Skip to main content
New Biological Hazards Code of Practice 2026: What Australian Workplaces Need to Know
March 8, 2026
WHS Harmonisation in Australia: Why It Matters and What’s Still Broken
March 9, 2026
Every Australian jurisdiction now has an industrial manslaughter offence on the books.
It has taken nearly two decades since the Australian Capital Territory first legislated the offence in 2004 for the rest of the country to follow suit. But while every state and territory has crossed that threshold, the similarity mostly ends there. The elements of the offence, the fault standard required, the maximum penalties, who can prosecute, and even whether there is a limitation period all differ substantially depending on where the workplace fatality occurred.
For WHS professionals, company officers, and PCBUs operating across state borders, this inconsistency creates genuine legal risk. A decision made in a Sydney head office about safety systems at a Brisbane worksite could result in different criminal consequences than the same decision made entirely within Queensland. Understanding those differences is not just academic. It is part of your due diligence obligations as an officer under section 27 of the model WHS Act
This guide draws directly on Safe Work Australia’s Best Practice Review Discussion Paper (September 2025), court decisions, and current legislation across all jurisdictions. It is the most detailed, up-to-date comparison of industrial manslaughter laws in Australia you will find in one place.
Why Industrial Manslaughter Laws Exist
The original model WHS Act did not include an industrial manslaughter offence. Before individual jurisdictions introduced their own, the highest category of WHS offence was a Category 1 offence under section 31, which captures reckless conduct that exposes a person to a risk of death or serious injury.
The push for industrial manslaughter came from families of workers killed at work, unions, and parliamentary inquiries that found Category 1 prosecutions were rarely pursued and penalties imposed were often inadequate to reflect the gravity of a workplace death. The 2018 Australian Senate report They Never Came Home documented in detail the systemic failures in how workplace deaths were investigated and prosecuted.
The ACT was the first jurisdiction to act, introducing the offence in 2004. Queensland followed in 2017 after the Dreamworld and Eagle Farm fatalities triggered a best practice review. The Northern Territory enacted the offence in 2020, Victoria followed that same year, Western Australia in 2022, South Australia and the Commonwealth in late 2023, Tasmania and New South Wales in 2024.
In 2023, the model WHS Act was amended to include a jurisdictional note allowing jurisdictions to create or retain individual industrial manslaughter provisions. This was a pragmatic acknowledgement that uniformity had already been lost before the national framework could be updated to accommodate it. As Safe Work Australia’s Best Practice Review Discussion Paper notes, this jurisdictional note was introduced in recognition that many jurisdictions had already introduced industrial manslaughter offences or had committed to doing so.
The Core Legal Test: Fault Elements Compared
The most significant difference across jurisdictions is what a prosecution must actually prove to secure a conviction. The fault element sits at the centre of every charge, and it differs materially across the country.
Queensland
Queensland’s offence under section 34C of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) targets PCBUs and senior officers who negligently cause the death of a worker. Negligence in this context does not require proof of recklessness. A prosecution must establish that the conduct fell so far short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise that it involves a risk of causing death, and that the risk was of such a nature that it should have been guarded against.
This is a lower fault threshold than most other jurisdictions, which reflects Queensland’s deliberate policy choice to make the offence accessible for prosecution in a wider range of circumstances. For more information on WorkSafe Queensland’s enforcement approach, visit worksafe.qld.gov.au (https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/laws-and-compliance/compliance-and-enforcement/penalties/the-industrial-manslaughter-offence-under-queensland).
New South Wales
New South Wales introduced its offence through the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Act 2024, which commenced on 16 September 2024. The fault element requires gross negligence, defined as a gross departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised.
NSW carries the highest maximum penalties of any jurisdiction in Australia: $20 million for a body corporate and 25 years imprisonment for an individual. The NSW Government has also established a dedicated Industrial Manslaughter Unit within the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute these offences. See the NSW Government media release (https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/2025/zero-tolerance–minns-labor-government-launching-dedicated-unit-.html) for details.
Volunteers are exempted from the NSW offence, and there is no limitation period for bringing proceedings. Prosecutions can only be brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General, not by SafeWork NSW directly.
Victoria
Victoria uses the term “workplace manslaughter” rather than industrial manslaughter, reflecting that it sits under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) rather than a harmonised WHS Act. The Victorian offence requires criminal negligence, which means conduct that is such a gross departure from the standard of care owed in the circumstances that it shows disregard for the life and safety of others.
This is deliberately framed as a high standard. The Attorney-General at the time noted that for businesses already complying with their obligations, no additional steps would be required. The maximum penalty is $16.5 million for an entity and 25 years imprisonment for an individual. See WorkSafe Victoria’s workplace manslaughter page (https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/victorias-new-workplace-manslaughter-offences) for guidance.
