c

Work Health and

Safety Law in
Australia
Core Body of Knowledge for the
Generalist OHS Professional

Second Edition, 2019

9.2

February 2019
Copyright notice and licence terms
Copyright (2019) Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS), Tullamarine, Victoria,
Australia

This work is copyright and has been published by the Australian Institute of Health and
Safety (AIHS). Except as may be expressly provided by law and subject to the conditions
prescribed in the Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth of Australia), or as expressly
permitted below, no part of the work may in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, microcopying, digital scanning, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission of the
AIHS.

You are free to reproduce the material for reasonable personal, or in-house, non-commercial
use for the purposes of workplace health and safety as long as you attribute the work using
the citation guidelines below and do not charge fees directly or indirectly for use of the
material. You must not change any part of the work or remove any part of this copyright
notice, licence terms and disclaimer below.

A further licence will be required and may be granted by the AIHS for use of the materials if
you wish to:
• reproduce multiple copies of the work or any part of it
• charge others directly or indirectly for access to the materials
• include all or part of the materials in advertising of a product or services or in a
product for sale
• modify the materials in any form, or
• publish the materials.
Enquiries regarding the licence or further use of the works are welcome and should be
addressed to:
The Manager, OHS Body of Knowledge
Australian Institute of Health & Safety, PO Box 2078, Gladstone Park, Victoria,
Australia, 3043
Manager@ohsbok.org.au.

Disclaimer
This material is supplied on the terms and understanding that the Australian Institute of
Health and Safety (AIHS) and its respective employees, officers and agents, the editor, or
chapter authors and peer reviewers shall not be responsible or liable for any loss, damage,
personal injury or death suffered by any person, howsoever caused and whether or not due
to negligence, arising from the use of or reliance on any information, data or advice provided
or referred to in this publication. Before relying on the material, users should carefully make
their own assessment as to its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their
purposes, and should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular
circumstances.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law

April 2020
in Australia
 Acknowledgements

The Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)

financially and materially supports the OHS Body of
Knowledge as a key requirement of the profession.

The OHS Body of Knowledge forms the basis of the

AIHS OHS capability agenda and informs the other
platforms of the agenda: education assurance through
accreditation; role clarity, capability assurance through
individual certification and continuing professional
development.

Thus, the OHS Body of Knowledge is strategically

important to the AIHS and vital for the profession.
(www.aihs.org.au).

The OHS Body of Knowledge provides a framework

for OHS professional education and continuing
professional development. As the body managing
accreditation of OHS professional education, the
Australian OHS Education Accreditation Board
influences, supports and monitors the OHS Body of
Knowledge, and has a major role in the development
and review of individual chapters to ensure that the
quality and evidence base reflects current OHS
research and leading-edge thinking, and so provides a
suitable standard for OHS education and professional
development.
www.ohseducationaccreditation.org.au

Safe Work Australia

This chapter of the OHS Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals was initially
developed with funding support from Safe Work Australia. The chapter supports the capability
action area of the Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022, specifically the
strategic outcome that “those providing work health and safety education, training and advice will
have appropriate capabilities”. Thus the chapter contributes to the vision of “healthy, safe and
productive working lives”.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law

April 2020
in Australia
Bibliography
ISBN 978-0-9808743-2-7

First published in 2012

Authors
Neil Foster, Associate Professor, Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle;
Associate Member, National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, Australian
National University
Barry Sherriff, Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Eric Windholz, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University; Associate, Monash
Centre for Regulatory Studies
Richard Johnstone, Professor, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology;
Director, National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, Australian National
University
Leo Ruschena, Senior Lecturer, OHS, School of Applied Science, RMIT University

Peer reviewer
John McDonald, Barrister and solicitor

Second Edition published in 2020

Chapter re-published with minor changes and changes to title. Work Health and Safety
(WHS) is used as the title of this chapter as it specifically refers to Australian WHS
legislation.

Authors
Neil Foster, Associate Professor, Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle;
Associate Member, National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, Australian
National University
Barry Sherriff, Principal Consultant and Lawyer, Sherriff Consulting
Eric Windholz, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University; Associate,
Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies
Leo Ruschena, Chair of the Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS) College of
Fellows Policy Committee

Citation of the whole OHS Body of Knowledge should be as:

AIHS (Australian Institute of Health and Safety). (2019). The Core Body of
Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals. Tullamarine, VIC: Australian Institute
of Health & Safety.

Citation of this chapter should be as:

Foster, N., Sherriff, B., Windholz, E., & Ruschena, L. (2020). Work Health and Safety
Law in Australia. In The Core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals.
Tullamarine, VIC: Australian Institute of Health & Safety.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law

April 2020
in Australia
 Work Health and Safety Law in Australia
Neil Foster BA, LLB, BTh, DipATh, LLM
Associate Professor, Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle
Associate Member, National Research Centre for OHS Regulation, Australian National University
neil.foster@newcastle.edu.au
Neil teaches Law, including courses on Workplace Health and Safety Law, to undergraduate and
postgraduate students at Newcastle University. He is a member of the editorial board of the Torts Law
Journal and has contributed to law texts and articles in the area of torts and WHS law. Neil is the
author of Workplace Health and Safety Law in Australia (2012).

Barry Sherriff LLB(Hons), LLM FAIS(Hon)

Principal Consultant and Lawyer, Sherriff Consulting
A lawyer with OHS expertise, Barry was a member of the panel for the National Review into Model
OHS Laws. He is the author of Sherriff’s Work Health and Safety Law Guide (2011), an Honorary
Fellow of the Australian Institute of Health and Safety, Chairperson of the Seafarers Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority and a member of the WorkSafe Victoria Stakeholder
Reference Group.

Eric Windholz BEc, LLB(Hons), GDipCoySecPractice, MBA, PhD

Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Monash University
Associate, Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies
Prior to joining Monash University where he teaches Law, Eric held a series of senior positions with
WorkSafe Victoria, including General Counsel, senior executive responsible for self-insurance and
General Manager, Strategic Programs and Support. His doctorate examined the harmonisation of
Australian OHS laws.

Leo Ruschena MSc, MIER, BEng, BEcon, GradDip OrgBeh, CFSIA, ChOHSP

Leo retired as a Senior Lecturer in OHS from RMIT University (2003 – 2018). He is currently Chair of
the Australian Institute of Health and Safety (AIHS) College of Fellows Policy Committee, and on the
OHS Body of Knowledge Advisory Panel. Prior to his tenure at RMIT, Leo held executive HR/OHS
roles in WorkSafe Victoria and in the electricity industry in Victoria and the ACT. He has a particular
interest in the strategic involvement of health and safety to improve organisational effectiveness.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law

April 2020
in Australia
 Core Body of Knowledge for the Generalist OHS Professional

Work Health and Safety Law in Australia

Abstract

This chapter reviews the basic principles underlying current Australian work health and
safety (WHS) legislation. An understanding of these principles is essential for, and
underpins, the provision of OHS advice and OHS decision making in organisations. It is
equally important that OHS professionals are able to identify when it is appropriate to seek
professional legal advice. After outlining the historical context for the current legislative
framework, this chapter reviews core concepts including the sources of OHS law and
provisions of the model Work Health and Safety Act. It focuses on duty of care, the qualifiers
to this duty, an officer’s duty to exercise due diligence, and enforcement mechanisms
available to regulators. The chapter concludes with implications for OHS practice.

Keywords
statutory law, common law, duty of care, reasonably practicable, PCBU, enforcement,
inspectors

Contextual reading
Readers should refer to 1.2 Contents for a full list of chapters and authors and 1.3 Synopsis of the
OHS Body of Knowledge. Chapter 2, Introduction describes the background and development
process while Chapter 3, The OHS Professional provides a context by describing the role and
professional environment.

