In occupational health and safety (OHS) one hears about resilience usually in terms of psychological health and the ability to cope with stress. Applying a primary focus on resilience to prevent and manage mental health at work has been discredited, but resilience has a broader application and one that echoes the OHS-based concerns.
The recent COVID-19 pandemic is over, but the virus and risk continue. Like any biological hazard that occurs in or affects workplaces, occupational health and safety (OHS) personnel need to be ready to respond appropriately should the hazard emerge or expand.
It is generally accepted that Safe Work Australia responded as quickly as possible when developing COVID-19 guidance, given that everyone was trying to work out what the hell was happening. Shortly before the pandemic, WorkSafe Victoria had published the first edition of a guide on how employers could respond to pandemics.
But where is Australia at now? How prepared are we for the next disease pandemic or epidemic? I asked Safe Work Australia and WorkSafe Victoria for an update.
Workers and employers seem to be facing more and more traumatic events at work, but are we? An interesting article on the topic (paywalled) was in the UK newspaper The Times on September 27 2025, on the eve of the international Transform Trauma Oxford 2025, which discussed the “concept creep” of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This is an important context to consider when preventing psychosocial hazards in the workplace and managing psychological risks.
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.
As Victoria shivers in the middle of its Winter and a cop-killer runs loose in the mountains in the middle of the state, it may seem odd to think about the occupational health and safety (OHS) context of working in excessive heat. However, give us a couple of months, and it will be a hot topic again in the Southern Hemisphere. (First and last weather pun, I promise)
A recent article in The New York Times (paywalled) examined excessive heat in Spain, providing useful details on the changes being implemented—some old, some new.
“WFH is probably good for productivity” was a headline in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) of May 29 2025. The online version (paywalled) added “if it’s part-time”. The Productivity Commission‘s examination of the COVID-19 pandemic in its “before-and-after” report presents some new perspectives on occupational health and safety (OHS) aspects of working from home.
My great uncle dug into coal mine tailings with his bare hands to try and rescue the school children and teachers buried during the Aberfan disaster. His own grandchildren died. Both of my grandfathers suffered from lives spent underground; they both died young, one from lung cancer and silicosis.
For me, all safety is political. It always has been. It’s not party-political – but it can be. It’s political in the sense that all decisions in every aspect of our lives are a function of power and authority.
