Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss Culture, Criticality and Controls in terms of Ethics and Quality Assurance.

Starting from Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigm shifts, they look at why Australia’s defence exports are largely defensive and how that protective instinct is reflected in WHS legislation.

They also cover how splitting the world into narrow domains weakens decision-making, why the order of project success criteria changes stakeholder thinking, and why quality assurance is needed to confirm the controls actually work.

If you’d like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we’d love to hear from you. Email admin@r2a.com.au. For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you’ll also find their booklets (store) and a sign-up for their quarterly newsletter to keep informed of their latest news and events.

Summary notes

• 00:41 – The three Cs: culture, criticality, controls
• 00:56 – Paradigms and Kuhn’s generational change
• 02:33 – Australia’s defensive defence exports
• 05:15 – WHS intent and the protective culture
• 06:19 – Siloed domains and due diligence
• 09:15 – Budget as the last success criterion
• 09:59 – Quality assurance: did controls work?
• 11:16 – Compulsory voting and embracing culture

Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss co-operation versus competition policy in project due diligence.

Drawing on the postgraduate course they teach at Swinburne University, they explain why projects so often go wrong; that being the objective was never clearly articulated, or foreseeable problems were never built into it. They look at how trust, transparency and having the right people in the room let clients and contractors share risk instead of fighting over it, and what is lost when corporate memory walks out the door.

If you’d like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we’d love to hear from you. Email admin@r2a.com.au.

For further information on R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you’ll also find booklets (store) and a sign-up for their quarterly newsletter to keep informed of our latest news and events.

Timestamps

• 00:35 – Co-operation versus competition in projects
• 00:53 – Swinburne project due diligence course
• 01:16 – Why projects go wrong
• 03:58 – Trust as the basis of co-operation
• 05:07 – Right people in the room
• 06:00 – Trust-based builder example
• 09:45 – Corporate memory loss
• 11:30 – Transparency and shared protection
• 12:51 – Criticality and control: designing out risk

Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss where AI can be used in Work Health and Safety (WHS/OHS).

They look at where it is likely to go rather than where it is now, including AI as a watchdog for control rooms and marine pilotage, and why small, locally run models may suit confidential client data better than cloud tools. They also cover AI in safe systems of work, who is accountable when AI informs board decisions, and why a convincing answer is not necessarily a correct one.

If you’d like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we’d love to hear from you. Email admin@r2a.com.au. For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you’ll also find their booklets (store) and a sign-up for their quarterly newsletter to keep informed of their latest news and events.

Show notes:

• 00:33 – Where AI is used in work health and safety
• 01:04 – AI as a watchdog: alarms, rail and ports
• 02:36 – Local small language models and data confidentiality
• 03:21 – Marine pilotage: a second set of eyes
• 07:42 – AI in SOPs and safe systems of work
• 09:26 – Accountability for AI-informed board decisions
• 10:28 – Why convincing answers aren’t always correct
• 12:00 – Why engineers need to keep up with AI

Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss Hazard and Risk versus Threat and Vulnerability – Top Down, Bottom Up.

The podcast discussion includes:

• How bottom-up techniques are creeping back into risk assessments, even though WHS legislation focuses on criticality and asks what is reasonable in the circumstances,
• How prosecutions are shaping what "critical" means in practice,
• Why cutting minor-incident rates doesn't remove fatality risk, and
• Why the two methodologies each have a place if used at the right time.

If you'd like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we'd love to hear from you: email admin@r2a.com.au.

For further information on Richard and Gaye's consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you'll also find booklets (store) and a newsletter sign-up to keep informed of their latest news and events.

Timestamps

• 00:34 – Why revisit hazard and risk versus threat and vulnerability: a drift back to bottom-up techniques despite the WHS focus on criticality
• 01:13 – Prosecution patterns in Australia: SFAIRP is hard to prosecute, smaller organisations and repeat or multiple-fatality events get targeted
• 03:26 – WHS Codes of Practice are written around single-fatality hazards such as working at heights, and the language confusion that follows
• 04:03 – Bird and Heinrich's triangle, and the elimination of fatalities task force in underground mining
• 06:29 – WHS asks what controls are practicable and reasonable, not whether the risk is bad enough to act
• 07:18 – Hazard and risk as middle-management, bottom-up measures versus threat and vulnerability as national-interest, top-down thinking (the desalination plant and defence examples)
• 08:30 – Criticality in two bands: single or multiple fatalities versus rare mass-casualty events
• 09:16 – How major events change policy, and the New Zealand experience including the Port of Auckland prosecution
• 10:27 – Differing state approaches and the pending Safe Work Australia review
• 10:49 – Wrap-up: both methodologies have insight, so use each in the right place at the right time

Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss New Zealand's Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, which received Royal Assent on 9 July and commences 1 April 2027.