Terminology
Depending on the jurisdiction and the organisation, Australian terminology refers to ‘Occupational
Health and Safety’ (OHS), ‘Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) or ‘Work Health and Safety’
(WHS). In line with international practice this publication uses OHS with the exception of specific
reference to the Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act and related legislation.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law

April 2020
in Australia
Table of contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................1

2 Historical context ..........................................................................................................1

3 Understanding the core concepts................................................................................5

3.1 Sources of law .............................................................................................................5
3.2 Fundamental definitions ...............................................................................................8
3.3 Duty of care in the WHS Act.......................................................................................11
3.4 Qualifiers to the duty of care ......................................................................................13
3.5 Determination of duties ..............................................................................................15
3.6 Good governance in OHS – compliance by an officer ................................................17
3.7 Enforcement ..............................................................................................................18

4 Implications for OHS practice ....................................................................................23

5 Summary......................................................................................................................24

6 Further reading............................................................................................................25

7 References...................................................................................................................25

List of Figures

Figure 1 WHS compliance ……………………………………………………………….. 22

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law

April 2020
in Australia
1 Introduction
The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022 envisions “healthy, safe and
productive working lives” achieved through “effective systematic management of risks
result[ing] in improved worker health and safety and productivity” (SWA, 2012 p. 5). While
one action area of the strategy is a “responsive and effective regulatory framework” (p. 3),
the effectiveness of such a framework depends on its appropriate application by all those
who provide advice on how the spirit as well as the detail of the law applies in occupational
health and safety (OHS) practice. While legal professionals working in the OHS area are the
experts in this, it is imperative that a basic understanding of these principles underpins OHS
advice and OHS decision making in organisations.

This chapter complements OHS Body of Knowledge chapter – 9.1: Socio-political context:
OHS Law and Regulation in Australia – by identifying and discussing the underlying
principles of judicial reasoning and legal theory applying to OHS. The objective is to
delineate the knowledge that generalist OHS professionals require in order to appropriately
interpret relevant legislation and engage with the evolving case law to identify implications
for practice.

To advise duty holders about the application of the law, OHS professionals should
understand not just the details of specific provisions, but the context and underlying legal
principles.

After a brief historical context,1 the chapter addresses the key principles underlying OHS
laws with a focus on relevant elements of the model Work Health and Safety Act (SWA,
2016), and concludes with a discussion on the implications for OHS practice.

2 Historical context
Australia’s current Work Health and Safety Acts are difficult to understand without some
knowledge of how OHS legislation has developed, particularly since the early 1970s.

Initially, Australian OHS legislation was based on the nineteenth-century United Kingdom
Factory Acts.2 Early statutes were principally concerned with the working hours of children

1
See also OHS BoK 9.1 Socio-political context for OHS in Australia; RoSPA, 2014
2
See OHS BoK 4 Global Concept Work (2012) (section 2)

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 1 of 28
and young adults, and then women (see, for example, Bloy, 2011; Gray, 1987). In 1844, the
Factories Act regulated machinery safety in the UK textile industry by establishing strict
liability specification safety standards in statutes, supplemented by regulations that also
were predominantly specification standards. A specification standard states the safeguard
that has to be adopted for an employer or factory owner to comply with the Act. Provisions in
the 1844 Factories Act were enforceable by an independent state inspectorate, which could
resort to prosecution. From the 1860s, regulatory protection was extended ad hoc to other
industries (Johnstone, Bluff & Clayton, 2012, pp. 43-4).

During the second half of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, this UK
model of OHS regulation was adopted by the Australian colonies and states, initially by
Victoria (in 1873 and 1885) followed by South Australia (1894), New South Wales and
Queensland (1896), Western Australia (1904) and Tasmania (1910). Until the 1970s, each
of these statutes was amended piecemeal to extend to new industries and to address safety
issues arising from developments in technology (see, for example, Purse, Dawson &
Dorrian, 2010).

While this approach to preventive OHS regulation became deeply entrenched in the first half
of the twentieth century, it suffered from significant defects, which were articulated in the
British Robens Report of 1972, pp. 1-13:

• Because the regulatory provisions were developed ad hoc, the statutes provided
uneven coverage across workplaces, with protective focus mainly on factory-based
physical hazards, particularly dangerous machinery; many workplaces received no
coverage.
• “[T]oo much law” was “intrinsically unsatisfactory,” resulting in a mass of detailed,
technical, unintelligible and easily outdated rules.
• Over-reliance on external state regulation had resulted in lack of workplace initiative
and “personal responsibility,” leading to “apathy…the most important single reason
for accidents at work” (Nichols & Armstrong (1997) provide a compelling critique of
this assertion); and lack of involvement in OHS by workers and unions.
• The specification-standard approach ignored the view that many hazards arise from
the way work is organised.
• The fragmentation of administrative jurisdictions had resulted in a bewilderingly
complex pattern of control.

Other criticisms of the traditional model of OHS regulation focused on its inadequate
consideration of occupational disease, and enforcement problems relating to an under-
resourced inspectorate that relied too heavily on advice and persuasion rather than
prosecution to promote compliance, and imposed unacceptably low maximum penalties for
breaches.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 2 of 28
These issues were relevant also to the Australian OHS statutes in existence at the time of
the Robens Report. Indeed, similar criticisms of the New South Wales and South Australian
legislation were made in the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Occupational Health
and Safety (Williams, 1981) and the Report of the Occupational Safety, Health and Welfare
Steering Committee (Mathews, 1984), respectively.

The Robens Report proposed a modification of the traditional preventive regulatory model
based on two principal objectives (Robens, 1972, p. 12):

1. To streamline the state’s role in the traditional regulatory system through the
“creation of a more unified and integrated system” (Robens, 1972, p 12). This
involved bringing together all OHS legislation into an umbrella statute containing
broad general duties (a codification of the common law duty of care) covering a
range of parties affecting OHS, and seeking to address all health and safety risks.
The general duties were to be supplemented with regulations and codes of practice.
The various inspectorates were to be united in one body, and inspectors empowered
to issue administrative sanctions – including improvement and prohibition notices –
and to prosecute for contraventions.
2. To create “a more effectively self-regulating system” (Robens, 1972, p. 12). In the
Robens vision, self-regulation involved systematic management approaches to
eliminate or at least reduce work-related risks and, at the workplace level, workers
and management working together to implement and improve upon the OHS
standards set by the state. Employers were to have a duty to consult employees –
represented by health and safety representatives (HSRs) – on OHS matters. The
Robens model envisaged greater cooperation between the OHS inspectorate and
workers and their representatives (Robens, 1972, p. 65).

The Robens model and its implementation in the UK Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
1974 strongly influenced the Australian OHS statutes enacted from the late 1970s through to
the early 1990s. However, many of the Australian statutes during this period went beyond
the Robens model, particularly in giving enforcement powers (provisional improvement
notices and the right to direct that dangerous work cease) to HSRs, providing inspectorates
with the power to issue infringement notices and, in the case of New South Wales, vesting
trade union secretaries with the power to launch prosecutions. From the late 1980s, the
regulations and codes of practice established by the Australian OHS statutes increasingly
adopted process standards, that is, standards setting out a series of steps (usually a risk-
management process) to address specific hazards.

From 2000 to 2008 many of the Australian statutes moved further away from the Robens
model by, for example: recasting the employer’s duty of care to employees and others as a
duty on a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to workers and others
(Queensland); introducing enforceable undertakings and non-pecuniary court sanctions; and
imposing higher maximum penalties where statutory contraventions involve elements of

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 3 of 28
mens rea (‘guilty mind’) and/or resulted in fatality. Such jurisdiction-specific innovations and
variations led to different rules applying in different states and territories. This created
additional compliance costs for employers operating in more than one jurisdiction and
different and potentially inequitable treatment for workers depending on the jurisdiction in
which they worked. Subsequent calls for national harmonisation of OHS laws led to the
development of the model Work Health and Safety Act (WHS Act) (SWA, 2016) and the
Work Health and Safety Regulations (WHS Regulations) (SWA, 2019).3

The model WHS Act is largely based on the recommendations of the National Review into
Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws (Stewart-Crompton, Mayman & Sherriff, 2008,
2009). The review panel members engaged in broad-based consultation and research and,
in accordance with their terms of reference, made recommendations on “the optimal
structure and content of a model OHS Act that is capable of being adopted in all
jurisdictions” (Stewart-Crompton et al., 2008, p. iii). The Workplace Relations Ministers
Council (WRMC, 2009) accepted more than 90% of the panel’s recommendations (some
with comment or limitations). Development of the WHS Act and Regulations was
administered by Safe Work Australia; the drafts were subject to tripartite consultation and
public comment, and the model Act was endorsed by the WRMC. All jurisdictions except
Victoria and Western Australia4 (at the time of writing) have adopted the model WHS Act and
Regulations, with some local modifications. The current Victorian legislation has significant
similarities to the harmonised Act; for a comparison of provisions, see AIG (2011).

