When the Commonwealth Knocks: John Holland Charged — What Federal WHS Duty Looks Like

SJ
Aug 27
3 min read

On 27 August 2025, Comcare announced charges against construction giant John Holland following a serious fall at the Helensburgh Reservoir project in 2023. The case is a stark reminder that Commonwealth WHS obligations are real, enforceable, and far-reaching.

Who’s in Comcare’s Net?

Not every workplace in Australia falls under the Commonwealth WHS system.

Comcare regulates:

Federal government agencies (e.g. Defence, Australian Border Force, Services Australia).
Licensed corporations — large companies that operate under the federal scheme rather than state or territory regulators.
Contractors and subcontractors engaged on Commonwealth-controlled projects.

If you're interested, a list of Comcare licensees can be found at www.comcare.gov.au

The Alleged Breach

John Holland has been charged with a Category 2 offence under the WHS Act for failing to ensure the safety of workers at the reservoir site. The alleged breach relates to planning and supervision of high-risk work at height.

If proven, it means a major contractor operating under Commonwealth jurisdiction did not implement the same basic precautions expected everywhere else: effective fall prevention, proper planning, and coordination with subcontractors.

High-Risk Work Planning Under Comcare

When you’re working on federally regulated projects, Comcare expects to see:

Robust safe work method statements (SWMS) for high-risk tasks like working at height.
Verification of competency for anyone carrying out the task.
Evidence of planning — how fall risks were identified, controlled, and communicated.

Comcare prosecutions typically focus on whether risks were “reasonably foreseeable” and whether available, practicable controls were ignored.

Interface With Principal Contractors

Large projects often involve layers of contractors and subcontractors. Under Comcare, principal contractors can’t contract out their safety duties. They are expected to coordinate, consult, and verify what’s happening on the ground.

It’s not enough to say, “the subcontractor was responsible for that task.” If it’s your project, you own the risk.

Evidence You’ll Need on the Day

Should the Commonwealth come knocking, the following evidence usually decides the case:

Documented risk assessments and SWMS tailored to the specific task.
Records of toolbox talks and induction sessions.
Supervision logs — who was overseeing the work, and how.
Photos, inspection reports, and audit records of the control measures in place.

If those don’t exist, or if they’re generic cut-and-paste documents, you’re exposed.

My Take After 20 Years Under Commonwealth Jurisdiction

I’ve worked across both Comcare licensees and Defence Force workplaces for close to two decades. Here’s what stands out to me:

The standards are clear, but the culture varies. Defence sites often have layers of process, yet gaps appear when contractors come in and “business as usual” slips through.
Comcare inspectors dig deep. They don’t just accept the existence of a document — they look for evidence that it was followed.
The duty chain is unforgiving. If you’re the PCBU, or a director with day-to-day responsibility, you are on the hook. Period.
There is no hiding behind the states. Under Commonwealth coverage, the rules are applied consistently, and breaches are prosecuted to set examples.

This John Holland prosecution isn’t an isolated event — it’s a signpost. Contractors and licensees working in federally covered workplaces need to tighten their systems, audit their interfaces with subs, and stop treating fall prevention as a “state issue.”

Final Word

When the Commonwealth knocks, you don’t want to be fumbling for evidence. You want to be confident your controls are in place, your workers are trained, and your systems stand up to scrutiny.

John Holland’s day in court is a reminder to every licensee and federal project participant: WHS duty under Comcare is not optional, and the consequences for getting it wrong are heavy.

This article does not make out that John Holland, or any associate has been found guilty of an indictable offence(s), and I shall be watching closely to see how this pans out in the courts.