WHS Marking Criteria
Assessment Marking Rubric
Grade Bands
| Grade | Mark | Overall Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Pass (P) | 50–64% | Demonstrates satisfactory achievement of the Unit 1 requirements and sufficient professional competence for this stage of the credential. |
| Credit (C) | 65–74% | Demonstrates sound, well-applied professional knowledge and reasoning with good integration across the WHS system. |
| Distinction (D) | 75–84% | Demonstrates highly developed professional reasoning, strong integration, critical analysis and a sophisticated approach to AAOT WHS practice. |
| High Distinction (HD) | 85–100% | Demonstrates exceptional critical analysis, synthesis, professional judgement and integration consistent with an outstanding professional-level submission. |
Analytic Marking Rubric
| Criterion | Weight | Pass | Credit | Distinction | High Distinction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Practice Context, Governance and Duty Holders | 7% | Identifies relevant practice context, jurisdiction and principal duty holders with generally accurate application. | Clearly applies governance and duty-holder responsibilities to the selected practice context and recognises relevant overlapping responsibilities. | Critically analyses complex governance arrangements, control/influence and overlapping responsibilities across relevant AAOT environments. | Demonstrates exceptional synthesis of governance, professional context and duty-holder responsibilities, including nuanced analysis of complex or changing practice arrangements. |
| 2. Legal, Regulatory, Professional and Ethical Framework | 10% | Identifies major applicable requirements and generally distinguishes relevant legal and professional frameworks. | Accurately interprets and applies relevant legislation, regulation, guidance and professional obligations to practice. | Critically distinguishes and integrates legal, regulatory, professional, organisational, funding and good-practice requirements using authoritative evidence. | Demonstrates exceptional legal/professional reasoning, including nuanced consideration of interactions, limitations and boundaries between different frameworks and their practical implications. |
| 3. WHS Policy, Systems and Documentation Framework | 8% | Develops a functional WHS Policy and broadly coherent documentation system. | Develops a well-integrated policy and documentation framework appropriate to the practice context. | Produces a highly coherent, proportionate and professionally designed WHS management system with strong relationships between documents. | Produces an exceptionally sophisticated and usable system in which governance, policy, operational documentation, accountability, monitoring and improvement operate as an integrated whole. |
| 4. Consultation, Communication, Accessibility and Participation | 7% | Demonstrates appropriate consultation and considers accessibility and client participation. | Integrates meaningful consultation, accessible communication, reasonable adjustment and stakeholder participation into WHS processes. | Critically applies consultation, supported decision-making and accessibility across complex stakeholder relationships and WHS decisions. | Demonstrates exceptional disability-inclusive practice in which consultation materially informs decisions and accessibility and participation are embedded throughout the WHS system. |
| 5. Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment | 10% | Identifies relevant hazards and applies a generally appropriate risk-assessment process. | Systematically identifies foreseeable hazards and undertakes proportionate, contextually appropriate assessment. | Demonstrates highly developed analysis of interacting human, animal, occupational, environmental and organisational hazards, including dynamic and changing risk. | Demonstrates exceptional systems-level hazard analysis, anticipating complex interactions and emerging risks while clearly distinguishing actual hazards from assumptions concerning disability or assistance animal use. |
| 6. Risk Control, Dignity of Risk and Occupational Participation | 12% | Selects generally appropriate controls and considers hierarchy, participation and animal welfare. | Justifies controls using hierarchy of controls, reasonable adjustment, dignity of risk, participation and welfare considerations. | Critically evaluates competing risks and benefits and formulates well-justified, least-restrictive effective controls. | Demonstrates exceptional synthesis of WHS, disability rights, occupational participation, positive risk-taking and animal welfare, including sophisticated analysis of both the risks of participation and the consequences of restriction. |
| 7. Safe Work Systems and Operational Documentation | 7% | Produces functional task-specific documentation appropriate to identified activities. | Produces clear, relevant and usable documentation and appropriately justifies document selection. | Develops highly professional, proportionate and internally consistent operational documentation closely tailored to actual practice. | Produces exceptionally effective professional documentation demonstrating advanced judgement about what documentation is—and is not—necessary and how it functions within the broader system. |
| 8. Specialist and Context-Specific WHS Hazards | 7% | Addresses major specialist hazards relevant to the selected practice. | Applies appropriate controls to relevant specialist, psychosocial, environmental and practice-specific hazards. | Critically analyses complex specialist hazards and prioritises appropriate work-design, organisational and higher-order controls. | Demonstrates exceptional anticipation and integration of specialist hazards, including nuanced psychosocial, environmental, animal-related and practice-specific risks and sophisticated control strategies. |
