Recently, Dr Kat Page wrote about the systems of work faced by emergency service workers that create unacceptable psychosocial hazards and mental harm. Her systems-based approach, best explained in her book “Good Work: Transform Your Work from the Inside Out“, remains surprising to many but is hopefully prompting people to think more deeply about work, particularly about why we work the way we do and the harm that persists in certain jobs and occupations.
Occupational health and safety (OHS) in Australia frothed up big time about Hollnagel‘s Safety II approach and the Safety Differently movement. But as with most things OHS, the general approach was self-confined to the immediate systems of work, rather than considering the system of work as integral to the system of business or society generally. This conveniently sidestepped many of the generational differences and approaches to work that need to be faced, incorporated and managed. John F. Kennedy’s grandson, Jack Schlossberg, may be an interesting subject of study.
In the mid‑1970s, I arrived at Dandenong High School still clinging to the small importance I’d felt as a primary‑school Prefect. That confidence evaporated the day a student yelled “bums to the wall” as Science Teacher and Year 7 Coordinator Tim Richardson walked past. I didn’t yet know what a paedophile was, but Richardson would not be prosecuted for sexual offences until 2018, dying in jail a year later.
This experience reflects a broader cultural pattern of denial that still shapes how organisations respond to psychosocial hazards today. Australian companies, executives and employers are grappling with “new” duties to prevent psychological harm, yet Richardson’s story shows just how long our institutions have excused what should never have been excused.
Agricultural safety has come to the fore in Australia and New Zealand over the last few weeks. Safe Work Australia (SWA) has commenced a public consultation on the safety of using a quad bike for work. It is quite revealing and limited.
Workplace bullying, harassment and other psychosocial risks are no longer fringe issues – they are central to how we think about safety, fairness and dignity at work. One forum that has been shaping this conversation for more than two decades is the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) and its much‑anticipated biannual conference. This year’s event brings researchers, regulators and practitioners together in Canberra to tackle some of the most difficult problems in working life, with a strong emphasis on practical solutions, especially pertaining to sexual harassment and gender-based violence.
Professor Carlo Caponecchia, who is presenting at the conference, made some time for a couple of questions.
Continue reading “Solving Psychosocial Harm at Work: The Upcoming Global IAWBH Conference in Canberra”I don’t believe that all occupational health and safety (OHS) principles, risk assessment tools, or values are relevant to the non-work culture, but there is sufficient overlap for OHS to offer a framework for hazard identification, incident investigation, and potential risk control options. The current political debate in Australia about “Australian values” and immigration offers an illustration of this overlap; an overlap and debate that is being echoed in the United Kingdom.
A post written by Wade Needham (April 15, 2026), and reproduced with permission.
Two judgments totaling 75,000 words were handed down across 2024 and 2026. Not everyone will read them. Everyone should understand what they establish.
Years ago, during commissioning work at Port Hedland for the Roy Hill project, someone asked me how I knew the night shift crew were following the isolation procedure for livening the sub stations. I could name the critical risk. I could point to the training records, the procedure, the sign-off sheet, the safety advisor on shift. And when they asked how I knew it was being followed at 2am when nobody was watching, I paused. Long pause. Then I said something like “Well, the reports don’t show any issues.”
I have never forgotten that pause. Because I knew, in that moment, that I was describing paperwork. Not reality.
That is the most dangerous sentence in safety governance. The reports don’t show any issues. It is the sentence that sat underneath everything that went wrong at the Port of Auckland. I wanted to distil down elements of the judgement I found insightful.
But first, a too-long, don’t-want-to-read summary for those short on time.
Continue reading “A Workplace Death. An Upheld Conviction. And a Standard Every C-Suite Officer Should Understand.”
