Article written for Safety Solutions.

Working at Height Association CEO Scott Barber explains the importance of a whole system of hazard management approach to confined space.

Confined space entry remains one of the most hazardous tasks across industries, whether in utilities, construction, manufacturing or heavy industry. Workers may need to enter tanks, silos, pipelines, culverts, pits or process vessels. These spaces are inherently dangerous, combining atmospheric risks with the challenges of restricted access, difficult rescue and potential for falls.

Among the hazards, airborne contaminants like dust, particulates, fumes and gases often receive justified attention. But in many cases, the greater immediate risks arise from falls, difficult entry/exit and the ability to remove a worker quickly in an emergency. True best practice means addressing both streams of risk together, treating confined space work as a whole system of hazard management, rather than isolating issues in silos.

Beyond minimum standards

Standards such as AS 2865 (Confined Spaces) and the model WHS Regulations set essential requirements, but too often incidents occur because organisations plan for compliance rather than for consequences.

Best practice requires integrating atmospheric monitoring, fall prevention, safe access and egress, and emergency rescue capability into one system. Permits and procedures should demonstrate not only that hazards have been controlled, but that workers can enter, work and, if needed, be rescued safely.

Confined spaces: dual hazards of atmosphere and access

Every confined space presents a two-part challenge:

• Atmospheric risks: oxygen deficiency, toxic gases and respirable dust.
• Physical risks: falls during vertical entry, slips in wet or uneven spaces, entrapment, or injury during rescue.

These risks amplify each other. For example, a fall in a space with poor air quality complicates rescue, while delayed retrieval exposes the injured worker to atmospheric hazards for longer.

A multi-layered control strategy

Best practice confined space management demands a holistic approach:

• Risk assessment and planning that considers atmosphere, access and rescue equally.
• Engineering controls such as dust suppression, fixed ladders, secure anchor points and retrieval systems.
• Continuous atmospheric monitoring for oxygen, dust and gases before and during entry.
• Fall protection and retrieval systems matched to the space and the task.
• Emergency planning that assumes retrieval will be necessary and designs for it from the start.

Safe access and egress

Planning for entry is not just about opening a hatch. It means ensuring the following:

• Vertical entries have suitable tripods, davit arms and man-rated winches.
• Horizontal or restricted entries are wide enough for a worker in PPE and RPE, and suitable for retrieval if an incident occurs.
• Fall arrest or restraint systems are in place where there is a risk of descent, climb or working near an edge during access.
• Systems and PPE are designed/selected to easily integrate with a rescue capability.

Without a safe way in and out, even the best ventilation and PPE offer little protection.

Respiratory protection in balance

Where particulates, fumes or vapours cannot be engineered out, respiratory protective equipment (RPE) is vital. But RPE must be matched to both the hazard and the work method:

• P2 or P3 filters for most dust hazards.
• Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) for longer-duration tasks.
• Supplied air or SCBA for oxygen-deficient or unknown atmospheres.

However, RPE is only effective when supported by fit testing, training and program management. Importantly, RPE cannot become the sole focus; falls and rescue readiness must be given equal weight in the entry plan.

Rescue planning: the critical test

Rescue planning is often where confined space safety breaks down. Too many organisations rely on “call the fire brigade” without ensuring the following:

• Rescue can be initiated immediately by trained, equipped personnel on site.
• Rescuers are protected from the same hazards (atmospheric and fall-related) as the entrant.
• Equipment is appropriate: retrieval winches, breathing apparatus, stretchers and anchor systems must be in place and compatible with the entry method.
• Rescue drills are practised and validated under realistic conditions.
   

Permits and risk assessments should not be approved unless a credible, executable rescue plan is documented and validated.

Culture and competence

Confined space work should never be considered routine. Best practice is built on the following:

• Training that covers both respiratory and fall hazards.
• Supervisors empowered to delay or redesign work if access or rescue is unsafe.
• Investment in equipment that reduces risk without overcomplicating tasks.
• A safety culture that treats every entry as a unique event requiring thoughtful planning.

Leading a safer future

Managing confined space risk is more than meeting regulations; it is a measure of safety maturity. A best-practice approach balances respiratory protection with fall prevention, safe access and effective rescue capability.

