Reasonably Practicable?

admin • March 25, 2025

The Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 requires that the employer has a duty to ensure a healthy and safe workplace. This duty must be met as far as reasonably practicable.


But what does this actually mean?


The following must be considered when determining what is reasonably practicable: (according to section 20(2) of The Act):

(a)  The likelihood the hazard or risk concerned eventuating;

(b)  The degree of harm that would result if the hazard eventuated;

(c)  What the person concerned knows, or ought to reasonably know, about the hazard or risk;

(d)  The availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or reduce the hazard or risk;

(e)  The cost of eliminating or reducing the hazard or risk.


This is often an area of confusion – primarily because the test for what is ‘reasonably practicable’ is in fact objective. When we consider this, it is best to look to WorkSafe for guidance.


WorkSafe Victoria provides some clarification in their Position Statement on the matter:

‘a person is to be judged by the standard of behaviour expected of a reasonable person in the duty-holder’s position who is required to comply with the same duty and is:

• Committed to providing the highest level of protection for people against risks to their health and safety.

• Proactive in taking measures to protect the health and safety of people.’

-         WorkSafe position statement - reasonably practicable

 

There must be a weighing up of each of the 5 points listed under section 20(2) of The Act (above), but with a clear presumption in favour of safety. This means that the likelihood of harm occurring, and the seriousness of the potential outcome, must be the most important factor. The cost must be considered to be the least important factor when deciding what is reasonably practicable.


‘If the degree of harm is significant, e.g. death or serious injury is highly likely, then it is extremely unlikely that the cost of eliminating or reducing the risk would ever be so disproportionate to the risk to justify a decision not to implement an available and suitable control measure.’

-          WorkSafe position statement - reasonably practicable

 

When considering what the person concerned should reasonably know about eliminating the hazard, the state of knowledge regarding hazards and controls must be considered and this must be applied in line with the ranking under the hierarchy of control.


The definition of what is ‘reasonably practicable’ is often one which causes some contention. It is important to go back to the WorkSafe position statement to make sure that you are making decisions in line with the intentions of The Act. Of course, it is always required that the highest level of protection from a hazard is provided in order to ensure a safe workplace.


To read more about this:

How WorkSafe applies the law in relation to Reasonably Practicable | WorkSafe Victoria


By admin February 2, 2026
The 9 th February 2014 was the day that The Hazelwood mine caught fire. It was during a period of extreme fire danger that a bushfire started nearby and sent embers into the open cut coal mine. The fire burnt out of control for 45 days and it took another 72 days for the fire to be put out. The impact on the community and on the workers who helped to fight the fire was horrific. The fire was a large scale environmental and health disaster, with ongoing ramifications for those in the vicinity. It would later become the subject of an inquiry, multiple prosecutions and has been the subject of two books by Tom Doig which make very interesting reading. From an OHS perspective, this event makes an interesting case study. The fire was preventable, and the safety failures resulted in workers being exposed to hazardous conditions, with long term effects. Firefighters and mine personnel faced extreme occupational hazards while responding to the event. These included toxic smoke inhalation, fatigue from prolonged shifts, extreme heat exposure and direct contact with burning coal and ash. Also impacted were volunteers and emergency personnel, as well as members of the public. Inadequate PPE, lack of training and inadequate water infrastructure all added to the hazardous conditions. The physical and psychological impacts continue to this day. It was found that there had been systemic failures in Occupational Health and Safety at the site. The mine operator (Hazelwood Power company, co-owned by Engie and Mitsui & Co) was found to have failed to: Adequately assess the risk of fire in the mine, as a result of external sources such as bushfires Adequately maintain vegetation buffers Have sufficient firefighting water infrastructure Have sufficient and adequately skilled staff on site to respond to fire Have an updated fire mitigation plan and to activate it during periods of extreme fire danger In the words of Colin Radford, WorkSafe CEO: "This was an entirely foreseeable event that has led to significant adverse health impacts” The adverse health impacts were felt by workers and by the broader community. The massive smoke plumes which blanketed Morwell and the Latrobe valley for a prolonged period resulted in many suffering acute and chronic health effects. The Hazelwood mine fire exposed issues with crisis management, safety and health governance and emergency response. The operator of the mine, Hazlewood Power Corporation Pty Ltd was eventually prosecuted by WorkSafe and found guilty and fined. The penalty was $1.56 million for breaching sections 21 and 23 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Hazelwood Pacific Pty Ltd, Australian Power Partners B.V, Hazelwood Churchill Pty Ltd and National Power Australia were found guilty of breaching the Environment Protection Act. They each were fined $95,000 for offences relating to pollution, totalling $380,000. There continues to be ongoing environmental concerns regarding the remaining mine pit. The owner of the mine, French owned company Engie, is required to rehabilitate the site of the now closed open-cut pit. The process for determining the appropriate 'rehabilitation' is still ongoing, with concerns regarding the use of the Latrobe River water for this purpose, the instability of the pit and potential toxicity of the water. The hazards associated with this mine continue to cause concern. For those interested in finding out more about the Hazelwood Mine disaster, Tom Doig’s books are highly recommended reading: Hazelwood by Tom Doig - Penguin Books Australia The Coal Face: Penguin Special by Tom Doig - Penguin Books Australia For more information relating to the ongoing Hazelwood concerns, take a look at: Hazelwood Mine Rehabilitation – Update 2025 Hazelwood Rehabilitation Project
By admin January 27, 2026
Australia is a fire-prone country, and workplaces in many areas are at risk of being impacted by bushfires in some way. The effects of bushfires may include direct exposure to fire, as well as smoke exposure and psychological impacts. As with any workplace hazard, employers have a duty to manage and control the risk of injury. A bushfire risk assessment should therefore be undertaken. Through this process, employers should: Identify whether there is a potential bushfire hazard Assess the risk of bushfires affecting the health and safety of workers, including smoke exposure Identify appropriate control measures Review control measures to ensure they are effective and that no new hazards have been introduced Consultation with workers should occur at each stage of this process. When developing a bushfire risk assessment and policy, employers should consider the following: How will fire danger ratings be monitored throughout the bushfire season? How vulnerable is the workplace location? What actions will be taken on days of extreme or catastrophic fire danger? Are there workers who travel for work or spend significant time on the road? Are there workers who operate alone or in isolated locations? What emergency and evacuation plans are in place? Once a bushfire policy has been developed in consultation with workers, appropriate training must be provided. Employers are legally required to ensure workers receive the necessary information, instruction, and training to remain safe at work, including in relation to bushfire risks. For more information, take a look at: Working outside - Working near bushfires | Safe Work Australia