Workplace Health Resources

Safe Work Australia describes this year's theme as a reflection of the fundamental purpose of WHS, which is to prevent work-related death, injury and illness. It also recognises the long-term impact that workplace harm can have on workers, their families, businesses and broader communities.

Put plainly, work should never cost someone their health or their ability to live fully outside of work.

The scale of workplace harm in Australia

• 188 workers died from traumatic injuries at work in 2024.
• 146,700 serious workers compensation claims were made in 2023-24.
• More than 400 serious claims are made every day across Australia.

Note: A serious claim is one where a worker needs at least one working week away from work. Behind each of those 146,700 claims is a person whose recovery, income and family life were disrupted.

The campaign is built around four focus areas

Each week of October has its own focus area, which you can use to shape one conversation with your team at a time.

Week 1 (1-11 October): For life, why WHS matters

Safe Work Australia is encouraging workplaces to reconnect with the purpose behind WHS and the role everyone plays in creating safe and healthy work. This week also includes World Mental Health Day on 10 October.

Week 2 (12-18 October): For health, what WHS protects

Safe Work Australia describes the purpose of work health and safety as protecting workers' lives, health and future, and its activity kit notes that safe work protects both physical and psychological health.

Week 3 (19-25 October): For the future, the long-term impact

Safe Work Australia says the theme is about designing work that prevents injury, illness and long-term harm that can affect every part of life, at work, at home and well into the future.

Week 4 (26-31 October): For all, action across all workplaces

Safe Work Australia says the four focus areas together are meant to help workplaces explore why WHS matters, what it protects and the practical action needed to support safe and healthy work.

Info: World Mental Health Day falls on Saturday 10 October, during Safe Work Month. It is a natural moment to talk about psychosocial hazards such as workload, conflict and exposure to distressing events.

How to take part in your workplace

Safe Work Australia has published two free resources. The campaign kit includes posters, digital displays and social media tiles. The activity kit has weekly activities and discussion prompts designed to turn conversations about safety into action.

A few simple ways to get involved:

• Choose one activity from the kit for your next team meeting or toolbox talk.
• Ask your team which hazard they would most like to see looked at more closely this month.
• Record one commitment as a group, and report back on it before the end of October.
• Invite a senior leader to join a site walk and listen to what workers raise.

Tip: One conversation that leads to a visible change will do more for your safety culture than a month of posters. Workers do notice when something they raised is acted on.

Building this into your culture of care

The point of a theme like Safe work is for life is that it does not end on 31 October. The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2023-2033 sets a national vision of safe and healthy work for all, and that vision is reached through ordinary decisions about how work is planned and carried out, far more than through awareness campaigns.

Tip: A useful test is to ask what your workplace will still be doing differently in February because of a conversation that started this month. If the honest answer is nothing, the conversation is not finished yet.

Sources

• Safe Work Australia, National Safe Work Month
• Safe Work Australia, National Safe Work Month 2026: week 1
• Safe Work Australia, National Safe Work Month 2026 activity kit

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal or health and safety advice.

Wayahead Mental Health Matters Awards 2026

Actevate is proud to be sponsoring the Leadership in Workplace Psychosocial Safety Award at the 2026 Mental Health Matters Awards, hosted by Wayahead Mental Health Association NSW.

This award recognises a workplace initiative or program that shows outstanding commitment to creating safe and supportive work environments, and it celebrates the organisations going well beyond compliance to champion proactive, innovative and evidence informed approaches that reduce psychosocial risk.

Nominees are judged on whether psychosocial safety is genuinely embedded in everyday practice through strong governance, inclusive culture, meaningful worker participation and systems that prevent harm.

It is a category that feels more pertinent than ever. With the psychosocial hazards code now enforceable in NSW and the regulator paying close attention, the conversation has shifted quickly from whether workplaces should be managing psychosocial risk to how well they are actually doing it. This award celebrates the organisations that were not waiting to be asked.

The Awards pull together senior leaders, HR and WHS decision makers, clinicians, policy people and lived experience advocates from across NSW, which makes it one of the more useful rooms in the sector calendar. It is always a genuinely good day, and one of the few where the people doing the quiet, unglamorous work get to stand up and be recognised for it.

Speaking this year:

The Hon. Rose Jackson MLC
NSW Minister for Mental Health, who has held the portfolio since 2023 and is responsible for the delivery and development of mental health services across the state.

Mitch Brown
Former West Coast Eagles player with 94 AFL games to his name, now a mental health advocate who speaks on inclusion, authenticity and positive masculinity through his own lived experience.

Info: The event is a great opportunity for networking with fellow mental health advocates and connecting with likeminded leaders across sectors.

Actevate's category sits alongside seven others recognising work across the sector:

• Leadership in Workplace Psychosocial Safety Award, sponsored by Actevate
• Mental Health Matters Youth Award, sponsored by the Office for Youth
• Mental Health Matters Community Initiative Award, sponsored by Beyond Bank
• First Nations Social and Emotional Wellbeing Award, sponsored by the Mental Health Commission
• Julie Leitch Leadership through Lived Experience Award
• Outstanding Achievement in Mental Health Promotion Award
• Mental Health Matters Media and the Arts Award
• Mental Health Matters Rainbow Inclusion Award

Event details

• Date: Friday 25 September 2026
• Time: 11:30am to 3:30pm
• Venue: Grand Ballroom, Four Seasons Hotel Sydney, 199 George Street, The Rocks
• Includes: two course sit down lunch with drinks
• Dress code: semi-formal

Buy a ticket

Individual seats and full tables are on sale now, and a table is worth considering if you want to bring your leadership group or WHS committee along. It always promises to be a great event, and the finalists' stories tend to stay with you longer than you expect.

Note: Tickets are sold through Humanitix, which directs 100% of its booking fee profits to charity. Payment plans are available if you would rather spread the cost of a table.

Book your tickets or table

If you are coming along, come and find our team to say hello. We would love to meet you.

As business leaders, we are constantly under pressure to scale efficiencies. With premiums climbing and operational costs rising, finding a way to deliver more for less is a constant corporate priority. I am all too familiar with the relentless demand to protect margins and balance competing financial priorities.

Yet, when this cost-containment directive is applied to workforce mental health, I have watched strategic optimisation degrade into structural and safety compromise.

This compromise usually wears the mask of innovation. This systemic vulnerability is most glaringly apparent in the way organisations procure and deploy Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). Historically relied upon as a primary corporate mechanism for providing psychological and counselling support, the traditional EAP model has been systematically stripped of its human clinical depth to fit under the umbrella of low-cost digital procurement.

There is no shortcut to psychosocial safety

The corporate landscape is currently flooded with software-first vendors promising universal, frictionless access at a fraction of traditional clinical costs. It sounds like the perfect executive trifecta. But this is a dangerous economic illusion. True psychosocial safety is an upstream operational foundation, not a downstream line item. When leaders treat mental health as a transactional product rather than an integrated risk management strategy, they inadvertently create an environment of systemic neglect, trading sustainable organisational health for short-term budget relief.

This new cohort of digital-only Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) is an understandably alluring proposition to cost-conscious employers. However, compressing margins on psychological safety is a short-sighted strategy. Substituting high-touch, qualified care with automated interfaces does not mitigate corporate risk. Instead, it merely transfers the financial burden from the benefits ledger to the operating statement. It reappears masquerading as heightened absenteeism, costly turnover, increasing claims, and eroded productivity.

Psychosocial safety is not a passive state, it is an active, legally mandated practice of hazard identification and risk minimisation.

Info:Australian employers are legally required to manage psychosocial risks to workers under work health and safety laws.

The Illusion of "Digital Scale"

The reality is uncompromising.

In the field of safety science, a foundational principle remains true: technology can scale transactions, but it cannot scale clinical accountability. A modern digital tech stack is highly valuable for lowering barriers to entry but this operational throughput must never be conflated with clinical efficacy.

When an employee is at their most vulnerable, isolating them with standalone software completely ignores the critical role of human clinical accountability. Worse, standard EAPs offer no continuity of care. Routinely shifting employees through a rotating door of unvetted, external psychologists who have zero context regarding your business or WHS regulations.

True psychosocial safety requires a dedicated clinical team that integrates directly into your organisation.

Software-first platforms often look impressive on a ledger, boasting massive user bases and low per-employee premiums. However, market research reveals that standalone software delivery models frequently struggle with therapeutic inertia, resulting in single-digit engagement and a failure to move the needle on clinical outcomes.

Info:Approximately 60% of organisations are not evaluating their EAPs and the remaining 40% relying on employee feedback, surveys and feedback from their EAP provider.

Mitigating Your Legal and Financial Liability

With Australian employers legally mandated to manage psychosocial hazards under strict Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws, a passive, low-utilisation software platform is no longer a defensible strategy.

The financial and operational value of an integrated model is clearly reflected in our own data. We analysed 500 clinical sessions over the past two years to quantify the direct impact of embedded care. In over 35 per cent of cases, our team of dedicated psychologists and mental health practitioners demonstrably prevented escalation to a time-loss event. By providing immediate, culturally contextualised clinical intervention, we intercepted complex psychological risks that intervened before escalating into a claim.

Fixing the Root Cause

Efficiency is a virtue in business, but human psychology does not heal through algorithmic triage, nor does it thrive under transactional, detached counseling models. When a team member is experiencing distress, they require an integrated care ecosystem and a team of clinicians who know your business, understand your operational hazards, and can step in to resolve systemic issues at the root.

When an EAP operates as a detached software vendor or in a silo, it can only ever react to the symptoms of an individual worker in crisis. It completely lacks the institutional visibility to ask why the crisis occurred. True organisational health requires a continuous feedback loop between clinical intervention and operational design.

In an integrated, embedded model, your clinical team doesn't just hold space for individual recovery; they act as an early-warning diagnostic tool for the entire enterprise. Because these practitioners understand the unique cultural and operational fabric of your business, they can spot macro-trends of distress as they emerge across specific cohorts or leadership branches. This allows the clinical team to securely, compliantly, and proactively consult with your executive leadership.

Instead of just offering individual coping strategies, we help you re-engineer your workflows, communication structures, and cultural hazards that are driving your risk profile in the first place.

Why It Is Time to Rethink Your EAP Partner

In an era of rising premiums, tightening operational margins, and uncompromising legislative scrutiny under Australian WHS laws, business leaders cannot afford the hidden liabilities of superficial care. Squeezing costs on your EAP does not save money. It simply defers the expense, forcing your operating statement to absorb the heavy price of prolonged absenteeism, avoidable worker's compensation claims, and higher employee turnover.

This is exactly why we built our integrated EAP model. We rejected the superficiality of standalone apps and the clinical disconnect of legacy software. Our battle tested delivery model provides your people with instantaneous access to qualified support. We embed a dedicated team of highly qualified practitioners directly into the fabric of your organisation. We secure your people and protect your operational continuity from the inside out.

The choice for modern leadership is clear. Deploying an integrated safety net that actively de-risks your enterprise is the smart safety and strategic choice.

It is time to look past the alluring promises of low-cost digital scale and reinvest in what actually protects your bottom line.

What Is Resilience?

Search the word "resilience" online and you will find millions of explanations. But what does resilience actually mean, why is it important to you, and how can you benefit from resilience training?

We all respond differently to setbacks, failure and trauma. Some people seem to bounce back quickly, while others get caught in a downward spiral of negative thinking. We all know that person: the one who keeps going after every setback, the one who seems to have "Psychological Teflon". Research suggests this is the effect of resilience (1).

At its core, resilience is the ability to bounce back from adversity. It is the capacity to find perspective, and even opportunity, in a difficult or challenging situation. In the modern workplace, resilience helps us navigate constant change, hybrid work pressures, rapid technology shifts including AI, competing priorities and growing workloads.

‍

Why Is Resilience Important?

Beyond the buzz, evidence shows that people with high resilience have a more balanced outlook on life and believe they can learn from mistakes and challenges. Resilient individuals handle adversity better and rebuild more effectively after major life events such as job loss, financial pressure, relationship breakdown or the death of a loved one.

In everyday life, put simply, resilience builds happiness. It helps us make the most of the challenges we face. Resilience will not prevent difficulties, but it prepares us to deal with them more effectively. You may not realise it, but resilience shapes how we respond in almost every situation. There are probably people in your life or workplace who are juggling multiple stressors yet still show up each day with a smile.

‍

The Cost of Low Resilience in the Workplace

The effects of a non-resilient workplace can be far-reaching. Low levels of resilience have been associated with:

• Increased absenteeism
• Higher accident rates and workers compensation claims
• Reduced morale
• Poor workplace relationships
• Reduced output and performance
• Increased staff turnover

After years of disruption, from the pandemic to economic uncertainty and the rise of AI in the workplace, burnout and change fatigue are at record levels. Being able to identify stressors, and understand the effect they have on you and the people around you, has never been more important. With all of the above creating potentially toxic effects across an organisation, building a culture of resilience through resilience training should be a no-brainer for every employer.

Can Resilience Be Taught?

Some people are naturally more resilient than others, but the evidence is clear: resilience can be learned. Resilience training provides real-world strategies and techniques that help you build your "resilience bank". That way, when a challenge inevitably comes your way, you will have effective tools ready to support you.

Key Takeaways

Resilience is not an extraordinary quality. It is ordinary, attainable and demonstrated by everyday people all around us. But resilience is an active process. We need to keep working on it, for ourselves and for a happy, mentally healthy workforce.

Recovery at work is important because the longer an injured worker stays away, the less likely they are to return. After 20 days off work the chance of ever going back is 70%, and after 70 days it falls to 35%. Staying connected through suitable duties supports faster recovery and protects mental health, which also lowers claim costs for employers.

Why Recovery at Work?

The evidence is clear: good work is good for health. Research consistently shows that the longer an injured worker stays away from work, the lower their chances of ever returning. Extended time off is associated with slower recovery, social isolation, loss of confidence, financial stress and a higher risk of developing secondary mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression.

Info: The numbers here are confronting. Research endorsed by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and quoted by Comcare and WorkSafe Queensland, shows that after 20 days off work a person's chance of ever returning is 70%. After 45 days it drops to 50%. After 70 days it is just 35%.

Researchers have estimated the health risk of long-term worklessness as equivalent to smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day. In contrast, workers who remain connected to the workplace during recovery tend to heal faster, both physically and psychologically. Work provides routine, purpose, social connection and income, all of which are powerful ingredients in recovery. Doctors and workers compensation authorities across Australia now actively promote recovery at work as the preferred approach for most injuries.

Pain is one of the most common reasons a return to work stalls, and it is worth separating from capacity. More than 5.4 million Australians live with chronic pain, around one in five of us, and most are of working age (Chronic Pain Australia, 2026). The instinct is usually to wait for the pain to settle before going back, but the two do not track each other neatly. A person's tolerance for activity can improve while their pain levels stay much the same, which is why capacity is judged on what someone can safely do rather than on how much pain they are in. Duties built around that judgement, and upgraded as it shifts, are what keep a worker's skills, relationships and self-belief in place. A long absence chips away at all three.

The Benefits of Recovery at Work for Employees

For injured workers, recovering at work delivers real, measurable benefits:

• Faster recovery: Staying active and engaged in suitable duties supports physical rehabilitation and prevents deconditioning.
• Better mental health: Routine, purpose and social connection protect against the isolation, low mood and loss of identity that often come with extended time off.
• Financial stability: Remaining at work, even on modified duties, helps maintain income and reduces the financial pressure that can compound stress during recovery.
• Job security and confidence: Workers who stay connected keep their skills current, maintain relationships with colleagues and are far more likely to return to their pre-injury role.
• A sense of control: Being an active participant in your own recovery, rather than waiting passively at home, improves outcomes and wellbeing.