By embedding these controls into work systems, industries across utilities, manufacturing, construction and heavy industry can build resilience, protect workers and strengthen operational performance.

Confined space management is not simply about entry; it is about ensuring workers can always come out safely.

BKH Contractors Group Pty Ltd has been convicted and fined $150,000 in the District Court of NSW as a result of a prosecution by SafeWork NSW.

The proceedings arose from an incident on 7 June 2022, when a worker fell about five metres from a temporary platform in a lift shaft onto two colleagues below while using a rattle gun to undo bolts and hook up vertical columns to be removed by a crane.

The worker, who was not using a fall protection system, sustained multiple rib fractures, a laceration to his left kidney, a left shoulder injury and a left wrist fracture.

His two colleagues suffered a soft tissue injury to his left shoulder and minor injuries, respectively.

BKH Contractors plead guilty to an offence pursuant to section 32 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) for failing to comply with its duty under section 19(1) of the Act.

The full judgement against BKH Contractors Group can be read on the NSW Caselaw website.

BKH Contractors Group Pty Ltd has the right to appeal against its sentence.

Workers who have concerns about workplace health and safety can anonymously contact SafeWork on 13 10 50 or through the Speak Up Save Lives website.

Business owners and workers can access a range of resources to help manage the risks of working from heights on the SafeWork NSW website.

SafeWork Commissioner Janet Schorer said:

“Falls from heights are a primary cause of traumatic injuries and fatalities at NSW workplaces.

“SafeWork NSW reminds all businesses of their duty to ensure their workers are protected when working at heights.”

Source: SafeWork Victoria

A steel fixing company has been convicted and fined $60,000 after a worker was injured in a fall during construction of a 40-storey building in Southbank.

Coconut PT Pty Ltd was sentenced ex parte in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on Thursday 11 September after being found guilty of failing to ensure work was carried out from a complete scaffold, and failing to ensure high-risk construction work was performed in accordance with a safe work method statement (SWMS).

The company was also ordered to pay $5,276 in costs.

The court heard Coconut PT was engaged to perform steel fixing works inside a jumpform, which included a scaffold system consisting of hanger brackets and planks that created temporary walking platforms. The certified design of the scaffold required the hangers to be fixed to wall forms with nails.

In May 2023, a worker was walking across the platform when it failed. He fell more than two metres to the jumpform floor, and the plank he had been standing on landed on top of him.

The worker was transported to hospital with a fractured lower back and spine, a fractured knee and a torn knee ligament.

WorkSafe’s investigation found the scaffold was incomplete due to hanger brackets not being securely fixed to the wall form – some had only a single nail or no nail at all – and because the scaffold had no perimeter protection in the form of handrails installed.

The court found it was reasonably practicable for Coconut PT to ensure no work occurred on an incomplete scaffold, and that high-risk construction work was performed in accordance with the prepared SWMS which required perimeter protection such as handrails.

WorkSafe Chief Health and Safety Officer Sam Jenkin said bringing down injuries and deaths in the construction industry was a major focus of WorkSafe’s strategic approach to reducing workplace harm.

“Each year hundreds of construction workers are seriously injured or killed in incidents that could’ve been avoided with the right safety measures in place – including the adequate use of fall prevention measures and safe work method statements.”

“WorkSafe will continue to take the strongest possible enforcement action against employers who don’t take their obligations seriously and allow workers pay the price for their safety failures.”

In 2023, almost 30 workers lost their lives due to falls from heights – making up to 15% of all workplace fatalities. Falls from height are now the second leading cause of workplace deaths, following vehicle-related incidents. The construction industry accounted for 45% of these fatalities.

These numbers highlight the ongoing risks faced by people working at heights and the urgent need for better safety systems, clearer guidance, and reliable equipment. Two key standards – AS 5532 and AS/NZS 1891.4 – have recently been updated to help address these issues and improve safety outcomes.

AS 5532: Manufacturing requirements for single-point anchor device used for harness-based work at height

This standard outlines how anchor points (used to secure safety harnesses) should be designed and tested. These anchors are essential for anyone working on roofs or elevated surfaces.

