BlueSafe
Treat Tree Diseases Risk Assessment

Treat Tree Diseases Risk Assessment

  • • 100% Compliant with Australian WHS Acts & Regulations
  • • Fully Editable MS Word & PDF Formats Included
  • • Pre-filled Content – Ready to Deploy Immediately
  • • Customisable – Easily Add Your Logo & Site Details
  • • Includes 2 Years of Free Compliance Updates

Treat Tree Diseases Risk Assessment

Product Overview

Identify and control organisational risks associated with Treat Tree Diseases activities through a structured, management-level WHS Risk Management framework that supports planning, governance, and resourcing decisions. This Risk Assessment helps demonstrate Due Diligence under the WHS Act, reducing operational liability and strengthening your organisation’s safety and compliance position.

Risk Categories & Hazards Covered

This document assesses risks and outlines management controls for:

  • Governance, Legal Compliance and Duty of Care: Assessment of organisational responsibilities, PCBU obligations, officer due diligence, and alignment of tree disease treatment operations with statutory WHS requirements.
  • Risk Management, Planning and Disease Assessment Systems: Management of pre-work inspections, disease identification processes, prioritisation of high-risk trees, and integration of risk controls into operational planning and scheduling.
  • Competency, Training and Information: Evaluation of arborist and ground crew competency, licensing requirements, chemical user training, and provision of clear procedures, toolbox talks, and safety information.
  • Chemical Management and Hazardous Substances: Controls for selection, storage, handling and application of fungicides, pesticides and other treatments, including decanting, labelling, PPE requirements, and exposure minimisation strategies.
  • Plant, Equipment and Vehicle Management: Assessment of suitability, inspection and maintenance of sprayers, injection systems, chainsaws, elevated work platforms, and vehicles used to access and treat diseased trees.
  • Contractor, Supplier and Consultant Management: Protocols for prequalification, scope definition, information exchange, and performance monitoring of arboricultural contractors, chemical suppliers, and specialist consultants.
  • Public Interface, Community and Stakeholder Management: Management of risks to the public and adjacent properties, including exclusion zones, traffic and pedestrian control, communication with residents, and signage during treatment works.
  • Biosecurity, Environmental and Disease Spread Controls: Assessment of controls to prevent cross-contamination between sites, protect native vegetation and waterways, and manage waste and run-off associated with tree disease treatments.
  • Information, Documentation and Data Management: Systems for recording disease assessments, treatment records, site plans, SDS registers, and maintaining auditable WHS and environmental documentation.
  • Emergency Preparedness and Incident Management: Planning for chemical spills, worker injury, public exposure, equipment failure, and severe weather events, including escalation pathways and incident reporting processes.
  • Health Monitoring, Fatigue and Psychosocial Risks: Management of potential health effects from chemical exposure, remote and after-hours work, workload pressures, and worker wellbeing in tree disease treatment programs.
  • Continuous Improvement and WHS Culture: Processes for reviewing incidents, near misses and monitoring data, consulting with workers, and driving ongoing improvement in policies, procedures and organisational safety culture.

Who is this for?

This Risk Assessment is designed for Business Owners, Council and Asset Managers, Arboricultural Managers, and Safety Officers responsible for planning, approving and overseeing Treat Tree Diseases programs and operations.

