Hi Mike J (rather than K!)
I have never done any work in Oz but have from time to time put my toe in the water in terms of the legislation there.
I don't know whether there is any equivalent to CDM there yet but never really saw the need for CDM in the first place as I always thought that everything in CDM was and remains explicitly required by HSWA, with the following exceptions:
1. The arrangements for project notification which are essentially a rehash of what was previously in Section 127 of the Factories Act 1961, though the person responsible for making notifications changed and notification brought forward in time in terms of how a project is planned.
2. In the 2007 and 2015 variants of CDM there is a Part 4 which is essentially the consolidation with very little amendment of large chunks of the four codes of Construction Regulations 1961 and 1966 which with CDM 1994 sat in parallel via the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996.
However, way back in about 1993, I put together a slide showing the interelationship between HSWA, the Management Regulations (then 1992) and CDM as a Venn diagram.
So a big circle representing HSWA [a "set" in Venn speak], a smaller circle representing MHSWR, entirely contained within the big circle, as everything in MHSWR is implicitly required by the Act [so a "subset"] and thirdly another smaller circle mostly overlapping the MHSWR circle but stretching just outside the big circle due to the notification requirements.
Later that smaller circle got a bit bigger due to Part 4 of the 2007/2015 Regs.
However, when the first iteration of CDM was made, it was all about "transposing" the management requirements of the EC Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive.
Now in Australia the central Government enacted something that looks very similar to HSWA and the various States have followed with similar variants. Something similar done in New Zealand.
The two big things that are different in Australia are:
A. Instead of emphasis on the "employer" or similar duty holder Australia and NZ have a PCBU - person conducting a business or undertaking.
B. The Australia model includes a defintion of the concept of "reasonably practicable" that is drawn on the judgment in Edwards v National Coal Board 1949 which sets a higher bar than in the later judgment of Marshall v Gotham which having been made in a higher Court and as it makes reference to the Edwards case SHOULD be the more authoritative case law in terms of the UK.
Sooooo......if you ignore CDM and think HSWA and what e.g. the Client (or Designer) would have to do to comply with their duties to persons OTHER than their own employees under Sections 3 and/or 4 of HSWA, you could navigate the Queensland legislation to find the equivalent sections of its Act that tell a PCBU that is e.g. Client or Designer what they have to do.
There has been an interesting case in NZ on the relative responsibiltiies of PCBUs recently.
NOT construction but exactly the same principles apply to a scenario where there are interfaces between different duty holders to consider.
WorkSafe-v-WHAKAARI-Management-Limited-trial-jud-20231031.pdf (districtcourts.govt.nz)
....and of course, reading and assimilating this judgment is likely to be good for your CPD record!!
Good health and safety case law doesn't happen very often.
P
Edited by user 09 March 2024 13:25:23(UTC)
| Reason: Typo in date of Construction (HSW) Regs 1996