| 9. Emergency Preparedness and Continuity | 8% | Provides workable emergency arrangements addressing major human and animal needs. | Develops integrated emergency arrangements including temporary animal care and continuity considerations. | Demonstrates highly developed planning for human, animal, environmental and separation emergencies and continuity of disability-related functions. | Develops an exceptionally comprehensive, practical and person-centred emergency system anticipating complex contingencies, unavoidable separation, transfer of responsibility, continuity and reunification. |
| 10. Incident Management, Investigation and Corrective Action | 7% | Demonstrates appropriate incident reporting, investigation and corrective action. | Clearly distinguishes internal reporting and potential statutory notification and applies appropriate investigation processes. | Critically analyses systemic and contributing factors and develops well-justified corrective and preventive actions with effectiveness measures. | Demonstrates exceptional systems-thinking, accurately integrating statutory, organisational, professional, animal-welfare and improvement pathways without inappropriate individual blame. |
| 11. Monitoring, Evaluation and Continuous Improvement | 7% | Establishes basic monitoring, audit and improvement processes. | Uses appropriate leading and lagging indicators and systematic review mechanisms. | Develops a sophisticated evaluation framework connecting evidence, consultation, audit, incidents, welfare indicators and corrective action. | Demonstrates exceptional capacity to evaluate system effectiveness, identify emerging weaknesses and establish a sustainable evidence-informed continuous-improvement system. |
| 12. Critical Professional Analysis, Reflection and Response to Feedback | 10% | Identifies strengths, limitations and development needs and responds appropriately to feedback. | Provides thoughtful critical analysis and demonstrates meaningful revision following feedback. | Demonstrates strong reflexivity, identifies substantive gaps and critically evaluates feedback and future professional-development priorities. | Demonstrates exceptional professional insight, intellectual independence and reflexivity; identifies issues not explicitly prompted by WAFA; critically evaluates their own assumptions and decisions; and uses feedback and new learning to substantially strengthen the professional system. |
Total: 100 marks
Minimum Requirements for a Pass
A candidate must achieve at least 50/100 overall and demonstrate satisfactory evidence across all essential professional-safety domains.
A numerical mark of 50 or above does not automatically result in a Pass where the submission contains an unresolved critical deficiency.
A candidate cannot receive a Pass while there remains a material issue involving:
- unsafe professional practice;
- serious misunderstanding of WHS/OHS responsibilities;
- materially incorrect legal claims affecting practice;
- failure to recognise a foreseeable serious risk;
- discriminatory risk-management practices;
- unjustified exclusion of a disabled person or assistance animal;
- serious failure to consider reasonable adjustment;
- significant assistance animal welfare concerns;
- materially unsafe emergency arrangements;
- serious misunderstanding of statutory incident-notification responsibilities;
- significant practice outside professional scope;
- serious privacy/confidentiality concerns; or
- another deficiency capable of creating significant harm.
In these circumstances, the outcome should be Further Evidence Required, irrespective of the provisional numerical mark.
Once the critical deficiency is satisfactorily addressed, the assessment may be finalised in accordance with WAFA assessment and resubmission requirements.
Grade-Level Interpretation
Pass – 50–64%
A Pass represents competent professional performance at the required stage of the credential.
The candidate generally applies WHS principles correctly and produces a functional WHS system. Professional reasoning is evident, although some analysis may remain relatively straightforward or rely on established approaches.
The work may contain areas for improvement, but these do not undermine safe or professionally appropriate practice.
A Pass is not a poor result. It demonstrates that the candidate has met the required Unit 1 professional standard.
Credit – 65–74%
A Credit demonstrates performance clearly above the minimum professional standard.
The candidate demonstrates sound analysis, good application of evidence and strong connections between WHS theory and AAOT practice.
Their system is coherent and practical, and they demonstrate good professional judgement regarding disability inclusion, participation, animal welfare, risk control and documentation.
There may still be opportunities for greater critical depth, integration or originality.
Distinction – 75–84%
A Distinction demonstrates highly developed professional performance.
The candidate demonstrates strong critical analysis and synthesis rather than simply applying established procedures.
The WHS system is highly coherent and tailored to the candidate’s professional context.
The candidate demonstrates sophisticated consideration of:
safety + occupational participation + disability rights + reasonable adjustment + dignity of risk + animal welfare + professional responsibility
They recognise complexity, uncertainty and competing considerations and can justify professional decisions convincingly.
High Distinction – 85–100%
A High Distinction represents outstanding professional performance.
An HD submission does substantially more than complete every required document correctly.