The revision addresses a key limitation in the previous version, which did not support installation on many types of timber and steel purlin roofs. The updated version now supports installation on a wider range of structures, making it easier for workers like solar installers, roof cleaners, and maintenance crews to use safe, approved anchor points in the right locations.

The revision also helps reduce risks such as swing falls and free falls and supports more sustainable practices. 

AS/NZS 1891.4: Industrial fall-arrest systems and devices, Part 4: Selection, use and maintenance

This standard provides updated guidance on selecting, using, and maintaining fall-arrest equipment, like harnesses, lanyards, and lifelines.

The changes help designers, managers, and users make informed decisions based on the latest industry practices and testing standards. This reduces the risk of using incorrect or outdated equipment and improves safety for workers.

Importantly, the update does not add extra costs for users. While training materials may be revised to reflect the new guidance, no additional training beyond current requirements is expected.

These updates are designed to make height safety equipment easier to use, more reliable, and better suited to today’s building materials and work environments. By aligning safety standards with current industry needs, they help ensure workers are protected and that safety systems are practical and effective.

If you have a Small Business Set Subscription; the 1891.4 standard will automatically update. 

If you have purchased the previous standards you will need to re-purchase the standards.

Stay tuned for further news about these changes in the coming days.

Source: SafeWork SA

Two South Australian companies have agreed to make more than $580,000 in safety improvements after a worker was seriously injured in a fall from height at an Adelaide Hills building site.

SafeWork SA last month accepted Enforceable Undertakings (EU) from home builder AMS Built Pty Ltd and building products manufacturer and supplier Ruediger Constructions Pty Ltd.

The improvements agreed to in the Enforceable Undertakings will enhance safety at the companies involved, the construction industry as a whole and the broader community.

An EU is a written, legally binding commitment to implement effective work health and safety initiatives. These initiatives are designed to deliver tangible benefits for workers, industry, and the community as a whole and to resolve the issue that led to the EU.

The two EUs follow an April 2023 incident at an AMS Built double-storey residential construction site in Stirling where a Ruediger Constructions worker suffered serious injuries after falling 3.5 metres through an unguarded stair void onto the ground floor concrete slab.

The worker regained full work capacity in October 2023 and has since taken up a new role within the sector.

As the principal builder, AMS Built engaged Ruediger Constructions to provide first fix carpentry services for the residential construction project.

SafeWork SA was notified and issued an enforcement notice prohibiting work and access to the upper floor of the building.

An investigation was conducted by SafeWork SA where it was alleged that AMS Built and Ruediger Constructions committed Category 2 offences under the Work Health and Safety Act, 2012 (SA).

SafeWork SA alleged AMS Built failed to provide and maintain a safe work environment by failing to ensure the stair void was guarded prior to work being undertaken on the first floor.

It was alleged Ruediger Constructions failed to identify the hazard presented by working on the first floor of the site containing an unguarded stair void and failed to provide and maintain a safe system of work because it failed to ensure measures were in place to eliminate and/or minimise the identified risk.

The two companies applied to the Regulator to consider their application for an Enforceable Undertaking.

AMS Built and Ruediger Constructions understand the characterisation of an allegation that could be made with respect to the incident. The EU was accepted by the Regulator in August 2025.

AMS Built’s EU was accepted by SafeWork on 5 August 2025. It includes a total minimum spend of $207,233.

Initiatives include:

• Developing a working from heights safety video and promoting it on social media via a paid advertising campaign.
• Employing a WHS adviser/administrator to administer WHS functions and ensure compliance with relevant WHS legislation, regulations, and guidelines.
• Hiring a new site co-ordinator to better manage operations and to attend to site safety requirements and co-ordination.
• Purchasing a drone to conduct site safety overviews and assessments.

Ruediger Construction’s EU was also agreed to on 5 August and includes a total minimum spend on safety improvements of $373,120.

Initiatives include:

• Purchasing a scissor lift, platform ladders and new harnesses to minimise the need for workers to work from A-frame ladders.
• Employing a general WHS manager to administer WHS functions and ensure compliance with WHS legislation, regulations, and guidelines.
• Conducting a company-wide safety training day with a focus on WHS in the residential construction industry in conjunction with AMS Built and its subcontractors to spread awareness of safe work practices.

