Contents

1 Niru’s Editorial Insight
PsychLab ’26: What happens when you make psychosocial safety a lab, not a conference?

2 Regulator Update
Slips and trips start with decisions about work

3 WHS Prosecution Watch
Access to machinery is an organisational decision

4 Industry Voices
The workplace an injured worker returns to

5 WHS in South Asia & Oceania
Nepal connects chemical policy with workplace practice

6 WHS Research
Reading the new exposure survey without overstating it

7 Emerging WHS Trends
When a cyber incident affects physical safety

8 Capability Focus
Investigating the conditions behind an incident

Final Word • References

Sources checked 29 September 2026

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight

PsychLab ’26: What happens when you make psychosocial safety a lab, not a conference?

On 18 September, Felix Hall and I brought PsychLab ’26 to Brisbane¹.

The premise was deliberately different.

We did not want another psychosocial safety event where people spent the day sitting in rows, listening to experts and leaving with a collection of slides.

We called it a Lab because we wanted people to examine ideas, challenge them, work with them and contribute something themselves.

Even the design of the event reflected that. We created a separate speaker retreat and sensory space, while the program moved from morning talks into practical workshops and a closing synthesis.

The conversations were deliberately broad.

We heard about traumatic exposure and the relationship between burnout and workplace hazards. Burnout was not treated simply as an individual wellbeing problem, but placed alongside the conditions of work that can create or compound risk.

The lightning talks then pushed further into areas that can be missed in conventional psychosocial risk discussions: autistic burnout, hazards that are rarely discussed, emerging hazards that may not yet sit neatly on a standard list, psychosocial leadership and the different ways people can experience the same workplace.

That breadth mattered.

Psychosocial risk does not arrive in organisations as a tidy list of thirteen hazards. Real workplaces are messier than that. Exposure is shaped by the interaction between work design, leadership, organisational systems, individual circumstances, communication, change, relationships and the environment.

That became even clearer in the second half of PsychLab.

Instead of continuing with presentations, participants moved into workshops exploring whether we can actually see the risk, the relationship between performance and psychosocial safety, and systems thinking. The program then moved into Every Hazard Mapped, asking participants to work with risk rather than merely hear about it.

For me, that was one of the most important lessons from the day.

We are getting better at talking about psychosocial hazards.

The next maturity step is getting better at thinking about risk.

That means distinguishing hazards from outcomes. Understanding exposure. Looking at how hazards combine. Testing whether controls actually change the conditions creating the risk. And recognising when something that presents as an individual issue is being produced by a much larger organisational system.

It also means accepting that WHS does not have all the answers.

Psychologists, WHS practitioners, mental health professionals, leaders, researchers, people specialists, students and people with lived experience see different parts of the same problem. PsychLab was deliberately created as a space where those perspectives could meet rather than compete.

That was visible not only in the sessions, but in the conversations around them.

And that is where we want PsychLab to go next.

The event was never intended to end when everyone left the room. We are now working with speakers and volunteers to turn the ideas, questions and reflections from the day into a shared practitioner resource.

Not a glossy conference summary.

Something people can actually use.

A huge thank you to everyone who contributed to the day, particularly our speakers, volunteers and participants, and to Risk Training Professionals, Proteqt and Foremind for backing what was still very much an experiment.

PsychLab was an experiment.

It worked.

Now the more interesting question is what we build from it.

Section 2: Regulator Update

Slips and trips start with decisions about work

On 29 September 2026, Safe Work Australia released its Guide to managing the risks of slips, trips and falls. The announcement reports 32,000 serious workers’ compensation claims arising from these events in 2024-25 and explicitly connects prevention with how work is organised and managed.⁵

The new material is national guidance from Australia’s WHS policy body. Its publication does not itself create a new Queensland duty or make it a Queensland approved code. Existing duties continue to apply, including the PCBU’s duty to provide and maintain safe work environments and systems, so far as is reasonably practicable.¹

The guide covers falls at the same level and from smaller heights. It expressly excludes situations involving a risk of falling more than two metres, for which other guidance and jurisdictional requirements must be considered. That scope is useful when assigning the resource to managers responsible for everyday premises and work activities.⁶

What deserves executive attention is the guide’s treatment of high job demands. It identifies time pressure as a contributor to slips, trips and falls and examines planning decisions alongside flooring, lighting, stairs and other physical conditions.⁶ An organisation investigating a fall therefore needs to examine the job as well as the surface.

Consider a hospitality operation cleaning a busy service corridor while meals and supplies continue moving through it. The floor condition is the immediate hazard. The arrangement that requires cleaning and service to occupy the same space at the same time is also relevant. A warning sign does not decide who can close the route, where workers should go instead or how service will continue.

The same question arises in an office when maintenance leaves trailing leads across the only practical access route. Facilities may control the equipment, the business unit controls room bookings, and another party performs the work. Unless someone coordinates the activities, each party can complete its assigned task while leaving an unsafe shared space.

Leaders should use the new guide to examine one recurring problem location under actual operating conditions. Include the workers who clean, maintain and use it. Ask when contamination occurs, how long it remains, what creates pressure to pass through and who can authorise a different arrangement.

Select controls against those conditions. Repairing the source of a leak, improving drainage, changing access or scheduling incompatible activities separately may address repeated exposure. The appropriate combination depends on the workplace. Where temporary controls are necessary, identify their owner and the trigger for restoring normal access.

The management task is to connect purchasing, maintenance and operational decisions. If a floor requires cleaning so frequently that people are continually exposed during service, review its suitability and the process causing the contamination. A cleaning frequency target alone cannot resolve that design problem.

Retain observations from busy periods, worker feedback, the reasons for control selection and evidence of completed changes. Review whether the hazard returns during the next comparable shift. An inspection conducted only after cleaning may provide a misleading picture of the exposure workers experience throughout the day.

Boards should ask whether repeat locations have funded improvement plans and accountable operational owners. The useful question is specific: which recurring slip or trip exposure has management removed at its source, and what evidence shows the change holds during normal demand?

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch

Access to machinery is an organisational decision

Two September releases from WorkSafe Victoria examine access to dangerous machinery in very different settings. One records a conviction. The other announces charges. Their legal status matters, as does the distinction between the date of an incident and the date of enforcement action.

Department of Education conviction

On 23 September 2026, the Victorian Department of Education was convicted and fined $150,000, with $4,664 in costs, after pleading guilty to two charges concerning risks to people other than employees. WorkSafe published the outcome on 24 September.⁷

The incident occurred in February 2024 at Beechworth Secondary College. A 15-year-old student lost three fingertips at a rear shear point while classmates used a guillotine to cut brass. The machine was accessible in an unlocked storeroom, its rear danger area was unguarded, no students had been assessed as competent to use it that year, and no teacher was present.⁷

The department admitted that guarding, training records, restricting use to trained students and adequate supervision were reasonably practicable precautions. The finding concerns the organisation’s arrangements for access and use. Being away from the cutting blade did not place the student outside every danger zone.⁷

For education, laboratories and community facilities, the governance question is whether access permission, equipment suitability and supervision operate together. A room booking or staff instruction should not be treated as evidence that every person using equipment is authorised and adequately supervised.

Myer and GeekPlus charges

On 3 September 2026, WorkSafe announced charges against Myer Pty Ltd and GeekPlus Australia Pty Ltd following a worker’s death at a Ravenhall distribution centre in September 2024. The worker came into contact with an energised automated robot.⁸

Myer faces charges under sections 21(1) and 23(1) of Victoria’s Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. GeekPlus faces charges under section 21(1). The allegations concern guarding and access to the robot grid, de-energisation and lockout arrangements, and supervision. These remain allegations in the cited release, which records no finding of guilt or penalty.⁸

The release listed a filing hearing for 28 September. A listed hearing must not be reported as a conviction. The wider question prompted by the allegations is how the operator and specialist supplier define and control access when a person needs to enter an automated system.

What officers should take from these matters

These are Victorian matters under Victorian legislation. For Queensland organisations, the relevant starting points include duties to workers and others under section 19, officer due diligence under section 27, and consultation, cooperation and coordination between duty holders under section 46.¹

The management review should cover foreseeable intervention as well as normal operation. Ask how a learner, cleaner, technician or operator could reach each danger area, what authorises entry and how the required safeguards are established before access occurs. Include changes in staffing, task allocation and equipment configuration.

Keep the evidence connected to the equipment: the assessment of access points, engineering safeguards, authorisations, isolation arrangements and supervision requirements. Where several organisations are involved, identify who performs each task and how they confirm the arrangements agree.

A board should be able to ask which foreseeable access scenario was most difficult to make safe and receive a specific answer. That discussion reveals whether commissioning and operational approval have considered the people who must eventually intervene when ordinary operation is interrupted.

Section 4: Industry Voices

The workplace an injured worker returns to

Safe Work Australia’s August to November 2026 campaign on workers’ compensation stigma brings a neglected organisational issue into view: the way a workplace responds to someone whose capacity has changed. Its current resources ask employers, supervisors and workers to examine how their actions can support recovery or make it harder.⁹

A useful published perspective comes from Dr Tristan Casey and colleagues’ research commissioned by Safe Work Australia. Their 2021 report treats stigma towards injured or ill workers as a psychosocial hazard. It examines how labelling, exclusion and differential treatment can affect disclosure, recovery and return to work.¹⁰

The report combines literature reviews with academic and industry consultation, including a survey of 150 HR practitioners. Much of the evidence it discusses is correlational or qualitative. It supports taking stigma seriously, but does not establish that a particular campaign or training package will produce a predictable reduction in claim duration.¹⁰

Safe Work Australia’s published educational case study about Alex and Lee makes the organisational mechanism accessible. After an injury, Alex experiences limited contact and colleagues’ resentment about taking on his tasks. The case then describes a supervisor responding with support and practical attention to return to work.¹¹

The point for leaders is the connection between workload and social treatment. If an organisation reallocates an injured person’s work without adjusting capacity, colleagues can begin to associate the additional pressure with that individual. Management’s resourcing decision then becomes an interpersonal problem the injured worker is expected to navigate.

That is an inference leaders should test in their own teams. It does not excuse dismissive behaviour. It identifies another condition management can change while addressing the behaviour itself.

Start with the actual return arrangement. Are suitable duties meaningful and consistent with the worker’s assessed capacity? Has the supervisor been given enough information to implement restrictions without receiving unnecessary medical details? Is someone responsible for resolving a mismatch between the approved plan and the work available on a particular shift?

Next examine the surrounding team. Identify which tasks have moved, whether the receiving workers can perform them safely and what will happen when demand exceeds the revised capacity. Explain operational arrangements without disclosing the injured person’s diagnosis or asking them to justify their recovery to colleagues.

Contact also needs a purpose agreed with the worker. A manager who calls only to ask for a return date communicates a narrow concern. Useful contact can clarify support, upcoming changes, practical barriers and the worker’s preferences. It should remain respectful of medical advice and individual circumstances.

For assurance, examine whether agreed adjustments were actually available, whether duties changed without review and whether concerns were resolved promptly. Ask the worker about the experience. Attendance on the first day back provides little evidence about whether the arrangement is sustainable over subsequent weeks.

Keep access to personal information limited. Executive reporting can use aggregated patterns, such as recurring difficulties providing suitable duties or repeated breakdowns in supervisor contact, with individual matters handled through appropriate confidential processes.

The board question is whether the organisation has provided a workable place to recover. An accepted claim and a signed plan are milestones. The work environment, task allocation and daily treatment determine what the person encounters when they return.

Section 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania

Nepal connects chemical policy with workplace practice

On 14 August 2026, the International Labour Organization reported a national policy dialogue in Nepal focused on chemical safety and worker protection. Government, employer and worker representatives examined coordination, workplace risk management, information sharing and technical capability.¹²

The initiative forms part of a project integrating occupational safety and health into implementation of the Global Framework on Chemicals. The dialogue emphasised prevention through elimination or substitution where possible, followed by engineering and other controls. Its reported outcome was agreement on priorities and follow-up work. It is not evidence that workplace exposure has already fallen.¹²

The underlying governance issue is relevant to Australian organisations with regional operations and suppliers. Responsibility for a chemical can pass through several functions: purchasing selects it, production determines how it is used, facilities manages ventilation, and another team arranges waste disposal. Each function sees only part of the conditions affecting the people who handle it.

The Global Framework on Chemicals, adopted in 2023, explicitly brings environment, health, agriculture and labour into a shared approach across the chemical lifecycle.¹³ Nepal’s dialogue is a practical example of the coordination that such an approach requires. The Australian lesson is to examine whether our own organisational boundaries interrupt risk information in comparable ways.

Consider an illustrative procurement decision to replace a cleaning product with one marketed as environmentally preferable. The supplier’s environmental claims may be valid while leaving unanswered questions about worker contact, spray application, storage compatibility and disposal. The replacement could also change the time or physical effort required to complete the job.

A sound approval process examines those consequences before the first delivery. Safe Work Australia’s model hazardous chemicals code addresses substances used, handled, stored or generated at work, including hazardous by-products. It also places elimination and substitution ahead of controls that rely primarily on individual behaviour.¹⁴

Purchasing should therefore obtain the information needed for the intended use and involve the people who understand the task. A competent assessment should consider the product, application method, quantity, exposure routes and associated processes. An SDS informs that assessment; it cannot describe every condition in the receiving workplace.

For a manufacturer, this may require production, engineering, occupational hygiene and environmental advice. For a hospitality or healthcare service, the critical participants may include cleaning staff, facilities, procurement and the supervisor who allocates the work. The necessary expertise follows the risk and the process being changed.

Give one operational owner responsibility for reconciling the advice and ensuring agreed controls are ready. Record what the substitution is intended to improve and what other hazards were considered. Include the workers performing decanting, cleaning, maintenance and waste handling, because their exposure may differ from the main production task.

For overseas operations, establish the applicable local duties and practical capability at each location. Australian requirements should not be presented as another country’s law. Group procurement standards can still specify the evidence required before accepting a product or process, supported by local expertise and worker consultation.

Boards should ask whether product approval covers the whole working process and whether unresolved concerns can stop an introduction. Keep the assessment, consultation, approval conditions and follow-up findings together. Nepal’s coordination agenda offers a useful reminder that chemical governance depends on information reaching the people who make operational decisions.

Section 6: WHS Research

Reading the new exposure survey without overstating it

Safe Work Australia released the 2026 Australian Worker Exposure Survey findings on 22 September. The study provides a new national baseline for exposure to selected physical, chemical and psychosocial hazards.¹⁵ Its value for executives depends on understanding both the findings and how they were produced.

The survey included 6,617 workers aged 15 and over, with fieldwork between December 2025 and February 2026. It combined probability-based recruitment, telephone interviews, non-probability online panels and a small targeted industry sample. Results were weighted against workforce characteristics.¹⁶

For physical and chemical agents, workers described their tasks and controls. OccIDEAS algorithms translated those responses into estimates of probable exposure. Psychosocial measures were based on workers’ reported experiences.¹⁶ These are different measurement approaches and should be described accurately when the findings enter an executive presentation.

What the findings show

An estimated 68% of workers were exposed to at least one assessed physical or chemical hazard agent, and 22.2% to five or more. The proportion exposed to five or more was 68.2% in construction, 60.1% in agriculture, forestry and fishing, and 60.0% in mining.¹⁷

Across psychosocial measures, 37.3% reported tight deadlines or pressure often or all the time, and 33.9% reported emotionally demanding work at that frequency. The findings also include positive conditions: 94.4% agreed they had clarity of duties and 84.0% agreed they received support to work safely.¹⁷

Those positive responses belong in the interpretation. Hazard exposure and helpful work conditions can coexist. Neither should be omitted to produce a more dramatic headline.

What the findings cannot establish

The exposure estimates are not personal monitoring results, proof that a legal limit was exceeded or a diagnosis of occupational illness. A national proportion cannot be assigned to an individual workplace without investigating its tasks and controls. Weighting also does not remove every possible sampling or reporting bias.¹⁶

The study provides a snapshot. Associations between reported conditions do not establish which caused which, and counting agents does not establish a combined biological effect. Five low exposures and one substantial exposure cannot be ranked sensibly by the count alone. Likewise, high concentration can be an ordinary feature of skilled work; its risk significance depends on demand, duration, support and other conditions.

How to use it in practice

Use the findings to challenge the coverage of the organisation’s exposure assessment. Choose a role with varied tasks and map its working week. Identify the relevant agents, when contact occurs, how tasks overlap and which controls depend on available time or assistance. Consult the workers and obtain competent technical advice where measurement is needed.

For example, a maintenance role may combine chemical handling, awkward access and interruptions from urgent requests. Reviewing those activities together can expose a scheduling problem that separate hazard registers miss. This is an application of the findings, not a result demonstrated for every maintenance workplace.

Queensland’s psychosocial provisions already require consideration of interacting hazards and work design.² Use that discipline when determining what the national findings mean locally. Retain the task evidence, worker input, measurement results where relevant and the management response.

The board should ask which previously overlooked task or exposure the new evidence prompted management to examine. A percentage copied into a report has limited value until it changes the questions the organisation asks about its own work.

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends

When a cyber incident affects physical safety

A cyber incident can alter the conditions under which physical work is safe. A compromised system may affect equipment control, access to operating information or the reliability of an alarm. Leaders need to know which safety arrangements depend on those systems before deciding how operations will continue during disruption.

Joint secure connectivity guidance published by the Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre on 15 January 2026 brings cyber, operational and physical risks into the same decision. It addresses connected operational technology, including dependencies created by remote support, older equipment and third-party access.¹⁸

The guidance builds on the 2024 Principles of operational technology cyber security, whose first principle places safety at the centre of decisions.¹⁹ These publications are especially relevant to critical infrastructure, but their management questions also warrant consideration wherever software or networks influence machinery and physical processes.

The organisational weakness to examine is divided authority. Technology teams may decide when a system is isolated. Operations decides whether production continues. Engineering understands what happens when signals or control functions disappear. WHS may only become involved after a disruption has started. Each team can act competently within its role while missing a dependency that sits between them.

Consider an illustrative process plant that loses trusted access to its monitoring display. Production wants to complete the batch. IT wants to disconnect affected equipment. An operator proposes local manual control. The necessary decision depends on the actual process, available instrumentation and engineered safeguards. Neither completing the batch nor disconnecting equipment should be assumed safe without that understanding.

Start by identifying the systems that can influence physical safety. The ACSC’s asset inventory guidance supports documenting operational technology and its relationships.²⁰ For the WHS review, connect that information to credible consequences: loss of visibility, unexpected movement, incorrect settings or inability to perform a safe shutdown.

Bring the operational owner, engineering, cyber specialists and affected workers together to establish the permitted response. Determine what can continue safely, what requires shutdown and what evidence is needed before restarting. Any manual fallback needs a competent assessment, suitable instructions, available skills and realistic practice. Writing “operate manually” in a continuity plan leaves those questions unanswered.

The 2026 connectivity guidance calls for isolation planning that considers dependencies and unintended operational consequences.¹⁸ Translate that into site-specific arrangements. A planned exercise can test who makes the decision, how local personnel receive instructions and what information remains available if ordinary systems cannot be trusted.

Keep the exercise safe. Test assumptions through simulation or a controlled method approved by the relevant technical specialists. Do not create an uncontrolled loss of a safety function to demonstrate preparedness.

For assurance, request evidence linking system dependencies to operating restrictions, shutdown arrangements and restart approval. Include outstanding limitations, such as unsupported equipment or reliance on a specialist who cannot attend quickly. Those limitations may require an operational decision and funding, rather than another awareness message.

Officers do not need to design the network. They do need assurance that competent people have examined the consequences for work and that the organisation has usable resources and processes. The board question is which operations could become unsafe during a digital disruption, who decides their status and what conditions must be met before they resume.

Section 8: Capability Focus

Investigating the conditions behind an incident

An incident report that ends at “the worker did not follow the procedure” leaves an important management question unanswered: what made that action possible or likely in the work as it was organised? The next investigation should examine the conditions surrounding the action before deciding what needs to change.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland’s investigation guidance recommends examining design, the environment, work processes and behaviour together. It cautions against restricting the inquiry to a single cause.²¹ The UK Health and Safety Executive’s investigation workbook similarly connects gathering and analysing information with selecting controls and implementing an action plan.²²

These are established resources. Their practical value this month is a method for improving the next investigation, including an event with no injury but credible potential for serious harm.

Begin with the task as it unfolded

Protect people and deal with immediate risks. Assess notification and site preservation requirements promptly. Queensland requires immediate notification once the PCBU becomes aware of a notifiable incident; an internal investigation must not delay it.²³

Build a timeline from evidence available at the time. Ask the people involved what they were trying to achieve, what information they had and what options appeared available. Compare their accounts with the equipment condition, instructions, roster, task allocation and relevant records. Identify disagreements and gaps instead of selecting the first plausible explanation.

Trace the organisational conditions

Use the following prompts to move from the visible event to decisions the organisation can change. They are a practical review aid, not a substitute for specialist investigation where the event requires it.

Consider an illustrative maintenance incident initially attributed to an isolation error. The investigation should establish the actual energy sources, condition and identification of isolation points, task changes and coordination arrangements. If labels were ambiguous, retraining alone leaves that ambiguity in place. If the method was impracticable, reissuing it leaves the same conflict for the next worker.

Match actions to supported findings

Separate established facts from hypotheses. Explain how each contributing condition is supported by evidence and what remains uncertain. Avoid claiming that a management weakness caused the event simply because it was discovered during the investigation.

For each supported finding, identify an action that changes the relevant exposure or decision process, its accountable owner and the evidence needed to assess its effectiveness. Consult affected workers about whether the proposed change is workable. Review related tasks or locations where the same condition may exist.

ISO 45001 includes incident investigation and continual improvement within the management system.²⁴ Executive review should therefore examine the reasoning between findings and actions. A long action list can still miss the conditions that mattered.

Before accepting the report, ask whether the proposed changes would have altered the situation faced by the people involved. If management cannot explain that connection, the investigation needs more work before it can support a defensible prevention decision.

Final Word

For the next executive meeting, choose one decision from this edition that sits within your authority. Bring the operational owner and the workers who understand its consequences into the discussion. Establish what needs to change, who can authorise it and what evidence will show whether it helped. Where uncertainty remains, record it and decide how it will be resolved. That creates a useful record of judgement for the people doing the work now and for anyone examining the organisation’s decisions later.

Niru Tyagi | WHS Guard

References

1. PsychLab: https://psychlab.co/

2. Queensland Government. Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld), current compilation, particularly ss 34-38 and 55C-55D.

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/2026-03-29/sl-2011-0240

3. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (n.d.). Poor organisational change management. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/safety-and-prevention/mental-health/Psychosocial-hazards/poor-organisational-change-management

4. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 45003:2021 Occupational health and safety management: Psychological health and safety at work: Guidelines for managing psychosocial risks. Standard overview.

https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html

5. Safe Work Australia. (2026, September 29). New guide to managing the risks of slips, trips and falls. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/new-guide-managing-risks-slips-trips-and-falls

6. Safe Work Australia. (2026, September). Guide to managing the risks of slips, trips and falls, particularly pp. 4-8 and 20-22. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/guide-managing-risks-slips-trips-and-falls

7. WorkSafe Victoria. (2026, September 24). $150,000 fine after student’s fingers severed by guillotine.https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/news/2026-09/150000-fine-after-students-fingers-severed-guillotine

8. WorkSafe Victoria. (2026, September 3). Department store and robotics supplier charged after warehouse fatality.

Available at: https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/news/2026-09/department-store-and-robotics-supplier-charged-after-warehouse-fatality

9. Safe Work Australia. (2026, August 5). Taking action to reduce workers’ compensation stigma.

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/taking-action-reduce-workers-compensation-stigma-2026

10. Casey, T. W., Hu, X., Lee, Q. Y., & Carden, C. (2021). Stigma towards injured or ill workers: Research on the causes and impact of stigma in workplaces, and approaches to creating positive workplace cultures that support return to work. Griffith University, commissioned by Safe Work Australia. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/research-causes-and-impact-stigma-workplaces-and-approaches-creating-positive-workplace

11. Safe Work Australia. (2023, April 26). Alex and Lee’s story: Workers’ compensation stigma case study. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/alex-and-lees-story-workers-compensation-stigma-case-study

12. International Labour Organization. (2026, August 14). Nepal strengthens action on chemical safety with worker protection at its core. https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/nepal-strengthens-action-chemical-safety-worker-protection-its-core

13. United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Global Framework on Chemicals: For a planet free of harm from chemicals and waste. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-framework-chemicals-planet-free-harm-chemicals-and-waste

14. Safe Work Australia. (2023, June). Model Code of Practice: Managing risks of hazardous chemicals in the workplace, particularly chapters 2-4. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/model_code_of_practice_managing_the_risks_of_hazardous_chemicals_in_the_workplace.pdf

15. Safe Work Australia. (2026, September 22). 2026 Australian Worker Exposure Survey findings released.

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/2026-australian-worker-exposure-survey-findings-released

16. Safe Work Australia. (2026, September). 2026 Australian Worker Exposure Survey: Analytical report. Prepared by the Social Research Centre. See methodology and sample design. https://data.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-09/2026awes_analytical_report_sept26.pdf

17. Safe Work Australia. (2026). Insights from the Australian Worker Exposure Survey 2026. https://data.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/reports/hazards-and-injuries/insights-australian-worker-exposure-survey-2026

18. National Cyber Security Centre (United Kingdom), Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre, & international partner agencies. (2026, January 15). Secure connectivity principles for Operational Technology (OT).

https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/operational-technology-environments/secure-connectivity-principles-for-operational-technology

19. Australian Signals Directorate, Australian Cyber Security Centre, & international partner agencies. (2024, October). Principles of operational technology cyber security. https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/operational-technology-environments/principles-of-operational-technology-cyber-security

20. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre, & international partner agencies. (2025, August 14). Foundations for OT cybersecurity: Asset inventory guidance for owners and operators. https://www.cyber.gov.au/business-government/secure-design/operational-technology-environments/foundations-for-ot-cybersecurity-asset-inventory-guidance-for-owners-and-operators

21. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (n.d.). Tips for investigating workplace incidents. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/22902/tips-for-investigating-workplace-incidents.pdf

22. Health and Safety Executive. (2004). Investigating accidents and incidents: A workbook for employers, unions, safety representatives and safety professionals (HSG245).https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg245.htm

23. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (n.d.). Notify Workplace Health and Safety Queensland or the Electrical Safety Office. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/safety-and-prevention/incidents-and-notifications/notify-us-of-an-incident/notify-workplace-health-and-safety-queensland-or-electrical-safety-office

24. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 45001:2018 Occupational health and safety management systems: Requirements with guidance for use. Standard overview.

https://www.iso.org/standard/45001

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight: Working for Queensland Is Not a Psychosocial Risk Assessment

Section 2: Regulator Update: New Workplace Exposure Limits, The Chemical Numbers Are Changing

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch: Asbestos, Decommissioning and the Risk of Known Hazards

Section 4: Field Notes: Confidentiality Should Protect People, Not Hide Risk

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania: Fiji Prepares to Revisit a 30 Year Old Safety Framework

Section 6: WHS Research: Return to Work Is More Than Finding Suitable Duties

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trend: Secondary Psychological Injury Moves Into Regulatory Assurance

Section 8: Practical Tool: Turning WfQ Results Into Psychosocial Risk Assurance

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight

Working for Queensland Is Not a Psychosocial Risk Assessment

Across the Queensland public sector, the Working for Queensland survey opened again on 31 August.

