The Australian Government is committed to increasing the manufacturing sector through its Future Made in Australia strategy and legislation. To participate in the program and receive funds or tax incentives, companies must meet the Community Benefit Principles, including providing safe and healthy workplaces.
Over coffee with colleagues yesterday, I spoke a lot about the sociological context of work and occupational health and safety. I realised I was echoing many of the points I made in an article from February 2024, so I revisited that article on Limitarianism and produced this short 5-minute summary of the issue.
Last month, the Sunday Times published an article with a concerning headline: “Resilience training for Gen Z is booming — and that’s no bad thing” (paywalled). Resilience training for psychological safety at work has not been discredited, but there is plenty of evidence showing it is insufficient and inappropriate as a primary strategy for preventing psychological harm. This evidence is being reflected in Australia’s Codes and guidance for managing psychological safety.
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?
