When silence becomes the system (Full video + transcript)

In 2015, a senior lawyer at the Melbourne Coroner's Court was promoted into a dual role she was told would last two weeks. Three years later, she was dead. In 2023, Court Services Victoria was convicted and fined almost $380,000 for failing to manage psychosocial risk at work.

WorkSafe didn't prosecute over the death itself. They wound the clock back and asked a different question: had the organisation been proactively managing the risk? Where was the risk assessment? Where were the controls? Where was the monitoring? The answer, on all three counts, was nowhere.

The case sits at the intersection of two disciplines that rarely talk to each other: workplace health and safety, and whistleblowing. When psychosocial hazards are systemic and the people creating the risk are senior enough that normal channels can't reach them, which reporting avenue should employees use? And how should organisations design their systems to catch these problems before they compound?

Join Veremark Managing Director David Morgan and SAFE TM founder Tony Morris as they walk through the WorkSafe Victoria v Court Services Victoria case, map the psychosocial hazards involved, and examine what boards, executives, and WHS professionals need to change.

FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW

David Morgan — Managing Director, Whistleblower Technology Solutions at Veremark

Tony Morris — Founder and Director, SAFE TM

David Morgan: And good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to our latest version of the Inside the Trusted Workplace series here at Veremark. For those of you that have not met me before, my name is David Morgan. I'm the managing director of the Whistleblower Technology Solution line here at Veremark, and I've spent the last sort of 15 years of my career involved in workplace investigations where I've been an external, independent, you know, adviser to organisations. I'm a former police detective and have worked with one of Australia's sort of leading workplace investigation, counter-fraud, risk advisory businesses, and I've investigated all types of offences, including fraud, bribery, corruption, bullying, and harassment, which is a big one in the modern day, and other types of misconduct as well. It's great to be able to bring Tony here today to be with us. He's a, um, I've known Tony now for, I think we've been talking about this for the last couple of years, the concept. And let me just tell you a little bit about Tony. He spent, as I said, over 30 years' experience in this space from a law enforcement background. He then spent some time with Ashurst, a premier, you know, law firm here in Australia, went on to be a partner at Deloitte and then ran a consulting business for 13 years, which he sold, so he's done a bit of everything.

David Morgan: But I think as Tony has said to me a couple of times, I can now pick and choose the types of engagements that I want to do. And he does some very interesting training work which focuses on mock courtrooms. So when we have to give evidence, and I know Tony's been in the box, I've been in the box many a time as well, in terms of giving evidence and being cross-examined. And Tony does some mock courtroom training, which I think are fascinating. And very interesting when it comes to the subjects that we're talking about today. So there's some really strong synergies here between what we're doing at Veremark and trying to develop best-in-class technology to help people report concerns early with the expertise that Tony has in this space. Welcome, Tony. How are you?

Tony Morris: Thanks very much, David. Yeah, I'm very well. Thank you. Geez, 30+ years makes me sound old, but I'm very well. Thank you. Great to be here.

David Morgan: It's great to have you here. And I know when we were sort of planning out this session a few weeks ago, you felt that there was some case studies that you may want to sort of revisit and perhaps bring on to the session with us here at Veremark. Have you decided on anything? I'm presuming you have.

Tony Morris: I certainly do, because you asked me to and I certainly do, David. I've chosen a case that it's proceeded over many years now, or the actual risk itself, the psychosocial risk, was around in 2015. It culminated in a suicide of a person in 2018. And it followed a criminal conviction under the Work Health and Safety laws in Victoria, and that conviction was in 2023. So it's a case that took a while. But the reason I've chosen it is because firstly it's a criminal matter. And by criminal matter, I mean the Work Health and Safety laws in Australia. The purpose of the law is a criminal law, and its purpose is to protect the safety of workers, so far as is reasonably practicable, to manage the risk. And a breach of work health and safety law is a criminal offense against a corporation or an individual, whether it be an officer or a worker, who is prosecuted. That is my experience, and that's a lens through which I'll talk. In my travels in safety, it has intersected with whistleblowing. And so it will be very useful for your audience today, David, that when we start talking about this case, that the listeners understand that the Work Health and Safety lens is what I'm talking about. It's a proactive thing that we need to do, and in this case, it was found that it was not done.

David Morgan: Yeah, no, sounds brilliant. And, yeah, a really nice introduction. Certainly, you know, listening to what you said there, the time frames, you know, and how we know how difficult these things can be if we're caught up in it as perhaps a victim or somebody that's experiencing, you know, either of those things, there are different levels of protection for that person.

Tony Morris: Yes.

David Morgan: So different forms of protections for different people depending on— there is, and I definitely want to talk to you a little bit about that during this session as well. But no, I'm really interested in hearing more about this case study, so I'll get back to you.