More than 68,000 employees participated in 2025. The Public Sector Commission describes WfQ as a confidential employee survey covering issues such as leadership, team culture, manager support, flexibility and accountability.¹

It is valuable information.

But there is an important distinction that public sector leaders need to make.

Working for Queensland can tell you where to look. It cannot tell you that psychosocial risk has been managed.

That distinction matters because psychosocial risk management is moving quickly from an employee experience issue into a formal WHS governance obligation.

What WfQ actually measures

Since 2022, Working for Queensland has been structured around the Job Demands Resources model. The Queensland Government describes that model as a framework for understanding factors contributing to employee engagement.²

There is substantial overlap with psychosocial risk.

The survey contains useful intelligence about autonomy, role clarity, workload, burnout, emotional exhaustion, manager support, fairness, psychological safety, bullying, sexual harassment, violence and aggression.

That information should absolutely be used by WHS leaders.

But overlap is not equivalence.

Queensland’s WHS Regulation requires a PCBU managing psychosocial risks to consider the duration, frequency and severity of exposure, how hazards interact or combine, the design of work, the systems through which work is managed and supported, workplace conditions, behaviours, and the information, training and supervision provided to workers.³

That requires much more than a survey score.

Imagine an agency receives a poor result for workload.

The percentage tells you something.

It does not necessarily tell you whether the exposure comes from vacancies, excessive caseloads, approval bottlenecks, unrealistic deadlines, poor technology, repeated restructures, conflicting executive priorities or insufficient decision authority.

Those distinctions matter because the control will be different in each case.

A workload problem created by vacancies requires a different response from one created by unnecessary approvals.

A role clarity problem created by poor position descriptions requires a different response from one created by constant organisational change.

A manager support problem may actually be the consequence of managers carrying impossible spans of control themselves.

The survey identifies a signal. Risk management has to explain the mechanism.

Aggregation can hide the risk that matters most

There is another problem with organisation-wide surveys.

A reasonable agency result can coexist with a very unhealthy team.

In 2024, WfQ received 71,853 responses, representing a 45 per cent response rate.² A response rate of that size does not make the data unhelpful, but neither does a large number of responses remove the possibility of non-response or localised risk.

Small teams may disappear inside agency averages.

High-risk occupational groups can disappear inside function-level reporting.

Privacy suppression can make very small groups difficult to analyse.

And the people experiencing the greatest distrust may not necessarily be the people most willing to complete a workplace survey.

That last issue deserves particular attention.

The Public Sector Commission reported that its 2025 post-survey evaluation found the largest barrier to participation was concern among employees that the survey was not confidential.¹

The Commission has strongly reiterated the confidentiality protections applying to WfQ.

The governance implication is not that the survey cannot be trusted. It is that organisations should be careful about treating participation numbers as proof that every workforce group has been heard.

Where results suggest concern about trust, fairness, reporting or leadership, leaders may need additional consultation mechanisms.

A survey is one form of consultation

Queensland’s psychosocial Code is clear that surveys can be used to identify psychosocial hazards.

But surveys sit alongside worker discussions, observations of how work is performed, examination of incidents and complaints, workplace inspections, workers’ compensation information and consultation with workers and HSRs.⁴

The Code also makes clear that consultation should continue throughout risk identification, assessment, control selection and review.

That is important.

A survey asking workers what they experience is not the same thing as workers participating in the redesign of the work creating the exposure.

Psychological safety is not psychosocial safety

WfQ also measures psychological safety.

That is useful, but the language can create confusion.

Psychological safety generally concerns whether people believe they can speak, contribute, question or make mistakes without inappropriate interpersonal consequences.

Psychosocial risk management asks a broader question.

How is work exposing people to the risk of psychological or physical harm, and what has the organisation changed to reduce that exposure?

A team can feel relatively comfortable speaking to each other while still carrying unreasonable workloads.

A highly collegial team can still be chronically understaffed.

A supportive manager cannot necessarily compensate for an operating model that generates excessive emotional demands.

Psychological safety is an organisational resource.

It is not evidence that psychosocial hazards are controlled.

The real risk comes after the survey

This is where I think organisations need to pay much closer attention.

The mistake starts when WfQ results become an employee engagement plan rather than risk intelligence.

A workload result becomes a wellbeing workshop.

Poor manager support becomes leadership training.

Stress becomes an EAP communication campaign.

Low morale becomes a culture initiative.

Those actions may have value.

But if the hazard comes from the design of work, the primary control needs to change the design of work.

That may mean staffing.

Priorities.

Caseload allocation.

Decision authority.

Shift arrangements.

Service expectations.

Escalation pathways.

Change processes.

Manager spans of control.

Or how performance targets are designed.

The Queensland Code requires organisations to move through hazard identification, risk assessment, control and review.⁴

A workforce survey can contribute evidence to that process. It cannot replace it.

Is HR equipped to manage what comes next?

HR absolutely belongs at the table.

In fact, HR often sees psychosocial risk before the formal WHS system does.

Grievances, absenteeism, turnover, performance matters, flexible-work disputes, complaints, recruitment difficulties, return-to-work cases and organisational change can all be early indicators of work-related risk.

The problem is assuming that because HR owns workforce data, HR also owns psychosocial risk.

It does not.

Australian HR Institute research has found psychosocial risk rising across Australian workplaces while investment in management capability remains uneven. In its 2025 research, only 28 per cent of responding employers reported investing in leadership and management capability specifically to improve psychosocial health.⁵

That is not evidence that HR professionals are incapable.

It is evidence that organisational capability cannot be assumed.

Psychosocial risk management requires knowledge of hazard identification, exposure assessment, work design, control selection, consultation, incident data, reasonably practicable controls, control verification and WHS governance.

It also requires detailed knowledge of operations.

HR cannot redesign service delivery alone.

WHS cannot determine staffing alone.

A manager cannot solve enterprise resourcing alone.

That is why the stronger model is shared.

HR holds critical workforce intelligence.

WHS provides risk methodology and assurance.

Operational leaders own the design and management of work.

Workers and HSRs explain how that work actually operates.

Executives allocate resources and resolve systemic constraints.

Officers verify that the system is working.

HR should absolutely be at the table. It should not be sitting there alone.

And this year there is another useful signal.

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland is decommissioning the People at Work platform because changes in legislation, new tools and updated research mean the survey may no longer fully meet organisations’ needs. Queensland now directs employers to its psychosocial risk assessment tool aligned with the 14 hazards in the Queensland Code.⁶

That should make organisations think carefully.

If a validated survey designed specifically for psychosocial risk has needed to evolve as the regulatory environment changed, it is difficult to argue that a general employee experience survey can carry the entire psychosocial risk management process.

WfQ is not the problem.

False assurance is.

The question for leaders when the results arrive is therefore not simply:

What did our score do?

It is:

Now that workers have told us where the problems may be, what are we going to do to understand and control the risk?

Section 2: Regulator Update

New Workplace Exposure Limits: The Chemical Numbers Are Changing

On 1 December 2026, one of the largest changes to Australia’s airborne contaminant framework in decades takes effect.

The existing Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants will become Workplace Exposure Limits.

The terminology is deliberate.

Safe Work Australia says the change from “standards” to “limits” is intended to reinforce that these are concentrations that must not be exceeded. More than 600 substances and mixtures have an established WES or WEL, and a number of individual limits and listings will change when the new framework commences.⁷

For Queensland businesses, WHSQ has confirmed the new limits take effect from 1 December 2026. The underlying duty to eliminate or minimise exposure to airborne contaminants remains unchanged.⁸

This should not be treated as an SDS update exercise.

What is actually changing?

Some exposure limits will decrease.

Some increase.

Some contaminants have been added, removed, merged or split.

New advisory notation arrangements include separate dermal and respiratory sensitisation notations, DSEN and RSEN, and a new OTO notation for substances capable of contributing to hearing loss.⁹

The OTO change is especially interesting from a systems perspective.

It means some chemical exposure assessments will need to be considered alongside noise exposure rather than in an occupational hygiene silo.

One particularly significant new limit applies to diesel particulate matter.

From 1 December, the WEL for diesel particulate matter will be 0.01 mg/m³.

Safe Work Australia has specifically identified mining, quarrying, tunnelling, construction, agriculture, transport and logistics, oil and gas, and vehicle maintenance as environments where diesel engine emission exposure may occur.¹⁰

That creates immediate questions about underground and enclosed work, workshops, loading areas, maintenance facilities and businesses operating older diesel fleets.

Thirty-three carcinogens will no longer have a numeric limit

The transition also changes the treatment of 33 non-threshold genotoxic carcinogens.

Safe Work Australia says a practical protective exposure threshold cannot be assigned to these substances because of their nature and the available evidence.

From 1 December, they will therefore no longer have numerical exposure limits.

They include substances such as chromium VI compounds, ethylene oxide, 1,3-butadiene and vinyl chloride.⁹

The absence of a number does not mean absence of a duty.

It means the opposite.

PCBUs must eliminate these contaminants where reasonably practicable, replace them with safer alternatives where possible, or minimise the risk so far as is reasonably practicable.

That is a major governance point.

Organisations accustomed to asking whether a monitoring result is “under the limit” will need a different conversation for substances where no safe numeric threshold is being applied.

Not every proposed limit is changing

There is also an important qualification.

Nine substances received additional regulatory impact analysis: benzene, chlorine, copper, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen dioxide, respirable crystalline silica and titanium dioxide.

In June, Safe Work Australia advised that a majority of WHS ministers had not supported changing those nine exposure levels at this stage.

Their current limits will therefore remain when the WEL framework begins on 1 December.¹¹

This is precisely why businesses should not rely on old spreadsheets, generic chemical registers or assumptions about what changed.

The organisational mechanism behind the risk

The biggest failure I expect during this transition is simple.

Someone in WHS updates the chemical register.

Someone in procurement asks suppliers for new SDS.

And everyone assumes the job is complete.

It is not.

Airborne contaminant risk is created through work.

Grinding generates dust.

Diesel engines generate particulate.

Welding generates fumes.

Cleaning, spraying, mixing, cutting, heating and maintenance can all create exposures that do not arrive neatly labelled in a container.

The real transition therefore sits in work processes, ventilation, isolation, substitution, maintenance, air monitoring, health monitoring, contractor management and supervision.

Safe Work Australia released new air monitoring and diesel engine emissions guidance on 30 July and launched an updated Hazardous Chemical Information System on 4 August to support the transition.¹⁰ ¹²

What leaders should expect before 1 December

By November, I would expect a mature organisation to be able to show:

a mapped inventory of substances used and generated through work;

a comparison between relevant current WES and incoming WEL values;

identification of substances with changed limits or notations;

specific review of diesel particulate exposure where relevant;

identification of non-threshold genotoxic carcinogens;

updated exposure assessments;

air monitoring where uncertainty remains;

evidence that ventilation and other engineering controls have been tested;

revised operating procedures and worker information where controls change;

contractor and procurement requirements reflecting the new limits, and

a documented management review confirming readiness.

The date is 1 December.

But the governance deadline is earlier.

If an organisation waits until December to discover that an existing ventilation system cannot consistently maintain exposure below a new limit, the failure did not occur on 1 December.

It occurred during the transition period when nobody checked.

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch

Asbestos, Decommissioning and the Risk of Known Hazards

A South Australian prosecution in August provides a useful lesson about an often-neglected stage of organisational life: shutting things down.

On 13 August 2026, Conroy’s Smallgoods Pty Ltd was convicted and fined $90,000 after pleading guilty to a Category 3 offence involving asbestos risks during clean-up and demolition works at its former Brompton food-processing facility.¹³

SafeWork SA reported that the company was aware asbestos-containing material was present.

Workers nevertheless undertook clean-up and demolition activities between December 2021 and February 2023.

An asbestos assessment later found friable and non-friable asbestos had been disturbed, with debris throughout the workplace and on adjoining property. The company had also undertaken asbestos removal without the required licence and had not established appropriate removal work areas, airborne fibre monitoring or independent clearance inspections.¹³

The court described the breach as egregious.

The governance lesson is bigger than asbestos

The obvious lesson is to manage asbestos correctly.

The more useful lesson is about non-routine work.

Many organisations have mature controls for normal operations but much weaker governance around:

closure;

decommissioning;

renovation;

relocation;

demolition;

major maintenance, and

site handover.

These activities are often treated as temporary projects.

Normal operating teams leave.

Contractors arrive.

Asset information is incomplete.

Budgets tighten because the site is no longer revenue-producing.

The organisation mentally moves on before the physical risk has disappeared.

That is exactly when legacy hazards become dangerous.

Board question

When an asset, building or operation is being closed, who becomes the owner of the residual WHS risk?

The evidence I would expect includes an asbestos and hazardous-material review before intrusive work begins, contractor licensing verification, defined work boundaries, air-monitoring requirements, clearance evidence, and formal transfer of accountability between operations, property, project and contractor teams.

Decommissioning is not the absence of operations.

It is a different operation with a different risk profile.

Section 4: Field Notes

Confidentiality Should Protect People, Not Hide Risk

There is a recurring problem in psychosocial risk governance that receives surprisingly little attention.

HR may know about six complaints in the same division.

The workers’ compensation team may know about two psychological injury claims.

A manager may know three people have requested transfers.

WHS may see none of it.

Not because anyone is deliberately hiding information.

Because each matter is confidential.

Confidentiality is essential.

But confidentiality and organisational blindness are not the same thing.

The organisation does not necessarily need the names, personal details or allegations to know that several indicators are appearing in the same workgroup.

This is where the interface between HR and WHS becomes a control.

Individual cases need privacy.

Systemic risk needs visibility.

A mature organisation should be able to convert sensitive people information into de-identified risk intelligence.

For example:

six unrelated grievances in one team;

rapid turnover after a restructure;

repeated stress-related absence;

multiple complaints about workload;

several performance matters involving the same role design, or

return-to-work cases repeatedly breaking down under the same manager.

Any one case may be private.

The pattern is an organisational risk signal.

Queensland’s psychosocial Code specifically directs PCBUs to use reports, records, worker consultation, observations and surveys when identifying psychosocial hazards.⁴

The governance challenge is therefore designing an information system that protects individual privacy while allowing patterns to reach the people who own the risk.

This is where HR needs clear escalation criteria.

Not every complaint belongs on a WHS dashboard.

But repeated exposure indicators should not disappear because no single case crosses a reporting threshold.

A useful test is:

Can your organisation identify a pattern without identifying the person?

If the answer is no, the organisation may have a privacy process.

It does not yet have a psychosocial risk intelligence process.

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania

Fiji Prepares to Revisit a 30 Year Old Safety Framework

Fiji is worth watching this month.

The Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation reported in July that the Government has indicated the Health and Safety at Work Act 1996 is due for review. The Federation says modernisation of the legislation is on its 2026–27 work program, with consultation expected through Fiji’s tripartite National Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board.¹⁴

The existing Act dates from 1996 and established broad employer duties, safety committees, inspection arrangements and the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Board.¹⁵

Fiji has amended parts of its safety framework over time, including workplace-condition regulations, but the principal Act is now approaching three decades old.

That matters because the work it governs has changed substantially.

Digital technology has changed.

Tourism has changed.

Construction has expanded.

Climate exposure has changed.

Supply chains have changed.

Workforce mobility has changed.

And international expectations around psychological health, worker participation, occupational hygiene and due diligence have moved considerably.

The Australian governance lesson

The lesson is not that older legislation automatically creates unsafe workplaces.

Good organisations frequently operate above minimum legal requirements.

The lesson is that businesses should not wait for regulation to tell them what modern risk management looks like.

Australian companies operating in Fiji, purchasing from Fiji or using regional contractors should maintain a consistent enterprise risk standard rather than allowing local legal minimums to define the quality of controls.

ISO 45001 provides one useful mechanism for doing this because it allows organisations to maintain a common health and safety management architecture while mapping jurisdiction-specific legal requirements underneath it.

That approach also protects organisations from a familiar transition problem.

When local legislation changes, the business is not starting from zero.

Its systems are already designed around risk, consultation, competence, assurance and continual improvement.

Board question

For businesses operating across the Pacific:

Are your overseas safety standards based on what the local law currently allows, or on what your organisation already knows good risk management requires?

Section 6: WHS Research

Return to Work Is More Than Finding Suitable Duties

Safe Work Australia’s 2025 National Return to Work Survey deserves more attention from WHS leaders.

The national return-to-work rate declined from 91.6 per cent in 2021 to 88.9 per cent in 2025.

Workers with physical injuries had a return-to-work rate of 90.2 per cent.

For workers with psychological injuries, it was 76.5 per cent.¹⁶

Those figures tell us there is a problem.

They do not, by themselves, prove what causes it.

That distinction matters.

Return to work is influenced by injury severity, occupation, labour-market conditions, healthcare, worker circumstances, insurer practices, workplace relationships and many other factors.

The survey does, however, identify organisational features associated with better outcomes.

Workers who reported having a return-to-work plan had a return rate of 94 per cent compared with 81.7 per cent among those without one.

Safe Work Australia also found better reported outcomes where employers helped workers manage their injury or illness before a compensation claim was lodged.¹⁶

These are associations, not experimental evidence that a plan or early employer contact causes recovery.

But the pattern is still operationally important.

The hidden mechanism is uncertainty

Traditional return-to-work systems tend to focus heavily on medical restrictions.

Can the person lift five kilograms?

Can they work four hours?

Can they drive?

Can they sit?

Those questions matter.

But the experience of return to work also involves control, fairness, role clarity, communication and trust.

A worker can technically have “suitable duties” while experiencing:

no clarity about how long the arrangement will last;

fear about their employment;

uncertain income;

poor communication;

a manager who avoids difficult conversations;

colleagues who do not understand changed duties;

repeated requests to explain the injury, or

a claims process they do not understand.

For someone recovering from a physical injury, these conditions can create a second layer of risk.

For someone recovering from psychological injury, they may reproduce the original hazard.

Return to work is work design

That changes how organisations should think about rehabilitation.

A return-to-work plan should not simply allocate reduced tasks.

It should design a temporary system of work.

That means deciding:

what demands are safe;

what decisions the worker controls;

what information they need;

who will supervise;

how workload will be adjusted;

how colleagues will be briefed while respecting privacy;

what happens if symptoms increase, and

when the controls will be reviewed.

The strongest finding from the survey is therefore not a particular percentage.

It is that return to work cannot be outsourced to a form, an insurer or a rehabilitation coordinator.

The workplace itself remains part of the recovery environment.

What the research does not prove

The data do not mean every worker without a formal plan will have a poor outcome.

They do not prove employer contact is always beneficial.

Poorly managed contact can increase stress.

Nor do they mean psychological injury is simply a more difficult version of physical injury.

Psychological injuries often arise from complex interactions between work design, relationships, management action and individual circumstances.

The governance implication is narrower and more useful.

Organisations should treat return-to-work quality as a control effectiveness issue, not simply a claims metric.

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trend

Secondary Psychological Injury Moves Into Regulatory Assurance

Queensland’s workers’ compensation regulator has made that point even sharper.

Workers’ Compensation Regulatory Services commenced targeted audits across Queensland insurers in July 2026 focused specifically on preventing and managing secondary psychological injuries.¹⁷

The data explain why.

Queensland scheme data indicate 5.1 per cent of workers with a physical injury requiring time away from work later develop an accepted secondary psychological injury.

WCRS says that rate has doubled over five years.

Affected workers spend an average of 303 days away from work and the average claim costs $130,785.¹⁷

Again, cost is not the most important part of the story.

The significant shift is regulatory.

The claims and rehabilitation process is increasingly being treated as something capable of either reducing or amplifying harm.

An organisation can injure someone twice

A worker suffers a physical injury.

What happens next?

The worker may lose income certainty.

Their team stops contacting them because managers are unsure what they can say.

They receive multiple requests for medical information.

They do not understand the claims process.

Suitable duties change repeatedly.

They feel disbelieved.

Their role is quietly redistributed.

They start wondering whether there is still a job to return to.

None of these experiences automatically creates psychological injury.

But together they illustrate why the system following the original injury deserves risk-management attention.

WCRS identifies uncertainty and lack of control, financial stress, pre-injury psychological health and the mechanism of injury among important drivers of secondary psychological injury.¹⁷

This is not just an insurer issue

The formal audit targets insurers because they carry specific statutory obligations.

Employers should still pay attention.

Many of the interactions experienced by injured workers are controlled by employers.

Manager contact.

Suitable duties.

Workplace communication.

Role security.

Workload on return.

Team behaviour.

Escalation when recovery stalls.

The organisation therefore influences the environment in which rehabilitation occurs.

What leaders should ask

Do managers know how to maintain appropriate contact with an injured worker?

Are workers told clearly what will happen next?

Is suitable work genuinely suitable, or merely available?

Are rehabilitation plans designed with the worker?

Does HR identify signs that a physical claim is becoming psychologically complex?

Are insurer delays or communication failures escalated?

And do executives ever see data on failed returns to work, recurrence or secondary psychological injury?

This is where injury management begins to look less like administration and more like organisational design.

That is a useful shift.

Section 8: Practical Tool

Turning WfQ Results Into Psychosocial Risk Assurance

The most useful thing an organisation can do with WfQ results is resist the urge to jump immediately to an action plan.

First convert the result into a risk question.

An example

Suppose WfQ identifies high workload.

The weak response is:

Action: conduct a time-management workshop.

The stronger response asks why workload is excessive.

Analysis finds:

two long-term vacancies;

repeated urgent ministerial requests;

duplicate approvals;

high rework caused by an outdated system, and

managers routinely working after hours.

Worker consultation confirms the same pattern.

Now the organisation can identify controls that actually change exposure.

Prioritisation rules.

Temporary resourcing.

Removal of an unnecessary approval step.

System remediation.

Clear escalation for work that cannot be completed within available capacity.

Limits on routine after-hours communication.

The control question then becomes measurable.

Did overtime reduce?

Did backlog reduce?

Were vacancies filled?

Did after-hours work decline?

Do workers report improved control over workload?

That is risk management.

Five questions for boards and executive teams

When WfQ results reach the executive table, I would ask:

1. Which findings represent potential WHS hazards rather than engagement issues alone?

2. Where could organisation-wide averages be concealing local exposure?

3. What other evidence has been used to validate the findings?

4. What has actually changed in the design or management of work?

5. What evidence tells us those changes reduced exposure?

If the answer to the final question is another survey score, keep asking.

A better score is useful evidence.

It is not, by itself, proof that a control is effective.

Final Word

This month’s theme is simple: organisations already have more WHS information than ever. The real challenge is what they do with it.

Surveys, claims data, exposure monitoring, incident systems and regulator guidance all create organisational knowledge. But knowledge only matters when it changes decisions.

A mature WHS system creates a clear path from:

information to risk;
risk to control;
control to verification, and
verification to assurance.

The question leaders should keep asking is:

What changed because you knew?

That is where stronger WHS governance is heading. Not more activity, but better organisational judgement.

Stay evidence-driven. Stay accountable.

Niru Tyagi | WHS Guard

References

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight

Working for Queensland Is Not a Psychosocial Risk Assessment

1. Queensland Public Sector Commission. (2026). Working for Queensland survey 2026. Official PSC announcement confirming the 31 August 2026 opening, 2025 participation and confidentiality concerns identified through post-survey evaluation.
   Working for Queensland 2026 announcement

2. Queensland Government. (2024). Working for Queensland Survey: Highlights Report, Queensland Public Sector. This is the key source for the Job Demands Resources framework and the detailed WfQ measures.
   2024 Working for Queensland Highlights Report

3. Queensland Government. (2026). Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, particularly s 55D, Determining control measures for psychosocial risks.
   Current Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011

4. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2022). Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice 2022.
   Queensland Psychosocial Hazards Code of Practice

5. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2026). People at Work. Includes the 2026 decommissioning timetable and Queensland’s recommendation to use its psychosocial risk assessment tool aligned with the 14 Code hazards.
   People at Work decommissioning and alternatives

6. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2026). Psychosocial risk assessment tool. Queensland Psychosocial Risk Assessment Tool

7. Australian HR Institute. (2025). Managing and Minimising Psychosocial Risks in Australian Workplaces.
   AHRI psychosocial risk research report

8. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 45003:2021 Occupational health and safety management: Psychological health and safety at work, Guidelines for managing psychosocial risks. ISO 45003:2021

Section 2: Regulator Update

New Workplace Exposure Limits: The Chemical Numbers Are Changing

9. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2025). New workplace exposure limits. Confirms Queensland’s transition to WELs from 1 December 2026 and that the underlying duty to manage airborne contaminants remains unchanged.
WHSQ: New workplace exposure limits

10. Safe Work Australia. (2026). Workplace exposure limits for airborne contaminants. Provides the national WEL framework and transition requirements.
Workplace Exposure Limits hub

11. Safe Work Australia. (2026). Changes between the WES and WEL. This is the best source for individual limit changes, revised classifications, additions and removals, advisory notations and the treatment of non-threshold genotoxic carcinogens.
Comparison of WES and WEL changes

12. Safe Work Australia. (2026). Workplace exposure limits for airborne contaminants: WEL list. Official Workplace Exposure Limits list

13. Safe Work Australia. (2026, 30 July). New guidance on managing workplace exposure to airborne contaminants. Includes the new 0.01 mg/m³ diesel particulate matter WEL and new air-monitoring guidance.
Air monitoring and diesel emissions guidance

14. Safe Work Australia. (2026, 24 June). Decision Regulation Impact Statement: Proposed workplace exposure limits for nine chemicals. Confirms that the existing limits for benzene, chlorine, copper, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen dioxide, respirable crystalline silica and titanium dioxide will not change on 1 December 2026. Decision on the nine exposure limits.

