Really interesting appeal discussing the limits of documented safety processes, like SWMSs.
Thanks to Robert Allan for sharing this (link to his post below)
Extracts:
- Regarding the SWMS: “It was a verbose and complex document of some 17 pages in small font. I cannot understand how any practically effective safety system for labourers and tradesman is satisfied by such a document”
- “On the balance of probabilities it is highly likely that such a document is not read entirely, if at all or properly absorbed or clearly understood”
- “When WHS measures require complicated measures, by way of lengthy and wordy SWMS, the task becomes one of bureaucratic compliance in an effort to avoid potential WHS prosecutions, whilst at the same time lacking in any practical utility of actually creating a safe system from workers and thereby finding its true purpose”
- “Sadly, all of this highlights that even reasonable assumptions of employers can be dangerous and are not enough to escape WHS liability when new risks, even remotely foreseeable then clearly and visibly present”
- “I stress these observations not to lay blame on the workers but to demonstrate the ineffectual impact of a complicated SWMS on their safety”
Ref: Nicholson v GCMR Project Services Pty Ltd [2024] QDC 58
Report link: https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QDC24-058.pdf
SafetyInsights.org 