whom the school owes a duty of safety care  

3. Journey risk management considerations include vehicle, driver, journey (distance, time, road surface), students (health and behaviour issues) and child protection      

4. Comprehensive insurance is essential, and should cover passengers’ personal property damage (eg. sporting equipment) and passengers' personal injury costs if the vehicle is involved in an accident

5. It is recommended if possible that a safe transport guideline be issued to private vehcle drivers, and a safe driving form or checklist dated and signed by each driver before first transport, and whenever anything relevant changes. 

We have a potential safety issue in our school playground (photo adjacent).  Lots of work has been done to make the playground a great area for students to play, but the railing concerns me. Students sometimes stand on the rungs and hang over the railing. The drop to the cement footpath below is quite considerable. I would appreciate your views about this, and about what we could do within the small budget we have to make this area safer.      

ESN A:

Some things you could consider are:  

1. Just as you've identified, there is a risk of children falling and hurting themselves on the concrete below

2. The brick ledge on the outside of the railing also looks like a risk - an open edge that kids would love to clamber along holding onto the rail (or not)

3. WHS regs require the elimination or minimisation so far as is reasonable practicable of the risk of someone falling    

4. The National Construction Code of Australia, Part 11.3 (barriers and handrails) sets railing standards, including minimum requirements for post and rail spacing, especially to ensure child safety. 

5. The height of the wall/drop between the playground edge and the path below will have a bearing on the kind of edge protection needed

6. WHS Regs don't sympathise with small budgets when people are exposed to an identified risk. But local construction suppliers may well be able to suggest ways of closing out the risk exposure in compliance with standard and regulatory requirements without breaking the bank.       

I've had an enquiry from a school regarding the use of Round Up (active ingredient glyphosate) in light of the recent >lawsuit against the manufacturer. I am just wondering if there is any Safety Alert around banning the use of the chemical?

ESN A: 

As far as ESN is aware, 

1. In March 2015 the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the WHO) upgraded the classification of glyphosate from 2B (possible carcinogen) to 2A (probable carcinogen)

2. The APVMA (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and regulator) reviewed the evidence at the time and concluded glyphosphate could continue to be safely used in accordance with label directions. The APVMA published a response to the recent lawsuit that prompted your question, and continues to advise "glyphosphate is registered for use in Australia, and APVMA-approved products containing glyphosate can continue to be used safely according to label directions".

3. In late 2015 the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) conducted a peer review of glyphosate risk assessments and concluded that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential" 

4. Current SafeWork NSW advice is to eliminate its use if possible, and if not, follow the hazardous chemical risk management hierarchy of control measures and follow NSW WHS Regulations' prescribed organophosphate exposure health monitoring.

5. WorkSafe VIC has a useful Glyphosate pesticide/herbicide factsheet

6. If glyphosphate must be used, make sure every person using it is trained to use it as safely as possible, following chemical label and SDS recommendations and the school's chemical risk management policy and procedures.  

Substituting a safer herbicide would not only be safer but also a lot easier for all concerned!

One of the K-10 schools in our area is proposing to allow several Year 10 students, all 16 this year, to play down an age group in the 15's inter-school rugby competition. Would it cover players' safety and the school's liability risk to write to all the comp players' parents, informing them and giving them the choice of whether their children play against the team fielding ​older boys?        

ESN A: 

​In responding to this question, ESN consulted two independent school rugby coaches, considered NSW Department of Education school rugby guidelines (from SMART RUGBY - Rugby Australia) and legal WHS risk management requirements.  SMART RUGBY gives access to their rugby safety guidelines and tools that are relevant to your question (eg. player age/grade dispensation and size-for-age information, guidelines, procedure, flowchart and templates for parental letter and independent coach's assessment report). These tools and SMART RUGBY's approach are geared towards players' safety and welfare.  

​Based on these, we consider that much more will be required to ensure the safety of all players and protect the school from liability exposure than simply informing and gaining consent from players' parents. Rather, following the DEC/SMART RUGBY guidelines would give the school a recommended and pro-active way of making sure the older players are actually safe to play in the lower age group; of assuring parents that the older players have been independently assessed by a qualified assessor as safe to play; and of protecting the school from liability exposure (on this head, anyway). It is a WHS offence, for which organisations have been successfully prosecuted, to leave a reasonably foreseeable risk uncontrolled, whether anyone is injured or not.​ 

We've noticed a trend in incidents and concerns with hitching trailers and tying down loads onto trailers. It’s an activity across multiple parts of our school including rowing, maintenance, music (instruments, equipment, and stage props), and sport. Could you please look into developing  safety training/awareness on hitching trailers and tying down loads?