15. Safe Work Australia. (2026, 4 August). New Hazardous Chemical Information System now available. New Hazardous Chemical Information System

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch

Asbestos, Decommissioning and the Risk of Known Hazards

16. SafeWork SA. (2026, 17 August). Smallgoods company fined $90,000 over asbestos exposure risks: Templeton v Conroy’s Smallgoods Pty Ltd.
SafeWork SA prosecution summary

17. SafeWork SA. (2026). Prosecutions and judgments. Provides the enforcement record and sentencing details for the Conroy’s Smallgoods matter.
SafeWork SA prosecutions and judgments

18. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2021). How to manage and control asbestos in the workplace Code of Practice 2021. Queensland asbestos Code of Practice

19. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. Asbestos: Managing workplace risks.
WHSQ asbestos guidance

Section 4: Field Notes

Confidentiality Should Protect People, Not Hide Risk

20. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2022). Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice 2022. The Code identifies reports, records, consultation, observation and surveys as sources for identifying psychosocial hazards.
Queensland Psychosocial Hazards Code of Practice

21. Queensland Public Sector Commission. (2024). State of the Sector Report 2024. Of particular relevance is the Commission’s approach of using WfQ alongside workforce data, including absenteeism and turnover, rather than treating survey data as a standalone measure.
Queensland State of the Sector Report 2024

22. Queensland Government. (2024). Working for Queensland Survey: Highlights Report. Includes reporting on bullying, sexual harassment, workplace violence and reporting behaviour.
Working for Queensland detailed results

23. Queensland Government. (2009). Information Privacy Act 2009. Relevant to the handling, use, management and disclosure of personal information by Queensland public sector agencies. Current Information Privacy Act 2009

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania

Fiji Prepares to Revisit a 30 Year Old Safety Framework

24. Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation. (2026, 26 July). Voice of the Private Sector: Influencing Labour Policies. Reports that the Fiji Government has indicated the Health and Safety at Work Act 1996 is due for review and outlines consultation through the national OHS framework.
FCEF: Modernising Fiji’s workplace safety framework

25. International Labour Organization. NATLEX. Fiji: Health and Safety at Work Act 1996.
ILO NATLEX: Fiji Health and Safety at Work Act 1996

26. International Labour Organization. NORMLEX. Occupational Safety and Health Convention No. 155: Fiji. The ILO supervisory record notes the Fiji Government’s advice that the 1996 Act would be reviewed and requests updates on the legislative review. ILO NORMLEX review commentary for Fiji

27. International Labour Organization. NATLEX. Health and Safety at Work (General Workplace Conditions) Regulations 2003, Fiji.
Fiji General Workplace Conditions Regulations

28. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 45001:2018 Occupational health and safety management systems, Requirements with guidance for use. ISO 45001:2018

Section 6: WHS Research

Return to Work Is More Than Finding Suitable Duties

29. Safe Work Australia. (2025). 2025 National Return to Work Survey results.
2025 National Return to Work Survey results

30. Safe Work Australia. (2025). Insights from the National Return to Work Survey. This source provides the key comparative figures used in the article, including 88.9 per cent overall return to work, 90.2 per cent for physical injuries, 76.5 per cent for psychological injuries, and the relationship between return-to-work planning and outcomes. National Return to Work Survey insights

31. Safe Work Australia. (2025). National Return to Work Survey Analysis Report.
Full 2025 NRTW Analysis Report

32. Deady, M., Arena, A., Sanatkar, S., Gayed, A., Manohar, N., Petrie, K., & Harvey, S. B. (2025). Psychological workplace injury and incapacity: A call for action. Journal of Industrial Relations, 67(2), 386–398. Psychological workplace injury and incapacity: A call for action

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trend

Secondary Psychological Injury Moves Into Regulatory Assurance

33. Workers’ Compensation Regulatory Services Queensland. (2026). Targeted audit: Early intervention to prevent secondary psychological injuries. This is the primary source for the July 2026 audit program, the 5.1 per cent figure, 303 average days away from work and average claim cost of $130,785. WCRS secondary psychological injury audit

34. Queensland Government. Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 232AC. Requires insurers to take all reasonable steps to minimise the risk of a worker with an accepted physical injury developing a secondary psychiatric or psychological injury.
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, s 232AC

35. Workers’ Compensation Regulatory Services Queensland. (2026). Licensing, performance and compliance. Provides further context on the 2026 secondary psychological injury audit campaign.
WCRS licensing, performance and compliance update

36. Monash University Healthy Working Lives Research Group. (2026). Research examining pathways to secondary psychological injury.
Monash secondary psychological injury research

37. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2025). Prevent a physical injury becoming a psychological injury.
WHSQ secondary psychological injury guidance

Section 8: Practical Tool

Turning WfQ Results Into Psychosocial Risk Assurance

38. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2022). Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice 2022.
Queensland Psychosocial Hazards Code of Practice

39. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2026). Psychosocial risk assessment tool. The tool expressly uses the sequence of identifying hazards, assessing risk, controlling risk and reviewing control measures, supported throughout by consultation.
Queensland Psychosocial Risk Assessment Tool

40. Safe Work Australia. PCBU duties for managing psychosocial risks. Includes duration, frequency and severity of exposure, interacting hazards, work design, systems of work and consultation requirements.
Safe Work Australia psychosocial PCBU duties

41. Safe Work Australia. Consultation when managing WHS risks.
Worker and HSR consultation guidance

42. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 45003:2021 Occupational health and safety management: Psychological health and safety at work. ISO 45003:2021

s

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight: Risk Appetite meets Legal Duty. 1

Section 2: Queensland Regulator Update: Plant Attachment Integrity and Chemical Transfer Controls 2

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch: Officer Liability and Health Monitoring Failures. 4

Section 4: Industry Voices: Occupational Hygiene Returns to the Centre of WHS. 6

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania: India Moves from Law to Worker Health Surveillance 8

Section 6: WHS Research: Welding Fume Exposure in Australian Workplaces. 9

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends: The 1 December 2026 Workplace Exposure Limits Transition 11

Section 8: Capability Focus: How Boards Should Read an Occupational Hygiene Report 13

WHS GUARD | JULY 2026

WHS Guard Newsletter: July 2026

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight: Risk Appetite meets Legal Duty

Organisations use risk appetite statements to guide decisions about uncertainty, investment and performance. That approach works reasonably well for commercial risk. It becomes dangerous when it is applied to work health and safety without recognising the legal limits.

A board may accept a level of market risk, project delay or operational disruption. It cannot accept an uncontrolled risk of serious injury simply because it falls within a tolerance threshold or receives a favourable risk rating.

The duty is to eliminate risks so far as is reasonably practicable and, where that is not possible, to minimise them so far as is reasonably practicable. That duty is not replaced by a risk score, an appetite statement or a committee decision.

The challenge is rarely deliberate disregard for safety. More often, it is a translation error between enterprise risk management and legal duty. Hazards are assessed, given residual ratings and eventually recorded as “accepted”. Over time, accepted risk can become shorthand for no further action, even when controls remain weak, overdue or unverified.

The Hidden Organisational Mechanism

Risk matrices simplify complex situations into a single number. While useful, they can create a false sense of assurance. A low likelihood rating may reflect an absence of recent incidents rather than evidence that controls are working. A residual rating often represents confidence in controls rather than proof of their effectiveness.

There is another problem. Safety risks are frequently evaluated after key decisions on budget, schedule, resources or design have already been made. The discussion then becomes whether the remaining risk sits within appetite instead of whether reasonably practicable controls were sacrificed earlier to meet competing objectives.

That is risk acceptance after risk creation.

What Leaders Should Do Differently

· Separate legal compliance from risk appetite. No risk appetite statement should override legal obligations.

· Escalate critical failures. Serious near misses, failed critical controls and overdue statutory actions should trigger executive review regardless of risk rating.

· Require evidence, not assumptions. Risk acceptance should be supported by clear evidence of control effectiveness and consideration of alternative controls.

· Report control confidence. Boards should understand whether controls are verified, partially verified or merely assumed.

· Reassess when conditions change. Staffing, workload, technology, contractors and operational changes can invalidate previous decisions.

Good governance is not whether a risk was accepted. It is whether decision-makers can demonstrate that they understood the hazard, considered reasonably practicable controls and verified that those controls were effective.

Risk appetite may explain a commercial loss. It does not explain a preventable injury.

Section 2: Queensland Regulator Update: Plant Attachment Integrity and Chemical Transfer Controls

Major incidents are not always caused by major assets. Increasingly, regulators are highlighting failures in attachments, hoses, couplings and temporary systems that sit outside traditional maintenance and assurance processes. Two recent Queensland safety alerts provide a timely reminder that some of the highest-consequence risks can arise from components that receive the least attention.

Tractor-Mounted Hydraulic Percussion Post Driver Failure

On 7 July 2026, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland issued a safety alert following a fatal incident involving a tractor-mounted hydraulic percussion post driver. Initial information indicates that part of the attachment connection failed, allowing the mast to detach and pivot backwards, striking the operator.

WHSQ identified several potential failure modes, including hydraulic cylinder failure, missing or loose pins, threaded components unwinding, and cracking or failure of brackets and welds. Recommended controls include positive locking systems, secondary restraints, inspection of fasteners and structural components, competent repair and maintenance, and keeping workers clear of attachment collapse zones.

The lesson extends well beyond agriculture. Organisations often manage the prime mover but not the interface. A forklift, excavator or vehicle may sit comfortably within the asset register, while attachments, couplings, hose connections and modifications receive less scrutiny. Maintenance systems tend to follow asset numbers rather than energy pathways. The result is a blind spot where a relatively small component becomes the single point of failure for a high-consequence event.

Evidence a regulator would expect to see:

• Attachment register

• Inspection criteria

• Maintenance history

• Evidence of secondary restraints

• Operator competency records

• Safe approach and isolation arrangements

Chemical Transfer: Storage Is Not the Same as Movement

A second Queensland alert involved two workers who suffered chemical burns during transfer of a corrosive chemical from an intermediate bulk container to a storage tank. Initial investigations suggest a diaphragm pump malfunction resulted in an uncontrolled spray release, injuring one worker and a second worker who attempted to assist.

WHSQ noted that chemical transfer activities often present greater risk than storage because chemicals are moving through pumps, hoses, fittings and temporary equipment. Common failure points include incompatible materials, deteriorated hoses, leaking connections, inadequate restraint systems and poor containment arrangements. Recommended controls include preventative maintenance, secured transfer systems, emergency shut-offs, eyewash facilities, safety showers and task-specific procedures.

The hidden organisational mechanism is the normalisation of temporary work. Transfer systems are frequently portable, shared between products or assembled for convenience. Ownership becomes unclear, maintenance intervals drift, and emergency arrangements rely on operator improvisation. What appears to be a routine task can quickly become a multi-worker exposure event.

Actions for Duty Holders

• Identify temporary systems outside formal asset registers.

• Review single-point failures that could release energy or hazardous substances.

• Verify replacement criteria for hoses, couplings and restraints.

• Ensure emergency response controls can be activated immediately.

• Validate controls in the field rather than relying solely on procedures.

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch: Officer Liability and Health Monitoring Failures

Director fined $195,500 after hydrogen sulphide exposure

On 17 July 2026, SafeWork NSW reported that Peter Fusarelli, sole director of Myra Corporate Pty Ltd, had been convicted and fined $195,500 in the District Court of NSW. The proceedings arose from a February 2022 incident in which a doctor sustained serious injuries after exposure to hydrogen sulphide gas during biogas experiments. The director pleaded guilty to failing to comply with his officer duty under section 27(1) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.⁷

Hydrogen sulphide is colourless, highly toxic and capable of causing rapid unconsciousness and death at high concentrations. SafeWork NSW emphasised ventilation, risk assessment and safe systems of work. The case is important because it places officer responsibility inside scientific and experimental work, where uncertainty is sometimes mistaken for exemption. Research and development can involve changing conditions, novel processes and incomplete operating history. Those features increase the need for disciplined hazard review, containment, gas detection, ventilation, emergency planning and competent supervision. They do not reduce it.⁷

The organisational mechanism is optimism bias around expertise. Highly qualified workers may be assumed to understand and manage every operational risk. Technical competence in medicine, science or engineering is not the same as competence in process safety. Officers must ensure that experimental work is governed by a system that identifies credible release scenarios and prevents a single person from informally carrying the risk.

Laboratory fined after lead monitoring deadlines missed

On 1 July 2026, WorkSafe Victoria reported that On Site Laboratory Services Pty Ltd had been fined $10,000, without conviction, and ordered to pay $4,259 in costs after failing to arrange biological monitoring at required intervals for two employees performing lead-risk work. Blood test results had triggered the requirement for further testing, but the follow-up tests were not arranged within the prescribed timeframes.⁸

The fine was modest. The governance signal is not. Health monitoring is a compliance process with operational consequences. An adverse or triggering result should create a defined sequence: notify the responsible person, assess continued exposure, arrange repeat testing, review controls, consult the worker, consider removal from lead-risk work and verify corrective action. If the result sits in an inbox or is treated as confidential medical administration, the organisation loses the chance to prevent further harm.

This case also exposes a dangerous division between occupational health and operations. A clinician or laboratory may hold the result, HR may hold the worker record, WHS may own the procedure and the supervisor may continue assigning the task. Unless escalation ownership is explicit, everyone completes their part and no one changes the exposure.

Section 4: Industry Voices: Occupational Hygiene Returns to the Centre of WHS

For many years, occupational hygiene has been viewed as a specialist service called in when air monitoring is required or a regulator asks questions. Increasingly, that view is proving too narrow.

The Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists’ recently updated Simplified Occupational Hygiene Risk Management Strategies reinforces a simple but important principle: exposure assessment and risk assessment are inseparable. Organisations cannot effectively manage exposure risks if they only focus on compliance testing after the work has already been designed and implemented.

The most mature organisations are shifting occupational hygiene upstream. Instead of treating it as a measurement exercise, they are using it to inform decisions about plant design, chemical selection, ventilation systems, automation, maintenance strategies and work methods.

The challenge is that exposure risks rarely announce themselves. Unlike many physical hazards, they often develop gradually through routine tasks, changing processes and everyday operational decisions. By the time symptoms emerge or monitoring identifies a problem, the exposure has often been occurring for months or years.

The Hidden Organisational Mechanism

One of the most common failures is what could be called capability delay.

Generalist WHS teams are expected to identify a wide range of hazards, yet exposure risks often require specialist knowledge, monitoring techniques and interpretation. Occupational hygiene expertise is frequently deferred because it was not budgeted, because no exposure limit has been exceeded, or because decision-makers want evidence before approving an assessment.

The result is a circular problem: the organisation waits for data before engaging the expertise needed to collect and interpret the data.

What High-Performing Organisations Do Differently

Leading organisations are embedding occupational hygiene into normal business processes by:

· Defining clear trigger points for specialist advice.

· Involving occupational hygienists in design and procurement decisions.

· Reviewing exposure risks when processes, materials or work methods change.

· Requiring monitoring reports to identify decisions and actions, not just results.

· Tracking exposure-control improvements through normal governance and assurance processes.

The focus is no longer on measuring hazards. The focus is on preventing exposure before it occurs.

As workplace exposure obligations continue to evolve, occupational hygiene is becoming less of a specialist service and more of a strategic capability. The organisations that treat it as an input into business decisions, rather than a compliance activity, will be better positioned to identify risks early, verify controls and prevent harm before it occurs.

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania: India Moves from Law to Worker Health Surveillance

On 7 May 2026, India’s Ministry of Labour and Employment launched a nationwide annual health check-up program for workers aged 40 and above under its labour code framework. The initiative represents a significant expansion of occupational health surveillance and social protection, with the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules 2026 now publicly available.¹¹˒¹²

The scale of the initiative is notable. India’s workforce spans construction, manufacturing, mining, logistics, sanitation and platform-based work, often across diverse and challenging conditions. Systematic health screening has the potential to identify disease earlier, improve access to treatment and generate valuable information about worker health trends. It also signals a stronger role for occupational health within national labour administration.

However, health monitoring is not the same as prevention. Medical checks may identify the effects of hazardous exposures, ageing or chronic illness, but they do not remove the risks that contribute to those outcomes. Dust, noise, hazardous chemicals, heat and poor work design still require effective control. The real measure of success will be whether health findings lead to changes in workplace conditions rather than simply documenting harm after it occurs.

Implementation will largely determine the program’s value. Challenges include reaching informal and rural workers, protecting privacy, ensuring clinical quality, managing referrals and preventing discrimination against workers with identified health conditions. The key governance question is not how many health assessments are completed, but whether the information generated is translated into meaningful risk reduction.

Lessons for Australian WHS Leaders

The initiative highlights an important principle familiar to Australian WHS practitioners: health monitoring should function as an exposure feedback system, not a standalone activity. Under Australian WHS legislation, health monitoring is intended to detect adverse health effects and inform risk management. When concerns are identified, organisations should review exposure sources, similar exposure groups, existing controls and the need for further assessment.

Effective governance requires:

• Clear consent, confidentiality and clinical oversight.

• Defined processes for responding to adverse findings and exposure trends.

• Analysis of group-level patterns, not just individual results.

• Consultation with workers on the purpose and use of monitoring data.

• Success measures focused on reduced exposure and improved controls rather than the number of health checks completed.

The broader lesson is simple: health monitoring is most effective when it drives action. Collecting data is valuable, but reducing exposure and preventing harm remain the primary objectives of occupational health management.

Section 6: WHS Research: Welding Fume Exposure in Australian Workplaces

A recent Australian field study by Driscoll, Paine, Fritschi, Nguyen and Carey examined welding fume exposure in 20 workplaces using personal and static air monitoring during real work activities. Unlike laboratory research, the study provides practical insight into actual workplace conditions and control effectiveness.¹³

Key findings

Personal exposure measurements from 62 welders showed a mean welding fume concentration of 2.0 mg/m³ and a median of 1.56 mg/m³. These levels exceed the current Australian workplace exposure standard of 1 mg/m³ for total welding fume not otherwise classified. Nearly every workplace recorded at least one worker exposure above the standard. In 20% of workplaces, static samples from general work areas also exceeded 1 mg/m³, indicating that nearby workers may be exposed as well as welders.¹³˒¹⁵

Ozone exposure was another concern. Peak concentrations frequently exceeded the 0.1 ppm peak limitation, particularly when workers positioned their heads directly over the weld. This highlights the importance of work design, access, visibility and fixture layout in reducing exposure.¹³

Control measures were inconsistently applied. Among 67 welders observed, 54% used powered air-purifying respirators at least some of the time, 24% used half-face respirators, and 22% wore no respiratory protection while welding. Half of the workplaces did not appear to have powered respirators available, and active ventilation was rarely operating, with many sites relying on open doors, large workspaces and high ceilings.¹³

These findings align with an earlier Australian survey of 634 respondents, which found widespread exposure to welding fumes, limited use of mechanical ventilation and poor uptake of air-supplied respiratory protection.¹⁴

What the evidence means

The study does not represent every welding workplace and does not demonstrate long-term health outcomes. Exposure varies significantly depending on welding process, materials, ventilation, work environment and worker position. However, the findings reinforce that compliance should not be viewed as the end goal. Welding fume is classified as carcinogenic, and employers must eliminate or minimise exposure so far as is reasonably practicable.¹⁵˒¹⁸

Practical implications for WHS leaders

• Consider exposure risks for bystanders as well as welders.

• Do not rely on natural ventilation as evidence of effective control.

• Verify ventilation performance during actual welding tasks.

• Provide suitable respiratory protection and address barriers to use.

• Review work design and positioning to keep workers out of the plume.

• Repeat exposure monitoring after control changes and during high-risk tasks.

This study highlights a common gap between controls that exist on paper and controls that effectively protect workers in practice.

Governance implication

The study should not lead to a single corporate instruction that everyone must wear a respirator. It should lead to a control review of welding methods, substitution, automation, extraction, layout, worker position, bystander exposure and respiratory protection. PPE is part of the answer, not the operating model.

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends: The 1 December 2026 Workplace Exposure Limits Transition

Australia will transition from the Workplace Exposure Standards (WES) list to the Workplace Exposure Limits (WEL) for Airborne Contaminants on 1 December 2026, following a nationally agreed transition period ending on 30 November 2026. PCBUs must continue complying with the current WES until that date and then comply with the WEL requirements adopted in their jurisdiction.

The change is often described as a simple renaming exercise. That is misleading. The term limit is intended to reinforce that these values are legal exposure ceilings that should not be exceeded. The revised WEL list also includes changes to exposure values, contaminant listings and advisory notations. In addition, 33 non-threshold genotoxic carcinogens have been removed from the main list for separate regulatory consideration, while new dermal sensitisation, respiratory sensitisation and ototoxicity notations have been introduced.

The greatest organisational risk is assuming the transition can be managed by simply updating exposure limits in December 2026. Exposure limits are embedded in equipment selection, ventilation design, monitoring programs, respiratory protection, health surveillance and operating procedures. A revised limit may mean that a task previously considered acceptable now requires redesign, additional controls or more robust monitoring.

What a credible transition plan should include:

• An inventory of airborne contaminants generated or used, including fumes, vapours, dusts, mists and process by-products.

• A comparison of current standards and new limits, identifying changed values, new listings and advisory notations.

• Identification of affected sites, tasks and Similar Exposure Groups (SEGs).

• Review of monitoring data to ensure sampling methods, detection limits and task coverage remain suitable.

• Assessment of extended shifts, mixed exposures and peak exposure risks.

• A funded improvement plan prioritising elimination, substitution and engineering controls before administrative controls and PPE.

• Consultation with workers, HSRs, engineering, maintenance, procurement and occupational health providers.

• A verification schedule defining responsibilities, performance measures and escalation pathways.

The WEL transition should be managed as a formal management-of-change process, not merely a regulatory update. It should be reflected in the legal register, risk register, operational planning, budgets and assurance activities.

Boards should also recognise that compliance dashboards may show no current exceedances while the organisation remains unprepared for the new requirements. Readiness is a leading indicator. Useful reporting should track contaminants reviewed, affected tasks assessed, controls upgraded, monitoring completed and high-risk gaps closed.

The WEL transition is ultimately a test of organisational capability. Organisations that treat it as a documentation exercise risk discovering too late that existing controls no longer provide adequate protection for workers.

By the end of August 2026, officers should be able to see a site-by-site WEL readiness assessment. By October, funded control changes and monitoring should be underway. Waiting until December to update a register is not transition planning.

Section 8: Capability Focus: How Boards Should Read an Occupational Hygiene Report

Occupational hygiene reports often create false confidence because they appear highly technical. Tables, laboratory data and compliance percentages can suggest certainty when significant uncertainty remains. A board’s role is not to interpret sampling methods. It is to determine whether the report provides sufficient evidence for a sound decision and whether limitations have been clearly disclosed.

1. Was the right work assessed?
Check whether monitoring covered the highest exposure tasks, abnormal operations, maintenance, cleaning, shutdowns, contractors, bystanders and extended shifts. Sampling routine work alone may overlook significant exposures. The report should explain why the selected workers and tasks represent the relevant Similar Exposure Groups (SEGs).

2. Was the method fit for purpose?
Monitoring may be designed for compliance, baseline assessment, control verification or incident investigation. Sampling duration, location, analytical method and detection limits should match the decision being made. Results below an exposure standard do not automatically answer every risk management question.

3. What conditions existed during sampling?
Reports should document production rates, ventilation performance, worker position, PPE use, process conditions and any unusual factors. Without this context, results may not reflect normal operating conditions or future exposures.

4. How reliable are the results?
A single result below a workplace exposure standard does not demonstrate consistent control. Boards should ask about variability, uncertainty, trends and the likelihood of exceedance on another day. Exposure standards are not targets; risks should be minimised so far as is reasonably practicable.

5. Were all relevant hazards considered?
Aggregate measures such as total dust or total fume can mask more hazardous components. Reports should identify significant contaminants, mixture effects, skin absorption risks, sensitisation potential and interacting hazards such as noise.

6. What decisions and actions follow?
Recommendations should identify engineering controls, interim measures, health monitoring, consultation activities and follow-up assessments. Each action should have an owner, timeframe and verification requirement. Reliance on PPE or training should be justified where higher-order controls are not reasonably practicable.

7. How will effectiveness be verified?
Completion should require evidence that controls work in practice. Examples include commissioning results, airflow testing, repeat personal monitoring, worker feedback and demonstrated exposure reduction across representative tasks.

The board does not need to become an occupational hygiene expert. It must recognise when decisions are based on limited evidence. A strong report makes uncertainty visible, explains data limitations, shows exposure trends and clearly identifies the control decisions required. A weak report presents technical detail without providing meaningful assurance that worker health risks are being effectively controlled.

The board does not need to become an occupational hygiene committee. It does need to know when the organisation is relying on thin evidence. A strong report makes uncertainty visible, connects results to real work and creates a clear control decision. A weak report uses technical detail to avoid that decision.

Final Word

This July issue carries a simple message: the hazards that develop slowly still require fast governance.

A post driver attachment can fail in seconds, but the conditions that allow it to fail develop through design, vibration, maintenance and inspection. A chemical transfer can release without warning, but the vulnerability sits in the pump, hose, fitting, restraint and emergency arrangement long before the incident. Lead and welding fume may harm over months or years, but the exposure is created every shift through process choices, ventilation, worker position and the availability of effective protection.

The common mechanism is not a lack of information. It is fragmentation. Engineering owns the plant. Operations owns production. Procurement owns materials. HR or occupational health receives medical results. WHS owns the procedure. The board receives a status. When those functions do not share one risk picture, exposure sits between them.

The organisations that manage occupational health well do not wait for disease data to force action. They treat occupational hygiene as a design and assurance discipline. They use monitoring to test controls, not to defend existing practice. They act on uncertainty. They consult workers who understand the real task. They keep evidence that a control was not only purchased or documented, but working under normal and difficult conditions.

Choose one exposure risk this month. Go beyond the register. Identify the highest-exposure task. Confirm the engineering control is operating. Check who is outside the formal worker group but still in the plume, splash zone or release path. Review the monitoring result and ask what changed because of it.

If the answer is nothing, the report was an activity, not assurance.

Stay sharp. Stay accountable.

