A recent occupational health and safety (OHS) prosecution over a quad bike fatality gained some mainstream media attention, primarily due to one of the owners being an independent New South Wales politician, Helen Dalton. Strip out the political newsworthiness, and there are some serious OHS lessons for all employers to be learned from the Court judgement.
Every time a sporting body is confronted with concussion data, someone inevitably asks whether the game can be played without the risk. In most industries, that question is the starting point for a “so far as is reasonably practicable” (SFAIRP) analysis. In sport, it’s treated as heresy. But if we apply the same occupational health and safety (OHS) logic to Australian rules football that we apply to construction, mining or manufacturing, the answer is, if you want to eliminate concussion and the risks of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), you have to eliminate the mechanisms that cause it. And once you do that, you no longer have the game as we know it.
The death of 23‑year‑old footballer Nick Lowden should force the Australian Football League (AFL) and every sporting body that claims to care about player welfare to confront the fact that the risks of brain injury in Australian football are no longer mysterious, emerging, or debatable. They are foreseeable, documented, and cumulative. And once a risk is foreseeable, the occupational health and safety (OHS) duty to eliminate or minimise it so far as is reasonably practicable (SFAIRP) applies.
A Four Corners investigation to be broadcast on June 29, 2026, examines Lowden’s death. (This article is based on some preliminary reporting on the issue by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
One of my ongoing frustrations — and this blog is a good example — is that occupational health and safety (OHS) is rarely read or heard outside its own bubble. Yet OHS cannot fix OHS problems on its own. We depend on HR, engineers, accountants, risk managers, IT specialists and others, but we almost never get these disciplines in the same room, hearing the same information, facing the same hazards, and designing solutions together.
A recent HR interview with Dr Kat Page offers a useful example.
Author Charles Dickens is often cited for his description of and opposition to the working conditions in his time – child labour, executive (im)morality, excessive workload, and poor working conditions. However, the image that has always stayed with me is the Circumlocution Office described in Little Dorrit.
The 2026 conference for the International Association on Workplace Bullying and Harassment (IAWBH) was held in Canberra in June 2026. I was always curious about how prominent the term “psychosocial hazards” would be at this conference. It seems that most of the world still talks about workplace bullying and harassment and sexual harassment separately from the psychosocial, but the occupational health and safety (OHS) approach seems to be in the ascendant.
Below is my take (part 1 of 2) on the conference sessions I attended and the issues raised. (I missed the half day of Day 3). I have tried to use a generic, informative tone for a broader readership.
I was able to explore the concept of business leadership a little further at the recent conference of the International Association on Workplace Bullying and harassment. Lucienne Ruddenklau presented on ‘Mechanisms through which Leadership influences Workplace Bullying: A Conceptual Review”. I asked her, a leadership researcher, whether Leadership is an honorary title for executives or an adjective for leadership throughout an organisation. Her response was useful, as was her research presentation.
