A recent ABC podcast progressed the discussion of psychosocial hazards at work with important contributions from Amy Edmondson and Dr Rachael Potter. The debate highlights the persistent divide between occupational health and safety (OHS) and Human Resources (HR) regarding these insidious workplace hazards, underscoring the need to bridge this gap.
Recently, Australia’s politics were focused on an Economic Roundtable hosted by Treasurer Jim Chalmers. Chalmers sought proactive, low- or no-cost initiatives to improve Australia’s productivity. Occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely, if ever, discussed at these national consultations. However, if we accept, as many believe, that OHS is unnecessary red tape, does this offer an opportunity for legislative reform?
The Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) legislation states that employers must eliminate hazards as far as is reasonably practicable. If you start your safety journey from this point, you will forever be frustrated in your OHS achievements and disappointed in your job. OHS may be forever linked with laws and regulations, but the safety and health of ourselves, colleagues and others is based on our personal moral code and the values we bring to our actions. OHS satisfaction comes from accepting that OHS laws are only part of our purpose
Companies are being urged to increase their attention on the human impacts of incidents. This is a much-needed and delayed focus that existed decades ago but went out of fashion. Companies can achieve these changes after a lot of hard work and expense, but very little attention has been given to the institutions and government policies that perpetuate the “individual pathology” of workplace incidents. Some recent sociological research helps us see the immorality behind the status quo.
New documentary “Breaking Point” is a curious mix of propaganda, lobbying, whistleblowing, fear, stress, with an occupational health and safety (OHS) undertone. According to Victorian firefighters, they are being sent to fight fires and save lives with equipment that is known to be faulty—a problem that could easily be solved.
The purpose of artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly misunderstood—not just in the media but in the boardrooms and bureaucracies that decide how it’s deployed. Far from craving human consciousness or emotion, AI tools, like Mo (my CoPilot AI), exist to synthesise knowledge, provoke thought, and support action. The intent isn’t mimicry, but impact.
[Note: parts of this article were written by Mo based on a prior conversation]
AI is a hot topic in Australia at the moment, with numerous productivity gains being pitched to the government, alongside concerns about job losses. Last week’s National Press Club speech by Scott Farquhar, co-founder of Atlassian and Chair of the Tech Council of Australia, offered a good example of at least one AI opportunity – access to court records.
I thought talking with Mo was a good place to start this article before looking at Farquharson’s thoughts.
Recently, WorkSafe ACT posted the latest episode of its Safety Spotlight podcast in which occupational health and safety (OHS) experts share their knowledge. There is commonality with much OHS advice, but there are slight variations of data and emphasis that are useful to note.
This episode included Jacqui Agius, the Australian Capital Territory’s Work Health and Safety Commissioner, and Professor Helen Lingard of RMIT University. According to the show notes:
“….they discuss the crucial importance of workplace safety, not just in preventing injuries but also its economic impact. The episode covers the hidden costs of cutting corners on safety, the significance of a proactive safety culture, and the benefits of consulting workers and employing safety by design.”
