Over the past few months, I have increasingly encountered the term “regulated industries” in the context of occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. In OHS in Australia, these industries seem predominantly to include:
I can identify no reason why farming should not also be a “regulated industry”.
Walk through any corporate sustainability report and you’ll find the same familiar choreography: a glossy declaration of “unwavering commitment to safety,” a handful of photos featuring smiling workers in immaculate PPE, and a CEO foreword that reads like it was written by a risk‑averse committee. What you won’t find is any serious engagement with the economic structures that produce harm in the first place.
For decades, scholars have been mapping the relationship between capitalism and workplace injury. They’ve shown, with depressing consistency, that harm is not an aberration but a predictable by‑product of systems designed to extract value from labour while externalising risk. Yet when these same scholars propose alternative models — models that would reduce harm by redistributing power, stabilising labour markets, or democratising decision‑making — executives respond with a familiar repertoire of excuses.
This article examines why. In a couple of real-world case studies, corporations were presented with opportunities to adopt safer, fairer, more accountable models — and chose not to.
Because the truth is simple: executives don’t reject these proposals because they’re unworkable. They reject them because they work exactly as intended.
Over the last few decades, occupational health and safety (OHS) thinking has emphasised that the tangible hazards and risks at work are primarily created by unsafe systems of work or by poor organisational culture or maturity.
I am not sure that “organisational” is the most appropriate adjective. There are better alternatives: terms that re-humanise the decision-making process and acknowledge that culture comprises people.
To truly understand occupational health and safety (OHS) issues, it is necessary to examine OHS concerns beyond one’s own industry. Recently, this blog has reported on some parliamentary debates on OHS in the horse racing industry. The November edition of The Monthly includes an exposé of the OHS of Australia’s horse racing industry by freelance writer, Madison Griffiths, with lessons for all of us on morality, Godliness, accountability and leadership. The article is paywalled but well worth the purchase.
On October 21, 2025, the Australian Capital Territory’s Parliament debated (page P3249) expanding workers’ compensation to gig workers. Impediments to change were similar to those mentioned in various parliamentary inquires and debates ever since gig work developed into an industry sector and gig workers started to die at work. But the amendment passed so progress was made.
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are a contentious device used by lawyers, often as part of the settlement of a legal dispute. These came to the fore in the context of sexual harassment several years ago. The Victorian government has proposed a bill to Parliament that, according to the Australian Financial Review (AFR), will increase transparency. This should assist in determining changes to work processes that are as low as is reasonably practicable.
NDAs have been an insidious tool, especially in relation to sexual harassment at work.
In 2023, a Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recommended that the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 be amended to introduce a positive duty on all duty-holders to eliminate disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation. This echoes the imposition in 2022 of a positive duty to prevent sexual harassment. Occupational health and safety (OHS) legislation has had its positive duty to prevent work-related harm since 1985. So why this current push for positive duties?