‍

The Benefits of Recovery at Work for Employers

Recovery at work is not just good for the injured worker. It is one of the smartest investments an employer can make:

• Reduced claim costs and premiums: Shorter time off work means lower workers compensation costs and better claims performance over time.
• Retained skills and experience: Keeping an experienced worker connected, even in a modified capacity, beats recruiting and training a replacement.
• Improved morale and culture: When employees see injured colleagues supported rather than sidelined, trust and engagement rise across the whole team.
• Reduced absenteeism and turnover: Workplaces with strong recovery at work practices see better attendance and retention overall.
• Legal compliance: Employers have obligations under workers compensation legislation to support injured workers and provide suitable duties where reasonably practicable. A structured program keeps you compliant.

Info: A Monash University study of an Australian claims model built on early reporting and worker-centred case management found average compensation days fell from 33.5 to 14.1, and average claim costs dropped from around $6,000 to under $4,000. The savings held across industries and injury types.

‍

What a Good Recovery at Work Plan Actually Looks Like

Here is the uncomfortable finding from the latest National Return to Work Survey: only about 6 in 10 injured workers report having a return to work plan, even though plans are strongly associated with better outcomes and smoother transitions back to work. Interestingly, far more employers believe a plan is in place than workers do, which points to a communication gap rather than a paperwork gap. A plan the worker doesn't know about is not really a plan.

It also helps to be clear about what the plan is working towards. The goal is pre-injury duties, not pre-injury capacity. Of course we want to get as close to pre-injury duties as possible, but it is not about the worker being exactly where they were before the injury. Injuries are complex.

In practice that means a pre-injury duty trial first. Once the trial is completed successfully, the next step is a pre-injury duty clearance.

A genuine recovery at work plan is specific, and the worker, the employer and the treating team have all agreed to it. It should cover:

• Suitable duties matched to certified capacity: Real, productive tasks the worker can safely do now, based on what their doctor has certified, not a guess.
• Agreed hours and an upgrade pathway: Where the worker starts, and how duties and hours will step up as capacity improves, confirmed with the treating practitioner at each stage.
• A named contact: One person responsible for checking in, answering questions and adjusting the plan. Recovery stalls when nobody owns it.
• Scheduled reviews: Set dates to review progress with the worker and their treating team, rather than waiting for something to go wrong.
• Team communication: Agreement with the worker on what colleagues will be told, so they return to support rather than speculation.

‍

Common Myths About Recovering at Work

Myth: You should be 100 percent recovered before returning to work.
‍Reality: Waiting for full recovery often delays it. For most injuries, safe and suitable work is part of the treatment.

Myth: Returning early risks making the injury worse.
‍Reality: A properly designed recovery at work plan is built around medical restrictions. Duties are matched to capacity and upgraded only with the treating practitioner's support.

Myth: Light duties are demeaning or token work.
‍Reality: Good suitable duties are meaningful and productive. They keep skills current and maintain the worker's value to the team.

Myth: It is easier for everyone if the worker just stays home.
‍Reality: Extended absence is harder on everyone. The worker risks isolation and a longer recovery, while the employer carries higher claim costs and loses a valued team member.

Tip: The hardest part for most employers is identifying suitable duties that are genuinely meaningful. Actevate's return to work consultants work with you, your worker and their treating team to design duties matched to medical capacity, then upgrade them as recovery progresses.

Key Takeaways

Recovery at work is one of the most well-evidenced ideas in injury management. The window matters more than most employers realise, because the odds of a worker ever returning fall from 70% to 35% between day 20 and day 70 off work. Injured workers who stay connected recover faster, protect their mental health and are far more likely to return to their pre-injury role. Employers who support them see lower costs, stronger culture and a more resilient workforce.

An injury does not have to mean isolation. With the right plan, work becomes part of the recovery.

How Actevate can help

Actevate has been an approved workplace rehabilitation provider since 2006, supporting some of Australia's largest employers to get people back to work safely and sustainably.

• Recovery at work planning: Our return to work consultants coordinate the whole process, from suitable duties design through to case conferencing with treating practitioners, for both physical and psychological injuries.
• Catch complications early: Pathways, our digital screening solution, identifies workers whose recovery is likely to be complicated by mental health factors, so we can act before a straightforward physical claim becomes a complex psychological one.
• Prevent the next claim: Our manual handling training and ergonomic assessments reduce the risk of injuries happening in the first place.

If you have a worker off on a claim right now, the clock in that first section is already running. Tell us about the claim and a return to work specialist will call you back within one business day. For everything else, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Many employers now worry about rising premiums and feel they have lost their say in how claims are handled. Rob Migliore opened the session by introducing Amin Atighpour, Actevate's workers' compensation specialist, who spent years inside the claims system at Employers Mutual and then Qantas. The session focused on the NSW nominal insurer, although many of the principles apply to insurance arrangements nationally.

Tip: Download our free workers' comp premiums glossary to follow along with the terms used in this session.

How the NSW scheme is structured

Before 2015, WorkCover NSW performed the key functions of the scheme. It was then dissolved into SIRA, icare and SafeWork NSW, which created the setup employers deal with today.

• NSW Government: sets the legislative framework.
• SIRA (State Insurance Regulatory Authority): sets the rules and regulations for how that legislation is applied.
• The nominal insurer and icare: the nominal insurer provides cover for the state, and icare manages its policies and claims.
• Scheme agents: providers such as EML, Allianz, GIO, QBE and Gallagher Bassett manage claims on icare's behalf.

The nominal insurer carries roughly 60 to 70% of claims in the scheme. The other arrangements are self-insurers (Qantas is one example), the NSW Government's Treasury Managed Fund, and specialised insurers for certain sectors such as hospitality.

How your premium is calculated

Every premium starts with your average performance premium (APP). This is your total wage bill multiplied by your workers' compensation industry classification rate, which is set by your business's main activity. Higher-risk activities carry a higher rate.

Tip: If your business genuinely has more than one main activity, it may be worth looking at multiple policies with different industry classification codes.

Small employers: APP under $30,000

Small employers sit under the conventional model. Claims costs don't affect their premium and they aren't compared with other employers, so they pay mainly based on APP. The trade-off is that employers in the other models pay a little more to cover those claims costs.

Medium and large employers: APP over $30,000

Most employers sit under the experience-rated model. The key part of the formula is the claims performance adjustment (CPA), which is driven by your own claims performance over the past three years and by the scheme performance measure. In other words, your premium is influenced by how other employers in the scheme perform as well as by your own claims.

Weekly compensation payments (lost time) have the biggest impact under this model. Lump sum payments for permanent impairment or work injury damages also count, but they tend to arrive later in a claim. The longer a claim stays open, the costlier it becomes.

Large employers: the LPR model

Once your APP passes $500,000, you can move to the loss prevention and recovery (LPR) model. Your premium is then based on your APP and your own claims costs rather than the wider scheme. The catch is that far more claims costs count toward your premium, and each dollar can have up to three times the impact.

Rob noted that some Actevate clients have entered the LPR model, with initial premium savings of a third to half. It only works if you have the right resources to stop a lost time injury turning into a protracted recovery.

Note: In a recent review, Actevate found a journey claim that the insurer hadn't coded as a journey claim. Correcting that one code saved the employer $168,000.

Rob explained why errors like this slip through. Before 2015, the same claims team helped calculate the premium. Scheme agents now administer claims on icare's behalf, so the case manager often doesn't know how coding or claim costs will affect your premium.

Reducing your premium impact

Focus on weekly compensation payments

Whichever model you're on, weekly compensation payments make up the largest share of claims costs by a wide margin. Whatever the insurer pays in weekly benefits, you pay for several times over at renewal. Early intervention with suitable duties is the most effective way to bring that exposure down.

Engaging a rehabilitation provider early helps with:

• identifying suitable duties and completing initial assessments
• joining medical case conferences with treating doctors
• proactive return to work planning
• securing capacity upgrades sooner

Tip: You don't need to wait for the insurer's initial liability decision. A rehabilitation provider can be engaged in the first few days to assess the worksite and get the worker back on modified duties.

Get investigations moving early

If the insurer finds a claim isn't compensable, it has no impact on your premium. Review incident reports, check CCTV footage and look for any third party involvement where there may be recovery potential. Details that seem trivial can make a real difference.

Invest before an injury happens

Many employers only react when icare's premium notice arrives around June and July, and by then it's too late. Amin described small, early investments that pay off at renewal:

• Pre-employment checks that look at pre-existing conditions, since one avoided claim can save $50,000 to $70,000 in premium
• Mental health training and EAP to reduce psychosocial hazards, particularly following the psychological injury reforms
• Work health and safety audits to prevent physical injuries in environments like factories and production lines
• A suitable duties register to speed up return to work
• A dedicated return to work coordinator who reviews internal processes and represents you with the insurer
• A preferred rehabilitation provider who works in your interests from the start of a claim

Getting the most from your insurer

Your case manager is your main contact, and their experience, technical knowledge and understanding of premiums can vary a lot. The most reliable approach is to set expectations as soon as a claim starts rather than reacting once something goes wrong.

• Agree on a regular update schedule, whether weekly, fortnightly or monthly.
• Hold regular claims reviews.
• Set clear actions and timeframes for the case manager.
• Understand your escalation pathways.
• Share information early, ask questions and keep following up.

Why claims get approved so quickly

Rob asked Amin, a former case manager, technical specialist and team leader, why claims often seem to be accepted without question. Insurers will usually point to the low liability threshold in NSW legislation. Amin said that doesn't stop them gathering information and pushing back on claims that don't add up, although case managers can develop tunnel vision and move straight to accepting liability.

Interim liability decisions give insurers up to three months, and sometimes longer, to investigate. Yet some employers find that 10 weeks in, no investigations are underway and weekly benefits are simply being paid. Having someone on your side who liaises with the insurer early and holds them to account makes a real difference.

Tip: Collaboration works better than an adversarial approach. The more you understand premium impact and the tools available, the easier it is to ask the case manager for exactly what you need.

Escalating and giving feedback

If expectations aren't being met, escalate from the case manager to the team leader and then the group manager. Keep every escalation objective. Employers with an APP above $100,000 can choose their claims service provider at renewal, and insurers know that affects their bottom line.

Feedback channels carry more weight than most employers realise:

• Post-call surveys: the text message after a call looks like a scam, but it's genuine, and the results are an internal KPI for case managers and their team leaders.
• Periodic surveys from icare and insurers: these are rarely filled out, yet insurers read and act on them because they don't want to lose your business.
• Regular claims reviews: with the case manager and team leader in the room, these are a good forum to raise concerns objectively and reset expectations.

Positive feedback matters as well. When a case manager does a good job, telling them builds the relationship and the attention your claims receive.

Building your own capability

Amin's central message was that your premium isn't just a bill that arrives in the mail. Much of it sits within your control.

• Grow your knowledge of premium models, claims costs, liability and how insurers work.
• Tighten your injury response process. Know who the injury is reported to, who attends first, where the worker sees a GP and what the first certificate of capacity will look like, because the early stages set the tone for the whole claim.
• Look for trends in past claims. Repeated shoulder injuries on a production line, for example, point to processes worth reviewing.
• Act early on psychological risk. These claims usually build over time rather than stemming from one incident, and SIRA reports historically low return to work rates for psychological injuries.
• Monitor premium impact monthly so rising costs can be addressed well before renewal at the end of June.

Key takeaways from Rob

More insurers are now entering the scheme, which adds complexity but also gives employers choice. Rob cautioned that the grass isn't always greener: one Actevate client recently changed insurers and found the service no different. Building good relationships with the people managing your claims often achieves more than switching.

Knowing which costs matter is vital, and wage loss matters most. Depending on your model and claims history, each dollar of wages paid on a claim could cost you $1.50, $2 or $3 in premium, and some Actevate clients pay $4 to $4.50. Rob also suggested picking up the phone rather than relying on email, and asking to speak with a technical specialist when you need more information.

Questions from the audience

Do common law and WPI payments affect premium for three years from the date of injury?

Lump sum payments become premium impacting when they're made, and they can still factor into your premium outside that three-year window. If a claim looks likely to head toward common law or whole person impairment, Amin recommended an in-depth review. Where negligence may be alleged, such as a slip on an unsigned spill, start factual investigations early and document what training was provided.

How do we manage a non-work injury the worker says is work related?

Rob stressed that a claim is simply a claim, and it isn't a foregone conclusion. Employers can ask whether the worker has had these symptoms before, whether anyone witnessed the incident and whether CCTV is available, then send that information to the insurer with the claim. Amin added that an injury happening at work doesn't automatically make work the main contributing factor, which is where clinical records and pre-existing conditions come in.

Tip: Use the incident investigation template in your WHS management system. It prompts the questions an insurer will look at when making a liability decision.

What if we don't have internal resources to review our policy?

Actevate offers a review that looks at your current premium and the two to three years before it, checking whether anything such as claim coding was incorrect. Reach out to the team to find out more.

How do we manage wear and tear in long-serving employees?

Rob recommended periodic medicals every two years for workers in heavy manual handling roles or exposed to industrial noise or hazardous substances. They work much like a pre-employment medical, identifying future injury risk and what can be done now to prevent it.

Can anything be done when a worker falsely declares no previous injuries?

There are implications when a worker chooses not to disclose, but it's a complex area that deserves a longer conversation. Rob invited employers facing this issue to contact Actevate directly.

What changes on 1 July

The driver behind the change is a new section inserted into the Work Health and Safety Act, Section 26 capital A. In short, where the Minister approves a code of practice, a business must comply with that code and manage the relevant hazards to a standard equal to, or higher than, what the code sets out.

This is not to suggest codes of practice didn't matter beforehand. They were always material a prosecutor could rely on. But Section 26A gives them far greater importance. Businesses now need to pay very careful attention to the codes and go through them with a fine-tooth comb, whether the issue is psychosocial hazards, fatigue, or any other code of practice the Minister has approved.

The cost of getting it wrong

Regulators expect evidence that psychosocial safety is managed systematically. You apply the same rigour you would to a plant or manual handling risk assessment: identify, assess and control. The challenge is that there is a lot of ambiguity about what a psychosocial hazard actually is, and it is incumbent on the business to identify them.

The pressure is also financial and personal. Mental health claims are rising, the icare deficit is reported to be growing by around $7 million a day, and there is now personal liability for officers and managers, backed by fines and prosecutions under the Act.

National 17 vs NSW 15: what's the difference?

There are 17 hazards under the national code and 15 under the NSW framework. Safe Work NSW has consolidated the list into broader categories, combining related hazards under broader headings so it's easier for operational use and compliance. The underlying obligations are identical.

Both frameworks require employers to identify, assess and control psychosocial risks, applying the same duty of care and the same hierarchy of controls used elsewhere in work health and safety.

The five hazards that surface most

1. High & low job demands

It's not the occasional late night or early morning. It's the constant, excessive workload that leads to fatigue, then anxiety, which can lead to depression and disengagement. The flip side is just as real: monotonous, repetitive, dull work that isn't stimulating. As Kelly put it, we give our dogs toys so they don't get bored, and it's the same with our workers. The fix is active: switch up tasks, check in, ask how things are going, and balance it so you're not giving them too much.

2. Bullying

Repeated unreasonable behaviour by a person or group toward someone at work. It can be intimidating, belittling or dehumanising. Managers set the tone here. Practical controls include setting very clear expectations of behaviour, a code of conduct that's lived rather than just a piece of paper, modelling respectful language, and containing the louder voices in a room so the quieter ones can speak up. Nip it in the bud early and deal with it immediately, not days or weeks later at an appraisal.

3. Poor organisational justice

It's really just about fairness, where rules aren't applied to everybody equally. One person makes a joke and gets away with it because "that's just who he is," while someone else saying the same thing would be deemed the bully. As Kelly said, the standard you're willing to accept is the standard you walk by. Keep policies and rules uniform, be transparent about why decisions are made, and create open feedback channels people feel psychologically safe to use.

4. Lack of support & the "buckets" problem

James Mattson's caution: as employers we try to put things in buckets, and we shouldn't assume there aren't other buckets we need to deal with. A shy worker who feels intimidated may not fit the bullying bucket from a legal perspective, but the environment may still create a risk to safety that falls into another bucket, like lack of support. Don't assume one label covers everything.