The community aspect of the Ruediger Constructions EU includes a sponsored “Industry Safety Round” of football matches at Willaston Football Club during the Barossa Light & Gawler Association’s 2026 and 2027 seasons.

Industry Safety Round guernseys will be worn by Willaston Football Club players during the round, from Under-13s up to the A-grade.

The guernseys will include workplace safety messaging and Industry Safety Round medals/trophies will be awarded to the best players on each day.

SafeWork SA can apply to the Magistrates Court for an order if a company contravenes an EU agreement.

SafeWork SA has developed comprehensive guidance material in consultation with the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee to assist EU Applicants preparing their applications.

This material focuses on priority areas highlighted by the Regulator and can be particularly useful for applicants who struggle to identify activities that relate to the risk that led to the event in question.

Attribute to SafeWork SA Executive Director Glenn Farrell:

Entering into Enforceable Undertakings with these two companies is the preferred enforcement option in this case due to the opportunity to achieve far-reaching safety benefits for companies in the residential construction industry and the broader community.

The introduction of an Industry Safety Round during the Barossa Light & Gawler Association’s 2026 and 2027 seasons is a great opportunity to promote important safety messages to a new audience.

SafeWork SA is committed to working with companies to develop Enforceable Undertakings as an alternative to prosecution where appropriate.

This is demonstrated through the development of new resources designed to help businesses prepare their EU applications.

Source: WorkSafe Victoria

A carpenter has been sentenced to a one year Community Corrections Order after a young worker suffered fatal head injuries when he fell three metres through an unprotected stair void on a Glen Waverley construction site.

The sole trader, 29, trading as Big Basa Constructions, was sentenced without conviction in the Melbourne County Court today after pleading guilty to a single charge of failing to ensure a workplace under his management and control was safe and without risks to health.

He was ordered to complete 100 hours of community work and pay a $10,000 fine.

The court heard that the carpenter engaged a 23-year-old worker to assist him at the site, where he had been contracted to build frames and erect roof trusses for multi-storey townhouses. 

In September 2022, the young worker was carrying lengths of steel along the first floor when he fell through the open stair void to the concrete floor three metres below.

He suffered serious head injuries and later died in hospital.

A WorkSafe investigation found there were no guardrails installed around stair voids in the units under construction and that the ladder used at the time of the incident did not extend past the first floor level.

It was reasonably practicable for the carpenter to eliminate or reduce the risk of death or serious injury due to a fall by installing perimeter guard rails around stair voids, and by using a ladder that extended at least 90 centimetres past the first floor and was securely fastened at the top and bottom.

WorkSafe’s Chief Health and Safety Officer Sam Jenkin said it was unacceptable that workers continued to die or suffer life-changing injuries as a result of falls from heights.

“It’s both shocking and heartbreaking to see a young worker lose his life after a workplace fall that could and should have been prevented,” Mr Jenkin said.

“No one ever thinks an incident like this will happen at their workplace and so, far too often, duty holders ignore well-known and relatively simple measures to control hazards – leading to tragedy.”

Pearl Construction Group Pty Ltd, the principal contractor on the site, has also been charged in relation to the incident and will appear at Melbourne Magistrates’ Court on 8 December 2025.

To prevent falls from height employers should implement the highest possible measures from the five levels in the hierarchy of controls:

• Level 1 Eliminate the risk by, where practicable, doing all or some of the work on the ground or from a solid construction.
• Level 2 Use a passive fall prevention device such as scaffolds, perimeter screens, guardrails, safety mesh or elevating work platforms.
• Level 3 Use a positioning system, such as a travel-restraint system, to ensure employees work within a safe area.
• Level 4 Use a fall arrest system, such as a harness, catch platform or safety nets, to limit the risk of injuries in the event of a fall.
• Level 5 Use a fixed or portable ladder, or implement administrative controls.

Fair Work Commission rules workplace abuse as constructive dismissal

Source: Australian Institute of Health and Safety

Aggressive swearing and verbal abuse in the workplace can create OHS risks that could lead employees to resign, according to a recent Fair Work Commission ruling that found such behaviour constitutes constructive dismissal regardless of employer intent.