OHS legislation that is specific to industry sectors and risk areas is in operation in various
jurisdictions throughout Australia, in areas including mining, petroleum and gas, seafaring,
electricity and heavy vehicle transport. Legislation in many of these areas has evolved in
recent years to adopt concepts and principles of the WHS Act.

The national review panel reports (Stewart-Crompton et al., 2008, 2009) are useful guides to
understanding the structure of the WHS Act (2009, pp. 407-410) and key elements, such as
the definition of reasonably practicable (2008, p. 44) and due diligence required of an officer
(2009, pp. 61-62).

3
See also OHS BoK 9.1 Socio-Political Context: Law and Regulation in Australia.
4
The Work Health and Safety Bill 2019 (WA) passed the Legislative Assembly on 20 February 2020 and was at
the time of writing being considered by a Committee of the Legislative Council.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 4 of 28
3 Understanding the core concepts

3.1 Sources of law

Under the Australian legal system, law may be defined as “rules of behaviour to which our
society attaches some sort of sanction through the courts” (Foster, 2012, para 1.2). In
general, these rules are binding on all members of society. The law imposes obligations,
which if not met may trigger some sort of sanction or punishment. Where do these legal
rules come from? In Australia today there are two binding sources of law – legislation and
the common law.

3.1.1 Legislation and common law

Legislation is a specifically enunciated rule that is either (1) directly enacted by a parliament
(as an Act of Parliament) or (2) formulated in accordance with the principles for delegated
legislation approved by parliament and, typically, approved by the constitutional head of
state for the jurisdiction concerned (the governor or the governor-general, on the advice of a
minister of state). Delegated legislation will normally take the form of regulations. The model
WHS Act (SWA, 2016), which is in force in most jurisdictions in Australia, is an example of
the first category, being approved by respective State or Federal Parliaments. The WHS
Regulations (SWA, 2019) are an example of the second, being delegated legislation drafted
by public servants and formally approved by the executive authority. Importantly, delegated
legislation can be formulated only if it falls within the ‘regulation-making’ power contained in
the authorising Act of Parliament. If it goes outside that area, it may be held to be invalid. For
an example related to OHS law, see the decision in House v Forestry Tasmania & Attorney-
General for Tasmania (1995), where health and safety regulations were struck down as
invalid because they went beyond the scope of the power given by the main Act passed by
Parliament.

The model WHS Act has provision for codes of practice to be approved by ministers (WHS
Act, s 274, SWA, 2016; Comcare, 2014). In contrast to the Act and regulations, these codes
are not of themselves legally binding. Section 275 of the model WHS Act provides that they
may be used as evidence of compliance or non-compliance with the formal legislation; while
a court may conclude that appropriate safety measures were taken, in most cases code
compliance will be a strong indication that what was reasonably practicable was done.

In contrast to legislation, common law originates in court decisions, some made many
hundreds of years ago. Common law tends to develop gradually as courts respond to
societal change; the authority of any individual judge to change the pre-existing law is
limited. Courts are hierarchical, with lower courts obliged to follow previous decisions of
courts higher in the hierarchy. The exception is the High Court of Australia, the nation’s

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 5 of 28
ultimate court of appeal, which, in unusual cases, may depart from its previous decisions.
Decisions of the High Court are binding on all other Australian courts.

While legislation and common law are two logically separate sources of law, they interact in
important ways. As a general principle, legislation may change the principles of common
law. However, in a legal system governed by a written national constitution (as in Australia),
parliamentary power may be constrained by constitutional limits and if a court rules that
Parliament has exceeded its powers then legislation may be struck down as invalid. In
addition, legislation is not self-executing; for a legislative rule to have effect, a court will need
to decide that the rule has been breached. Consequently, courts have an important ongoing
role in interpreting the meaning of statutes and regulations.

In determining what a provision of legislation means, courts are guided and constrained by
principles developed both as part of the common law and under specific legislation (see, for
example, Foster, 2012, paras 2.38-2.79; Pearce & Geddes, 2011). The most important
principles are that the intention of Parliament is to be found primarily in the words actually
used in the provision, and that the courts should seek to adopt an interpretation that would
best achieve the purpose or object of the relevant legislation (see, for example, Acts
Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA). In resolving ambiguity, one is allowed to take into
account comments in law reform documents that led to the legislation in question (see
Foster, 2012, paras 2.76-2.79). This means that in interpreting the WHS Act, for example,
the courts may be able to take into account comments in the National Review into Model
Occupational Health and Safety Laws (Stewart-Crompton et al., 2008, 2009) that led to the
enactment of the harmonised legislation.

3.1.2 Criminal law and civil law

The distinction between ‘criminal’ and ‘civil’ law is another important one for OHS
professionals to keep in mind. In general terms, obligations classified as criminal are those
that society has an interest in enforcing, that is, where contravening behaviour is seen as a
threat to society in general. They are usually enforced at the instigation of a public official
such as the Director of Public Prosecutions or, in OHS law cases, by a WHS regulator or an
inspector authorised by a regulator to do so. Contraventions of these obligations are
punished either by a term of imprisonment or some sort of fine paid to the relevant
government body. In contrast, civil obligations are those owed by citizens to each other. A
civil law suit (such as an action for damages, breach of contract or workers’ compensation)
is initiated by the individual who has been harmed and any resultant damages or
compensation payment is made to that individual.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 6 of 28
OHS professionals should understand the difference between criminal and civil legal action.
In the area of OHS law, particular injuries or risks may lead to two separate actions. For
example, an injury in the workplace may lead to a civil action for compensation for harm, the
result of which may be an award of money to the injured worker, and, in completely separate
court proceedings, to a criminal prosecution conducted by an inspector (or the regulator
itself) and a penalty imposed on the responsible party. Civil law plays an indirect role in
improving safety in the workplace through the obligations it imposes on employers and
others to take reasonable care for the safety of workers, and through the impact of damages
awards that may result when these obligations are breached (see Foster, 2012, part 2,
chapters 3-6, 11). Criminal law addresses the issue more directly by seeking to prevent
accidents happening through penalising the creation of risks to safety.

3.1.3 Federal system

Australia has a legal system governed by a written constitution that sets up a federation, not
a ‘unitary’ system (as in, for example, New Zealand). Legislative power is divided between
the various states and territories on the one hand, and the Commonwealth on the other. In
broad terms, the Commonwealth Parliament has a set of carefully enumerated legislative
heads of power (mostly under s 51 of the Constitution), and the states enjoy ‘general’ law-
making power over nearly all topics. The territories, while established under authority of
federal legislation, vary in this context; some (Australian Capital Territory and Northern
Territory) are ‘self-governing’ and in general may make laws on any topic not explicitly
prohibited by their head legislation (e.g. Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act
1988 (Cth)), and others (Jervis Bay Territory and several external territories5) are governed
directly by laws made by or authorised under Commonwealth Acts. While the
Commonwealth has a more limited set of legislative powers, s 109 of the Constitution
provides that a valid Commonwealth law will override those of the states to the extent of any
inconsistency (and, similarly, general federal law overrides inconsistent laws of self-
governing territories).

These characteristics of the Australian legal system explain the structure of laws governing
OHS in Australia. There is no specific power under s 51 of the Constitution for the
Commonwealth Parliament to enact nationally uniform laws on the topic of OHS. There are
some constitutional powers that would give wide, though not complete, federal coverage.
The option adopted is agreement between most jurisdictions to enact broadly ‘harmonised’
legislation, which starts from the same text, with jurisdictional variations that are intended to
be minor and not impact on broad policy matters. With the exception of Victoria and Western
Australia, each state and territory, and the Commonwealth for areas within its direct control,
have passed separate Acts and regulations. The Acts are, on the whole, meant to be
identical, and most are called by the same name – Work Health and Safety Act. (In the

5
Norfolk became self-governing in 1979 which was revoked in 2015 when Norfolk Island became a
council as part of New South Wales law and subject to NSW legislation.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 7 of 28
Northern Territory, the legislation is the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform
Legislation) Act 2011. See COAG Reform Council (2013), which identifies current disparities
in OHS law ‘harmonisation’ at that time.

While the fundamental principles, duties and enforcement provisions are substantially the
same in all jurisdictions, care should be taken to consult the specific legislation and
regulations that are applicable to the place at which work is undertaken, to ensure specific
compliance requirements are understood and met.

The remainder of this chapter focuses on the provisions of the model Work Health and
Safety Act (SWA, 2016), which is in force in seven of the nine Australian law-making
jurisdictions.