5. Role clarity, isolation & job insecurity

Unclear responsibilities, remote or isolated work, and uncertainty about one's future all carry psychosocial risk, particularly when they accumulate, as the case study shows.

Case study: Kevin

Kelly walked through an anonymised accepted claim that brings these hazards to life. Kevin had worked at a small-to-medium enterprise for around 15 years and was deeply committed to the community he served.

How the hazards accumulated

• High/low job control: went from operating at a national level to having duties stripped and every task checked by his manager.
• Bullying & scapegoating: deemed the sole perpetrator of a complaint despite significant evidence to the contrary, including the person who put the claim in saying it wasn't Kevin.
• Isolation: his team was directed to route all communication through his part-time assistant; he was told not to discuss the situation with anyone.
• Low, meaningless work: reduced to "tick-and-flick" tasks beneath his role.
• Job insecurity: no clarity on what his future held; when he asked, he was told to "just carry on" or call EAP.

This continued for almost 12 months, ultimately leaving Kevin off work and unwell for an extended period.

Kelly's reflection: she rarely sees psychological hazards presenting as a single neat issue. It's usually a cluster of problems, and the common thread is that it wasn't identified or addressed early enough.

Spotting the early warning signs

Two signals matter most when a worker isn't speaking up: behaviour change and organisational data.

• Behaviour change: cameras off in meetings, avoiding people, late-night or 3am emails, missed deadlines from someone previously diligent, withdrawal and disorganisation.
• Organisational data: rising sick leave and absenteeism, and heavy EAP usage. Kevin accessed more than 20 EAP sessions in less than 10 months, which on its own speaks to a problem and should prompt the question: what's happening for you that you need this level of service?

Building an organisational response

Good practice is proactive, not reactive. Recurring themes from the session:

Use evidence-based surveys to find your pain points. People at Work, the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), and Guarding Minds at Work all map onto the code framework.

Close the loop. Tell people what you've done or plan to do, and come back to them. Failure to close the loop is a major driver of ongoing insecurity and fear.

Don't rely solely on EAP. It's one control, not a substitute for managing and supporting people internally.

Train and support managers to recognise risk indicators, intervene early, listen actively, and have difficult conversations safely.

Know when to escalate. Bring in external support such as a mediator or workplace facilitator when an issue is beyond internal scope.

Keep it proportionate. Use the data to target real pain points rather than dropping an entire framework on everyone at once.

The legal lens & the workers' comp crossover

James Mattson covered how the new workers' compensation reforms, also commencing 1 July, interact with these obligations. Claims for psychological injury will turn on whether a relevant event caused that injury, and that event is one of four things: bullying, sexual harassment, racial harassment, or excessive work demands. Those issues are looked at through an industrial relations lens.

Reasonable management action remains a legitimate defence, now assessed in the broadest possible sense: was there management action, and was that action reasonable? Importantly, even where the commission finds no compensation is payable, that won't absolve an employer of its work health and safety duties. A worker may say they were bullied during performance management and the commission might find it was reasonable management action, but the employer still needs to provide a safe workplace moving forward. It's just that there won't be compensation.

He also advised pulling disparate plans and policies, such as a bullying policy or a sexual harassment policy, into a single, coherent master psychosocial plan of all the hazards and the measures to control them. The first thing Safe Work will ask is: where are the documents? Where's the plan? Where's the risk assessment? Where's the measures? Where's the safe work procedure?

What is a commutation?

A commutation is an agreement between a worker and an insurer. The worker receives a lump sum payment, and in return certain ongoing workers compensation entitlements are settled.

Commutations have long existed in NSW, but the eligibility rules were narrow. The recent reforms open the door wider for a limited period.

Note: Once a commutation is approved and paid, the worker is no longer entitled to workers compensation benefits for that injury. It is a significant decision, which is why the process has several safeguards built in.

What has changed

The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2026 temporarily expands access to commutations to three additional classes of cases. Each class has its own eligibility requirements, set out in Part 9A of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016.

A few points apply across the board:

• The worker and the insurer must agree on the worker's degree of permanent impairment before a commutation can proceed.
• Commutation is voluntary. A worker elects to pursue it, and can withdraw at any time before approval.
• An agreement only takes effect once it is approved by the President of the Personal Injury Commission.
• The existing commutation pathways remain available where their preconditions are met.

Info: Whether a particular claim falls within Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 is a question for the insurer or the worker's legal adviser. SIRA recommends workers confirm this before submitting an Expression of Interest.

The key dates and timeframes

• Worker submits an Expression of Interest: by 1 April 2028
• Employer forwards an Expression of Interest to the insurer: within 3 business days
• Insurer acknowledges the Expression of Interest: within 10 business days of receiving it
• Application for approval lodged with the Personal Injury Commission: by 1 April 2029

How the process works

1. Expression of Interest. The worker completes the approved SIRA form and gives it to the insurer or to the employer.
2. Independent legal advice. Before entering an agreement, the worker must get independent legal advice about its full legal effect.
3. Independent financial advice. For Class 1 and Class 2 claims, financial advice is mandatory when the proposed amount exceeds $100,000. The insurer pays up to $2,500 towards the cost.
4. Commutation agreement. If the worker and insurer agree, they complete the approved SIRA agreement form.
5. Approval. The agreement goes to the Personal Injury Commission, and only takes effect if the President approves it.

Note: The financial advice requirements do not apply to Class 3 claims, which relate to hearing loss.

What employers need to do

The step most likely to catch an employer out is the simplest one. A worker is allowed to hand their Expression of Interest to you instead of the insurer, and when that happens you have three business days to pass it on.

These steps will help you prepare:

• Decide who in your business receives these forms, and make sure that person knows about the three-day deadline.
• Brief your return to work coordinator and anyone who manages injured workers, so a form is recognised when it arrives.
• Ask your insurer or claims service provider which of your open claims may fall within the new classes.
• Keep your own advice neutral. The decision belongs to the worker, who must get independent legal advice before agreeing to anything.

Tip: Long-running claims carry a real cost in premiums and in management time. A review of your open NSW claims with your insurer will show you where the expanded pathway could be relevant, well before the 2028 deadline starts to bite.

How Actevate can help

Actevate supports employers with injury management and workers compensation claims, including reviewing open claims and the factors driving your premium. If you would like help working out what the commutation changes mean for your claims, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Sources

• SIRA, Workers Guidance: Expanded Access to Commutations
• SIRA, Workers Compensation Scheme changes commencing 1 October 2026

This article summarises SIRA guidance current as at October 2026. It is general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

What has changed

Treatment and services must now be "reasonable and necessary" for their costs to be compensable. The requirement applies to:

• Medical and related treatment
• Hospital treatment
• Ambulance services
• Workplace rehabilitation services

According to SIRA's guidance for employers, treatment must now primarily treat the compensable injury, be clinically justified and represent value for money. SIRA says the change is designed to improve consistency in decisions about evidence-based treatment and support.

Info: New rules in Part 4A of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 set out how insurers must decide whether a treatment or service is reasonable and necessary. The Workers Compensation Guidelines were also revised from 1 October 2026 to reflect the new requirement.

A subtle change in wording with widespread impact

Under the old wording, "reasonably" qualified "necessary". The new wording sets out two separate requirements, and a treatment request has to meet both of these buckets.

In practice, that gives insurers a firmer basis to ask for clinical justification before approving a request. Treatment that would once have been waved through may now attract questions about how it relates to the work injury and what outcome it is expected to deliver.

Which claims the new requirement applies to

The new requirement applies to treatment or service claims made on or after 1 October 2026. Requests made before that date continue to be assessed under the old "reasonably necessary" wording in certain circumstances, including where treatment was approved before 1 October but has not yet been completed.

Note: The date that matters is when the treatment request was made, and not the date of the injury. A worker with a long-standing claim who asks for new treatment today will have that request assessed under the new requirement.

The change applies to all workers, including exempt workers such as police officers, paramedics and firefighters.

What is now excluded

SIRA's guidance says some treatments and services are expressly excluded from employer liability. These include certain alternative therapies, wellness services and unprescribed massage. Some general health or recreational activities are also excluded unless they are prescribed by a medical practitioner.

What this means for your injured workers

A worker who has been receiving a particular treatment may find that a new request for it is questioned. That can be unsettling, particularly for someone who is already anxious about their recovery.

How the change is explained makes a real difference. A worker who hears about it early from a manager they trust is far less likely to experience a request for more information as a rejection.

Tip: Uncertainty about treatment is one of the more common reasons a claim stalls. A short, early conversation that explains the new requirement and the likely next steps helps keep recovery and return to work on track.

What this means for employers

For most employers, the change will be felt in timing and communication more than in policy. Insurers now have a firmer basis to ask for clinical justification, so approvals may take longer, and return to work coordinators and line managers are likely to field more questions from injured workers. Where treatment is on hold, recovery timeframes and suitable duties plans may need to be revisited. Employers who are well placed for the change tend to have people leaders who understand the new requirement and injured workers who have heard early what to expect. They also keep a close working relationship with their insurer or claims service provider, so a delayed or declined request is followed up, and their return to work program and injury management procedures reflect the current wording.

How Actevate can help

Actevate works alongside employers on injury management and return to work, helping injured workers get the right support early and keeping claims moving. Our return to work consultants can help you explain these changes to your team and review how your claims are managed. Call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Sources

• SIRA, Workers Compensation Scheme changes commencing 1 October 2026
• SIRA, Key changes for employers
• SIRA, Reasonable and necessary reforms: guidance for insurers

This article summarises SIRA guidance current as at October 2026. It is general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

SafeWork NSW has published a set of practical online tools to help officers understand and meet their due diligence obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. At Actevate we welcome the release, because it turns a duty that many officers find abstract into something they can actually check themselves against.

The feedback we hear from our own clients is consistent. Officers understand that due diligence is a legal obligation. What they are far less certain about is what it looks like in day to day decision making, and what a regulator would accept as proof that they were exercising it.

Info: The self-assessment tool is free and takes only a few minutes. It is a capability building exercise, not a compliance check, and completing it does not trigger any regulator action.

Who counts as an officer

This is the first thing organisations tend to get wrong. Due diligence does not sit with the WHS team. It sits personally with the people who make, or take part in making, decisions that affect a substantial part of the business.

In practice that usually means:

• Company directors
• Chief executives and executive leadership
• Senior managers with genuine decision making authority over resources and operations
• Certain partners, office holders and public sector equivalents

Note: The duty is personal and it cannot be delegated. An officer can appoint a safety manager and still be liable, because appointing someone is not the same as verifying that what they have built actually works.

The six reasonable steps

SafeWork NSW frames due diligence as taking reasonable steps across six areas. The genuinely useful part of this release is that the regulator has now spelled out, for each step, the records an officer should be able to produce.

1. Acquire and keep up to date WHS knowledge

Annual WHS governance training for officers, quarterly briefings to the board on emerging hazards such as psychosocial risk, and keeping current with code of practice updates.

Records: officer training records, board skills matrix, briefing packs on WHS law updates.

2. Understand the operations and their hazards

Structured officer site visits to high risk locations, and periodic deep dives on critical risks aligned to the approved codes.

Records: visit logs with observations, risk registers, critical risk heat maps discussed at board or executive level.

3. Ensure appropriate resources and processes are in place

Approving and tracking budget for controls, and making sure there is enough WHS capability and frontline staffing to run operations safely.

Records: capital requests tied to risk assessments, staffing plans, maintenance records for safety critical controls.

4. Ensure incidents, hazards and risks are received and responded to in time

Escalation of notifiable incidents and overdue actions to executives against response time targets, with a clear workflow covering who analyses, who decides, by when, and how closure is verified.

Records: incident trend dashboards, action closure reports, minutes evidencing decisions and timeframes met.

5. Ensure processes exist for complying with WHS duties

Incident notification, worker consultation, compliance with notices, training and instruction, and health and safety representative training entitlements.

Records: procedure suite, training matrices, consultation records, licence schedule, notices register.

6. Verify that steps 3 to 5 are actually working

This is the step most often missed. Verification means actively confirming through audits, inspections and follow through, rather than passively receiving reports.

Records: audit plans and reports, corrective action logs, a decision and participation register cross referenced to board minutes.

Tip: Read step six as the test the other five are marked against. Most officers we work with can evidence resourcing and process. Far fewer can evidence that they checked whether any of it worked.

What the self-assessment gives you

The tool is a short questionnaire covering how effectively you are exercising your responsibilities. On completion you receive:

• Insight into your current due diligence practices
• Your strengths and your opportunities for improvement
• Tailored, prioritised actions to strengthen your safety leadership

SafeWork NSW has also published a short quick reference guide covering the fundamentals: who may be an officer, what the specific duties are, and the practical steps available to strengthen compliance. It is worth reading before you start the assessment rather than after.

Why this matters now

Two changes make this release more consequential than it first appears.

Approved codes of practice became directly enforceable in NSW from 1 July 2026. Where your systems depart from a relevant code, you now need documentation showing your approach provides an equivalent or higher standard. And psychosocial risk remains a headline SafeWork NSW regulatory priority, with the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work code the enforceable benchmark.

Officers should also be aware of the personal exposure. Where an organisation fails to comply with a WHS duty and that failure is attributed wholly or partly to an officer failing to meet their section 27 duty, the officer may be found guilty of an offence, separately from the business.

Note: A completed self-assessment is not itself evidence of due diligence. It shows you where the gaps are. Closing and documenting them is the part that counts.

Access the resources

• Officer Due Diligence Self-Assessment tool
• Officer due diligence quick reference guide (PDF)
• SafeWork NSW due diligence guidance

How Actevate can help

The self-assessment will tell you where your gaps are. It will not close them. That is the work we do with officers and executive teams.

• Psychosocial risk gap assessment. We assess your current systems against the enforceable code and give you a documented position on where you stand and what to fix first.
• Officer and leadership capability. Our mental health training builds the capability step one asks for, giving leaders the skills to recognise psychosocial hazards and respond early.
• Evidence you can point to. We help you build the consultation records, risk registers and review cycles that make step six defensible.

If you have completed the self-assessment and want to talk through the result, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

This article summarises SafeWork NSW guidance current as at August 2026. It is general information, not legal advice. Officer obligations depend on your role and circumstances. For advice on your specific position, speak to Actevate or a qualified legal practitioner.

2025 at a glance

Safe Work Australia updates its WHS prosecutions dashboard each year, drawing on public reports of criminal prosecutions under WHS laws across every Australian jurisdiction since 1 January 2020. The 2025 figures were released in September 2026, and the three headline numbers below are the ones Safe Work Australia announced.

• 308 WHS prosecutions in 2025, down from 321 in 2024.
• $147,985 average financial penalty per prosecution, up 33% on 2024 and the highest annual average recorded.
• 99% of prosecutions resulted in a financial penalty.

The fall in prosecutions is the first after four consecutive years of increases, which on its own reads as good news. The penalty figures tell a different story, because the average financial penalty is now the highest annual average recorded.

Chart: Most common industry divisions among defendants in 2025

• Construction: 43%
• Manufacturing: 20%
• Mining: 6%
• All other industries (calculated): 31%

The mix has shifted since last year. In the 2024 data the top three industries were construction, manufacturing, and transport, postal and warehousing. In 2025, mining has taken third place.

Note: Each defendant is recorded separately in the data, so a single incident can appear more than once. Safe Work Australia compiles the figures from publicly available information on regulators' websites.

Year-by-year trends

A small drop in case numbers says very little about your own exposure. The year-by-year figures on Safe Work Australia's dashboard show where enforcement has been heading since 2020. Unless stated otherwise, figures in this section and the next are read from the dashboard as at 6 October 2026.

Prosecution volumes

Trend: Number of prosecutions per year

• 2020: 203
• 2021: 273
• 2022: 285
• 2023: 309
• 2024: 321
• 2025: 308

Prosecutions rose for four consecutive years, from 203 in 2020 to 321 in 2024, an increase of 58%. The 2025 figure of 308 is the first fall in the data. It is 4% lower than the peak and still the third highest year.

