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.
Category: executives
Executives Misread Victoria’s WFH Proposal
The Victorian government’s move to legislate a right to work from home (WFH) at least 2 days per week continues to irritate some Australian executives. So, what is their problem with the proposal of a law that reflects the current practice in most Australian workplaces? Don’t they have other priorities to manage?
Decent Work is so 2015
Australia’s Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has talked about occupational health and safety (OHS)….. a bit. On November 4, 2025, the PM addressed the IndustriALL Global Union 4th Congress. According to the congress’ website it:
‘…will bring together trade union representatives from around the world to discuss the future of work and reinforce their collective commitment to fundamental rights and social justice.”
So, it would be odd if OHS were not mentioned or discussed. (The Congress does maintain an OHS page)
What We Lose When NDAs Win
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.
Governments should set the OHS bar much higher
It should be clear to readers by now that I am not a lawyer. My interest is in the practical application and compliance with occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. Those laws often encouraged employers to look for the source of workplace harms and hazards, with government agencies advising that addressing these causes is the most effective and cost-effective way to manage OHS. In this context, it seems to me that clients can significantly influence OHS, as they may be a major source of work-related harms and risks. But their role is often downplayed.
Across the Ditch: What New Zealand’s OHS Survey Reveals About Gender, Influence, and Industry
The latest edition of New Zealand’s excellent occupational health and safety (OHS) magazine, Safeguard (long may it reign…. in hard copy), included its annual income survey of OHS professionals. Some Australian organisations also do this, but their findings can be expensive to access.
I ran Safeguard’s data summary through AI to provide a text-based profile of a “typical” NZ OHS professional. It offers an interesting contrast to what we have in Australia.
When Leadership Fails the Soul
Dean Yates is a prominent Australian speaker on the issue of moral injury. Yesterday, at a WorkSafe Tasmania seminar, Yates brought the 250 attendees up to date on the status of moral injury and its occupational context. Although this seminar was a Safe Work Month event, Yates’ information requires some thought to fit with the occupational health and safety (OHS) and psychological hazards contexts.






