In the realm of occupational health and safety (OHS), Enforceable Undertakings (EUs) have emerged as a significant alternative to prosecution for companies that breach safety legislation. Recently, I had the opportunity to catch up with Naomi Kemp to explore the concept of EUs, their implications for workplace safety, exceeding compliance, and the restoration of relationships following incidents.
Wade Needham provides his personal responses to a series of questions regarding psychosocial hazards, offering a fresh and more corporate perspective. This continues the series of articles based on speakers at the recent Psych Health and Safety conference.
The 2025 Psych Health and Safety (PHS) Conference, held in Sydney and hosted by FlourishDx, marked a significant evolution from its inaugural event. With over 200 delegates, a larger venue, enhanced facilities, and a more polished exhibition space, the conference built on its foundational success. Centred around four key themes—evidence-based practice, leading mentally healthy workplaces, inclusive work design, and international perspectives—the event delivered a robust platform for professionals from occupational health and safety (OHS) and human resources (HR) to converge on the critical topic of psychosocial health and safety.
The 2nd (annual) psych health and safety conference commenced with what was almost a summary of the current play in the workplace psychosocial/psychological sphere. This year, the venue is bigger, and the number of delegates in person and online appears much bigger. But the most significant feature is the blending of different disciplines under the psych tag.
Rob Briner kicked it off
Two prominent experts on psychosocial hazards at work, featuring at the Psych Health and Safety Conference later this week in Sydney, Mary Ann Baynton and I. David Daniels, responded to my question to them (and other speakers) listed in the title above.
Mary Ann Baynton’s response first:
“The two most persistent barriers to employers preventing psychosocial hazards are a misunderstanding of what is required and the belief that it would cost too much in terms of time and effort….”
Over the next week or so, SafetyAtWorkBlog will be focusing on the issue of psychosocial hazards and psychological risks at work, as we cover the Psych Health and Safety Conference in Sydney. These risks and hazards are the most pressing topic in occupational health and safety (OHS) at the moment, with an increased demand for solutions from workers and the community, as well as heightened expectations for regulatory compliance. I apologise for this intense focus, but I welcome your comments and participation.
I will start by posing this question:
“The Australian approaches to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Human Resources and Work Health and Safety have been siloed in the past. Are the approaches getting closer? Is there more cooperation between the two or are the two disciplines’ aims still too different?”
Recently, New Zealand’s Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke Van Velden, was interviewed for almost half an hour by Jack Tame on her government’s proposed changes to occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. The interview was informative and entertaining, as it explained some aspects of the OHS changes, but also showcased a Minister who was uncomfortable with being questioned.
