Yesterday I posed the following questions for Victoria’s upcoming Parliamentary Committee inquiry into proposed work-from-home (WFH) laws.
Below I offer some answers.
Based on mainstream media reports of the working-from-home (WFH) debate in Victoria over the last few weeks, Victorian politics has fractured over the proposal to give most employees a right to work from home two days a week. The politics of the WFH initiative came to the fore, even if occupational health and safety (OHS) didn’t.
Across her 2024 and 2026 appearances at the Psych Health and Safety Conference, WorkSafe Victoria’s Amy Salmon’s message about psychosocial regulation in Victoria has shifted from explaining that psychosocial and psychological obligations exist to showing how compliance works in real life. The shift is subtle but important. In 2024, she was still fighting the battle of psychosocial legitimacy, pushing back against employers waiting for “the regs,” while by 2026 she was focused on operational detail, inspector capability and what reasonable compliance looks like in real workplaces.
Australia often positions itself as a leader on psychosocial hazards and occupational health and safety (OHS). A new proposal from the European Parliament (EP) provides a contrast.
Australia is living through a demographic and economic shift that is far more consequential for workplace safety than most organisations or regulators have acknowledged. George Megalogenis’ new book, Three Shocks, identifies three structural changes reshaping the nation: Australia is now a majority‑migrant country; professional women have overtaken blue‑collar men as the largest occupational group; and the geopolitical environment that once provided stability has become unpredictable. These shocks are lived realities in workplaces, and they demand an occupational health and safety (OHS) overhaul.
The Victorian Government, under its new leader, Ben Carroll, has announced the “Royal Commission into the Integrity of Major Public and Civil Infrastructure Construction Projects in Victoria“. The Terms of Reference (ToR) have largely been praised for their breadth, but do they have any occupational health and safety (OHS) relevance? Early reporting of the government’s announcement often mentioned that the
“…lawful, legitimate and appropriate actions taken by parties under occupational health and safety laws and regulations.”
But there is more to consider.
In the Northern Hemisphere, workers are again facing dangerous summer heat. In a few months, it will be the Southern Hemisphere’s turn. Climate extremes are producing droughts, wildfires, and crop failures. It’s not the end of the world, but it’s becoming easier to see how the world ends, and how work and business will be affected. As with most catastrophes, occupational health and safety (OHS) sits quietly in the background. It needs to step forward because it has tools that can help.