Hazards & Risks Covered

Hazard Risk Description
1. Governance, Legal Compliance and Duty of Care
  • • Lack of a documented WHS management system for tree disease treatment activities, leading to ad hoc decision‑making
  • • Failure to identify and comply with WHS Act 2011, WHS Regulations and applicable Codes of Practice (e.g. Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals, Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces, First Aid in the Workplace)
  • • Unclear allocation of WHS duties between PCBUs, principal contractors, subcontract arborists and consultants
  • • Inadequate consultation, cooperation and coordination between multiple PCBUs (e.g. council, contractor, pesticide supplier)
  • • Absence of clear WHS objectives and performance indicators specific to tree disease diagnosis and treatment operations
  • • No formal process to review serious incidents, notifiable incidents or near misses related to tree disease work
  • • Insufficient understanding of environmental legislation interactions (chemical use near waterways, heritage trees, native vegetation) leading to conflicting instructions and WHS risk
  • • Inadequate insurance, contracts and service agreements failing to specify WHS responsibilities for disease treatment works
2. Risk Management, Planning and Disease Assessment Systems
  • • Inconsistent or absent formal risk assessments for tree disease diagnosis and treatment projects, particularly for complex or high‑risk trees (large limbs, roadside or public interface)
  • • Reliance on informal visual checks instead of structured tree risk assessment methodologies (e.g. QTRA, TRAQ or equivalent frameworks)
  • • Failure to consider cumulative risks when combining activities (e.g. chemical injection with elevated work platforms near traffic and overhead powerlines)
  • • Inadequate planning for disease‑related structural weakness, leading to underestimation of branch or whole‑tree failure during treatment
  • • No systematic pre‑start review of nearby utilities, underground services, overhead powerlines and traffic/pedestrian exposure when planning disease treatment works
  • • Lack of seasonal and weather‑based risk planning (storms, high winds, extreme heat affecting chemicals and worker health)
  • • Insufficient integration of biosecurity, plant pathogen spread and contamination control into work planning
  • • Poor documentation and retention of risk assessments, resulting in repeated mistakes and inconsistent controls between jobs
3. Competency, Training and Information
  • • Use of unqualified personnel to diagnose tree diseases or determine treatment strategies, leading to unsafe work methods and misjudged structural integrity
  • • Insufficient arboriculture and plant pathology knowledge to identify hazards such as compromised root systems, internal decay or brittle species behaviour under load
  • • Lack of training in WHS risk management, hazard identification and incident reporting specific to arboriculture and tree disease work
  • • Inadequate training in handling, mixing and applying agricultural or veterinary chemicals, including misunderstanding of Safety Data Sheets (SDS)
  • • No verification of operator competencies for chainsaws, chippers, elevated work platforms or other equipment used as part of disease treatment operations
  • • Poor understanding of biosecurity and hygiene practices to prevent spreading pathogens between sites, trees and tools
  • • Limited worker awareness of public safety risks, exclusion zone protocols and communication expectations when working in high‑traffic or public spaces
  • • Inadequate induction of subcontractors and temporary workers into organisation‑specific procedures for tree disease treatment
4. Chemical Management and Hazardous Substances
  • • Inadequate chemical selection and approval processes for fungicides, insecticides, herbicides or injection products used to treat tree diseases
  • • Lack of up‑to‑date Safety Data Sheets for all hazardous chemicals used in disease treatment
  • • Improper storage, labelling and segregation of chemicals, causing risk of leaks, spills, fire or incompatible reactions
  • • Incorrect decanting, mixing or dosing of chemicals leading to overexposure, environmental contamination or phytotoxic effects
  • • Absence of engineering and administrative controls to minimise worker exposure via inhalation, skin contact or ingestion
  • • Inadequate planning for emergency response to chemical spills, ingestion or exposure (e.g. no spill kits, eyewash, or first aid resources available where chemicals are used)
  • • Non‑compliance with restricted chemical use conditions or off‑label use requirements mandated by regulators
  • • Inadequate waste and container disposal systems, creating long‑term exposure and environmental risks
5. Plant, Equipment and Vehicle Management
  • • Inadequate selection and procurement of equipment for tree disease work, such as unsuitable injection systems, sprayers, mobile plant or access equipment
  • • Lack of a preventive maintenance program for critical equipment leading to failures during use (e.g. hoses bursting, pump malfunction, EWP defects)
  • • Use of non‑compliant or poorly maintained vehicles for transporting chemicals, tools and personnel to worksites
  • • Uncontrolled introduction of new technology or equipment without WHS risk assessment or worker consultation
  • • Inadequate inspection regimes for safety‑critical plant such as EWPs, cranes, winches and chainsaws used in conjunction with disease treatment activities
  • • Insufficient controls to prevent unauthorised use or modification of equipment
  • • No system for tracking equipment calibration (e.g. dosing equipment, pressure gauges) leading to inaccurate chemical application and unanticipated WHS risk
6. Contractor, Supplier and Consultant Management
  • • Engaging arborists, consultants or chemical applicators without verifying their WHS systems, competencies and licences
  • • Contracts that focus on price and output (e.g. number of trees treated) without addressing WHS risk management expectations
  • • Poor integration of contractors into the principal PCBU’s WHS processes, leading to conflicting site rules and procedures
  • • Lack of monitoring and supervision of contractor performance, allowing unsafe practices to persist
  • • Inadequate control over subcontractor chains and labour hire workers engaged for disease treatment activities
  • • Unclear communication pathways for hazard reporting, incident notification and WHS consultation between principal and contractors
7. Public Interface, Community and Stakeholder Management
  • • Uncontrolled public access to areas where diseased trees are being treated, posing risks of falling debris, chemical exposure or vehicle interaction
  • • Insufficient communication with local residents, businesses, schools or road users about upcoming works and associated restrictions
  • • Inadequate planning for vulnerable groups (children, elderly, mobility‑impaired persons) who may be more at risk from changed access conditions or chemical exposure
  • • Negative community response to tree treatment programs (perceived chemical risk, tree decline or removals) leading to interference with controls or workers
  • • Lack of coordination with local authorities (e.g. councils, road authorities, utilities) resulting in conflicting access controls or signage
8. Biosecurity, Environmental and Disease Spread Controls
  • • Spread of pathogens (fungi, bacteria, insects, nematodes) between sites via contaminated tools, vehicles, soil, mulch or plant material
  • • Inadequate hygiene protocols leading to cross‑contamination between diseased and healthy trees
  • • Poorly planned disposal of infected material creating reservoirs for reinfection or public health concerns (e.g. fungal spores)
  • • Non‑compliance with state or national biosecurity directions, quarantine zones or plant health orders
  • • Environmental contamination from chemical runoff, overspray or spills during disease treatment activities
9. Information, Documentation and Data Management
  • • Fragmented or outdated documentation for disease treatment procedures, risk assessments and emergency plans
  • • Inadequate recording of tree health data, treatment history and inspection outcomes, leading to repeated exposure to previously identified risks
  • • Lack of real‑time access to relevant WHS information for field workers (e.g. SDS, risk assessments, site maps)
  • • Poor version control for procedures and forms, resulting in use of superseded documents
  • • Insufficient data analysis of incidents, near misses and inspection findings to identify systemic WHS issues in tree disease work
10. Emergency Preparedness and Incident Management
  • • Lack of planning for foreseeable emergencies related to tree disease work (e.g. sudden tree or limb failure during treatment, chemical exposure, equipment failure, severe weather)
  • • Inadequate first aid resources or trained first aiders for remote or dispersed worksites
  • • Unclear communication and rescue arrangements for elevated work (e.g. EWP rescue plans) that may be triggered while treating diseased trees
  • • Delayed emergency response due to poor site location information, communication equipment failure or lack of procedures
  • • Inconsistent incident reporting and investigation, causing repeat events and lost learning opportunities
11. Health Monitoring, Fatigue and Psychosocial Risks
  • • Chronic exposure to hazardous chemicals without systematic health monitoring, particularly for workers regularly engaged in tree disease treatment
  • • Extended work hours, seasonal peaks and irregular scheduling leading to fatigue and increased risk of error or incidents
  • • Psychosocial stress from dealing with community conflict over tree health decisions (e.g. removal vs treatment) and from working in high‑risk environments
  • • Insufficient systems to support reporting and management of mental health concerns or stress associated with field work
  • • No structured process for fit‑for‑work assessment when workers are exposed to chemicals, physical demands and high‑risk decision‑making
12. Continuous Improvement and WHS Culture
  • • Static WHS practices that fail to adapt to emerging risks, new disease threats, changing treatment technologies or lessons from incidents
  • • Low worker involvement in WHS decision‑making, leading to poor acceptance and implementation of controls
  • • Under‑reporting of hazards and near misses because of blame culture or complex reporting procedures
  • • Inadequate senior leadership visibility and commitment to WHS in the context of tree disease operations

