Niru Tyagi recently wrote on LinkedIn about Denmark’s regulatory approach to work-related psychosocial hazards, comparing it the current Australian approach, framing Denmark as creating an industrial obligation. It is a perceptive comparison but downplays the significance in Australia of the criterion of reasonably practicable.
The release of new psychological safety workplace regulations and guidance in Victoria is a big thing. Partly because this closes the gap, with similar occupational health and safety (OHS) regulations now in place throughout Australia. Partly because Victoria was an early advocate for changes to these workplace hazards, and the government sat on its hands with this issue for far too long. (No one really knows why)
A quick read of the Compliance Code suggests that many of these hazards are unlikely to be controlled without the cooperation of Human Resources (HR) personnel. This might be the biggest challenge to achieving change and preventing harm.
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.
Ask someone to depict occupational health and safety (OHS) in a drawing, and the image is likely to include a hard hat, maybe some safety glasses, or hearing protection. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) dominates the concept of OHS and how people perceive OHS, even when PPE is the last hazard control option to be considered in providing safe and healthy work.
Our relationship with PPE has forever been changed by everyone’s experience of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survivors of the pandemic are loath to reflect on those few intense years, but OHS needs to talk about the pandemic and what went right and what went wrong. Here’s a short start to the conversation.
In the next short audio episode, I discuss the myth of “reasonably practicable” within occupational health and safety (OHS) and the moral implications it carries. Safety is not just about adhering to laws but about upholding values and a moral code in the workplace. Legislation should be viewed as a tool, not a destination, and we must go beyond mere compliance to effectively protect workers from harm.
This thought-provoking discussion is based on an article from SafetyAtWorkBlog, published on August 21, 2025.
Discussion about workplace psychosocial hazards seems to be everywhere. This is a good thing, as everyone needs a better understanding of the risks workers face and what prevention mechanisms are expected from employers and business owners. But that discussion needs to be measured and accurate. A recent article written about this issue for accountants is slightly inaccurate about occupational health and safety (OHS).
Australia’s Economic Roundtable recycled the same institutions and failed metrics that have long masked our productivity crisis. As Amy Remeikis notes, those who shaped past policy failures now feign surprise at the fallout. Meanwhile, important drivers of productivity, such as safe and quality work, remain ignored. OHS is treated as a compliance chore, rather than a strategic asset. If the Albanese government truly wants productivity reform, it must stop listening only to the “profit class” and start measuring what matters: worker health, dignity, and contribution.
