Under Australian work health and safety legislation, a person conducting a business or undertaking has a primary duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others who may be affected by the operation. For anyone who owns, manages or maintains physical assets, that duty extends squarely to the condition of those assets. A corroded handrail, an overloaded mezzanine or a failing retaining wall is a foreseeable hazard, and the law expects it to be identified and controlled.
Asset inspection is the mechanism by which foreseeable hazards are found before they cause harm. It is difficult to argue that a risk was not reasonably foreseeable if a competent inspection would have revealed it. This is why a structured condition assessment programme is not merely good practice, it is a practical expression of the WHS duty itself.
Demonstrating due diligence
Officers of an organisation carry a specific due diligence obligation, which includes taking reasonable steps to ensure the business has and uses appropriate processes for identifying and responding to hazards. A documented inspection regime, with defined frequencies, qualified inspectors and recorded findings, is direct evidence that such processes exist and are working.
The key word is documented. Verbal assurances and undated notes carry little weight after an incident. Dated inspection reports, photographs, condition ratings and closed-out actions form a paper trail that shows the organisation was actively identifying and managing risk. This is the difference between having done the right thing and being able to prove it.
Matching inspection rigour to risk
Reasonably practicable is a scaled test: the greater the risk, the more is expected. High-consequence assets, or those in aggressive Australian environments such as coastal, cyclonic or bushfire-prone areas, warrant more frequent and more thorough inspection. Techniques such as non-destructive testing can reveal sub-surface deterioration, such as internal corrosion or weld defects, that a visual check cannot detect.
Access should never be the reason a hazard goes uninspected. Where assets are high, confined or hazardous, drone inspection allows a thorough assessment without exposing workers to fall or entry risks, which is itself a WHS improvement. Choosing the safest effective method for the task is part of discharging the duty.
Turning findings into controls
Identifying a hazard is only half the obligation; the risk must then be controlled. Inspection findings should flow directly into a prioritised action plan, with defects triaged by severity and tracked to completion. An inspection that reveals a serious defect but is not acted upon can actually increase liability, because the organisation is now on notice of a known risk.
The strongest position is a closed-loop system: inspect, document, prioritise, rectify and re-inspect. Operations carried out by qualified, accredited inspectors, and UAV work flown by CASA-certified pilots, give the findings credibility, while a disciplined follow-through demonstrates that the organisation not only looked for risk but managed it.
Key Takeaways
- WHS duties extend to the physical condition of the assets an organisation owns or manages.
- A documented inspection regime is direct evidence of due diligence by officers.
- Match inspection rigour to risk, using NDT and drone methods where visual checks fall short.
- Identifying a defect creates a duty to act; unactioned findings can increase liability.
- A closed-loop inspect-document-rectify-reinspect process is the strongest defensible position.
Need an inspection program scoped?
Our team delivers standards-aligned asset inspections, drone capture and NDT for councils, utilities and asset owners Australia-wide.