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?
I asked an artificial intelligence program to identify Australian instances where politics may have led to institutional changes related to psychosocial hazards. It revealed numerous actions related to government inquiries and activities, but did not address politics as I intended. Clearly, my question needed clarification, but the response remained informative and deserves attention.
This time I asked:
Continue reading “Political Reforms Drive Some Systemic Psychosocial Hazard Changes”“Most Australian discussions of psychosocial hazards appear to focus primarily on causes that can be controlled at work. Is there any activity in the political sphere for institutional changes?”
The cost of work-related illness and injuries is a significant economic burden on the community. It has a tangible impact on Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but no one really gives a shit about this. The GDP impact is a nonsense statistic in the illustration of how injuries and illnesses affect Australian businesses. The economic arguments need reframing if an improvement in workplace health and safety is the intention.
In May 2024, Safe Work Australia’s (SWA) Chief Executive, Marie Boland, said she would “be reestablishing a research team and that team will look at options for how we support research and evaluation for the future.” On June 12 2025, SWA announced its “New roadmap for work health and safety and workers’ compensation research“. Progress on occupational health and safety (OHS) is welcome, but it is lacking a few key elements.
Victoria is developing its own Code of Practice for managing (and hopefully preventing) psychosocial hazards in the workplace, ahead of amendments to its occupational health and safety (OHS) laws in late 2025. But how powerful and enforceable can a Code of Practice be? A new book by Arie Freiberg, “Regulation in Australia“, helps explain this, but the future could look better.
Currently, workplace politics in New South Wales are wrapped up in arguing about changes to the way workers’ compensation covers those with a psychological injury. The justification, as it was with similar issues in Victoria last year, is that the growth in workplace mental health claims apparently jeopardises the viability of the workers’ compensation scheme. These arguments exclude the long-term occupational health and safety (OHS) solution to the problem, and it is not as if governments were unaware of this emerging financial challenge.
SafeWorkSA has published fascinating information about preventing “harmful workplace behaviours.” The webpage’s eye-catching part is the Hierarchy of Controls for Managing the Risk of Harmful Workplace Behaviours, but the article is curious.
The audience for information from occupational health and safety (OHS) regulators is supposedly everyone, but it is rarely read by anyone other than OHS advocates. However, any information about psychosocial risks and hazards needs to be written in a tone that attracts the attention of those in businesses who have established ownership of these hazards, primarily the Human Resources (HR) person. SafeWorkSA’s page fails to reach this target.