3.2 Fundamental definitions

3.2.1 Work
OHS laws are limited to ‘work,’ but what is work? OHS legislation is designed to regulate the
activities of people involved in work or in providing things to enable work to be done, for the
protection of the health and safety of people who may be affected by the work being
undertaken. While in some ways the laws extend to public health and safety, there must still
be a direct connection with work. This is clearly indicated:

• By the title and objects of the legislation

• In definitions of key terms such as workplace and worker
• In the expressed scope of duties.

Despite the importance of the concept, work is not defined in the legislation; the courts have
not yet considered its definition in this context. Definitions in other legislation (e.g. workers’
compensation or taxation) will be applicable only to the context and operation of that
legislation. The courts may ultimately need to determine whether a particular activity is ‘work’
and whether the OHS legislation applies. In doing so, the courts will take into account
common usage and understanding of the term (Barlow v Heli-Muster Pty Ltd [1997]). Laws
promoting OHS must be construed to “give the fullest relief which the fair meaning of [their]
language will allow (R v Irvine [2009] citing Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) [1913]; Waugh v
Kippen [1986]).”

Work is commonly understood to be “exertion directed to produce or accomplish something;

labour; toil” (Barlow v Heli-Muster Pty Ltd [1997]) that is usually undertaken in exchange for
monetary reward, and the payment of money will be a strong indication that the activity is
work. However, payment is not a necessary component of work where the term has a wider

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 8 of 28
meaning in the context of the relevant Act (Minister for Immigration, Local Government and
Ethnic Affairs v Montero [1991]; Braun v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and
Ethnic Affairs [1991]). Because the application of OHS laws extends to activities of
volunteers and contractors, definitions referring to employment cannot be applied to ‘work’
for the purposes of the OHS laws, as that would limit the intended scope of the laws.

In many cases an activity to gain a livelihood or reward will clearly constitute ‘work.’ On the
other hand, activities of a purely domestic, recreational or social nature will not be ‘work’ in
the ordinary sense of the term (Stewart-Crompton et al., 2009, pp. 39-44). Between the two
extremes there are cases where no particular factor is conclusive.

Safe Work Australia (SWA, 2011a, p. 2) identified the following as indicators of work for the
purposes of the model WHS Act:

1. The activity involves physical or mental effort by a person or the application of particular
skills for the benefit of another person or for themselves (if self-employed), whether or
not for profit or payment;
2. Activities for which the person or other people will ordinarily be paid by someone is
likely to be considered to be work;
3. Activities that are part of an ongoing process or project may all be work if some of the
activities are for remuneration;
4. An activity may be more likely to be work where control is exercised over the person
carrying out the activity by another person; and
5. Formal, structured or complex arrangements may be more likely to be considered to be
work than ad hoc or unorganised activities.
The activity may be work even though one or more of the criteria are absent or minor.

See Sherriff (2011a) for a more detailed list of criteria.

3.2.2 PCBU
A person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) – the person or entity in whose
business or undertaking work is done – is identified by answering the question ‘whose
business or undertaking is this?’ A PCBU can be an individual, company, partnership or
association (WHS Act, s 5). An individual may be a PCBU if they own the business, but not if
they only have conduct of the business or undertaking as a worker or officer. (This is to
avoid a person being found to be a PCBU only because they have day-to-day management
or effective control of a workplace or plant, etc.) An individual can be a PCBU and a worker
at the same time (s 7), but only a PCBU that is a company, partnership or association will
have officers.

3.2.3 Officer
The WHS Act (s 4) adopts the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) definition of an officer that
applies to corporations, partnerships and associations. Officers include not only formal office

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 9 of 28
holders (such as directors, secretaries and appointed liquidators), but also those who
effectively ‘call the shots’ by participating in decisions that affect the whole or a substantial
part of the business or undertaking, and those on whose instructions or wishes the directors
are accustomed to act. An officer of the Crown or a public authority that is a body corporate
is defined as a person who “makes, or participates in making, decisions that affect the
whole, or a substantial part, of the business or undertaking of “the Crown” (WHSA, s 247) or
public authority (s 252).

Excluded from the definition of an officer are elected members of a local authority and state
and Commonwealth ministers (s 4, s 247). A volunteer may be an officer, but cannot be
liable for a failure to comply with a health and safety duty (other than a duty of a worker or
other at the workplace under ss 28-29) (s 34).

Officers have a significant role in enabling the PCBU to eliminate or minimise risks from the
conduct of the business or undertaking. They accordingly have a duty to exercise due
diligence (see section 3.6.1) to ensure compliance by the PCBU (s 27).

3.2.4 Workers
Workers are individuals who carry out work for a PCBU. The WHS Act (s 7) provides an
extended definition of worker:

(1) A person is a worker if the person carries out work in any capacity for a person
conducting a business or undertaking, including work as:
(a) an employee; or
(b) a contractor or subcontractor; or
(c) an employee of a contractor or subcontractor; or
(d) an employee of a labour hire company who has been assigned to work in the
person's business or undertaking; or
(e) an outworker; or
(f) an apprentice or trainee; or
(g) a student gaining work experience; or
(h) a volunteer; or
(i) a person of a prescribed class. …
…
(3) The person conducting the business or undertaking is also a worker if the person is an
individual who carries out work in that business or undertaking.

Workers may affect the health or safety of themselves or others from their acts or omissions
and accordingly have a duty to take reasonable care for themselves and others while at
work (s 28).

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 10 of 28
3.2.5 Others
Also, people other than a PCBU, officers or workers at a workplace may affect the health or
safety of themselves or others by their acts or omissions while at the workplace.
Accordingly, these other persons have a duty to take reasonable care for themselves and
others while they are at the workplace (s 29). While the meaning of the word others has
been a topic of debate, the most likely interpretation is that it is intended to extend the duty
of the PCBU to impose an obligation to see to the safety of anyone who is not a ‘worker’
mentioned in s 19(1), but whose health and safety may be put at risk by the conduct of the
relevant business or undertaking.

3.3 Duty of care in the WHS Act

3.3.1 Context
The phrase ‘duty of care’ has become one commonly used in OHS law. It is useful to put it in
context before examining how it appears under the legislation. Deriving from civil law, a duty
of care is a legal duty to take care for the safety of another person. Its importance stems
from the landmark decision of the UK House of Lords in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]: Lord
Atkin used the phrase ‘duty of care’ to describe the obligation he saw arising from a number
of previous cases to “take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour” (p. 580). In due course, the
concept became the first of three major elements that had to be established by a plaintiff to
make out a civil action in the tort of negligence (the other two being ‘breach of duty’ and
‘causation’).

When criminal obligations were imposed on those in charge of workplaces to look out for the
safety of other workplace participants, it was natural to transfer this phrase used for many
years in civil litigation to the criminal statutes. In many cases a breach of the civil duty of
care also would be seen as a criminal offence under the OHS laws (although, as noted
previously, the civil implications and the criminal offence would be dealt with in different
courts and in separate trials).6

In Part 2 of the model WHS Act, Division 2 and s 19 are titled “Primary duty of care,” and
Division 3 takes up “Further duties.” Whereas the s 19 obligation is a foundational duty that
will usually apply to all workplace situations, the latter duties supplement that obligation by
reference to persons conducting a business or undertaking in differing circumstances,

6
Another reason for the duties in the civil and criminal areas to be connected is that the law of civil liability – tort
law – contains a civil action called “breach of statutory duty” under which in some situations (e.g. workplace
injuries) the breach of a criminal provision also will give rise to civil liability based on that breach alone. For a
detailed discussion of that action, see Sappideen & Vines (2011, ch. 18).

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 11 of 28
whether managing workplaces (s 20) or fixtures, fittings and plant (s 21), or performing other
roles relating to the design, manufacture, importation, supply or construction of plant,
substances or structures (ss 22-26). Space precludes a detailed discussion of the various
additional duties in Division 3. This section focuses on the main obligations imposed under s
19 as the primary duty of care. Qualifiers to the duty (including the concept of reasonably
practicable) and the determination of duties are addressed in sections 3.4 and 3.5,
respectively (see also SWA, 2011a). Section 3.6 considers obligations of officers and the
concept of due diligence, and enforcement mechanisms are outlined in section 3.7.

3.3.2 Duty owed to workers – s 19(1)

Under s 19 (Primary duty of care) of the WHS Act:

(1) A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is reasonably

practicable, the health and safety of:
(a) workers engaged, or caused to be engaged by the person; and
(b) workers whose activities in carrying out work are influenced or directed by the
person,
while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking.