 ESN A: 

Definitely. A step-through Trailer, Loading, and Towing Safety Check and Guide has now been developed to help school staff and other workers:  

• • • Check and step through legally required trailer and towing safety measures and procedures

    • Check trailer hitching, loading, & load securing

    • Step through pre- and mid-trip safety checks

    • Check and step through safe towing & arrival

The Check and Guide is available from the Education Safety Network through the ESN Hub. 

Has anyone developed a guideline or policy for using expanding water beads in Primary school or early childcare activities? We are concerned about the health risks if they are ingested, keep expanding and don't break down. Our school has been using them for sensory stimulation activities, but one of our childcare partners strongly discourages them, as does the ACCC. ​Any replies would be appreciated.

ESN A:

The use of Water Absorbing Beads (WABs) in children's play remains a subject of medical and consumer concern because of the serious health risks to children who swallow them or insert them in their ears.  

• 1. In 2012 and 2013, the US CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) issued product recalls for certain types of WABs because of WAB ingestion and insertion injuries to young children in the US and fatal injuries to young children in other countries 

  2. In 2015, the ACCC (Australian Consumer and Competition Commission) urged suppliers to stop marketing WABs as toys, and urged consumers to immediately stop using them as playthings because of their potential risks to children​. 

  3. In 2016, researchers from Westmead Children's Hospital, the NSW Poisons Information Centre and the University of Sydney conducted a retrospective review of WAB ingestion cases reported in Australia between 2004 and the time of the review. 129 children with a median age of 2 were treated as outpatients or in emergency departments, presenting in intestinal distress after WAB ingestion 6 hours to 5 days previously.

  4. Paediatricians report cases of complete bowel obstruction by ingested WABs and of ear canal obstruction by inserted WABs

  5. In 2018 and 2019, the ACCC issued product recalls for Fremantle brand and Zart brand WABs because ​of the health risks to children who ingest them

Based on this information, the likelihood of WAB ingestion by a young child who is playing with or has access to them is possible, and the potential consequences of that ingestion range from major (bowel and ear obstructions requiring surgical intervention) to catastrophic (death). The risk level is therefore high to extreme.

Based on Australian health and safety legislation, risk elimination is the preferred risk control measure, so ELIMINATING the use of WAB's for sensory play and SUBSTITUTING something safer is strongly advised.   

A safe and good alternative is quick-cook edible tapioca pearls coloured with food colouring (select the colouring agents carefully for children who may have allergies). Preparation time (for quick-cook pearls) is 5 minutes, and shelf life (if the pearls are kept refrigerated) is up to 7 days. 

A supplier sent us a brochure advising welding fumes have been re-classified as carcinogenic to humans, and that if welding students and staff wear powered airflow welding helmets we will be compliant. Have you heard anything about this?       

ESN A: 

ESN has no welding experience from which to advise so this answer is based on a limited scan of peak body and regulatory advice: 

1. ​In March 2017, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) re-classified welding fume as carcinogenic to humans, based on sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between welding fume and lung cancer, and on limited evidence of a causal relationship between welding fume and kidney cancer. 

2. The level of health risk from welding fume is directly related to the extent and type of welding fume exposure; the welding process employed; the materials being welded and the coatings that are on the materials; welding work area ventilation and enclosure; and the personal protection used

3. Safe Work Australia has reduced the workplace exposure limit for weld fume to 1mg/m3, effective by law in all Australian jurisdictions 

4. Rather than focusing firstly on fume protection PPE (lowest level risk control), a risk assessment and control plan should be undertaken in accordance with the Welding Process Code of Practice and its hierarchy of risk controls.  The Code calls up Welding Fume Minimisation Guidelines, and recommends fume minimisation at source well before fume protection. Effectively minimising fume reduces risk exposure and may make disposable or reusable respiratory protective devices sufficient, removing the need for expensive powered or air-supplied protective equipment.

5. The only way to measure the amount of weld fume in an area is by air sampling.  A suitably qualified and equipped occupational hygienist would take and analyse an air sample.

6. Air sampling may be worthwhile because welding teachers may be at higher and cumulative fume exposure risk than students, having longer day-to-day exposure and possible prior exposure from other schools. 

7. Depending on air sampling results and teachers' exposure, health screening and stronger risk controls should be considered.   

8. In addition to fumes, welding is associated with other hazards, identified in the Code of Practice. Effective risk management for welding activities and areas should include identifying and controlling these risks also.