Financial penalty rate

Trend: Share of prosecutions that resulted in a financial penalty

• 2023: 97%
• 2024: 98%
• 2025: 99%

Despite the drop in cases, almost every prosecution recorded results in a financial penalty, and the share has edged up each year. These three figures are the ones Safe Work Australia reported in its September 2026 announcement. The dashboard only records prosecutions that resulted in a finding of guilt, so the figures show that a guilty outcome almost always comes with a financial penalty.

Total penalties

Trend: Total financial penalty per year

• 2020: $26.67M
• 2021: $27.77M
• 2022: $32.29M
• 2023: $40.34M
• 2024: $34.95M
• 2025: $44.99M

The total financial penalty for 2025 was $44.99 million. That is the highest annual total in the data and 29% more than in 2024, from 13 fewer prosecutions.

Average penalty

Trend: Average financial penalty per year

• 2020: $136.76K
• 2021: $104.02K
• 2022: $117.86K
• 2023: $134.9K
• 2024: $111.65K
• 2025: $146.54K

Note: The dashboard currently shows a 2025 average of $146.54K, slightly below the $147,985 that Safe Work Australia announced in September 2026 and that is quoted at the top of this article. On the dashboard figures, the 2025 average is about 31% higher than in 2024.

The average has moved up and down from year to year, with dips in 2021 and 2024. The 2025 figure is the first to pass the previous high set in 2020.

Fatal injury level

Trend: Number of prosecutions where the highest injury level was fatal

• 2020: 42
• 2021: 50
• 2022: 46
• 2023: 46
• 2024: 50
• 2025: 53

In 2025, 53 prosecutions were recorded with a highest injury level of fatal, the most in any year of the data. Prosecutions with a highest injury level of none have also grown, from 17% of the total in 2020 to 26% in 2025, after reaching about 30% in 2023 and 2024.

Note: These figures count prosecutions, not deaths. Each defendant is recorded separately, so one incident can appear more than once, and Safe Work Australia says the data should not be relied on to count the worker deaths or injuries prosecuted each year.

Info: Construction and manufacturing have remained the most common industry divisions among defendants since data collection began in 2020. If you operate in either sector, regulators already know where to look.

Six-year view

Combined, the six years of data say a lot about who is prosecuted and why.

• 1,699 prosecutions recorded from 2020 to 2025.
• $207M total financial penalty.
• $125K average financial penalty from 2020 to 2025.

Highest injury level

Chart: Number of prosecutions by highest injury level, 2020 to 2025

• Serious: 856
• None: 426
• Fatal: 287
• Unknown: 76
• Minor: 54

One in four of these prosecutions recorded a highest injury level of none. Safe Work Australia uses that label where there was no injury or other direct impact on a worker, for example where an inspection identified a failure but no injury was caused. A further 287 prosecutions, about 17% of the total, recorded a highest injury level of fatal.

Info: As a guide, Safe Work Australia treats an injury as serious where, for example, it requires hospitalisation for more than a day or results in a fracture of a major bone. Half of all recorded prosecutions had a highest injury level of serious.

Plea

Chart: Number of prosecutions by plea, 2020 to 2025

• Guilty: 80.8%
• Unknown: 17.2%
• Not guilty (calculated): 2.1%

Four in five defendants pleaded guilty. The recorded share of guilty pleas has fallen from 93% in 2020 to 72% in 2025, but that mostly reflects more pleas being recorded as unknown, which rose from 4% to 27% over the same period. Not guilty pleas have stayed in single figures every year.

Category of main offence

Chart: Number of prosecutions by category of main offence, 2020 to 2025

• Category 1: recklessly expose a person to risk of death or serious injury/illness: 39
• Category 2: fail to comply exposes a person to risk of death or serious injury/illness: 730
• Category 3: fail to comply: 52
• Not applicable: 871
• Unknown: 7

Very few offences sat at the most serious level. Only 39 prosecutions were Category 1 offences, where a duty holder recklessly or with gross negligence exposes a person to a risk of death or serious injury or illness. Ten of those were in 2025, the most in any year and double the number in 2024.

Where a category is recorded, about 95% of prosecutions were Category 2 or Category 3 offences, which involve a failure to comply with a health and safety duty, and Category 1 offences made up about 5%. Another 871 prosecutions are recorded as not applicable, which Safe Work Australia uses for jurisdictions that had not implemented the model WHS laws in the year of prosecution.

Industry of defendant

Construction has recorded the most prosecutions in every year of the data, with manufacturing second each time. Across the full six years, the dashboard lists transport, postal and warehousing third, ahead of electricity, gas, water and waste services and then agriculture, forestry and fishing.

Note: The dashboard only records prosecutions that resulted in a finding of guilt, and it relies on what each regulator publishes. Safe Work Australia cautions that the data is limited by what is publicly available and should not be relied on for research or other purposes.

Limits of the data

The figures in this article are totals across all WHS offences, and they are not split by the type of hazard involved. The industries that dominate the 2025 numbers are also the traditional settings for physical injury, so it would be a mistake to read the data as proof that psychosocial enforcement is either surging or absent.

What the numbers do show is the direction of enforcement, with a financial penalty in almost every case and a record average in 2025.

Psychosocial risk outlook

The link to psychosocial risk comes from timing. Codes of practice have been legally binding in NSW since 1 July 2026, including the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice, so employers are now expected to show how they identify, assess, control and review psychosocial hazards on an ongoing basis.

At the same time, a tool many organisations leaned on has been switched off. People at Work, the free psychosocial risk assessment survey funded by Australian WHS regulators and used by more than 160,000 workers since 2020, closed to users on 2 October 2026.

Note: An organisation-wide survey score was never the whole picture. Psychosocial pressure tends to build in particular teams and under particular leaders, so the evidence that counts shows where a hazard sits and what was done about it.

Implications for officers and boards

Under WHS laws, officers have a personal duty to exercise due diligence. That duty is about more than receiving reports. It asks officers to understand the risks in their business and to verify that the controls for those risks are being used.

That distinction is important in a prosecution. A documented procedure shows what was meant to happen, while the evidence a court looks for is what happened on the day.

An average penalty of $147,985 that grew by about a third in a single year is also an enterprise risk. That puts WHS in front of the board and the audit committee, and it can no longer sit only with the people and culture team.

Questions worth asking at your next leadership meeting include:

• Which of our risks could kill or seriously injure someone, and who owns each one?
• When did we last check that the controls for those risks were working on site, and not only written down?
• Do our board or executive reports show control effectiveness, or only incident counts?
• How do concerns raised by workers and contractors reach the people who can act on them?
• Can we name our psychosocial hazards in the terms the Code uses, such as high job demands and low job control?
• Do we know which teams those hazards are concentrated in, beyond the organisation-wide average?
• Could we show a regulator a record of identifying, controlling and reviewing each one?

Tip: SafeWork NSW has published a free officer due diligence self-assessment tool. It is a quick way to see which records a regulator would expect your leadership team to produce.

Recommended next step

October is National Safe Work Month, which makes it a natural time to put this data in front of your leadership team. Pick one critical risk, trace it from the risk register to the worksite, and see whether the control you rely on is in place and understood by the people doing the work.

That single exercise will tell you more about your due diligence position than a year of lagging indicators.

How Actevate can help

Actevate helps organisations manage risk across the entire employee lifecycle, from pre-employment through to injury management and return to work. If the data has raised questions about your own systems, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Sources

• Safe Work Australia, WHS prosecutions dashboard, viewed 6 October 2026
• Safe Work Australia, Work health and safety prosecutions: new data now available
• Safe Work Australia, National Work Health and Safety Prosecutions Repository Data Dictionary, June 2025
• NSW Government, Minns Labor Government launches Psychosocial Advisory Service, 22 September 2026 (codes of practice legally binding from 1 July 2026)
• SafeWork NSW, officer due diligence self-assessment tool
• SafeWork SA, People at Work survey decommissioned
• HRD Australia, Psychosocial risk tool axed

Disclaimer

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal or health and safety advice. The data is sourced from Safe Work Australia's WHS prosecutions dashboard and related publications, as available on 6 October 2026. Safe Work Australia revises the data each year, so figures may change after publication. Percentages marked as calculated, year-on-year comparisons and the charts are Actevate's own analysis and presentation of that data. Safe Work Australia has not reviewed or endorsed this article. Please refer to the original sources before relying on any figure.

SafeWork NSW recently released its Regulatory Statement for 2026-27, confirming the four areas that will drive its inspection and enforcement activity over the next 12 months.

The Statement sets out the work health and safety risks, industries and behaviours that will attract the regulator's attention this financial year. For any business operating in New South Wales, it is a clear indication of where inspector visits, audits and compliance action will be directed.

The priorities are largely consistent with the past two years. SafeWork NSW Commissioner, Janet Schorer, has indicated that this continuity is deliberate, and that businesses in the priority areas should be examining what is working well in their safety systems and what needs to improve.

"Since becoming a standalone regulator, we’ve not seen much of a change in our regulatory priorities between 2025/26 and 2026/27. This signals to me that, while we have work to do as a regulator, it’s also important for businesses in those key priority areas to think really seriously about their work health and safety in terms of what is working well and what needs to be improved."
‍
- Janet Schorer

Enforceable Codes of Practice

Amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) came into effect on 1 July 2026, giving legal force to approved Codes of Practice. Until now, Codes have operated as guidance material that inspectors and courts could reference when assessing what was reasonably practicable. They are now directly enforceable.

If your safety management system does not align with a relevant approved Code, you will need to demonstrate that your approach provides an equivalent or higher standard of protection, and you will need documentation to support that position.

We suggest a documented gap analysis against each Code that applies to your operations, completed this quarter. Where your systems depart from a Code, businesses should record the rationale and the evidence that your alternative approach meets or exceeds the standard.

Psychosocial risk

Psychosocial risk remains a headline priority, and the supporting data explains why. SafeWork NSW received more than 2,200 requests for service and over 190 incident notifications relating to psychosocial hazards in the past 12 months.

The regulator's focus for 2026-27 falls in two areas.

Risk factors leading to harmful behaviours

This includes bullying and harassment, with attention on high-risk workplaces and occupations.

Preventing violence and aggression towards frontline and customer-facing workers

This has been flagged as a specific sub-priority. Organisations in health, education, retail, hospitality, community services and government should take particular note.

In our experience, the gap for most organisations is not intent but evidence. Policies, values statements and employee assistance programs are valuable, but they do not constitute a psychosocial risk management system, and they will not satisfy an inspector on their own.

Note: The Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice is now the enforceable benchmark in NSW.

A defensible system involves identifying hazards through consultation, surveys and incident data, assessing and prioritising those hazards, implementing controls at the source of the risk rather than relying on individual coping strategies, and reviewing controls as the organisation changes. It also requires leaders and managers who are trained to recognise psychosocial hazards and respond to reports early. Effective risk management requires capability and capacity, at all levels, across operational teams and support functions.

Falls from heights

Falls from heights remains the leading cause of traumatic injury in NSW workplaces, with over 600 incidents and five fatalities reported in the past 12 months. SafeWork NSW will maintain its focus on residential construction and will extend its attention across the construction supply chain, including officers, principal contractors and supervisors.

Businesses that engage contractors should note that their duties extend beyond induction. The regulator expects evidence of capability across the chain, which means verifying that contractors' safe work method statements reflect actual practice rather than sitting in a file.

Hazardous substances

The focus here is exposure to crystalline silica, particularly in tunnelling and infrastructure projects, and asbestos in construction. In the past 12 months, inspectors issued more than 145 silica-related notices and received over 45 reports of silicosis cases.

Businesses with workers engaged in high-risk crystalline silica processing work should confirm strict compliance with the notification requirements of the Silica Worker Register, which commenced on 1 October 2025. This is an area where the regulator is actively checking records, and gaps are straightforward for an inspector to identify.

Mobile plant, vehicles and fixed machinery

Preventing injury from mobile plant, vehicle rollover and access to moving parts of machinery remains a priority, with agriculture, construction and manufacturing named as focus industries. The regulator was notified of over 500 incidents and eight fatalities related to mobile plant in the past year. Traffic management, exclusion zones, guarding and operator competency should all be reviewed against current practice.

Across all four priorities, the Statement reinforces three expectations that apply to every duty holder.

The first is genuine consultation with workers about WHS risks and decisions that affect their health and safety. You must be able to show how that consultation happened. Effective consultation has a visible loop. 

The second is ensuring WHS initiatives are appropriate for groups at higher risk of harm, including apprentices, young workers, migrant workers and culturally and linguistically diverse workers. Training and guidance for these groups should be short, practical and delivered in plain language, with comprehension confirmed rather than assumed. For HR teams, this touches recruitment, induction, supervision and training design.

The third is compliance with the now enforceable Codes of Practice. As covered above, this is the structural change of 2026-27. It converts the other two expectations from good practice into measurable standards, because the relevant Codes describe what adequate consultation and risk management look like in concrete terms.

The common thread is evidence. Each of these expectations is easy to claim and easy for an inspector to disprove, which is precisely why they feature in the Statement.

‍

Tip: You can download the full 2026-27 Regulatory Statement from the SafeWork NSW website. Map each priority against your current risk register to see where your gaps are before an inspector does.

Key takeaways

Employers in construction, agriculture and manufacturing appear across multiple priority areas and should expect increased regulatory interest this financial year. For all other organisations, the psychosocial hazards Code represents the most immediate compliance exposure, particularly for those with frontline or customer-facing workforces.

The consistent theme of the Statement is documentation. Consultation records, risk registers, gap analyses and training records are the evidence base the regulator will test. Organisations that can produce them are well placed. Organisations that cannot should treat this Statement as the prompt to close the gap while it remains inexpensive to do so.

How Actevate can help

Actevate works with NSW employers to build practical psychosocial risk management systems that meet the enforceable Code of Practice. Our training gives leaders, HR teams and WHS professionals the capability to identify psychosocial hazards, consult effectively and respond to issues with confidence.

If the 2026-27 Statement has raised questions about where your organisation stands, contact us to discuss a psychosocial risk gap assessment or leadership training for your team.

Info: Actevate delivers psychosocial risk training for leaders, HR and WHS teams. See our mental health training programs.

About National Workforce

National Workforce is a high-volume recruitment and labour hire provider placing large numbers of candidates into physically demanding roles. With workforce turnover and workers compensation claims impacting productivity and costs, selecting the right people is critical to their business.

The Challenge

When National Workforce came to Actevate, they faced a challenge we see often. Their traditional pre-employment screens were slow, costly and largely ineffective, and they struggled to predict which candidates might be at risk of injury or a workers compensation claim.

This left them:

• Worried about rising workers compensation premiums
• Spending time and money on screening processes that weren't delivering results
• At risk of losing their best-performing employees due to poor candidate selection

National Workforce asked Actevate to help because of our proven track record in workforce safety and predictive screening.

The Solution

We followed four steps to solve National Workforce's screening challenge:

1. Designed a secure, evidence-based pre-employment screening model.
2. Built a scoring algorithm linking social, challenge and symptom risks with medical history.
3. Identified the candidates most at risk of injury or protracted claims, while highlighting those with the resilience to return to work quickly.
4. Provided actionable insights to improve workforce safety and return on investment.

The Results

• Over 10,000 people have completed the screen
• Injury and claims rates have dropped dramatically
• National Workforce now knows which 6% of employees drive 46% of their profits

By replacing slow, ineffective screening with an evidence-based profiling system, National Workforce can now identify its safest, most resilient employees before they start.

Ready to reduce workplace injury, improve employee retention and optimise workforce performance? Get in touch to start the conversation.

The Situation

Susan* is in a senior position within her industry and has been employed in her chosen field for her entire career. She is a strong-willed, ambitious woman in her early fifties, located in Sydney’s West.

While at work, Susan* experienced two incidents leading to injury that occurred within a year of one another. The first involved an unsecured block of wood falling onto her head and neck, leading to nerve damage. Upon her return to the workplace, Susan* slipped and fell on a metal flooring panel which injured her lower back and hip. Although Susan* initially sustained some serious physical injuries, the most debilitating aspect was the lack of confidence and anxiety she experienced following both incidents.

