Occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely addressed in election campaigns, and the Victorian election in November is likely no exception. However, there are OHS issues that need to be discussed and addressed, and there may also be a political advantage.
Recently, occupational health and safety (OHS) lawyer Steve Bell issued a challenge to all those who provide leadership training to executives.
At the annual breakfast for the Australian Health and Safety Institute, supported by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Bell shared this leadership training scenario with his panel of experts:
The issue of working in heat has resurfaced in some Australian media this February, again driven by trade unions. The union approach continues to show negotiating flaws, deflections, and at least one inaccuracy.
Over the past few months, I have increasingly encountered the term “regulated industries” in the context of occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. In OHS in Australia, these industries seem predominantly to include:
I can identify no reason why farming should not also be a “regulated industry”.
A recent edition of the Professional Safety Journal from the United States included a cover story about pre-work stretching. This common activity on some construction and manufacturing sites is promoted as a means of preventing injury or reducing the severity of, especially, musculoskeletal injuries, but I don’t think there ever was evidence to support either of these intentions, and there still isn’t.
Recently WorkSafe Victoria revealed that in 2025:
“In the first half of this year, 174 Workcover claims have been lodged from the construction industry, from falls alone. A further 34 businesses have been charged and another 28 duty holders faced legal action, accumulating more than 2.54 million in fines, undertakings and costs. That already tops the entire 2024 figure of $1.65 million from 33 charged or prosecuted entities.”
I had the opportunity to ask WorkSafe’s Chief Health and Safety Officer, Sam Jenkin (pictured above), why such a well-known workplace hazard persists.
One of my previous employers was highly committed to occupational health and safety (OHS), but always gave the program, the schedule or utilisation a higher priority. Whether that was a justifiable compliance level was of little concern, as long as the auditors recertified the OHS management systems. The company realised their approach to OHS was not working, so it turned its focus on “critical risks”, which were, bluntly, anything that would kill you. But such was the strength of the culture that even this focus on critical risks failed to cut through and give OHS the respect that it legislatively deserves.
Matthew Hallowell‘s latest book, “Energy-Based Safety – A Scientific Approach to Preventing Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs)“, discusses this focus on critical risks.
