We know what employers/leaders do or do not do about psychosocial hazards at work and the psychological impacts. But there is still insufficient discussion on why those leaders make those choices. Recently, Dr Caroline Howe came close to answering the “why” in a blog article for her Psychosocial Safety and Leadership Institute.
The best way to describe the Workplace Relations Minister’s speech to Safe Work Australia’s Research Summit on September 9, 2025, is “safe”. Others may say Amanda Rishworth was boring, but what was she expected to say?
A new discussion paper from Safe Work Australia (SWA) is interesting in a curious way. Its purpose is confusing, and its final report will not be presented until mid-2026. SWA offers no definition of “best practice” but suggests that consideration should start from the objective of the Model Work Health and Safety Act:
“….to ensure the model WHS laws continue to provide a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces.”
The challenge in addressing psychosocial hazards at work comes not from the dangers posed but from the executives’ willingness to change. Recently, David Burroughs reflected on his years of advising executives on this hazard. Burroughs’ experience of corporate responses to workplace bullying is indicative of the challenge of organisational change.
Lisa Leong has followed up her This Working Life podcast with a more detailed look at the practicalities of addressing work-related psychosocial hazards with Dr Laura Kirby. It is worth listening to, but there is a term repeated in the podcast that needs examining – “leader”.
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.
I have attended many memorials for deceased workers. Usually, a local or State politician makes a speech about the importance of occupational health and safety (OHS), and how every worker has a right to return home safely and healthily at the end of the working day. The speeches are usually clichéd, even though these words are heartfelt and sometimes sound like they have been written from a template.
So I asked an artificial intelligence program to write a speech for International Workers Memorial Day by a senior Australian politician. Below is the remarkable result.