It demonstrates exceptional:
- critical analysis;
- synthesis;
- systems thinking;
- professional judgement;
- evidence use;
- disability-inclusive reasoning;
- understanding of occupational participation;
- risk-benefit analysis;
- assistance animal welfare integration;
- legal and professional reasoning;
- anticipation of complex practice problems;
- document design;
- evaluation;
- reflexivity; and
- capacity for continuous improvement.
The candidate demonstrates the ability to identify important issues that were not explicitly identified for them in the assessment instructions.
The manual operates as a coherent professional system rather than a collection of assessment tasks.
The candidate can explain not only:
What have I done?
but:
Why is this the most appropriate approach in this context? What alternatives did I consider? What are the limitations of my decision? What could change it? What consequences might arise from the control itself? How will I know whether the system is actually working?
An HD does not require perfection.
Indeed, sophisticated identification of uncertainty, limitations or remaining gaps may support an HD where the candidate demonstrates appropriate professional reasoning about how those issues should be addressed.
Additional Criteria for an HD
To award an overall High Distinction, the assessor should be satisfied that the submission demonstrates the following characteristics across the body of work:
1. Integration
The WHS manual functions as one professional system.
Policies, procedures, risk assessments, operational documents, emergency systems, incident systems and monitoring arrangements clearly relate to one another.
2. Criticality
The candidate does not merely accept conventional approaches.
They evaluate whether controls are:
- effective;
- proportionate;
- evidence-informed;
- practicable;
- disability-inclusive;
- least restrictive; and
- compatible with animal welfare.
3. Independent Professional Judgement
The candidate identifies legitimate professional needs beyond the minimum WAFA instructions where appropriate.
They may also determine that a suggested document is unnecessary and provide a convincing rationale.
4. Sophisticated Disability-Inclusive Risk Reasoning
The candidate consistently distinguishes between:
the disabled person
and
the actual hazard.
They avoid using WHS as a mechanism for unnecessary restriction or exclusion.
5. Genuine Risk-Benefit Analysis
The candidate considers both:
the risks associated with participation
and
the risks and consequences associated with restricting participation.
6. Assistance Animal Welfare Integration
Animal welfare is not isolated in a single section. It is embedded throughout risk assessment, work design, emergency planning, incident management, workload, environmental assessment and professional decision-making.
7. Systems Thinking
The candidate recognises interactions between the person, animal, occupation, task, environment, equipment, other people and organisation.
8. Professional Reflexivity
The candidate can identify limitations in their own work and explain how their thinking has changed.
9. Evidence Literacy
The candidate appropriately distinguishes authoritative requirements from recommendations and does not present guidance, organisational policy or funding requirements as legislation.
10. Professional Usability
The final product could realistically be used in professional practice rather than existing solely to satisfy an assessment.
WAFA Commendation for Outstanding Achievement
I would make Commendation separate from the numerical grade.
A candidate may receive:
High Distinction with WAFA Commendation for Outstanding Achievement
A Commendation should not automatically be awarded because a candidate receives 90%, 95% or even 100%.
It should recognise work that is exceptional even within the High Distinction standard.
Eligibility
To be considered for a Commendation, the candidate must:
- achieve an overall High Distinction;
- demonstrate HD-level performance across the major professional reasoning criteria;
- have no unresolved critical professional, legal, safety, disability-rights, ethical or animal-welfare concerns; and
- demonstrate exceptional professional contribution beyond competent completion of the assessment.
Commendation Criteria
The submission should demonstrate several of the following:
- exceptional originality or innovation that remains professionally and evidence-informed;
- identification of a significant practice issue not explicitly identified in the assessment;
- development of a particularly effective professional resource or system with potential usefulness beyond the candidate’s own assessment;
- exceptional integration of disability rights, occupational participation, WHS and assistance animal welfare;
- unusually sophisticated analysis of competing rights, risks, responsibilities or uncertainties;
- exceptional systems thinking;
- exemplary use of evidence and authoritative sources;
- particularly strong translation of complex theory into usable professional practice;
- exceptional critical reflection demonstrating substantial development of professional reasoning;
- a highly sophisticated response to assessor feedback;
- recognition and resolution of a complex gap within existing practice systems; or
- work that could reasonably serve as an example of outstanding AAOT professional practice, subject to appropriate de-identification and candidate permission.
Commendation Is Not Awarded For
Commendation should not be awarded merely because:
- the manual is very long;
- the candidate completed every available template;
- the presentation is visually attractive;
- there are no spelling errors;
- the candidate used a large number of references;
- the candidate has extensive previous professional experience;
- the candidate agrees with the assessor;
- the submission required little correction; or
- the numerical mark is exceptionally high.
The distinction is important:
High Distinction recognises outstanding achievement of the assessment criteria.
WAFA Commendation recognises work that demonstrates exceptional professional contribution or insight even within that outstanding standard.