Australian workplaces continue to record a troubling pattern of forklift-related injuries and fatalities. In New South Wales alone, courts handed down eight major forklift convictions during 2025, with individual fines reaching $600,000. In South Australia, a potato processor was fined $180,000 after a reversing forklift crushed a worker’s pelvis. In February 2026, a Victorian coroner found the death of a forklift operator crushed by a shipping container was entirely “preventable” yet no prosecution followed because existing regulations lacked mandatory inspection frequencies for forklifts.
These cases are not isolated. They reflect a consistent enforcement message from regulators across every Australian state and territory: employers who fail to manage traffic interactions between forklifts and people will face serious consequences. This article summarises the current regulatory landscape, recent enforcement trends, and practical steps every employer should consider.
The regulatory framework is broader than many employers realise
Most employers are aware that forklift operators require a high-risk work licence under the Work Health and Safety Regulations. Fewer appreciate the full scope of regulatory obligations that apply to forklift traffic management. These obligations draw from multiple regulatory sources that operate as a layered system.
At the top sits the primary duty of care under the WHS Act, which requires a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others at the workplace. Beneath this sit the WHS Regulations, particularly Part 5.3, which specifically requires collision prevention measures for mobile plant, mandatory warning devices, and restrictions on unauthorised riders.
Supporting the legislation are Model Codes of Practice published by Safe Work Australia. The Code of Practice for Managing the Risks of Plant in the Workplace was updated in December 2023 and is admissible in court proceedings as evidence of what a reasonable employer should have known and done. Every state and territory has adopted a version of this code, meaning it effectively establishes the national standard of care.
Beyond the codes sit Australian Standards most critically the AS 2359 series governing powered industrial trucks. AS 2359.2:2013 covers operations, competency and maintenance. AS 2359.12 specifically addresses pedestrian proximity detection systems. While compliance with Australian Standards is not strictly mandatory, regulators and courts routinely treat them as the benchmark for what constitutes reasonably practicable measures.
What recent prosecutions tell us about regulatory expectations
A review of forklift-related prosecutions across Australia reveals a consistent pattern. The failures that attract enforcement action are not exotic or unpredictable. They are basic.
The most common failure is the absence of physical separation between forklifts and pedestrians. The Mitolo Group prosecution in South Australia (March 2025) involved a worker struck by a reversing forklift at a facility where forklift routes and pedestrian paths were not adequately separated. The BI Australia prosecution in New South Wales ($400,000 fine, September 2025) involved a worker struck in a car park being used as a makeshift storage area which is a classic case of ad hoc operations overtaking planned traffic management.
The second recurring failure is the absence of a documented traffic management plan. SafeWork NSW and other regulators have made clear that wherever mobile plant operates, a traffic management plan must be developed in consultation with workers, implemented, and actively monitored. The plan must address pedestrian routes, forklift routes, interaction points, speed limits, communication protocols, and parking arrangements.
The third pattern is inadequate operator competency and supervision. In the Brisbane Auto Recycling industrial manslaughter case, an unlicensed driver was operating the forklift. In multiple NSW convictions during 2025, inadequate training and supervision were cited as aggravating factors.
Enforceable undertakings ( negotiated alternatives to prosecution ) also reveal what regulators expect. Undertakings accepted from companies like Bell Plaster Supplies and National Masonry have required the installation of proximity detection systems, redesign of traffic routes, and investment in physical barriers. These conditions signal the direction of regulatory expectations: technology-assisted traffic management is becoming the expected standard, not an optional upgrade.
The mining sector benchmark: why it matters for all employers
The most sophisticated traffic management framework in Australian regulation is the NSW Technical Reference Guide for Roads or Other Vehicle Operating Areas (TRG-ROVOA), published in July 2025 for the mining sector. While it applies only to mining operations, its nine-layer defence model derived from the EMESRT (Earth Moving Equipment Safety Round Table) framework provides a benchmark that all employers should seek to understand.