Niru Tyagi | WHS Guard

References

1. Queensland Government. (2026). Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), including officer due diligence duties under section 27. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2011-018

2. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 45001:2018 Occupational health and safety management systems - Requirements with guidance for use. https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html

3. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 45003:2021 Psychological health and safety at work - Guidelines for managing psychosocial risks. https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html

4. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2026, July 7). Tractor-mounted post driver failure. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/news-and-events/alerts/workplace-health-and-safety-alerts/2026/tractor-mounted-post-driver-failure

5. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2026, June 16). Two workers exposed to hazardous chemical. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/news-and-events/alerts/incident-alerts/2026/two-workers-exposed-to-hazardous-chemical

6. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2021). Managing risks of hazardous chemicals in the workplace Code of Practice 2021. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/safety-and-prevention/creating-safe-work/codes-of-practice/managing-risks-of-hazardous-chemicals-in-the-workplace-code-of-practice-2021

7. SafeWork NSW. (2026, July 17). Company director fined $195,500 after doctor exposed to hydrogen sulphide gas. https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/news/safework-media-releases/company-director-fined-%24195%2C500-after-doctor-exposed-to-hydrogen-sulphide-gas

8. WorkSafe Victoria. (2026, July 1). Bendigo lab fined $10,000 over lead testing failures. https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/news/2026-07/bendigo-lab-fined-10000-over-lead-testing-failures

9. Safe Work Australia. (2026, July 13). Have your say on protecting workers from exposure to lead. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/have-your-say-protecting-workers-exposure-lead

10. Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists. (2026, March 4). Simplified Occupational Hygiene Risk Management Strategies, third edition. https://www.aioh.org.au/news/new-simplified-occupational-hygiene-risk-management-strategies-third-edition-now-available

11. Press Information Bureau, Government of India. (2026, May 7). Union Minister launches nationwide annual health check-up initiative for workers under Labour Codes. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2258662&lang=1&reg=3

12. Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India. (2026). Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 and implementation materials. https://www.labour.gov.in/offerings/schemes-and-services/details/labour-codes-gzNzQzMtQWa

13. Driscoll, T. R., Paine, S., Fritschi, L., Nguyen, H., & Carey, R. N. (2026). Occupational exposure to welding fume in Australian workplaces. Industrial Health, 64(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.2025-0048

14. Carey, R. N., Fritschi, L., Abdallah, K., & Driscoll, T. R. (2024). Occupational exposure to welding fume in Australia: An online survey. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 48(4), 100165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100165

15. Safe Work Australia. (2026). Welding fumes. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/welding-fumes

16. Safe Work Australia. (2026). Workplace Exposure Limits - airborne contaminants. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/managing-health-and-safety/workplace-exposure-limits-airborne-contaminants

17. Safe Work Australia. (2026). Changes between the Workplace Exposure Standards and Workplace Exposure Limits. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/managing-health-and-safety/workplace-exposure-limits-airborne-contaminants/changes-between-wes-and-wel

18. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2018). Welding, molybdenum trioxide, and indium tin oxide. IARC Monographs, Volume 118. https://publications.iarc.who.int/569

Contents

WHS Guard Newsletter: June 2026.. 2

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight - The Hidden Choreography of Risk.. 2

Section 2: Regulator Update - Moving Plant, Moving Power, Moving Risk.. 3

What WHS leaders should take from this. 3

Implications for governance and consultation.. 4

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch - Lessons from Recent Enforcement. 4

Case 1: Operating with obstructed vision (Queensland). 5

Case 2: Commencing work without a spotter (South Australia). 5

Case 3: Routine pedestrian exposure to forklifts (Victoria). 5

Section 4: Industry Voices – Building Better Workplaces Through Positive Change.. 6

Bio.. 6

Section 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania - Why South Korea’s Harder Liability Model Still Matters. 7

Why this matters for Australian readers. 7

Section 6: WHS Research - What Warehouse Research Is Telling Us About Control 7

Why this matters in Australian WHS practice.. 8

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends - Workplace Surveillance Is Becoming a Safety Governance Issue.. 8

The governance question Australian organisations should be asking.. 9

My practical test for surveillance proposals. 9

Section 8: Capability Focus - Contractor Prequalification That Actually Works. 9

What a mature prequalification system should now include.. 10

The core shift. 10

Final Word.. 10

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight - The Hidden Choreography of Risk

One of the most persistent failures I see in workplace health and safety is the way organisations think about hazards.

They treat them as if they sit still.

But work is rarely static.

Forklifts reverse while pedestrians take shortcuts. Utes stop where they shouldn’t because it is more convenient. Excavators swing through shared work areas. Delivery vehicles arrive outside planned schedules. Contractors create informal access routes. Temporary storage slowly becomes permanent. Before long, the workplace has developed its own choreography of movement. Nobody formally designed it, yet everyone has quietly adapted to it.

The problem is not that work changes. The problem is that organisations often fail to notice when it does.

Most safety systems are designed around assumptions. We assume pedestrians will use designated walkways. We assume exclusion zones remain clear. We assume operators have uninterrupted visibility. We assume contractors follow the agreed traffic plan. We assume today’s work looks much like yesterday’s.

Over time those assumptions drift.

The pedestrian gate becomes inconvenient, so people walk through the loading area. Deliveries arrive during shift change because production demands it. Spotters become “only necessary for the difficult lifts”. A temporary detour survives for six months because nobody gets around to changing it back.

Nothing dramatic happens.

Until it does.

This is how many serious incidents develop. Not because a procedure was missing, but because the work gradually evolved while the controls remained exactly where they were. The organisation keeps managing the workplace described in its documents, while workers have moved on to managing the workplace that actually exists.

This is where governance becomes critical.

Too often organisations respond by producing another procedure, another Safe Work Method Statement, another induction or another traffic management plan. Documentation certainly has its place, but documents cannot control work that has already drifted beyond their assumptions.

The real control is verification.

Leaders need to get out into the workplace and ask simple but uncomfortable questions.

Where are people and mobile plant actually interacting?

Which workarounds have become accepted practice?

Where are visibility, communication or separation being compromised to save time?

Which controls exist only because people remember to follow them, rather than because the work has been designed to make them unavoidable?

These are governance questions, not operational ones.

The organisations that consistently manage high-consequence risks understand that work is dynamic. Their systems evolve as the work evolves. They treat traffic management, contractor interfaces, pedestrian segregation and work sequencing as living controls that require continual observation, consultation and adjustment.

The organisations that struggle are often managing yesterday’s workplace.

This month’s regulator updates and prosecutions reinforce the same lesson. Whether the incident involves mobile plant, construction activities, contractors or changing worksites, the underlying mechanism is remarkably consistent. Work changes faster than governance. Small adaptations become normal. Informal practices become invisible. Eventually, the organisation discovers that its paperwork was describing a workplace that no longer existed.

If I were sitting with a board this month, I would ask just one question.

Where has work changed faster than your safety system?

Because that is often where your next serious incident is already developing.

Hale, A., Borys, D., & Else, D. (2012). Management of safety rules and procedures: A review of the literature. Safety Science, 50(4), 919–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.015

Section 2: Regulator Update - Moving Plant, Moving Power, Moving Risk

Regulators across Australia are sending a clear signal this month: it isn’t enough to have paperwork. Workplaces are being judged on whether the environment is physically designed and supervised to prevent plant–pedestrian collisions and contact with live services. In 2025, WorkSafe Victoria completed 137 prosecutions and enforceable undertakings, resulting in more than $17.39 million in fines, costs and undertakings. The bulk of prosecutions were in construction (64), manufacturing (30) and transport/warehousing (8), with offences involving working at height and mobile plant the most common. WorkSafe’s chief inspector notes that the agency will continue to pursue proactive enforcement even where an incident hasn’t yet occurred.

What WHS leaders should take from this

1. Line marking is not separation. WorkSafe Victoria’s forklift guidance notes that collisions with pedestrians “usually occur when there is no physical separation between forklifts and pedestrians”; common hazards include forklifts operating in areas with pedestrians and the absence of permanent physical barriers. For WHS teams, that means painted lines or procedural walkways are inadequate when heavy plant and people share space; physical barriers, exclusion zones and one‑way systems must be the default in chillers, dispatch areas and loading zones.

2. Visibility is a design issue. The same guidance identifies blind spots, corners with limited visibility and travelling with loads that obstruct the operator’s view as common causes of collisions. Courts are increasingly unsympathetic to the argument that operators can simply “be careful” when the route, load or equipment design blocks their view. If forward travel obscures sightlines, boards should demand changes to routes, loading methods, equipment or all three.

3. Live services are underestimated. A recent SafeWork SA alert reports 59 notifications of incidents involving overhead or underground powerlines over the past three financial years, with more than 40 involving plant striking lines. The regulator warns that not all powerlines are obvious – they may be underground or obscured – and stresses that the first order of business on any job site is to know exactly where electricity infrastructure is. SafeWork SA notes that eliminating the risk by turning off power is the most effective control; if that isn’t reasonably practicable, businesses must use visible warning signs, “tiger tails” and maintain safe clearances. Statutory notices for unsafe behaviour around powerlines more than doubled between 2022‑23 and 2024‑25, and the regulator prosecuted an Adelaide demolition company after its excavator struck a live powerline – a reminder that these risks are neither rare nor benign.

4. Unofficial practices are under the microscope. In Queensland, the resources safety regulator released dash‑cam footage showing a coal‑mine ute almost crushed by a reversing bulldozer. The investigation found that drivers were routinely parking in an undocumented location to swap over during crib breaks, and over time this unofficial practice had become normalised. The Chief Inspector emphasised that what should have been a simple driver swap nearly became a fatality because there was no positive communication and proper procedures were not followed. The regulator is urging site executives to review parking procedures, enforce safe-work instructions for hot‑seat change‑outs and adhere to the “50/30 rule” (communicate at 50 metres, stop at 30 metres, park outside the exclusion zone).

Implications for governance and consultation

• Design before documentation: Regulators are evaluating whether plant and pedestrian routes are physically separated and whether energy sources are isolated or sign‑posted, not whether you can show them a traffic management plan.

• Verify and adapt controls: Inspectors expect to see visible barriers, guard rails and fit‑for‑purpose isolation points. They will not accept line‑marked walkways or paper‑only isolation procedures as “reasonably practicable” controls when better options exist.

• Audit informal practices: Near‑misses often occur where workarounds become routine. Boards should commission field observations and worker consultations to surface these informal practices and either eliminate them or redesign the work to accommodate them safely.

• Prioritise high‑risk interfaces: The surge in prosecutions involving mobile plant and the steady stream of incidents around powerlines demonstrate where regulators’ attention will be focused. Use the hierarchy of controls to prioritise elimination and engineering solutions over administrative or behavioural measures.

By integrating these lessons into your governance framework, you shift the focus from paper compliance to active control of dynamic risk – exactly where regulators are heading.

More than $17 million in penalties for unsafe work in 2025

Forklift hazards and risk controls

Shocking statistics in the workplace

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch - Lessons from Recent Enforcement

This month’s enforcement actions underline a sobering truth: the most dangerous decisions are often the ones that have become routine. None of the incidents below involved freak circumstances. They involved ordinary workers making ordinary choices in systems that quietly normalised unsafe practices. Officers, managers and supervisors should study these cases closely.

Case 1: Operating with obstructed vision (Queensland)

A forklift operator in Queensland was recently convicted of breaching his duty of care under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) after fatally striking a colleague. He was driving a forklift with a bin mounted on the tines; the load was raised to avoid scraping the ground and obstructed his view. The court found that “common sense indicates that if it is difficult to see what is in front then it is obstructed and consideration must then be given to driving backwards”. The operator’s failure to maintain a clear line of sight amounted to a failure to take reasonable care, and he was fined $20,000.

Driving forward with an obstructed view appears to have been tolerated. There was no system requiring operators to reverse when vision was blocked. Senior leaders should question any work practice that assumes operators can see through their loads and should verify that traffic management systems prevent forward travel when visibility is compromised.

https://www.owhsp.qld.gov.au/court-report/forklift-operator-fined-20000-after-fatal-forklift-incident-workplace

Case 2: Commencing work without a spotter (South Australia)

In South Australia, a demolition company, Royal Park Salvage Pty Ltd, was engaged to remove trees beneath a 415‑volt powerline. The appointed spotter failed to arrive, yet the excavator operator proceeded with the work. The excavator struck the overhead powerline, severing it and causing power loss to 84 properties. The South Australian Employment Tribunal found that the company’s safety management system was “grossly inadequate” and convicted and fined the company $140,000. The Deputy President noted that the risk of fatal electrocution was well known and that the absence of injury was a matter of luck, not mitigation.

Management tolerated commencing high‑risk work in the absence of a critical control (the spotter). There was no hold‑point requiring verification before starting work. Leaders should ensure that work cannot proceed when a required control – such as a spotter, exclusion zone or permit – is missing, and that supervisors have authority to stop the job.

https://www.safework.sa.gov.au/news-and-alerts/news/news/2025/demolition-company-fined-$140,000-after-excavator-hits-powerlines

Case 3: Routine pedestrian exposure to forklifts (Victoria)

A Victorian cured‑meats manufacturer was convicted and fined $200,000 after a worker was struck by a reversing forklift in its dispatch chiller. Investigators found no physical barriers, bollards or marked walkways separating pedestrians from powered mobile plant, and there was no traffic management plan. The system relied on forklift drivers and pedestrians making eye contact to decide who would give way. WorkSafe Victoria emphasised that relying on eye contact is “an appalling approach to safety” and urged all businesses using mobile plant to implement traffic management plans, designated walkways, barriers and effective communication systems.

The workplace had normalised shared space. The assumption that workers would notice each other and interact ad hoc replaced physical segregation. Leaders should reject any system that relies on workers’ vigilance or negotiation for protection, particularly when plant and pedestrians are sharing space.

https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/news/2025-12/200000-fine-after-reversing-forklift-seriously-injures-worker

Section 4: Industry Voices – Building Better Workplaces Through Positive Change

One of the greatest challenges facing organisations today is not identifying workplace problems, but determining how best to respond to them. Improvement efforts often begin by focusing on issues such as low engagement, declining morale, workplace conflict or resistance to change. While these challenges are important to address, an exclusive focus on problems can sometimes overlook the strengths and capabilities that already exist within a workforce.

Peter Maguire, Founder of PosWork, encourages organisations to adopt a more balanced perspective. Drawing on more than four decades of experience in human resources, organisational development and workplace culture, Peter advocates for approaches that recognise existing strengths while addressing areas for improvement. He believes that understanding what is working well can provide valuable insights for creating sustainable and meaningful change.

Throughout his career, Peter has promoted strengths-based organisational development practices that encourage leaders to build on positive workplace experiences and successful outcomes. Rather than concentrating solely on what needs fixing, organisations can benefit from asking questions such as, “What helps us perform at our best?” and “How can we create more of those conditions?” This shift in focus can help generate constructive conversations and greater engagement across teams.

From a WHS perspective, this thinking has important relevance. Australian organisations are increasingly focused on identifying and managing psychosocial hazards such as excessive workloads, insufficient support, role ambiguity and workplace conflict. While identifying risks remains essential, creating psychologically healthy workplaces also requires attention to the factors that support wellbeing, collaboration and effective performance.

Peter’s perspective highlights that psychosocial risk management is not only about preventing harm but also about fostering environments where people can perform effectively, adapt to change and contribute positively to organisational outcomes. By recognising and leveraging existing strengths within teams, organisations may be better positioned to enhance safety, engagement and organisational performance simultaneously.

For WHS leaders, the message is straightforward. Effective psychosocial risk management extends beyond policies, surveys and investigations. It also involves understanding the conditions that help people succeed and intentionally embedding those conditions into the way work is designed and managed. When organisations combine risk management with a focus on positive organisational capability, they can create workplaces that are both safer and more resilient.

Bio

Peter Maguire is the Founder and Practice Leader of PosWork and an experienced organisational development consultant with more than 40 years of experience in human resources, leadership and workplace culture across the public and private sectors. Peter specialises in positive organisational change, employee engagement, leadership development and creating workplaces where people and organisations flourish together. Drawing on strengths-based approaches, including Appreciative Inquiry principles, his work helps leaders build sustainable cultures by combining evidence-based organisational development with practical approaches to change. https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-maguire-a89b901

Section 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania - Why South Korea’s Harder Liability Model Still Matters

I am stretching the geography slightly this month because South Korea is sending one of the clearest WHS signals in the region, and Australian leaders would be foolish to ignore it.

After the 2024 Hwaseong battery factory fire killed 23 workers, South Korea moved from public outrage to criminal consequence. In September 2025, Reuters reported that the CEO of battery maker Aricell was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, the harshest penalty yet under the country’s industrial safety framework, after the court found the disaster was predictable and proper safety controls had not been implemented.

The response did not stop there. Days earlier, Reuters reported the South Korean labour ministry had proposed a further tightening of industrial safety law, including fines of up to 5% of operating profit for companies with repeated fatal accidents and the potential revocation of construction licences for firms with recurring deadly incidents.

Why this matters for Australian readers

Australia’s WHS model already imposes officer duties and severe penalties, including industrial manslaughter in some jurisdictions. But South Korea’s recent direction is instructive because it is explicit about two things.

First, it treats repeated fatalities as evidence of organisational failure, not bad luck.

Second, it is willing to connect safety failure to business viability—profit-based penalties, licence consequences and executive imprisonment.

That regional posture matters for Australian boards with Asian operations, suppliers or investors. It also sharpens a local due diligence question: if your organisation repeatedly experiences serious interaction risks, service strikes or plant near misses, are you treating them as isolated events—or as a signal that leadership has failed to verify the system?

My view is blunt. Australia often speaks confidently about officer accountability, but South Korea is showing what it looks like when a jurisdiction is prepared to make that accountability personal, visible and expensive.

South Korea jails CEO of battery maker for 15 years over deadly fire

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/south-korea-jails-ceo-battery-maker-15-years-over-deadly-fire-2025-09-23/

South Korea to fine companies up to 5% of profit for recurring fatal accidents, ministry says

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/south-korea-fine-companies-up-5-profit-recurring-fatal-accidents-ministry-says-2025-09-15/

Section 6: WHS Research - What Warehouse Research Is Telling Us About Control

A 2025 paper by EunJeong Cheon and Ingrid Erickson, Fulfillment of the Work Games: Warehouse Workers’ Experiences with Algorithmic Management, examined how fulfilment-centre workers experience labour-tracking systems, imposed productivity rates and quantified forms of managerial control. The study drew on two years of ethnographic research and found that workers were not passive recipients of the system; they adapted to it, resisted it and developed “work games” to survive within it.¹¹

For WHS professionals, that matters for one reason above all others: people do not merely comply with control systems—they work around them.

That is not worker sabotage. It is human adaptation. And if a system is experienced as rigid, opaque or indifferent to operational reality, workers will create their own unofficial ways to recover autonomy, pace and dignity.¹¹

Why this matters in Australian WHS practice

I do not read this paper as a niche warehouse story. I read it as a warning for any environment that relies on intense metrics, scanning, rate pressure, wearable prompts or digitally enforced work sequencing.¹¹

If leaders want genuine control, they need to ask:

what behaviours the system is actually rewarding;

what shortcuts the work pace is quietly encouraging;

how much discretion supervisors still retain; and

what invisible resistance has emerged at the frontline.

That has direct application to Australian warehousing, logistics, manufacturing and distribution. A beautiful dashboard may tell you the task was completed. It will not tell you whether workers had to bend the system to get it done safely.

The research implication is therefore practical, not theoretical: when introducing digitally monitored work systems, assess not only productivity effects but also adaptation risk. Build in worker consultation, transparent rules, local override pathways and review of unintended workarounds.

Fulfillment of the Work Games: Warehouse Workers’ Experiences with Algorithmic Management

https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09438?

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends - Workplace Surveillance Is Becoming a Safety Governance Issue

Workplace surveillance is no longer just an IR or privacy sideshow. It is becoming a WHS governance issue because more organisations are using wearables, biometric tools, tracking platforms and productivity systems in the name of safety, efficiency or both.

Victoria’s parliamentary inquiry into workplace surveillance recommended stronger transparency requirements, restrictions on biometric collection unless genuinely necessary, and clearer rules for third-party surveillance providers. At the same time, a recent Australian study reported by The Australian found that only 284 of 5,748 enterprise agreements approved over two years—just under 5%—contained surveillance-related clauses, suggesting governance arrangements are lagging well behind technology deployment.

Internationally, the pressure is building too. In December 2024, the U.S. EEOC warned that mandatory wearables may create discrimination risks if employers use biometric or health-related data in ways that breach civil rights obligations. And research from the Institute for the Future of Work found that more frequent exposure to newer workplace technologies—including trackers, surveillance devices, robots and AI-based software—was associated with poorer quality-of-life outcomes, while older ICT tools had more positive associations.

The governance question Australian organisations should be asking

Not: “Can we monitor this?”
But: “What problem are we trying to solve, and what new harms might monitoring create?”

That matters because safety technology can quickly migrate into performance control. A lone-worker check-in tool becomes location analytics. A fatigue band becomes disciplinary evidence. A smart headset becomes a rate-enforcement mechanism. Once that shift occurs, trust falls, worker candour drops, and the system starts hiding the very risks it claimed to reveal.

My practical test for surveillance proposals

Before adopting any wearable or tracking system, I would expect an organisation to document five things.

Necessity — why the safety objective cannot be achieved through a less intrusive control.
Transparency — what data is collected, by whom, for how long, and for what exact use.
Boundaries — what the data will not be used for.
Worker participation — whether users helped shape the design and rollout.
Review — whether the system will be tested for unintended effects on trust, workload, reporting behaviour and wellbeing.

That is where modern WHS is heading. Not anti-technology. But anti-naivety.

Crackdown needed on employers spying on staff at work, experts warn

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/crackdown-needed-on-employers-watching-filming-and-monitoring-staff-at-work-experts-warn/news-story/1650ad8760dcc456fb9d1e7ccbce551c

EEOC says wearable devices could lead to workplace discrimination

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/eeoc-says-wearable-devices-could-lead-workplace-discrimination-2024-12-19/

Victorian parliamentary inquiry into workplace surveillance,

Study of Australian enterprise agreements and surveillance clauses

Section 8: Capability Focus - Contractor Prequalification That Actually Works

Contractor prequalification is still too often treated as a document chase. In 2026 that is no longer defensible.

Victoria’s labour hire crackdown gives us a sharp reminder why. The Labour Hire Authority’s 2025 annual-report figures, reported in December 2025, showed 126 construction licences cancelled, 44 applications rejected, a near 30% rise in construction licence cancellations over a year, and record fines of $759,674 for unlicensed operations. The same reporting described cases where a named director appeared to be only a front, while the real controlling mind sat behind the business.

Since then, scrutiny has continued. In March 2026, the Labour Hire Authority filed Supreme Court action alleging that Sanders Apples procured workers from an unlicensed provider and that Dombin Workforce supplied workers without a licence on at least 30 occasions. In December 2025, police and the LHA took action against BK Labour Hire after a Port Melbourne raid, with allegations involving false documents and broader compliance concerns. And in May 2026, reporting on a show-cause notice against Women in Construction pointed to stricter Victorian “fit and proper” settings taking effect from 1 June 2026.

What a mature prequalification system should now include

Identity and control verification
Do not verify only the company name. Verify directors, relevant persons, beneficial control and who actually exercises day-to-day authority. Front arrangements and undisclosed controllers are a live regulatory concern.

Licence-chain verification
For labour hire, check the provider is licensed and remains licensed. For subcontracting, require declaration of all downstream providers before mobilisation, not after people arrive onsite.

Competency beyond file review
Certificates, insurances and SWMS are necessary but not sufficient. High-risk work requires some form of field verification—licence sighting, supervisor check, practical briefing and early observation.

Onboarding that matches the risk
Not every contractor needs the same induction. High-risk plant, excavation, energised work and service location interfaces require deeper site-specific onboarding, not generic e-learning and a signature.

Supervision interfaces
The most common contractor failure I see is ambiguity. Who controls the job? Who owns plant-pedestrian interaction? Who confirms services are located? Who can stop the work? If that cannot be answered in one minute, the interface is already weak.

The core shift

The old question was: “Do we have the contractor documents?”
The new question is: “Can we prove this contractor is who they say they are, is competent for this work, and is being effectively supervised at this site today?”

That is prequalification that actually works.

Labour Hire Authority Supreme Court action against Sanders Apples and Dombin Workforce reported by Herald Sun.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/top-victorian-apple-grower-faces-supreme-court-action/news-story/90e218c59e51599c57509892a59d7ed6

Final Word

What stood out to me this month is how many of these issues are not truly new.

Forklifts have always needed separation. Excavators have always needed service clarity. Contractors have always needed real verification. The novelty is not the hazard. The novelty is the level of scrutiny now being applied when organisations fail to control it.

June’s lesson is therefore brutally simple.

Do not let movement risk become ordinary.
Do not let local custom outrank documented control.
Do not let technology masquerade as governance.
And do not confuse prequalification with assurance.

The strongest WHS leaders in the second half of 2026 will be the ones who keep asking:
Where has this risk become normal—and who is still actively verifying it?

s

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight - Learning from the Community Leagues Club incident.

Section 2: Regulator Update - Consultation, Compliance and New Priorities.

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch - Lessons from Recent Enforcement.

Section 4: Industry Voices - Managing Psychosocial Hazards Through Conflict Resolution.

Section 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania - Papua New Guinea’s Labour Overhaul & Climate Stress in Sri Lanka.

Section 6: WHS Research - Supervisor Behaviour as a Leading Indicator.

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends -Toward Predictive Safety.

Section 8: Capability Focus - Contractor Prequalification That Actually Works.

Final Word.

WHS Guard Newsletter: May 2026

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight - Learning from the Community Leagues Club incident

On 12 February 2026, a disturbing event unfolded at a community club in Coorparoo. Police allege that a former kitchen hand returned to the Club armed with a carving knife after being excluded earlier that day for “unwanted and unsolicited attention” toward a female colleague^[1]. The 33‑year‑old allegedly repeatedly stabbed a 20‑year‑old waitress, seriously injuring a 61‑year‑old chef who intervened and a 41‑year‑old patron before patrons subdued him^[2].

Where the legal process stands

The incident triggered a major criminal investigation, a 33‑year‑old former employee, was subsequently charged with attempted murder, unlawful stalking, unlawfully wounding another and going armed to cause fear^[3]. Court records show that he did not apply for bail and was remanded in custody; he is expected to reappear for a committal mention on 16 March 2026^[4]. Police allege he had been excluded from the club hours before the attack because of inappropriate behaviour^[2] and was under investigation by management^[5].

At the time of writing there have been no further updates on the case. The matter remains before the courts, and the presumption of innocence applies. In reporting on this, our goal is not to assign blame but to reflect on the broader systemic lessons for workplace safety and psychosocial risk management.

What this event tells us about psychosocial risk

The facts available so far highlight critical gaps that can exist between policy and practice:

• Early warning signs and escalation: The alleged perpetrator was reportedly subject to internal investigation for inappropriate behaviour^[5]. Recognising and acting on escalating behaviours—stalking, harassment, boundary‑violations—are essential. When such behaviour is treated as a performance issue rather than a foreseeable safety risk, organisations risk missing the point at which separation protocols and external notifications become necessary.

• Separation and access control: It is alleged that the worker was told to leave but returned with a weapon within hours^[1]. High‑risk terminations require structured protocols: immediate deactivation of access credentials, retrieval of uniforms and equipment, security escort off‑site and ongoing monitoring. A club open to the public cannot be a fortress, but there must be procedures for when an exclusion turns into a threat.

• Hierarchy of controls for violence and aggression: Hospitality environments are dynamic and often involve alcohol, cash handling, busy dining areas and staff working alone. Violence and aggression are identified by WorkSafe as psychosocial hazards; risk management demands prevention, administrative controls and training alongside physical measures such as duress alarms and CCTV. The Easts incident underscores that psychosocial hazards are not separate from physical safety; they feed into each other.

• Due diligence and governance: Section 27 of Queensland’s WHS Act places a duty on officers to exercise due diligence in ensuring their organisation complies with health and safety obligations. That includes keeping up‑to‑date knowledge of psychosocial hazards, understanding how the organisation’s operations create risk and verifying that resources and processes are in place. Boards and executives must treat psychosocial risk management as part of their core governance oversight, not an HR add‑on.

Practical training priorities for hospitality staff

While regulatory frameworks catch up with practical realities, organisations can act now to build capability. Based on the incident and our ICAM analysis, the following training modules are recommended for hospitality venues:

1. Psychosocial hazard awareness – All staff should understand what constitutes workplace violence, aggression, stalking and harassment and why early reporting of behavioural red flags is vital.

