Dean Yates is a prominent Australian speaker on the issue of moral injury. Yesterday, at a WorkSafe Tasmania seminar, Yates brought the 250 attendees up to date on the status of moral injury and its occupational context. Although this seminar was a Safe Work Month event, Yates’ information requires some thought to fit with the occupational health and safety (OHS) and psychological hazards contexts.
The most significant challenges for employers in Victoria’s new OHS (Psychological Health) Regulations, supported by a new Compliance Code, are likely to be fostering a strong workplace safety culture. Occupational health and safety (OHS) advocates have been emphasising the importance of culture for several decades now (Sociologists examined it decades before). It appears that we will be hearing a great deal more about culture for some time to come, but what is expected of employers?
Prominent occupational health and safety (OHS) lawyers Dale McQualter and Catherine Dunlop have just concluded the first of two online seminars about Victoria’s new psychological/psychosocial regulations and compliance code. Many employers will have a lot of work to do to comply, but the overall sense was one of reassurance.
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.
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.
There are several ways to write about Safe Work Australia’s recent Research Summit. This is the first article and will discuss a couple of features of the summit and ask if the summit achieved its aims.
One of the aims of Australia’s Model Work Health and Safety Act is to
“… provide a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” (page 5, Best Practice Review of the model Work Health and Safety laws – Discussion Paper, September 2025)
There are several ways to interpret “balance” – an equilibrium/harmony or the process for weighing interest, a noun or a verb. I am not sure that ‘balance’ or ‘balanced’ are suitable terms in a document that should provide clear guidance on occupational health and safety (OHS) matters. It may be an example of how an inexactitude can lead to over-complexity and OHS’s reputation for business bullshit.
