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 Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation states that employers must eliminate hazards as far as is reasonably practicable. If you start your safety journey from this point, you will forever be frustrated in your OHS achievements and disappointed in your job. OHS may be forever linked with laws and regulations, but the safety and health of ourselves, colleagues and others is based on our personal moral code and the values we bring to our actions. OHS satisfaction comes from accepting that OHS laws are only part of our purpose
Earlier this week, the Institute for Safety Compensation and Recovery Research (ISCRR) conducted a seminar called “Using Biopsychosocial Risk Profiling to Inform Claim Triage“. Workers’ compensation claims are not a focus for this blog, but attending events peripheral to one’s own discipline sometimes enlightens. There were a couple of moments when the occupational health and safety (OHS) approach came up in discussion.
Prominent in some of Australia’s political and economic debates are issues related to hours of work. This may be associated with the four-day work week, the five-day work week in construction, working from home, or the general debate about productivity, whatever definition you prefer, and there are many.
With the political backdrop of the government’s Economics Roundtable, a very timely new book by Sean Scalmer – “A Fair Day’s Work – The Quest to Win Back Time” was published.
New documentary “Breaking Point” is a curious mix of propaganda, lobbying, whistleblowing, fear, stress, with an occupational health and safety (OHS) undertone. According to Victorian firefighters, they are being sent to fight fires and save lives with equipment that is known to be faulty—a problem that could easily be solved.
Last weekend, at the Victorian branch of the Australian Labour Party conference, delegates heard that the ability to work from home for part of the working week was so important and so good for workers and the economy that working from home should become a formal right. This coincided with a week of frothy outrage in some media outlets about the thoughts and comments of some business executives querying the work-from-home trend.
Neither discussion adequately addresses the working from home phenomenon, failing to identify both the occupational health and safety reasons for working from home and the associated opportunities.
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.