2. Behavioural escalation and de‑escalation – Front‑of‑house and kitchen staff must learn to recognise agitation patterns in patrons and fixation behaviours in colleagues, use safe distancing techniques and follow clear escalation pathways.

3. High‑risk separation protocols – Managers need scenario‑based training on how to handle suspensions and terminations involving behavioural risk: risk assessment, access revocation, security escorts and criteria for involving police.

4. Supervisor early‑intervention capability – Supervisors should be equipped to investigate harassment complaints promptly, assess escalation risk and differentiate performance issues from safety risks.

5. Security and incident‑response integration – Clubs should conduct joint drills with security personnel, covering duress signals, lockdown procedures and first‑aid coordination.

6. Board and executive briefings – Directors and senior leaders require targeted education on psychosocial risk, due diligence obligations and the importance of verifying controls through periodic reporting and independent audits.

Why foresight is difficult

One reason incidents like this take organisations by surprise is the challenge of foreseeability. Courts require proof that harm was foreseeable and that reasonably practicable steps were not taken. Yet human behaviour is inherently uncertain. Regulators themselves acknowledge that the psychosocial Code of Practice is still being interpreted in practical terms, and the enforcement threshold for psychosocial hazards is evolving. As we push for better systems, we must also respect the complexity of predicting violent escalation and avoid hindsight bias when analysing individual cases.

Looking ahead

Violence at work is rare, but the Easts incident demonstrates how unmanaged psychosocial hazards can turn into catastrophic physical harm. Whether in clubs, bars, healthcare or retail, the lessons are transferable: recognise stalking and harassment as safety risks, treat high‑risk separations with due care, integrate psychosocial hazards into risk registers and continuously verify the effectiveness of controls.

As the legal process unfolds, we will continue to watch developments and share any substantive updates. In the meantime, hospitality leaders should seize this moment to review training, strengthen protocols and ensure that psychosocial risk management is embedded in their governance structures. The aim is not to apportion blame, but to build safer, more resilient workplaces where escalation risks are identified early and addressed decisively.

[1] Cameron Clark: Brisbane club stabbing accused remains in hospital, court told https://www.9news.com.au/national/cameron-clark-easts-leagues-club-stabbing-accused-remains-in-hospital-court-told-queensland-news/c94524a1-0b0f-4ea4-a029-7b76f7c239dd

[2] [3] [4] [5] Cameron William Leslie Clark, accused of Easts Leagues Club stabbing, appears in court - ABC News https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-20/easts-leagues-club-stabbing-accused-appears-in-court/106366762

Section 2: Regulator Update - Consultation, Compliance and New Priorities

Consultation on Regulatory Priorities and Quad‑Bike Safety

SafeWork NSW is inviting feedback on its regulatory priorities for the 2025–26 financial year (the process also informs 2026–27). Proposed priorities include falls from heights, managing psychosocial risks (including sexual harassment), exposure to hazardous chemicals (asbestos, silica and welding fumes), and injuries from mobile plant, vehicles and fixed machinery. NSW Minister for Industrial Relations Sophie Cotsis encourages employers, workers, unions and the community to participate so that the regulator focuses on the right risks. The same consultation highlights the importance of harm reduction in healthcare and social‑assistance sectors, reflecting a growing concern about violence and aggression towards health workers. https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/about-us/regulatory-priorities

https://www.nsw.gov.au/ministerial-releases/safework-nsw-seeks-community-feedback-on-regulatory-priorities

Research Mapping and New Evidence Priorities

A major step toward proactive safety is improving the evidence base. Safe Work Australia, with the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, recently mapped WHS and workers’ compensation research across five focus areas:

· shifting mindsets around WHS fundamentals;

· psychosocial harm prevention and recovery;

· work design, productivity and future risks;

· organisational risk management;

· emerging technology impacts.

The mapping revealed that while psychosocial harm research is well‑developed, evidence on organisational systems and emerging technologies is sparse. These findings will inform future research funding and encourage academics to explore technology‑related WHS hazards, such as AI, robotics and remote work.

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/news/safework-media-releases/construction-company-and-director-fined-after-worker-injured-in-a-fall

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch - Lessons from Recent Enforcement

Construction Fall Case

The conviction of Acon Projects Pty Ltd (see above) provides several lessons. The Court found that the company failed to install edge protection or fall‑arrest systems and did not ensure that workers were trained in working at heights. Directors and officers must exercise due diligence to ensure their companies comply with WHS duties; failing to do so can result in personal fines.

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/news/safework-media-releases/construction-company-and-director-fined-after-worker-injured-in-a-fall#:~:text=Acon%20Projects%20Pty%20Ltd%20and,a%20prosecution%20by%20SafeWork%20NSW

Green-Waste Grinder Fatality

The fatal incident at Northwest Recycling Centre demonstrates the risks of clearing blockages in machines. The worker entered the feed chute of a Van Gelder grinder to remove a blockage and was fatally injured when the machine activated. Employers must implement lockout/tagout procedures and train workers to isolate machinery before clearing jams. Even tasks that seem routine—like unblocking equipment—require risk assessments and safe procedures.

https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/news/safework-media-releases/recycling-centre-fined-$472,500-after-worker-fatally-injured-by-a-green-waste-grinder

Healthcare Violence Case

WorkSafe Victoria’s charges against Latrobe Regional Health highlight the importance of violence prevention systems. Under the OHS Act, employers must provide a safe work environment as far as reasonably practicable. This includes maintaining records of patient violence, risk assessments, and duress alarms. Healthcare employers should review their incident reporting systems, consult with staff about security equipment, and provide training on managing aggressive behaviour.

https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/news/2026-05/health-provider-charged-after-patient-assaults-nurse

Section 4: Industry Voices - Managing Psychosocial Hazards Through Conflict Resolution

One of the more important shifts emerging in psychosocial risk management is the recognition that not every workplace issue should automatically become a formal investigation.

That theme sits at the centre of the work being done by Kirsty Augustine from Consultancy Matters, who will also be joining the upcoming webinar series as a guest speaker on psychosocial hazards and conflict resolution.

A growing issue across Australian workplaces is that “bullying” is often used as a broad label for interpersonal conflict, communication breakdowns, workload pressure, organisational justice concerns, and team friction. The consequence is that formal investigations are sometimes triggered before organisations properly identify the actual psychosocial hazard.

· The issue is not that investigations are unnecessary.

· In cases involving sexual harassment, assault, discrimination, fraud, or serious misconduct, formal investigations remain critical.

· The problem arises when investigations become the default response to every workplace conflict.

· Traditional grievance and investigation processes can unintentionally intensify psychosocial harm by increasing anxiety, separating teams into opposing positions, escalating defensiveness through legalistic language, restricting communication, and prolonging stress and absenteeism. In some organisations, the process itself can become a secondary psychosocial hazard.

Under Australian WHS legislation, the duty is not simply to investigate. The duty is to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks so far as is reasonably practicable.

That distinction matters. If a control measure escalates harm rather than reducing it, organisations need to reconsider whether the process is fit for purpose.

There is also increasing recognition that many workplace procedures are structurally designed around escalation pathways rather than resolution pathways. Policies often move directly from complaint to investigation, leaving little room for early intervention approaches such as mediation, facilitated discussions, conflict coaching, psychosocial risk reviews, or manager-led resolution.

From a WHS perspective, that matters. Poorly managed workplace conflict is increasingly associated with psychological injury claims, burnout, absenteeism, turnover, and broader organisational culture deterioration.

The broader lesson for WHS leaders is straightforward: if every interpersonal issue becomes a legal process, organisations risk building systems that amplify psychosocial harm instead of controlling it.

Bio:

Kirsty Augustine is a workplace consultant, mediator, and conflict coach specialising in psychosocial risk, workplace conflict, and organisational culture. Through Consultancy Matters, she supports organisations with practical, human-centred approaches to conflict resolution and workplace risk management.

Section 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania - Papua New Guinea’s Labour Overhaul & Climate Stress in Sri Lanka

Papua New Guinea: Modernising labour law and safety standards

In January 2026 Papua New Guinea’s Labour and Employment Minister Kessy Sawang announced an ambitious policy roadmap to modernise the country’s labour framework, following implementation of a new national minimum wage in 2025. The overhaul aims to strengthen compliance mechanisms, repeal outdated provisions and modernise labour laws to address systemic issues in workplace equality, occupational safety and institutional transparency.

A central pillar of the 2026 agenda is reforming occupational safety and health standards. Sawang said the government will close legislative gaps to ensure workers return home safely each day and hinted at increased workplace inspections and stricter penalties for safety violations. The ministry will also invest in labour market data and reporting to support evidence‑based policymaking and transparency. Youth‑centric initiatives will expand skills development programs and foster partnerships between government and private sector to improve job opportunities. These reforms signal a shift toward a high‑productivity economy that prioritises modernised legal frameworks, decent work and safety for all employees.
https://www.nbc.com.pg/post/31368/sawang-signals-2026-labor-overhaul-new-laws-safety-standards-and-data-driven-reform

https://www.ilo.org/projects-and-partnerships/projects/implementing-occupational-safety-and-health-legislation-papua-new-guinea

Sri Lanka: Climate stress and worker health in apparel manufacturing

A new open‑access study in BMC Public Health examined how climate stress affects workers in Sri Lanka’s small and medium apparel manufacturing companies (SMAMCs). The researchers surveyed 384 employees in Biyagama and Katunayake Export Processing Zones, capturing quantitative data on exposure to excessive heat, flooding, indoor air pollution and mosquito‑borne diseases. The findings are stark: 81.25 % of respondents reported heat stress with symptoms like headaches, dehydration and diminished concentration, which were linked to needle‑prick injuries. Flooding damaged infrastructure and heightened respiratory, gastrointestinal and dermatological illnesses, while inadequate ventilation led to persistent coughing for 95 % of workers. Dengue incidence over the preceding five years reached 10.68 %.

The study underscores the need for climate‑resilient WHS standards in South Asian apparel industries. Key recommendations include mandating standards to address heat, flooding, indoor air quality and vector‑borne risks; providing grants and technical assistance to help resource‑constrained factories retrofit ventilation and cooling systems; requiring real‑time monitoring of temperature, heat index and airborne particulates alongside staggered shifts and scheduled hydration breaks; integrating workplace rules with public vector control services; and embedding climate risk assessments in factory licences and audits. Researchers stress that worker participation, continuous training and performance indicators for heat illness and respiratory complaints are critical for sustained improvement.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12903649/

Section 6: WHS Research - Supervisor Behaviour as a Leading Indicator

Psychosocial Hazards in Global Context

The International Labour Organization’s 2026 report on the psychosocial working environment puts the issue in blunt global terms. Psychosocial risks at work are now linked to more than 840,000 deaths each year and almost 45 million disability adjusted life years globally.¹ The report identifies hazards such as long working hours, job insecurity, harassment, poor support and high work demands as contributors to cardiovascular disease, mental disorders and wider loss of healthy working life.¹

That matters for Australian workplaces because psychosocial risk is no longer confined to obvious high pressure roles. It now sits inside ordinary work design. Hybrid work, digital overload, blurred boundaries, restructuring, lean staffing, role ambiguity and constant availability have changed how harm is created. The risk may not be visible on a prestart checklist, but it shows up in fatigue, conflict, withdrawal, errors, turnover, workers compensation claims and poor decision making.

This is where supervisor behaviour becomes a serious leading indicator.

A leading indicator is a proactive measure that helps an organisation identify whether its safety activities are working before harm occurs.² In psychosocial risk management, supervisor behaviour can show whether controls are alive in the work, or just sitting in the policy folder. The quality of check ins, workload conversations, escalation, feedback, conflict handling and support are not soft culture signals. They are evidence of whether the system is controlling risk at the point where work is actually managed.

NIOSH research on supervisor communication makes this point well. A 2021 study analysed 2,136 pieces of supervisor feedback provided by 28 supervisors through a mobile safety application.³ The results were not flattering. Only 21.9 percent of messages were specific to a hazard. Just 1.2 percent were measurable, 6.8 percent were achievable, 5.5 percent were relevant and 2.3 percent were timely.³ Most feedback was general encouragement. Nice, but not strong enough to manage risk.

The lesson is simple. “Good job team” does not control psychosocial risk. A supervisor who notices excessive workload, clarifies priorities, adjusts demands, escalates resourcing gaps, intervenes early in conflict and follows up on distress is doing risk control work. A supervisor who ignores workload drift, avoids difficult conversations or rewards constant overextension is allowing the hazard to grow.

Recent research strengthens the point. A 2025 study in Frontiers in Organizational Psychology found that supervisor support plays a key role in how employees experience health and wellbeing climate, emotional exhaustion and insurance claims.⁴ The study describes supervisors as the people who translate organisational climate into daily practice.⁴ CDC research also found that health workers who trusted management and had supervisor help had lower odds of burnout.⁵

References

1. International Labour Organization, The psychosocial working environment: Global developments and pathways for action, 2026. https://www.ilo.org/publications/psychosocial-working-environment-global-developments-and-pathways-action#:~:text=The%20report%20introduces%20an%20innovative,workers%E2%80%99%20safety%2C%20health%20and%20performance

2. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Leading Indicators. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA_LEADING_INDICATORS.pdf

3. Haas, E. J., Wickizer, J., & Manley, T., Applying SMART principles to improve supervisor communication as a leading indicator of OSH, NIOSH, 2021. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11049610/#ABS1

4. Beauchamp Legault, M. È., & Chênevert, D., Mitigating emotional exhaustion and disability claims: The roles of health and well-being climate and supervisor support, Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 2025. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/organizational-psychology/articles/10.3389/forgp.2025.1517251/full

5. Nigam, J. A. S., Barker, R. M., Cunningham, T. R., Swanson, N. G., & Chosewood, L. C., Vital Signs: Health Worker Perceived Working Conditions and Symptoms of Poor Mental Health, CDC MMWR, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7244e1.htm

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends -Toward Predictive Safety

In 2026, forward‑looking WHS leaders are increasingly frustrated by the limitations of traditional metrics. They argue that serious injury and fatality (SIF) events have distinct precursors, such as lack of work planning and absence of critical controls, which can be overlooked when organisations focus solely on recordable injuries. A leadership commitment to predictive safety requires capturing and analysing more subtle indicators, including safe‑work observations, near‑miss reports and even unstructured data like worker testimonials or handwritten notes.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are being applied to this problem. One article notes that AI models can process free‑text and unstructured data from safety walk‑throughs, safety‑culture surveys and even photos to identify latent patterns such as high‑energy tasks without adequate controls, complacency behaviours or confusion about responsibilities. By highlighting these issues in real time, AI helps organisations move from reactive investigations to proactive risk management. Wearable sensors and connected worker platforms are also entering the mainstream; they track environmental conditions (heat, noise, chemical exposure) and worker physiology to detect stress, fatigue and unsafe postures before an incident occurs. The May 2026 ASSP Safety Expo will showcase new AI‑enabled safety platforms, connected wearable devices and automation tools that monitor work environments and deliver heat‑stress warnings. These developments illustrate how technology is reshaping WHS, but a strong safety culture and competent supervision remain essential; technology is a tool, not a replacement for leadership.

This need for predictive safety and digital transformation was a key theme at the recent proteqt Connect leadership breakfast in Melbourne, where Cam Stevens presented findings from the PKG Safety Innovation benchmark report. The report shows that executive ambition around AI and digital safety is strong, yet many organisations are still building the foundations for effective data analytics and technology adoption. The discussion that followed the presentation was honest and grounded, underscoring both the opportunities and the practical challenges of deploying AI in WHS. Such forums help translate cutting‑edge ideas into real‑world practice and reinforce that predictive safety is not just a technical project but a leadership and culture journey.

While AI promises transformative insight, it also raises data‑privacy and ethical questions. Organisations must develop clear policies on data ownership, consent and how analytics will be used. Workers should be educated on how monitoring benefits them and how their data are protected. Organisations should also prepare for the workforce implications of automation: AI may reduce routine tasks but could change job roles; retraining and redeployment strategies are critical to ensure a just transition. Overall, the path to predictive safety will require integration of technology with robust human‑centred systems, clear communication and continuous improvement.

Section 8: Capability Focus - Contractor Prequalification That Actually Works

Too often, contractor prequalification devolves into a paperwork exercise. Long questionnaires and binders of procedures may appease procurement, but they do little to protect workers or the principal. Recent court decisions have reinforced that it is not reasonably practicable for a principal contractor to assume control of a subcontractor’s safety systems¹. What matters is ensuring contractors are competent, properly licensed, and able to manage their own risks². A practical, risk-based prequalification program should be built around three pillars: authentic licence verification, clear onboarding, and supervision interfaces.

Fraud Alert:

The Victorian Labour Hire Authority has reported a sharp rise in licence fraud, including doctored licences, fake bank statements, and forged tax documents³. Recent regulator alerts show a sharp increase in forged licences and manipulated competency documents, including AI-enhanced alterations of high-risk work licences and labour hire records⁴. This means organisations can no longer rely on “collect and file” systems.

Queensland regulators have also issued alerts regarding forged high-risk work licences circulating within industry⁴. A licence is only a control if the organisation verifies that it is genuine.

Effective contractor governance now requires direct verification through regulator databases, labour hire registers, ABN checks, and periodic revalidation of licences. A licence is only a control if the organisation confirms it is genuine.

Subcontractor layering:

A principal engages Contractor A.
Contractor A subcontracts to Contractor B.
Contractor B brings in labour hire workers from Contractor C.

At that point, accountability becomes blurred, supervision weakens, and no one is fully certain who controls the work. This creates predictable failures around inductions, fatigue management, competencies, and permit systems.

Strong contractor systems now require:

· Approval of secondary subcontractors

· Mapping of contractor chains

· Shared risk registers

· Clear supervision interfaces

· Defined stop-work authority

Verification:

Verification is becoming more important than paperwork itself. Courts and regulators increasingly focus on verification, not possession of documents⁵.

Many contractor incidents occur during mobilisation because onboarding remains rushed, generic, and administrative. High-risk contractors should receive site-specific inductions, critical risk briefings, emergency instructions, and direct supervision during early work phases.

The broader lesson is simple.

Contractor prequalification is not a procurement function alone. It is a frontline WHS control system.

The organisations getting this right are shifting from:

“Do we have the paperwork?”

to:

“Can we verify the work is actually safe?”

That shift matters because regulators are increasingly treating contractor failures as governance failures, not isolated operational mistakes.

References

1. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1812/officer-duty-interpretive-guide.pdf

2. https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html

3. https://www.labourhireauthority.vic.gov.au/news/licence-fraud-warning-host-businesses-and-workers

4. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/news-and-events/newsletters/esafe-newsletters/esafe-editions/esafe/february-2026/high-risk-work-licences-fraud-alert

5. https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/laws-and-compliance/compliance-and-enforcement/prosecutions

Final Word

This edition highlights a clear shift in WHS: regulators and organisations are moving from reactive compliance toward predictive assurance. Whether the issue is psychosocial risk, contractor management, heat stress, silica, or AI-enabled monitoring, the expectation is now evidence, not intention.

The strongest organisations are not the ones with the most paperwork. They are the ones that can demonstrate that controls are verified, supervision is effective, and leaders intervene before harm occurs.

Technology will continue reshaping WHS, but systems alone do not create safety. Leadership, operational discipline, and early action still matter most.

Stay evidence-driven. Stay accountable.

Niru Tyagi | WHS Guard (Queensland Edition)

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight: Psychosocial Hazards and New Work Frontiers.

Section 2: Regulator Update – High Risk, Best Practice Review and Biological Hazards.

QLD Expands High‑Risk Plant Duties (29 Mar)

What the Best Practice Review means for WHS leaders now

Managing Biological Hazards at Work.

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch – Lessons from Recent Enforcement

Section 4: Industry Voices - That’s Freedom!

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania: Australia–Pacific Labour Mobility Schemes.

Section 6: WHS Research: Supervisor Behaviour as a Leading Indicator

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends: Contractorisation Risk Explosion.

Section 8: Capability Focus: How to Verify a Critical Control (Field Method)

Final Word – WHS show Brisbane.

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight: Psychosocial Hazards and New Work Frontiers

Mental health is moving from awareness to accountability. SafeWork NSW recently reported that 19.5% of all service requests relate to psychosocial risks, a clear signal that regulators are treating stress, bullying and other psychological harms like any other workplace hazard. This means boardrooms need to move beyond posters and resilience programs. Governance questions should focus on how workloads, job design and leadership behaviours are preventing harm, not just responding after incidents.

The regulatory lens is also widening to home offices. Proposed Victorian reforms would require employers to ensure that work performed from home is safe and to reimburse reasonable expenses. Remote and hybrid work are here to stay; treating them as a temporary measure will invite enforcement.

At the same time, new resources are emerging to address gender-based violence in construction — defined as behaviour that humiliates, intimidates or threatens a person because of their sex or gender. These resources recognise that psychosocial hazards are amplified in male-dominated, high-demand environments and provide practical case studies, posters and guidance to prevent harm.

28 April is Workers’ Memorial Day, a solemn reminder that around 200 Australians die each year due to workplace incidents. Use this date to renew commitments: remember those who have died and recommit to prevention. Preventable deaths are not statistics — they are personal tragedies that boards can and must avoid.

Psychosocial risk statistics and mental health update

Victorian work-from-home reform proposal

Gender-based violence resources

Workers’ Memorial Day article

Section 2: Regulator Update – High Risk, Best Practice Review and Biological Hazards

QLD Expands High‑Risk Plant Duties (29 Mar)

From 29 March 2026, Queensland’s WHS laws extend “high‑risk plant” duties beyond construction sites. Under the 2026 amendment, equipment like lifts, escalators, cooling towers and LPG cylinders in public or residential areas are explicitly regulated as high-risk plant. This means building owners and equipment manufacturers must comply with safety obligations (inspections, maintenance, risk control) even when the plant is not at a workplace. For instance, a lift in a condo’s common area or a cooling tower on an apartment block now requires the same safety standards as on a worksite. Duty holders in property, hospitality and facilities management should review their asset registers. Importantly, WHS duties (design, install, maintain) now apply to protect the public – e.g. controlling legionella in towers or falls from lifts.

Work Health and Safety (High Risk Plant) Amendment Regulation 2026

What the Best Practice Review means for WHS leaders now

On 17 March, Safe Work Australia published the consultation summary for the Best Practice Review of the model WHS laws. The signal for newsletter readers is not that reform will happen tomorrow; it is that the shape of the debate is now visible. The summary draws on 1,055 written responses, more than 100 meetings, and discussions held in every capital city plus regional sessions in Bunbury and Geelong, with recurring themes around harmonisation, inconsistent enforcement, worker participation and legal complexity. For boards and senior leaders, that makes this a planning issue, not a spectator sport. March is the right time to identify which jurisdictional deviations actually matter in your operations, where consultation mechanisms are weak, and which parts of your WHS governance rely too heavily on local workarounds rather than nationally consistent design.
Safe Work Australia Best Practice Review consultation summary.

Managing Biological Hazards at Work

Safe Work Australia’s new Code on biological hazards (released 6 Mar 2026) provides practical guidance for protecting workers from pathogens. It covers risks from viruses, bacteria, fungi or parasites found in any industry – not just labs or hospitals. The Code (the first of its kind globally) advises on identifying risks (e.g. animals, contaminated materials, vectors) and implementing controls (clean air, hygiene training, vaccinations). Employers across agriculture, healthcare and even office settings should familiarize themselves with it. For example, a food processing plant or childcare centre can use the Code to strengthen infection controls. Ultimately, this aligns with WHS duties: each duty holder must now explicitly assess biological risks and apply appropriate baseline controls (such as PPE or environmental sanitation) as outlined in the new Code.

Model Code of Practice: Managing the risks of biological hazards at work

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch – Lessons from Recent Enforcement

Falls remain a leading cause of serious injuries and fatalities. In NSW, Customconstruction Pty Ltd was fined $100,000 after a worker fell about 3.8 m from a roof in Avalon Beach. The case illustrates that high-risk work systems must include physical edge protection, supervision and exclusion zones. “Common sense” is not a defence.

Two Victorian companies were fined a combined $115,000 after a 475 kg rainwater tank fell off a truck and crushed a woman at her home. The court found that exclusion zones were not enforced and delivery procedures were not followed. WorkSafe’s investigation identified simple controls: separate pedestrians from loads, ensure tag lines and exclusion zones are in place, and develop safe systems for loading and unloading.

Beyond these cases, risk signals are emerging across jurisdictions. A Work Safety Hub round-up emphasised that falls from height, overhead powerlines, psychosocial harm and site culture remain recurring fatal risk drivers. Boards should verify that controls for these high-energy hazards are not just documented but also monitored and tested in the field.

References:

NSW prosecution: fall from roof

Victorian rainwater tank prosecution

Section 4: Industry Voices - That’s Freedom!

by Dr San Walden

On March 26, 2026, HBR published an article entitled, Retirement Has Changed. How You Plan for It Should, Too. Once a time that signified a permanent stop, retirement has now become a time to celebrate freedom to live life on one’s own terms. This reframe links strongly with the silver tsunami of Baby Boomers, followed closely by Gen X, redefining retirement in flourish- orientation terms.

We are conversant with the importance of workplace WHS psychosocial safety. Our psychosocial safety and wellbeing is largely dependent on vigilant attention both to potential for and actuality of psychosocial hazards, within workplace dictated freedom parameters.

Life on one’s own terms constitutes relative unbridled freedom. It comes as surprise to many to learn that retirement freedom carries (W) HS risks in the form of a high-level psychosocial hazard requiring vigilance, lest harm befalls our psychosocial safety, wellbeing and capacity to flourish.

The high-level psychosocial hazard? It is ‘the dark side of retirement’. This psychosocial hazard poses significant risk because it can trigger existential crisis. This crisis manifests as sense of loss - identity, life purpose and meaning, mattering, social connection, motivation, direction, choice and control.

Workplace WHS is everyone’s job. Freedom to live life one’s terms is its own job. The reality is that when we call time on working as we always have done, we free ourselves to take the new job. Freedom to live life on our own terms AND enjoy flourishing - long after the retirement honeymoon is over - requires working in a position with these job specs:

Hours: 24 hours x 7 days a week

Status: Permanent, full-time

Workspan: Up to 50 years, given increase in human lifespan.

Freedom to live life on one’s own terms necessitates entrepreneurial spirit!

Know the hazards. Embrace the entrepreneurial spirit. Learn how to thrive.

https://hbr.org/2026/03/retirement-has-changed-how-you-plan-for-it-should-too

Bio:

People say Dr San is a people person, a businessperson, and a nerd. With a PhD in Business, MBA specialising in HR, and qualifications in teaching and coaching, Dr San brings a powerful blend of expertise and humanity to psychosocial retirement education. Her decades of people, strategic and operational leadership, across educational, social and commercial sectors, continues to help individuals and business to thrive.

LinkedIn – Dr San Walden

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania: Australia–Pacific Labour Mobility Schemes

A cross‑regional perspective reveals the complex WHS landscape faced by seasonal workers participating in the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme and its New Zealand counterpart. The scheme allows employers across agriculture, meat processing and other sectors to hire more than 31,000 workers from Pacific nations and Timor‑Leste; more than half are placed in agriculture and over a third in meat processing.

