I asked an artificial intelligence program to identify Australian instances where politics may have led to institutional changes related to psychosocial hazards. It revealed numerous actions related to government inquiries and activities, but did not address politics as I intended. Clearly, my question needed clarification, but the response remained informative and deserves attention.
This time I asked:
“Most Australian discussions of psychosocial hazards appear to focus primarily on causes that can be controlled at work. Is there any activity in the political sphere for institutional changes?”
The AI responded with this conclusion.
“There is significant political activity in Australia driving institutional changes to address psychosocial hazards, extending beyond workplace-specific causes to broader systemic factors. Regulatory reforms (e.g., the 2022 WHS Amendments, Victoria’s 2025 regulations), major reviews (e.g., the Boland Review, the Royal Commission), and initiatives like Vision 2030 and ISO45003 alignment reflect a political commitment to systemic reform. These efforts recognise societal influences like stigma, gender dynamics, and economic instability, aiming to create institutional frameworks that support mentally healthy workplaces. However, while political and institutional changes are substantial, their effectiveness depends on consistent enforcement, resource availability, and genuine commitment to addressing both workplace and societal drivers of psychosocial risks.” (links added)
Many of the inquiries mentioned have led to regulatory changes or the development of occupational health and safety (OHS) guidance, thereby contributing to the state of knowledge on psychosocial hazards, but not necessarily to real-world action. The inquiries have applied broad and non-workplace perspectives, but aimed at creating new workplace laws or amending existing ones, rather than recommending non-legislative changes or changes to non-OHS laws.
The AI analysis identified actions on which effectiveness depends:
- enforcement
- resources, and
- commitment.
“Commitment” is often a favourite of politicians and corporate executives because it allows them to express support without taking any action. You can commit to budgetary reform or an improvement in funds allocated for OHS, but satisfy this by increasing funding by as little as possible when far more money and resources are required. The AI analysis suggests that the commitment should encompass both workplace and social drivers, acknowledging the importance of both.
The closest the analysis gets to political action is perhaps its mention of two Victorian figures:
“Statements from political figures, such as Victoria’s Deputy Premier Ben Carroll and WorkSafe’s Sam Jenkin, emphasise the economic and social imperative of addressing psychosocial hazards. These statements frame mental health as a priority for institutional reform, linking it to productivity and community wellbeing.” (links added)
Victoria led the charge for regulatory amendments on psychosocial hazards before dropping the ball, becoming the last jurisdiction to enact such changes. Perhaps Victoria will leap ahead of the other jurisdictions in this area rather than just play catch-up.
The Challenges and Gaps identified by the AI are interesting:
“Implementation Variability: While political activity has driven regulatory changes, implementation varies across jurisdictions and industries. Victoria’s delay in adopting psychosocial regulations until 2025 highlights uneven progress, with smaller businesses often struggling to adopt systemic changes due to resource constraints.
Focus on Compliance: Some institutional changes risk being compliance-driven rather than transformative, with employers adopting minimal measures to meet legal requirements rather than addressing systemic issues, such as cultural stigma or economic precarity.
Data Limitations: The NSSHMS [National Suicide and Self-harm Monitoring System] and other systems underscore the need for better data to capture non-healthcare-related mental health issues, a gap that political initiatives are only beginning to address.” (link added)
The comment on compliance should not be surprising, as this approach by businesses has dominated OHS since the introduction of modern laws in the 1980s. Employers rarely have time for OHS, so they only want to keep the WorkSafe inspectors away by doing as little as possible and simply complying. Most fail to capitalise on the opportunities offered to enhance their company’s reputation and marketability, as well as the satisfaction of staff and stakeholders, and the sustainability and profitability of the company, by providing safe and healthy workplaces.
Data limitations have been the bane of OHS outside the healthcare sector for decades. Safe Work Australia has recently improved this situation, but significant changes are still required, many of which are likely to be rejected in the upcoming legislative reform debates. There was talk of including suicide as a notifiable incident, but this has yet to materialise, and the issue of what sort of mental health incident is reportable remains debatable.