Questacon: identifying a child-safety risk was not enough
A risk assessment can identify the correct hazard and still leave the activity inadequately controlled. The Questacon prosecution makes that distinction tangible, with lessons for organisations running education, recreation and youth activities.
On 24 Sep 26, the ACT Magistrates Court convicted the Commonwealth, represented by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, and fined it $140,000 following a guilty plea to a Category 2 WHS offence. The case arose after a nine-year-old visitor suffered burns at Questacon in Parkes, ACT, on 23 Jul 22 after using alcohol-based hand sanitiser and touching a plasma globe.
The gap between identification and control
The court found the fire risk had been identified, but the response was inadequate. Its reasons record a change from gel to foam sanitiser that did not reduce the relevant fire risk, and a failure to implement direct supervision of the exhibit.
The lesson is not that risk assessment has no value. It is that the assessment must establish a sound basis for choosing controls and then drive their implementation, with evidence that the chosen measures address the mechanism of harm.
A substitution decision should be supported by information about the property creating the risk. If the problem concerns ignition, a change in product presentation does not establish that the ignition risk has changed, and a practical trial needs a defensible method before its result can carry that conclusion.
The same applies when a control depends on time or distance. Moving something further away may alter exposure, but the approval should explain the conditions under which that arrangement works and how those conditions have been established.
What should have stopped this?
Comcare identifies the admitted precautions as supervised use by trained workers, an alternative hand-hygiene arrangement, or warnings about using flammable substances before touching the globes. These were case-specific precautions, rather than a universal instruction to replace alcohol-based sanitiser in every workplace.
My operational analysis starts with the interface between the activity and its users.
Where children are intended participants, control selection must consider their capabilities and the behaviour the activity encourages, rather than relying on an imagined participant who follows every step precisely.
For an activity requiring supervision, I would examine the supervisor's location and competing duties. I would also establish the response when that person is unavailable, so an absence does not silently turn a supervised activity into an unsupervised one.
Bounce: equipment still needs an effective start check
WorkSafe VIC reported that an eleven-year-old boy fell while climbing without an auto-belay connection at Bounce in Grovedale, VIC, in May 2022. Following an appeal, the County Court imposed a $40,000 fine without conviction on 17 Sep 24, replacing the earlier penalty.
The regulator identified deficiencies in supervision and safety instruction. My practical takeaway is to verify the condition that provides protection before the participant starts, because wearing equipment does not establish that the complete protective system is functioning.
For operators, that means examining how an omitted connection or misunderstood instruction would be detected. Any proposed equipment modification needs competent assessment against the actual design and manufacturer requirements, rather than a generic solution drawn from a news report.
The Summit: rescue must be available at the activity
The Summit Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $110,000 on 21 Dec 23 following a high-wire incident at Trafalgar, VIC, and failures to notify WorkSafe. The regulator described a student's helmet-strap entanglement and a rescue protocol that delayed intervention while responders and equipment were brought to the activity.
The operational lesson is to demonstrate rescue capability under controlled conditions before relying on it. That includes checking whether the necessary resources can reach the casualty in time and whether the communications arrangement works, including a failed first call.
This is separate from preventing the initial event. An effective emergency response cannot justify weak prevention, while preventive measures cannot be assumed to remove every need for rescue.
Army Cadets: keep the comparison within the evidence
Comcare records a serious injury to a Newington College Army Cadet during training at Colo, NSW, on 19 Sep 16, followed by the Commonwealth's conviction and $300,000 fine on 09 Mar 20. The official account says the cadet went missing and was later found unconscious, but it does not provide a complete incident reconstruction.
For youth field activities generally, the review question is how participant location and welfare are confirmed during the exercise. That is a proposed operational check, not an assertion about a particular unverified failure in the Colo case.
What I would examine before approving an activity
I would begin with the condition that must be satisfied before a participant is exposed to the hazard. The approval should identify who verifies that condition and what prevents the activity from continuing when it cannot be demonstrated.
I would then observe the activity as it is actually delivered, including the handover between instructors and supervisors. This allows the reviewer to compare documented responsibilities with the work each person can realistically perform.
Emergency arrangements need the same scrutiny. A resource listed in a plan should be available and usable when required, with the response practised safely rather than discovered during an actual emergency.
Finally, incident information should lead to a decision about the adequacy of the existing controls. Completing a report is an administrative step; the safety benefit depends on whether the resulting decision changes conditions at the hazard where necessary.
Evidence and legal boundaries
These cases concern different activities and different legal frameworks, with Questacon and the cadet matter under Commonwealth WHS law and Bounce and The Summit under VIC OHS law. They support comparison of operational controls, not a single national supervision ratio or a claim of identical causation.
The Questacon judgment recognised genuine safety efforts and the infection-control context, while still finding the response inadequate. The comparisons above rely on official regulator summaries, and the suggested operational checks are Safety Jon analysis rather than additional court findings.
Primary sources
Questacon sentencing reasons, Morgan v Commonwealth [2026] ACTMC 23, and Comcare's release dated 24 Sep 26 provide the lead case. The other outcomes are drawn from WorkSafe VIC's releases and Comcare's official reporting linked below.
Comcare: Department fined over Questacon burns incident, 24 Sep 26. Official release. Use the judgment for nuances concerning earlier reports, agency identity and infection-control considerations.
WorkSafe VIC: Bounce appeal outcome, 24 Sep 24. Appeal sentence 17 Sep 24, fine without conviction. Regulator summary, not full appellate reasons.
WorkSafe VIC: The Summit high-wire outcome, 22 Dec 23. Sentence 21 Dec 23 inferred directly from release dated 22 Dec saying yesterday. Regulator summary, not full sentencing remarks.
Comcare scheme performance: cadet outcome, Page reviewed 28 Jul 26. Incident 19 Sep 16; conviction 09 Mar 20. Limited event detail; no invented reconstruction.
Comcare and SRCC annual report 2019-20, 2019-20 reporting year. Page 60 corroborates concluded Commonwealth cadet prosecution and $300,000 fine.
Comments