The reality of needing to provide psychologically healthy and safe work seems to have been widely accepted, if not still well understood, if the number of corporate work-related psychological assessment and management programs is any indication. One of the most recent is “The Psychosocial Safety Blueprint” published by Culture Plus Consulting’s Felicity Menzies. The blueprint is interesting until the document’s marketing purpose starts to dominate.
Australian trade unions rarely campaign solely on the basis of occupational health and safety (OHS), meaning without supplementary aims such as increased wages or remuneration. Below are some examples, but they are few and usually in the wake of an industrial disaster. There are a couple of prominent union OHS campaigners, but we rarely hear of them after their passing, and many of their contributions are remembered more through internal mythologising than through documented reform.
By 2013, the debate over workplace bullying in Australia had moved from outrage to regulatory detail. That is often the stage where social reform either matures or dies. The draft code on preventing and responding to workplace bullying being developed at that time attracted submissions from industry and employer associations, many of which were troubling. The concern was not simply that business groups opposed a code. It was that several appeared to miss the code’s central purpose of preventing psychological harm to people at work.
Please note that this article discusses suicide and mental trauma.
Australian business media, especially the Australian Financial Review (AFR), continues to oppose the Victorian (Labor) government’s intention to make working from home (WFH) a formal right and entitlement. Every week, the mainstream media report on the latest research that criticises the move on the basis of productivity impacts, restrictions on career progress and other business negatives; occasionally, very occasionally, some positives are reported – better mental health, reduced living and commuter costs, flexibility for family duties and obligations.
Brodie Panlock’s death did not lead to just one law change, or one policy response or one neat public conclusion. It led to several overlapping reactions such as OHS prosecution, political campaigning, criminal law reform, a parliamentary inquiry, media campaigns, union submissions, employer resistance, and a long-running argument about whether workplace bullying should be treated as a discrete hazard or as part of the broader family of psychosocial risks. That complexity has often been mistaken for progress.
Please note that this article discusses suicide and mental trauma.
Workplace bullying has a habit of becoming visible only after harm has already occurred. In 2010, the 2006 death of 19-year-old Brodie Panlock became the point at which many Australians first understood that bullying at work was not merely a Human Resources (HR) irritant, or a personality weakness, or one of those unfortunate things that happens in a rough workplace somewhere else. It was an occupational health and safety (OHS) issue.
Please note that this article discusses suicide and mental trauma.
For decades, countries around the world have required that major projects undergo an assessment before they can proceed. Australia has gone further, with the once‑in‑a‑generation reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 passing Parliament in November 2025 and rolling out through 2026. These reforms introduced legally binding National Environmental Standards and a new National Environmental Protection Agency. So here’s the question we keep dodging: why don’t we also have Safety Impact Assessments (SIA)?
