Document Type

Conference Proceeding


Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists


Faculty of Computing, Health and Science


School of Exercise and Health Sciences




Reed, S. , & Whitelaw, J. (2012). Comparison of OHS course accreditation procedures in Australia. Proceedings of Annual Conference & Exhibition of the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists Inc. (pp. 102-107). Adelaide, South Australia. Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists. Available here


As OHS professional bodies have moved or are moving towards professional certification of their members, the need for accredited programs of study has developed. This move has been prompted by the requirement of the certification boards for the applicant to demonstrate that they have the minimum knowledge required to work at a professional level. The AIOH has had a course accreditation procedure for over 20 years as discussed by Whitelaw and Reed (2011) which has been well recognised by the profession, but until 2009 only one course had been accredited. In the last two years the AIOH has revised its procedure and now requires any university applying for course accreditation to map their program against the learning outcomes as defined by the AIOH as well as the being at a minimum of a Graduate Diploma (AIOH, 2011) which is equivalent to the Australian Qualifications Level (AQF) level 8. In 2011 a new course accreditation board was set-up to look at courses that are promoted to educate OHS professionals that are not considered specialists and are core OHS Generalists. The new board called the Australian Occupational Health and Safety Education Accreditation Board (AOHSEAB) is set-up under the SIA but has members from all OHS professional groups in Australia in addition to academics, OHS representatives from government, employer and employee groups. Programs being accredited under this scheme have to be mapped against the OHS BoK and need to meet the respective AQF level of 7 or above depending on the qualification. This paper compares the two schemes in respect to both the procedure that is undertaken, and the knowledge required to meet course accreditation requirements.

Access Rights