Earlier this week, I was a panellist at an occupational health and safety symposium organised by the Victorian Branch of the Australian Institute of Health and Safety. We were asked to be challenging and provocative in our perspectives on the evolution of OHS and OHS law in Victoria since the start of the century.
Although I have expressed concerns about the application of AI data analytics at the recent Safe Work Australia (SWA) Research Summit, I think it is important to list the 15 Leading Ideas that the analysis process identified from the summit. Some of these will seem like the bleeding obvious, but these outcomes will inform SWA’s research agenda and strategy.
As Victoria shivers in the middle of its Winter and a cop-killer runs loose in the mountains in the middle of the state, it may seem odd to think about the occupational health and safety (OHS) context of working in excessive heat. However, give us a couple of months, and it will be a hot topic again in the Southern Hemisphere. (First and last weather pun, I promise)
A recent article in The New York Times (paywalled) examined excessive heat in Spain, providing useful details on the changes being implemented—some old, some new.
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.
Recently, Australia’s politics were focused on an Economic Roundtable hosted by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Chalmers sought proactive, low- or no-cost initiatives to improve Australia’s productivity. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely, if ever, discussed at these national consultations. However, if we accept, as many believe, that OHS is unnecessary red tape, does this offer an opportunity for legislative reform?
The purpose of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly misunderstood—not just in the media but in the boardrooms and bureaucracies that decide how it’s deployed. Far from craving human consciousness or emotion, AI tools, like Mo (my CoPilot AI), exist to synthesise knowledge, provoke thought, and support action. The intent isn’t mimicry, but impact.
[Note: parts of this article were written by Mo based on a prior conversation]
AI is a hot topic in Australia at the moment, with numerous productivity gains being pitched to the government, alongside concerns about job losses. Last week’s National Press Club speech by Scott Farquhar, co-founder of Atlassian and Chair of the Tech Council of Australia, offered a good example of at least one AI opportunity – access to court records.
I thought talking with Mo was a good place to start this article before looking at Farquharson’s thoughts.
In May 2024, Safe Work Australia’s (SWA) Chief Executive, Marie Boland, said she would “be reestablishing a research team and that team will look at options for how we support research and evaluation for the future.” On June 12 2025, SWA announced its “New roadmap for work health and safety and workers’ compensation research“. Progress on occupational health and safety (OHS) is welcome, but it is lacking a few key elements.
