Across the Australian construction and industrial safety landscape, one phrase appears repeatedly in Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS), site inductions and contractor procedures: “within 2 metres of a live edge.”

It is so widely referenced that many assume it is a statutory requirement. In reality, it is not expressly mandated in the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) Regulations. Yet its influence on planning, supervision and enforcement outcomes is significant. Understanding where the concept originates, and how it should properly be applied, is critical for safety professionals seeking to align practice with both regulatory intent and defensible risk management.

The “2 metre” benchmark discussed here does not relate to the height of a potential fall. It refers to proximity to an unprotected edge from which a fall from one level to another could occur.

Historically, fall protection obligations were often triggered by specific vertical distances. Contemporary WHS frameworks, however, adopt a risk-based approach. Control measures are required wherever there is a risk of injury from a fall, irrespective of fall height.

The 2-metre proximity concept therefore functions as a practical exposure indicator, a zone in which human error, loss of balance, environmental factors or task design may reasonably result in a fall. It is best understood not as a legal threshold, but as a risk trigger prompting assessment and control.

The model WHS Regulations do not prescribe a “2 metre rule.” Nor do the national Codes of Practice mandate a fixed exclusion distance from an edge.

However, the Model Code of Practice: Construction Work references proximity as an example of heightened exposure. Section 4.1 notes that workers may be at risk of falling when working near an edge or opening, for example, if working within 2 metres of an unprotected edge of a roof or floor. This reference is illustrative rather than prescriptive. It signals a foreseeable risk scenario rather than establishing a measurable compliance line.

Similarly, the Model Code of Practice: Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces makes clear that control measures are required wherever there is a risk of injury from a fall, irrespective of fall height. It refers to work undertaken “in the vicinity of an edge over which a person could fall,” but does not define a specific distance.

The Model Code of Practice: Preventing Falls in Housing Construction discusses “no-go zones” in certain contexts, again without prescribing a fixed measurement.

Taken together, these documents establish proximity to an edge as a recognised risk factor, while leaving duty holders to determine what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

While not legislated, the 2-metre benchmark has become embedded in industry practice because it reflects a practical safety buffer.

Within this distance:

• A slip, trip or misstep can readily result in a fall over an unprotected edge.
• Carrying materials, turning, or operating equipment may unintentionally move a worker into an exposed area.
• Visual focus on a task may compromise spatial awareness.
• Tools or materials dropped from the working surface may create secondary hazards below.

The benchmark also aligns broadly with known limitations in human reaction time and balance recovery once destabilised near an edge. When a worker is within close proximity, there is often insufficient time or space to correct a loss of balance before reaching the fall point.

Importantly, the 2-metre concept should not be treated as universally sufficient. Roof pitch, surface condition, wind, lighting, structural scale and task complexity may justify extending the exclusion zone beyond 2 metres.

Although not mandated, many organisations operationalise the 2-metre proximity benchmark through site procedures and contractor management systems. Common applications include:

• Requiring fall protection measures when work is undertaken within 2 metres of an unprotected edge.
• Establishing exclusion zones unless physical or engineered controls are installed.
• Triggering documented hazard assessments or supervisory approval for tasks inside the zone.
• Designing work sequencing so that high-risk activities are performed outside the buffer where practicable.

This approach converts illustrative guidance into enforceable site rules. When implemented through documented risk assessment, training and supervision, it reflects a proactive interpretation of foreseeable exposure.

Under the model WHS legislative framework, duty holders must eliminate or minimise risks so far as is reasonably practicable. In determining what is reasonably practicable, consideration must be given to the likelihood of the hazard occurring and the degree of harm that might result.

Where industry guidance, Codes of Practice and widespread practice consistently recognise work within 2 metres of an unprotected edge as a foreseeable fall exposure zone, it may be difficult to argue that such risk was not reasonably foreseeable.

In the event of an incident, the question is unlikely to be whether a “2 metre rule” existed in legislation. Rather, it will be whether the duty holder adequately identified and controlled a clearly recognised proximity hazard.

In this context, ignoring the benchmark altogether may present greater legal risk than adopting and documenting a reasoned proximity control strategy.

Best practice does not treat 2 metres as a rigid legal boundary. Instead, it recognises it as an early risk trigger.

Effective fall risk management should:

• Assess proximity in combination with fall height, surface condition and environmental factors.
• Apply the hierarchy of controls, prioritising elimination and engineered solutions over administrative measures and PPE.
• Clearly articulate in SWMS and toolbox briefings why proximity controls exist, rather than merely prescribing them.
• Document the rationale for site-specific distances, particularly where conditions warrant extending the exclusion zone.

This approach demonstrates alignment with a risk-based WHS framework and supports the development of a positive and informed safety culture.

The “2 metres from a live edge” benchmark is not codified as a strict regulatory requirement in most Australian jurisdictions. It is, however, a widely recognised indicator of foreseeable fall exposure.

It should be understood for what it is; a practical and defensible planning tool grounded in proximity risk, human factors and established industry guidance. It is neither myth nor mandate, but it remains a prudent trigger for control implementation.

When applied thoughtfully, documented clearly, and adapted to site conditions, the 2-metre concept supports both worker protection and regulatory defensibility. When ignored, it may expose organisations not only to enforcement scrutiny, but to preventable harm.

In a risk-based regulatory environment, proximity matters. The responsibility lies not in debating whether 2 metres is written in law, but in determining whether the risk it represents has been properly managed.

About the writer:

Scott Barber is a safety leader, strategist, and communicator with over two decades of experience advancing high-risk industry practice through innovation, education, and advocacy. As CEO of the Working at Height Association (WAHA), he has transformed it into an internationally recognised safety body driving regulatory alignment, collaboration, and industry engagement.

A published writer and sought-after speaker, Scott advises government, emergency services, and industry on falls prevention, rescue readiness, and high-risk system design. He works with regulators and universities, including RMIT and the University of Newcastle, on adaptive learning, engagement frameworks, and high-risk safety strategy.

Grounded in human-centred design, Scott translates complex challenges into practical strategies that improve safety, build capability, and save lives.