Tony Morris: But any listener can look at this case on the internet. It's WorkSafe Victoria versus Court Services Victoria, the case. It was a matter where by this point in time, 2023, Court Services Victoria pleaded guilty to the allegation that it failed to manage psychosocial risk, an offense under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 in Victoria. And Court Services Victoria is the administrative arm of the courts in Victoria. And there's many courts in Victoria. There's the Magistrates Court, County Court, Supreme Court, and others, children's and so forth. The particular court where the case was centred was the Coroner's Court in Melbourne. When you think of the Coroner's Court in Melbourne, and a lawyer that works there on a daily basis, the types of things that she would have been exposed to is traumatic case material. You know, post-mortem photos, videos of all types, investigation material regarding the cause of death, and some pretty, at times, horrific types of injuries and deaths. So there's a lot of exposure to traumatic case material on a daily basis. That's one hazard. And that is a psychosocial hazard.

Tony Morris: The particular case concerns a matter, as I mentioned, which occurred, the facts of which started in 2015 and proceeded throughout to 2018. It involved— the particular matter came to the attention of the safety regulator, WorkSafe Victoria, when there was a suicide of a senior lawyer. Her name was Jessica Wilby, and Jessica had been at the Coroner's Court for, from recollection, about ten years or so. She was a very experienced, highly competent, senior lawyer. She loved that job, and at the time in 2015, she was performing the role of— she was the number two, the second-in-charge lawyer at the Coroner's Court. She was the top lawyer's off-sider, number two. So she would have had a lot of exposure. And then in 2015, in December, the chief lawyer was moved from the Coroner's Court to one of the other courts.

Tony Morris: At the time that that had happened, she was informed it will take a couple of weeks for court services in the Coroner's Court to appoint a new lawyer to take on her second-in-charge lawyer role. And I asked her to continue doing that previous role and take on the new role, which had about 20 people reporting to her, because now she's the top dog of the legal function in the Coroner's Court. She had colleagues reporting directly to her, some junior to her, and then I think there was about 15 paralegals or so that also were part of the team. And so from— and that was in December 2015. And unfortunately, she wasn't replaced. There was nobody that came in to backfill her old role, and that proceeded through for about eight months. Eight months. And then in 2018, Jessica unfortunately died by suicide.

Tony Morris: And there was a coronial inquest done, by the way, which was a separate sort of inquest, which I'll talk about a little bit later. But there are other hazards, psychosocial hazards at play here, David, in particular role clarity. It wasn't clear with respect to roles, and lots of people were jumping into her role. Burnout. Working weekends and nights. You know, the workload was a key, key issue. And really what we find is psychosocial hazards compound. And there's a combination of hazards at play here. And there would have been others. In fact, the others that I've noted that could apply is like change management. You know, you've taken the chief lawyer away. You've put a new person in there, or you haven't. Another thing would be organisational justice. You know, was it fair and just? Was due process followed? Another one might be around job control, you know, how much autonomy that she had. So there was an intersection of about seven or so psychosocial hazards.

Tony Morris: When you think of Work Health and Safety, there is a danger when you think about the actual incident and just focus on the suicide because that does not create the offense. What WorkSafe Victoria would have had to have done, and they did obviously, is wind the clock back and look at the systemic issues occurring in that work environment. Were there risk assessments in place for psychosocial risk? Were there controls in place? Was there any way that anyone was measuring and monitoring whether or not those controls were actually working? And it was found that it was not, which is why they were convicted.

Tony Morris: And, of course, it couldn't be conducted in Victoria because that's where they worked. So a New South Wales coroner conducted an investigation. And the outcome of that was that it— this area was a toxic workplace. And I'm quoting toxic workplace. Where there was issues of work demands, role clarity and others that contributed to the death. So we had WorkSafe Victoria that investigated and prosecuted Court Services Victoria. It resulted in a plea of guilty, a conviction, and it was fined approximately $380,000. So there's a criminal conviction for failing to manage psychosocial risk. And I think it's a really good one to talk about. And I'm sure you've got lots of questions from what I just said.

David Morgan: I have. No, I don't know where to start. No, look, really interesting introduction to the case. There's a few things that sort of stood out for me. The— you talk about those number of hazards. And the poor behavior like bullying or harassment, but that interplay then with how the role perhaps is designed, you know, the overwork, the burnout that's happening. But a couple of things. How did you find that in terms of what was behind the dynamics? Why wasn't she reporting? So I was just sort of reading some of the supporting documentation for this case, and the— it culminated in a review of sexual harassment in the courts, I think more broadly in Victoria, which resulted in what's known as the Szoke Report. Dr Szoke's report was published in 2021, and they made about 20 recommendations for improvement.

