< News
Summary: A guarding audit checks whether physical safeguards meet the standard. A machine risk assessment goes further — identifying all reasonably foreseeable hazards, assessing how significant each risk is, defining required controls using the hierarchy of control, and producing a prioritised roadmap for risk reduction. Many organisations believe they have completed a machine risk assessment when what they have received is effectively a guarding audit. Both services can be useful, but they answer different questions and produce very different outcomes.
Put simply, a guarding audit identifies the problem. A machine risk assessment identifies the problem, assesses how significant it is and defines what should be done about it. The result should not simply be a list of deficiencies. It should be a roadmap for risk reduction.
What questions does a guarding audit answer compared to a machine risk assessment?
A guarding audit generally asks whether the physical safeguards observed at the time of inspection meet the relevant requirements. It may identify missing or inadequate fixed guards, excessive openings or reach distances, and issues with interlocked guards. This can provide a useful snapshot of visible guarding non-conformances.
However, guarding is only one part of machinery risk. People interact with machinery during production, cleaning, setup, changeover, fault-finding, clearing blockages and maintenance. These tasks can expose people to hazards that will not necessarily be identified by inspecting the guarding alone, including stored energy, unexpected start-up and electrical or functional safety failures.
A genuine machine risk assessment considers how people interact with the machine during operation, cleaning, setup, maintenance and fault-finding. It identifies all reasonably foreseeable hazards, records existing controls, assesses risk, defines required controls and evaluates residual risk, consistent with the risk assessment process set out in AS/NZS 4024. This provides a basis for distinguishing the highest risks from lower-priority deficiencies and deciding what should be addressed first.
Is a machine risk assessment a legal requirement in Australia and New Zealand?
Under the model work health and safety laws implemented in most Australian jurisdictions, the regulations expressly require duty holders with management or control of plant to manage the associated risks to health and safety. This requires duty holders to identify hazards, eliminate risks so far as is reasonably practicable or, where elimination is not reasonably practicable, minimise those risks using the hierarchy of control measures, ensure control measures remain effective, and review and revise those measures when required.
New Zealand legislation imposes substantially equivalent risk-management duties. Victoria uses different legislation and terminology, but employers are still required to eliminate risks so far as is reasonably practicable or otherwise reduce those risks. WorkSafe Victoria describes the same continuous process of identifying hazards, assessing risks, controlling risks, and reviewing and revising controls.
An effective machine risk assessment provides a systematic way to apply and document this process for machinery.
It supports your business in meeting those duties by recording the hazards identified, how risks were assessed, the controls already in place, the additional controls required and the anticipated residual risk once those controls are implemented. It also establishes a baseline for monitoring control effectiveness and reviewing the assessment when machinery, processes or tasks change. When its findings are acted on and the assessment is kept current, it provides documented evidence that the broader risk-management duty is being addressed.
A guarding audit can identify missing or inadequate safeguards, but it generally examines only one part of machinery risk control. A pass/fail list of guarding non-conformances will not, on its own, demonstrate that all reasonably foreseeable hazards have been identified, risks assessed, appropriate controls selected, or those controls monitored and reviewed. The legal duty is to manage risk — not simply to obtain a report with a particular title.
How does a machine risk assessment support implementation and remediation?
A good machine risk assessment supports the next steps: prioritising the highest risks, grouping actions into remediation packages, planning capital and maintenance work, and verifying completion. Practical recommendations, relevant standard references, photographs and indicative budget costs can then support the development and implementation of remediation work.
TEG Risk’s assessments capture hazards, existing controls, required controls, risk rankings, residual risk, LOTO information and remediation actions in MinRisk. Where preferred, risk ranking can use the client’s own risk matrix within MinRisk. Because the information is retained as reviewable management data, actions can be tracked and the assessment updated as machinery and work practices change.
How do you check whether you are getting a genuine machine risk assessment?
Not every service described as a “machine risk assessment” contains a risk assessment. If the output is mainly a pass/fail list of guarding non-conformances, it is closer to a guarding audit, regardless of what the report is called. That work may still be useful, but it may not provide the risk-based priorities, implementation information or ongoing review capability expected from a machine risk assessment.