The TRG-ROVOA organises controls into three categories: design layers (site layout, physical separation, documented procedures), operating layers (competency verification, fitness for work, pre-start checks), and reactive technology layers (proximity alerts and automated intervention systems). The critical principle is that technology must supplement, never replace, the foundational design and operating controls.
Queensland’s Guidance Note QGN 27 on Collision Prevention takes a complementary approach, covering vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-person, and vehicle-to-infrastructure collisions. It includes practical data such as the fact that at 40 km/h with a two-second reaction time, a vehicle travels over 22 metres before braking even begins.
Why should a warehousing or manufacturing employer care about mining guidance? Because these frameworks articulate the principles that courts and regulators are already applying across all industries. When a coroner recommends more detailed inspection standards for forklifts, or when an enforceable undertaking requires proximity detection technology, they are applying the same layered defence logic. The Monash University Accident Research Centre has found that pedestrian-hit-by-forklift incidents represent 45 per cent of all forklift injuries, with warehousing, cold storage, wholesale and freight handling among the highest-risk sectors. The mining frameworks offer a ready-made structure for addressing these risks systematically.
Practical steps for employers
Based on the current enforcement landscape and regulatory guidance, employers should consider the following measures as a minimum.
- Develop a written traffic management plan that maps every area where forklifts operate, identifies all pedestrian interaction points, and specifies controls for each. The plan should be developed in consultation with workers and reviewed after every incident or significant operational change.
- Physically separate forklifts from pedestrians wherever practicable. This means barriers, bollards, dedicated walkways, and exclusion zones — not painted lines alone. Where physical separation is not possible, implement a combination of administrative controls and warning systems.
- Verify operator competency beyond the high-risk work licence. The licence confirms baseline capability, but employers must also ensure operators are trained and assessed on site-specific traffic rules, the particular equipment in use, and the specific hazards of their operating environment.
- Implement pre-start checks and maintenance schedules for all forklifts. The Victorian coroner’s February 2026 findings highlighted gaps in forklift inspection standards as a contributing factor to a preventable death. Do not wait for Standards Australia to mandate inspection frequencies you should establish and document your own regime now.
- Consider proximity detection and speed-limiting technology. This technology is increasingly appearing in enforceable undertaking conditions and is referenced in both the AS 2359 series (specifically AS 2359.12) and the TRG-ROVOA framework. Its installation demonstrates a proactive approach to managing residual risk.
- Monitor compliance actively. A traffic management plan that exists only on paper provides limited legal protection. Regulators expect evidence that rules are communicated, supervised, and enforced. Consider regular audits, toolbox talks, and incident reporting systems.
The cost of inaction is rising
The trajectory of enforcement action in Australia is clear. Fines are increasing: $150,000, $300,000, $400,000, $600,000 in NSW alone during 2025. SafeWork NSW has listed the safety of workers operating and working near mobile plant as a regulatory priority for 2025–26. Industrial manslaughter legislation now exists in every Australian jurisdiction except Tasmania, with custodial sentences a real possibility for the most serious failures. In Western Australia, the MT Sheds case resulted in the director being sentenced to over two years’ imprisonment for workplace safety failures involving unlicensed workers. Enforceable undertakings routinely require six-figure investments in safety improvements.
Beyond the financial penalties, the reputational and human costs of a serious forklift incident are profound. Every prosecuted case involves a real person who was injured or killed in circumstances that regulators judged to be preventable.
The good news is that the controls which prevent these incidents are well understood. They are not new, complex, or prohibitively expensive. They require a traffic management plan, physical separation, competent operators, maintained equipment, and a genuine commitment to monitoring compliance. Employers who invest in these measures now will not only reduce their risk of prosecution, but they will also create safer workplaces for everyone who walks through their doors.
For employers seeking to benchmark their current arrangements, the nine-layer defence model from the TRG-ROVOA provides a practical self-assessment framework. Work through each layer from site design through to reactive technology and honestly evaluate where your controls sit. The gaps you identify will almost certainly align with the failures that regulators are prosecuting. Addressing them proactively is always less costly than defending them in court.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Employers should seek specific advice in relation to their individual circumstances. Information is current as of February 2026.
Read More of our Related Content
Leave A Comment