In November 2022, then-Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins explained why sexual harassment in Australian workplaces continues to happen. Basically, she said this was because the sex discrimination laws were reactive to a worker complaint and placed no duty on employers to prevent these types of incidents. But there is more to it than that, and the recent imposition of a positive duty under sex discrimination laws is still not preventing work-related harm.
Recently, Federation Press published a weighty tome written by Arie Freiberg called “Regulation in Australia. 2nd Edition“. For those of you who are legislative junkies and can quote sections of occupational health and safety (OHS) law, you will love this, as it examines the mechanics of regulation, not just those of Industrial Relations or OHS. And there is some powerful context to market failures that often lead to new regulations, a perspective shared with Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway in their 2024 book, “The Big Myth“.
I was lunching at my local market when someone at the same table began chatting with me. The conversation turned to occupational health and safety (OHS). It was refreshing to discuss this with a non-OHS professional and see their surprised reactions to some of the things employers are required to do to create safe and healthy workplaces.
On my walk home, I wanted more perspectives on my thoughts, so I present the first in an occasional series called “What does Grok say….?”
The 2025 Psych Health and Safety (PHS) Conference, held in Sydney and hosted by FlourishDx, marked a significant evolution from its inaugural event. With over 200 delegates, a larger venue, enhanced facilities, and a more polished exhibition space, the conference built on its foundational success. Centred around four key themes—evidence-based practice, leading mentally healthy workplaces, inclusive work design, and international perspectives—the event delivered a robust platform for professionals from occupational health and safety (OHS) and human resources (HR) to converge on the critical topic of psychosocial health and safety.
I have liked James Lovelock ever since I heard about his Gaia Hypothesis in the brilliant English political drama, Edge of Darkness. I am not happy with all of his intellectual positions. I baulk at nuclear power from the unique Australian position of being nuclear-free but still exporting uranium. But as I finish reading the latest biography of him, I am starting to realise what I have learned.
A typical excuse, or a sentence, people use after they’ve caused harm, injury or created an offence, is that “I didn’t mean to do any harm or think anybody would be harmed”. Potential harm may not have been considered, and the consequence of the act or a word was not anticipated. But it’s also possible that it’s a lie, and that they did intend harm, and they’re just looking for a way to excuse themselves from the responsibility and the consequence of that harm. And that’s a problem with including intent in a definition of work-related harm.
The concussion risks of sportspeople continue to appear in the media and popular discussions after every suicide, death, or retirement of sportspeople who play contact sports. Recently, Alan Pearce, Professor, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Health Science, Swinburne University of Technology, wrote an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper (paywalled) that touched on some occupational health and safety (OHS) themes that deserve expanding.
[This article discusses suicide]
