Falls are the number one killer on Victorian construction sites. Looking at prosecutions across the past month or so however, it appears that the messaging around falls prevention has not been getting through to employers. Workers continue to be put at risk of serious injury and death. Small fines on those employers who fail in their duty to provide a safe workplace and safe systems of work to protect workers from such a serious risk sends the wrong message.
Every fall is preventable with the right risk controls in place. WorkSafe inspectors are currently focused on visiting construction sites across Victoria to ensure effective fall prevention measures are in place and are up to standard. Over the past six months, inspectors visited 2,103 construction employers across the civil, commercial and housing sub sectors.
Since the launch of their 2025–26 strategy, WorkSafe has issued approximately $2.2 million in fines and court costs for breaches relating to falls from height. Based on the average fine resulting from a working at heights prosecution, we can assume that $2.2 million still reflects far too many employers being reckless with the safety of their workers.
Below are some examples of the fines imposed by our courts -
BM Framing & Carpentry Pty Ltd is a residential carpentry business. They were engaged to provide timber framing carpentry works at a workplace in Keysborough where twenty, two storey townhouses were being constructed.
In November 2024 a WorkSafe Inspector attended the workplace and observed workers working, where they were at risk of falling more than 2 metres, as there was no fall protection. Another Inspector then attended the workplace a month later where he also observed a worker working at height. There was no fall protection in place, and the worker was adjacent to a live edge, where there was a risk of a fall of more than 2 metres.
In May 2025 a request was issued to BM Framing to produce documents in accordance with section 100(1) of the Act.
On 2 June 2025 the BM Framing’s director was sent a further text message in relation to their non-compliance with the section 100 direction. A response was received that day saying that he was unwell and that the documents would be provided in the next few days. By October 2025 no documents had been provided.
BM Framing was ultimately charged for their failure to produce documents, but not for their breaches in relation to working at heights. They were fined $5,300, without conviction.
HW Electrical Pty Ltd provides electrical services, including solar panel installations. They were engaged to instal solar panels on an existing single-storey dwelling in Noble Park.
In October 2024, a WorkSafe inspector attended the workplace. The inspector observed a first-year apprentice installing solar panels on the roof without fall protection at a height of approximately 2.68 meters. He was being supervised by HW Electrical’s sole director.
The director informed the WorkSafe inspector that he had not prepared a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) for the workplace, despite being aware of his duty to do so, and had directed the apprentice to go onto the roof. The director complained that it took longer to install guardrails than it would take to do the job. Neither HW Electrical nor the director were charged for failing to have a SWMS in place, but the company was charged for the failure to provide a safe workplace.
HW Electrical was fined $40,000, with conviction.
A.P Carpentry & Constructions Pty Ltd were engaged by another company to undertake carpentry works at a two-storey dwelling under construction in Bentleigh East.
In June 2025, a WorkSafe Inspector observed five persons working on the upper first floor level performing framing works with no perimeter edge protection in place. Three of those workers were identified as apprentices and the other two workers were a carpenter and the director of AP Carpentry.
All five workers were directed to come down from the upper level, and they came down via a ladder in the stair void, which did not extend one metre past the step off point and was not secured at the top and bottom. The director advised the WorkSafe Inspector that the builder had not requested the framing works on the upper level and that he had directed his employees on the upper level where there was no edge protection in place.
The WorkSafe Inspector spoke with the builder via telephone who advised that carpenters were not authorised to be working on the upper level and edge protection was to be installed that afternoon. Stair void protection was also scheduled to be installed three days later.
AP Carpentry was unable to provide a SWMS for the high-risk construction work being undertaken.
AP Carpentry pleaded guilty to a single charge of having performed high risk construction work without having a SWMS for the works, and they were without conviction sentenced to an adjourned undertaking for a period of 12 months with a condition to donate $15,000 to the McGrath Foundation.
KGN Homes Pty Ltd is a construction company engaged in residential building projects, primarily in the southeastern suburbs of Melbourne and was engaged as the principal contractor for a two-storey residential project in Dingley Village. In April 2024, the KGN Homes engaged a sole trader to undertake framing works at the workplace.
In May 2024 KGN Homes were issued with guidance and information about working from height from a visiting WorkSafe inspector.
In July 2024, a WorkSafe Inspector attended the workplace to follow up on health and safety concerns raised by a member of the public. On arrival, the Inspector observed a worker on the second storey level area working outside the building frame. The worker had been standing on the northeast box gutter where there was a risk of a fall to ground level, with no fall protection at the box gutter edge. The worker was a first-year carpentry apprentice.
In August 2024 during a follow up visit, the Inspector observed a subcontract carpenter working behind a first-floor parapet where there was a risk of a fall from the first-floor parapet to the scaffold, approximately 2120mm below.
KGN Homes was the principal contractor with management or control of the provision of fall protection measures at the workplace. The company was fined $22,000, without conviction, for multiple breaches of s.26 of the OHS Act.
JBM Building Group is a company that provides carpentry services. They were engaged by a builder to construct the frame structure of double-storey residential buildings at a property that was being developed in Springvale.
In September 2024, a WorkSafe Inspector attended the workplace and observed a JBM Building employee standing on the lower-level roof area of one of the residential homes under construction, near a live edge. There was an immediate risk of falling from a height of approximately 3.5 metres, and there was no fall protection in place. The employee was directed to come down from the roof, and an improvement notice was subsequently issued.
JBM Building had a SWMS in place which identified the risk of falling from a height and further identified risk control measures such as railings, travel restraints and fall arrest systems, but had not implemented those controls.
JBM Building had had two previous interactions with WorkSafe for identical offending, all around the same time, and had been recently fined $15,000 for these prior offences.
In this instance, JBM Building was fined $8,0000, without conviction.
Are small fines without conviction enough to change poor safety cultures?
As reported in the Sentencing Advisory Council’s report and recommendations on the sentencing of OHS offences, community views of current fines are that they are too low. Survey participants also advised of a perception that fines are ineffective when they are small and not accompanied by other deterrents, such as adverse publicity orders and OHS undertakings.
In February 2025 the Sentencing Advisory Council released a report to the Victorian Government making 12 recommendations for reform regarding the sentencing of OHS offences in Victoria. This included significantly increasing maximum penalties for breaching OHS duties in line with community expectations. The Victorian Government is yet to provide a response to this report.
Read more: https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/prosecution-result-summaries-enforceable-undertakings