WorkSafe Victoria has just concluded a Safe Work Month webinar on psychosocial hazards and psychological risks, attended by around 14,000. The content was familiar to anyone who has been following the development of Victoria’s new occupational health and safety (OHS) over the last four years, but it was an important communications opportunity for WorkSafe with useful insight into employers’ perspectives on mental health at work.
Australian occupational health and safety (OHS) laws require employers to be compliant with their OHS duties, but also allow the flexibility for employers to determine their own level of compliance. This has complicated OHS because employers can never be sure that they are in compliance. Compliance and non-compliance are usually determined accurately through the courts after legal action by the OHS regulatory agency and after a workplace incident. This uncertainty is compounded for small business owners who just want to be told what to do to be compliant.
Perhaps the most challenged industry sector is farming, which cannot avoid the uncertainty that the OHS laws provide. This uncertainty is one that highly-resourced employers are proud to claim as a well-fought-for benefit, namely, flexibility, but it is more of a problem for isolated rural workplaces and small businesses.
There are several ways to write about Safe Work Australia’s recent Research Summit. This is the first article and will discuss a couple of features of the summit and ask if the summit achieved its aims.
A new discussion paper from Safe Work Australia (SWA) is interesting in a curious way. Its purpose is confusing, and its final report will not be presented until mid-2026. SWA offers no definition of “best practice” but suggests that consideration should start from the objective of the Model Work Health and Safety Act:
“….to ensure the model WHS laws continue to provide a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces.”
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.”
Over the next week or so, SafetyAtWorkBlog will be focusing on the issue of psychosocial hazards and psychological risks at work, as we cover the Psych Health and Safety Conference in Sydney. These risks and hazards are the most pressing topic in occupational health and safety (OHS) at the moment, with an increased demand for solutions from workers and the community, as well as heightened expectations for regulatory compliance. I apologise for this intense focus, but I welcome your comments and participation.
I will start by posing this question:
“The Australian approaches to psychosocial hazards and psychological safety in Human Resources and Work Health and Safety have been siloed in the past. Are the approaches getting closer? Is there more cooperation between the two or are the two disciplines’ aims still too different?”
A Magistrate has said there is insufficient evidence to find Rosemary Gamble guilty of a criminal offence over an incident involving an inflatable jumping castle that resulted in the deaths of six children at Hillcrest in Tasmania. The prosecution may have ended, but a Coronial inquiry remains scheduled, and a civil class action against the state of Tasmania and Ms Gamble was launched in 2024. This article looks at the occupational health and safety aspects of the incident.
