In September 2026, I will be reporting from the Psych Health and Safety Conference (PHSCon) in Sydney. It is the pre-eminent workplace mental health conference in Australia and is it its third year.
In support of the 2026 conference, I have opened some of my PHSCon articles from 2024. These articles illustrate the high calibre of speakers this conference attracts and, hopefully, shows the worth of subscribing to the SafetyAtWorkBlog for these exclusive reports.
The occupational health and safety (OHS) dimensions of working from home (WFH) are routinely misrepresented in public debate, often drowned out by managerial preference, corporate culture, and political posturing. Remarkably consistent evidence shows that WFH does not reduce productivity. In many cases it improves it, largely because autonomy, reduced commuting, and better control over work rhythms lower psychological risks such as stress, burnout, and fatigue. From an OHS standpoint, that makes WFH a legitimate and effective control measure that is certainly not a threat to organisational performance.
Yet employers frequently resist WFH, invoking vague claims about collaboration, culture, or “team cohesion”. (This article was written before the postponement of the Victorian laws)
The reality of needing to provide psychologically healthy and safe work seems to have been widely accepted, if not still well understood, if the number of corporate work-related psychological assessment and management programs is any indication. One of the most recent is “The Psychosocial Safety Blueprint” published by Culture Plus Consulting’s Felicity Menzies. The blueprint is interesting until the document’s marketing purpose starts to dominate.
For the last few years, McDonald’s in the United Kingdom has been embroiled in scandals involving the harassment and sexual harassment of staff by other staff members. As McDonald’s is an international company with similar operational systems of work, how would the Australian arm of the company react to a similar situation?
I am old enough to remember the work-related suicide of Brodie Panlock in 2006, meaning this year is the 20th anniversary. Her death, the findings of the Victorian Coroner and the prosecution by WorkSafe Victoria are pivotal to how workplace bullying and mental health at work are seen and managed today. But there is a generation of young workers who may be unaware of her case.
This series of articles trace that failure of prevention across three stages: the immediate OHS significance of the Café Vamp prosecution, the public and legal response through Brodie’s Law and national inquiries, and the continuing relevance of psychosocial hazard prevention under modern OHS duties.
The articles are based on the original SafetyAtWorkBlog articles from 2010 onwards. Today, here is a brief reminder of what Brodie Panlock experienced.
Please note that this article and those following discuss suicide and mental trauma.
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.
This year, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has released excellent information on psychosocial hazards at work to support the World Day for Safety and Health at Work. (Australian researchers seem to have been instrumental in the report) I read the report, looking for more upstream concerns, such as political and socioeconomic factors that lead employers to create or allow work overload, the most significant contributor to work-related stress. This is what I found.
