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