Northern Territory
The Northern Territory’s offence commenced on 1 February 2020. It applies to PCBUs and officers who intentionally engage in conduct that breaches a health and safety duty, were reckless or negligent about the conduct breaching the duty, and the breach causes the death of a worker.
The NT carries the highest maximum penalty for individuals of any Australian jurisdiction: life imprisonment. The maximum fine for a corporation is approximately $11.5 million. The DPP must be consulted and must consent before the NT regulator can prosecute for industrial manslaughter. See NTWorkSafe (https://worksafe.nt.gov.au/) for further information.
Australian Capital Territory
The ACT was the national pioneer, enacting the offence in 2004. It applies where a PCBU or officer breaches a health and safety duty and was reckless or negligent about causing the death. Legislative amendments in 2021 aligned the offence more closely with other WHS offences. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment for an individual and $16.5 million for a body corporate.
There is no limitation period for industrial manslaughter proceedings in the ACT. See WorkSafe ACT (https://www.worksafe.act.gov.au/) for jurisdiction-specific guidance.
Commonwealth
The Commonwealth offence applies to PCBUs and officers under the Commonwealth WHS Act 2011, as amended by the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023. It commenced on 1 July 2024 and covers federal workplaces regulated by Comcare (https://www.comcare.gov.au/scheme-legislation/whs-act/regulatory-guides/model-whs-laws).
The fault element requires that the conduct was reckless, or negligent, as to whether the conduct would cause the death of a worker. Maximum penalties are $18 million for a body corporate and 25 years imprisonment for an individual.
South Australia
South Australia’s offence commenced on 2 October 2024. It requires gross negligence or recklessness as to the risk of causing death. Maximum penalties are $18 million for a body corporate and 21 years imprisonment for an individual. Workers who are not officers are exempted. See SafeWork SA’s industrial manslaughter page (https://www.safework.sa.gov.au/enforcement/industrial-manslaughter) for current information.
Western Australia
Western Australia’s offence has been available since the WHS Act 2020 (WA) commenced on 31 March 2022. The fault element is that the PCBU or officer was reckless or negligent about the conduct causing the death of a worker. Investigations into industrial manslaughter are conducted by WorkSafe WA, but proceedings must be commenced by the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than the regulator.
Tasmania
Tasmania’s offence commenced on 2 October 2024 under the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Safer Workplaces) Act 2024 (Tas). It requires gross negligence and recklessness to the risks involved. Maximum penalties are $18 million for a body corporate and 21 years imprisonment for an individual. There is no limitation period for prosecution.
State by State Penalty Comparison
The table below summarises the key elements and maximum penalties across all Australian jurisdictions as at March 2026. Note that penalty unit values are subject to indexation and may change.
| Jurisdiction | Max Penalty (Individual) | Max Penalty (Corporation) | Fault Element | Limitation Period |
| Queensland | 20 years | $15.48 million | Negligence | None |
| New South Wales | 25 years | $20 million | Gross negligence | None |
| Victoria | 25 years | $16.5 million | Criminal negligence | Standard |
| Northern Territory | Life imprisonment | ~$11.5 million | Intentional + reckless/negligent | None |
| ACT | 20 years | $16.5 million | Reckless or negligent | None |
| Commonwealth | 25 years | $18 million | Reckless or negligent | None |
| South Australia | 21 years | $18 million | Gross negligence or recklessness | None |
| Western Australia | 20 years | $18 million | Reckless or negligent | None |
| Tasmania | 21 years | $18 million | Gross negligence and recklessness | None |
For the most current penalty unit calculations, see Safe Work Australia’s maximum monetary penalties page.
Real Cases: What Convictions Look Like in Practice
Brisbane Auto Recycling Pty Ltd (Queensland, 2020)
Australia’s first industrial manslaughter conviction was handed down in the Brisbane District Court on 11 June 2020. Brisbane Auto Recycling Pty Ltd pleaded guilty to one charge of industrial manslaughter under section 34C of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) following the death of a worker who was crushed between a reversing forklift and a stationary truck at a Rocklea wrecking yard in May 2019.
The investigation by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland found the company had no documented safety systems whatsoever. The driver of the forklift was unlicensed. Workers had been told by company directors to “look after their own safety.”
The company was fined $3 million. Both directors pleaded guilty to Category 1 reckless conduct charges and were each sentenced to 10 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for 20 months. See the Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor case report (https://www.owhsp.qld.gov.au/news-and-media/independent-whs-prosecutor-secures-3m-fine-first-industrial-manslaughter-conviction) for the full record.
This case is also available on AustLII (https://www.austlii.edu.au) by searching the Queensland District Court for R v Brisbane Auto Recycling Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QDC 113.
