It has been a busy period for workplace health and safety in Western Australia, and here’s what employers need to know.

1. $1.32 million in fines across four PCBUs after fatal load restraint failure

A fatal incident on a remote Western Australian highway has resulted in four companies being prosecuted and fined a combined $1.32 million, underscoring that where multiple PCBUs are involved in a chain of work, each bears its own non-delegable duty of care.

R.G.R. Road Haulage Pty Ltd (R.G.R.) operated a trucking fleet of approximately 72 vehicles, transporting freight between the Pilbara and Perth. One load it regularly carried was a ‘MegaFill pump’, a mobile water pump used in mining and civil construction. The pump has two booms (intake and discharge) that extend for use and fold away for transport. When folded, the intake boom must be secured by a holding chain, a strap, a travel mount bolt and a precautionary strap over the whole machine.

In July 2022, a mining contractor demobilised a MegaFill pump and folded the booms, but critically failed to attach the holding chain or install the travel mount bolt for the intake boom. The pump was then loaded onto a semi-trailer at R.G.R.’s Newman yard for transport to Perth. Neither the loader nor the driver placed a strap over the pump or independently verified that the boom restraints were in place. At no point in the chain, from the contractor who prepared the pump, to the companies that procured and provided it, to the carrier that transported it, did any party confirm the load was properly secured.

The consequence was fatal. While travelling south on the Great Northern Highway, the ratchet strap securing the intake boom failed. The boom extended horizontally across the opposite lane and, at approximately 9:27pm on 25 July 2022, struck and killed a motorist travelling in the opposite direction just north of Meekatharra.

All four PCBUs in the chain were prosecuted. On 13 April 2026, R.G.R. pleaded guilty to a category 2 offence under sections 19(2) and 32(1) of the WHS Act: failing to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the health and safety of other persons was not put at risk from work carried out as part of its business, where the failure exposed an individual to a risk of death. R.G.R. was fined $550,000 and ordered to pay $8,000 in costs.

The Court found it was reasonably practicable for R.G.R. to ensure the intake boom was properly restrained before transport, to maintain a system of work ensuring all loads (including rotating parts of plant) are appropriately restrained, and to ensure drivers were trained in load restraint. Practical steps could have included a pre-departure checklist, supervisory sign-off at the Newman yard, or a mandatory load restraint training course.

Three other construction and services companies involved in the procurement and provision of the MegaFill pump and the operation of the mine where it was decommissioned were also prosecuted and fined a total of $770,000. The prosecutions confirm that each PCBU in a supply or contracting chain holds its own duty, a contractor’s failure upstream does not extinguish the obligations of parties downstream, and vice versa.

Key takeaways for employers

Four principles stand out from the prosecutions, particularly for businesses that engage contractors or operate within multi-party supply chains:

• Each PCBU in the chain is independently liable. The mining contractor’s failure to install the travel bolt did not relieve R.G.R. of its duty, and R.G.R.’s failure to strap down the booms did not relieve the upstream companies of their obligations to check the load was secured. Where work passes between parties, whether through contracting, procurement or handover, each PCBU must independently verify that the work is safe before it proceeds.
• Systems of work must address handover points. The absence of a checklist, supervisory sign-off or verification step at the point of handover between the contractor and the carrier was a critical gap. Documented procedures must cover not only internal operations but also the interfaces between parties.
• Training must be specific and role-appropriate. Drivers must be trained not just in general driving operations, but specifically in load restraint, including understanding the particular equipment they are carrying and how to verify that third-party preparations are adequate.
• The section 19(2) duty extends to the public. R.G.R.’s duty was not confined to its workers. It extended to a member of the public on a public road. For transport and logistics operators in particular, this significantly broadens the scope of persons to whom the duty is owed.

2. Draft Code of Practice: workers’ accommodation

What is the Code?

WorkSafe WA has released a draft Code of Practice on managing work health and safety in workers’ accommodation (Code).

Once in force, the Code will provide practical guidance to PCBUs on managing work health and safety risks associated with workers’ accommodation under section 19(4) of the WHS Act. The Code will address when the primary duty of care is triggered, outline accommodation types across the mining, construction, oil and gas, agriculture and transport industries, and set out a risk management framework for identifying, assessing and controlling both physical and psychosocial hazards. The Code will also cover consultation obligations, incident notification requirements, and detailed standards for facilities and amenities, including sleeping arrangements, sanitation, food services, fire safety, communication access and security.