Official PALM guidelines make clear that approved employers are persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) under WHS laws and must manage both physical and psychological risks, provide culturally appropriate communication, and conduct risk assessments before workers arrive. Despite this, field reports depict a power imbalance. Workers’ visas are tied to a single employer, there is no freedom to change job or bring family, and no pathway to permanent residency; these conditions create structural dependency that exposes workers to exploitation and modern slavery risks.

A 2025 survey by the Migrant Justice Institute found that 64% of workers would switch employers if allowed and 30% wanted to leave due to unsafe conditions. Many fear that raising safety concerns will jeopardise their visa; such fear is itself a psychosocial hazard.

Physical demands also take a toll. PALM workers in meat processing face fast‑paced, repetitive tasks such as boning, slicing and packing; they regularly lift carcasses or boxes weighing up to 25 kg and stand for long periods in cold environments. Shifts can be 8–10 hours between 5 a.m. and 11 p.m., with rosters averaging 38 hours per week. In agriculture, harvest peaks demand long hours with minimal rest, often in extreme heat. The combination of heavy manual work, heat and fatigue increases the risk of musculoskeletal injuries and heat stress.

WorkSafe Victoria notes that workers sleeping fewer than six hours in 24 hours or being awake for more than 17 consecutive hours experience impairment equivalent to a 0.05 blood‑alcohol concentration. These thresholds are regularly exceeded during harvest, yet fatigue management is rarely addressed in labour contracts

Accommodation conditions exacerbate psychosocial risks. A study on PALM workers’ safety and wellbeing found that in regional areas, workers were housed in a patchwork of apartments, backpacker hostels, caravan parks, cabins, dongas and even shipping containers. Female workers reported sharing houses with men without lockable bedrooms, describing the situation as culturally inappropriate and unsafe. Accommodation providers felt like the ‘forgotten cousin’, noting that compliance inspections often focused on trivial issues while ignoring fire safety; many providers also supplied pastoral care and cultural activities. Such insecure housing, combined with language barriers and isolation, amplifies psychosocial stressors

Economic realities reveal an uneven distribution of benefits. Estimates show that of the $990 million generated by the PALM program between 2018 and 2022, $806 million remained in Australia while $184 million was remitted to participating countries. Workers who experience chronic pain from repetitive tasks, bullying or mental health strain have little recourse because their legal status depends on employer sponsorship. Over 7,000 workers absconded in the five years to 2026, often fleeing poor conditions. These figures show that the triple‑win narrative obscures significant WHS risks.

For WHS practitioners in South Asia and Oceania, the lesson is clear: labour mobility schemes demand robust governance. Employers must conduct risk assessments, provide proper induction covering hydration, PPE and hazard signage, and ensure that accommodation and transportation meet safety standards. Regulators should monitor fatigue management and psychosocial controls as rigorously as physical hazards. Boards need to treat seasonal workers as part of their workforce, not disposable labour, and must verify that duty of care is met across the entire employment lifecycle.

PALM participant distribution and employer obligations

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme Approved Employer Guidelines.

WorkSafe Victoria. Fatigue on the farm.

Kanan, L. and Putt, J. (2023). Safety and wellbeing in Australia’s Pacific labour mobility scheme. Australian National University.

PMN News. Pacific Islands seasonal workers fear speaking up in Australia – survey.

Human Resources Director Australia. Australia’s Pacific labour scheme props up key industries amid rising ethical and strategic concerns.

World Bank. Labor mobility delivers net benefits to Pacific workers and families.

Section 6: WHS Research: Supervisor Behaviour as a Leading Indicator

Safety performance begins with the person nearest the work. Research consistently identifies frontline supervisors as a leading indicator of WHS performance. A paper on safety leadership training notes that supervisors are often the single biggest variable in injury rates: multiple fatality investigations and prosecutions reveal that decisions made by supervisors – such as allowing shortcuts or failing to intervene in unsafe acts – directly contribute to incidents. Because supervisors sit at the intersection between ‘work as imagined’ by management and ‘work as done’ by workers, their behaviour determines whether policies translate into practice. Poor supervision frequently stems from a lack of training or competing production pressures; regulatory due diligence analyses focus on what supervisors knew, what actions they took to control hazards, and how they verified compliance.

Effective safety leadership is not about charisma; it is about behaviours that cultivate a positive safety climate. Researchers highlight two key dimensions: supervisory safety communication and coaching. Supervisory safety communication (SSC) comprises formal channels such as safety meetings, toolbox talks and site inductions, and informal feedback such as praising safe behaviour or correcting unsafe acts on the spot. Studies show that workers who perceive their supervisors as open, accessible and responsive report fewer injuries. Similarly, the Sentis Safety Leadership Link report notes that leaders often overestimate their own safety leadership capabilities while teams report a weaker safety climate. This misalignment matters because safety climate – the shared perception of how seriously safety is taken – predicts safety behaviour and injury rates. Improving safety leadership, therefore, directly improves safety performance.

The law reinforces these findings. Section 27 of the WHS Act imposes a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence by taking reasonable steps to acquire and keep up‑to‑date knowledge of WHS matters, understand the operations and associated hazards, ensure resources and processes to eliminate or minimise risks, implement processes for receiving and acting on hazard reports, and verify that these processes are implemented. Due diligence is not a paper exercise: it requires active verification through inspections and audits and ensures that supervisors have the competence and authority to enforce safe systems of work. When prosecutions occur, courts examine whether supervisors were trained, whether they conducted toolbox talks, whether they monitored compliance, and whether they escalated hazards appropriately.

For WHS practitioners, these insights emphasise that supervisory behaviours should be measured and coached as lead indicators. Establish programs that build supervisors’ skills in communication, conflict resolution and decision‑making under pressure. Encourage two‑way communication where workers feel safe to raise concerns without reprisal. Use safety climate surveys to reveal gaps between leadership perception and worker reality, and integrate results into performance management. Ensure that supervisors understand due diligence obligations and can explain how they verify compliance. By treating supervisors as the linchpin of due diligence – not as a weak link – organisations can shift from reactive enforcement to proactive injury prevention.

SafeWork NSW. The work health and safety duty of an officer.

Frontiers in Public Health. Understanding the effects of supervisory and coworker safety communication on construction workers’ behavior.

Frontiers in Public Health. Pathway to enhancing safety behavior of construction workers.

Frontiers in Psychology. The moderating role of psychological resilience in the link between safety leadership and employee safety behaviors.

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends: Contractorisation Risk Explosion

Across the construction, manufacturing and logistics sectors, the gig economy and multi‑tier subcontracting are reshaping how work is organised. While flexible contracting can improve efficiency, it also creates fragmented accountability that undermines WHS. Principal contractors often engage layers of subcontractors, labour hire firms and specialist trades. When control over safety critical tasks is dispersed, nobody owns the risk.

A commentary on multi‑tier subcontracting warns that the duty of care under the OHS Act is non‑delegable: both principal contractors and subcontractors remain persons conducting a business or undertaking and must ensure their work does not put others at risk. Yet in practice, safe work method statements (SWMS) are inconsistently applied and undertrained workers perform high‑risk tasks; catastrophic outcomes occur when everyone assumes someone else is responsible.

Regulators have responded with clearer delineation of duties. WorkSafe Queensland’s principal contractor guidance notes that for construction projects above $250,000, only one principal contractor may be appointed. This principal contractor must obtain SWMS before high‑risk work commences, ensure facilities and amenities are provided, manage risks from materials, plant, traffic and essential services, and demarcate site boundaries so that adjacent projects do not blur responsibilities. Moreover, all PCBUs on site must consult, cooperate and coordinate their activities. Failure to do so attracts significant penalties.

A 2025 prosecution in Western Australia saw a principal contractor fined $450,000 after a subcontractor removed steel props from a staircase, causing a collapse and serious injury. Investigators found that risk assessments were inadequate, instructions were not communicated and site security was poor. Regulators have since launched proactive inspection programs targeting site security and risk management, underscoring that excuses about subcontractor negligence will not shield principal contractors.

This fragmented accountability extends beyond construction.

The PALM scheme discussed earlier reveals that thousands of seasonal workers are placed through labour hire arrangements; the PCBU who pays wages may not control the worksite, leading to confusion about who manages risks like fatigue, accommodation and harassment. The risk explosion also includes gig‑platform labour and crowd workers. Safe Work Australia’s consultation on crowd‑platform workers acknowledges that WHS duties are unclear and proposes new obligations for platform operators. Without clear lines of accountability, workers in logistics, food delivery and home services may fall through regulatory gaps.

For boards and safety leaders, the message is to simplify and clarify. Map your contractor ecosystem and identify a single point of accountability for each high‑risk task. Ensure that SWMS are developed jointly with subcontractors and verified in the field, not just filed away. Require evidence of competence and training for all workers, regardless of employer. Build coordination mechanisms – regular coordination meetings, shared hazard registers, site inductions – to ensure that risk information is communicated across organisational boundaries. Recognise that you cannot contract out of your WHS duties; the cost of failing to manage subcontractor risk is not just fines but lives. Keeping control within your sphere of influence is a strategic imperative as the contractorisation trend continues to accelerate.

WorkSafe Queensland. Principal contractors.

WorkSafe Queensland. WHS Compliance and Field Services Proactive Compliance Program 2024–2027.

WorkSafe Queensland. Safe work method statements.

WorkSafe Queensland. Work health and safety management plans.

WorkSafe Queensland. Construction blitz findings.

WorkSafe Queensland. Mobile plant and traffic management in construction – the focus of our next compliance campaign.

Section 8: Capability Focus: How to Verify a Critical Control (Field Method)

Critical controls are the barriers and management actions that prevent catastrophic events. Having them on paper is not enough; organisations must verify that they exist and are functioning as intended. Critical control verifications are structured checks – through inspections, documentation review and conversations – to confirm that high‑consequence hazards are managed effectively. They form the ‘Check’ in the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle: after identifying major unwanted events and the controls required (‘Plan’) and implementing them (‘Do’), leaders must test whether the controls are working and then review and adjust (‘Act’).

A practical field method begins with clarity. Define which controls are critical for each major hazard (e.g., fall‑arrest systems, exclusion zones, lockout/tagout procedures) and document performance standards – what ‘good’ looks like – in plain language. Then go to the field and ask seven questions:

(1) Are the critical controls visible and in place? For example, if an exclusion zone is required, is there physical barricading and signage?

(2) Do workers understand what the controls are and how to use them? Ask them to explain the control in their own words and demonstrate correct use.

(3) Can frontline supervisors articulate their role in monitoring the control? Supervisors should know they are accountable for verifying controls and escalating issues.

(4) Are performance standards documented and accessible? Check that procedures, SWMS and standards are available on site and reflect current practice. (5) Are there recent examples where the control failed or was bypassed? Encourage workers to share near‑misses; these stories reveal weak spots.

(6) Are inspection and maintenance records up to date? Review logs for equipment such as harnesses or ventilators to ensure they are inspected on schedule.

(7) Does the verification test functionality rather than mere presence? For instance, if gas monitors are mandated, are they calibrated and producing readings? These questions move the conversation from box‑ticking to assurance.

Evidence should be tangible. Photos of control implementation, signed inspection sheets, worker interviews and calibration certificates all provide proof that controls work. Leading indicators such as the number of verifications completed, the percentage of controls found effective and the number of corrective actions generated can be tracked to gauge performance. When a control is absent, misunderstood or not working, treat it as a critical incident even if nothing has gone wrong yet. Document the failure, identify root causes, assign actions and review whether the control design needs to be improved. Common failure modes include hazard signage installed but hidden, workers misunderstanding the reason for a barricade and bypassing it, supervisors focusing on productivity and ignoring defective equipment, or maintenance records not matching reality. By systematically verifying critical controls, organisations demonstrate due diligence, build confidence that they can prevent catastrophic events and surface systemic weaknesses before they manifest as tragedies.

myosh. What are Critical Control Verifications and How to Maintain Oversight.

Impress Solutions. Critical Control Verification Checklist: How to Spot Weak Controls in Mining – 2025 Field Guide.

SafeWork NSW. The work health and safety duty of an officer.

Final Word – WHS show Brisbane

April’s themes are clear: risk is no longer confined to the task but sits within workforce models, leadership behaviour, contractor structures and system verification. Most organisations are still managing safety at a surface level through policies, systems and compliance. While regulators are moving deeper and asking how you know controls work, how psychosocial risks are managed, how contractors are controlled and, ultimately, whether you can prove it.

The Workplace Health and Safety Show in Brisbane reflected this shift, bringing together over 4,000 professionals, more than 1,000 solutions and a strong focus on psychosocial risk, high-risk work, leadership accountability and system verification. The direction is moving away from compliance and toward capability. If there is one action to take this month, pick one critical risk, go to the field and verify it, because when something goes wrong, that is exactly what the regulator will do.

Workplace Health & Safety Show (Queensland)

WHS Guard Newsletter: March 2026. 1

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight, Fatigue a Governance Problem.. 1

Section 2: Queensland Regulator Update – Silica Controls and License Integrity. 2

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch – Enforcement Is Testing Systems. 3

Section 4: Industry Voices – Jo Kitney on Practical Safety Systems. 3

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania. New Zealand’s Reform Debate. 4

Section 6: WHS Research, Wearable Exoskeletons; What the Evidence Supports and What It Does Not. 4

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends, Lithium-Ion Batteries and BESS Are Becoming Workplace Fire and Emergency Risks. 5

Section 8: Capability Focus Evidence of Due Diligence –. 6

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight, Fatigue a Governance Problem

Fatigue is not a vibe, a mindset, or a resilience gap. It is a predictable failure mode created by the way work is designed and managed. If leadership still treats fatigue as “people should manage themselves,” the organization is outsourcing safety to biology and biology does not negotiate. Hours of work, shift patterns, short turnarounds, unplanned overtime, workload peaks, staffing gaps, long commutes, and interactive pressure (production targets plus time scarcity) all shape fatigue exposure. When fatigue is filed under “wellbeing,” it becomes invisible in the risk register and unmanaged in operations.

A roster that looks legal on paper can still be unsafe in practice once you add travel, second jobs, caregiving, call‑backs, peak season surge, and the reality that “finish times” slide. That is why fatigue shows up in the moments that matter vehicle drift and near misses, wrong isolation points, dropped loads, medication errors, procedural shortcuts, and reduced situational awareness around moving plant. Most businesses only notice fatigue after the first near.

The legal framing matters. That pushes leaders away from posters and toward controls that change exposure: staffing models, roster design rules, caps on hours, protected recovery time, task rotation, safe travel and accommodation decisions, and supervisors trained to intervene. Once a practical code of practice exists, “reasonable” is no longer whatever your business says it is; you will be compared to a published yardstick.

Here is an executive test of maturity is not “we have a fatigue policy,” but evidence that fatigue risk was identified, assessed, and controlled at the work‑design stage. The business changed the plan when fatigue rose. If a serious incident occurs, the question will not be “did you mean well?” It will be “what did you do, when you knew fatigue was foreseeable?” Fatigue is where cheap productivity gains go to die publicly. Treat it like any other high‑consequence hazard: define it, engineer controls, verify performance, and keep proof.

References

Model Code of Practice: Managing the risk of fatigue at work. Safe Work Australia.

International Organization for Standardization

Section 2: Queensland Regulator Update – Silica Controls and License Integrity

Queensland’s enforcement posture is increasingly consistent across “high-harm” hazards: regulators are signalling that it is no longer enough to have policies, intentions, or generic plans. Duty holders are expected to demonstrate, quickly and credibly, that critical controls are in place, working, and actively verified, and that worker competence (especially where a licence is a safety-critical barrier) is authentic, current, and verified at the point of use.

Two March 2026 relevant signals illustrate this pattern.

First, respirable crystalline silica is being regulated as a control-assurance problem: processing of crystalline silica substances must be “controlled,” high-risk processing is tied to a documented silica risk control plan (or an equivalent SWMS) with explicit implementation and stop-work consequences when reality diverges from the plan.

Second, high-risk work licensing is being treated as system integrity: the regulator is explicitly warning that forged/altered licence evidence is circulating, including AI-assisted document manipulation, and is linking this to police referrals and charges. A licence can only function as a control if businesses treat verification as part of their safety management system not as an administrative checkbox.

References:
WorkSafe Queensland (2024). Regulation on processing crystalline silica substances.
WorkSafe Queensland. (2024). Ban on engineered stone: Protecting workers’ health. WorkSafe Queensland.
Safe Work Australia. (2025). Model Code of Practice: Managing risks of respirable crystalline silica in the workplace. Safe Work Australia. [9]
WorkSafe Queensland. (2026). High-risk work licenses fraud alert. WorkSafe Queensland.

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch – Enforcement Is Testing Systems

Prosecutions are not about “bad luck.” They are a forensic audit of your system: what was foreseeable, what controls existed, what you implemented, and what you failed to verify. Three matters from late 2025 are worth reading as signals, not anecdotes.

Commonwealth psychosocial conviction. In December 2025, the Department of Defense was convicted and fined after pleading guilty to failing to manage psychosocial risks relating to the death of a worker by suicide while on duty. The regulator described the outcome as the first time a Commonwealth employer had been convicted for failing to manage psychosocial risks under federal WHS laws, and the court also made an adverse publicity order. Critically, the alleged control failure was not “we didn’t have a policy.” It was capability and application: supervisor training and the use of a performance management “work plan” process that was treated as a foreseeable psychosocial hazard requiring controls.

Fatigue‑linked transport fatality. In September 2025, a Victorian warehousing and logistics company and its director were convicted and fined a total of $1.43 million after a fatigued delivery driver died in a crash. The company received a seven‑figure fine for reckless endangerment alongside other penalties, and the director was fined personally. The message is direct: if your scheduling and delivery model generates fatigue, regulators will treat that as a controllable safety risk, not an unfortunate exposure.

Mining maintenance fatality prosecution. In Western Australia, prosecution action commenced against a mining maintenance company after the death of a heavy diesel mechanic during truck axle removal work. The regulator’s summary describes jacking work, adverse conditions (including a deflated tyre causing lean), and catastrophic failure when a jack failed. This is the classic critical‑controls lesson: high‑consequence tasks require engineered redundancy, verified stability, and a system that makes stopping work easy and consequence‑free.

Board takeaway: treat these cases as an audit checklist:

Ask where the risk was created upstream (rostering, performance pressure, work method design), how critical controls were defined, and how competence was verified.

Then look for the weak point that usually breaks first supervision under time pressure.

An organization needs verified fatigue controls, psychosocial controls, and high‑consequence task controls in day‑to‑day work.

References:
Comcare (2025). Defense convicted after RAAF worker’s death.
WorkSafe Victoria (2025). Company and director fined $1.43 million after fatigued driver’s fatal crash.
WorkSafe WA (2025). Mining maintenance company prosecuted over worker death.

Section 4: Industry Voices – Jo Kitney on Practical Safety Systems

I met Jo Kitney at a r safety networking event last year and our conversation quickly turned to a familiar challenge in WHS: why so many organisations have safety systems that exist on paper but struggle in practice. Jo is the Managing Director of Kitney OHS and has spent more than two decades helping organisations across Australia and the United Kingdom translate WHS obligations into systems that actually work.

Jo’s view is straightforward. Compliance alone does not create safe organisations. Policies and procedures matter, but they only become effective when they are embedded into the way work is planned, tracked and reviewed.

She also highlights the growing role of digital tools in safety governance. When risk registers, actions and documentation are properly structured within platforms such as Microsoft 365, leaders gain far clearer visibility of risk and accountability.

In Jo’s words, the goal is simple: safety systems should support work, not sit on a shelf.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jo-kitney-462075a/

Section 5: WHS in South Asia and Oceania. New Zealand’s Reform Debate

In New Zealand, a Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was introduced in February 2026 and framed by government as a way to sharpen the system’s focus on “critical risks” while reducing compliance costs. The reform agenda sits within a broader health and safety reform program, and public reporting shows active debate about whether the changes will improve safety or create confusion about what still must be managed. For duty holders operating across the Tasman, the governance lesson is to keep a consistent baseline aligned to ISO 45001, then map local variations as additions not as permission to reduce controls.

References:
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (n.d.). Health and safety reform. MBIE.
Government of New Zealand (2026). Milestone health and safety bill passes first reading. The Beehive.
Radio New Zealand (2026). “Confusing”: Proposed health and safety law changes will not make workers safer, experts say. RNZ.

Section 6: WHS Research, Wearable Exoskeletons; What the Evidence Supports and What It Does Not

Wearable occupational exoskeletons are increasingly promoted as a control for hazardous manual tasks, particularly in industries with high exposure to repetitive lifting, sustained postures, or overhead work. The research base is expanding quickly, but the evidence remains more limited than many product claims suggest. Current studies support a narrow conclusion. Some exoskeleton designs can reduce specific biomechanical loading measures for certain tasks under controlled conditions. What has not yet been demonstrated consistently is a sustained reduction in work-related musculoskeletal disorders across different workplaces, over long periods, and under real operating pressures.

A persistent limitation in the research is the reliance on short-term laboratory trials. Many studies measure muscle activation, trunk angles, perceived exertion, or task speed rather than long-term injury outcomes. From a WHS governance perspective, this matters. A control that performs well in a controlled test may not perform the same way in real work where discomfort, restricted movement, poor fit, heat, and fatigue influence whether workers actually use the device correctly over a full shift. Behavioural adaptation also occurs. When workers feel protected, they may work faster, lift more, or remain longer in awkward postures, changing exposure rather than reducing it.

Risk may also shift rather than disappear. Back-support devices can reduce loading on the spine but increase demand on hips or legs. Upper-limb supports may reduce shoulder strain but limit reach or alter balance. Prolonged wear can introduce heat stress, skin pressure, and fatigue. These secondary effects are often not visible in short trials but become significant in real workplaces.

An evidence-aligned approach is cautious. Exoskeletons should be treated as a supplementary control, not a substitute for good work design. Start with one high-strain task, establish baseline exposure, and define what success means in measurable terms, such as reduced time in awkward posture or reduced peak load. Trial with a small group, include different body sizes and job roles, and monitor usability, adverse effects, and unintended changes in behaviour. Use multiple indicators, including observation, worker feedback, and incident data.

Procurement must also be considered part of risk control. Exoskeletons require fit assessment, maintenance, cleaning, and supervision of correct use. If these cannot be managed consistently, the device may introduce risk rather than reduce it.

Most importantly, the presence of wearable technology does not mean the task is controlled. Risk assessment must still consider workload, pace, duration, recovery time, and supervision. If those factors remain unchanged, the underlying exposure remains.

References:
Cardoso, A., et al. (2024). Evaluating exoskeletons for WMSD prevention: A systematic review of applications and ergonomic approach in occupational settings. (Journal article).
Bhat, S., et al. (2025). Mapping the evidence on occupational exoskeleton use for work-related musculoskeletal disorder reduction: A scoping review. (Journal article).
Brunelli, G., et al. (2025). Review of upper-limb occupational exoskeletons: From technology to assessment. (Journal article).
Botti, L., et al. (2024). Occupational exoskeletons: Understanding the impact on worker health, safety and performance and recommendations for adoption. (Journal article).

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends, Lithium-Ion Batteries and BESS Are Becoming Workplace Fire and Emergency Risks

Lithium‑ion battery risk is no longer confined to consumer electronics. It sits inside workplaces through tools, e‑mobility, warehouse equipment, and the rapid growth of battery energy storage systems (BESS) in construction and industrial contexts. The hazard profile is high consequence: thermal runaway, toxic smoke, re‑ignition, and difficult suppression. When a lithium incident occurs indoors, near combustible stock, in worker accommodation, or in waste handling, outcomes escalate quickly from device failure to evacuation, emergency response complexity, and potential fatality.

Control themes are converging across regulators, emergency services, and product safety agencies. Product integrity is foundational: reputable products, matched chargers, and avoiding modified, counterfeit, or damaged batteries and devices. Charging discipline is next: charging on non‑flammable surfaces, keeping charging away from exits and high‑fuel areas, avoiding unattended and overnight charging, and isolating damaged units. Storage and disposal complete the control set: segregate batteries from ignition sources and combustibles, quarantine damaged batteries, and dispose of them through approved pathways to prevent waste‑stream fires.

WHS obligations now intersect with emergency planning in a way many organizations have not resourced. Guidance is becoming more operational and enforceable. SafeWork NSW explicitly links serious lithium‑ion battery incidents to immediate incident notification obligations and encourages reporting to enable investigation and prevention. WorkSafe Victoria has issued specific guidance on safe BESS placement on construction sites, including preserving evacuation routes, providing clearance from plant access points, and planning emergency access so responders are not forced into smoke or thermal hazard zones. Queensland’s BESS guidance links battery hazards to the hierarchy of controls and to foundational risk management duties.

For senior leaders, the governance issue is integration. Lithium risk sits across WHS, hazardous chemicals and dangerous goods, electrical safety, procurement, and emergency management. Most organizations have these functions separated; battery risk does not respect that structure. Practical integration means three things: a single charging and storage standard applied across sites, clear ownership for emergency planning (including evacuation, isolation, and first‑response actions), and a decision rule for when an event becomes a notifiable incident and what evidence must be preserved.

This also creates a competency requirement. Supervisors and first responders need battery‑specific cues (swelling, heat, venting, unusual odour), clear shutdown and isolation steps, and realistic drills that assume toxic smoke and rapid escalation.

Importantly, lithium events create a learning challenge. The instinct to “clean up and move on” is strong, especially when no one is injured. But guidance from regulators explicitly links serious lithium battery events to notification duties, and WorkSafe Victoria’s BESS guidance is framed around preventing secondary harm through poor placement and poor emergency access. In short: treat lithium events like other high‑consequence hazards—report, investigate, fix the system, and share learnings before the next event is worse.

The organizations that avoid the headline incident will be those that treat battery hazards as a system problem: procurement controls, charging and storage standards, site layout rules, emergency response planning, competent supervision, and rapid learning from near misses.

References:
SafeWork NSW (2026). Lithium-ion batteries. SafeWork NSW.
Fire and Rescue NSW (2025). Battery and charging safety. FRNSW.
WorkSafe Victoria. (2025). Safe placement of Battery Energy Storage Systems on construction sites.
WorkSafe Queensland. (2023). Battery energy storage systems (BESS).

WorkSafe Queensland. (2025). Reminder: Safe storage lithium-ion battery use.

ACCC Product Safety (2026). Lithium-ion batteries guide.

Section 8: Capability Focus Evidence of Due Diligence –

Most WHS “systems” sound convincing until a regulator asks one question: what did the officers do, when, and how do you know? Under the model WHS laws, officer due diligence is a personal, proactive duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the PCBU complies with WHS duties. It is not met by delegating to a safety manager or approving a policy.

Due diligence requires officers to:

· Keep WHS knowledge current.

· Understand operations and hazards.

· Ensure suitable resources and processes exist and are used.

