In 2021, Safe Work Australia released a model Code of Practice (CoP) for Working in Extreme Heat. The latest iteration of that code was released by the Australian Capital Territory on November 7, 2025. It is greatly expanded and much clearer on the prevention and management of exposures. When companies are claiming “best practice” safety, this CoP is particularly interesting.
Safety behaviour is often discussed in terms of compliance—whether workers follow procedures, wear protective equipment, or report hazards. Yet, this view only scratches the surface of what safety behaviour truly means in today’s complex organisational environments. At its core, safety behaviour encompasses the observable actions and decisions individuals make that either promote or compromise health and safety. These actions are shaped not just by rules, but by a rich tapestry of social norms, leadership expectations, and the perceived consequences of speaking up or staying silent.
The Victorian government’s move to legislate a right to work from home (WFH) at least 2 days per week continues to irritate some Australian executives. So, what is their problem with the proposal of a law that reflects the current practice in most Australian workplaces? Don’t they have other priorities to manage?
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?
Recently, parliamentary workplaces in the United Kingdom and Australia have had scandals about inappropriate behaviour – COVID-era parties and sexual harassment and assault, respectively. Official inquiries have repeatedly identified that Ministers and parliamentarians are overwhelmed with paperwork and expectations of being contactable 24/7. These do not excuse poor, unsuitable or criminal behaviour, but they are part of poor work design and contribute to poor psychological health and can be improved. But overwork in parliament is not a new phenomenon.
Work-related suicide is more insidious in some ways than non-work suicide, as it is institutionally stigmatised to the extent that its reality has been denied. There is an additional level of complexity when an employer is in control of the work, and a strong economic ideology often denies the influence of work factors. The tide is turning, but organisational factors are not receiving the prominence they deserve, and the change remains slow.
New Australian research is playing a crucial role in accelerating this change.
Note: This article discusses issues related to suicide.
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.
