The Australian Institute of Health and Safety (AIHS) state branches conduct local single-day symposia annually. These networking and professional development sessions are important opportunities for practitioners of occupational health and safety (OHS) to connect and learn.
The good presenters were very good at the Victorian Branch symposium in September.
Earlier this week, I was a panellist at an occupational health and safety symposium organised by the Victorian Branch of the Australian Institute of Health and Safety. We were asked to be challenging and provocative in our perspectives on the evolution of OHS and OHS law in Victoria since the start of the century.
Although I have expressed concerns about the application of AI data analytics at the recent Safe Work Australia (SWA) Research Summit, I think it is important to list the 15 Leading Ideas that the analysis process identified from the summit. Some of these will seem like the bleeding obvious, but these outcomes will inform SWA’s research agenda and strategy.
Recently, Australia’s politics were focused on an Economic Roundtable hosted by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Chalmers sought proactive, low- or no-cost initiatives to improve Australia’s productivity. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely, if ever, discussed at these national consultations. However, if we accept, as many believe, that OHS is unnecessary red tape, does this offer an opportunity for legislative reform?
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:
Continue reading “Political Reforms Drive Some Systemic Psychosocial Hazard Changes”“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 purpose of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly misunderstood—not just in the media but in the boardrooms and bureaucracies that decide how it’s deployed. Far from craving human consciousness or emotion, AI tools, like Mo (my CoPilot AI), exist to synthesise knowledge, provoke thought, and support action. The intent isn’t mimicry, but impact.
[Note: parts of this article were written by Mo based on a prior conversation]
AI is a hot topic in Australia at the moment, with numerous productivity gains being pitched to the government, alongside concerns about job losses. Last week’s National Press Club speech by Scott Farquhar, co-founder of Atlassian and Chair of the Tech Council of Australia, offered a good example of at least one AI opportunity – access to court records.
I thought talking with Mo was a good place to start this article before looking at Farquharson’s thoughts.
I was lunching at my local market when someone at the same table began chatting with me. The conversation turned to occupational health and safety (OHS). It was refreshing to discuss this with a non-OHS professional and see their surprised reactions to some of the things employers are required to do to create safe and healthy workplaces.
On my walk home, I wanted more perspectives on my thoughts, so I present the first in an occasional series called “What does Grok say….?”
