In 2021, Safe Work Australia released a model Code of Practice (CoP) for Working in Extreme Heat. The latest iteration of that code was released by the Australian Capital Territory on November 7, 2025. It is greatly expanded and much clearer on the prevention and management of exposures. When companies are claiming “best practice” safety, this CoP is particularly interesting.
A recent radio/podcast discussion about burnout was instructional and frustrating. The November 7, 2025, episode of This Working Life was based on interviews with organisational psychologist Ben Searle and clinical psychologist Luke Martin about workplace burnout.
Safety behaviour is often discussed in terms of compliance—whether workers follow procedures, wear protective equipment, or report hazards. Yet, this view only scratches the surface of what safety behaviour truly means in today’s complex organisational environments. At its core, safety behaviour encompasses the observable actions and decisions individuals make that either promote or compromise health and safety. These actions are shaped not just by rules, but by a rich tapestry of social norms, leadership expectations, and the perceived consequences of speaking up or staying silent.
The Victorian government’s move to legislate a right to work from home (WFH) at least 2 days per week continues to irritate some Australian executives. So, what is their problem with the proposal of a law that reflects the current practice in most Australian workplaces? Don’t they have other priorities to manage?
In occupational health and safety (OHS) one hears about resilience usually in terms of psychological health and the ability to cope with stress. Applying a primary focus on resilience to prevent and manage mental health at work has been discredited, but resilience has a broader application and one that echoes the OHS-based concerns.
The recent COVID-19 pandemic is over, but the virus and risk continue. Like any biological hazard that occurs in or affects workplaces, occupational health and safety (OHS) personnel need to be ready to respond appropriately should the hazard emerge or expand.
It is generally accepted that Safe Work Australia responded as quickly as possible when developing COVID-19 guidance, given that everyone was trying to work out what the hell was happening. Shortly before the pandemic, WorkSafe Victoria had published the first edition of a guide on how employers could respond to pandemics.
But where is Australia at now? How prepared are we for the next disease pandemic or epidemic? I asked Safe Work Australia and WorkSafe Victoria for an update.
In today’s The Age newspaper is an article about a worker who claimed part of his rent for his home office as a work-related tax deduction (paywalled). The Australian Taxation Office rejected the claim, but it is now being considered by the Federal Court. There is a comment in the article that questions the need for a home office and challenges the occupational health and safety (OHS) context of working from home.
