When we think about health and safety, it’s often within the framework of protecting people – keeping workers safe, promoting wellbeing and creating positive work environments. Yet, many organisations that tout their health and safety commitment, have a dirty little secret – they don’t practise what they preach and fail to protect psychological safety of their own workers.
I’ve looked into partnerships with some organisations offering safety services, hoping to establish relationships that could provide a holistic safety solution. Yet, when speaking with people who have worked in these organisations, they shared tales about toxic cultures, telling me to steer clear. When safety organisations themselves fall short on creating positive internal environments, it highlights a troubling inconsistency.
Safety should be embedded in the culture, not just marketed in the mission.
The issue doesn’t stop at private organisations. The government itself, which sets standards for health, safety and workplace transparency, is trying to exempt itself from accountability in its own proposed Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. This bill, designed to curb the spread of false information, sounds like a step toward a more informed society.
But here’s the kicker: the government and media are exempt from its requirements.
Troubling Statistics in Public Administration and Safety
According to Safe Work Australia, the Public Administration and Safety industry consistently tops the charts in reports of bullying, harassment and work-related stress. This industry should ideally exemplify a safe and supportive working environment, yet the data tells a different story. High levels of reported psychological injuries reveal an urgent need for these institutions to rethink their priorities.
If those in leadership roles fail to create safe spaces for their teams, the ripple effects are felt across the Country. Prioritising psychosocial safety shouldn’t be optional – it’s essential for fostering trust and morale within the very organisations meant to serve and protect the public.
There are many examples of corruption, misconduct and unethical behaviour from individuals and agencies across Government. This exemption would not encourage improved behaviour, and would allow for it to be dismissed, reducing trust, transparency and integrity. When justice is not prioritised, it leads to a breakdown in the fundamental principles of fairness. Without justice, the systems meant to protect the public will continue to perpetuate harm rather than healing.
As for the media…
They also top the charts, this time, when it comes to Sexual Harassment. Is there a culture of trust, truth and transparency when the majority of workers have been sexually harassed?
This data comes from the Australian Human Rights Commission Time for respect: Fifth national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. The 4th annual survey showed 80% of workers had been sexually harassed in the past 5 years. Was the reduction due to improvements in the industry, or was it simply because we were forced to work from home during Covid…?
Misalignment in the Public Service Mission
The role of the public sector is to serve the people, making sure that services, policies and standards benefit society as a whole. But when public institutions shield themselves from accountability, especially on matters of transparency and psychosocial safety, it sends the wrong message.
We expect public servants to be role models, to act with integrity and set a gold standard for transparency and public trust. Yet, the exemption within this bill suggests that the government and the media have no such obligation to meet these same standards.
Why This Matters for Psychosocial Safety
Accountability is at the heart of any psychologically safe workplace. If we want workplaces where people feel safe, where misinformation doesn’t fuel toxic cultures and where leaders are held responsible for the environments they create, the public sector should be leading by example. However, allowing exemptions undermines trust and signals that there’s a different set of rules for those in power.
Imagine a workplace where leaders are free to dodge responsibility for misinformation and the repercussions on psychosocial safety are obvious (and in some organisations, this already happens…). It leads to fear, mistrust and frustration, creating environments where truth takes a backseat to power and positioning. This is precisely the type of culture that leads to psychosocial hazards, work environments that drive burnout, anxiety and disengagement among workers.
Exemptions Enable Evasion, Not Excellence
If the government isn’t held to the same standards it proposes for the rest of us, how can it credibly advocate for safe, transparent workplaces? Exemptions give an unspoken pass to continue questionable practices, such as concealing uncomfortable truths or shaping narratives to suit certain agendas. If these behaviours are acceptable for public servants, what example does that set for the private sector, and what does it say about the value placed on psychosocial safety and accountability?
The Call for Accountability
Our leaders should be setting a high bar, not dodging the standards they claim to promote. Psychosocial safety is everyone’s responsibility, and that should start with the most visible entities in our society – Health, Safety and Wellbeing organisations, the Government and the Media. Being accountable to the public doesn’t just mean following laws – it means embodying integrity, transparency and a genuine commitment to serving the public interest.
The public service should not be an ivory tower immune from scrutiny.
If the government can’t or won’t model transparency and accountability, it loses its credibility and betrays its mandate to serve the people. At a time when trust in institutions is fragile, we need leaders who demonstrate that best practice is more than a slogan. It’s a commitment to honesty, transparency and respect for those they serve.
It’s high time we asked the tough question: is it best practice, or just bullshit? And more importantly, when will our public institutions set the example we deserve?
The exemption of government and media from accountability for misinformation fails to address the root cause of the issue and does little to prevent it. Simply implementing laws or regulations without fostering awareness, education and prevention strategies does not create real, long-term change.
We cannot rely on a one-size-fits-all approach that labels something as misinformation without a clear understanding of context, intent or impact.
True change comes from empowering individuals with the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions, encouraging open dialogue and creating environments where transparency and accountability are valued over expedient narratives. Without these foundational steps, any efforts to curb misinformation will remain superficial, failing to create a meaningful shift in behaviour or culture.
It’s the wrong focus
Psychological safety is the ability to speak up and be yourself, without risk of being shamed, humiliated or punished as a result. Some workplaces and teams don’t have this – and it is my passion to show the benefits and provide the tools to create safe, courageous and thriving teams. We are losing the ability to disagree and debate – at work and in society.
There are so many benefits of embracing dissent, and so many risks with reducing freedom of speech. Read more about it in Charlan Jeanne Nemeth‘s book:
What’s the Objective?
What outcome are we looking for? Safe, connected, productive, innovative and thriving communities, workplaces and teams.
Shame and punishment doesn’t work.
Legislation makes some impact however it’s open to interpretation.
Neither focus on the cause of the issue or prevent problems from occurring.
We must address the root causes of workplace, and societal issues, which requires a commitment to transparency, awareness, and genuine long-term prevention strategies. Without this foundation, we risk continuing the cycle of harm and missed opportunities for meaningful change – something I am committed to challenging through my work in creating safer, more supportive environments for all.