They unpack the shift towards a focus on critical risks for small business and an expanded role for approved codes of practice, and question whether this makes the regime more prescriptive than the "reasonably practicable" standard intended. The conversation moves to a Wellington waterfront fatality case and the accountability questions it raises for local councils and their executives.

If you'd like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we'd love to hear from you. Email admin@r2a.com.au. For further information on Richard and Gaye's work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au.

Timestamps:

• 00:00 – Introduction
• 00:40 – NZ Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill receives Royal Assent (9 July), effect from 1 April 2027
• 01:23 – Speed of the Bill through NZ Parliament compared to Australia
• 01:53 – Key changes: focus on critical events for small business; expanded role of approved codes of practice
• 02:34 – Tension between codes of practice as a "minimum standard" and the "reasonably practicable" objective
• 03:16 – R2A's process for testing and documenting what's reasonable in the circumstances
• 04:36 – Richard's two closing workshop questions, and using AI as a "watchdog" for critical issues
• 05:16 – Richard's experiment running local AI models on Mac hardware
• 06:15 – Controls evolve even when critical issues don't; AI as a possible future control or QA system
• 06:56 – Port automation, wearable tracking tech, and phone-based hazard alerts
• 08:04 – Recap: NZ's shift to criticality focus and increased use of codes of practice
• 08:38 – Port of Auckland CEO Tony Gibson prosecution and its link to the new amendment
• 09:13 – Case study: Wellington waterfront fatality (referred by NZ associate Frank Stocks)
• 09:41 – Details of the incident and the coronial inquiry
• 10:40 – Prior fatality two years earlier (Sandy Calkin) and unimplemented lighting/edge-protection recommendations
• 11:08 – Criticism of Wellington council for rejecting the recommendations
• 12:04 – Who bears liability — councillors vs council executive
• 12:50 – Parallel with Owners Corporation committees and volunteer liability in Australia
• 14:15 – Debate: should businesses be expected to know all their hazards?
• 14:49 – Prescriptive vs "reasonably practicable" regimes, and why WA delayed its own WHS Act
• 15:44 – Will Australia follow New Zealand's more prescriptive approach?
• 17:04 – Which legislation will apply if the Wellington case proceeds to prosecution
• 17:36 – Close

Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and (Risk Engineer Achievement Award winner!) Gaye Francis discuss Risk, Uncertainty, and Hallucinations.

Prompted by a recent course on AI and probability, Richards exaplins how large language models actually work as giant inference engines predicting the "most likely" next word, and why that's fundamentally different from genuine risk assessment.

They explore why AI can widen the number of scenarios you can process without ever solving the harder problem of criticality — the rare, high-consequence events that haven't happened before, but still need to be found and controlled by human judgement.

If you'd like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we'd love to hear from you: email admin@r2a.com.au.

For further information on Richard and Gaye's consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you'll also find their booklets (store) and a sign-up for the quarterly newsletter to keep informed of our latest news and events.

Apto PPE is also available via the R2A online store.

