Managing Contractors | WHS Responsibilities in Queensland

Contractor management is pivotal in fulfilling work health and safety (WHS) obligations under Queensland legislation. As workplaces become more dynamic, with intricate supply chains and subcontracting arrangements, businesses must navigate these complexities to uphold their duty of care. This guide, informed by Apex Site Safety Audits' expertise, provides a comprehensive examination of contractor WHS responsibilities within contractual chains. It outlines core legislative principles, practical strategies for compliance, and insights from key case studies across Australian jurisdictions. By addressing legal duties alongside real-world applications—particularly in high-risk sectors like construction—this article equips persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) to protect workers, minimise liabilities, and foster collaborative safety cultures.

The Challenge of Contractor Management

Effective contractor management is integral to meeting WHS obligations for Queensland businesses, especially in industries like construction where multilayered contractual relationships are the norm. Evolving work structures, including labour hire, subcontracting, and project-based alliances, introduce nuanced challenges in allocating WHS responsibilities. In a contractual chain, it is essential to clarify how each entity's role impacts duty of care, risk management, and worker consultation. Missteps can lead to increased vulnerabilities, as highlighted by the Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2023-2033, which notes that workers in complex chains face heightened WHS risks due to fragmented oversight.[1]

Factors exacerbating these risks include:

• Limited development of WHS capabilities across the chain, such as inadequate training for subcontractors on site-specific hazards like silica dust exposure or working at heights.

• Insufficient support mechanisms, including poor access to resources for fatigue management during extended shifts on remote construction sites.

• Ineffective communication, often stemming from generic approaches that fail to address project-specific needs, such as coordinating traffic management plans among multiple contractors.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) has prioritised contractor management in its enforcement activities for 2023-2026, citing a rise in incidents involving contractors and frequent requests for guidance on notifications, risk assessments, and consultation.[2] This regulatory focus underscores the need for robust systems to ensure compliance and protect all parties in the chain.

Legislative Framework: Key Terms and Obligations

The foundational legal obligations for contractor management in Queensland are enshrined in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (WHSA) and the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) (WHSR). These are harmonised with national model laws but include Queensland-specific provisions, such as those governing high-risk construction work under Regulation 291. Supporting these are approved Codes of Practice, which provide practical guidance on achieving compliance.

Key terminology under the WHSA includes:

• Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU): A broad term encompassing any entity engaging in business activities, including principal contractors, subcontractors, labour hire firms, and developers in construction projects.[3]

• Worker: Defined expansively to include employees, contractors, subcontractors, apprentices, trainees, and labour hire personnel—anyone carrying out work for a PCBU.[4]

Section 19 of the WHSA imposes a primary duty of care on PCBUs to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers engaged or influenced by their activities. This duty extends throughout the contractual chain, meaning a principal contractor cannot delegate responsibility entirely to subcontractors. For instance, in a construction context, a principal contractor overseeing a high-rise project must ensure safe systems for all workers, including those employed by specialist subcontractors for tasks like formwork or electrical installations.

Fundamentals of WHS in a Contractual Chain

Three core principles guide WHS management in contractual arrangements under the WHSA: shared and concurrent duties, the "reasonably practicable" standard, and worker consultation. These principles demand a collaborative, risk-based approach, particularly in construction where multiple PCBUs operate simultaneously on-site.

Shared and Concurrent Duties

Under section 16 of the WHSA, duties are not transferable and can be held concurrently by multiple PCBUs. A principal contractor cannot absolve itself of responsibility by outsourcing work; instead, duties are shared based on the level of control each PCBU exercises.[5] In construction, this means a principal contractor (as the site controller) shares duties with subcontractors for tasks like plant operation or excavation, requiring coordination to avoid gaps in safety measures. Safe Work Australia illustrates this with diagrams showing overlapping responsibilities, emphasising that greater control correlates with greater accountability.[6] Expansion on this principle reveals its critical role in preventing "buck-passing," as seen in multi-tiered projects where failures in coordination can lead to enforceable improvement notices or prosecutions by WHSQ.

