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.
In just over a month, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will hand down the 2026 Federal Budget. While political attention will focus on cost‑of‑living pressures and international instability, the Budget also presents an opportunity to rethink how Australia could treat occupational health and safety (OHS) as an economic lever instead of just a business cost.
Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers and economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz are old friends. One of their conversations was turned into the lead article in the February edition of The Monthly (paywalled). Several of their thoughts impinge on how occupational health and safety (OHS) laws are applied and may be reformed.
Citizen and worker well-being will not be a major focus of the Australian government’s budgets, but it will still influence them. Recently, Professor Paul Read assessed the Wellbeing Budget concept in The Australian Fabians Review (issue 8). His optimism is notable and helps us understand well-being in an occupational and psychological context.
Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers was keen on establishing a “Wellbeing Budget“. The initiative faded, but the desire persisted. The Wellbeing Budget is getting renewed interest but also some anticipatory criticism. Such a budget could have significant impacts on occupational health and safety (OHS) management, so it warrants monitoring and cautious support.
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?
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.
