CHEMALI, Mr Albert, Director, Major Hazards and Dangerous Goods, WorkSafe Victoria JENKIN, Dr Sam, Chief Health and Safety Officer, WorkSafe Victoria [15:47] CHAIR: Thank you both for being here today and coming in. I know you were prepared to give us some statements in writing, but we're here. It's just simpler. Do you have a short opening statement for us? Dr Jenkin : Yes, I do. Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today as reps for WorkSafe Victoria. WorkSafe Victoria is this state's workplace health and safety regulator and workers compensation insurer. With these two roles, we have a dual purpose to reduce workplace harm and to improve outcomes for injured workers. WorkSafe operates under four principal acts of the Victorian Parliament: the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, the Dangerous Goods Act and the Equipment Public Safety Act. There are a range of other historic statutes, parts of which continue to operate. While we welcome the opportunity to be here today and to be here in person, I must say we were a little bit surprised by the invitation last week and certainly by the fact that we're the only Victorian or state government entity that has appeared in this week's hearings. CHAIR: I will have you know for the record that you were not the only one invited! Dr Jenkin : Since the committee's terms of reference are broad, my opening comments will touch briefly on three areas. The first is where we see our regulatory work intersecting with the construction and operation of data centres with respect to worker health and safety. The second is general issues regarding the potential workplace safety risks associated with artificial intelligence. The third is how our role as the state's dangerous goods and major hazard facilities regulator intersects with Victoria's planning schemes. Victoria's OHS legislative framework seeks to protect the health, safety and welfare of employees and others in the workplace. The framework places general duties on employers and other duty holders to, so far as is reasonably practicable, eliminate or reduce risks to health and safety in the workplace. Employers are required to identify hazards and risks and determine appropriate measures to control those risks in their workplace. As the framework is risk based, duty holders must consider all risks arising in the workplace, including those from emerging technologies and systems of work such as artificial intelligence. WorkSafe regularly consults with stakeholders in the Victorian community to understand emerging workplace health and safety issues. We are monitoring both the growth of data centre infrastructure and the increasing use of artificial intelligence in workplaces and the implications each may have for workplace health and safety. We recognise that the construction and operation of data centres may expose workers to a range of occupational health and safety hazards during construction. There may be risks associated with working at heights, manual handling, electrical work, excavation and trenching and ensuring workers have appropriate information, instruction, training and supervision to do their jobs well. Once operational, data centres may also involve hazards associated with occupational noise, heat, electrical systems, fuel and battery storage and the handling of dangerous goods or hazardous substances. Many of these are already established workplace hazards, and WorkSafe already provides guidance and compliance codes across areas including construction, occupational noise, dangerous goods, hazardous substances and workplace temperature. These requirements associated in this guidance and these codes apply to the construction and operation of data centres in Victoria, as they do in other workplaces. Beyond the physical hazards associated with data centre infrastructure, the increasing adoption of AI in workplaces may have broader implications for how work is designed, managed and performed, and this was the subject of a recent parliamentary inquiry around workplace surveillance here in Victoria. Concerns raised in relation to AI include increased employee surveillance and monitoring, the use of data to assess performance or inform employment decisions and psychosocial hazards associated with job insecurity, reduced job control, role uncertainty and work intensification. WorkSafe is considering the implications of AI for workplace health and safety and is currently consulting with stakeholders on new guidance in response to these emerging issues. Importantly, Victoria's OHS framework is designed to respond to challenges and changes in workplaces and the way work is performed. Employers remain responsible for providing and maintaining work environments that are safe and without risk to health, so far as is reasonably practicable, regardless of the technology being used, and that is the central tenet of a performance based general duties framework. WorkSafe will continue to monitor developments in data centres and AI, engage with workers, employers and industry and assess any implications for workplace safety moving forward. Finally, I'll touch on WorkSafe's role as a referral authority within Victoria's planning regime. This role stems from WorkSafe's role in regulating dangerous goods and major hazard facilities. Referrals are provided to WorkSafe by determining authorities, usually the Department of Transport and Planning or local councils, under section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. That act is administered by the Department of Transport and Planning. Clause 66.02/07 of the Victorian planning provisions outlines WorkSafe's referral role and circumstances that trigger referrals to WorkSafe. Under this clause, WorkSafe is a determining referral authority for new developments if one of the following circumstances is met: above fire protection quantities under section 2 of the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Regulations; notifications under OHS regulations; dangerous goods licences are required under explosives regulations; or high-consequence dangerous goods licences are required under the relevant regulations. In these circumstances, as the determining authority, WorkSafe can require permit conditions to be added to approvals or can refuse an application. The referrals for data centres are generally relating to fire protection quantity thresholds being exceeded and usually for levels of diesel being above those relevant thresholds. When called upon, WorkSafe's assessment of these referrals relates to dangerous goods risks and focuses on the following elements, noting that, at this stage of planning consideration, detailed