The Victorian government has commenced its Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria. Occupational health and safety (OHS) was mentioned on Day 1 in the opening statements of Counsel Assisting the Commissioner, Chris Young KC, indicating that OHS may feature in the investigations over the next year.
This week the Australian Government released its latest Intergenerational Report (IGR). It does not discuss occupational health and safety (OHS) directly, but it does cover some of the socioeconomic factors within which OHS must be managed.
The report’s projections on ageing, labour supply, climate, care demand, migration and fiscal pressure shift safety from a narrow focus on acute hazards to a long‑term, systemic challenge centred on chronic exposure, job design, psychosocial harm and workforce vulnerability. The IGR is important for our consideration of work-related harm.
Like many other countries, Australia’s political debate seems dominated by immigration issues. This week, after Federal Minister Tony Burke announced the government’s revised immigration policy, Queensland primary producer Joe Moro linked migration to occupational health and safety (OHS) and labour availability.
Australian work health and safety (WHS) law rests on the deceptively simple proposition that those who create or control risks must eliminate them, or reduce them so far as is reasonably practicable. It is a neat legal phrase that also hides much of the workplace reality.
Anyone who has spent time in workplaces knows how difficult it is. Most occupational health and safety (OHS) decisions are not reviewed by an inspector, challenged by a worker, or tested in court. They are made inside businesses, under commercial pressure, by people who may genuinely want to do the right thing but are also trying to meet production, budget and staffing demands. Too often, the employer’s view of what is “reasonable” becomes the working standard until something goes badly wrong.
Yesterday I posed the following questions for Victoria’s upcoming Parliamentary Committee inquiry into proposed work-from-home (WFH) laws.
Below I offer some answers.
Based on mainstream media reports of the working-from-home (WFH) debate in Victoria over the last few weeks, Victorian politics has fractured over the proposal to give most employees a right to work from home two days a week. The politics of the WFH initiative came to the fore, even if occupational health and safety (OHS) didn’t.
Day Two of PHSCon was likely to be uncomfortable. Day One covered context, community and curiosity. Day Two asked a more difficult question. Now that employers know more about psychosocial hazards, are they prepared to change how work is designed, managed and measured? The broad answer from the speakers and case studies was “not really”. Genuinely managing psychosocial hazards and psychological safety is not a wellbeing campaign, a mindfulness app, a webinar series or another glossy page on the intranet. It is occupational health and safety (OHS), and it requires the same attention to hazards, controls, governance, and review that employers claim to routinely apply to physical risks.