Codes of Practice are not legally enforceable on their face but are admissible in court proceedings under the WHS Act and WHS Regulations. A court may treat a Code of Practice as evidence of what is known about a hazard or risk and rely on it to determine what is reasonably practicable in eliminating or managing the risk of harm arising from a hazard.

Who will it apply to?

Once approved, the Code will apply to PCBUs who own, manage or control accommodation to which section 19(4) of the WHS Act applies. Section 19(4) imposes a primary duty of care where accommodation is owned, managed or controlled by the worker’s PCBU, occupied by the worker, and necessary for the worker’s engagement because other accommodation is not reasonably available.

Covered accommodation includes mine site villages, construction camps, offshore petroleum premises, accommodation vessels, agricultural worker housing, temporary field camps and off-site residential properties owned or managed by the PCBU.

The Code provides sector-specific guidance for mining, construction, oil and gas, agriculture and transport, covering everything from village-style accommodation and offshore installations, to seasonal worker camps and sleeper cabins.

Why is it needed?

Western Australia’s resource-driven economy means a significant proportion of the workforce lives in employer-provided accommodation, often in remote or isolated locations far from established services. Despite this, there has been no consolidated guidance on the WHS obligations that attach to these arrangements. The Code addresses that gap.

Key risk areas addressed

Notable risk areas include:

• Psychosocial hazards: Workers required to live away from home face elevated psychosocial risks. PCBUs must identify, assess and control these risks, including by providing for communication with family, enabling social connection and reducing the risk of harmful behaviours such as sexual harassment.
• Lithium-ion batteries: The use and charging of lithium-ion batteries (in phones, laptops, e-bikes, power tools and personal devices) is an increasingly serious fire hazard in workers’ accommodation. When damaged, incorrectly charged or exposed to heat, these batteries can enter thermal runaway, causing intense fires, explosions and toxic smoke.
• Third-party managed accommodation: Where accommodation is managed by third-party providers, PCBUs must clearly define WHS obligations in contracts, inspect facilities regularly and ensure all workers receive inductions.

What employers should do now

• Determine if the Code will apply to their accommodation and review current accommodation arrangements against the Code to identify gaps.
• Consider making a submission during the public consultation period – the consultation period provides covered employers with an opportunity to influence the final form of the Code.
• Audit third-party accommodation contracts to ensure WHS responsibilities are clearly allocated.
• Assess psychosocial risk management in accommodation settings, particularly for FIFO/DIDO workers.
• Review electrical safety policies, including rules around lithium-ion battery charging.
• Put in place a review process for the regular audit and rectification of accommodation, particularly for third party provided accommodation.

3. The WHS Act is under review – have your say

The WHS Act requires that its operation be reviewed every five years, with a report tabled in Parliament. The purpose of these reviews is to gather feedback; identify areas for improvement and ensure the Act is operating as intended. The Western Australian Government is currently calling for submissions, which close on 28 November 2026.

Predicted focus areas

While the discussion paper will guide the formal scope of the eventual review recommendations, we anticipate significant attention to the following areas:

• The adequacy of psychosocial hazard regulation.
• Whether penalty levels and the distinction between category 1, 2 and 3 offences are calibrated to deter non-compliance.
• How the industrial manslaughter provisions under section 30A have operated in practice, including charging decisions and deterrent effect.
• Whether the PCBU framework adequately captures obligations for gig workers, labour hire and platform-based work.
• Whether shared duties under Part 5 of the WHS Act (relevant to multi-employer worksites and accommodation), that includes the obligations to consult, cooperate and coordinate with workers and between PCBUs, are well understood and effectively enforced.
• The extent to which the WHS Act remains aligned with national model laws and whether further harmonisation is desirable to incorporate updates enacted by other harmonised jurisdictions, such as the corporate culture provisions introduced in New South Wales (which allow a court to have regard to a body corporate’s culture as evidence of its failure to comply with a health and safety duty) and Queensland’s expanded regulations on psychosocial hazards.

Further assistance

Our national safety team advises employers across all industries on WHS compliance, regulatory response and defence, including:

• Reviewing and developing systems of work, including load restraint and transport safety procedures and auditing workers’ accommodation arrangements against Codes of Practice.
• Preparing submissions to Government legislative reviews and draft Codes of Practice.
• Conducting investigations into serious safety incidents, including leading ICAM investigations.
• Responding to WorkSafe investigations and improvement notices and representing PCBUs in resulting prosecutions.
• Officer due diligence frameworks and governance advice and training.

If you have questions about how these developments affect your business, please contact our Workplace Relations and Safety team.

This article was written by Danielle Flint, Partner, and Audrey Ooi, Associate.