A principal contractor on an inner-Brisbane residential high-rise engaged OHSE Consultants to audit subcontractor SWMS in the project register. The documents covered trades already working on site and had passed the existing acceptance process. The review followed an earlier audit that found a steelfixing subcontractor using a groundworks SWMS for superstructure work 12 months later. That discovery prompted a wider check and found a very hight rate of SWMS not fit for purpose.

OHSE Consultants spot audited 22 SWMS already accepted into the project register. Each was checked against Queensland law and codes for high-risk work, site hazards, controls, responsibilities, and also plant permits. Rejected documents were to be corrected and resubmitted before the relevant work proceeded. We were also asked to recommend how to create a functioning risk register.

Of the 22 SWMS audited, 18 were rejected and four accepted. The rejected documents produced 82 findings, averaging 4.6 each, despite having passed the project’s initial acceptance process. The same defects recurred throughout: templated content, unidentified high-risk work, weak controls and no clear link from hazard to risk assessment and control. Some documents cited the wrong laws, left required sections blank, were overdue for review or lacked signatures.

Each rejected SWMS had to be corrected and resubmitted before the related work continued. Individual audit findings stated the defects and the required corrections, giving subcontractors clear instruction for their revisions. The acceptance process was revised and reworked with site management. A system was agreed upon in which site relevance, high-risk work, controls, legal references, completion and approval before they could start work.

All 18 rejected SWMS were corrected and resubmitted before the subbies could recommence work. The acceptance process was revised to stop incomplete documents entering the register. Reviewers received further training, and future reviews required consultation with site management. Audit findings, corrective-action records and revised SWMS were retained as evidence of compliance and due diligence.

Previous acceptance into the register had not established that a SWMS was compliant or fit for the work. 18 of 22 documents contained similar issues and showed a lack of site relevance, high-risk details, and the proper controls. The audit corrected those documents and rebuilt a new process for accepting them. Trained reviewers, traceable records and competent, site-informed checks were implemented at the 2 week period before new trades would start.