A consistent approach to Safe Work Method Statements

A consistent approach to Safe Work Method Statements

In the construction industry, Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) form a central element in ensuring safety at the workplace but commonly are the source of risk and frustration for Principal Contractors. Recently, the use of SWMS has come under increased criticism from industry groups such as the Master Builders Association (MBA).

This criticism has centred on the fact that SWMS, which were intended to be easy to use documents, have often become so large and complex that they are impractical to use.  The criticism has also been levelled at OH&S regulatory and accrediting agencies for applying inconsistent standards when considering the content of any particular SWMS.  As a result, there have been calls by industry groups such as the MBA to create a nationally consistent template for SWMS. 

The purpose of SWMS

The development of the SWMS system was intended to improve safety at the workplace by requiring a contractor to briefly describe in writing the work it intended to carry out and the associated safety risks and to include the measures to minimise or eliminate any risks of injury. 

The requirement for a contractor to produce a SWMS also allowed the Principal Contractor to supervise the work performed by the contractor and ensure the safe work procedure was being implemented.  In most jurisdictions in Australia, the use of SWMS, or similar documents, was prescribed under health and safety legislation. For example, in New South Wales, regulations 227 and 229 of the Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001. 

Current problems

Industry groups and Principal Contractors have identified a number of causes of the SWMS system no longer being manageable including SWMS:

• being expanded to unmanageable levels by including potential risks which would not reasonably be likely to arise and in some cases are simply hypothetical. This expansion has in part developed in response to Safety Inspectors scrutinising the risks identified in any SWMS during their investigations.
• lacking consistency depending on whether the project is being performed for a private client or a State or Federal entity. This inconsistency has resulted in part from the large number of different accreditation agencies in Australia applying different standards in assessing compliance.  In some cases, this has caused a relatively straight forward template for a SWMS to become more complex than may be required in any practical situation.
• being modified to suit the particular agency auditing the business, without the modification necessarily corresponding to any assessment that will improve safety. This issue has developed in part by the requirements imposed on businesses attempting to obtain qualifications for State and Federal Government projects and different auditors applying different standards under the same guidelines.

Likely outcomes

There is now an increasing risk that a Principal Contractor will be subject to prosecution for failing to ensure that a contractor follows their SWMS, or for failing to prevent a contractor from following a defective SWMS. As such, there has been increasing pressure on Principal Contractors to carefully review all SWMS provided by contractors because they are under a strict obligation to ensure that the sub-contractor complies with the processes set out in that document. 

One of the practical outcomes for Principal Contractors is how to effectively monitor the multitude of SWMS in circumstances where they are now increasingly complex and in different formats and may not necessarily reflect the risks involved in the work being undertaken. 

As Australia moves towards a national OH&S system it is likely that there will be greater calls by industry for OH&S regulators to consider requiring a standard SWMS template.  This step may well provide a level of consistency in the practice of using SWMS in the construction industry, and that consistency will be a key factor in the enforcement of safe systems of work.