An Industry Perspective by Graeme McMahon
Current Arboricultural Training Challenges
Arboriculture training in Victoria—and by extension, Australia—faces serious flaws. The structure of practical training qualifications, built around the National Training Framework, is failing to produce consistently competent and safe arborists. This problem is compounded by the varying quality of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), which have led to inconsistent training outcomes since the framework’s introduction.
The National Framework was established with apparent consultation with industry experts, much of that valuable information was discarded by the academics engaged. This caused important aspects—such as climber fitness standards and timber industry skill sets—to be diminished or altogether missing. Despite some oversight and improvements via the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and Skills Insight, significant gaps remain.
For example, a trainee in a prominent Melbourne arborist course recently achieved a climbing qualification, including the controversial “spur” climbing, without demonstrating some essential skills. That trainee still passed and progressed to advanced levels such as “tree rescue.” This “feel-good” passing of substandard assessments devalues the qualifications and endangers workplace safety.
Such inconsistencies expose shortcomings across multiple layers: from employer demands accommodating low standards to incompetent assessors inflating success rates. This is not an isolated case but rather symptomatic of the training issues. The core question becomes: how can industry and regulators determine true competence when the qualifications lack credibility? Sadly, many industry practitioners take a passive stance, leaving the debate to vested interests and non-practitioners.
International Comparison: The U.S. Model
During a recent tour across the USA, I noted employers bear the responsibility for adequately training employees and must demonstrate employer diligence in determining a climber’s competence following an incident or audits. In contrast, Australia’s system assumes alleged competence in qualifications and hold no one to account.
The employer for fills their responsibility under the Act by engaging an organisation to conduct training. The training organisation can say, “on the day of assessment they were competent”. The “Skills and Knowledge Gap” is never tested while investigations and authorities assume qualifications represent competence. There is need for a clear competency verification step, that truly validates a worker’s capability before entrusting them with hazardous tasks.
Proposed Trainer Requirements
To improve training, trainers and assessors must be industry-endorsed and have hands-on experience with the full scope of units they deliver. Trainers lacking real working competence or rely upon only on holding a qualification without demonstrating skills should not be entrusted with assessing others.
Currently, trainers can assess competencies without practicing all skill variations required—often citing insufficient time or venue limitations. This undermines training integrity and compromises student safety. Moreover, academic approaches that place full faith in assessment tools without considering a trainer’s practical competency fail in high-risk outdoor environments such as arboriculture.
Introducing mandatory records of climbing experience hours is a positive step but insufficient if trainees surpass their trainers in skill level. Trainers must maintain currency and competence, especially when guiding novices in dynamic, hazardous settings.
A troubling loophole allows individuals fresh from qualification—sometimes without industry experience—to become trainers and assessors. This endangers students’ safety and diminishes trust in the profession. In contrast, other safety-critical industries (e.g., electrical) require extensive experience before qualifying trainers. Arboriculture must adopt similar standards.
The Issue of Tree Felling Training
Tree felling is a core skill integrated throughout arboricultural work and training. Yet, its training standards vary markedly between forest industries and amenity/horticultural arboriculture. While forestry trainers require substantial experience, their qualifications are deemed entry-level rather than operational standards.
In Victoria, some arboricultural trainers have deliberately lowered training outcomes. This customization, driven by commercial and institutional convenience, undermines outcomes and endangers learners. The fundamental skills for felling a tree do not differ markedly between forest and urban settings; watering down safety standards and skills, benefits no one—neither learners, industry, insurers, nor the public.
Industry Feedback and Resistance to Change
RTOs often customize units based on arbitrary interpretations, leading to unsafe training practices. A notable example involves a well-known Melbourne RTO repeatedly refusing to correct a required depth of scarf, clear line of fall and the use of wing cuts. This unsafe tree felling training continued despite clear evidence of outdated or dangerous practices. Their reluctance to engage with timber industry experts signals a wider problem: RTOs insulated from industry input can perpetuate poor standards.
