Published 12 May 2026 by the RLM Consult Certify Comply team
Two decisions on the same Friday, 1 May 2026, show where work health and safety enforcement in Australia now sits. In Brisbane, the District Court fined Mastermyne Crinum Operations Pty Ltd $7 million for industrial manslaughter following the death of a worker at the Crinum coal mine, which we understand to be the largest penalty yet imposed under Queensland’s industrial manslaughter provisions. In Sydney, SafeWork NSW announced that Acon Projects Pty Ltd had been fined $480,000 and its director $20,000 after a worker was injured in a fall. Different states, different industries, same message: the penalties are now large enough to end a business, and they reach the people who run it.
What the cases have in common
Read enough prosecutions and a pattern appears. The hazard was known. A control existed on paper, or was obvious, or both. The control was not in place on the day, and nobody in a position of authority had checked. Courts describe this in the language of “reasonably practicable” and “failure to ensure”, but in operational terms it is the gap between the safety management system and the site.
The Acon Projects decision is instructive because it is ordinary. A fall from height on a construction site, the most common serious injury mechanism in the industry, with a fine of nearly half a million dollars for the company and a personal penalty for the director. The court’s reasoning in these cases turns on whether the officer exercised due diligence: did they know the hazard, did they resource the controls, did they verify. A director who cannot show that will be fined personally, and the WHS Act does not allow insurance to cover it.
Five things your system must be able to prove
- The hazard was identified. A risk register and safe work method statements that cover the actual work, updated when the work changes. Not a generic bundle.
- The control was decided by the hierarchy. Elimination and engineering controls before administrative controls and PPE, with the reasoning recorded where a lower control was chosen.
- Workers were trained and consulted. Competency records, inductions, toolbox talks with attendance, and a record of what workers raised and what was done.
- Someone checked. Supervisor inspections, pre start checks, plant records, and internal audits with findings closed. Verification is the element most often missing when we review a system after an incident.
- Officers were informed. Board or management reporting on safety performance, incidents and audit results, and evidence that officers asked questions and acted. This is what due diligence looks like in a file.
Where investigations go wrong
The quality of the incident investigation shapes the prosecution. An investigation that stops at “worker did not follow procedure” hands the regulator its case, because the next question is why the procedure allowed it. A structured method such as ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) works back through the absent or failed defences, the individual and team actions, the task and environmental conditions and the organisational factors. Done well, it also produces the corrective actions that reduce the penalty and, more importantly, stop the next incident. Our ICAM investigation service exists because most contractors do two or three serious investigations a decade and cannot keep the skill in house.
The enforcement picture in 2026
Penalties are rising across every jurisdiction. Queensland’s industrial manslaughter provisions are producing multi million dollar fines. Victoria used an enforceable undertaking worth $929,500 with Laing O’Rourke over silica exposure last December, directing the money into safety improvement. New South Wales has added inspectors, given unions a path to bring proceedings from 1 March, and from 1 July makes approved codes of practice binding. Regulators are also more willing to pursue officers personally. The combination means that a safety management system that exists to satisfy a client’s prequalification questionnaire is no longer enough. It has to work.
What to do this month
- Pick your three highest risk activities (falls, plant and people, excavation and services are the usual candidates) and walk the site against the safe work method statement. Record what differs.
- Check that your officers receive and read safety performance reports, and that the minutes show it.
- Test your incident response: who investigates, using what method, and how corrective actions are tracked to closure.
- Book an independent audit if it has been more than twelve months since one. The auditor’s report is the evidence that you checked.
Frequently asked questions
What was the Mastermyne industrial manslaughter fine?
On 1 May 2026 the District Court in Brisbane fined Mastermyne Crinum Operations Pty Ltd $7 million under Queensland’s industrial manslaughter provisions following the death of a worker at the Crinum coal mine.
Can a director be fined personally for a WHS breach?
Yes. Officers of a business have a duty under the Work Health and Safety Act to exercise due diligence, and courts impose personal fines where that duty is breached. In the Acon Projects case announced by SafeWork NSW on 1 May 2026, the company was fined $480,000 and its director $20,000.
What is due diligence for a WHS officer?
Taking reasonable steps to know about hazards and risks, to ensure the business has and uses appropriate resources and processes to control them, to receive and respond to information about incidents and risks, and to verify that the processes are working.
What is an ICAM investigation?
The Incident Cause Analysis Method is a structured investigation approach that identifies absent or failed defences, individual and team actions, task and environmental conditions and organisational factors behind an incident, so that corrective actions address the causes rather than the symptoms.