In the movie “Working Girl”, Melanie Griffith’s character reveals how she connected merger opportunities when flipping through a magazine. Today’s Australian Financial Review (AFR) presented a similar set of thoughts on psychosocial hazards and Artificial Intelligence (AI). This connection had the added heft of quotes from prominent Australian lawyer, Michael Tooma.
The impact of announcements made by the Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers in his 2026 Budget is settling, even though some media outlets will not let the supposed injustice die. But a core argument of the Treasurer’s was to improve Australia’s productivity, and occupational health and safety (OHS) is inseparable from productivity. And perhaps how we measure productivity needs to be redefined.
Recently, Dr Kat Page wrote about the systems of work faced by emergency service workers that create unacceptable psychosocial hazards and mental harm. Her systems-based approach, best explained in her book “Good Work: Transform Your Work from the Inside Out“, remains surprising to many but is hopefully prompting people to think more deeply about work, particularly about why we work the way we do and the harm that persists in certain jobs and occupations.
This year, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has released excellent information on psychosocial hazards at work to support the World Day for Safety and Health at Work. (Australian researchers seem to have been instrumental in the report) I read the report, looking for more upstream concerns, such as political and socioeconomic factors that lead employers to create or allow work overload, the most significant contributor to work-related stress. This is what I found.
Occupational health and safety (OHS) in Australia frothed up big time about Hollnagel‘s Safety II approach and the Safety Differently movement. But as with most things OHS, the general approach was self-confined to the immediate systems of work, rather than considering the system of work as integral to the system of business or society generally. This conveniently sidestepped many of the generational differences and approaches to work that need to be faced, incorporated and managed. John F. Kennedy’s grandson, Jack Schlossberg, may be an interesting subject of study.
Business management advisers keep calling everyone a “leader”, but the term has become so vague it obscures who actually holds the power — and therefore the accountability — to prevent work-related harm. Psychosocial hazards aren’t fixed by slogans or culture talk; they’re shaped by decisions about workload, staffing, supervision and resources.
This article is based on my presentation to the Central Safety Group members on May 12, 2026, about leadership and occupational health and safety (OHS).
In the mid‑1970s, I arrived at Dandenong High School still clinging to the small importance I’d felt as a primary‑school Prefect. That confidence evaporated the day a student yelled “bums to the wall” as Science Teacher and Year 7 Coordinator Tim Richardson walked past. I didn’t yet know what a paedophile was, but Richardson would not be prosecuted for sexual offences until 2018, dying in jail a year later.
This experience reflects a broader cultural pattern of denial that still shapes how organisations respond to psychosocial hazards today. Australian companies, executives and employers are grappling with “new” duties to prevent psychological harm, yet Richardson’s story shows just how long our institutions have excused what should never have been excused.