This is a fairly wide provision. It is intended to remove much of the debate that took place
under previous OHS laws about whether a worker is an ‘employee’ or an ‘independent
contractor,’ to focus on the fact that an undertaking of some sort is being conducted that will
create certain risks, and to impose obligations on those in charge of the undertaking to think
ahead and endeavour to remove risks as far as reasonably practicable. Just as the duty is
imposed on a wide range of PCBUs (see sections 3.2.2 and 3.5), it is broadly drafted to
impose an obligation in relation to a wide range of ‘workers’ (see section 3.2.4).

In determining whether or not an offence has been committed against s 19, a court will
usually carefully consider each separate ‘element’ of the offence by conducting a
grammatical analysis of the clause. The following is an example of how this might be done.
(This technique of highlighting key concepts can be applied to all provisions of the Act.)

A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is

reasonably practicable, the health and safety of:
(a) workers engaged, or caused to be engaged by the person, and
(b) workers whose activities in carrying out work are influenced or directed by the
person,
while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking.

The elements of an alleged offence committed by A (the ‘accused’) are:

1. Is A a PCBU?
2. Has someone's health and safety not been ensured?

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 12 of 28
 3. Was the person whose health and safety was not ensured (say, W) a “worker”?
4. Was W either a "worker engaged or caused to be engaged," or a "worker whose
activities...are influenced or directed by the person"? W does not have to fall into
both categories for an offence to have been committed. (Where A has a duty to
ensure X and Y, if either X or Y are not ensured, there is a failure of duty.)
5. Was W "at work in the business or undertaking" (of the PCBU) when the failure to
ensure occurred?
6. Even if all of the above are true, the prosecution also must prove that it was
‘reasonably practicable’ to have ensured safety; in other words, the prosecutor
must show that something else could have been done that falls within the terms of
‘reasonably practicable’ as defined in s 18. (This limitation on the duty is
discussed in section 3.4.)

If all of the elements of the offence can be established (to the standard of ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’), then A will be found guilty of an offence. The level of penalty
involved will be determined by examining which of the factors set out in Part 2,
Division 5 (ss 31-33) of the WHS Act are relevant, or whether one of the exceptions
in s 34 applies.

Section 19(2) of the WHS Act extends the above duties owed to workers to an obligation to
others:

A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is reasonably

practicable, that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work
carried out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking.

3.4 Qualifiers to the duty of care

OHS legislation reflects an understanding that there are practical limits to the ability of a
person to eliminate the various risks associated with what they do, and that there is a need
to effectively use available resources to achieve optimal minimisation of these risks. The
duties of care are accordingly qualified (or limited) in several ways.

OHS laws provide that a duty holder must comply with duties to the extent to which they
have control over relevant matters. While this is expressed as the extent to which a duty
holder must go, it also sets a limit – that is, they are not required to take steps in relation to
matters over which they do not have control (see, for example, WHS Act, s 16(3)b). Whether
a duty holder can control or influence a particular thing or the actions of another person, or
whether there are limits on their ability to control or influence, may be relevant to what they
can do or may reasonably be expected to do. The WHS Act makes it clear that a duty holder
cannot avoid responsibility by contracting control to someone else and thereby attempting to

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 13 of 28
contract out of their obligations (SWA, 2013). However, in fulfilling their responsibility it may
be reasonable in some cases to rely on the expertise of specialist contractors (see, for
example, Reilly v Devcon Australia Pty Ltd [2008]).

While duty holders are not necessarily required to carry out all the duty of care actions
themselves, they are required to ensure particular outcomes, so far as is reasonably
practicable (e.g. through another party). Note that s 17 of the Act spells out that a duty to
“ensure health and safety” requires elimination of risks so far as is reasonably practicable,
and if they are unable to be so eliminated, minimisation of risks so far as is reasonably
practicable. Under s 3(2), the highest level of protection reasonably practicable should be
provided.

The duties of care are all qualified by what is reasonable for the duty holder in the particular
circumstances, with:

• The duties of a PCBU requiring what is reasonably practicable (e.g. ss 19(1), 25(2))
• The duties of a worker or other person at a workplace requiring reasonable care (ss
28-29)
• The duty of an officer to exercise due diligence, which includes taking certain
reasonable steps (s 27(5)).

3.4.1 Reasonably practicable for a PCBU

What is reasonably practicable must be identified in relation to the particular circumstances
existing at the particular time. This must be done by assessing all relevant matters to
determine what is reasonably able to be done. Matters that must be weighed up include:

(a) the likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring; and
(b) the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk; and
(c) what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about:
(i) the hazard or the risk; and
(ii) ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and
(d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk; and
(e) after assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising
the risk, the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk,
including whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk (WHS Act, s 18; see also
OHS Act 2004 (Vic), s 20).

What is reasonably able to be done has two elements – what can be done and whether it is
reasonable to do less (and if so, what) than that which will achieve the highest level of
protection that is possible. Elements (a), (b) and (e) above relate to the question of
reasonableness, while elements (c) and (d) relate to what can be done. Also, control is a
factor relevant to determining what can be done by the duty holder. Consideration of cost is
not limited to circumstances where the cost of achieving further minimisation of risk is
grossly disproportionate to the risk. It also may be relevant to deciding between risk controls

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 14 of 28
or combinations of controls that will achieve an equivalent level of risk minimisation. For a
detailed explanation of the concept of reasonably practicable and the process for
determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances, see Safe Work Australia
(2013).

3.4.2 Reasonable steps by an officer

Officers may not have all the specific factual or technical knowledge or information relevant
to the due diligence requirements placed on them (see section 3.6.1). The requirement in s
27(5) that officers take reasonable steps acknowledges that they will need to rely on the
advice and expertise of others in carrying out their role. That reliance must be soundly based
and reasonable in the circumstances. (For a consideration of reasonable steps and
reasonable reliance on advice from others in the context of obligations of an officer under
the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), see Australian Securities and Investments Commission v
Healey [2011]).

3.4.3 Reasonable care for a worker or other person at a workplace

The standard of care to be observed by a worker or other person at a workplace (ss 28-29)
will be that which is reasonably expected of a person in their position, considering:

• Their role and associated expectations

• Their ability to control relevant matters
• Knowledge they have or ought reasonably to have
• Their skill and ability.

3.5 Determination of duties

OHS laws aim to provide for the protection of the health and safety of all who are involved in
or may be affected by work being done. The laws apply to all elements relevant to the
provision of work, including:

• How (systems of work)

• Where (the workplace, defined in WHS Act, s 8)
• With what (plant and substances, defined in s 4)
• By whom (including capability and competence through instruction, training and
supervision).

Those who are responsible for or provide any of these elements will have the ability to affect
the health or safety of others when doing so. They are accordingly held accountable by the
law for proactively ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that their activities protect

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 15 of 28
and do not put at risk the health or safety of others (where those activities are carried out as
part of the conduct of a business or undertaking). Consistent with this ‘cause and effect’
approach, the duties are placed on the three layers of OHS influencers – the PCBU, officers,
and workers and others (defined in section 3.2).

Each duty holder associated with work may affect health or safety both directly and through
the influence they have over others associated with work. This includes those requiring or
performing work and, in relation to plant or substances or structures, those ‘along the chain’
(e.g. design through manufacture or construction and supply) and ‘through the life cycle’
(e.g. commissioning, use, maintenance and demolition). Consequently, while each duty
holder has a duty, others may have a duty at the same time over the same matter (s 16).
Where there is more than one duty holder in relation to a matter, they must consult so far as
is reasonably practicable (s 46).

Those who may be affected by the carrying out of the work are those who are doing it (the
workers), others in the vicinity at the time (other workers of the PCBU, other PCBUs at the
workplace and visitors at the workplace) and those who may be affected by the outcome of
the work (e.g. those using structures, customers, road users, entrants to property). Each of
these classes of people is protected by the duties of care placed on a PCBU, workers and
others at the workplace.

As outlined in section 3.3.2, the WHS Act places a primary duty of care on a PCBU in
relation to workers engaged or caused to be engaged by the PCBU, or whose activities in
carrying out work are directed or influenced by the PCBU (s 19). The primary duty extends in
relation to others who may be affected by work carried out as part of the conduct of the
business or undertaking. The primary duty includes various matters that collectively
comprise the elements relevant to the provision of work noted above. The primary duty
requires, for example, that a PCBU ensures the provision and maintenance of safe plant (s
19(1) and 19(3)b) and that its activity does not put at risk the health or safety of those using
it (ss 19(2), 19(3)b).

