Changes to Australian Safety – Work Health Safety Act 2011 Needs

Changes to Australian Safety – Work Health Safety Act 2011 Needs



The Job Safety and health Bill 2011 and Work-related Safety and health Amendment Bill 2011 were went by the Upper and lower House of NSW Parliament on June 1 2011. The Job Safety and health Act 2011 incorporated the next changes towards the existing Act from The month of january 1 2012. Presently, the Act is within devote Nsw, Queensland, Australian Capital Territory and also the Northern Territory. Victorian Parliament have tossed the balance from Parliament, based on the first implementation cost for SME’s, with little if any capital gain for that outright expenditure from the organisation/s. There have been also concerns concerning the union/CFMEU influence and possible charge of elected Safety and health Representatives, who are able to now issue ‘Provisional Improvement Notices’ and ‘Cease Work Notices’ for their particular employer/PCBU.


The Act have placed an insertion towards the duty of care definition, towards the ensure safety and health of workers, regarding risks posed although performing working responsibilities with respect to a business is “as far (low) as reasonably practicable.” This is whats called the ‘ALARP Principle.’

The main change from the harmonisation legislation, now places sole focus on the ‘ALARP’ principle. The key itself moves from previous condition legislation, that the employer can, with problems with OHS, implement “infinite time, effort and cash (that) could be spent, with an attempt of lowering the risk associated with a task to zero.” This now is not the situation.

A company now need to ensure that risks at work are assessed with the ALARP principle, while using Hierarchy of Controls to look for the cheapest reason for risk. No more can organisations simply throw money in a safety issue (worker training, finances for remarkable licences etc.) Employers now are needed to possess documented proof that risks posed to any or all amounts of staff, were assessed while using Hierarchy of Control (Elimination, Substitution, Isolation, Engineering, Administration, PPE.) Upon finalising a choice based on the HOC, evidence supporting the main reasonOrutes why it had been considered as posing the cheapest possible risk towards the employees, must have the ability to get offers for to auditors and exterior parties, assuming needed.