· Ensure the PCBU has processes to receive,

· Consider and respond to WHS information.

· Ensure compliance processes are implemented.

· Verify that resources and processes are actually operating.

Enforcement rarely turns on intentions. It turns on evidence you can produce under pressure.

Inspectors test the decision trail: how risks were identified, how critical controls were selected, what resourcing decisions were made, and how effectiveness was verified. If your governance record is only lag indicators (injury rates, completion counts) and generic reassurance, you cannot demonstrate active due diligence. In the courtroom, the absence of contemporaneous proof becomes the story: the board did not know, did not ask, or did not act.

Expect questions like show me the verification, what was escalated, which actions were overdue, and where the evidence contractors were checked before work started.

Regulator‑credible evidence is dull and specific. It includes board and committee minutes that record challenge, decisions, and follow‑up. It includes WHS reports that elevate the top critical risks and show control performance, not just injury stats. It includes action registers with owners, due dates, and closure evidence. It includes assurance: audit reports, site verification walks, and critical control checks with findings and corrective actions. It also includes competence and authorization evidence (training records, competence assessments, high risk work license checks, and clear supervision arrangements) and supply chain evidence procurement controls and contractor verification where third parties create or control the risk.

Capability improves fastest when officers standardize what “good evidence” looks like. Put a fixed WHS governance pack on every agenda: top five critical risks; the critical controls for each; leading indicators; overdue actions; serious near misses; and assurance outcomes. Set a cadence (monthly operational verification and quarterly independent assurance) and insist on documented outcomes, including stop‑work decisions and funded redesigns. If these records do not exist, officers cannot prove due diligence, even if the business can point to a safety management system.

https://www.comcare.gov.au/about/forms-pubs/docs/pubs/safety/exercising-due-diligence-guidance-for-officers.pdf

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1812/officer-duty-interpretive-guide.pdf

https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/laws-and-compliance/compliance-and-enforcement/prosecutions/work-health-and-safety-and-electrical-safety-prosecutions/court-summaries/2018/details-of-successful-prosecution-against-e220702-individual

https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/2026-03-13/sl-2011-0240

Final Word

This issue carries one clear message. Predictable harm now means predictable accountability.

Fatigue, exposure controls, emerging technologies, and competence failures are no longer treated as operational problems. They are being tested as governance failures. Regulators and courts are asking a harder question than before. Not whether a system exists, but whether it actually prevented harm.

A fatigue procedure is meaningless if rosters still break recovery limits.
A silica plan is meaningless if controls cannot be verified on the floor.
A charging policy is meaningless if lithium risks are not engineered out of the workplace.

The organisations that stay ahead will be the ones that can show evidence, not intent.

· Evidence of work design changes.

· Evidence of control verification.

· Evidence of competence checks.

· Evidence of intervention when risk increased.

If your board pack cannot demonstrate those things with real examples, your WHS system is still a story. And stories are often rewritten by regulators after the incident.

· Pick one action this month.

· Reality-check one roster.

· Physically verify one critical control.

· Audit one high-energy hazard.

If you find gaps, treat them as system defects. Fix the design, not the person.

Stay sharp. Stay accountable.

Niru Tyagi | WHS Guard (Queensland Edition)

This article provides a non‑commercial, evidence‑based methodology for psychosocial risk management. It is written for Queensland PCBUs and officers who need a process that aligns with the WHS Act, the WHS Regulation, the 2022 code and international standards (ISO 45001 and ISO 45003). All footnotes link to primary sources and evidence.

Why psychosocial risk is a legal and business imperative

· Legal clarity: The WHS Act requires PCBUs to eliminate or minimise risks as far as reasonably practicable, and officers must exercise due diligence by ensuring the PCBU has resources and processes to control risks. Psychosocial hazards are included in these duties, and failure to manage them can attract the same penalties as physical hazards.

· Psychosocial hazard definition: Under the WHS Regulation, psychosocial hazards arise from work design or management, the work environment, plant, or workplace interactions/behaviours and can cause psychological harm. Examples include unreasonable job demands, low job control, poor support, lack of role clarity, poor change management, inadequate reward and recognition, poor organisational justice, remote/isolated work, traumatic events, violence and aggression, bullying and harassment.

· National context: The Commonwealth Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice 2024 expands the list to 17 hazards, adding explicit references to job insecurity, fatigue and intrusive surveillance. Multi‑jurisdictional employers should use this broader taxonomy as a completeness check.

· Economic costs: Safe Work Australia data show that mental health conditions accounted for about 9 % of serious workers’ compensation claims in 2021‑22, up nearly 37 % since 2017‑18, with work pressure, harassment/bullying and violence among the leading contributors. These claims have a median cost more than three times higher than other serious injury claims.

· Evidence for organisational controls: Systematic reviews demonstrate moderate to strong evidence that organisational‑level interventions—changes to work design, staffing, workload and organisational processes—can improve psychosocial work environments and reduce burnout. In other words, treating psychosocial hazards like “engagement” issues is ineffective; the focus must be on design and systems.

Aligning with ISO 45001 and ISO 45003

ISO 45001 provides a framework for occupational health and safety management systems based on the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle[9]. ISO 45003 offers specific guidance for managing psychosocial risk within an ISO 45001 system and stresses the need to protect and promote both physical and psychological health. The Queensland methodology described below aligns with this framework: it uses a systematic cycle, integrates psychosocial risk into existing WHS processes and emphasises continual improvement.

Step‑by‑step psychosocial risk management methodology

1 – Establish scope, governance and “what good looks like”

· Define the boundary: Decide whether the assessment covers the whole organisation, a business unit, high‑risk roles or specific sites. Include contractors, labour‑hire and volunteers where relevant; the WHS Act applies broadly to anyone carrying out work.

· Set governance: Appoint an executive sponsor (accountable for resourcing and authorising controls), a WHS lead (method owner), operational leaders (responsible for implementing controls), HR/IR support and worker representatives/health and safety representatives. Officers’ due‑diligence obligations mean they must ensure resources and processes exist and are used.

· Articulate success: Clarify that the objective is to identify hazards, assess exposure and implement higher‑order controls, not to gauge “happiness” or run a tick‑box survey.

2 – Identify hazards using the Queensland and Commonwealth taxonomies

Use the Regulation’s organising frame—work design/management, work environment, plant, and workplace interactions/behaviours—and map hazards to the Queensland code’s 14 categories. Cross‑check against the Commonwealth code’s additional hazards (job insecurity, fatigue, intrusive surveillance). Consider developing a “work map” by job family or function to systematically evaluate which hazards are reasonably foreseeable. Remember that hazards can interact or accumulate; for example, high demands combined with low support and exposure to customer aggression may produce greater harm than any hazard alone.

3 – Collect evidence from multiple sources

Queensland’s consultation duty requires sharing relevant information with workers, inviting their views and taking those views into account. To meet this duty and avoid bias, collect evidence from several sources:

· Surveys: Use open or licensed instruments that measure hazard exposures (job demands, control, support, etc.) rather than clinical symptoms. Survey at the level where controls can be implemented (team, role or site) and ensure anonymity through minimum group size thresholds. WorkSafe Queensland’s guidance notes that risk assessment tools aligned to the 14 hazards should replace purely engagement‑focused surveys.

· Focus groups/workshops: After surveys, conduct facilitated focus groups to explore “why” patterns exist and to co‑design controls. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Management Standards approach requires focus groups to validate survey data and develop action plans.

· Operational data: Review incident reports, complaint registers, bullying and harassment investigations, workers’ compensation claims and return‑to‑work data. Safe Work Australia notes that harassment/bullying and work pressure drive a high proportion of mental health claims.

· Absenteeism, turnover and exit interviews: Use these as corroborating evidence, recognising that they are influenced by labour market conditions. Observe patterns by location or role.

· Work design and observation: Analyse rosters, workload metrics, staffing ratios, role descriptions and change impacts. Walk through work processes to identify pinch points, supervision style and exposure to violence or aggression. These methods align with the Regulation’s requirement to consider work design, systems of work and workplace design when determining controls.

4 – Assess risk using likelihood, severity and exposure

The WHS Regulation requires PCBUs to identify reasonably foreseeable hazards and to eliminate or minimise risks by considering the duration, frequency and severity of exposure, and how hazards interact[2]. A pragmatic psychosocial risk assessment model includes:

· Likelihood: Rare, unlikely, possible, likely or almost certain that harm will occur.

· Severity of harm: Credible worst‑case and most‑likely harm, including psychological and physical harm.

· Exposure: Frequency, duration and intensity of exposure, multiplied by the number of workers exposed.

· Interacting hazards: Identify combinations that amplify risk—e.g., high demands with low support and aggression exposure.

· Vulnerable groups: Consider workers who may face differential exposure (e.g., early‑career staff, culturally and linguistically diverse workers, remote workers). The Commonwealth code stresses that different groups may face different psychosocial hazards.

Apply these criteria to each identified hazard and record the outcome in a risk register. Use a 5×5 risk matrix for prioritisation but modify likelihood ratings upward if exposure is frequent, prolonged or severe or if multiple hazards interact. This reflects the Regulation’s emphasis on exposure and interaction.

5 – Prioritise risks and apply the “reasonably practicable” test

The Act defines “reasonably practicable” by weighing the likelihood of the risk occurring, the degree of harm, what is known about the hazard and controls, the availability and suitability of controls and the cost of implementing them (after assessing risk and controls)[1]. Prioritise:

· Hazards with both high severity and high exposure (e.g., frequent aggression or traumatic content).

· Hazards that affect many workers (e.g., workload, role clarity).

· Hazards known to drive compensation costs and poor return‑to‑work outcomes, such as harassment/bullying and work pressure.

Make prioritisation transparent and consult with workers about the rationale and proposed actions.

6 – Select controls using the hierarchy of controls

The hierarchy of controls applies to psychosocial hazards just as it does to physical hazards: eliminate the hazard or substitute/isolate/engineer it where reasonably practicable, then use administrative controls; personal protective equipment is a last resort. Higher‑order controls for psychosocial hazards often involve changes to work design, staffing models or physical environment. Evidence shows that organisational‑level interventions can improve psychosocial work environments and reduce burnout.

Below is a non‑exhaustive table linking common hazard categories to high‑order and administrative controls. Use it as a starting point and adapt through consultation.

7 – Plan implementation and document the risk assessment

The code and risk assessment tools recommend documenting hazards, evidence sources, risk ratings, existing controls, control adequacy, further controls, owners, monitoring approaches and review dates. Record consultation activities and outcomes so that inspectors and officers can verify compliance[3]. Without written records, PCBUs must still demonstrate compliance, which is difficult in practice.

8 – Monitor, verify and review controls

Under the Regulation, PCBUs must maintain and review control measures whenever there is an incident, consultation indicates the need, a significant change occurs or at regular intervals[2]. Build monitoring and verification into governance:

· Leading indicators: workload thresholds breached; aggression hotspot rates; change‑management risk gates completed; hazard exposure scores.

· Lagging indicators: serious mental health claim trends, absenteeism, turnover, time lost and compensation costs[6].

· Verification: internal audits, executive “walk‑arounds”, field verification and independent assurance to ensure controls are implemented and effective.

· Review triggers: incidents, complaints, organisational changes, consultation feedback or scheduled cycles (e.g., annual re‑assessment).

Evidence toolkit and measurement frameworks

A non‑commercial approach does not mean “guesswork.” Several open or licensed frameworks support psychosocial risk assessment. Choose an instrument that can be mapped to the Queensland hazard categories, produces outputs that drive control decisions and supports consultation.

· HSE Management Standards (UK): Focuses on six domains—demands, control, support, relationships, role and change—and includes a 35‑item Indicator Tool. The HSE emphasises combining survey data with focus groups to develop action plans. It does not cover all Queensland hazards (e.g., violence, bullying), so additional assessment is needed.

· COPSOQ III (Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire): A broad, research‑based instrument covering multiple psychosocial domains; the questionnaire is available under a Creative Commons licence that prohibits commercial use and modifications. It offers rich constructs and psychometric robustness but requires careful implementation and mapping to local hazards.

· Guarding Minds at Work (Canada): Provides a survey and an eight‑step process aligned to the Canadian National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety; the tool is free to access and includes comparative reporting. Domains differ from the Queensland hazard taxonomy, and benchmarks are Canadian, so interpretation must consider context.

When designing your own survey, ensure each item maps to a hazard pathway (job demands, role clarity, organisational justice, etc.), avoid clinical screening questions, protect anonymity through minimum group sizes and commit to mixed methods (surveys plus qualitative follow‑up). Treat survey results as hypotheses requiring validation, not as final truth.

Implementation timeline and board reporting

For a single site or business unit, a typical initial cycle spans 12–16 weeks:

1. Weeks 1–2: Define scope, governance, consultation plan and hazard taxonomy mapping.

2. Weeks 3–6: Collect evidence (survey, operational data, focus groups).

3. Weeks 7–8: Conduct risk assessment workshops and develop a draft risk register.

4. Weeks 9–12: Design controls, assign owners and consult workers on proposed actions.

5. Weeks 13–16: Implement priority controls and establish monitoring indicators and review triggers.

For large or multi‑site organisations, stagger the roll‑out and adopt a quarterly monitoring and annual re‑assessment cadence. Officers should receive board‑level reports that highlight top risks, exposure patterns by hazard and work group, control implementation status, and leading and lagging indicators. Avoid “vanity metrics” like overall wellbeing scores; board reporting should focus on hazards, controls and assurance.

Governance, assurance and board reporting

Officers cannot “set and forget” psychosocial risk. Due diligence requires active steps: ensuring resources/processes exist and are used, ensuring information is received/considered/responded to, and ensuring compliance processes are implemented. This means psychosocial risk assessment must produce board-grade evidence: clear hazards, quantified exposure patterns, risk ratings, control decisions under the hierarchy, and verified implementation status.

Board reporting: what “good” looks like

A board psychosocial risk dashboard should avoid vanity metrics (“wellbeing score”) and focus on hazards, controls and verification, consistent with the WHS Regulation and Code logic. A minimal dashboard pack:

· Top psychosocial risks by residual risk rating, with control approach aligned to hierarchy of controls.

· Exposure patterns by hazard and work group (where anonymity thresholds met).

· Control implementation status (due dates, completion, verification checks).

· Leading indicators (e.g., workload thresholds breached; aggression hotspot rates; change risk gates completed).

· Lagging indicators (serious mental health claims trends; time lost; compensation cost; noting harassment/bullying and work pressure are major contributors nationally).

· Assurance statement from internal audit or external assurance against WHS Act/Reg/Code requirements.

Conclusion

Psychosocial hazards are WHS hazards that require the same structured risk management as physical hazards. Queensland law makes this explicit, and the 2022 Code of Practice provides detailed guidance on hazard categories and control expectations. By following a systematic, non‑commercial methodology—scope and governance, hazard identification, evidence collection, risk assessment, prioritisation, control selection, implementation planning and monitoring—PCBUs and officers can meet their legal duties, protect worker health and create psychologically safe workplaces. Incorporating evidence from open frameworks, international standards and peer‑reviewed research ensures that control decisions are defensible and effective.

References

1. Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld).
   https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/current/act-2011-018

2. Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld), including Division 11 Psychosocial Risks and Part 3.1 General Risk Management.
   https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/sl-2011-0240

3. Managing the Risk of Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice 2022 (Qld).
   https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/104857/managing-the-risk-of-psychosocial-hazards-at-work-code-of-practice.pdf

4. WorkSafe Queensland. People at Work – Risk Assessment Guidance.
   https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/safety-and-prevention/mental-health/people-at-work

5. Work Health and Safety (Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work) Code of Practice 2024 (Cth).
   https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2024L01380

6. ISO 45001:2018 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems.
   https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html

7. ISO 45003:2021 Psychological Health and Safety at Work – Guidelines for Managing Psychosocial Risks.
   https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html

8. Standards Australia. Guidance on ISO 45003 and psychosocial risk management.
   https://www.standards.org.au/news/new-standards-document-to-help-manage-workplace-psychosocial-risk

9. Safe Work Australia (2024). Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace – Data Report.
   https://data.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Psychological-health-in-the-workplace_Report_February2024.pdf

10. HSE (UK). Management Standards for Work-Related Stress.
    https://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/overview.htm

11. COPSOQ International Network. Licence Guidelines and Questionnaire.
    https://www.copsoq-network.org/licence-guidelines-and-questionnaire

12. Guarding Minds at Work. Psychological Health and Safety Framework.
    https://www.guardingmindsatwork.ca/

13. Madsen, I.E.H. et al. (2021). Psychosocial work exposures and mental disorders – systematic review.
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8504166/

14. Montano, D. et al. (2024). Organisational-level interventions and psychosocial outcomes – systematic overview.
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10713994/

15. LaMontagne, A.D. et al. (2014). Integrated approaches to workplace mental health.
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4024273/

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight – Executive Accountability & Action

Section2: Queensland Regulator Update– Falling Objects & High‑Risk

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch – Lessons from Recent Cases

Section 4: Industry Voices – Sheri Greenwell on Culture, Courage & Accountability

Section 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania – Bangladesh and Sri Lanka

Section 6: WHS Research – Building an Evidence‑Based Safety Future

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends – climate, Supply Chain Risk

Section 8: Capability Focus – Supervisor & Manager Decision-Making

Section 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight – Executive Accountability & Action.

Welcome to the first WHS Guard newsletter of 2026. As we embark on a new year, one truth rings louder than ever: safety starts at the top. For too long, some executives have treated workplace health and safety as someone else’s problem. Those days are over. Under modern WHS laws, company officers – directors, CEOs, senior executives – carry a personal duty of due diligence to ensure their organisations comply with safety obligations. This isn’t a ceremonial role; it’s enforceable. If you’re at the top and ignore safety risks, you’re on the hook. Queensland’s amendments even ban insurance for WHS fines – no more buying your way out of consequences. The blunt message from regulators is this: safety penalties must hurt, personally, to drive change.

So, here’s the critical push: boards and executives must lead from the front on WHS. Allocate real resources, ask hard questions and fix systemic hazards before tragedies strike. Encourage frank reporting of near‑misses and never shoot the messenger. If you say “we value safety,” prove it – in budgets, in meetings, in every decision. Anything less is comfort and complacency. In the mirror of workplace culture, what you tolerate is what you are. Dave Whitefield puts it perfectly: “If you say you value accountability but avoid hard conversations, your culture values comfort, not ownership.” True safety leadership means owning the outcomes.

2026 will test these commitments. New accountability regimes, climate‑driven risks and emerging technologies such as AI are creating unprecedented complexity. But complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction. Courts are increasingly targeting individual decision‑makers, not just companies; industrial manslaughter charges carry sentences of up to 20 years’ imprisonment and $10 million fines. The question every executive must answer is: “Could I demonstrate in court that I proactively managed health and safety?” If that question makes you sweat, you’re not doing enough.

This edition is dedicated to executive accountability and action. From proactive compliance campaigns and expanded incident reporting to labour law reform across South Asia and emerging global safety trends, we’ll unpack what the latest developments mean for you. Our aim is not to alarm, but to equip – because the organisations that thrive in this environment will be those where leaders embrace accountability, foster transparency and act decisively. As we step into 2026, make a commitment to be the leader your people deserve.

Section 2: Queensland Regulator Update – Falling Objects & High‑Risk Plant.

Falling objects compliance campaign

The first regulator spotlight of 2026 comes from Queensland. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) will launch a statewide proactive compliance campaign focusing on falling‑object risks in the construction industry[1]. The campaign targets activities where falling objects are common: crane lifts, erecting or dismantling scaffolding, formwork, cantilevered loading platforms and elevated work platforms. If your business uses cranes, scaffolding or precast panels, now is the time to prepare.

Effective controls aren’t complicated – they require discipline and planning. WHSQ suggests the following measures:

· Establish and maintain exclusion zones: no one should be under a suspended load unless absolutely necessary. Mark and enforce no‑go areas with physical barriers and signage.

· Install containment screening: perimeter netting or hoarding prevents small items from falling off structures. Toe‑boards, catch platforms and debris nets can capture larger objects.

· Use gantries and loading platforms to control material drops when lifting equipment into place.

· Maintain good housekeeping: secure tools and materials, tidy work areas and remove unnecessary clutter to reduce the chance of accidental drops.

Inspectors won’t accept excuses. The campaign emphasises that failures in basic controls will attract notices and on‑the‑spot fines. If you outsource scaffolding or rely on remote site supervision, remember: location is no shield from enforcement. Apply the same rigour on city construction sites and rural projects alike.

Falling objects compliance campaign 2026

High‑risk plant amendments

From 29 March 2026, the Work Health and Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 will amend the WHS Act to allow ‘high‑risk plant’ to be prescribed by regulation rather than listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. This seemingly minor change has major implications. By shifting definitions into regulation, authorities can update high‑risk plant categories more quickly and align them with technological advances. The amendment also fixes inconsistencies between the Act and the WHS Regulation.

For businesses, this means that plant previously outside your licensing obligations could soon be captured – think of new types of amusement rides, automated lifts, drones or pressure systems. Keep an eye on consultation documents and plan to reassess your plant registers, risk assessments and maintenance programs. Remember: ignorance is not a defense when it comes to high‑risk plant.

Proposed amendments to the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011

Section 3: WHS Prosecution Watch

In late 2025 regulators across Australia launched a series of hard‑hitting prosecutions that should serve as wake‑up calls for executives and managers. The cases below demonstrate how quickly fines and personal liability can accumulate when fundamental controls are ignored.

a. Unguarded machinery — frozen food manufacturer charged(03/12/2025)

Frozen food manufacturer charged over unguarded dough mixer (Victoria) – WorkSafe Victoria’s 3 December 2025 announcement states that Makmur Enterprises Pty Ltd (a frozen dim sim manufacturer) was charged after a worker’s finger was lacerated in a dough mixer. The company allegedly failed to ensure an interlocking guard on the machine, which would have prevented access to the danger area while the mixer was operating

Machine guarding failures are another repeat offender. In December 2025, WorkSafe ] audit all machinery for guards, interlocks and emergency stops. Lock‑out/tag‑out procedures must be enforced during cleaning and maintenance; a single missing guard can maim a worker and land your organization before a magistrate.

Unguarded Dough Mixer

b. Falling objects — manufacturer charged over fatal bucket incident (04/12/2025)

Concrete pole manufacturer charged after fatal bucket fall (Victoria) – A WorkSafe Victoria media release (4 December 2025) reports that Vertech Hume Pty Ltd was charged after a 36-year-old worker was fatally struck by a metal bucket that fell ~15 metres when an electrical chain hoist dislodged. WorkSafe alleges the company breached OHS laws by failing to maintain safe plant and systems of work to prevent the bucket from dislodging during hoist use

This tragedy underscores the need for robust lifting procedures: ensure lifting devices are regularly inspected, rated for the load and operated by competent workers, and that exclusion zones are enforced so no one stands beneath suspended loads.

Fatal Bucket Incident

c. Officer liability — director fined $101 K for fall hazard (02/12/2025)

NSW solar company director fined $101,250 under WHS Act s27 – SafeWork NSW’s official release (2 December 2025) notes that Matthew McCourt, director of Always Energy Pty Ltd (a solar installer), was convicted and fined $101,250 in the NSW District Court. He pleaded guilty to an offence under WHS Act section 32 for failing to exercise due diligence as an officer (breaching section 27(1)) after a worker fell approximately 3 metres from a roof while installing solar panels.

Directors and executives must actively verify that height work is planned and controlled. Regularly inspect scaffolds, harness systems and training records; ignorance is no defense.

Director fined for fall hazard

Collectively, these cases show that regulators are escalating criminal prosecutions and personal fines for basic safety failures. If you haven’t revisited your risk assessments, training programs and plant maintenance in the past 12 months, start now.

Section 4: Industry Voices – Sheri Greenwell on Culture, Courage & Accountability.

For this issue’s Industry Voices section, we spoke with Sheri Greenwell, National Health & Safety Manager at ComDuc and a seasoned organisational development and risk specialist. Sheri’s core message is clear: leadership behaviour shapes safety culture. You don’t get the culture you want; you get the culture you allow.

Sheri works with boards and operational teams to identify cultural barriers, capability gaps and system weaknesses. She emphasizes that accountability must be lived, not laminated. Policies and systems are critical, but they don’t change behaviour on their own. To bridge the gap between intent and practice, leaders must model the behaviors they expect, provide psychological safety so workers can speak up, and ensure tools are accessible and fit for purpose. In her words: “A leader who doesn’t listen to frontline concerns cannot claim to value safety.”

Sheri also stresses the importance of addressing psychosocial risk. It’s not enough to tick a box with a risk assessment; leaders must create environments where people can thrive. This involves training managers to recognise early signs of stress, implementing flexible working arrangements, and making mental health resources readily available. As Sheri notes, “Data is only the first step – real change happens when leaders act on the information.” We will publish a detailed interview with Sheri later this year, covering topics from accountability frameworks to the practicalities of converting psychosocial risk data into action.

Sheri Greenwell

Section 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania – Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Bangladesh is now a practical case study in what happens when global labour standards move from policy to pressure. In late 2025 the country ratified three ILO conventions that raise the bar on occupational safety and health and on violence and harassment at work. That shift matters because it changes what regulators, unions, and global buyers can reasonably demand next. Legal alignment is the easy part. Enforcement is where reputations and supply chains fracture.

At the same time, Bangladesh’s 2025 labour law amendment package has reopened a familiar gap. Rights may exist on paper, but outcomes depend on inspection capability, credible complaint pathways, and whether corrective actions close in reality, not in spreadsheets. For brands and principal contractors, this is no longer just a compliance story. It is a governance story. Buyers are being pushed to prove they can see beyond factory audits into subcontractors, labour hire, and grievance handling, including evidence that hazards are controlled and retaliation is managed.

Sri Lanka presents a different risk shape. Economic recovery has accelerated construction and infrastructure activity, but assurance has not always kept pace. The exposure for multinationals is not simply local enforcement capacity. It is the commercial and operational consequence of weak contractor controls. Where contractor standards vary, the organisation effectively becomes the regulator. That means lift plans, plant verification, competency sign offs, and worker reporting channels must be owned and resourced internally, then verified on site.

Board level takeaway: treat South Asia safety as supply chain governance. Ask for evidence of contractor capability, corrective action closure, and real worker voice, not just audit scores.

Further reading:

International Labour Organization. Bangladesh becomes first Asian country to ratify all 11 ILO fundamental instruments.

International Labour Organization. A new era for decent work: Bangladesh aligns with international standards on occupational safety and health.

The Daily Star. A landmark ordinance, but execution is key.

Textile Today. What’s new in Bangladesh’s revised Labour Amendment Ordinance 2025.

MDPI. Assessing the Key Construction Safety Challenges in Sri Lanka (2025).

Sri Lanka Ministry of Health. National occupational safety and health policy of Sri Lanka.

Section 6: WHS Research – Building an Evidence‑Based Safety Future.

National research priorities

Safe Work Australia’s newly released research strategy outlines five priority areas:

1. Shifting mindsets around WHS fundamentals – building understanding and capability across all levels, from small business to boards.