Also, the WHS Act places specific duties on PCBUs who carry out specified activities of:

• Management or control of a workplace (s 20) and fixtures, fittings or plant at a

workplace (s 21)
• Design (s 22), manufacture (s 23), importation (s 24) or supply (s 25) of plant,
substances or structures
• Installation, construction or commissioning of plant or structures (s 26).

These duties are aimed at ensuring that the workplaces and things used at work are safe
and without risks to health.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 16 of 28
Although not described as ‘health and safety duties’ or ‘duties of care,’ the WHS Act places
other duties on PCBUs that support the duties of care and their enforcement. These are the
duties to consult workers (s 47) and other duty holders (s 46),7 to notify the regulator of
defined incidents (s 38) and to preserve incident sites (s 39).

Each of the duties placed by the WHS Act on PCBUs is supported by more specific and
detailed procedural requirements in regulations. Those requirements also follow the ‘cause
and effect’ rationale of the duties of care, being placed on those who control the relevant
matters or activities and for the protection of those who may be affected by those matters.

3.6 Good governance in OHS – compliance by an officer

This chapter has established that a PCBU has duties of care and associated procedural
obligations under the WHS Act. These duties essentially relate to providing workers with the
work environment, tools, facilities and processes for work to be carried out safely. The
leaders of an organisation are critical to a good safety culture, accountability throughout the
organisation, and the provision of financial, physical and human resources necessary for
health and safety. They establish the conditions necessary for a safe working environment.
In short, a PCBU must rely on those who govern it to enable compliance by the PCBU. It is
for this reason that the WHS Act includes a positive duty on officers to exercise due
diligence to ensure compliance by the organisation of which they are an officer (s 27).

Due diligence

Under s 27(5), due diligence involves taking reasonable steps to:

(a) to acquire and keep up-to-date knowledge of work health and safety matters; and
(b) to gain an understanding of the nature of the operations of the business or
undertaking of the person conducting the business or undertaking and generally of the
hazards and risks associated with those operations; and
(c) to ensure that the person conducting the business or undertaking has available for
use, and uses, appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise risks to
health and safety from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or
undertaking; and
(d) to ensure that the person conducting the business or undertaking has appropriate
processes for receiving and considering information regarding incidents, hazards and
risks and responding in a timely way to that information; and
(e) to ensure that the person conducting the business or undertaking has, and
implements, processes for complying with any duty or obligation of the person conducting
the business or undertaking under this Act; and

7
WHS Act s 46 requires each duty holder to consult, cooperate and coordinate activities with all other
persons who have a duty in relation to the same matter.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 17 of 28
 (f) to verify the provision and use of the resources and processes referred to in
paragraphs (c) to (e).

Each of the steps, or elements, for due diligence, is directed to the steps needed to
effectively govern in OHS, while also supporting and driving a good safety culture. See
Sherriff (2011b) for a discussion of the relationships between each element of due diligence
and culture and leadership, and Tooma (2012).

Reliance on advice and information provided by others may represent reasonable steps, but
that reliance must be reasonable. Such reliance will be reasonable if:

• The officer can be satisfied of the competence of the person on whom they rely
• The officer can be satisfied that the person on whom they rely is properly informed,
having available to them information necessary to enable them to properly advise,
and
• The officer reads/considers the information or advice and does not simply rely on the
conclusions or recommendations. (See Australian Securities and Investments
Commission v Healey [2011]).

Officers require access to information and advice to enable them to understand OHS laws
and good practice, the hazards and risks generally associated with the operations of the
PCBU, what resources and processes must be in place for compliance and risk
minimisation, and to verify compliance. Good governance principles in areas such as
corporations law compliance, financial management, consumer protection and environment
protection are applicable to OHS. Officers should ensure that the governance structure,
reporting processes and report contents provide for timely quality information and advice on
each of the elements of due diligence. For further information relevant to the duty of an
officer, see SWA (2018).

3.7 Enforcement
Compliance with each jurisdiction’s OHS laws is monitored and enforced by that
jurisdiction’s WHS regulator.8 The principal compliance and enforcement mechanism of OHS

8
Cth – Comcare (www.comcare.gov.au); NSW – Safe Work NSW (safework.nsw.gov.au; Qld –
WorkSafe Queensland (https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au) and Work Health and Safety Prosecutor
(https://www.owhsp.qld.gov.au); SA – SafeWork SA (www.safework.sa.gov.au); Tas – WorkSafe
Tasmania (www.worksafe.tas.gov.au); Vic – WorkSafe Victoria (www.worksafe.vic.gov.au); WA –
WorkSafe (www.commerce.wa.gov.au/worksafe); ACT – WorkSafe ACT (www.worksafe.act.gov.au);
NT – NT WorkSafe (www.worksafe.nt.gov.au).

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 18 of 28
regulators are inspections undertaken by specially trained inspectors. Generally, inspections
are either targeted or responsive. Targeted inspections focus on industries, occupations,
hazards and/or demographics identified by the regulators as part of their strategic planning.
Generally, targeted areas are either high risk (measured by reference to either the volume of
claims or the claims incidence) or represent a vulnerable section of the community (e.g.
young workers, migrants). (Refer to each OHS regulator’s strategic plan for its strategic
priorities.) Responsive inspections take place as a result of incident notifications made by
PCBUs,9 or complaints or requests received from unions, workers or members of the public.

The aim of inspections is to assess the extent of compliance by duty holders with OHS laws
and, where non-compliance is identified, to secure compliance. To fulfil this role, inspectors
are given powers to:
• Enter and search workplaces (without notice)
• Require any person at the workplace to answer questions
• Require the production of documents
• Inspect, examine and seize anything at the workplace
• Secure, preserve and prevent the disturbance of a workplace (WHS Act, Part 9 and
ss 198-210; see also Sherriff & Tooma (2010, pp. 100-103); Johnstone & Tooma
(2012, pp. 214-224.)

The powers of inspectors are subject to legal professional privilege. Information and
documents created for the dominant purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, or in
contemplation of legal proceedings, do not have to be provided to an inspector (WHS Act, s
269). The same does not hold true, however, for the privilege against self-incrimination. The
model WHS Act does not excuse a person from answering a question or providing a
document or information on the grounds that the answer, document or information may
incriminate the person or expose them to a penalty. However, the answer, document or
information provided by the person is not admissible as evidence against that person in civil
or criminal proceedings (other than proceedings for giving false or misleading information) (s
172).10

Where an inspection reveals evidence of a contravention of the OHS laws, the inspector has
three broad options:

9
Pursuant to Part 3 (Incident notification) of the WHS Act, PCBUs immediately must notify the
regulator of any deaths, serious injuries or illnesses, or dangerous incidents of which they become
aware arising out of the conduct of the business or undertaking.
10
Note that s 172 of the model WHS Act has not been consistently adopted in all jurisdictions. For
example, the privilege has been retained in SA.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 19 of 28
 1. Encourage or assist compliance through the provision of information, guidance and
advice.
In support of this, all OHS regulators have adopted the Framework for a Common
Approach to Inspection Work (SWA, 2011b). Consistent with regulators’ overarching
strategy of improving OHS through an effective mix of encouragement, support and
deterrence,11 the framework emphasises that inspections are about more than
securing compliance – they extend to building duty holders’ capability and willingness
to comply with the law and to assisting workplace parties to effectively manage OHS
issues (see Bluff & Gunningham, 2012; Windholz, 2012).

2. Direct compliance by issuing an improvement or prohibition notice.

An improvement notice requires a person to remedy a contravention of the OHS laws
by the date specified in the notice. An inspector can issue an improvement notice
when he/she reasonably believes a person is contravening the WHS Act, or has
contravened the Act in circumstances that make it likely that the contravention will
continue or be repeated (s 191). Where an inspector reasonably believes the
contravention involves a serious risk to the health or safety of a person, he/she can
issue a notice prohibiting the person on whom the notice is served from engaging in
the activities giving rise to the risk until the inspector is satisfied that the risk to health
and safety has been remedied (s 195). If a person fails to take reasonable steps to
comply with a prohibition notice, the regulator may take any remedial action
considered reasonable to make the workplace safe, and recover the costs of doing
so from the person to whom the prohibition notice was issued (WHS Act, ss 211-
213).