design of the facilities has not yet occurred: the risks of potential dangerous goods incidents and off-site impacts on nearby sensitive uses and residential properties; demonstrated understanding and plans to comply with dangerous goods standards and regulations; emergency preparedness and response considerations and feedback sought from relevant fire authorities; and, if the proposal is close to an existing major hazard facility, potential impacts to that major hazard facility from an incident at the data centre or vice versa, should an incident at a major hazard facility occur and have a potential impact on the data centre. I think that should suffice for opening remarks. Thank you, Chair. CHAIR: Great. Thank you. My particular questions are around the risks that you assess in relation to both fire and diesel storage. We'll come to those two questions. But, just listening to you then, I am interested in how we manage the safety elements of the construction of an industry that seems to be going full steam ahead, very quickly, relying on an already very stretched workforce. We've heard from the experts that there are just not enough skilled workers for these facilities as it is, so they're going to be looking for people who perhaps don't have as much experience or are coming on less than long-term contracts. Are you being proactive about considering how you monitor the safety elements even at the construction phase and for the workers involved in that process? Dr Jenkin : The answer is yes. Fortunately, WorkSafe has a dedicated Construction and Resources Inspectorate with in excess of 100 inspectors, so we're well placed to respond to the challenges associated with construction across the board and, similarly, the construction of data centres in metropolitan Melbourne and beyond. So the short answer is yes, we have the resources and we have the focus to ensure that that work is done safely. CHAIR: Are you finding any differences or barriers in relation to knowledge of safety issues between data centres and other types of construction? Dr Jenkin : Not generally. I'll hand over to Albert to see if he has any specifics. But there's certainly nothing significantly different in relation to knowledge deficiencies around health and safety requirements that we've seen or that have become particularly prominent in the construction of data centres. The thing about data centres is that they use a lot of skilled labour, and generally the licences and training techniques of that skilled labour have health and safety components. So, generally, we have a pretty good handle on that stuff and we haven't seen any major incidents. CHAIR: You haven't seen any? Dr Jenkin : Certainly not out of the ordinary, no. Mr Chemali : Those construction risks are there, regardless of the industry. They're similar risks that you'll see in high-rise buildings, or all those other aspects. They're not new risks from a construction perspective. They're the same risks you're seeing in a different industry. CHAIR: Okay. It just strikes me that we're getting these very big facilities—when you're talking about diesel generators and huge amounts of cooling equipment, this is almost heavy industry in what are classified as light-industry zones, right across the road from houses and residents. You wouldn't have houses directly across the road from a gas-fired power plant, but we're having houses across the road from massive diesel generators, with residents walking by. Dr Jenkin : We only have to look down the end of the street where we are here. As the major hazard facilities regulator in Victoria, there are significant circumstances—in fact, a majority of our major hazard facilities, of which we have almost 40 in Victoria, are in close proximity to residents because some of them have been in existence for significant periods of time, long before the major hazard facilities framework came into play about 25 years ago. Would they be built today, under our major hazard facility regime? No, because there are buffer zones associated with those in the planning documents on which we are required to assess facilities. But it's not uncommon for major industrial entities to be in reasonable proximity to residential areas. As I said, the overwhelming majority of those major hazard facilities that are within our framework pre-existed the commencement of that framework itself. CHAIR: Was WorkSafe Victoria consulted about the 150-metre buffer zone that was announced yesterday by the state government in terms of needing to be set back from residential? Dr Jenkin : I would have to take that on notice—we have different areas of WorkSafe Victoria; we're a fairly large organisation—as to whether or not that decision was through a policy planning process for which we were consulted. I'm happy to take that one on notice. CHAIR: Could you? We've had some questions raised today, and it's a question I have. Where did this 150 metres come from? Obviously, you may not be able to answer that in totality, but if you've been— Dr Jenkin : We can certainly answer whether or not we were engaged. CHAIR: Whether you were in engaged in the process. That would be great, thank you. And whether you gave any advice as to what the appropriate buffer would be. It seems to me that 150 metres—I'd like to know who advised that, basically. Could I ask you about the diesel storage. You mentioned that as one of the key safety things you look at. Do you have some type of range in which the amount of diesel storage is safe for a residential area? Mr Chemali : No, we don't have a range. There are a lot of variables in it. There's obviously whether you have one tank or multiple tanks, the configuration of the tank, the controls you've got, if it's in a basement versus not. There are too many variables to have a fixed range. It really depends on looking at that whole system in its entirety to understand that risk profile. CHAIR: One of the facilities that was being spoken about today, which is 16 or 20 metres across the road from housing and someone's front door, holds 1.2 million litres of diesel. I'm shocked that that would be deemed as safe. How would you assess that? Mr Chemali : When these referrals are sent to us, we generally ask for information in terms of what risk assessments they've done, what modelling they've looked at to understand that risk profile and what controls they've put into place around that to prevent those incidents from occurring and then, if that incident were to occur, how they would mitigate that from escalating. We look at those two aspects, and we look at that in its entirety to make a decision on whether we would determine that to be a suitable use or