The ruling highlights the power imbalance between employers and employees and establishes that intimidating conduct can leave workers with no choice but to resign.

An electrician was forced to resign after his employer engaged in confrontational behaviour during a performance meeting, according to the Commission, which determined that the employer’s aggressive conduct made resignation the probable outcome, despite the employer’s intention to retain the worker.

The case centred on a recorded conversation between the employee and company director, which captured the employer using profanity and raised voice during what was intended as a performance discussion. The employee had secretly recorded the meeting after previous incidents of alleged verbal abuse that occurred without witnesses.

The decision in Suhayl Ali v DMG Building & Electrical Services Pty Ltd demonstrates how workplace behaviour can cross acceptable boundaries, even in blue-collar environments where direct communication is common. 

The Commission heard evidence that the employer’s confrontational tone included multiple instances of aggressive language. During the recorded meeting, the employer stated: “The bulls–t about wear and tear on the phone is a f–king joke” and “Are you f–king serious, are you serious?” When the employee attempted to de-escalate by saying he did not need to get angry, the employer responded, “You’re making me angry!”

The employer’s behaviour escalated further during the performance discussion. The Commission noted the employer’s statement that “I don’t want any negative nancies running around my company f–king becoming toxic to other blokes. It festers. What we do with those people, we f–king weed them out… You need to be on the same page as everyone.”

The employee provided evidence that he felt intimidated during the workplace interaction, and the Commission concluded that given he was reasonably concerned for his mental and physical safety, he had “no effective or real choice but to resign”.

The case progressed after the employee took personal leave, texting his employer that “my mental health is not in the right place” before resigning the following day. Medical evidence supported the employee’s claims of psychological injury related to the workplace conduct through an independent medical examination that concluded the employee had suffered mental injury.

Commenting on the case, Martyn Campbell, cofounder of Humn and former head of SafeWork SA, observed that the Fair Work Commissioner stated that swearing was an “everyday work culture”.

“However, the challenge for business is, where is the line of acceptability? How much swearing is okay and what type? The challenge for OHS professionals like us, is helping organisations discover, or set that line,” said Campbell.

“In my experience, I think workplace swearing varies depending on the industry. Swearing is prevalent in every industry, but more so in blue collar and military roles. In many cases, it’s threaded into the fabric of normal work.”

Campbell noted that the DMG Building & Electrical case reinforces a firm position from the Commission about workplace swearing, which supports another decision where a CFMEU Organiser called a South32 worker a “f–king dog c–t”.

“Psychosocial safety is a blend of disciplines, including safety, HR, IR and psychology. This is a challenge of the profession as it easy to be sucked into a situation where we are asked for advice outside our area of expertise,” said Campbell.

“I read widely and constantly. I also connect myself to people with skills, knowledge, and experience I do not have. Collectively, we are much better placed to provide a whole of business solution to controls,” said Campbell, who is also a Fellow and Chartered Member of the AIHS.

“As a former WHS regulator, and Board Member of Safe Work Australia when the psych safety legislation was developed, I have said many times that psychosocial safety should be tackled by safety, HR and IR. To do so alone is destined to mediocracy or failure.

“When we look, the controls for psych safety hazards are distributed across those disciplines. As OHS professionals, we can help organisations find or develop them,” he said.

Campbell suggested businesses start by anonymously surveying their staff to reveal the psychosocial risk landscape. “Ask your workers and they will tell you how they feel,” he said.

“Then, map the feedback to the psych safety hazards and undertake a risk assessment. Work with HR, IR and psychologists to identify existing controls and fill the gaps.

“Remember, some controls will be behavioural change, such as moderating language. Swearing can be funny or make an average story hilarious,” he said.

“But swearing at someone, or when you are the boss, is clearly unacceptable, and the Fair Work Commission has reinforced that. Language moderation is a behavioural control; you can’t buy a barricade of guard for this type of hazard.”

Technical article by WAHA CEO, Scott Barber.

When we talk about working safely on roofs in Australia, there’s one detail that often flies under the radar, but has big implications for safety planning; roof pitch.