Narellan Pools Pty Ltd (Queensland, 2024)
Queensland’s third industrial manslaughter conviction was secured on 14 June 2024. Narellan Pools Pty Ltd pleaded guilty following the death of a 42-year-old worker who was struck by a mobile crane at a Stapylton worksite on 19 August 2021. The court described the safety failures as “flagrant and glaring oversights.” The company was fined $1.5 million.
The crane operator, who did not hold a valid forklift licence, was separately convicted and sentenced to five years imprisonment, to be suspended after serving 18 months in actual custody. See the Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor (https://www.owhsp.qld.gov.au/court-report/flagrant-and-glaring-oversights-pool-company-lead-qlds-third-industrial-manslaughter-conviction) for the full case report.
LH Holding Management Pty Ltd (Victoria, 2024)
Victoria secured its first workplace manslaughter conviction in 2024. LH Holding Management Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $1.3 million in relation to the death of a worker who was fatally crushed at a Somerton factory. This conviction was part of a broader enforcement year in which Victorian courts imposed a total of $13.3 million in fines, costs and enforceable undertakings for safety breaches. See WorkSafe Victoria’s 2024 enforcement report (https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/news/2025-02/employers-cop-133-million-safety-breaches-2024).
Who Can Prosecute: A Fragmented Picture
One of the most significant variations across jurisdictions is not the offence itself but who is authorised to bring a prosecution.
Under the model WHS Act, prosecutions can be initiated by the regulator, an inspector with written authorisation, or the Director of Public Prosecutions. But jurisdictions have taken substantially different approaches:
- Queensland has established the Office of the Work Health and Safety Prosecutor (https://www.owhsp.qld.gov.au/), a fully independent statutory body separate from both the regulator and the DPP. It is the only such specialist body in Australia.
- New South Wales restricts industrial manslaughter prosecutions to the DPP or Attorney-General. SafeWork NSW cannot prosecute directly.
- Western Australia similarly requires that all industrial manslaughter proceedings be commenced by the DPP, not the WorkSafe WA regulator.
- Northern Territory requires the regulator to seek the DPP’s views and consent before any prosecution of industrial manslaughter.
- Tasmania refers serious files to the DPP for consideration.
- ACT regulators may independently commence proceedings or refer to the DPP.
- Victoria, NSW (other offences), and WA regulators have authority to decide whether to prosecute Category 2 and Category 3 offences.
This fragmented prosecution landscape means that the speed, independence and consistency of prosecution decisions varies considerably between states. Safe Work Australia’s Best Practice Review Discussion Paper flags this as a key area requiring attention to maintain a harmonised approach to enforcement.
The Insurance Question: Can You Cover Industrial Manslaughter Fines?
This is one of the most practically important questions for company directors and PCBUs. In most Australian jurisdictions, fines imposed for criminal offences, including industrial manslaughter, cannot be covered by public liability or management liability insurance policies. Criminal fines are generally uninsurable as a matter of public policy.
Directors and officers insurance (D&O) policies may cover legal defence costs for investigations and proceedings, but not the fine itself if a conviction results. The distinction matters enormously in practice, given maximum corporate fines ranging up to $20 million.
PCBUs and officers should obtain specific legal advice on their insurance position relative to industrial manslaughter exposure in each jurisdiction where they operate. For guidance on undertaking a thorough WHS risk assessment, visit HSE Direct’s WHS audit services or browse our WHS services page.
How the Offence Intersects with Category 1 Charges
Industrial manslaughter is not a substitute for Category 1 charges. Regulators can and do charge both offences arising from the same incident. In the Brisbane Auto Recycling case, the company faced industrial manslaughter while its directors faced Category 1 reckless conduct charges.
The Category 1 offence under section 31 of the model WHS Act targets reckless conduct that exposes a person to a risk of death or serious injury. It does not require an actual death to occur. Industrial manslaughter requires a death and a higher fault element in most jurisdictions.
Understanding the distinction between these charges is important for officers and PCBUs conducting internal incident investigations and for legal advisors managing post-incident responses. For case studies on how WHS prosecutions unfold in practice, see our article on chemical safety failures and lessons from recent cases (https://hsedirect.com.au/chemical-safety-failures-lesson-from-recent-cases/).
Enforceable undertakings are not available for industrial manslaughter in any Australian jurisdiction. All harmonised jurisdictions have specifically excluded the offence from the enforceable undertaking regime under the model WHS Act. In Queensland, the exclusion extends further to include all Category 2 offences where the failure results in death.
The Role of Officer Due Diligence
Industrial manslaughter charges can be brought against officers of PCBUs personally, not just against the corporate entity. The definition of “officer” under the model WHS Act and its jurisdictional equivalents draws on the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and captures directors, company secretaries, and those who exercise significant influence over management decisions.