not for that referral. Dr Jenkin : Is it fair to say, Albert, that we would consider the advice of the relevant fire authorities? Mr Chemali : Yes. As part of the requirements under the Dangerous Goods (Storage and Handling) Regulations, that facility is required to get the advice from the local fire authorities, especially around that response to a fire—how they would respond and how they would deal with a fire scenario. Dr Jenkin : It would be in a similar circumstance to when we're considering major hazard facilities and storages in relation to buffer zones. Noting that the boundary of the site might be 16 metres away in this example that the chair has given, it's where on the totality of the site that storage is actually occurring. Mr Chemali : Correct, yes. CHAIR: Has WorkSafe ever rejected—well, you can't reject a proposal, let's be clear, but you can give objections. Is that a fair categorisation? Mr Chemali : That's correct, yes. CHAIR: Have you ever given an objection to a particular data centre proposal? Mr Chemali : Not that I'm aware of, no. We have asked for further information, and we have put conditions on permits regarding certain control measures or certain assessments to be completed to understand or to address those issues. But we haven't objected to any. CHAIR: Are you aware of whether there were any objections raised to the Perri Melbourne Data Centre proposal. Dr Jenkin : We'd have to take that on notice. CHAIR: Would you, please. Thank you. It's been raised with us that WorkSafe Victoria did object to the Perri Melbourne Data Centre proposal in December 2024 because of the diesel storage issue and the proximity to homes. So I'd really like to know whether that allegation is correct. Dr Jenkin : We'll definitely be able to get you that on notice. I'm conscious that this is a Senate inquiry, and I don't want to misspeak, but I'm fairly confident that there was a misunderstanding and misreporting in relation to that incident and that the initial advice was contingent on receiving certain information that we subsequently received. But we will get back to you with a formal answer in relation to that. CHAIR: Understood. So it may be that there were some initial questions raised and then you sought further advice. Could we get on notice a copy of that exchange so that we can understand how the proponent actually did respond. Dr Jenkin : Of course. CHAIR: I think it's important. I'm not trying to catch anyone out here. What I'm trying to do is understand what the processes up until now have been for some of these facilities, because they clearly haven't earnt their community trust and the social licence. Part of it is people just not even knowing what the process has been, what concerns have been raised and what concerns have been dealt with. So I think a bit more transparency would go a long way. Dr Jenkin : Sure. If it would assist the committee, we can provide not only a timeline and an outline of that particular case but also a general workflow outline as to how we're engaging. CHAIR: That would be very helpful. Thank you. This is the final question from me. When you're considering these risks, whether it's the diesel storage—and I'm sure you can understand, when we hear figures like 1.2 million litres of diesel being stored across the road from people's homes, schools, childcare centres and hospitals, why people are questioning the safety of that. My question is not just about the storage, although that is important. What about the burning of this fuel when they're doing regular testing? Is that something that you consider, or is that purely in the remit of the EPA? Mr Chemali : I would say that predominantly would sit in the remit of the EPA, because it's more of an environmental impact for those generators. CHAIR: So they don't have to provide you with air quality testing or controls in relation to local residents or workers? Mr Chemali : No, not from an occupational health and safety perspective. CHAIR: Thank you. When you are doing this risk assessment, do you have the capacity to look at the cumulative impact of these proposed facilities and those that already exist? This is something that has been raised numerous times with us—the cumulative impact and pressure on the energy grid and on drinking water. I'm interested in the safety elements. If there is a cluster of data facilities all being built in the same area, have you got any oversight of how to add up what this all means as one big risk? If there are several data centres that are all storing 1.2 million litres of diesel, can you see that at the same time? I guess that is what I'm trying to understand. Dr Jenkin : I think what's important to highlight with that final question is that we are one part of the decision-making process, and we provide advice through a narrow frame—usually in relation to, in this circumstance, the storage and handling of dangerous goods. Then it becomes a decision for the determining authority, whether that's the local council or the Department of Transport and Planning, to take into account the totality of that information. This is not the only area in which we provide specific advice. Often, in the context of a new service station, we'll also be asked. We're not a determining authority there. It's a slightly different mechanism. But we're an optional referral authority, and we then provide advice in relation to that to the local council. They make the decision, taking into account community impact, environmental concerns and local run-off—whatever it might be. So, in this environment, we try as much as possible, as a referral authority, to stick to our lane and then allow the determining authority to make the totality of that decision-making in approving or not approving the overall permit. In the specific context of this, we did highlight that if there are particularly neighbouring facilities, especially in the context of major hazard facilities, as there are numerous in our local environment, where we are here today, we do take that into consideration as part of our initial referral on that particular site, yes. CHAIR: So you've got agency to be able to do that if you wanted to? Dr Jenkin : We're not constrained. CHAIR: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today and giving us your evidence. If you can get that information on that particular case and the overall process for us, that would be really helpful. Thank you. Dr Jenkin : I'd be happy to do so. Thank you for your time. CHAIR: Thank you. That draws to a close our Senate hearing for today. Thank you to the local community for hosting us, to Hansard and to my wonderful secretariat staff. Committee adjourned at 16:11