Occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely addressed in election campaigns, and the Victorian election in November is likely no exception. However, there are OHS issues that need to be discussed and addressed, and there may also be a political advantage.
Harvard Business Review (HBR) is an active publisher of articles on business management. In 2024, it released a collection of essays on psychological safety as part of its Emotional Intelligence series. HBR’s psychological safety advice is written for a U.S. corporate audience. It largely ignores the legislative duties that shape psychosocial risk management in Australia, so the advice should be considered with great caution.
I pride myself on listening to a broad range of views, so I purchased a recent book called “The Dark Legacy of Daniel Andrews – Assessing the Social and Economic Costs of Australia’s Most Controversial Premier“. Reading it stretched my patience as few of the various writers acknowledged that Premier Dan Andrews saved many lives during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though his very long lockdowns were economically and psychologically damaging.
I read this book looking for factual accuracy, analytical rigour, ideological framing, and relevance to OHS. It missed almost all my expectations.
Recently, occupational health and safety (OHS) lawyer Steve Bell issued a challenge to all those who provide leadership training to executives.
At the annual breakfast for the Australian Health and Safety Institute, supported by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Bell shared this leadership training scenario with his panel of experts:
The most popular solution to physical and psychological occupational health and safety (OHS) problems is leadership. Leadership is crucial to implementing changes to work processes and policies that can prevent harm, yet we often view leadership as executive benevolence, without really examining executive leadership in modern workplaces.
Looking at current leadership traits through a different lens may help us understand why it continues to be so difficult to improve worker health and safety.
Citizen and worker well-being will not be a major focus of the Australian government’s budgets, but it will still influence them. Recently, Professor Paul Read assessed the Wellbeing Budget concept in The Australian Fabians Review (issue 8). His optimism is notable and helps us understand well-being in an occupational and psychological context.
Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers was keen on establishing a “Wellbeing Budget“. The initiative faded, but the desire persisted. The Wellbeing Budget is getting renewed interest but also some anticipatory criticism. Such a budget could have significant impacts on occupational health and safety (OHS) management, so it warrants monitoring and cautious support.
