Why Psychosocial Hazards Have Been Front and Centre Lately
Mark Butler ???? ????
Team Performance Specialist | Human Behaviour Coach | World Federation for Mental Health (Workplace) Committee
No time to read right now? Click here to listen to the newsletter audio file.
In case you’re wondering why psychosocial hazards have been such a hot topic over the past couple of years (yes, years – time flies!), here’s the short version: while Australia wasn’t the first to take action, our unique approach is putting us ahead of the pack.
Through my Committee role with the World Federation for Mental Health (Workplace Section), I get to see first-hand how Australia compares to other countries in tackling these issues. It’s clear that while we’re not reinventing the wheel, we’ve added some very Australian upgrades that make a real difference.
What sets us apart? For starters, we’ve embraced ISO:45003, the international guide for managing psychological health at work. While it’s not yet legislated, it’s already shaping our workplace laws and putting us in a leadership position globally. Other territories are watching closely, and for good reason.
Here’s what makes our approach stand out:
1. Employers Must Show Their Work – ‘Evidentiary Burden of Proof’?
Australia’s laws don’t just expect compliance – they demand proof. If an employer is accused of failing to manage psychosocial risks, they need to demonstrate they’ve done everything reasonable to meet their obligations. This reversal of the usual burden of proof shifts the focus to proactive management.?
Think of the difference between a charge of Reckless Driving (intentionally driving erratically and without due regard) and Negligent Driving (not exercising the care that‘s expected).? Only negligence need be proven and it is up to the employer to prove they have done all they can.? This is a huge shift!
Basically, you need to be able to Say What You Do - Do What You Say – Prove It.
2. No Hiding Behind Insurance
Unlike in some other countries, Australian employers can’t insure against, or even seek indemnity for, penalties for breaching workplace health and safety laws, including those related to psychosocial hazards. This ensures accountability remains where it belongs – with the people running the show.? There is no getting around the Person Who Controls a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) being PERSONALLY responsible.
3. Clear Guidance for a Complex Issue?
We’ve got explicit regulations and Codes of Practice tailored to managing psychosocial risks, providing practical advice that’s also admissible in court. In many other places, guidance like this is still vague or non-existent.
4. Bigger Picture Thinking?
By weaving psychosocial safety into Anti-Discrimination laws, Australia addresses workplace mental health from multiple angles. This holistic approach is a real standout on the global stage.
5. A Local Flavour
Although most states and territories have harmonised WHS laws, each brings its own flavour to the mix, ensuring local needs are met while maintaining a strong national strategy.
What’s Next?
Australia isn’t resting on its laurels. Ongoing consultations are considering everything from incident reporting for psychological injuries to broader support for workplace mental health. We’re not just keeping up – we’re leading the way.
Let’s Chat
If you’ve got questions about how these developments affect your workplace or need help navigating it all, I’d love to chat. As someone immersed in both the local and global conversations, I can provide clarity on what these changes mean for you.
Click here to book some complimentary time with me – no strings attached, just a conversation to help you get on top of things.?
Recruitment Specialist
1 个月Thanks for sharing
Helping leaders, teams and organizations perform in uncertainty.
1 个月Mark Butler ???? ???? Thanks for putting the conversation in front of us. Confirming that the position we are taking in the WFMH World Federation for Mental Health is to raise awareness of issues, including legislation. Agree with Kerry in that the process for a claim for psychological injury is stressful - but it's unclear to me how changing the legislation does not at least make some progress in reducing it. Ultimately, the solution is compassionate leadership, wise cultures and supportive systems - this change is a supportive system, albeit we all wish it were not required.
HSQE Director at TLI Group
1 个月Great information Mark, thanks.
Dedicated to contemporary and people centric HSW practice
1 个月Great summation Mark!
Psychofuturologist leading workplace health initiatives - I help Business Professional’s improve their wellbeing, workplace culture and resillience ?? Do you want to learn more? ?? Email me – [email protected]
1 个月It’s important to balance the impact of legislative changes with the reality of the stress that making a claim for a psychological injury has on the injured worker. In my book #howtohealaworkplace I examined the international approach to workplace injuries, believing that Australia’s laws were leading the world in protecting the worker. However, the reality is that the variability of the burden of proof between the different States means that there isn’t anything like consistency in the worker’s compensation insurance system. In most cases, the injured worker (who is operating at a deficit when making the claim) still has the burden of proof placed on them during the claims process. So although the legislation may be more supportive of the injured worker in a Court of Law, the fact is that the process of pursuing a claim in Australia actually causes more psychological harm to the worker. It’s far from a perfect system and by making a claim, the worker is delayed in their recovery. In my book I have outlined an alternative approach that would eliminate this impact by providing a more comprehensive support process for the injured worker and enabling them to get on with their lives ASAP. I would happily discuss this approach ????