David Morgan: So things like culture of silence, so people not feeling that they know where to go or know how, where, or how do I report the problems. And then it talks a lot about, in terms of the culture, power imbalances, because some of the worst, you know, people in terms of their behaviors were very senior people. People felt threatened by that and didn't feel that they could speak their mind or challenge these behaviours.

Tony Morris: Absolutely. And it's a very challenging dynamic in a court and a legal environment, just like you indicated there, David. And one of the things I read about this case, which came out in the coronial inquest New South Wales coroner had done, was that Jessica, who was a witness in one of the cases that was before the Coroner's Court in Melbourne, she was required to give evidence. And as a witness, she was extremely nervous about that. She actually, um, pushed back on having to do it. She didn't want to be a witness. She was worried about her career because she had expressed concerns and could see herself being cross-examined, and that was confronting. But she ultimately did give evidence. And that was the only reason why she put herself through all of this. And I wonder, you know, that's an analogy to why a lot of people may not wish to raise issues because they feel that it will affect their career. And you know what? They're probably right in some circumstances. So we have to— what we have to do is create an environment where people can report and where it won't affect their career if they do report.

David Morgan: And the ability for the person to unload their problems with the right people. Because, yeah, I'm sure to a degree she may have been talking with friends or family, you know, outside the workplace. But there's, you know, in my experience, there's nothing better than empathy with colleagues that you work with, that understand the challenges, that can put themselves in a position of perhaps support. Was that a theme that you found present in this case as well, Tony?

Tony Morris: From what I've read about it, and I've read a lot about it, that's the case in this particular instance as well. And when an independent coroner from a separate state says that in his opinion it was a toxic workplace and a toxic culture, there's major issues there, and there's clearly either a lack of awareness, which I think Court Services Victoria did not have. They weren't aware of what was happening inside one of the courts, the Coroner's Court. They had many courts. This was one of them. This is a common theme in a lot of organisations. Any workplace that has different divisions, is quite large, how does it know what's happening in different jurisdictions, in different areas of the business when you're not there all the time?

Tony Morris: And the court was obviously of the opinion that they ought to have been aware and they ought to have done something, and that's why they were convicted. And Court Services Victoria would have accepted that, and that's why they pleaded guilty. So it becomes— I think the challenge here is there are so many areas to talk about in this case. There are significant issues, by the way, also around sexual harassment in the wider courts in Victoria. And I know that the organisations and the court system in Victoria has done a lot and have tried to implement the recommendations that have been directed. But this risk existed throughout the legal fraternity in Victoria. And I guarantee it won't just be Victoria, it will be other states and territories that have this risk in their legal jurisdictions, because there's the same power play in each of them. So there's a lot there to unpack about the case and a lot of lessons for all types of organisations.

David Morgan: Yeah, well, I have done quite a few sexual harassment investigations, you know, over the years in my investigative work. And yeah, you know, when I listen to you and I reflect on the work that I've done in this space, the people, the victims of sexual harassment have, yeah, been fairly reluctant to make complaints through the existing channels. You know, there's significant reluctance to do that.

Tony Morris: Yeah, absolutely. And the other issue for me, David, which is important for all the listeners to really understand is that there are different jurisdictions and different purposes of law at play when it comes to psychosocial risk. And as I said at the start, my experience is the criminal work health and safety law. Then there's the Fair Work Act, which contains, you know, similar, you know, issues in terms of bullying and so forth. And then there's the normal HR and industrial relations landscape as well. So you can have a matter of sexual harassment that can be played and reported in three different jurisdictions.

Tony Morris: The focus for Work Health and Safety is on the organisation's risk management, whether that was there or not, whether or not a risk assessment took place, whether or not people were adequately consulted— that is the working group— whether or not the hierarchy of controls were considered when it comes to minimising the risk. Where's the risk assessment? Where's the controls? Where's the measuring and monitoring as to these controls to minimise the risk? That's the WHS lens. The case was that Court Services Victoria were not aware. The next question is, well, why weren't they?

David Morgan: Yeah, and I think that's a really, again, another strong sort of interconnection with whistleblowing. I talk about this a lot, you know, at Veremark and with our partners in our sort of thought leadership material around— do not look at whistleblowing in the modern world as a legal, regulatory-only requirement. See it through the lens of good governance for your organisation. It should be part of the board's governance system that the executives, the board also for guidance, but more the executive leadership team, the decisions that they make and the programmes and systems and functions that they can drive— and it is driven from above— they cannot exercise due diligence unless they're getting the proper and good reporting back.

David Morgan: So yeah, we're very aligned with your thinking in that workplace health and safety space around it should be at an organisational view, it should be sort of starting at board, and it should cascade down sort of accordingly from there.

