New WHS Act Comparison Table for Australian Jurisdictions
Safe Work Australia (SWA) has published a cross-comparison table to help organisations identify the differences between the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act and the WHS Acts adopted by the harmonised jurisdictions.|Safe Work Australia (SWA) has published a cross-comparison table to help organisations identify the differences between the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act and the WHS Acts adopted by the harmonised jurisdictions.
Safe Work Australia (SWA) has published a cross-comparison table to help organisations identify the differences between the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act and the WHS Acts adopted by the harmonised jurisdictions.
SWA notes that some jurisdictions have made minor variations to their WHS Act to make it consistent with other laws and processes, which can make it difficult for businesses that operate in more than one jurisdiction.
The model WHS laws have been implemented in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and the Commonwealth.
However, some jurisdictions have made significant variations – an industrial manslaughter offence was added in the NT and QLD, and NSW significantly increased their maximum penalties.
SWA said the table would be updated periodically to reflect any amendments to the model WHS Act or jurisdiction WHS Acts.
To learn more and to download the table, visit the Model WHS Act cross-comparison table web page.
Mitchell Services Case Study
The following video demonstrates how myosh worked closely with the team at Mitchell to improve safety in their organisation by simplifying key processes and workflows, and providing a system that can be used in a variety of working environments both remote and offline. As a result, myosh is used at all levels in the organisation – from the Drill crews in the field all the way up to the CEO.
