Work Health and Safety Exemption (Construction Induction Training Card - Workers) 2019

The Work Health and Safety Exemption (Construction Induction Training Card - Workers) 2019 was a Commonwealth legislative instrument made by Comcare under regulation 684 of the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011. It granted an exemption from compliance with subregulation 326(1) on the terms set out in the instrument.

In practical terms, the exemption was narrow. It was about whether certain workers had to keep a construction induction training card, or where relevant a general induction training certification, available for inspection. It was not a broad exemption from work health and safety duties, and it was not a general exemption for the construction industry.

The instrument says it was granted on the written application of the Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, or DFAT. It applied to workers who carry out construction work and in relation to whom DFAT has obligations under regulations 316 and 317 of the WHS Regulations.

That means the exemption was not aimed at the average Australian builder, trades business or private construction company working only in Australia. Two features had to be present from the face of the instrument. First, the workers had to be carrying out construction work. Second, there had to be the specific DFAT connection described in the instrument.

The instrument then adds another important limit. It only applied to workers who carry out construction work located outside Australia. So even if a business had some Commonwealth connection, the exemption did not apply to domestic construction work on its terms.

The instrument states that the covered workers were not required to keep available for inspection under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 either their general construction induction training card under subregulation 326(1)(a), or where a worker had applied for but had not yet been issued with a card, a general induction training certification under subregulation 326(1)(b).

This wording matters. The exemption was directed at keeping the card or certification available for inspection. It did not say that workers no longer needed to complete induction training. For businesses, that is the key reading point. The instrument changed a document availability requirement, not the whole training framework.

If you are reviewing old project files, separate these questions carefully. One question is whether a worker had to keep the card or certification available for inspection. A different question is whether the worker had completed the relevant induction training. The instrument only answers the first question.

The practical trigger points were narrow and factual. A business needed to ask whether the workers were on construction work outside Australia, whether DFAT had the relevant obligations in relation to them, and whether the issue in question was the requirement to keep a card or certification available for inspection under subregulation 326(1).

For example, if a subcontractor sent workers to an overseas site connected with a DFAT project, the exemption may have been relevant to site administration and inspection processes. If the same subcontractor was working on a domestic project in Australia, the instrument did not apply on its terms.

The exemption was also relevant where a worker had applied for a construction induction training card but had not yet been issued with one. In that case, the instrument referred to the general induction training certification mentioned in subregulation 326(1). Again, the focus was on what had to be kept available for inspection, not on whether training had occurred.

Although the instrument was an exemption, businesses still needed to do practical compliance work. The first step was to confirm that the workers actually fell within the class covered by the instrument. The second was to identify the exact obligation being considered. The exemption only applied to regulation 326(1), and the instrument says there were no conditions on the exemption.

For businesses involved in affected overseas projects, good record keeping remained important. You would still want clear records showing the project location, the DFAT connection, the workers covered, and the training records held for those workers. That is especially important if you are dealing with an audit, a contract dispute, or a regulator query about a project that ran while the instrument was in force.

The instrument should also be read together with the fact that it repealed and replaced an earlier 2014 instrument on the same topic. That matters if your business is reviewing a longer project history that spans several years. The applicable instrument may depend on the dates of the work and the records being reviewed.

The instrument was dated 28 August 2019 and registered on the Federal Register of Legislation on 18 September 2019. The text says the exemption took effect on the day after registration.

The duration clause says the exemption applied until five years after it took effect, unless the expiration date was amended, or until it was cancelled under regulation 697 of the WHS Regulations. The Federal Register record shows the instrument as no longer in force, with operation from 18 September 2019 to 17 September 2024 and ceased status from 18 September 2024.

For current compliance, that means businesses should treat this instrument as historical. It may still matter for reviewing past conduct, project administration, audits or disputes about work performed while it was in force. But it is not a safe basis for present-day compliance decisions unless you have separately confirmed a current legal basis.

Example 1: Your business supplied workers to an overseas construction project connected with DFAT. The workers had completed induction training, but site administration wanted to know whether they had to keep their construction induction cards available for inspection. During the life of this instrument, the exemption may have applied if the workers were within the class described and the work was outside Australia.

Example 2: Your company performs commercial fit-out work only in Sydney and Melbourne. This instrument was not relevant to your ordinary compliance because it only applied to construction work located outside Australia.

Example 3: Your compliance team is reviewing a 2022 overseas project file. This instrument may explain why workers did not keep cards available for inspection, but you would still need to confirm that the project and workers were actually within scope and that training records were otherwise in order.

Example 4: Your business is tendering for a new overseas Commonwealth-related project after September 2024. This instrument should not be treated as current law. You need to check the current legal position rather than relying on a ceased instrument.

This page is based on the Federal Register of Legislation record and the text of the Work Health and Safety Exemption (Construction Induction Training Card - Workers) 2019. The text identifies the maker, the applicant, the class of workers covered, the regulation affected, the absence of conditions, the repeal and replacement of the 2014 instrument, the date of effect and the duration clause.

The public record used here does not confirm whether a later replacement instrument was made after this one ceased. If your business needs a current answer, check the latest Federal Register position and the current WHS Regulations before acting.