3. Escalate the matter with a view to sanctioning non-compliance.

This usually involves a more comprehensive, lengthy and intrusive investigation.
Depending on the investigation’s outcome, the regulator can either take enforcement
action – for example, by issuing an improvement or prohibition notice, applying to the
court for an injunction (ss 214-215) or accepting an enforceable undertaking from
persons concerned with the contravention (ss 216-222) – or initiate a prosecution for
breach of the WHS laws (s 230).12 Prosecutions are criminal proceedings in respect
of which the state bears the onus of proving all elements of the offence beyond a
reasonable doubt.13 Upon conviction, the court has a wide range of sentencing

This strategy, sometimes referred to as “constructive compliance,” is most explicitly detailed in

11

WorkSafe Victoria’s compliance and enforcement policy (WorkSafe Victoria, 2018).

12
Union prosecutions previously authorised under the NSW and ACT Acts are not permitted under
the model WHS Act. However, NSW has deviated from the model WHS Act and provides for a limited
union right to prosecute (Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), s 230). These provisions are not
as broad as existed under previous NSW laws, and may ultimately prove illusory given the procedural
hurdles that must be overcome before a union can commence a prosecution. Under the NSW Act,
unions can only commence a prosecution for less serious offences, and only when the regulator
refuses to take the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring proceedings.
13
The model WHS Act does not adopt the reverse onus of proof provisions that previously existed in
NSW and Queensland that required the duty holder to prove a lack of reasonable practicability once
the prosecution had proved the other elements of the offence.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 20 of 28
 options available, including adverse publicity orders (s 236), restoration orders (s
237), orders requiring the offender to undertake a specified WHS improvement
project (s 238),14 injunctions (s 240), training orders (s 241), financial penalties and,
for individuals, imprisonment for the most serious breaches of the duty of care (ss 30-
33). Indeed, the maximum penalties under the model WHS Act nearly double the
highest fines previously available. The maximum penalty for a corporation is $3
million, and for an individual $600,000 and/or 5 years’ imprisonment (s 31).
Imprisonment also may be imposed for assaulting an inspector (s 190). Marie Boland
in her report Review of the model Work Health and Safety Laws Final Report
(Boland, 2018) recommended increases in the penalties and tying them to the
penalty unit values in each jurisdiction (recommendation 22). For further discussion
of the sanctions that can be applied to breaches of the OHS laws, see Sherriff and
Tooma (2010, pp. 106-112) and Johnstone and Tooma (2012, pp. 224-244).

Expanding the options for sanction, legislation has been enacted in recent years in a number
of jurisdictions for what is commonly referred to as industrial manslaughter, providing for
substantially greater penalties and differing liability requirements. Those provisions may be
found within the WHS or OHS legislation or in separate legislation. Some of this legislation
requires a finding of a breach of a WHS duty, while other legislation does not. All of the
industrial manslaughter provisions require recklessness or a high level of negligence
(defined) for liability to be imposed. The enactment of consistent industrial manslaughter
provisions across Australia was recommended in the Boland report (Boland,
2018)(recommendation 23b).

Industrial manslaughter legislation provides for penalties up to approximately $16 million for
a corporation (Victoria) and for individual business operators and directors up to 20 years
imprisonment in Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory
and up to life imprisonment in the Northern Territory.

The three options, and the enforcement tools available within each, are summarised in
Figure 1.

14
The court also can adjourn proceedings without recording a conviction on condition that the
offender gives a court-ordered WHS undertaking to comply with specified conditions (s 239).

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 21 of 28
 Figure 1: WHS compliance pyramid (SWA, 2011b)15

Based on the National Compliance and Enforcement Policy (SWA, 2011b) developed
cooperatively by all OHS regulators, each jurisdiction has a policy that guides its choice of
options and enforcement tools. These policies adopt a risk-based and responsive
compliance and enforcement strategy underpinned by the principles of consistency,
constructiveness, transparency, accountability and proportionality. Pursuant to the policies,
inspectors and regulators seek to match the most appropriate enforcement tool with the
seriousness of the contravention, the culpability of the offending duty holder, and the level of
risk and harm.

Importantly, many enforcement decisions made by an inspector or OHS regulator are

subject to review, either internally by an internal reviewer or externally by the relevant
jurisdiction’s designated external review body. For example, a PCBU, a worker whose
interests are affected by a decision, and an HSR representing that worker, can apply for
review of a decision to issue (or not to issue) an improvement or prohibition notice, and of
the terms of any notice issued. (For a list of reviewable decisions and the persons eligible to

15
Note that the pyramid is not comprehensive; for example, missing is the ability in some jurisdictions
for inspectors to issue infringement notices or on-the-spot fines.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 22 of 28
apply to have a decision reviewed, see the jurisdictional note for s 233 in the Appendix of the
WHS Act.) For serious offences under the Act, application can be made to have certain
decisions not to prosecute reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (s 231).

The enforcement powers of regulators and inspectors pose a number of issues for OHS
professionals. Firstly, OHS professionals need to be cognisant of their own liability. As noted
above, a PCBU must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the health and safety
of persons is not put at risk from work carried out as part of the conduct of the business or
undertaking. This can include OHS professionals and the information, guidance and advice
they provide to their clients.16 The duty of a provider of WHS services, recommended by
Stewart-Crompton et al, is included in the draft Western Australia WHS Act (s26A).

Secondly, OHS professionals can be called upon to answer questions relating to their
knowledge of the circumstances of any contravention of the OHS laws by their clients, and
to any information, guidance and advice they may have provided to their clients that is
relevant to the duties alleged to have been breached.

Thirdly, OHS professionals whose clients are the subject of enforcement action must be
cognisant of the delicate balance that needs to be struck between cooperating with the
regulator and its inspectors (and thus maximising the prospects of any contravention being
addressed through assistance, and minimising the risk of sanctions) and protecting their
client’s legal rights. Here, the model WHS Act’s continued respect for legal professional
privilege places lawyers in a privileged position. This chapter’s examination of the principles
of OHS laws generally, and of how they are enforced in particular, is introductory at best.
Clients the subject of enforcement action should be advised to seek professional legal
advice.

4 Implications for OHS practice

It is appropriate to explore the issue of OHS professionals being suitably qualified to provide
advice to PCBUs and/or officers. Being suitably qualified within the context of interpreting
legal requirements affecting an organisation can be defined as the OHS professional having
relevant “knowledge, skills and experience to provide advice” (WorkSafe Victoria, 2008). All
OHS advice has legal implications, particularly in terms of a PCBU achieving compliance

16
The national review panel on whose recommendations the model WHS Act is largely based,
recommended that OHS professionals and others providing OHS services owe a separate duty of
care (Stewart-Crompton et al., 2008, Rec. 37). This recommendation was not accepted by the
Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council which considered it unnecessary as such providers are
covered by the primary duty applying to PCBUs (WRMC, 2009).

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 23 of 28
with the duty of care. This chapter has outlined the basic principles at the foundation of
current Australian OHS laws. While OHS professionals do not require legal qualifications,
they have to invest the time and effort to understand the current state of knowledge of those
principles. This may involve formal education, attendance at relevant seminars and/or
discussions with legal professionals.

The OHS professional employed within an organisation needs to be fully knowledgeable of

the hazards and associated risks occurring within that organisation. Relevant industry
experience will provide understanding of what is reasonably practicable to control those
risks. Apart from an understanding of the legislation, the OHS professional needs knowledge
of advisory materials such as codes of practice, standards, guidance notes from regulators,
etc., that contribute to an understanding of what is reasonably practicable. However,
materials such as codes of practice are often topic-specific and, as such, may not cover all
context-related risks in any particular situation. The OHS professional has to ensure that all
hazards have been identified and associated risks appropriately controlled.

The OHS professional needs to communicate appropriately to all relevant stakeholders to

achieve the most acceptable OHS outcome commensurate with the relevant legislation and
the OHS maturity and capability of the organisation.

Critically, the OHS professional must recognise the limits of their competence in the
provision of advice and identify when more detailed advice from an appropriate legal
professional is required, particularly when an incident has occurred.

5 Summary
As a companion to OHS Body of Knowledge chapter 9.1 – Socio-political Context for OHS in
Australia – this chapter examined the historical development of OHS law, and the key
principles and concepts underlying current OHS law in Australia.

