“WFH is probably good for productivity” was a headline in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) of May 29 2025. The online version (paywalled) added “if it’s part-time”. The Productivity Commission‘s examination of the COVID-19 pandemic in its “before-and-after” report presents some new perspectives on occupational health and safety (OHS) aspects of working from home.
No one wants to experience another pandemic, yet our governments seem uninterested in preparing for the next inevitable one. Australia was relatively lucky in its death rates, but the COVID-19 pandemic and the government-imposed lockdowns have changed some citizens mentally and philosophically. Vaccines arrived comparatively quickly, an amazing story in itself, reducing the emphasis on quarantine as an essential (engineering) control.
In 2021, Geoff Manuagh and Nicola Twilley wrote about the history and future of quarantine in a book called “Until Proven Safe“. The book is a useful reminder of our responses to global pandemics and the overlap of occupational and public health.
A typical excuse, or a sentence, people use after they’ve caused harm, injury or created an offence, is that “I didn’t mean to do any harm or think anybody would be harmed”. Potential harm may not have been considered, and the consequence of the act or a word was not anticipated. But it’s also possible that it’s a lie, and that they did intend harm, and they’re just looking for a way to excuse themselves from the responsibility and the consequence of that harm. And that’s a problem with including intent in a definition of work-related harm.
The concussion risks of sportspeople continue to appear in the media and popular discussions after every suicide, death, or retirement of sportspeople who play contact sports. Recently, Alan Pearce, Professor, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Health Science, Swinburne University of Technology, wrote an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper (paywalled) that touched on some occupational health and safety (OHS) themes that deserve expanding.
[This article discusses suicide]
Recently, sentencing in a court case in Melbourne has generated much online chatter about excessive working hours and the exploitation of workers in a small law practice. One report of the $A50,000 fine against Erudite Legal says that the company:
“…forced a junior lawyer to work up to 24-hour days and watch an ice hockey movie at 1am so she could understand her boss’ philosophical position”.
Other media reports provide more details of the successful prosecution, but the occupational health and safety (OHS) context is mostly absent.
SafeWorkSA has published fascinating information about preventing “harmful workplace behaviours.” The webpage’s eye-catching part is the Hierarchy of Controls for Managing the Risk of Harmful Workplace Behaviours, but the article is curious.
The audience for information from occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators is supposedly everyone, but it is rarely read by anyone other than OHS advocates. However, any information about psychosocial risks and hazards needs to be written in a tone that attracts the attention of those in businesses who have established ownership of these hazards, primarily the Human Resources (HR) person. SafeWorkSA’s page fails to reach this target.
This weekend, all the talk in Australia has been about the massive and unexpected electoral swing to the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the federal election. Most pundits were expecting a majority government, at least, but now the ALP has a substantial majority in the House of Representatives. Possible constraints from a new Senate have yet to be identified.
But this blog is about occupational health and safety (OHS), so why start with an election summary? Industrial relations and, therefore, OHS were almost entirely absent from the election campaigns.