When it comes to working safely on roofs, pitch angle is one of the most underestimated risk factors in Australian workplaces. While most safety professionals are familiar with the 26° pitch threshold, commonly cited in state-based regulations, few realise that Australia’s Model Code of Practice also flags 15° as a critical risk point. This difference matters, especially for those designing or approving fall protection systems in housing, maintenance, and construction. As a critical marker, this is one that significantly influences the type of height safety systems required and should be implemented as defined under Australian Codes of Practice.

Why Pitch Angle Matters

In height safety, slope affects everything; worker footing, equipment stability, anchor effectiveness, and the speed/severity of a fall. The steeper the pitch, the less margin for error. But there is currently no single Australian regulation that defines all roof pitch requirements.

According to the Safe Work Australia Model Code of Practice: Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces, once the roof pitch exceeds 15°, the risk of slipping and falling rises significantly. This shift in slope is enough to trigger recommendations for additional fall prevention measures, particularly passive systems. Subsequently, they recommend risk-based decision making as the process adopted:

“On sloping roofs, particularly where the pitch exceeds 15 degrees, the risk of slipping is higher and additional controls are usually needed.”
— Safe Work Australia, Model Code of Practice, s2.4.2

While this isn’t a strict cutoff like the 26° trigger, it reflects a shift in best-practice thinking: fall risks aren’t just about height, they’re about angle, surface, and control.

Passive vs Active Fall Protection: What the Regulations Say

The Model WHS Regulations and related Codes of Practice clearly outline a hierarchy of control for managing fall risks, prioritising:

1. Passive fall protection systems (collective controls):
   • Guardrails
   • Walkways
   • Edge protection
   • Work platforms
   • Safety mesh (for internal fall prevention)
2. Active fall protection systems (individual controls):
   • Fall restraint systems
   • Fall arrest harnesses and lanyards (PFAS)
   • Self-retracting lifelines (SRLs)

Regulation Reference

WHS Regulation Clause 36 – Safe Design of Plant: requires that hazards (including falls) are eliminated or minimised so far as is reasonably practicable using the hierarchy of control.

Model Code – Managing the Risk of Falls (Section 2.3):
“Passive fall prevention devices… provide the highest level of protection and should be used in preference to work positioning or fall arrest systems wherever practicable.”

In practice, this means that passive safety systems, like edge protection or temporary guardrails, should be used before relying on a harness-based solutions, especially where slope and surface increase fall potential.

State & Territory Summary: Roof Pitch and System Choice

Jurisdiction	Pitch Threshold	Key Requirements & Systems Referenced
National Model	> 15°	Use pitch in risk assessment and system selection (passive → active)
Victoria	> 15° / > 26°	“Roof work on a pitch greater than 15 degrees increases the risk of a fall and additional fall protection measures must be provided.”
Queensland	> 26°	Additional controls (e.g. scaffold, harness systems) for housing construction.
New South Wales (via Model)	Implicit	Adopt hierarchy: guardrails > restraint > arrest systems.
Western Australia	Requires Assessment	WA expects pitch to form part of your risk assessment and system selection but doesn’t quote an angle.
South Australia	> 26°	“Builders and subcontractors should determine the critical angle… below the angle at which roof workers may reasonably be able to work and walk across the roof”
Tasmania	Undefined	Replicates the National Model Code. The “critical angle” is defined as the maximum roof pitch at which a worker can reasonably stand and work without additional fall protection.
Northern Territory	> 15°	Aligns with National Model Code and applies the pitch angle in risk assessment and system selection (passive → active)
Australian Capital Territory	>10° and > 26°	Hierarchy based at > 26° and adjusts guardrail height for every 10° increase in angle

Passive vs Active Systems: Applying the Hierarchy of Controls

Under the Model WHS Regulations, Clause 36 (Safe Design of Plant) and related codes, employers and designers must:

• Eliminate the risk where possible.
• If not, minimise it using the hierarchy of controls.