Every officer has a positive due diligence obligation under section 27 of the model WHS Act. This requires officers to actively acquire and maintain knowledge of WHS matters, understand the nature of the operations and associated hazards, ensure the PCBU has and implements processes for receiving and acting on WHS information, and verify that resources are provided and processes used to eliminate or minimise risks.
The cases decided so far confirm that courts take this obligation seriously. Where an officer has played an active role in creating or perpetuating unsafe conditions, they can be prosecuted separately from the corporate entity and potentially face a custodial sentence.
For officers seeking to understand and document their due diligence obligations, HSE Direct provides WHS audit services tailored to officer liability exposure across construction, mining and renewable energy sectors.
The Harmonisation Problem Safe Work Australia Has Identified
Safe Work Australia’s Best Practice Review Discussion Paper, published in September 2025, is direct in its assessment of the industrial manslaughter landscape. While the 2023 amendment to the model WHS Act included a jurisdictional note allowing states and territories to retain their own industrial manslaughter provisions, this was an accommodation of reality rather than a design choice.
The Discussion Paper observes that all jurisdictions now have an industrial manslaughter offence, but there remains a general lack of consistency in how these offences operate, including the elements of the offence, duty holders covered, and maximum penalties available.
This fragmentation has implications beyond compliance complexity. It means:
- A workplace fatality in one jurisdiction may not meet the fault threshold for industrial manslaughter in another
- Businesses operating nationally face genuinely different legal exposure depending on where their workers are located
- Sentencing outcomes vary because different courts with different specialisations hear WHS matters in different jurisdictions
- Families of workers killed at work have different rights and access to information depending on the jurisdiction
The Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council’s 2025 review of OHS sentencing in Victoria found a misalignment between sentencing practices and community expectations, and recommended legislated sentencing guidelines. Safe Work Australia had previously recommended national sentencing guidelines in its 2018 review, a recommendation that was never implemented due to the differences in jurisdictional criminal procedure frameworks. That gap remains unresolved.
For broader analysis of how WHS harmonisation is unravelling across Australia, read our detailed article on WHS resources.
Statute of Limitations: When Can a Prosecution Be Brought?
Most jurisdictions have removed any limitation period for industrial manslaughter proceedings. Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Commonwealth have all enacted provisions specifically removing the limitation period for industrial manslaughter. This reflects the principle that workplace deaths are serious criminal matters that should not become time-barred.
Western Australia goes further, allowing Category 1, 2 or 3 offences to be prosecuted up to six months after the standard limitation period has ended if the DPP has decided not to bring or has discontinued industrial manslaughter proceedings.
The ongoing operation of a limitation period in Victoria and the Northern Territory (subject to specific carve-outs) is an area of ongoing legal complexity, particularly where workplace diseases have long latency periods between exposure and death.
What This Means for Your Compliance Program
The practical implications for PCBUs and safety managers are significant regardless of which jurisdiction you operate in:
- Review your safety systems against the worst-case exposure. Industrial manslaughter charges arise when safety systems are absent, inadequate or deliberately ignored. The Brisbane Auto Recycling case is a stark reminder that having no documented safety procedures is itself compelling evidence of liability.
- Officers must be actively engaged. Passive reliance on a safety manager or a paper-based safety system is not sufficient. Officers need to actively review WHS performance data, investigate near misses, and ensure corrective actions are implemented and verified.
- Post-incident conduct matters. Courts have consistently noted cooperation with investigations and early guilty pleas as mitigating factors in sentencing. Conversely, misleading investigators, as occurred in the Brisbane Auto Recycling case, is treated as an aggravating factor.
- Understand jurisdiction-specific obligations. If you operate in multiple states, get specific advice on which jurisdiction’s offence applies to your operations and what the regulator in that jurisdiction looks for in its investigations.
- Maintain thorough documentation. The absence of safety records is treated as evidence of systemic failure. Risk assessments, SWMS, induction records, toolbox talks and maintenance logs are not administrative formalities. They are your primary defence.
For construction sector-specific guidance on contractor management and WHS obligations, see our article on right of entry in construction (https://hsedirect.com.au/5-whs-right-of-entry-construction-lessons/). For guidance on chemical exposure as a potential manslaughter pathway, see our analysis of chemical safety failures and recent cases (https://hsedirect.com.au/chemical-safety-failures-lesson-from-recent-cases/).
You should also be aware of new biological hazard obligations under the recently published Biological Hazards Code of Practice 2026 (https://hsedirect.com.au/new-biological-hazards-code-of-practice-2026/), which introduces further exposure pathways that could become the subject of serious WHS enforcement.
