The Victorian Government plans to introduce legislation regarding psychosocial hazards, similar to that of all other Australian jurisdictions, by the end of 2025. But what workplace changes are expected when this new set of occupational health and safety regulations is enacted? Other States’ laws may provide clues.
One of the aims of Australia’s Model Work Health and Safety Act is to
“… provide a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” (page 5, Best Practice Review of the model Work Health and Safety laws – Discussion Paper, September 2025)
There are several ways to interpret “balance” – an equilibrium/harmony or the process for weighing interest, a noun or a verb. I am not sure that ‘balance’ or ‘balanced’ are suitable terms in a document that should provide clear guidance on occupational health and safety (OHS) matters. It may be an example of how an inexactitude can lead to over-complexity and OHS’s reputation for business bullshit.
In this short 6-minute audio episode, I unpack the troubling case of Cleanaway Waste Management’s CEO bonus reduction following three worker deaths and challenge the notion that trimming executive pay is a meaningful consequence, and whether safety is being treated as a KPI or a moral imperative.
With references to Woolworths, Orica, and SGH Group, Kevin explores how corporate Australia responds to workplace fatalities, and why investor pressure—not ethical leadership—often drives change. Featuring insights from the Australian Financial Review and safety scholars Andrew Hopkins and Sarah Maslen, this episode calls for a deeper reckoning with executive accountability and the true cost of preventable deaths.
The challenge in addressing psychosocial hazards at work comes not from the dangers posed but from the executives’ willingness to change. Recently, David Burroughs reflected on his years of advising executives on this hazard. Burroughs’ experience of corporate responses to workplace bullying is indicative of the challenge of organisational change.
Two major Australian media outlets are continuing to focus on the issue of working from home (WFH), criticising the concept and some local political moves. WFH offers some significant mental health benefits that are being largely ignored. The front page of The Australian newspaper for September 1, 2025, provides the latest example.
Discussion about workplace psychosocial hazards seems to be everywhere. This is a good thing, as everyone needs a better understanding of the risks workers face and what prevention mechanisms are expected from employers and business owners. But that discussion needs to be measured and accurate. A recent article written about this issue for accountants is slightly inaccurate about occupational health and safety (OHS).
Australia’s Economic Roundtable recycled the same institutions and failed metrics that have long masked our productivity crisis. As Amy Remeikis notes, those who shaped past policy failures now feign surprise at the fallout. Meanwhile, important drivers of productivity, such as safe and quality work, remain ignored. OHS is treated as a compliance chore, rather than a strategic asset. If the Albanese government truly wants productivity reform, it must stop listening only to the “profit class” and start measuring what matters: worker health, dignity, and contribution.