This disconnect complicates investigations of incidents. A recent electrocution of a line clearance worker was linked to loss of control during tree felling, but the investigation failed to adequately address the victims training and competency and regarded them as causal factors. This “paper-only” high standard does not translate to workplace reality. Commercial interests often override safety concerns or exclude relevant industry expertise from critical dialogues.
Common Industry Practices and Their Legal Implications
As an expert witness in court, I frequently encounter claims tested against “common industry practice”. It is often determined to be methods and misunderstands acquired without scrutiny from the training framework or industry. These outdated, often non-evidence based notions prolong legal proceedings and obscure clear safety standards.
Trainers and qualified workers sometimes perpetuate myths or unsafe methods, tied more to interpretation rather than knowledge and safety. There is a pressing need for empirical evidence to shape training content and standards, reducing costly and ambiguous legal disputes. Authorities must rely on genuine industry expertise rather than convenient but inaccurate narratives.
Lessons From History and the Dilution of Skills
Historical accident records, particularly related to tree felling, have created continuous skill refinement and knowledge. Trainers ignoring these lessons and adopting unproven methods must be removed from the system. Efforts to separate arboricultural training from timber industry counterparts have only weakened shared skills vital to safety.
Each competency unit clearly states required skills, but in practice many are inadequately taught or assessed. Trainees displaying substandard skills should be marked “not yet competent,” yet invalid assessments frequently pass unqualified workers, eroding qualification credibility.
Competition Climbing: Unsuitable for Industry Training
Several RTOs include competition climbing techniques in training curricula, despite competition climbing having a narrow, sport-focused purpose with poor links for students in learning practical arboriculture. The use of competition rules and a focus on speed undercuts solid skill acquisition and safety awareness.
I have observed trainees arriving on site without basic safety gear because their training did not emphasize such requirements. This disconnect between training and workplace safety is unacceptable. Training providers must prioritize safe skill development over sporting techniques that diminish skill acquisition and preparing for industry
Role of WorkSafe Victoria and Industry Bodies
WorkSafe inspectors, sometimes unfamiliar with tree work, inadvertently contribute to confusion about best practices. Moreover, some industry bodies have low standards or incorrect information influencing advice.
WorkSafe and Safe Work Australia cannot oversee all training details; industry must lead reform from the “shop floor.” To properly protect workers, training and advisory roles demand accountability free of conflicts of interest and commercial pressures.
Poorly experienced “experts” can misdirect investigations, resulting in unjust charges and faulty legal conclusions. The industry needs credible, competent experts to support transparent and fair legal processes.
Moving Forward: A Proposed Direction
Completely scrapping the current system is unrealistic due however, meaningful reform is possible by focusing on:
- 1. Recognizing National Framework training outcomes as entry level or learner permits. Qualifications should expire if not backed by work experience within 12 months, much like driver’s permits.
- 2. Ensuring trainers are industry-endorsed, experienced, and able to demonstrate the full range of skills in their units with regular reassessment.
- 3. Mandating national consistency of training outcomes under ASQA oversight, with industry consensus resolving regional differences.
- 4. Separating training providers from industry representation to eliminate conflicts of interest and improve transparency.
- 5. Excluding competition climbing from arboriculture curricula, focusing instead on safe, practical skills relevant to real work.
- 6. Standardizing tree felling training between timber and amenity arboriculture to improve overall competency and safety.
- 7. Holding advisory personnel accountable for the quality and safety of their recommendations to employers and regulators.
- 8. Enhancing accident investigations by including industry experts to identify true causes and assign responsibility across the training-employer chain.
Conclusion
The current arboriculture training system in Victoria suffers from watered-down qualifications, inconsistent standards, and a lack of proper practical industry engagement. This presents real risks to workers and the public. Meaningful reform requires a collaborative industry-driven approach with competent trainers, realistic skill requirements, and accountability at every level. If unaddressed, the cost will be more accidents and tragedies.
Ensuring safe, competent arborists is not just a training issue; it is a matter of public and workplace safety. The time to act is now.