The chapter identified the codification of common law duties of care into statutory OHS law.
It discussed the scope of ‘work,’ and the concept of duty of care was given extensive
treatment in terms of the duty owed to workers and others. The duty may be owed by a
range of duty holders and is qualified by the extent to which the duty holder has control over
relevant matters. These qualifications are based upon what is reasonable for the duty
holders. For a PCBU, the qualification is what is reasonably practicable, which has been
defined. ‘Reasonably practicable’ is consistent with good governance by the officers of an

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 24 of 28
organisation. Under the WHS Act, officers have positive duties to exercise due diligence on
WHS matters, which should ensure compliance with WHS legislation.

The chapter concluded by examining implications for OHS practice. It is unlikely that officers
will have the technical knowledge covering OHS law and required improvement actions and,
consequently, will require competent advice from OHS professionals and others on these
matters. However, OHS professionals can be liable for the advice they provide, and can be
questioned about their knowledge of potential contraventions of OHS laws. To be competent
in their duty, it is critical that OHS professionals understand the principles underlying OHS
law and are able to identify circumstances when expert legal advice needs to be obtained.

6 Further reading
Foster, N. (2016). Workplace health and safety law in Australia. Sydney, NSW: LexisNexis
Butterworths.

Tooma, M. (2017). Due Diligence – Duty of Officers. Sydney, CCH Australia.

Tooma, M. (2017). Due Diligence – Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking. Sydney,

CCH Australia.

7 References
AIG (Australian Industry Group). (2011). Comparison of Provisions – Model WHS Laws and
Victorian OHS Laws. Retrieved from
http://cdn.aigroup.com.au/ohs/WHS_laws_vs_Victorian_legislation_short_version.pdf.

Bloy, M. (2011). Factory legislation 1802-1878. Retrieved from:

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/factmine/factleg.htm.

Bluff, E., & Gunningham, N. (2012). Harmonising work health and safety regulatory regimes.
Australian Journal of Labour Law, 25(2), 85-106.

Boland, M. (2018). Review of the Model Work Health and Safety Laws: Final Report. Safe
work Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1902/review_of_the_mod
el_whs_laws_final_report_0.pdf.

COAG Reform Council. (2013). Seamless National Economy: Final Report on Performance.
Report to the Council of Australian Governments. Sydney, NSW. Retrieved from

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 25 of 28
 https://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/communique/Report-Card-National-
Partnership-Deliver-Seamless-National-Economy.pdf

Comcare. (2014). Codes of practice. Retrieved from

http://www.comcare.gov.au/the_scheme/the_whs_act.

Foster, N. (2012). Workplace health and safety law in Australia. Sydney, NSW: LexisNexis
Butterworths.

Gray, R. (1987). The languages of factory reform in Britain, c.1830-1860. In P. Joyce (Ed.),
The historical meanings of work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Johnstone, R., Bluff, E., & Clayton, A. (2012). Work health and safety law and policy (3rd
ed.). Sydney, NSW: Thomson Reuters (Professional).

Johnstone, R., & Tooma, M. (2012). Work health and safety regulation in Australia: The
model Act. Sydney, NSW: Federation Press.

Mathews, J. (1984). The Protection of Workers’ Health and Safety: Report of the
Occupational Safety, Health & Welfare Steering Committee. Adelaide, SA: Department
of Labour.

Nichols, T., & Armstrong, P. (1997). Safety or profit? Robens and the conventional wisdom.
In T. Nichols (Ed.), The sociology of industrial injury. London: Mansell.

Pearce, D. C., & Geddes, R. S. (2011). Statutory interpretation in Australia (7th ed.).
Sydney, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths.

Purse, K., Dawson, D., & Dorrian, J. (2010). The Deterrent Effects of OHS Enforcement: A
Review of the Literature. University of South Australia. Retrieved from
http://library.safework.sa.gov.au/attachments/54075/The%20deterrent%20effects%20of
%20OHS%20enforcement.pdf.

Robens, A. (Lord). (1972). Safety and Health at Work, (Report of the Committee 1970-
1972). London: HMSO.

RoSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents). (2014). History of Occupational
Safety and Health: Legislation. Retrieved from
http://www.historyofosh.org.uk/themes/legislation.html.

Sappideen, C., & Vines, P. (Eds). (2011). Fleming’s the law of torts (10th ed.). Pyrmont,
NSW: Lawbook Co.

Sherriff, B. (2011a). Sherriff’s work health and safety law guide. Sydney, NSW: SAI Global.

Sherriff, B. (2011b). Promoting Effective Health and Safety Leadership: Using the Platform in
the Model Work Health and Safety Act. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia. Retrieved
from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/promoting-
effective-health-safety-leadership-march-2011-barry-sherriff.pdf.

Sherriff, B., & Tooma, T. (2010). Understanding the model Work Health and Safety Act.
North Ryde, NSW: CCH Australia Ltd.

Stewart-Crompton, R., Mayman, S., & Sherriff, B. (2008). National Review into Model
Occupational Health and Safety Laws: First Report October 2008. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Government. Retrieved from

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 26 of 28
 http://docs.employment.gov.au/system/files/doc/pdf/national_review_into_model_ohs_la
ws_firstreport.pdf.

Stewart-Crompton, R., Mayman, S., & Sherriff, B. (2009). National Review into Model
Occupational Health and Safety Laws: Second Report January 2009. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Government. Retrieved from
http://docs.employment.gov.au/documents/national-review-model-occupational-health-
and-safety-laws-second-report.

SWA (Safe Work Australia). (2011a). Interpretive Guideline – Model Work Health and Safety
Act: The Meaning of ‘Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking.’ Retrieved from
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/interpretive-guideline-model-work-health-and-
safety-act-meaning-person-conducting-business-or.

SWA (Safe Work Australia). (2011b). National Compliance and Enforcement Policy.
Retrieved from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/national-compliance-and-
enforcement-policy.

SWA (Safe Work Australia). (2012). Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022.
Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/australian-work-health-and-safety-strategy-
2012-2022.

SWA (Safe Work Australia). (2013). How to Determine What is Reasonably Practicable to
Meet a Health and Safety Duty. Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/guide-
reasonably-practicable.

SWA (Safe Work Australia). (2016). Model Work Health and Safety Bill (31/3/16). Canberra,
ACT: Safe Work Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/model-work-health-and-safety-act

SWA (Safe Work Australia). (2018). The Health and Safety Duty of an Officer. Retrieved
from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1812/officer-duty-
interpretive-guide.pdf

SWA (Safe Work Australia). (2019). Model Work Health and Safety Regulations (Revised as
at 15/01/19). Canberra, ACT: Safe Work Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/model-work-health-and-safety-regulations.

Tooma, M. (2012). Duty of officers: Due diligence. North Ryde, NSW: CCH Australia Ltd.

Williams, T. G. (1981). Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Occupational Health and
Safety. Sydney, NSW: Government Printer.

Windholz, E. (2012). OHS harmonisation: Delivering a more consistent (and effective and
efficient) regulatory experience. Employment Law Bulletin, 18(6), 89-95.

WorkSafe Victoria. (2018). WorkSafe Compliance and Enforcement Policy. Retrieved from
https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/resources/worksafe-occupational-health-and-safety-
compliance-and-enforcement-policy

WorkSafe Victoria. (2008). How WorkSafe Applies the Law in Relation to: Employing or
Engaging Suitably Qualified Persons to Provide Health and Safety Advice. Melbourne,
VIC: WorkSafe Victoria. Retrieved from

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 27 of 28
 https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/resources/employing-or-engaging-suitably-qualified-
persons-provide-health-and-safety-advice

WRMC (Workplace Relations Ministers’ Council). (2009). WRMC Response to

Recommendations of the National Review into Model OHS Laws. Retrieved from
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/wrmc-response-recommendations-national-
review-model-ohs-laws

Case Law

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Healey [2011] FCA 717,,

Braun v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 611.

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562.

House v Forestry Tasmania & Attorney-General for Tasmania (1995) 5 Tas SR 169.

Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Montero [1991] FCA 368;
(1991) 31 FCR 50.

Barlow v Heli-Muster Pty Ltd [1997] NTSC 7.

R v Irvine [2009] VSCA 239.

Reilly v Devcon Australia Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 84.

Waugh v Kippen [1986] HCA 12; 160 CLR 370.

9.2 Work Health and Safety Law April 2019

in Australia Page 28 of 28