Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01380:reg:1:p3
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01380
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 1 (pt 3/8)
Character Range: 13834–16662

-          the likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring; and
    -          the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk; and
    -          the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk; and
    -          what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about the hazard or risk, and about the ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and
    -          after assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, including whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk.

The greater the risks, the more that is required to be done to eliminate or minimise it. This may mean using more than one, or a combination of control measures.

Where psychosocial hazards are only present for short periods, infrequently and are not severe, it may not be reasonable to implement expensive and time-consuming control measures. It may, however, be reasonable to apply less expensive controls.

Multiple control measures may be required. The aim must be to keep trying to lower the likelihood and degree of harm until further steps are not reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

Psychosocial hazards can interact or combine with other psychosocial hazards to increase the risks. This means controlling the risks associated with one hazard can also minimise the risks from other psychosocial hazards.

When considering each control or combination of controls, a duty holder must take into account the likelihood of a particular control being effective.

Cost of control measures

Cost is a matter to be taken into account and weighed up with other relevant matters to identify what is reasonably practicable, but this must only be done after assessing the extent of the risk and the ways of eliminating or minimising it.

Where the cost of implementing control measures is grossly disproportionate to the risks, it may be that implementing them is not reasonably practicable and therefore not required. This does not mean that you are excused from doing anything to minimise the risks. A less expensive way of minimising the risks must instead be used. If two control measures provide the same level of protection and are equally reliable, you can implement the less expensive option.

The question of what is reasonably practicable is determined objectively, not by reference to your particular business or undertaking's capacity to pay, or other individual circumstances. You cannot provide workers with a lower level of protection simply because you are in a lesser financial position than another PCBU facing the same hazards or risks in similar circumstances.

Your goal to produce a product or provide a service at