Citizen and worker well-being will not be a major focus of the Australian government’s budgets, but it will still influence them. Recently, Professor Paul Read assessed the Wellbeing Budget concept in The Australian Fabians Review (issue 8). His optimism is notable and helps us understand well-being in an occupational and psychological context.
In Australia, the sovereign citizen movement has gained strength for some time, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. It is also, according to The Age newspaper recently, creating administrative problems for the courts – Flash juries and Bible verses: How sovereign citizens clog up Australian courts (paywalled). I began considering how I would manage a worker who held sovereign-citizen beliefs and might object to certain policies and directives used in the occupational health and safety (OHS) context.
Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers was keen on establishing a “Wellbeing Budget“. The initiative faded, but the desire persisted. The Wellbeing Budget is getting renewed interest but also some anticipatory criticism. Such a budget could have significant impacts on occupational health and safety (OHS) management, so it warrants monitoring and cautious support.
The issue of working in heat has resurfaced in some Australian media this February, again driven by trade unions. The union approach continues to show negotiating flaws, deflections, and at least one inaccuracy.
Canada’s Institute for Work & Health (IWH) has produced a bold forecast of the future of occupational health and safety (OHS) in its new report, “Work & health 2040: Anticipating changes impacting the futures of occupational health and safety”. The seven trends identified are not greatly surprising. Change is needed to address these trends, but who should, and how to, make the changes is unclear.
Every summer in Australia, it seems we are in crisis. Somewhere there is a bushfire, and somewhere else there are cyclones and floods. Somewhere, there are places that experience these two extremes almost at the same time. In all these circumstances, Australians expect strong, effective and compassionate leaders. These expectations affect how corporate executives behave and employ their “soft skills”.
Every few years, a new global initiative arrives promising to reshape corporate behaviour. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were meant to align business with human well-being. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) promised transparency. ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) reporting was sold as the market‑friendly mechanism that would finally make corporations care about people and the planet.
Yet here we are, decades into these frameworks, and the pattern of harm inside workplaces looks remarkably familiar. Catastrophic failures still occur in companies with immaculate sustainability reports. Precarious work continues to expand. Psychosocial harm is rising, not falling. And the gap between what corporations say and what they do has never been wider.
The uncomfortable truth is that these global initiatives are not designed to prevent harm. They are designed to signal responsibility without redistributing power. And harm prevention, as we know from decades of occupational health and safety (OHS) experience, is fundamentally a question of power.
