The Victorian Government plans to introduce legislation regarding psychosocial hazards, similar to that of all other Australian jurisdictions, by the end of 2025. But what workplace changes are expected when this new set of occupational health and safety regulations is enacted? Other States’ laws may provide clues.
Australian occupational health and safety (OHS) laws require employers to be compliant with their OHS duties, but also allow the flexibility for employers to determine their own level of compliance. This has complicated OHS because employers can never be sure that they are in compliance. Compliance and non-compliance are usually determined accurately through the courts after legal action by the OHS regulatory agency and after a workplace incident. This uncertainty is compounded for small business owners who just want to be told what to do to be compliant.
Perhaps the most challenged industry sector is farming, which cannot avoid the uncertainty that the OHS laws provide. This uncertainty is one that highly-resourced employers are proud to claim as a well-fought-for benefit, namely, flexibility, but it is more of a problem for isolated rural workplaces and small businesses.
Working from home (WFH) is being sold as a cost-of-living fix and a family-friendly reform—but the Victorian government’s proposed WFH legislation misses a critical point: it’s also an occupational health and safety issue. While politicians tout productivity and convenience, they largely ignore the psychological benefits, consultation obligations, and uneven access that make this policy far more complex than a Monday morning commute.
You had to look hard for mentions of the occupational health and safety (OHS) legitimacy of the proposed law changes in Parliament this month.
We know what employers/leaders do or do not do about psychosocial hazards at work and the psychological impacts. But there is still insufficient discussion on why those leaders make those choices. Recently, Dr Caroline Howe came close to answering the “why” in a blog article for her Psychosocial Safety and Leadership Institute.
In this short 6-minute audio episode, I unpack the troubling case of Cleanaway Waste Management’s CEO bonus reduction following three worker deaths and challenge the notion that trimming executive pay is a meaningful consequence, and whether safety is being treated as a KPI or a moral imperative.
With references to Woolworths, Orica, and SGH Group, Kevin explores how corporate Australia responds to workplace fatalities, and why investor pressure—not ethical leadership—often drives change. Featuring insights from the Australian Financial Review and safety scholars Andrew Hopkins and Sarah Maslen, this episode calls for a deeper reckoning with executive accountability and the true cost of preventable deaths.
A new discussion paper from Safe Work Australia (SWA) is interesting in a curious way. Its purpose is confusing, and its final report will not be presented until mid-2026. SWA offers no definition of “best practice” but suggests that consideration should start from the objective of the Model Work Health and Safety Act:
“….to ensure the model WHS laws continue to provide a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces.”
The Australian Psychological Services has provided some excellent advice on what to look out for when arranging speakers for October, which is both Mental Health Month and National Safe Work Month.