Show Notes

• (00:56) Richard congratulates Gaye on winning the Risk Engineer Achievement Award at the Melbourne Engineering Excellence Awards, recognising 25+ years in risk due diligence, industry publications, podcasts, bushfire and public safety work, and advocacy for women in engineering
• (02:27) The founding of Apto (Women's) PPE and its impact at forcing the market to offer proper female PPE
• (04:30) Setting up today's topic: why people still default to thinking about risk as consequence and likelihood, rather than criticality and control
• (04:53) Richard's University of Helsinki AI course and the link between AI probability weighting and Markov chains, used at R2A for availability modelling
• (05:32) Different types of probability — fixed-outcome events (a coin toss) versus genuine future uncertainty (geopolitical shocks, oil markets)
• (06:18) How LLMs generate "hallucinations" (or Geoffrey Hinton's term, "confabulations"), tokenising context and predicting the statistically most likely next word, sometimes inventing plausible-sounding but false attributions
• (07:16–08:16) AI as a Monte Carlo-style tool: useful for running large numbers of trials fast, but this doesn't eliminate criticality, it only shrinks the pool while critical outcomes still have to be identified
• (09:08–09:42) The limits of AI's training cutoff; it can't flag risks that haven't happened before or reflect a rapidly changing context; identifying criticality still requires human judgement
• (10:26–11:12) The risk of the next generation treating AI output as "gospel" without questioning it
• (11:16–11:41) Wrap-up: risk as future uncertainty, AI as a tool for faster insight, but criticality and control remain R2A's core focus

Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss Proactive vs Reactive Due Diligence - what does R2A actually do?

In their chat they unpack why timing changes everything and that proactive work happens before problems occur, while reactive work (like expert witness testimony) occurs after something's already gone wrong, and by then it's often too late to fix cheaply.

Drawing on real examples, they explain why early engagement is cheaper, less adversarial, and allows genuine design fixes happen while there's still time.

Timestamps:

• 00:00 – Introduction
• 00:40 – Why this topic: R2A is often asked "what do you do?"
• 01:08 – The core frustration: being brought in for "proactive" due diligence too late in the project
• 01:39 – Why engineering-style thinking beats legal philosophy for avoiding mistakes
• 03:19 – Why lawyers and busy clients use R2A
• 03:54 – Bringing multiple stakeholders' views together into one structured conversation
• 04:22 – Case example: Brought in practively
• 05:24 – What proactive due diligence actually delivers: structured, defensible clarity
• 06:28 – Why proactive due diligence doesn't need to be difficult or expensive
• 06:58 – Aligning siloed stakeholders (commercial, legal, operational, regulatory)
• 08:12 – Why design-stage fixes disappear once a project reaches "practical completion"
• 09:23 – Case example: relocating a Queensland switch yard to design out a hazard early
• 10:00 – The payoff of early engagement: easier process, stakeholders on side
• 11:01 – Swinburne University postgrad unit on project due diligence
• 11:36 – Why some people grasp the criticality-and-control approach instantly — and others don't
• 12:00 – Wrap-up

Note, they mention discussing NZ Harbour in the last episode, this will be the next episode (#4).

If you'd like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we'd love to hear from you. Email admin@r2a.com.au.

For further information on Richard and Gaye's consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you'll also find their booklets (store) and a sign-up for their quarterly newsletter to keep informed of their latest news and events.

Drop us a note

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss how Elimination Has Its Own Hierarchy Of Control.

They unpack how the traditional hierarchy of controls (elimination, substitution, isolation, engineering, admin, PPE) collapses under WHS legislation into eliminate–prevent–mitigate, and why the elimination step can't be skipped until it's genuinely tested and ruled out. Using real examples, from rockfalls above a Sydney rail line to level crossings, they show that "eliminate" usually means choosing between stopping one activity, stopping another, or re-engineering the interaction entirely, and why that reasoning needs to be documented, not just assumed.

Timestamps:

• 00:00 – Intro: elimination and its own internal hierarchy of controls
• 01:03 – The traditional hierarchy of controls explained via a noisy machine example, plus WHS legislation's eliminate–prevent–mitigate structure
• 03:49 – Why elimination must be properly tested before moving on — illustrated through the Lapstone rockfall case (stopping trains vs a tunnel vs doing nothing)
• 06:15 – Level crossings as a three-way elimination choice (stop trains, stop cars, grade separation), plus the dam wall and airspace design examples
• 09:09 – The governance shift: formally documenting why eliminated options were ruled out, and using threat barrier diagrams to test reasonableness
• 11:31 – Wrap-up, including the Comeng trains example of an elimination option that's valid but cost-prohibitive

If you’d like us to cover a specific topic or have any feedback we’d love to hear from you. Email admin@r2a.com.au.

For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au, where you’ll also find their booklets (store) and a sign-up for their quarterly newsletter to keep informed of their latest news and events.