If the first lesson from IAWBH2026 was that psychological risks must be treated as system hazards, the second is that most organisations remain structurally ill-equipped to manage them. Despite years of policy development and training initiatives, the evidence presented at the recent International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment conference in Canberra showed persistent gaps between intention and outcome.
Business management advisers keep calling everyone a “leader”, but the term has become so vague it obscures who actually holds the power — and therefore the accountability — to prevent work-related harm. Psychosocial hazards aren’t fixed by slogans or culture talk; they’re shaped by decisions about workload, staffing, supervision and resources.
This article is based on my presentation to the Central Safety Group members on May 12, 2026, about leadership and occupational health and safety (OHS).
In the mid‑1970s, I arrived at Dandenong High School still clinging to the small importance I’d felt as a primary‑school Prefect. That confidence evaporated the day a student yelled “bums to the wall” as Science Teacher and Year 7 Coordinator Tim Richardson walked past. I didn’t yet know what a paedophile was, but Richardson would not be prosecuted for sexual offences until 2018, dying in jail a year later.
This experience reflects a broader cultural pattern of denial that still shapes how organisations respond to psychosocial hazards today. Australian companies, executives and employers are grappling with “new” duties to prevent psychological harm, yet Richardson’s story shows just how long our institutions have excused what should never have been excused.
Most countries and regions seem to have a sport of cultural significance. Australia has several, but all professional sports are played in workplaces, the players are employees, and the sporting clubs are employers. Most have a supervisory and administrative body. Recently, an Australian Rules Football player, Elijah Hollands, displayed signs of a mental health condition during a match. Some spectators noticed that “something was wrong”; some players noticed this at the time, but Hollands played three-quarters of the game, offering only one direct contribution to play, before he was taken off, to only return later in the last quarter. The ABC and 7News provide a good background to the situation
The questions that remain unanswered are why Holland’s employer did not remove a clearly unwell player earlier, and whether the Carlton Football Club breached its duty of care.
I don’t believe that all occupational health and safety (OHS) principles, risk assessment tools, or values are relevant to the non-work culture, but there is sufficient overlap for OHS to offer a framework for hazard identification, incident investigation, and potential risk control options. The current political debate in Australia about “Australian values” and immigration offers an illustration of this overlap; an overlap and debate that is being echoed in the United Kingdom.
A post written by Wade Needham (April 15, 2026), and reproduced with permission.
Two judgments totaling 75,000 words were handed down across 2024 and 2026. Not everyone will read them. Everyone should understand what they establish.
Years ago, during commissioning work at Port Hedland for the Roy Hill project, someone asked me how I knew the night shift crew were following the isolation procedure for livening the sub stations. I could name the critical risk. I could point to the training records, the procedure, the sign-off sheet, the safety advisor on shift. And when they asked how I knew it was being followed at 2am when nobody was watching, I paused. Long pause. Then I said something like “Well, the reports don’t show any issues.”
I have never forgotten that pause. Because I knew, in that moment, that I was describing paperwork. Not reality.
That is the most dangerous sentence in safety governance. The reports don’t show any issues. It is the sentence that sat underneath everything that went wrong at the Port of Auckland. I wanted to distil down elements of the judgement I found insightful.
But first, a too-long, don’t-want-to-read summary for those short on time.
Continue reading “A Workplace Death. An Upheld Conviction. And a Standard Every C-Suite Officer Should Understand.”Australian lawyer Michael Tooma is always worth listening to, and he recently participated in a webinar titled “When AI Watches Work: Monitoring Workers and Psychosocial Risks!” hosted by the Global Initiative for Industrial Safety. Tooma reinforced warnings about overreliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in occupational health and safety.
