ECITB Health and Safety Passport

Correct: Under Section 117 of the Model WHS Act, a WHS entry permit holder is entitled to enter a workplace during usual working hours to investigate a suspected breach of the Act. Unlike entry for consultation or inspection of records (which requires 24 hours’ notice), entry for the investigation of a suspected breach does not require prior notice. The permit holder must, however, notify the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) of their entry as soon as is reasonably practicable after entering the premises.

Incorrect: The requirement for 24 hours’ notice applies to entering a workplace to consult with workers or to inspect records under Section 121, but not for investigating a suspected breach. Internal corporate policies, such as visitor registration or anti-bribery protocols, cannot override the statutory rights of entry granted to permit holders under WHS legislation. Furthermore, permit holders have an independent right of entry and do not need to be accompanied by a government WHS Inspector to exercise their powers.

Takeaway: WHS entry permit holders investigating a suspected breach have a statutory right to enter during working hours without prior notice, overriding internal corporate visitor policies.

Correct: According to Section 119 of the Model WHS Act, a WHS entry permit holder is not required to provide advance notice when entering a workplace to investigate a suspected contravention of the Act. The legislation balances the need for immediate investigation of safety risks with the rights of the PCBU by requiring the permit holder to notify the PCBU and the person with management or control of the workplace as soon as is reasonably practicable after the entry has occurred.

Incorrect: The requirement to provide at least 24 hours’ notice (but not more than 14 days) applies specifically to entries made for the purpose of consulting with or providing advice to workers, not for investigations of suspected breaches. There is no provision in the Model WHS Act for a 2-hour notice period for critical infrastructure. The exemption from prior notice for investigations is an absolute provision under the Act and does not require the permit holder to prove a risk of evidence destruction to justify the lack of notice.

Takeaway: WHS Entry Permit Holders investigating suspected safety breaches are legally permitted to enter without prior notice, provided they notify the PCBU as soon as practicable after arrival.

Correct: Under the Australian Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act, a WHS entry permit holder (typically a union official who has completed approved training) may enter a workplace to investigate a suspected contravention. For the specific purpose of investigation, they are not required to provide prior notice; instead, they must notify the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) of their entry as soon as is reasonably practicable after entering the workplace, unless doing so would defeat the purpose of the entry.

Incorrect: The claim that 24 hours’ notice is always required is incorrect because that timeframe specifically applies to entry for consultation or providing advice, not for investigating suspected breaches. There is no statutory requirement for a 48-hour prior report before a site visit can occur. While permit holders have significant rights, they are not ‘unconditional’ like those of government inspectors; permit holders must hold a valid permit, have a reasonable suspicion of a contravention that relates to relevant workers, and adhere to specific entry protocols.

Takeaway: WHS entry permit holders investigating suspected contraventions are exempt from the 24-hour prior notice requirement that applies to consultation-based entries.

Correct: Under the Model WHS Act (Section 119), a WHS entry permit holder is not required to provide prior notice when entering a workplace to investigate a suspected contravention. However, they must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after entering, give notice of the entry and the suspected contravention to the PCBU and the person with management or control of the workplace. This allows for immediate investigation of potential hazards without the delay of a notice period.

Incorrect: The requirement for at least 24 hours’ notice applies to entry for the purpose of consulting with workers or providing advice, not for investigating a suspected contravention. Requiring a warrant or PCBU consent for entry to investigate a contravention contradicts the statutory powers granted to permit holders under the WHS Act. There is no legislative requirement under the Model WHS Act that mandates a permit holder be accompanied by a government inspector for a standard investigation of a suspected contravention, regardless of the building’s security classification.

Takeaway: WHS entry permit holders can enter a workplace without prior notice to investigate a suspected contravention, provided they notify the PCBU as soon as practicable after entry.

Correct: Under the Australian WHS Act, a WHS entry permit holder is entitled to enter a workplace to investigate a suspected contravention. The most robust and legally compliant safeguard for a PCBU is to verify the person’s authority. Section 125 of the Model WHS Act specifies that a permit holder must produce their WHS entry permit and photographic identification if requested. This ensures the individual has the legal standing to exercise entry rights while maintaining the security of the premises.

Incorrect: Requiring 24 hours’ notice for an investigation into a suspected contravention is incorrect because, under Section 117, a permit holder is not required to provide prior notice for this specific purpose, though they must notify the PCBU as soon as is reasonably practicable after entering. Restricting access to a meeting room is a failure to comply with the Act, as permit holders have the right to inspect any work, plant, or substances relevant to the suspected contravention. Mandating a legal shadow to monitor all conversations can be interpreted as hindering or obstructing the permit holder, which is prohibited under Section 144.