‍

The challenge

It was a long time before Susan* had suitable duties following her second injury and this only added to her anxiety. Additionally, much of the time she felt uncertain about the duties suggested.

‍

The approach

Susan* was referred to Actevate by Allianz to support her throughout her recovery and to provide a personalised plan to get her back to work safely and effectively. Actevate ensured a multi-disciplinary approach to her treatment and Susan* was very committed to the treatment plan Actevate provided.

The treatment that Actevate recommended to suit Susan’s* needs in this specific situation was a combination of physiotherapy, exercise physiology, psychiatry and psychological counselling. These treatments would sometimes occur in conjunction, depending on the most effective strategy for Susan* and her recovery. Susan’s* treatment progressed well with Actevate’s oversight because she was truly determined to make a full recovery and get back to work.

‍

The transformation

Actevate encouraged improved communication between treating parties and Susan’s* employer to ensure the duties she was expected to achieve were realistic. Everyone involved was on the same page due to the improved communication, and the best thing for Susan’s* recovery turned out to be exposure to the workplace.

Actevate facilitated the communication and bridged the gap between the treatment providers and her employer, which allowed Susan* to return to her role at her own pace without creating more anxiety and panic for her in such an unfamiliar situation.

‍

The Results

Susan* has made a full recovery.

She exercises regularly and has taken up studying as an extracurricular activity. Susan* also reached her ultimate goal of returning to her senior role at work and is continuing with her successful career.

This success was achieved with commitment, dedication and determination despite the odds. Actevate couldn’t be happier to have helped Susan*.

*Name changed to protect the privacy of the worker.

‍

‍

‍

2025 at a glance

Safe Work Australia updates its WHS prosecutions dashboard each year, drawing on public reports of criminal prosecutions under WHS laws across every Australian jurisdiction since 1 January 2020. The 2025 figures were released in September 2026, and the three headline numbers below are the ones Safe Work Australia announced.

• 308 WHS prosecutions in 2025, down from 321 in 2024.
• $147,985 average financial penalty per prosecution, up 33% on 2024 and the highest annual average recorded.
• 99% of prosecutions resulted in a financial penalty.

The fall in prosecutions is the first after four consecutive years of increases, which on its own reads as good news. The penalty figures tell a different story, because the average financial penalty is now the highest annual average recorded.

Chart: Most common industry divisions among defendants in 2025

• Construction: 43%
• Manufacturing: 20%
• Mining: 6%
• All other industries (calculated): 31%

The mix has shifted since last year. In the 2024 data the top three industries were construction, manufacturing, and transport, postal and warehousing. In 2025, mining has taken third place.

Note: Each defendant is recorded separately in the data, so a single incident can appear more than once. Safe Work Australia compiles the figures from publicly available information on regulators' websites.

Year-by-year trends

A small drop in case numbers says very little about your own exposure. The year-by-year figures on Safe Work Australia's dashboard show where enforcement has been heading since 2020. Unless stated otherwise, figures in this section and the next are read from the dashboard as at 6 October 2026.

Prosecution volumes

Trend: Number of prosecutions per year

• 2020: 203
• 2021: 273
• 2022: 285
• 2023: 309
• 2024: 321
• 2025: 308

Prosecutions rose for four consecutive years, from 203 in 2020 to 321 in 2024, an increase of 58%. The 2025 figure of 308 is the first fall in the data. It is 4% lower than the peak and still the third highest year.

Financial penalty rate

Trend: Share of prosecutions that resulted in a financial penalty

• 2023: 97%
• 2024: 98%
• 2025: 99%

Despite the drop in cases, almost every prosecution recorded results in a financial penalty, and the share has edged up each year. These three figures are the ones Safe Work Australia reported in its September 2026 announcement. The dashboard only records prosecutions that resulted in a finding of guilt, so the figures show that a guilty outcome almost always comes with a financial penalty.

Total penalties

Trend: Total financial penalty per year

• 2020: $26.67M
• 2021: $27.77M
• 2022: $32.29M
• 2023: $40.34M
• 2024: $34.95M
• 2025: $44.99M

The total financial penalty for 2025 was $44.99 million. That is the highest annual total in the data and 29% more than in 2024, from 13 fewer prosecutions.

Average penalty

Trend: Average financial penalty per year

• 2020: $136.76K
• 2021: $104.02K
• 2022: $117.86K
• 2023: $134.9K
• 2024: $111.65K
• 2025: $146.54K

Note: The dashboard currently shows a 2025 average of $146.54K, slightly below the $147,985 that Safe Work Australia announced in September 2026 and that is quoted at the top of this article. On the dashboard figures, the 2025 average is about 31% higher than in 2024.

The average has moved up and down from year to year, with dips in 2021 and 2024. The 2025 figure is the first to pass the previous high set in 2020.

Fatal injury level

Trend: Number of prosecutions where the highest injury level was fatal

• 2020: 42
• 2021: 50
• 2022: 46
• 2023: 46
• 2024: 50
• 2025: 53

In 2025, 53 prosecutions were recorded with a highest injury level of fatal, the most in any year of the data. Prosecutions with a highest injury level of none have also grown, from 17% of the total in 2020 to 26% in 2025, after reaching about 30% in 2023 and 2024.

Note: These figures count prosecutions, not deaths. Each defendant is recorded separately, so one incident can appear more than once, and Safe Work Australia says the data should not be relied on to count the worker deaths or injuries prosecuted each year.

Info: Construction and manufacturing have remained the most common industry divisions among defendants since data collection began in 2020. If you operate in either sector, regulators already know where to look.

Six-year view

Combined, the six years of data say a lot about who is prosecuted and why.

• 1,699 prosecutions recorded from 2020 to 2025.
• $207M total financial penalty.
• $125K average financial penalty from 2020 to 2025.

Highest injury level

Chart: Number of prosecutions by highest injury level, 2020 to 2025

• Serious: 856
• None: 426
• Fatal: 287
• Unknown: 76
• Minor: 54

One in four of these prosecutions recorded a highest injury level of none. Safe Work Australia uses that label where there was no injury or other direct impact on a worker, for example where an inspection identified a failure but no injury was caused. A further 287 prosecutions, about 17% of the total, recorded a highest injury level of fatal.

Info: As a guide, Safe Work Australia treats an injury as serious where, for example, it requires hospitalisation for more than a day or results in a fracture of a major bone. Half of all recorded prosecutions had a highest injury level of serious.

Plea

Chart: Number of prosecutions by plea, 2020 to 2025

• Guilty: 80.8%
• Unknown: 17.2%
• Not guilty (calculated): 2.1%

Four in five defendants pleaded guilty. The recorded share of guilty pleas has fallen from 93% in 2020 to 72% in 2025, but that mostly reflects more pleas being recorded as unknown, which rose from 4% to 27% over the same period. Not guilty pleas have stayed in single figures every year.

Category of main offence

Chart: Number of prosecutions by category of main offence, 2020 to 2025

• Category 1: recklessly expose a person to risk of death or serious injury/illness: 39
• Category 2: fail to comply exposes a person to risk of death or serious injury/illness: 730
• Category 3: fail to comply: 52
• Not applicable: 871
• Unknown: 7

Very few offences sat at the most serious level. Only 39 prosecutions were Category 1 offences, where a duty holder recklessly or with gross negligence exposes a person to a risk of death or serious injury or illness. Ten of those were in 2025, the most in any year and double the number in 2024.

Where a category is recorded, about 95% of prosecutions were Category 2 or Category 3 offences, which involve a failure to comply with a health and safety duty, and Category 1 offences made up about 5%. Another 871 prosecutions are recorded as not applicable, which Safe Work Australia uses for jurisdictions that had not implemented the model WHS laws in the year of prosecution.

Industry of defendant

Construction has recorded the most prosecutions in every year of the data, with manufacturing second each time. Across the full six years, the dashboard lists transport, postal and warehousing third, ahead of electricity, gas, water and waste services and then agriculture, forestry and fishing.

Note: The dashboard only records prosecutions that resulted in a finding of guilt, and it relies on what each regulator publishes. Safe Work Australia cautions that the data is limited by what is publicly available and should not be relied on for research or other purposes.

Limits of the data

The figures in this article are totals across all WHS offences, and they are not split by the type of hazard involved. The industries that dominate the 2025 numbers are also the traditional settings for physical injury, so it would be a mistake to read the data as proof that psychosocial enforcement is either surging or absent.

What the numbers do show is the direction of enforcement, with a financial penalty in almost every case and a record average in 2025.

Psychosocial risk outlook

The link to psychosocial risk comes from timing. Codes of practice have been legally binding in NSW since 1 July 2026, including the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice, so employers are now expected to show how they identify, assess, control and review psychosocial hazards on an ongoing basis.

At the same time, a tool many organisations leaned on has been switched off. People at Work, the free psychosocial risk assessment survey funded by Australian WHS regulators and used by more than 160,000 workers since 2020, closed to users on 2 October 2026.

Note: An organisation-wide survey score was never the whole picture. Psychosocial pressure tends to build in particular teams and under particular leaders, so the evidence that counts shows where a hazard sits and what was done about it.

Implications for officers and boards

Under WHS laws, officers have a personal duty to exercise due diligence. That duty is about more than receiving reports. It asks officers to understand the risks in their business and to verify that the controls for those risks are being used.

That distinction is important in a prosecution. A documented procedure shows what was meant to happen, while the evidence a court looks for is what happened on the day.

An average penalty of $147,985 that grew by about a third in a single year is also an enterprise risk. That puts WHS in front of the board and the audit committee, and it can no longer sit only with the people and culture team.

Questions worth asking at your next leadership meeting include:

• Which of our risks could kill or seriously injure someone, and who owns each one?
• When did we last check that the controls for those risks were working on site, and not only written down?
• Do our board or executive reports show control effectiveness, or only incident counts?
• How do concerns raised by workers and contractors reach the people who can act on them?
• Can we name our psychosocial hazards in the terms the Code uses, such as high job demands and low job control?
• Do we know which teams those hazards are concentrated in, beyond the organisation-wide average?
• Could we show a regulator a record of identifying, controlling and reviewing each one?

Tip: SafeWork NSW has published a free officer due diligence self-assessment tool. It is a quick way to see which records a regulator would expect your leadership team to produce.

Recommended next step

October is National Safe Work Month, which makes it a natural time to put this data in front of your leadership team. Pick one critical risk, trace it from the risk register to the worksite, and see whether the control you rely on is in place and understood by the people doing the work.

That single exercise will tell you more about your due diligence position than a year of lagging indicators.

How Actevate can help

Actevate helps organisations manage risk across the entire employee lifecycle, from pre-employment through to injury management and return to work. If the data has raised questions about your own systems, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Sources

• Safe Work Australia, WHS prosecutions dashboard, viewed 6 October 2026
• Safe Work Australia, Work health and safety prosecutions: new data now available
• Safe Work Australia, National Work Health and Safety Prosecutions Repository Data Dictionary, June 2025
• NSW Government, Minns Labor Government launches Psychosocial Advisory Service, 22 September 2026 (codes of practice legally binding from 1 July 2026)
• SafeWork NSW, officer due diligence self-assessment tool
• SafeWork SA, People at Work survey decommissioned
• HRD Australia, Psychosocial risk tool axed

Disclaimer

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal or health and safety advice. The data is sourced from Safe Work Australia's WHS prosecutions dashboard and related publications, as available on 6 October 2026. Safe Work Australia revises the data each year, so figures may change after publication. Percentages marked as calculated, year-on-year comparisons and the charts are Actevate's own analysis and presentation of that data. Safe Work Australia has not reviewed or endorsed this article. Please refer to the original sources before relying on any figure.

Safe Work Australia describes this year's theme as a reflection of the fundamental purpose of WHS, which is to prevent work-related death, injury and illness. It also recognises the long-term impact that workplace harm can have on workers, their families, businesses and broader communities.

Put plainly, work should never cost someone their health or their ability to live fully outside of work.

The scale of workplace harm in Australia

• 188 workers died from traumatic injuries at work in 2024.
• 146,700 serious workers compensation claims were made in 2023-24.
• More than 400 serious claims are made every day across Australia.

Note: A serious claim is one where a worker needs at least one working week away from work. Behind each of those 146,700 claims is a person whose recovery, income and family life were disrupted.

The campaign is built around four focus areas

Each week of October has its own focus area, which you can use to shape one conversation with your team at a time.

Week 1 (1-11 October): For life, why WHS matters

Safe Work Australia is encouraging workplaces to reconnect with the purpose behind WHS and the role everyone plays in creating safe and healthy work. This week also includes World Mental Health Day on 10 October.

Week 2 (12-18 October): For health, what WHS protects

Safe Work Australia describes the purpose of work health and safety as protecting workers' lives, health and future, and its activity kit notes that safe work protects both physical and psychological health.

Week 3 (19-25 October): For the future, the long-term impact

Safe Work Australia says the theme is about designing work that prevents injury, illness and long-term harm that can affect every part of life, at work, at home and well into the future.

Week 4 (26-31 October): For all, action across all workplaces

Safe Work Australia says the four focus areas together are meant to help workplaces explore why WHS matters, what it protects and the practical action needed to support safe and healthy work.

Info: World Mental Health Day falls on Saturday 10 October, during Safe Work Month. It is a natural moment to talk about psychosocial hazards such as workload, conflict and exposure to distressing events.

How to take part in your workplace

Safe Work Australia has published two free resources. The campaign kit includes posters, digital displays and social media tiles. The activity kit has weekly activities and discussion prompts designed to turn conversations about safety into action.

A few simple ways to get involved:

• Choose one activity from the kit for your next team meeting or toolbox talk.
• Ask your team which hazard they would most like to see looked at more closely this month.
• Record one commitment as a group, and report back on it before the end of October.
• Invite a senior leader to join a site walk and listen to what workers raise.

Tip: One conversation that leads to a visible change will do more for your safety culture than a month of posters. Workers do notice when something they raised is acted on.

Building this into your culture of care

The point of a theme like Safe work is for life is that it does not end on 31 October. The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2023-2033 sets a national vision of safe and healthy work for all, and that vision is reached through ordinary decisions about how work is planned and carried out, far more than through awareness campaigns.

Tip: A useful test is to ask what your workplace will still be doing differently in February because of a conversation that started this month. If the honest answer is nothing, the conversation is not finished yet.

Sources

• Safe Work Australia, National Safe Work Month
• Safe Work Australia, National Safe Work Month 2026: week 1
• Safe Work Australia, National Safe Work Month 2026 activity kit

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal or health and safety advice.

What is a commutation?

A commutation is an agreement between a worker and an insurer. The worker receives a lump sum payment, and in return certain ongoing workers compensation entitlements are settled.

Commutations have long existed in NSW, but the eligibility rules were narrow. The recent reforms open the door wider for a limited period.

Note: Once a commutation is approved and paid, the worker is no longer entitled to workers compensation benefits for that injury. It is a significant decision, which is why the process has several safeguards built in.

What has changed

The Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Regulation 2026 temporarily expands access to commutations to three additional classes of cases. Each class has its own eligibility requirements, set out in Part 9A of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016.

A few points apply across the board:

• The worker and the insurer must agree on the worker's degree of permanent impairment before a commutation can proceed.
• Commutation is voluntary. A worker elects to pursue it, and can withdraw at any time before approval.
• An agreement only takes effect once it is approved by the President of the Personal Injury Commission.
• The existing commutation pathways remain available where their preconditions are met.

Info: Whether a particular claim falls within Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 is a question for the insurer or the worker's legal adviser. SIRA recommends workers confirm this before submitting an Expression of Interest.

