The chairwoman of Australia’s Productivity Commission, Danielle Woods, produced an op-ed in an Australian newspaper on 30 October 2025 about working from home. In this contentious workplace matter, Woods referred to evidence several times that the newspaper format does not readily allow for. Below are links to that important evidence and some analysis.
One of my previous employers was highly committed to occupational health and safety (OHS), but always gave the program, the schedule or utilisation a higher priority. Whether that was a justifiable compliance level was of little concern, as long as the auditors recertified the OHS management systems. The company realised their approach to OHS was not working, so it turned its focus on “critical risks”, which were, bluntly, anything that would kill you. But such was the strength of the culture that even this focus on critical risks failed to cut through and give OHS the respect that it legislatively deserves.
Matthew Hallowell‘s latest book, “Energy-Based Safety – A Scientific Approach to Preventing Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs)“, discusses this focus on critical risks.
Just over a week ago, RMIT University’s research funding program, SHINe, conducted its inaugural symposium. This symposium was both new and fascinating. It was overbooked with a considerable weight list, I think, because of the international safety research guests, but the fact that an event in Safe Work Month was free might have helped. The research by the Construction Safety Research Alliance (CSRA) for the United States was a highlight.
Mental health in the construction industry is a perennial occupational health and safety (OHS) concern – high levels of suicide, suicide ideation, depression, anxiety, etc, – the usual suspects. Research into this has been robust in Australia, with the work of Professor Helen Lingard and the Construction Industry Culture Taskforce, among others. Recently, I heard about the Wellness in Infrastructure organisation for the first time.
The latest edition of New Zealand’s excellent occupational health and safety (OHS) magazine, Safeguard (long may it reign…. in hard copy), included its annual income survey of OHS professionals. Some Australian organisations also do this, but their findings can be expensive to access.
I ran Safeguard’s data summary through AI to provide a text-based profile of a “typical” NZ OHS professional. It offers an interesting contrast to what we have in Australia.
Dean Yates is a prominent Australian speaker on the issue of moral injury. Yesterday, at a WorkSafe Tasmania seminar, Yates brought the 250 attendees up to date on the status of moral injury and its occupational context. Although this seminar was a Safe Work Month event, Yates’ information requires some thought to fit with the occupational health and safety (OHS) and psychological hazards contexts.
Recently, parliamentary workplaces in the United Kingdom and Australia have had scandals about inappropriate behaviour – COVID-era parties and sexual harassment and assault, respectively. Official inquiries have repeatedly identified that Ministers and parliamentarians are overwhelmed with paperwork and expectations of being contactable 24/7. These do not excuse poor, unsuitable or criminal behaviour, but they are part of poor work design and contribute to poor psychological health and can be improved. But overwork in parliament is not a new phenomenon.