Takeaway: The primary compliance control for WHS entry is the verification of the entry permit and identification, as permit holders have specific statutory rights to investigate contraventions without prior notice.

Correct: Under Section 119 of the Model WHS Act, a WHS entry permit holder is not required to give prior notice of entry if they are entering to investigate a suspected contravention of the Act. In such cases, the permit holder must provide written notice of the entry and the suspected contravention as soon as is reasonably practicable after entering the workplace. This differs from entry for consultation purposes, which does require at least 24 hours’ notice.

Incorrect: Denying entry based on a lack of 24-hour notice is a failure to recognize the specific legal provisions for investigations of suspected contraventions. Requiring a government inspector to be present is incorrect as the WHS Act grants permit holders independent entry rights under Part 7. Restricting the permit holder to the office and prohibiting worker consultation or site observation contravenes the permit holder’s right to inspect any work, process, or thing relevant to the suspected contravention and to consult with relevant workers.

Takeaway: WHS Entry Permit Holders may enter a workplace without prior notice to investigate suspected safety breaches, provided they fulfill notification requirements as soon as practicable after entry.

Correct: Under Section 118(3) of the WHS Act, a WHS entry permit holder is strictly prohibited from inspecting or copying any document that contains personal health information about a worker unless the worker has provided written consent. This protection exists regardless of whether the document is directly relevant to a suspected contravention being investigated under Section 117.

Incorrect: Option B is incorrect because the WHS Act specifically carves out personal health information from the general right to inspect relevant documents. Option C is incorrect because while notice is required for some entries (Section 120), the lack of notice is not the primary legal barrier here; the lack of consent for health information is the absolute restriction. Option D is incorrect because the presence of an HSR does not waive the requirement for individual worker consent for health records under the Act.

Takeaway: While WHS entry permit holders have significant investigative powers, they cannot access a worker’s personal health information without that worker’s explicit written consent.

Correct: According to the Model WHS Act (specifically Section 119), a WHS entry permit holder is not required to give prior notice when entering a workplace to investigate a suspected contravention of the Act. The requirement is to notify the relevant PCBU and the person with management or control of the workplace of their entry and the suspected contravention as soon as is reasonably practicable after entering the workplace.

Incorrect: The requirement for 24 hours’ notice (but not more than 14 days) applies to entry for consultation and advice or for inspecting records, but not for investigating suspected contraventions. There is no provision in the WHS Act that extends the notice period to 48 hours based on the sensitivity of the industry (such as fintech). Furthermore, a permit holder does not need to be accompanied by an inspector or police to exercise their statutory right of entry for investigation.

Takeaway: WHS Entry Permit Holders have the right to enter a workplace without prior notice to investigate suspected safety contraventions, provided they notify the PCBU as soon as practicable after entry.

Correct: According to the Model WHS Act, a WHS entry permit holder is not required to provide prior notice when entering a workplace to investigate a suspected contravention of the Act. The requirement is to notify the Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) and the person with management or control of the workplace as soon as is reasonably practicable after entering the workplace. This allows for the investigation of safety issues without the risk of evidence being altered or the situation being temporarily masked.

Incorrect: The requirement for at least 24 hours’ notice (but not more than 14 days) applies specifically when a WHS entry permit holder enters a workplace to consult with workers or to inspect employee records, not for investigating suspected contraventions. Requiring a written summary 48 hours in advance or a waiver from a Health and Safety Representative (HSR) are not legal requirements under the WHS Act and would constitute an unlawful obstruction of a permit holder’s right of entry.

Takeaway: WHS entry permit holders have the right to enter a workplace without prior notice to investigate suspected safety contraventions, provided they notify the PCBU as soon as practicable after entry.

Correct: Under the Model WHS Act, WHS Inspectors have the power to enter any workplace during working hours without prior notice to conduct investigations or ensure compliance. In contrast, WHS Entry Permit Holders (union officials) are generally required to provide at least 24 hours’ notice to the PCBU when their purpose for entry is to consult with or provide advice to workers on WHS matters.

Incorrect: The requirement for 24 hours’ notice does not apply to WHS Inspectors, as it would impede their ability to perform unannounced compliance checks. WHS Entry Permit Holders do not have the same enforcement powers as Inspectors; they cannot issue Prohibition Notices or seize evidence. Emergency services have immediate entry rights during emergencies, and a PCBU cannot legally refuse entry to an inspector based on the unavailability of a management escort.

Takeaway: WHS Inspectors possess broad, non-notified entry powers for compliance, while WHS Entry Permit Holders must adhere to specific notice requirements for consultation activities.