The key dates and timeframes

• Worker submits an Expression of Interest: by 1 April 2028
• Employer forwards an Expression of Interest to the insurer: within 3 business days
• Insurer acknowledges the Expression of Interest: within 10 business days of receiving it
• Application for approval lodged with the Personal Injury Commission: by 1 April 2029

How the process works

1. Expression of Interest. The worker completes the approved SIRA form and gives it to the insurer or to the employer.
2. Independent legal advice. Before entering an agreement, the worker must get independent legal advice about its full legal effect.
3. Independent financial advice. For Class 1 and Class 2 claims, financial advice is mandatory when the proposed amount exceeds $100,000. The insurer pays up to $2,500 towards the cost.
4. Commutation agreement. If the worker and insurer agree, they complete the approved SIRA agreement form.
5. Approval. The agreement goes to the Personal Injury Commission, and only takes effect if the President approves it.

Note: The financial advice requirements do not apply to Class 3 claims, which relate to hearing loss.

What employers need to do

The step most likely to catch an employer out is the simplest one. A worker is allowed to hand their Expression of Interest to you instead of the insurer, and when that happens you have three business days to pass it on.

These steps will help you prepare:

• Decide who in your business receives these forms, and make sure that person knows about the three-day deadline.
• Brief your return to work coordinator and anyone who manages injured workers, so a form is recognised when it arrives.
• Ask your insurer or claims service provider which of your open claims may fall within the new classes.
• Keep your own advice neutral. The decision belongs to the worker, who must get independent legal advice before agreeing to anything.

Tip: Long-running claims carry a real cost in premiums and in management time. A review of your open NSW claims with your insurer will show you where the expanded pathway could be relevant, well before the 2028 deadline starts to bite.

How Actevate can help

Actevate supports employers with injury management and workers compensation claims, including reviewing open claims and the factors driving your premium. If you would like help working out what the commutation changes mean for your claims, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Sources

• SIRA, Workers Guidance: Expanded Access to Commutations
• SIRA, Workers Compensation Scheme changes commencing 1 October 2026

This article summarises SIRA guidance current as at October 2026. It is general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

What has changed

Treatment and services must now be "reasonable and necessary" for their costs to be compensable. The requirement applies to:

• Medical and related treatment
• Hospital treatment
• Ambulance services
• Workplace rehabilitation services

According to SIRA's guidance for employers, treatment must now primarily treat the compensable injury, be clinically justified and represent value for money. SIRA says the change is designed to improve consistency in decisions about evidence-based treatment and support.

Info: New rules in Part 4A of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 set out how insurers must decide whether a treatment or service is reasonable and necessary. The Workers Compensation Guidelines were also revised from 1 October 2026 to reflect the new requirement.

A subtle change in wording with widespread impact

Under the old wording, "reasonably" qualified "necessary". The new wording sets out two separate requirements, and a treatment request has to meet both of these buckets.

In practice, that gives insurers a firmer basis to ask for clinical justification before approving a request. Treatment that would once have been waved through may now attract questions about how it relates to the work injury and what outcome it is expected to deliver.

Which claims the new requirement applies to

The new requirement applies to treatment or service claims made on or after 1 October 2026. Requests made before that date continue to be assessed under the old "reasonably necessary" wording in certain circumstances, including where treatment was approved before 1 October but has not yet been completed.

Note: The date that matters is when the treatment request was made, and not the date of the injury. A worker with a long-standing claim who asks for new treatment today will have that request assessed under the new requirement.

The change applies to all workers, including exempt workers such as police officers, paramedics and firefighters.

What is now excluded

SIRA's guidance says some treatments and services are expressly excluded from employer liability. These include certain alternative therapies, wellness services and unprescribed massage. Some general health or recreational activities are also excluded unless they are prescribed by a medical practitioner.

What this means for your injured workers

A worker who has been receiving a particular treatment may find that a new request for it is questioned. That can be unsettling, particularly for someone who is already anxious about their recovery.

How the change is explained makes a real difference. A worker who hears about it early from a manager they trust is far less likely to experience a request for more information as a rejection.

Tip: Uncertainty about treatment is one of the more common reasons a claim stalls. A short, early conversation that explains the new requirement and the likely next steps helps keep recovery and return to work on track.

What this means for employers

For most employers, the change will be felt in timing and communication more than in policy. Insurers now have a firmer basis to ask for clinical justification, so approvals may take longer, and return to work coordinators and line managers are likely to field more questions from injured workers. Where treatment is on hold, recovery timeframes and suitable duties plans may need to be revisited. Employers who are well placed for the change tend to have people leaders who understand the new requirement and injured workers who have heard early what to expect. They also keep a close working relationship with their insurer or claims service provider, so a delayed or declined request is followed up, and their return to work program and injury management procedures reflect the current wording.

How Actevate can help

Actevate works alongside employers on injury management and return to work, helping injured workers get the right support early and keeping claims moving. Our return to work consultants can help you explain these changes to your team and review how your claims are managed. Call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Sources

• SIRA, Workers Compensation Scheme changes commencing 1 October 2026
• SIRA, Key changes for employers
• SIRA, Reasonable and necessary reforms: guidance for insurers

This article summarises SIRA guidance current as at October 2026. It is general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

As business leaders, we are constantly under pressure to scale efficiencies. With premiums climbing and operational costs rising, finding a way to deliver more for less is a constant corporate priority. I am all too familiar with the relentless demand to protect margins and balance competing financial priorities.

Yet, when this cost-containment directive is applied to workforce mental health, I have watched strategic optimisation degrade into structural and safety compromise.

This compromise usually wears the mask of innovation. This systemic vulnerability is most glaringly apparent in the way organisations procure and deploy Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). Historically relied upon as a primary corporate mechanism for providing psychological and counselling support, the traditional EAP model has been systematically stripped of its human clinical depth to fit under the umbrella of low-cost digital procurement.

There is no shortcut to psychosocial safety

The corporate landscape is currently flooded with software-first vendors promising universal, frictionless access at a fraction of traditional clinical costs. It sounds like the perfect executive trifecta. But this is a dangerous economic illusion. True psychosocial safety is an upstream operational foundation, not a downstream line item. When leaders treat mental health as a transactional product rather than an integrated risk management strategy, they inadvertently create an environment of systemic neglect, trading sustainable organisational health for short-term budget relief.

This new cohort of digital-only Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) is an understandably alluring proposition to cost-conscious employers. However, compressing margins on psychological safety is a short-sighted strategy. Substituting high-touch, qualified care with automated interfaces does not mitigate corporate risk. Instead, it merely transfers the financial burden from the benefits ledger to the operating statement. It reappears masquerading as heightened absenteeism, costly turnover, increasing claims, and eroded productivity.

Psychosocial safety is not a passive state, it is an active, legally mandated practice of hazard identification and risk minimisation.

Info:Australian employers are legally required to manage psychosocial risks to workers under work health and safety laws.

The Illusion of "Digital Scale"

The reality is uncompromising.

In the field of safety science, a foundational principle remains true: technology can scale transactions, but it cannot scale clinical accountability. A modern digital tech stack is highly valuable for lowering barriers to entry but this operational throughput must never be conflated with clinical efficacy.

When an employee is at their most vulnerable, isolating them with standalone software completely ignores the critical role of human clinical accountability. Worse, standard EAPs offer no continuity of care. Routinely shifting employees through a rotating door of unvetted, external psychologists who have zero context regarding your business or WHS regulations.

True psychosocial safety requires a dedicated clinical team that integrates directly into your organisation.

Software-first platforms often look impressive on a ledger, boasting massive user bases and low per-employee premiums. However, market research reveals that standalone software delivery models frequently struggle with therapeutic inertia, resulting in single-digit engagement and a failure to move the needle on clinical outcomes.

Info:Approximately 60% of organisations are not evaluating their EAPs and the remaining 40% relying on employee feedback, surveys and feedback from their EAP provider.

Mitigating Your Legal and Financial Liability

With Australian employers legally mandated to manage psychosocial hazards under strict Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws, a passive, low-utilisation software platform is no longer a defensible strategy.

The financial and operational value of an integrated model is clearly reflected in our own data. We analysed 500 clinical sessions over the past two years to quantify the direct impact of embedded care. In over 35 per cent of cases, our team of dedicated psychologists and mental health practitioners demonstrably prevented escalation to a time-loss event. By providing immediate, culturally contextualised clinical intervention, we intercepted complex psychological risks that intervened before escalating into a claim.

Fixing the Root Cause

Efficiency is a virtue in business, but human psychology does not heal through algorithmic triage, nor does it thrive under transactional, detached counseling models. When a team member is experiencing distress, they require an integrated care ecosystem and a team of clinicians who know your business, understand your operational hazards, and can step in to resolve systemic issues at the root.

When an EAP operates as a detached software vendor or in a silo, it can only ever react to the symptoms of an individual worker in crisis. It completely lacks the institutional visibility to ask why the crisis occurred. True organisational health requires a continuous feedback loop between clinical intervention and operational design.

In an integrated, embedded model, your clinical team doesn't just hold space for individual recovery; they act as an early-warning diagnostic tool for the entire enterprise. Because these practitioners understand the unique cultural and operational fabric of your business, they can spot macro-trends of distress as they emerge across specific cohorts or leadership branches. This allows the clinical team to securely, compliantly, and proactively consult with your executive leadership.

Instead of just offering individual coping strategies, we help you re-engineer your workflows, communication structures, and cultural hazards that are driving your risk profile in the first place.

Why It Is Time to Rethink Your EAP Partner

In an era of rising premiums, tightening operational margins, and uncompromising legislative scrutiny under Australian WHS laws, business leaders cannot afford the hidden liabilities of superficial care. Squeezing costs on your EAP does not save money. It simply defers the expense, forcing your operating statement to absorb the heavy price of prolonged absenteeism, avoidable worker's compensation claims, and higher employee turnover.

This is exactly why we built our integrated EAP model. We rejected the superficiality of standalone apps and the clinical disconnect of legacy software. Our battle tested delivery model provides your people with instantaneous access to qualified support. We embed a dedicated team of highly qualified practitioners directly into the fabric of your organisation. We secure your people and protect your operational continuity from the inside out.

The choice for modern leadership is clear. Deploying an integrated safety net that actively de-risks your enterprise is the smart safety and strategic choice.

It is time to look past the alluring promises of low-cost digital scale and reinvest in what actually protects your bottom line.

Wayahead Mental Health Matters Awards 2026

Actevate is proud to be sponsoring the Leadership in Workplace Psychosocial Safety Award at the 2026 Mental Health Matters Awards, hosted by Wayahead Mental Health Association NSW.

This award recognises a workplace initiative or program that shows outstanding commitment to creating safe and supportive work environments, and it celebrates the organisations going well beyond compliance to champion proactive, innovative and evidence informed approaches that reduce psychosocial risk.

Nominees are judged on whether psychosocial safety is genuinely embedded in everyday practice through strong governance, inclusive culture, meaningful worker participation and systems that prevent harm.

It is a category that feels more pertinent than ever. With the psychosocial hazards code now enforceable in NSW and the regulator paying close attention, the conversation has shifted quickly from whether workplaces should be managing psychosocial risk to how well they are actually doing it. This award celebrates the organisations that were not waiting to be asked.

The Awards pull together senior leaders, HR and WHS decision makers, clinicians, policy people and lived experience advocates from across NSW, which makes it one of the more useful rooms in the sector calendar. It is always a genuinely good day, and one of the few where the people doing the quiet, unglamorous work get to stand up and be recognised for it.

Speaking this year:

The Hon. Rose Jackson MLC
NSW Minister for Mental Health, who has held the portfolio since 2023 and is responsible for the delivery and development of mental health services across the state.

Mitch Brown
Former West Coast Eagles player with 94 AFL games to his name, now a mental health advocate who speaks on inclusion, authenticity and positive masculinity through his own lived experience.

Info: The event is a great opportunity for networking with fellow mental health advocates and connecting with likeminded leaders across sectors.

Actevate's category sits alongside seven others recognising work across the sector:

• Leadership in Workplace Psychosocial Safety Award, sponsored by Actevate
• Mental Health Matters Youth Award, sponsored by the Office for Youth
• Mental Health Matters Community Initiative Award, sponsored by Beyond Bank
• First Nations Social and Emotional Wellbeing Award, sponsored by the Mental Health Commission
• Julie Leitch Leadership through Lived Experience Award
• Outstanding Achievement in Mental Health Promotion Award
• Mental Health Matters Media and the Arts Award
• Mental Health Matters Rainbow Inclusion Award

Event details

• Date: Friday 25 September 2026
• Time: 11:30am to 3:30pm
• Venue: Grand Ballroom, Four Seasons Hotel Sydney, 199 George Street, The Rocks
• Includes: two course sit down lunch with drinks
• Dress code: semi-formal

Buy a ticket

Individual seats and full tables are on sale now, and a table is worth considering if you want to bring your leadership group or WHS committee along. It always promises to be a great event, and the finalists' stories tend to stay with you longer than you expect.

Note: Tickets are sold through Humanitix, which directs 100% of its booking fee profits to charity. Payment plans are available if you would rather spread the cost of a table.

Book your tickets or table

If you are coming along, come and find our team to say hello. We would love to meet you.

SafeWork NSW has published a set of practical online tools to help officers understand and meet their due diligence obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. At Actevate we welcome the release, because it turns a duty that many officers find abstract into something they can actually check themselves against.

The feedback we hear from our own clients is consistent. Officers understand that due diligence is a legal obligation. What they are far less certain about is what it looks like in day to day decision making, and what a regulator would accept as proof that they were exercising it.

Info: The self-assessment tool is free and takes only a few minutes. It is a capability building exercise, not a compliance check, and completing it does not trigger any regulator action.

Who counts as an officer

This is the first thing organisations tend to get wrong. Due diligence does not sit with the WHS team. It sits personally with the people who make, or take part in making, decisions that affect a substantial part of the business.

In practice that usually means:

• Company directors
• Chief executives and executive leadership
• Senior managers with genuine decision making authority over resources and operations
• Certain partners, office holders and public sector equivalents

Note: The duty is personal and it cannot be delegated. An officer can appoint a safety manager and still be liable, because appointing someone is not the same as verifying that what they have built actually works.

The six reasonable steps

SafeWork NSW frames due diligence as taking reasonable steps across six areas. The genuinely useful part of this release is that the regulator has now spelled out, for each step, the records an officer should be able to produce.

1. Acquire and keep up to date WHS knowledge

Annual WHS governance training for officers, quarterly briefings to the board on emerging hazards such as psychosocial risk, and keeping current with code of practice updates.

Records: officer training records, board skills matrix, briefing packs on WHS law updates.

2. Understand the operations and their hazards

Structured officer site visits to high risk locations, and periodic deep dives on critical risks aligned to the approved codes.

Records: visit logs with observations, risk registers, critical risk heat maps discussed at board or executive level.

3. Ensure appropriate resources and processes are in place

Approving and tracking budget for controls, and making sure there is enough WHS capability and frontline staffing to run operations safely.

Records: capital requests tied to risk assessments, staffing plans, maintenance records for safety critical controls.

4. Ensure incidents, hazards and risks are received and responded to in time

Escalation of notifiable incidents and overdue actions to executives against response time targets, with a clear workflow covering who analyses, who decides, by when, and how closure is verified.

Records: incident trend dashboards, action closure reports, minutes evidencing decisions and timeframes met.

5. Ensure processes exist for complying with WHS duties

Incident notification, worker consultation, compliance with notices, training and instruction, and health and safety representative training entitlements.

Records: procedure suite, training matrices, consultation records, licence schedule, notices register.

6. Verify that steps 3 to 5 are actually working

This is the step most often missed. Verification means actively confirming through audits, inspections and follow through, rather than passively receiving reports.

Records: audit plans and reports, corrective action logs, a decision and participation register cross referenced to board minutes.

Tip: Read step six as the test the other five are marked against. Most officers we work with can evidence resourcing and process. Far fewer can evidence that they checked whether any of it worked.