Before appointing a provider, ask whether the methodology and deliverable will:
- Identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards across production and non-production tasks, rather than only checking guarding against a standard.
- Record existing controls, assess initial risk, define required controls and evaluate residual risk.
- Provide recommendations specific enough to prioritise, cost and scope for implementation.
- Produce information that can be updated, reviewed and reassessed as machinery changes.
If the answers are unclear, ask to see the proposed methodology or a representative sample deliverable. The difference should be evident in the information captured, not simply the title used in the proposal.
Planning a machinery safety review? Talk to TEG Risk about the scope that best matches the outcome you need.
The difference at a glance: guarding audit vs machine risk assessment
| Criteria | Guarding audit | Machine risk assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Core question | Does the guarding meet the standard? | What can cause harm, how significant is the risk, and what controls are in place or required? |
| Hazard identification | Limited to what is visible on the day and with clearly observable guarding deficiencies | All reasonably foreseeable hazards, across the lifecycle |
| Scope | Guarding | Machine safety requirements potentially covering all hazards subject to client requested scope |
| Existing controls documented | Often not | Yes |
| Required controls defined | Partial | Yes, using the hierarchy of control |
| Risk ranking | Sometimes | Yes — using an agreed risk matrix, including the client’s own matrix in MinRisk where preferred |
| Residual risk assessed | Typically not assessed | Yes |
| Cleaning, maintenance and fault-finding tasks | Limited — requirements defined by observation of standards conformity | Considered |
| Prioritisation for capital spend | Limited | Can be done given degree of information determined |
| Contractor-ready scope information | Typically requires an additional, deeper scoping/specification exercise after the guarding audit | Ready for a Project Manager to package up for contractors |
| LOTO (lockout/tagout) information | No | Yes |
| Stored as reviewable management data | No — a static report | Can be e.g. in a platform such as MinRisk |
| Reassessment and review over time | Typically undertaken as a point-in-time assessment | Designed to support future review and reassessment with photos and controls status e.g. required/existing |
FAQ: Guarding audits and machine risk assessments
What is the difference between a guarding audit and a machine risk assessment?
A guarding audit checks whether physical safeguards meet the relevant standard at the time of inspection. A machine risk assessment identifies all reasonably foreseeable hazards across production and non-production tasks, assesses risk, defines required controls using the hierarchy of control, and evaluates residual risk consistent with AS/NZS 4024.
Is a guarding audit enough to meet legal requirements?
A guarding audit examines only one part of machinery risk control. Under Australian WHS regulations and equivalent New Zealand legislation, duty holders are required to identify hazards, assess risks, implement controls using the hierarchy of control, and review those controls. A pass/fail list of guarding non-conformances will not, on its own, demonstrate that these duties have been met.
What hazards does a guarding audit miss?
A guarding audit is generally limited to visible guarding deficiencies observed on the day. It may not identify hazards arising from stored energy, unexpected start-up, electrical or functional safety failures, or tasks such as cleaning, setup, changeover, fault-finding and maintenance.
What should a machine risk assessment include?
A machine risk assessment should identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards, record existing controls, assess initial risk, define required controls, evaluate residual risk, and provide recommendations specific enough to prioritise, cost and scope for implementation. The information should be able to be updated and reassessed as machinery changes.
What is MinRisk and how does TEG Risk use it?
MinRisk is a platform used by TEG Risk to capture hazards, existing controls, required controls, risk rankings, residual risk, LOTO information and remediation actions. It retains information as reviewable management data so actions can be tracked and the assessment updated as machinery and work practices change. Where preferred, the client’s own risk matrix can be used within MinRisk.
How do I know if what I received is actually a machine risk assessment?
If the output is mainly a pass/fail list of guarding non-conformances, it is closer to a guarding audit regardless of what the report is called. Before appointing a provider, ask whether the methodology will identify all reasonably foreseeable hazards, assess risk, define controls, and produce information that can be reviewed and updated.