The "Reasonably Practicable" Standard

Section 18 defines "reasonably practicable" as what could be done to ensure safety after weighing relevant factors, including likelihood and severity of harm, knowledge of risks, availability of controls, and costs (balanced against risk reduction).[7] Expansion on this critical element highlights its application in contractor chains: PCBUs must document risk assessments to demonstrate reasoned decision-making, considering site-specific factors like weather impacts on scaffolding or subcontractor expertise. In construction, for example, when managing contractor fatigue on night shifts, a PCBU might evaluate alternatives like roster adjustments or transport provisions, considering costs only after exploring feasible controls. Failure to do so can lead to enforcement actions by WHSQ, with penalties up to $3.6 million for corporations under section 31. The WHSR and Codes of Practice, such as "How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks," provide tools for applying this standard, including risk matrices and consultation requirements.[8]

Consultation with Workers

Section 47 mandates that PCBUs consult workers workers affected by WHS matters, so far as reasonably practicable.[9] In contractual chains, this extends to all workers, requiring shared information, opportunities for input, and consideration of views (section 48). Expansion emphasises its preventive value: effective consultation identifies risks early, such as subcontractor concerns over plant maintenance. For construction sites, this might involve joint safety meetings or shared risk registers. Effective consultation mitigates risks like miscommunication in multi-contractor environments, as per the "Work Health and Safety Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination Code of Practice."[10]

Case Study 1: Kerle v BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] QSC 304

This Queensland Supreme Court case illustrates the non-delegable nature of WHS duties in extended chains. The plaintiff, a dump truck driver employed by a labour hire firm subcontracted to a host employer at a mine operated by BMA, suffered injuries from fatigue after long shifts and a lengthy commute. The contractual chain was: BMA (mine operator) → Host Employer → Labour Hire Company → Plaintiff.

The court held all PCBUs liable, emphasising BMA's creation of the risk through shift scheduling, superior expertise in fatigue management, and control over operations. Key factors included BMA's failure to address the labour hire firm's deficiencies and the foreseeability of harm.[11] This case expands the critical element of shared duties, showing that principal PCBUs in construction-like settings (e.g., mining) cannot rely on subcontractors to fulfil obligations entirely, facing liability for systemic failures.

Case Study 2: Sawyer v Steeplechase Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 142

This recent decision highlights nuance in duty allocation based on expertise and control. The plaintiff, a concreter employed by a subcontractor (Cretek) engaged by principal contractor SWC, alleged back injuries from manual tasks. The chain was: SWC (principal) → Cretek (subcontractor) → Plaintiff.

The court found SWC not liable, as Cretek was competent and controlled its work methods, with SWC's oversight limited to general site management.[12] However, Cretek was liable for failing to mitigate foreseeable manual handling risks. This expands on "reasonably practicable" by underscoring that duties depend on the specific relationship—principal contractors must assess subcontractor competence but are not required to micromanage specialised tasks.

Case Study 3: Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1 (High Court of Australia)

This seminal High Court case, while not Queensland-specific, has nationwide application and illustrates the limits of a principal contractor's duty to independent contractors. The respondent, a bricklayer employed by a subcontractor on a construction site managed by Leighton, was injured by falling bricks due to inadequate safety measures by another subcontractor.

The High Court held that Leighton did not owe a duty to provide a safe system of work to the respondent, as the subcontractor was independent and responsible for its own methods. However, the Court emphasised that duties arise where the principal exercises control or has superior knowledge of risks.[13] In Queensland construction contexts, this reinforces the need for principal contractors to coordinate but not oversee specialist tasks, expanding on shared duties by clarifying when liability attaches based on control.

Case Study 4: Tattam v Hall & Ors [2025] QSC 199

In this recent Queensland Supreme Court decision, the plaintiff, a worker injured during scaffolding erection on a commercial build, sued the principal contractor (Hall) and subcontractor chain. The court found Hall liable for breaching its duty by failing to enforce site-wide risk controls, despite the subcontractor's primary responsibility.

Key factors included Hall's overall site control and knowledge of scaffolding risks, highlighting the "reasonably practicable" standard through Hall's omission to conduct joint risk assessments.[14] This case expands consultation principles, demonstrating that inadequate coordination in complex chains can lead to liability, particularly in construction where multiple trades intersect.

Recommendations for Compliance

To navigate these responsibilities:

• Conduct thorough due diligence on contractors' WHS capabilities, including verification of SWMS and training records.

• Establish joint consultation protocols and shared risk assessments, documenting decisions under the "reasonably practicable" standard.

• Regularly review chains for emerging risks, incorporating lessons from cases like Leighton and Tattam.

• Engage independent audits to identify gaps, per WHSQ guidance.

Apex Site Safety Audits offers expert support in audits, training, and policy development to ensure compliance.