What the self-assessment gives you

The tool is a short questionnaire covering how effectively you are exercising your responsibilities. On completion you receive:

• Insight into your current due diligence practices
• Your strengths and your opportunities for improvement
• Tailored, prioritised actions to strengthen your safety leadership

SafeWork NSW has also published a short quick reference guide covering the fundamentals: who may be an officer, what the specific duties are, and the practical steps available to strengthen compliance. It is worth reading before you start the assessment rather than after.

Why this matters now

Two changes make this release more consequential than it first appears.

Approved codes of practice became directly enforceable in NSW from 1 July 2026. Where your systems depart from a relevant code, you now need documentation showing your approach provides an equivalent or higher standard. And psychosocial risk remains a headline SafeWork NSW regulatory priority, with the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work code the enforceable benchmark.

Officers should also be aware of the personal exposure. Where an organisation fails to comply with a WHS duty and that failure is attributed wholly or partly to an officer failing to meet their section 27 duty, the officer may be found guilty of an offence, separately from the business.

Note: A completed self-assessment is not itself evidence of due diligence. It shows you where the gaps are. Closing and documenting them is the part that counts.

Access the resources

• Officer Due Diligence Self-Assessment tool
• Officer due diligence quick reference guide (PDF)
• SafeWork NSW due diligence guidance

How Actevate can help

The self-assessment will tell you where your gaps are. It will not close them. That is the work we do with officers and executive teams.

• Psychosocial risk gap assessment. We assess your current systems against the enforceable code and give you a documented position on where you stand and what to fix first.
• Officer and leadership capability. Our mental health training builds the capability step one asks for, giving leaders the skills to recognise psychosocial hazards and respond early.
• Evidence you can point to. We help you build the consultation records, risk registers and review cycles that make step six defensible.

If you have completed the self-assessment and want to talk through the result, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

This article summarises SafeWork NSW guidance current as at August 2026. It is general information, not legal advice. Officer obligations depend on your role and circumstances. For advice on your specific position, speak to Actevate or a qualified legal practitioner.

SafeWork NSW recently released its Regulatory Statement for 2026-27, confirming the four areas that will drive its inspection and enforcement activity over the next 12 months.

The Statement sets out the work health and safety risks, industries and behaviours that will attract the regulator's attention this financial year. For any business operating in New South Wales, it is a clear indication of where inspector visits, audits and compliance action will be directed.

The priorities are largely consistent with the past two years. SafeWork NSW Commissioner, Janet Schorer, has indicated that this continuity is deliberate, and that businesses in the priority areas should be examining what is working well in their safety systems and what needs to improve.

"Since becoming a standalone regulator, we’ve not seen much of a change in our regulatory priorities between 2025/26 and 2026/27. This signals to me that, while we have work to do as a regulator, it’s also important for businesses in those key priority areas to think really seriously about their work health and safety in terms of what is working well and what needs to be improved."
‍
- Janet Schorer

Enforceable Codes of Practice

Amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) came into effect on 1 July 2026, giving legal force to approved Codes of Practice. Until now, Codes have operated as guidance material that inspectors and courts could reference when assessing what was reasonably practicable. They are now directly enforceable.

If your safety management system does not align with a relevant approved Code, you will need to demonstrate that your approach provides an equivalent or higher standard of protection, and you will need documentation to support that position.

We suggest a documented gap analysis against each Code that applies to your operations, completed this quarter. Where your systems depart from a Code, businesses should record the rationale and the evidence that your alternative approach meets or exceeds the standard.

Psychosocial risk

Psychosocial risk remains a headline priority, and the supporting data explains why. SafeWork NSW received more than 2,200 requests for service and over 190 incident notifications relating to psychosocial hazards in the past 12 months.

The regulator's focus for 2026-27 falls in two areas.

Risk factors leading to harmful behaviours

This includes bullying and harassment, with attention on high-risk workplaces and occupations.

Preventing violence and aggression towards frontline and customer-facing workers

This has been flagged as a specific sub-priority. Organisations in health, education, retail, hospitality, community services and government should take particular note.

In our experience, the gap for most organisations is not intent but evidence. Policies, values statements and employee assistance programs are valuable, but they do not constitute a psychosocial risk management system, and they will not satisfy an inspector on their own.

Note: The Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice is now the enforceable benchmark in NSW.

A defensible system involves identifying hazards through consultation, surveys and incident data, assessing and prioritising those hazards, implementing controls at the source of the risk rather than relying on individual coping strategies, and reviewing controls as the organisation changes. It also requires leaders and managers who are trained to recognise psychosocial hazards and respond to reports early. Effective risk management requires capability and capacity, at all levels, across operational teams and support functions.

Falls from heights

Falls from heights remains the leading cause of traumatic injury in NSW workplaces, with over 600 incidents and five fatalities reported in the past 12 months. SafeWork NSW will maintain its focus on residential construction and will extend its attention across the construction supply chain, including officers, principal contractors and supervisors.

Businesses that engage contractors should note that their duties extend beyond induction. The regulator expects evidence of capability across the chain, which means verifying that contractors' safe work method statements reflect actual practice rather than sitting in a file.

Hazardous substances

The focus here is exposure to crystalline silica, particularly in tunnelling and infrastructure projects, and asbestos in construction. In the past 12 months, inspectors issued more than 145 silica-related notices and received over 45 reports of silicosis cases.

Businesses with workers engaged in high-risk crystalline silica processing work should confirm strict compliance with the notification requirements of the Silica Worker Register, which commenced on 1 October 2025. This is an area where the regulator is actively checking records, and gaps are straightforward for an inspector to identify.

Mobile plant, vehicles and fixed machinery

Preventing injury from mobile plant, vehicle rollover and access to moving parts of machinery remains a priority, with agriculture, construction and manufacturing named as focus industries. The regulator was notified of over 500 incidents and eight fatalities related to mobile plant in the past year. Traffic management, exclusion zones, guarding and operator competency should all be reviewed against current practice.

Across all four priorities, the Statement reinforces three expectations that apply to every duty holder.

The first is genuine consultation with workers about WHS risks and decisions that affect their health and safety. You must be able to show how that consultation happened. Effective consultation has a visible loop. 

The second is ensuring WHS initiatives are appropriate for groups at higher risk of harm, including apprentices, young workers, migrant workers and culturally and linguistically diverse workers. Training and guidance for these groups should be short, practical and delivered in plain language, with comprehension confirmed rather than assumed. For HR teams, this touches recruitment, induction, supervision and training design.

The third is compliance with the now enforceable Codes of Practice. As covered above, this is the structural change of 2026-27. It converts the other two expectations from good practice into measurable standards, because the relevant Codes describe what adequate consultation and risk management look like in concrete terms.

The common thread is evidence. Each of these expectations is easy to claim and easy for an inspector to disprove, which is precisely why they feature in the Statement.

‍

Tip: You can download the full 2026-27 Regulatory Statement from the SafeWork NSW website. Map each priority against your current risk register to see where your gaps are before an inspector does.

Key takeaways

Employers in construction, agriculture and manufacturing appear across multiple priority areas and should expect increased regulatory interest this financial year. For all other organisations, the psychosocial hazards Code represents the most immediate compliance exposure, particularly for those with frontline or customer-facing workforces.

The consistent theme of the Statement is documentation. Consultation records, risk registers, gap analyses and training records are the evidence base the regulator will test. Organisations that can produce them are well placed. Organisations that cannot should treat this Statement as the prompt to close the gap while it remains inexpensive to do so.

How Actevate can help

Actevate works with NSW employers to build practical psychosocial risk management systems that meet the enforceable Code of Practice. Our training gives leaders, HR teams and WHS professionals the capability to identify psychosocial hazards, consult effectively and respond to issues with confidence.

If the 2026-27 Statement has raised questions about where your organisation stands, contact us to discuss a psychosocial risk gap assessment or leadership training for your team.

Info: Actevate delivers psychosocial risk training for leaders, HR and WHS teams. See our mental health training programs.

What Is Resilience?

Search the word "resilience" online and you will find millions of explanations. But what does resilience actually mean, why is it important to you, and how can you benefit from resilience training?

We all respond differently to setbacks, failure and trauma. Some people seem to bounce back quickly, while others get caught in a downward spiral of negative thinking. We all know that person: the one who keeps going after every setback, the one who seems to have "Psychological Teflon". Research suggests this is the effect of resilience (1).

At its core, resilience is the ability to bounce back from adversity. It is the capacity to find perspective, and even opportunity, in a difficult or challenging situation. In the modern workplace, resilience helps us navigate constant change, hybrid work pressures, rapid technology shifts including AI, competing priorities and growing workloads.

‍

Why Is Resilience Important?

Beyond the buzz, evidence shows that people with high resilience have a more balanced outlook on life and believe they can learn from mistakes and challenges. Resilient individuals handle adversity better and rebuild more effectively after major life events such as job loss, financial pressure, relationship breakdown or the death of a loved one.

In everyday life, put simply, resilience builds happiness. It helps us make the most of the challenges we face. Resilience will not prevent difficulties, but it prepares us to deal with them more effectively. You may not realise it, but resilience shapes how we respond in almost every situation. There are probably people in your life or workplace who are juggling multiple stressors yet still show up each day with a smile.

‍

The Cost of Low Resilience in the Workplace

The effects of a non-resilient workplace can be far-reaching. Low levels of resilience have been associated with:

• Increased absenteeism
• Higher accident rates and workers compensation claims
• Reduced morale
• Poor workplace relationships
• Reduced output and performance
• Increased staff turnover

After years of disruption, from the pandemic to economic uncertainty and the rise of AI in the workplace, burnout and change fatigue are at record levels. Being able to identify stressors, and understand the effect they have on you and the people around you, has never been more important. With all of the above creating potentially toxic effects across an organisation, building a culture of resilience through resilience training should be a no-brainer for every employer.

Can Resilience Be Taught?

Some people are naturally more resilient than others, but the evidence is clear: resilience can be learned. Resilience training provides real-world strategies and techniques that help you build your "resilience bank". That way, when a challenge inevitably comes your way, you will have effective tools ready to support you.

Key Takeaways

Resilience is not an extraordinary quality. It is ordinary, attainable and demonstrated by everyday people all around us. But resilience is an active process. We need to keep working on it, for ourselves and for a happy, mentally healthy workforce.

Recovery at work is important because the longer an injured worker stays away, the less likely they are to return. After 20 days off work the chance of ever going back is 70%, and after 70 days it falls to 35%. Staying connected through suitable duties supports faster recovery and protects mental health, which also lowers claim costs for employers.

Why Recovery at Work?

The evidence is clear: good work is good for health. Research consistently shows that the longer an injured worker stays away from work, the lower their chances of ever returning. Extended time off is associated with slower recovery, social isolation, loss of confidence, financial stress and a higher risk of developing secondary mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression.

Info: The numbers here are confronting. Research endorsed by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and quoted by Comcare and WorkSafe Queensland, shows that after 20 days off work a person's chance of ever returning is 70%. After 45 days it drops to 50%. After 70 days it is just 35%.

Researchers have estimated the health risk of long-term worklessness as equivalent to smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day. In contrast, workers who remain connected to the workplace during recovery tend to heal faster, both physically and psychologically. Work provides routine, purpose, social connection and income, all of which are powerful ingredients in recovery. Doctors and workers compensation authorities across Australia now actively promote recovery at work as the preferred approach for most injuries.

Pain is one of the most common reasons a return to work stalls, and it is worth separating from capacity. More than 5.4 million Australians live with chronic pain, around one in five of us, and most are of working age (Chronic Pain Australia, 2026). The instinct is usually to wait for the pain to settle before going back, but the two do not track each other neatly. A person's tolerance for activity can improve while their pain levels stay much the same, which is why capacity is judged on what someone can safely do rather than on how much pain they are in. Duties built around that judgement, and upgraded as it shifts, are what keep a worker's skills, relationships and self-belief in place. A long absence chips away at all three.

The Benefits of Recovery at Work for Employees

For injured workers, recovering at work delivers real, measurable benefits:

• Faster recovery: Staying active and engaged in suitable duties supports physical rehabilitation and prevents deconditioning.
• Better mental health: Routine, purpose and social connection protect against the isolation, low mood and loss of identity that often come with extended time off.
• Financial stability: Remaining at work, even on modified duties, helps maintain income and reduces the financial pressure that can compound stress during recovery.
• Job security and confidence: Workers who stay connected keep their skills current, maintain relationships with colleagues and are far more likely to return to their pre-injury role.
• A sense of control: Being an active participant in your own recovery, rather than waiting passively at home, improves outcomes and wellbeing.

‍

The Benefits of Recovery at Work for Employers

Recovery at work is not just good for the injured worker. It is one of the smartest investments an employer can make:

• Reduced claim costs and premiums: Shorter time off work means lower workers compensation costs and better claims performance over time.
• Retained skills and experience: Keeping an experienced worker connected, even in a modified capacity, beats recruiting and training a replacement.
• Improved morale and culture: When employees see injured colleagues supported rather than sidelined, trust and engagement rise across the whole team.
• Reduced absenteeism and turnover: Workplaces with strong recovery at work practices see better attendance and retention overall.
• Legal compliance: Employers have obligations under workers compensation legislation to support injured workers and provide suitable duties where reasonably practicable. A structured program keeps you compliant.

Info: A Monash University study of an Australian claims model built on early reporting and worker-centred case management found average compensation days fell from 33.5 to 14.1, and average claim costs dropped from around $6,000 to under $4,000. The savings held across industries and injury types.

‍

What a Good Recovery at Work Plan Actually Looks Like

Here is the uncomfortable finding from the latest National Return to Work Survey: only about 6 in 10 injured workers report having a return to work plan, even though plans are strongly associated with better outcomes and smoother transitions back to work. Interestingly, far more employers believe a plan is in place than workers do, which points to a communication gap rather than a paperwork gap. A plan the worker doesn't know about is not really a plan.

It also helps to be clear about what the plan is working towards. The goal is pre-injury duties, not pre-injury capacity. Of course we want to get as close to pre-injury duties as possible, but it is not about the worker being exactly where they were before the injury. Injuries are complex.

In practice that means a pre-injury duty trial first. Once the trial is completed successfully, the next step is a pre-injury duty clearance.

A genuine recovery at work plan is specific, and the worker, the employer and the treating team have all agreed to it. It should cover:

• Suitable duties matched to certified capacity: Real, productive tasks the worker can safely do now, based on what their doctor has certified, not a guess.
• Agreed hours and an upgrade pathway: Where the worker starts, and how duties and hours will step up as capacity improves, confirmed with the treating practitioner at each stage.
• A named contact: One person responsible for checking in, answering questions and adjusting the plan. Recovery stalls when nobody owns it.
• Scheduled reviews: Set dates to review progress with the worker and their treating team, rather than waiting for something to go wrong.
• Team communication: Agreement with the worker on what colleagues will be told, so they return to support rather than speculation.

‍

Common Myths About Recovering at Work

Myth: You should be 100 percent recovered before returning to work.
‍Reality: Waiting for full recovery often delays it. For most injuries, safe and suitable work is part of the treatment.

Myth: Returning early risks making the injury worse.
‍Reality: A properly designed recovery at work plan is built around medical restrictions. Duties are matched to capacity and upgraded only with the treating practitioner's support.

Myth: Light duties are demeaning or token work.
‍Reality: Good suitable duties are meaningful and productive. They keep skills current and maintain the worker's value to the team.

Myth: It is easier for everyone if the worker just stays home.
‍Reality: Extended absence is harder on everyone. The worker risks isolation and a longer recovery, while the employer carries higher claim costs and loses a valued team member.

Tip: The hardest part for most employers is identifying suitable duties that are genuinely meaningful. Actevate's return to work consultants work with you, your worker and their treating team to design duties matched to medical capacity, then upgrade them as recovery progresses.

Key Takeaways

Recovery at work is one of the most well-evidenced ideas in injury management. The window matters more than most employers realise, because the odds of a worker ever returning fall from 70% to 35% between day 20 and day 70 off work. Injured workers who stay connected recover faster, protect their mental health and are far more likely to return to their pre-injury role. Employers who support them see lower costs, stronger culture and a more resilient workforce.

