Every time a sporting body is confronted with concussion data, someone inevitably asks whether the game can be played without the risk. In most industries, that question is the starting point for a “so far as is reasonably practicable” (SFAIRP) analysis. In sport, it’s treated as heresy. But if we apply the same occupational health and safety (OHS) logic to Australian rules football that we apply to construction, mining or manufacturing, the answer is, if you want to eliminate concussion and the risks of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), you have to eliminate the mechanisms that cause it. And once you do that, you no longer have the game as we know it.
Category: risk
AFL, CTE and SFAIRP: When “the rough and tumble” becomes a foreseeable harm
The death of 23‑year‑old footballer Nick Lowden should force the Australian Football League (AFL) and every sporting body that claims to care about player welfare to confront the fact that the risks of brain injury in Australian football are no longer mysterious, emerging, or debatable. They are foreseeable, documented, and cumulative. And once a risk is foreseeable, the occupational health and safety (OHS) duty to eliminate or minimise it so far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP) applies.
A Four Corners investigation to be broadcast on June 29, 2026, examines Lowden’s death. (This article is based on some preliminary reporting on the issue by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Another corporate scandal — and why this matters for OHS
Another major company, KPMG, has been caught out in unethical behaviour, lies and mismanagement, only a few years after PwC’s scandal and not long after the damning Banking and Finance Royal Commission. These are the very institutions we are told to treat as exemplars of leadership and governance. Their repeated failures should force employers to question the advice they receive from these firms, including on occupational health and safety (OHS), psychosocial risk and organisational culture.
What was Missing from the Bullying and Harassment Conference?
The IAWBH2026 sessions offered a revealing snapshot of how international practitioners are grappling with bullying, harassment and gendered violence at work—and how closely these discussions align with Australia’s psychosocial‑hazard framework. Several presentations landed squarely within the Australian work health and safety (WHS) model, particularly those that treated these issues as structural hazards requiring organisational controls. Sapphire Parsons’ argument that gendered violence demands primary prevention, equitable decision‑making, and action on power imbalances mirrors the prevention‑first duties under Australian safety law.
However, there were also indications of how far the change has to go.
Continue reading “What was Missing from the Bullying and Harassment Conference?”From Complaints to Control—IAWBH2026 and the Quiet Revolution in Psychosocial Safety
The 2026 conference for the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) was held in Canberra in June 2026. I was always curious about how prominent the term “psychosocial hazards” would be at this conference. It seems that most of the world still talks about workplace bullying and harassment and sexual harassment separately from the psychosocial, but the occupational health and safety (OHS) approach seems to be in the ascendant.
Below is my take (part 1 of 2) on the conference sessions I attended and the issues raised. (I missed the half day of Day 3). I have tried to use a generic, informative tone for a broader readership.
The Gap Between Leadership Theory and Practical Prevention of Workplace Harm
I was able to explore the concept of business leadership a little further at the recent conference of the International Association on Workplace Bullying and harassment. Lucienne Ruddenklau presented on ‘Mechanisms through which Leadership influences Workplace Bullying: A Conceptual Review”. I asked her, a leadership researcher, whether Leadership is an honorary title for executives or an adjective for leadership throughout an organisation. Her response was useful, as was her research presentation.
The Real Groundhog Day: Reports Change, Systems Don’t
Psychological health in the emergency services has come to the fore recently as governments pay more attention to using occupational health and safety (OHS) to push employers to prevent psychosocial hazards. In the emergency services, psychosocial hazards such as trauma cannot all be prevented; the best that can be achieved is lowering these risks as far as is practicable (ASFAIRP). But ASFAIRP is a movable feast, which was on display in two presentations at a recent conference.