2. Psychosocial harm prevention and recovery – expanding the evidence base for systemic controls and effective regulation to reduce psychosocial harm.

3. Advances in technology – studying how AI, automation and digital platforms introduce new hazards and can enhance hazard identification.

4. Changing nature of work – examining gig work, compressed weeks, multiple job holders, supply‑chain complexity and remote work[15].

5. Effectiveness of systems and frameworks – understanding gaps between expectations and reality in the regulatory landscape[16].

This strategy is underpinned by a focus on emerging issues and vulnerable worker cohorts, such as those with disabilities, older workers, young workers and migrants[17]. It signals a shift toward research that informs policy and practice, not just academic curiosity. Employers should watch for forthcoming publications and incorporate findings into their risk management frameworks.

Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2023-2033

Evidence Matters – turning data into insight

In December 2025, Safe Work Australia launched Evidence Matters, a comprehensive annual report on WHS research and injury trends[18]. The first edition highlights progress from 2025, including improvements in data collection, new research partnerships and early findings on topics such as gig‑economy risks and occupational disease. It also previews 2026 initiatives, emphasising collaboration between regulators, academia, unions and industry.

Evidence Matters isn’t just a document; it’s a call to action. Businesses should use the report to benchmark their safety programs against national trends and identify areas where controls may be lagging. For example, if the report notes a spike in silica‑related disease or fatigue‑related incidents, check your own exposure controls and training. By grounding decisions in evidence, organisations can allocate resources more effectively and anticipate regulatory scrutiny.

Evidence Matters: Safe Work Australia’s new annual publication now available

Section 7: Emerging WHS Trends – climate, Supply Chain Risk.

Heat, weather volatility and operational risk

Extreme heat is no longer a seasonal inconvenience; it is an operational hazard with direct safety consequences. Recent international research links heat exposure to increased injury rates through fatigue, reduced concentration, and degraded decision-making.

For organisations operating outdoors or in poorly ventilated environments, heat management is becoming a foreseeable risk.

Recent research from Harvard University and George Washington University examined nearly 900 000 workplace injury cases and found that roughly 28 000 injuries in 2023 were attributable to heat stress, not just heatstroke. The mechanism is straightforward: when temperatures climb above 30 °C (85 °F), people tire faster, lose focus and fumble, leading to accidents ranging from slips and trips to vehicle crashes. The risk spikes further past 32 °C (90 °F).

Crucially, the study demonstrated that basic heat controls work. Workplaces that provide shaded rest areas, schedule hydration breaks and adjust work–rest cycles during heatwaves saw significantly fewer injuries. U.S. states with specific heat protection regulations had lower injury rates than those without such rules. This “natural experiment” shows that regulation drives real safety outcomes. In Australia, only some states have heat stress guidance. As climate patterns intensify, regulators may introduce mandatory heat protection standards. Employers should not wait – invest now in shade structures, hydration policies and work scheduling to prevent accidents and protect productivity.

Forward-looking question for leaders: do your work schedules, hydration controls, rest breaks and supervision models reflect current climate realities, or historical assumptions?

Further Reading:

A nationwide analysis of heat and workplace injuries in the United States

Heat stress impacts workers and the bottom line

Heat stress and productivity losses in urban construction workforces

Cumulative heat exposure inhibits cognitive skill development

WHS as a Supply-Chain Risk, Not Just a Site Risk

Work health and safety risk no longer stops at the site gate. Regulators, courts, and investors are increasingly treating safety failures within supply chains as evidence of systemic governance weakness, not isolated contractor mistakes.

Recent prosecutions and enforceable undertakings show a consistent pattern. Where serious incidents occur, investigators often uncover fragmented contractor controls, inconsistent induction standards, unclear supervision arrangements, and weak assurance over how work is actually performed beyond the principal’s direct workforce. In these cases, the legal focus shifts quickly from “what happened on site” to “what the organisation knew, should have known, and failed to verify”.

This shift has significant implications for boards. WHS incidents involving contractors, labour hire, franchisees, or suppliers are no longer being viewed as operational anomalies. They are increasingly framed as enterprise risk failures, exposing gaps in procurement decisions, contract design, performance monitoring, and escalation pathways.

Supply-chain safety risk is amplified in environments where cost pressure, tight delivery schedules, or decentralised operations dilute accountability. When multiple contractors operate under different safety systems, the absence of a clear, enforceable standard creates conditions where unsafe practices normalise. Regulators have been explicit that outsourcing work does not outsource responsibility.

For boards and executives, the question is not whether suppliers have a safety policy on file. It is whether the organisation can demonstrate active oversight of contractor capability, verification of critical controls, and timely intervention when risks escalate. This includes assurance over induction quality, supervisor competence, plant suitability, fatigue management, and access to safe reporting channels.

Treating WHS as a supply-chain risk reframes safety from a compliance exercise to a governance discipline. Organisations that fail to integrate safety into procurement, contracting, and performance assurance are increasingly vulnerable to regulatory action, reputational damage, and investor scrutiny.

OSH in Global Supply Chains

Due diligence for responsible business conduct

Section 8: Capability Focus – Supervisor & Manager Decision-Making.

Most safety failures do not start with a missing document. They start with a weak decision at the point of work.

Recent prosecutions keep circling the same gap: supervisors and managers who either did not recognise that controls were failing, or did not feel authorised to interrupt production when the risk profile changed.

This edition focuses on decision capability, not generic leadership training. The aim is to hardwire a repeatable way of thinking when the job looks normal on paper but unsafe in practice.

Three decision tests separate strong supervisors from people who simply hold the title.

First, control sufficiency. Can the supervisor explain what control is doing the heavy lifting today, and what would make it unreliable. Weather, fatigue, unfamiliar workers, time pressure, degraded equipment, and competing contractors should trigger a deliberate recheck, not a shrug.

Second, verification discipline. Documented controls are not controls until someone confirms they exist and work. That means physically checking guarding, exclusion zones, isolation points, edge protection, lifting gear condition, and competency before the job starts, and again when conditions change.

Third, escalation courage. Supervisors need a clear pathway to pause work, escalate risk, and ask for support without being punished for delays. If escalation is treated as weakness, supervisors learn to manage risk through silence.

Boards and executives often ask for “more training”. The better question is whether supervisors are resourced and backed to make unpopular calls. If stopping work is career limiting, your system has already decided what matters most.

Further reading (internet links)

SafeWork Queensland, Ceasing unsafe work.
WorkSafe Victoria, Safety supervision, supervising workers with specialist knowledge or skills.
WorkSafe Victoria, Effective supervision checklist.
Comcare, Middle managers and supervisors.

Safe Work Australia, Model Code of Practice, How to manage work health and safety risks .

Final Word

This edition has a unifying theme: Accountability and Action. Regulators are cracking down on those who ignore risks; courts are increasing fines for negligent practices; and global movements are insisting on basic protections for workers. The writing is on the wall: health and safety of people is now front and center in business risk, reputation and ethics. The time for lip service is over. The future will favor leaders who act proactively – those who invest in controls before tragedies occur, who treat psychosocial hazards with the same seriousness as physical ones, and who embrace transparency and diversity as strengths.

As we move into 2026, I encourage every executive to reflect on their own accountability. Is your organisation prepared for falling‑object inspections? Have you updated incident reporting to include violent incidents and extended absences? Are you engaging with new research and anticipating heat stress, AI‑related hazards and supply‑chain scrutiny? If not, this is your wake‑up call.

Remember, safety isn’t bureaucracy – it’s the bedrock of trust in any enterprise. When we protect our people, we protect our mission.

Stay safe, stay accountable,

Niru Tyagi | WHS Guard (Queensland Edition)

Table of Contents

Section 1 - Niru’s Editorial Insight – Executive Accountability: No More Excuses

Section 2 - Queensland Regulator Update – Farm Safety Blitz Targets Moving Machinery

Section 3 - WHS Prosecution Watch – Director Fined After Fall from Height

Section 4 - Industry Voices – Garry Marling on Culture, Courage and Accountability

Section 5 - WHS in South Asia and Oceania – Bangladesh Ratifies Global Safety Conventions

Section 6 - WHS Research – Extreme Heat Protection Proven to Cut Injuries

Section 7 - Emerging WHS Trends – WHS as ESG: Safety Metrics Hit the Boardroom

Section 8 - Spotlight – Confronting Occupational Violence and Aggression

Final Word - Accountability and Action

References

SECTION 1: Niru’s Editorial Insight – Executive Accountability: No More Excuses

It’s time to put executive feet to the fire. For too long, some leaders have treated safety as someone else’s problem. Not anymore. Under Queensland’s WHS laws, company officers (directors, CEOs, senior executives) carry a personal duty of due diligence to ensure their business complies with safety obligations. This isn’t a ceremonial role – it’s legally enforceable. If you’re at the top and ignore safety risks, you’re on the hook. In fact, Queensland’s new amendments (2025) even ban insurance for WHS fines – no more buying your way out of consequences.

Ask yourself, as an executive: “Could I demonstrate in court that I proactively managed health and safety?” If that question makes you sweat, you’re not doing enough. We’ve entered an era where “I didn’t know” is no defence. Regulators and courts are increasingly targeting individual decision-makers, not just companies. The ultimate hammer? Industrial manslaughter charges – if a senior officer’s negligence kills someone, they face up to 20 years imprisonment (and $10 million fines for the company).

So, here’s the critical push: boards and executives must lead from the front on WHS. Allocate real resources, ask hard questions, and fix systemic hazards before tragedy strikes. Encourage frank reporting of near-misses and never shoot the messenger. If you “value safety”, prove it – in budgets, in meetings, in every decision. As Dave Whitefield puts it, “If you say you value accountability, but avoid hard conversations, your culture values comfort, not ownership. Culture is what you see in the mirror…it’s the honest reflection of what’s truly being lived out, not what you hope it is”. No more excuses – true safety leadership means owning the outcomes. When executives step up, lives are saved.

SECTION 2: Queensland Regulator Update – Farm Safety Blitz Targets Moving Machinery

WHSQ has launched a statewide agriculture safety crackdown as Queensland enters peak summer harvest. From 1 October through 31 December 2025, inspectors are making unannounced visits to rural properties to check how farmers manage the dangers of moving plant – think tractors, quad bikes, harvesters (Greenlife Industry Queensland, 2025). The campaign, quietly dubbed “Is your farm ready for an inspection?”, focuses on preventing the crushing, rollover and vehicular tragedies that still plague our agriculture sector. Key focus areas include:

· Operator Training & Competence: Ensuring anyone operating tractors, side-by-sides or quads is properly trained, licensed (where required), and competent – no “she’ll be right” shortcuts[6].

· Safe Use of Machinery: Verifying that equipment has rollover protection, guards, and that seatbelts or helmets are used as needed. If farmers are carrying passengers on tractors or allowing risky mods, expect a notice.

· Traffic Management: Checking that farms have exclusion zones and clear rules to keep bystanders and workers on foot away from moving vehicles[7]. This includes having spotters or physical barriers when loading grain or moving stock.

Inspectors mean business. Serious breaches – like letting untrained teens drive heavy plant, or failing to maintain brakes – will draw compliance notices or on-the-spot fines. The busy harvest season is exactly when corners might be cut, so WHSQ’s timing is deliberate. Early reports suggest many farms welcome the guidance; others have been caught off-guard with outdated practices. The takeaway - whether it’s a city construction site or a paddock on the Darling Downs, the same principle applies: if you have high-risk plant, manage the risk or expect a knock on the door. (Relevant law: WHS Act 2011, Primary Duty of Care, s.19; good practice: ISO 45001 clause 8.1.4 on control of outsourced processes).

SECTION 3: WHS Prosecution Watch – Director Fined After Fall from Height

A recent Queensland prosecution has reinforced that failures in risk control expose individual officers to personal liability. In this case, a worker fell approximately 2.2 metres through an unprotected edge, sustaining permanent injuries. The investigation identified that the risk was known and documented, yet no effective physical controls were implemented (Sullivan & Co Accountants, 2025).

The company was fined $750,000, while the managing director received a personal penalty of $45,000 for failing to exercise due diligence (Sullivan & Co Accountants, 2025). The court criticised reliance on documented risk assessments without verification of control implementation, noting that compliance with the relevant Code of Practice for managing fall risks would likely have prevented the incident (Safe Work Australia, n.d.).

This case reflects a broader enforcement trend. Regulators are increasingly prosecuting failures associated with psychosocial risk governance, supervision, and management action, not just physical hazards. Courts have reiterated that officers must actively verify that systems are implemented and effective, not merely approved on paper (Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld), s.27).

SECTION 4: Industry Voices – Garry Marling on Culture, Courage and Accountability

Garry Marling – Veteran safety risk strategist and “riskologist” – has a clear message for leaders: you don’t get the culture you want, you get the culture you allow. Marling’s commentary on safety culture highlights a consistent failure point in organisational leadership. He notes that cultures of accountability cannot exist where leaders avoid difficult conversations or ignore inconvenient risk signals (Marling, 2025).

This insight aligns with contemporary safety research demonstrating that underreporting, presenteeism, and silence are indicators of psychosocial risk exposure rather than positive culture (Edmondson, 2019; Safe Work Australia, 2022). Leadership behaviour is therefore both a cultural driver and a risk control.

SECTION 5: WHS in South Asia & Oceania – Bangladesh Ratifies Global Safety Conventions

Dhaka: In October 2025, Bangladesh ratified ILO Conventions 155 and 187 on occupational safety and health, as well as Convention 190 addressing violence and harassment at work (IndustriALL Global Union, 2025; International Labour Organization, 2025a). This marked the first ratification of these conventions in South Asia.

Subsequent amendments to the Bangladesh Labour Act were introduced to strengthen inspection powers and worker protections, particularly within the garment manufacturing sector (International Labour Organization, 2025b). While ratification represents a significant policy shift, labour organisations have emphasised that enforcement capability and transparency will determine whether conditions improve in practice (IndustriALL Global Union, 2025).

SECTION 6: WHS Research – Extreme Heat Protection Proven to Cut Injuries

As Australia braces for another scorching summer, new research out of the U.S. has put hard data behind a common-sense safety mantra: protecting workers from heat stress prevents injuries, not just heatstroke. A 2025 study by Harvard University and George Washington University analyzed nearly 900,000 workplace injury cases and found that roughly 28,000 injuries in 2023 were attributable to heat – including in sectors like manufacturing and warehousing, not only outdoor jobs (Alahmad, B., Kessler, W., Alwadi, Y. et al., 2025). Simply put, when the heat index rises above about 30°C (85°F), the risk of accidents on the job climbs, and it spikes further past 32°C (90°F). The mechanism is straightforward: extreme heat makes people tire faster, lose focus, and fumble – leading to everything from falls and equipment mistakes to vehicle crashes.

Crucially, the study delivers evidence that basic heat controls work. Workplaces that mandated water, rest, and shade – the holy trinity of heat illness prevention – saw significantly fewer injuries (Alahmad, B., Kessler, W., Alwadi, Y. et al., 2025). It’s a validation of what seasoned HSE professionals have long urged: implementing scheduled hydration breaks, providing cool-down areas, and adjusting work-rest cycles during heatwaves isn’t just about avoiding fainting or heat stroke – it also cuts down on mishaps like slips, trips, muscle strains and human errors. One standout finding: U.S. states that have their own heat protection regulations (such as California’s requirement for shade and breaks in outdoor work) had lower injury rates on hot days compared to states with no specific heat rules. This “natural experiment” signals that regulation can drive real safety outcomes in this domain.

Safe Work Australia data already show heat stress as a contributing factor in workplace incidents, and our climate trends are only getting hotter. While Australia does not yet have a specific national heat safety regulation, the 2022 Model Code of Practice for managing psychosocial hazards includes remote and outdoor work fatigue, and states like Queensland issue heat stress guidance each summer.

Science now backs what should be obvious: investment in shade canopies, extra breaks at 35°C, and similar measures pays off in fewer injuries and higher productivity (nobody works well when they’re on the verge of heat exhaustion). As OSHA head David Michaels bluntly noted, “When it gets really hot, it’s hard to do hard work safely…heat causes thousands of injuries every year.” (Grist 2025). The evidence is in – heat is a workplace hazard that can be managed.

SECTION 7: Emerging WHS Trends – WHS as ESG: Safety Metrics Hit the Boardroom

One emerging trend in 2025 is the elevation of workforce health and safety into the ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) spotlight. In plain terms, safety performance is increasingly seen as a key indicator of a company’s “Social” responsibility – and investors, regulators, and stakeholders are paying attention. A recent global survey by KPMG found that 74% of the world’s top 250 companies now publicly report on “social” risks (which include workplace safety), up from just 49% in 2022 (KPMG, 2024). This is a massive shift in a short time, underscoring that social sustainability = worker well-being and safety. Boards are recognising that fatalities, high injury rates, or toxic work cultures are not just HR issues – they pose reputational and financial risks that can scare off investors and customers.

Several drivers fuel this trend. First, regulatory pressure abroad: Europe’s new Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence rules require companies (including Australian firms with EU operations or supply chains) to examine and report on human rights and WHS conditions throughout their supply chain (Novisto 2025). This means an Aussie retailer may need to verify factory safety in Bangladesh (tying back to Section 5) or a mining company must disclose how it’s preventing fatalities at overseas sites.

Second, the investor community’s broader ESG push now often explicitly calls out workplace safety metrics – for example, some ESG funds won’t invest in companies with poor injury frequency rates or recent safety scandals. Notably, executive remuneration is catching on too: more boards are tying CEO bonuses to safety KPIs (both lagging indicators like LTIFR and leading indicators like safety audit scores). This creates a direct financial incentive for the C-suite to drive improvements.

Finally, the demographic shift in leadership is playing a role. As Gen Z and Millennials take up management posts, they bring an expectation that companies do good by their people. These generations see employee safety and mental health as non-negotiable components of a company’s social impact (Novisto 2025).

The new reality - WHS is now a boardroom agenda item, not just an operational issue. Senior executives are asking for safety climate surveys and demanding frontline risk data in their quarterly reports because their stakeholders demand transparency.

For WHS professionals, this trend is a double-edged sword (in a good way) – it means you may finally get that seat at the strategy table, but it also means performance scrutiny is higher. The best companies will seize this moment to truly integrate safety into business strategy. The laggards, who treat safety as a tick-the-box, will find themselves exposed. In 2025 and beyond, safety is part of corporate sustainability – and there’s no turning back.

SECTION 8: Spotlight – Confronting Occupational Violence & Aggression (OVA)

We’re shining the spotlight on a risk domain that’s been quietly raging: Occupational Violence and Aggression (OVA). From hospitals and schools to retail shops and public transport, frontline workers are facing increased abuse and assault on the job. Australian workplaces have seen a sharp rise in incidents of violence and aggression over the past five years. Safe Work Australia’s data indicates serious accepted workers’ comp claims from assaults have jumped by more than 50% in half a decade. Healthcare workers report being bitten, punched, or threatened regularly in emergency departments. Teachers and teacher aides endure physical and verbal attacks from students and sometimes parents. Retail and hospitality staff, especially during the pandemic and its aftermath, have been on the receiving end of customer frustration turned ugly (just think of the viral videos of customer meltdowns). A recent industry survey across Australia and New Zealand found two-thirds of workers have experienced customer aggression, yet 35% say they received no support from their employer afterward (Transitioning well 2025). These numbers are unacceptable.

The sectors most at risk – hospitals, aged care, disability support, public-facing government services, retail, transport – are scrambling to respond. Some state governments have begun legislating change. Victoria announced it will introduce new laws specifically to protect customer-facing workers in retail, fast food, transport and more (Sonder). This could mean harsher penalties for assaulting staff (similar to laws protecting emergency workers) and requirements for businesses to implement violence prevention plans. Nationally, the issue has been recognised in the 2022 amendments to model WHS regulations on psychosocial hazards, which explicitly include “exposure to violence or aggression” as a risk to be managed.

So, how do we tackle OVA proactively? Practical risk controls are becoming clearer:

· Environmental Design: Secure counters, protective screens (already standard in banks, now appearing in pharmacies), controlled entry systems in emergency departments, and better lighting and CCTV – all to deter would-be aggressors and allow quick response if an incident occurs. Physical barriers and panic alarms can make a difference in workplaces like hospitals or Centrelink offices.

· Training and Procedures: Staff must be trained in de-escalation techniques – how to calm an agitated person and avoid triggering worse behaviour. They also need clear procedures for when aggression does occur: a duress button to summon help, a safe retreat route, and incident reporting that actually leads to action (not just paperwork). Regular drills on scenarios (“What do I do if a customer threatens me with violence?”) are as essential as fire drills in high-risk roles.

· Support and Reporting Culture: A zero-tolerance stance from management is critical. Workers should never feel that being abused is “just part of the job.” Encourage reporting of all incidents, even “near miss” aggressive behaviors, and respond with support – whether that’s counseling, time off to recover, or even legal action against offenders when possible. In healthcare, for instance, some hospitals now display signs like “Aggression towards staff will not be tolerated” and follow through by pressing charges on behalf of staff in serious cases.

· Psychosocial Aftercare: Being yelled at, spat on, or attacked is psychologically traumatic. Employers need to treat these incidents as the serious workplace injuries they are. This means conducting incident investigations (as you would for a physical injury), providing trauma counseling or EAP services promptly, and monitoring affected workers for any lasting impacts. A worker who doesn’t feel safe after an incident is a worker who may never fully recover productivity – or may leave the profession entirely.

OVA is a complex, growing hazard that blurs the line between safety and security. We must treat it with the same rigor as any other critical risk. This requires cross-functional effort – HR, security, WHS and senior leaders all have a role in making sure people aren’t harmed just for doing their jobs. As the data sadly shows, we’re playing catch-up. But the recent attention, gives hope that violence is finally being recognised as a workplace hazard that can be prevented. It’s on all of us to push for safer, more respectful workplaces. No one should need to wear a metaphorical (or literal) suit of armor just to go to work in a service role.

FINAL WORD :

This edition has a unifying theme: Accountability and Action.

From the boardroom taking ownership of safety outcomes, to regulators cracking down on those who don’t, to global movements insisting on basic protections – the writing is on the wall. As we close out 2025 and look to the new year, one insight stands out: the health and safety of people is now front and center in business risk, reputation, and ethics. The time for lip service is over. The time for leadership – real, courageous, often uncomfortable leadership – is now. Whether it’s an executive admitting a safety system needs overhaul, a manager intervening in a toxic work situation, or a firm investing in controls to protect workers from heat or violence, the future will favor those who do the right thing before being forced.

Safety isn’t bureaucracy – it’s the bedrock of trust in any enterprise. When we protect our people, we protect our mission. Let’s carry that mindset into 2026 with resolve.

Stay safe, stay accountable,
Niru Tyagi | WHS Guard (Queensland Edition)

Leave a comment

Share

References :

Alahmad, B., Kessler, W., Alwadi, Y. et al. A nationwide analysis of heat and workplace injuries in the United States. Environ Health 24, 65 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01231-1

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2023). Positive duty guidelines. Available at: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/positive-duty-guidelines-2023

Business Queensland. (n.d.). Penalties for breaches to work health and safety law. Available at: https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/whs/whs-laws/penalties

Comcare. (n.d.). Creating mentally healthy workplaces. Available at: https://www.comcare.gov.au/safe-healthy-work/prevent-harm/psychological-health

Curtin University Centre for Transformative Work Design. (2024). Designing SMARTer work to reduce psychosocial risks. Available at:

https://www.transformativeworkdesign.com

Edmondson, A. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Greenlife Industry Queensland. (2025). Agriculture safety compliance campaign launched by WHSQ. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/greenlife-industry-qld_workplacehealthandsafety-agriculturesafety-activity-7387306874016006144-JvUz

Grist | By Frida GarzaPublished October 11, 2025 at 12:00 PM EDT New research shows there’s a simple way to protect workers. Available at: https://www.lpm.org/news/2025-10-11/new-research-shows-theres-a-simple-way-to-protect-workers-is-osha-listening

IndustriALL Global Union. (2025). Bangladesh ratifies key ILO conventions on safety and gender equality following long union campaign. Available at: https://www.industriall-union.org/bangladesh-ratifies-key-ilo-conventions-on-safety-and-gender-equality-following-long-union-campaign

International Labour Organization. (2025). Landmark ratifications in Bangladesh towards a future of work that is safe and healthy. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/landmark-ratifications-bangladesh-towards-future-work-safe-and-healthy

International Labour Organization. (2025). Bangladesh becomes first Asian country to ratify all 11 ILO fundamental conventions. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/bangladesh-becomes-first-asian-country-ratify-all-11-ilo-fundamental

KPMG. (2024). Global sustainability reporting survey. Available at: https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2024/09/global-sustainability-reporting-survey.html

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmgsites/xx/pdf/2024/11/the-move-to-mandatory-reporting-web-copy.pdf.coredownload.inline.pdf

Marling, G. (2025). Safety leadership and culture commentary. LinkedIn : https://www.linkedin.com/in/garrymarling/

New research shows there’s a simple way to protect workers. Available at: https://www.lpm.org/news/2025-10-11/new-research-shows-theres-a-simple-way-to-protect-workers-is-osha-listening

MyOSH. (2024). Queensland strengthens worker protection with new WHS legislation. Available at: https://www.myosh.com/news/queensland-strengthens-worker-protection-with-new-whs-legislation

Novisto 2025https://novisto.com/de/resources/blogs/the-top-5-esg-trends-to-watch-in-2025

Safe Work Australia. (2022). Managing psychosocial hazards at work: Model code of practice. Available at: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/2706/managing_psychosocial_hazards_model_code_of_practice.pdf

Safe Work Australia. (n.d.). Work-related psychological health and safety. Available at: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/health-and-safety/psychological-health

Safe Work Australia. (n.d.). Young worker statistics and hazards. Available at: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/industry-and-demographic-statistics/young-workers

Safe Work Australia. (n.d.). Workplace violence and aggression https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/workplace-violence-and-aggression

SafeWork NSW. (2023). Designing work to manage psychosocial risks. Available at: https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/workplace-hazards/mental-health/designing-work-to-manage-psychosocial-risks

Sonder (2025) Two-thirds of workers face customer aggression as new report ...

https://sonder.io/resources/press/two-thirds-workers-experience-customer-aggression-safety-gap-report/

Sullivan & Co Accountants. (2025). WHS and OHS regulatory update: August 2025. Available at: https://www.sullivansaccountants.com.au/latest-news/52706

Transitioning well, The rising tide of occupational violence and aggression in retail

https://www.transitioningwell.com.au/violence-customer-aggression-retail/

Whitefield Dave The Paradox of Safety Culture: A Leadership Challenge | Dave Whitefield posted on the topic | LinkedIn

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dave-whitefield-3b45501_the-culture-paradox-im-pretty-sure-there-activity-7366720082657353730-SX0w

World Health Organization & International Labour Organization. (2022). WHO/ILO joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052

Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld).

Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. (2025). Construction industry interventions and campaigns. Available at:

https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au

Subscribe now