An injury does not have to mean isolation. With the right plan, work becomes part of the recovery.

How Actevate can help

Actevate has been an approved workplace rehabilitation provider since 2006, supporting some of Australia's largest employers to get people back to work safely and sustainably.

• Recovery at work planning: Our return to work consultants coordinate the whole process, from suitable duties design through to case conferencing with treating practitioners, for both physical and psychological injuries.
• Catch complications early: Pathways, our digital screening solution, identifies workers whose recovery is likely to be complicated by mental health factors, so we can act before a straightforward physical claim becomes a complex psychological one.
• Prevent the next claim: Our manual handling training and ergonomic assessments reduce the risk of injuries happening in the first place.

If you have a worker off on a claim right now, the clock in that first section is already running. Tell us about the claim and a return to work specialist will call you back within one business day. For everything else, call 1300 663 155 or get in touch.

Many employers now worry about rising premiums and feel they have lost their say in how claims are handled. Rob Migliore opened the session by introducing Amin Atighpour, Actevate's workers' compensation specialist, who spent years inside the claims system at Employers Mutual and then Qantas. The session focused on the NSW nominal insurer, although many of the principles apply to insurance arrangements nationally.

Tip: Download our free workers' comp premiums glossary to follow along with the terms used in this session.

How the NSW scheme is structured

Before 2015, WorkCover NSW performed the key functions of the scheme. It was then dissolved into SIRA, icare and SafeWork NSW, which created the setup employers deal with today.

• NSW Government: sets the legislative framework.
• SIRA (State Insurance Regulatory Authority): sets the rules and regulations for how that legislation is applied.
• The nominal insurer and icare: the nominal insurer provides cover for the state, and icare manages its policies and claims.
• Scheme agents: providers such as EML, Allianz, GIO, QBE and Gallagher Bassett manage claims on icare's behalf.

The nominal insurer carries roughly 60 to 70% of claims in the scheme. The other arrangements are self-insurers (Qantas is one example), the NSW Government's Treasury Managed Fund, and specialised insurers for certain sectors such as hospitality.

How your premium is calculated

Every premium starts with your average performance premium (APP). This is your total wage bill multiplied by your workers' compensation industry classification rate, which is set by your business's main activity. Higher-risk activities carry a higher rate.

Tip: If your business genuinely has more than one main activity, it may be worth looking at multiple policies with different industry classification codes.

Small employers: APP under $30,000

Small employers sit under the conventional model. Claims costs don't affect their premium and they aren't compared with other employers, so they pay mainly based on APP. The trade-off is that employers in the other models pay a little more to cover those claims costs.

Medium and large employers: APP over $30,000

Most employers sit under the experience-rated model. The key part of the formula is the claims performance adjustment (CPA), which is driven by your own claims performance over the past three years and by the scheme performance measure. In other words, your premium is influenced by how other employers in the scheme perform as well as by your own claims.

Weekly compensation payments (lost time) have the biggest impact under this model. Lump sum payments for permanent impairment or work injury damages also count, but they tend to arrive later in a claim. The longer a claim stays open, the costlier it becomes.

Large employers: the LPR model

Once your APP passes $500,000, you can move to the loss prevention and recovery (LPR) model. Your premium is then based on your APP and your own claims costs rather than the wider scheme. The catch is that far more claims costs count toward your premium, and each dollar can have up to three times the impact.

Rob noted that some Actevate clients have entered the LPR model, with initial premium savings of a third to half. It only works if you have the right resources to stop a lost time injury turning into a protracted recovery.

Note: In a recent review, Actevate found a journey claim that the insurer hadn't coded as a journey claim. Correcting that one code saved the employer $168,000.

Rob explained why errors like this slip through. Before 2015, the same claims team helped calculate the premium. Scheme agents now administer claims on icare's behalf, so the case manager often doesn't know how coding or claim costs will affect your premium.

Reducing your premium impact

Focus on weekly compensation payments

Whichever model you're on, weekly compensation payments make up the largest share of claims costs by a wide margin. Whatever the insurer pays in weekly benefits, you pay for several times over at renewal. Early intervention with suitable duties is the most effective way to bring that exposure down.

Engaging a rehabilitation provider early helps with:

• identifying suitable duties and completing initial assessments
• joining medical case conferences with treating doctors
• proactive return to work planning
• securing capacity upgrades sooner

Tip: You don't need to wait for the insurer's initial liability decision. A rehabilitation provider can be engaged in the first few days to assess the worksite and get the worker back on modified duties.

Get investigations moving early

If the insurer finds a claim isn't compensable, it has no impact on your premium. Review incident reports, check CCTV footage and look for any third party involvement where there may be recovery potential. Details that seem trivial can make a real difference.

Invest before an injury happens

Many employers only react when icare's premium notice arrives around June and July, and by then it's too late. Amin described small, early investments that pay off at renewal:

• Pre-employment checks that look at pre-existing conditions, since one avoided claim can save $50,000 to $70,000 in premium
• Mental health training and EAP to reduce psychosocial hazards, particularly following the psychological injury reforms
• Work health and safety audits to prevent physical injuries in environments like factories and production lines
• A suitable duties register to speed up return to work
• A dedicated return to work coordinator who reviews internal processes and represents you with the insurer
• A preferred rehabilitation provider who works in your interests from the start of a claim

Getting the most from your insurer

Your case manager is your main contact, and their experience, technical knowledge and understanding of premiums can vary a lot. The most reliable approach is to set expectations as soon as a claim starts rather than reacting once something goes wrong.

• Agree on a regular update schedule, whether weekly, fortnightly or monthly.
• Hold regular claims reviews.
• Set clear actions and timeframes for the case manager.
• Understand your escalation pathways.
• Share information early, ask questions and keep following up.

Why claims get approved so quickly

Rob asked Amin, a former case manager, technical specialist and team leader, why claims often seem to be accepted without question. Insurers will usually point to the low liability threshold in NSW legislation. Amin said that doesn't stop them gathering information and pushing back on claims that don't add up, although case managers can develop tunnel vision and move straight to accepting liability.

Interim liability decisions give insurers up to three months, and sometimes longer, to investigate. Yet some employers find that 10 weeks in, no investigations are underway and weekly benefits are simply being paid. Having someone on your side who liaises with the insurer early and holds them to account makes a real difference.

Tip: Collaboration works better than an adversarial approach. The more you understand premium impact and the tools available, the easier it is to ask the case manager for exactly what you need.

Escalating and giving feedback

If expectations aren't being met, escalate from the case manager to the team leader and then the group manager. Keep every escalation objective. Employers with an APP above $100,000 can choose their claims service provider at renewal, and insurers know that affects their bottom line.

Feedback channels carry more weight than most employers realise:

• Post-call surveys: the text message after a call looks like a scam, but it's genuine, and the results are an internal KPI for case managers and their team leaders.
• Periodic surveys from icare and insurers: these are rarely filled out, yet insurers read and act on them because they don't want to lose your business.
• Regular claims reviews: with the case manager and team leader in the room, these are a good forum to raise concerns objectively and reset expectations.

Positive feedback matters as well. When a case manager does a good job, telling them builds the relationship and the attention your claims receive.

Building your own capability

Amin's central message was that your premium isn't just a bill that arrives in the mail. Much of it sits within your control.

• Grow your knowledge of premium models, claims costs, liability and how insurers work.
• Tighten your injury response process. Know who the injury is reported to, who attends first, where the worker sees a GP and what the first certificate of capacity will look like, because the early stages set the tone for the whole claim.
• Look for trends in past claims. Repeated shoulder injuries on a production line, for example, point to processes worth reviewing.
• Act early on psychological risk. These claims usually build over time rather than stemming from one incident, and SIRA reports historically low return to work rates for psychological injuries.
• Monitor premium impact monthly so rising costs can be addressed well before renewal at the end of June.

Key takeaways from Rob

More insurers are now entering the scheme, which adds complexity but also gives employers choice. Rob cautioned that the grass isn't always greener: one Actevate client recently changed insurers and found the service no different. Building good relationships with the people managing your claims often achieves more than switching.

Knowing which costs matter is vital, and wage loss matters most. Depending on your model and claims history, each dollar of wages paid on a claim could cost you $1.50, $2 or $3 in premium, and some Actevate clients pay $4 to $4.50. Rob also suggested picking up the phone rather than relying on email, and asking to speak with a technical specialist when you need more information.

Questions from the audience

Do common law and WPI payments affect premium for three years from the date of injury?

Lump sum payments become premium impacting when they're made, and they can still factor into your premium outside that three-year window. If a claim looks likely to head toward common law or whole person impairment, Amin recommended an in-depth review. Where negligence may be alleged, such as a slip on an unsigned spill, start factual investigations early and document what training was provided.

How do we manage a non-work injury the worker says is work related?

Rob stressed that a claim is simply a claim, and it isn't a foregone conclusion. Employers can ask whether the worker has had these symptoms before, whether anyone witnessed the incident and whether CCTV is available, then send that information to the insurer with the claim. Amin added that an injury happening at work doesn't automatically make work the main contributing factor, which is where clinical records and pre-existing conditions come in.

Tip: Use the incident investigation template in your WHS management system. It prompts the questions an insurer will look at when making a liability decision.

What if we don't have internal resources to review our policy?

Actevate offers a review that looks at your current premium and the two to three years before it, checking whether anything such as claim coding was incorrect. Reach out to the team to find out more.

How do we manage wear and tear in long-serving employees?

Rob recommended periodic medicals every two years for workers in heavy manual handling roles or exposed to industrial noise or hazardous substances. They work much like a pre-employment medical, identifying future injury risk and what can be done now to prevent it.

Can anything be done when a worker falsely declares no previous injuries?

There are implications when a worker chooses not to disclose, but it's a complex area that deserves a longer conversation. Rob invited employers facing this issue to contact Actevate directly.

What changes on 1 July

The driver behind the change is a new section inserted into the Work Health and Safety Act, Section 26 capital A. In short, where the Minister approves a code of practice, a business must comply with that code and manage the relevant hazards to a standard equal to, or higher than, what the code sets out.

This is not to suggest codes of practice didn't matter beforehand. They were always material a prosecutor could rely on. But Section 26A gives them far greater importance. Businesses now need to pay very careful attention to the codes and go through them with a fine-tooth comb, whether the issue is psychosocial hazards, fatigue, or any other code of practice the Minister has approved.

The cost of getting it wrong

Regulators expect evidence that psychosocial safety is managed systematically. You apply the same rigour you would to a plant or manual handling risk assessment: identify, assess and control. The challenge is that there is a lot of ambiguity about what a psychosocial hazard actually is, and it is incumbent on the business to identify them.

The pressure is also financial and personal. Mental health claims are rising, the icare deficit is reported to be growing by around $7 million a day, and there is now personal liability for officers and managers, backed by fines and prosecutions under the Act.

National 17 vs NSW 15: what's the difference?

There are 17 hazards under the national code and 15 under the NSW framework. Safe Work NSW has consolidated the list into broader categories, combining related hazards under broader headings so it's easier for operational use and compliance. The underlying obligations are identical.

Both frameworks require employers to identify, assess and control psychosocial risks, applying the same duty of care and the same hierarchy of controls used elsewhere in work health and safety.

The five hazards that surface most

1. High & low job demands

It's not the occasional late night or early morning. It's the constant, excessive workload that leads to fatigue, then anxiety, which can lead to depression and disengagement. The flip side is just as real: monotonous, repetitive, dull work that isn't stimulating. As Kelly put it, we give our dogs toys so they don't get bored, and it's the same with our workers. The fix is active: switch up tasks, check in, ask how things are going, and balance it so you're not giving them too much.

2. Bullying

Repeated unreasonable behaviour by a person or group toward someone at work. It can be intimidating, belittling or dehumanising. Managers set the tone here. Practical controls include setting very clear expectations of behaviour, a code of conduct that's lived rather than just a piece of paper, modelling respectful language, and containing the louder voices in a room so the quieter ones can speak up. Nip it in the bud early and deal with it immediately, not days or weeks later at an appraisal.

3. Poor organisational justice

It's really just about fairness, where rules aren't applied to everybody equally. One person makes a joke and gets away with it because "that's just who he is," while someone else saying the same thing would be deemed the bully. As Kelly said, the standard you're willing to accept is the standard you walk by. Keep policies and rules uniform, be transparent about why decisions are made, and create open feedback channels people feel psychologically safe to use.

4. Lack of support & the "buckets" problem

James Mattson's caution: as employers we try to put things in buckets, and we shouldn't assume there aren't other buckets we need to deal with. A shy worker who feels intimidated may not fit the bullying bucket from a legal perspective, but the environment may still create a risk to safety that falls into another bucket, like lack of support. Don't assume one label covers everything.

5. Role clarity, isolation & job insecurity

Unclear responsibilities, remote or isolated work, and uncertainty about one's future all carry psychosocial risk, particularly when they accumulate, as the case study shows.

Case study: Kevin

Kelly walked through an anonymised accepted claim that brings these hazards to life. Kevin had worked at a small-to-medium enterprise for around 15 years and was deeply committed to the community he served.

How the hazards accumulated

• High/low job control: went from operating at a national level to having duties stripped and every task checked by his manager.
• Bullying & scapegoating: deemed the sole perpetrator of a complaint despite significant evidence to the contrary, including the person who put the claim in saying it wasn't Kevin.
• Isolation: his team was directed to route all communication through his part-time assistant; he was told not to discuss the situation with anyone.
• Low, meaningless work: reduced to "tick-and-flick" tasks beneath his role.
• Job insecurity: no clarity on what his future held; when he asked, he was told to "just carry on" or call EAP.

This continued for almost 12 months, ultimately leaving Kevin off work and unwell for an extended period.

Kelly's reflection: she rarely sees psychological hazards presenting as a single neat issue. It's usually a cluster of problems, and the common thread is that it wasn't identified or addressed early enough.

Spotting the early warning signs

Two signals matter most when a worker isn't speaking up: behaviour change and organisational data.

• Behaviour change: cameras off in meetings, avoiding people, late-night or 3am emails, missed deadlines from someone previously diligent, withdrawal and disorganisation.
• Organisational data: rising sick leave and absenteeism, and heavy EAP usage. Kevin accessed more than 20 EAP sessions in less than 10 months, which on its own speaks to a problem and should prompt the question: what's happening for you that you need this level of service?

Building an organisational response

Good practice is proactive, not reactive. Recurring themes from the session:

Use evidence-based surveys to find your pain points. People at Work, the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), and Guarding Minds at Work all map onto the code framework.

Close the loop. Tell people what you've done or plan to do, and come back to them. Failure to close the loop is a major driver of ongoing insecurity and fear.

Don't rely solely on EAP. It's one control, not a substitute for managing and supporting people internally.

Train and support managers to recognise risk indicators, intervene early, listen actively, and have difficult conversations safely.

Know when to escalate. Bring in external support such as a mediator or workplace facilitator when an issue is beyond internal scope.

Keep it proportionate. Use the data to target real pain points rather than dropping an entire framework on everyone at once.

The legal lens & the workers' comp crossover

James Mattson covered how the new workers' compensation reforms, also commencing 1 July, interact with these obligations. Claims for psychological injury will turn on whether a relevant event caused that injury, and that event is one of four things: bullying, sexual harassment, racial harassment, or excessive work demands. Those issues are looked at through an industrial relations lens.

Reasonable management action remains a legitimate defence, now assessed in the broadest possible sense: was there management action, and was that action reasonable? Importantly, even where the commission finds no compensation is payable, that won't absolve an employer of its work health and safety duties. A worker may say they were bullied during performance management and the commission might find it was reasonable management action, but the employer still needs to provide a safe workplace moving forward. It's just that there won't be compensation.

He also advised pulling disparate plans and policies, such as a bullying policy or a sexual harassment policy, into a single, coherent master psychosocial plan of all the hazards and the measures to control them. The first thing Safe Work will ask is: where are the documents? Where's the plan? Where's the risk assessment? Where's the measures? Where's the safe work procedure?