That means:

1. Passive systems first – guardrails, edge protection
2. Then work positioning/restraint
3. Lastly, fall arrest as a last resort

“Passive fall prevention devices provide the highest level of protection and should be used in preference to work positioning or fall arrest systems wherever practicable.”
– Model Code of Practice: Managing the Risk of Falls, s2.3

Choosing the Right System for the Roof Pitch

Roof Pitch	Typical Control Strategy
0–15°	Edge protection, parapets, non-slip surfaces (passive)
15–26°	Roof ladders, mesh, edge protection, fall restraint (mixed)
>26°	Scaffolding, catch platforms, fall arrest (active+passive)

Practical Recommendations

If you’re supervising or designing work at heights:

• Don’t wait for 26° to trigger controls, use collective protection, anchor points, and effective restraint/arrest systems proactively.
• Consider pitch angle in your Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) and initial design stage assessments.
• Treat >15° as a tipping point for increased vigilance and system design, not a grey area.

• Treat >15° as a trigger for formal fall prevention planning.
• Default to passive systems first, as per the WHS hierarchy.
• Use safety mesh and internal barriers during construction, not just external edge controls.
• Include pitch angle in your Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) and design reviews.

Final Thoughts

Too often, the industry sees passive systems as optional or overkill. But the WHS Codes and Regulations make it clear; passive fall protection is not only best practice, it’s the legal priority where reasonably practicable.

Whether you’re building homes, constructing commercial buildings, servicing roofs, doing maintenance or installing solar systems, remember,15° is not a safe slope without controls. The smarter and safer move is to plan fall protection early and plan it right.

Source: SafeWork Vic

A Monbulk nursery and horticulture supplier has been fined $250,000 after the death of a worker who fell through a shed roof onto a concrete floor.

In February 2025, Van Berkel Distributors Pty Ltd was, without conviction, fined $65,000 in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court after pleading guilty to a single charge of failing to reduce the risk associated with a fall by using a fall arrest system.

Following an appeal, the Melbourne County Court set aside the company’s original sentence last Wednesday and ordered it to pay a fine of $250,000 without conviction.

In June 2022, a 66-year-old maintenance manager was working alone on the roof of a shed at the workplace without any fall protection, attempting to replace polycarbonate roofing sheets.

He fell through one of the sheets, 3.3 metres to the floor below, and was taken to hospital where he underwent brain surgery, but died a few days later.

A WorkSafe investigation found the maintenance manager did not have any qualification in roofing and a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) had not been prepared for the task.

The court heard that it was reasonably practicable for the company to reduce the risk of a fall by using a fall arrest system, such as a safety harness.

WorkSafe Executive Director Health and Safety Sam Jenkin said the appeal outcome sent a strong message to employers that fall prevention is non-negotiable.

“WorkSafe is extremely serious about preventing falls from height as we continue to see too many lives lost or forever changed in incidents that should never have happened,” Mr Jenkin said.

“We’re doing a significant amount of work in this space and will continue to fight for stronger penalties against employers who choose to put workers’ lives at risk, particularly when the safety solutions are well-known and readily available.”

WorkSafe provides comprehensive guidance to duty holders on falls prevention as well as an information sheet on how to control risks during the removal of fragile roofing.

To prevent falls from height employers should:

• Eliminate the risk by, where practicable, doing all or some of the work on the ground or from a solid construction.
• Use a passive fall prevention device such as scaffolds, perimeter screens, guardrails, safety mesh or elevating work platforms.
• Use a positioning system, such as a travel-restraint system, to ensure employees work within a safe area.
• Use a fall arrest system, such as a harness, catch platform or safety nets, to limit the risk of injuries in the event of a fall.
• Use a fixed or portable ladder, or implement administrative controls.

We are pleased to announce that the Working At Height Association is returning as a Partner for Workplace Health & Safety Show — Australia’s leading event for champions of safety at work.

The WAHA continues to support businesses across Australia with essential guidance and expertise in height safety.

This year’s event will deliver even more value, with:
✅ New summits tackling emerging safety challenges
✅ New exhibitors showcasing the latest height safety solutions
✅ New insights to help you navigate complex regulations and improve your safety culture

📅 21–22 May 2025
📍 Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre
🎟 WAHA guests can access complimentary tickets for a limited time — register now before standard pricing applies

👉 https://bit.ly/WAHAWHSS