PPE comes last in the law's control order, and reaching for it first buys more duties, not fewer.

Last means last: the hierarchy is regulation, not advice

Regulation 36 applies whenever a risk cannot be eliminated, and it works through numbered steps. The duty holder must first minimise the risk so far as reasonably practicable by substituting the hazard for something less hazardous, isolating it from people, or implementing engineering controls. If risk remains, administrative controls. And only "if a risk then remains" must the duty holder minimise it "by ensuring the provision and use of suitable personal protective equipment". The How to manage WHS risks code explains why the order is fixed: administrative controls and PPE "are the least effective at minimising risk because they do not control the hazard at the source and rely on human behaviour and supervision". The code confines them to three roles: a supplement to higher controls, a short-term interim measure while a better control is built, or a last resort when nothing else is practicable. Its own example makes the point at the top of the hierarchy: not buying the noisy machine beats handing out earmuffs. A combination of controls is expressly allowed where no single one is enough, and PPE is often the right final layer over a guard or an exhaust system. What the regulation does not allow is starting at the bottom because gloves are cheaper than guarding.

Four regulations, one chain of duties

Division 5 of Part 3.2 hands out the PPE duties person by person. Under regulation 44, the PCBU who directs the work must provide the equipment, unless another PCBU already has, the regulation's own example being a labour hire company. The provider must then ensure the equipment is selected to minimise the risk, "suitable having regard to the nature of the work and any hazard associated with the work" and "a suitable size and fit and reasonably comfortable for the worker who is to use or wear it"; maintained, repaired or replaced so it keeps working, "clean and hygienic" and "in good working order"; and actually used or worn by the worker so far as reasonably practicable. Information, training and instruction must cover not just proper use and wearing but storage and maintenance. Regulation 45 extends the duty to PPE used by people other than workers, visitors included; regulation 47 obliges those visitors to wear it as instructed. And the money question is answered in the Act itself: under section 273, a PCBU "must not impose a levy or charge on a worker, or permit a levy or charge to be imposed on a worker, for anything done, or provided, in relation to work health and safety". The hard hat, the hearing protection, the respirator fit test: none of it can appear on the worker's payslip.

Selection is fit, comfort and compatibility, in consultation

Safe Work Australia's PPE duties guidance distils the selection test: the equipment must protect the worker's health and safety, be right for the work and its hazards, fit properly and be comfortable, and be "compatible with other PPE worn", its example being the combination of protective eyewear, hearing protection and a hard hat that has to work as one outfit. The PCBU must consult workers about selecting the most suitable PPE, an application of the general consultation duty, and the fit limb is not a courtesy: regulation 44 makes suitable size, fit and reasonable comfort part of the legal standard, because equipment that hurts gets taken off. The regulator's companion guidance lists what badly chosen PPE does instead of protecting: restricts vision or mobility, overheats the wearer by stopping sweat evaporating, or triggers allergic reactions to its materials, and it puts the fix on the employer: "you must check and fix any problems a worker is having with their PPE". Maintenance closes the loop, with the guidance requiring PPE kept clean and hygienic, stored correctly, and repaired or replaced when it stops functioning, on the manufacturer's information.

The worker's side of the bargain

Regulation 46 gives workers three duties of their own once PPE is provided: use or wear it, so far as reasonably able, in accordance with the information, training or reasonable instruction given; do not intentionally misuse or damage it; and tell the PCBU about "any damage to, defect in or need to clean or decontaminate" the equipment. Each carries its own penalty. The exchange the Division builds is deliberate. The employer buys, fits, maintains and trains; the worker wears, looks after and reports. The reporting duty is the one that keeps the system alive between purchases, and it only works where reporting a cracked visor produces a new visor rather than a lecture, which is a culture question the model law takes seriously elsewhere. A worker who cannot wear the issued equipment, because it does not fit, reacts with their skin or clashes with other gear, is describing a selection failure under regulation 44, not committing a breach of regulation 46, and the regulator's guidance says the PCBU must help fix exactly that problem.

Why a PPE-first program is a warning sign

Across the instruments this masthead has covered, PPE keeps appearing in the same place, at the bottom, trailing extra duties behind it. The noise code allows hearing protectors only where more effective controls cannot do the job, as an interim measure, or as a top-up, and then shows why it is nervous: a protector rated to reduce noise by 30 decibels delivers an effective 9 decibels if the wearer takes it off for one hour of an eight-hour shift, and providing hearing PPE drags the audiometric testing duty in behind it. A fall arrest harness is the last rung of the falls control sequence, and choosing it switches on regulation 80's tested rescue procedures, covered on the working at heights page. The plant code sends breathing protection, hard hats and gloves in only after guarding, isolation and traffic controls, as covered on the machinery and plant page. The pattern is the audit test. A workplace whose answer to a hazard register is a PPE catalogue has skipped four levels of a mandatory sequence, and the first question a regulator's inspector or an incoming safety manager will ask is the one regulation 36 asks: what higher control was considered, and why was it not reasonably practicable?