Need to add specific hazards for your workplace?

Don't worry if a specific hazard isn't listed above. Once you purchase, simply log in to your Client Portal and add your own custom hazards at no extra cost. We take care of the hard work—creating the risk ratings and control measures for free—to ensure your document is compliant within minutes.

Legislation & References

This document was researched and developed to align with:

  • Work Health and Safety Act 2011
  • Work Health and Safety Regulations 2017
  • Model Code of Practice – How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks: Guidance on systematic risk management processes.
  • Model Code of Practice – Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals in the Workplace: Requirements for safe storage, handling and use of hazardous chemicals such as pesticides and fungicides.
  • Model Code of Practice – Managing the Work Environment and Facilities: Minimum standards for safe and healthy work environments.
  • Model Code of Practice – Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination: Framework for engaging workers and coordinating with contractors and other PCBUs.
  • AS/NZS ISO 31000:2018: Risk management — Guidelines
  • AS/NZS 4801 / ISO 45001 (OHS Management Systems): Principles for establishing, implementing and improving occupational health and safety management systems.
  • AS 1319: Safety signs for the occupational environment, including requirements for warning and hazard signage at treatment sites.
  • Relevant State/Territory Pesticide and Environmental Protection Legislation: Controls relating to chemical use, environmental protection and biosecurity obligations.
Standard Risk Assessment Features (Click to Expand)
  • Comprehensive hazard identification for all activities
  • Risk rating matrix with likelihood and consequence analysis
  • Existing control measures evaluation
  • Residual risk assessment after controls
  • Hierarchy of controls recommendations
  • Action priority rankings
  • Review and monitoring requirements
  • Consultation and communication records
  • Legal compliance references
  • Sign-off and approval sections

$79.5

Safe Work Australia Aligned