Tony Morris: Yeah, which is where I think— and I'm interested in your perspective. I have a perspective from a work health and safety lens that the whistleblowing avenue of reporting is very important for work health and safety when, in circumstances like this, there is a systemic failure that strikes at the heart of the culture. When it comes to your everyday psychosocial hazards like job demands— you know, you've got too much to do, you're overworked— that's something that you want your HR and WHS areas to deal with through normalised work health and safety risk management processes. You don't want to have that reported, you know, through a whistleblowing channel because that's adding a lot more complexity and time to get on to it. You can't get on to it quick enough either if you do it that way.

Tony Morris: So there's issues there, and this is why I think it's good that the whistleblowing avenue of reporting can be used as another added layer of protection. Am I right in thinking that?

David Morgan: Yeah, absolutely. And, you know, when I listen to you speak there, and we think about the Corporations Act here in Australia, the, you know, the whistleblower protection laws, they have tried to broaden the, you know, the protection of the person in terms of the types of offenses that can be reported on. And it encompasses certain offenses of a work health and safety nature. That's an extension of the Corporations Act. I think, yes, we do want whistleblowing and we do want that safe reporting channel to be in place for people to be able to raise sexual harassment concerns. And what is important in that sort of context is making sure that the organisation promotes that in the right way and designs it in the right way so that people feel safe, because it's a very different type of offence to something more fraud or financial crime related because of the impact on the victim.

Tony Morris: Yeah, that makes sense, because one of the things I'm thinking that we don't want is we don't want the whistleblowing avenue of reporting to be the default reporting for all psychosocial hazards. Absolutely not. They— it should only be used, in my opinion, where there's systemic, cultural, significant matters that strike at the heart of an organisation. I'm thinking about some of the examples. You might have a large miner, for instance, that has many mine sites and the question is how is the organization managing risks across its various mine sites, and does one hand know what the other is doing? That's a really good example of where it could be used.

Tony Morris: But whistleblowing needs to be there if you've got an issue such as the case that we're talking about, where it was just a toxic culture and a toxic workplace. For me, the whistleblowing avenue would have been the proper and the right way to raise an issue in that, in that case, in Coroner's Court in Melbourne. Rather than a formal Work Health and Safety thing or HR, because it was at the heart of the culture and it was systemic. I believe. And that's why it makes it difficult for any one of those, say, more junior lawyers to go and report to somebody that's obviously in a senior position above them and part of the problem.

David Morgan: No, I agree. And because, yeah, a lot of matters of a bullying or harassment nature, which, you know, as you've described, are psychosocial risks, they— on their own don't perhaps tell a full picture. And so therefore what happens is that the scope of the assessment or the subsequent investigation will be a function of how the report was received and through what channel. And in an ideal world, you know, a matter, whether it comes from a whistleblowing channel or directly to HR or WHS, the purpose of the investigation will be clearly defined before the scope of the investigation is set. And that's really important.

Tony Morris: Yeah, it does. And you raise another good point that triggers something in me, and that is the investigation. So important, as we both know, but depending upon the avenue of the way that a report is made, e.g., whistleblowing, Work Health and Safety, or grievance to HR, will often lead to, and I emphasise "often," a very different type of investigation. The purpose of a grievance investigation is very different to the purpose of a Work Health and Safety investigation, which could be different again to a whistleblowing investigation.

Tony Morris: Because a Work Health and Safety investigation is very different to an HR and industrial relations one. And I could see it could be very different to a whistleblowing one as well. So to make the purpose really clear, and I think the outcome of what I'm saying is the importance that HR needs to work with WHS, and both of those areas need to work with the whistleblowing avenue, channel, process, however you want to describe it, within organisations.

David Morgan: Yeah. And that part of the investigation where you are assessing the complaints and trying to determine, yeah, what the avenue might be, what the purpose might be, who might be the right person or expert to conduct the investigation. That often isn't done well. You know, my experience as an adviser to many organisations in investigations is that there isn't always, you know, sufficient focus on that front-end piece of the investigation.

Tony Morris: Definitely. I also find another issue in some organisations, and large ones often, is clarity of who is the decision maker and for what decisions. For instance, who makes the decision within an organisation to have an external investigator appointed, or whether or not they have an internal one. And, you know, is there a set of criteria that determines when and what decisions are made on many of these issues? I find that in many organisations, the decision-making process is opaque.

David Morgan: Yeah, I mean, it's a really interesting sort of observation. And particularly with these, the matters that we're talking about, when they're— typically it's a problem with your staff in some degree of severity, depending on where they've caught it, how early or how late. And, you know, yes, some of the decisions are going to be a function of how much risk is involved as well and from what perspective. And there needs to be a framework and a methodology to be able to manage those situations. And you're right, they don't always exist.

Tony Morris: Absolutely, absolutely. So look, for me, I mean, some of the listeners might be wondering what are my tips for when it comes to, from the work health and safety lens, proactively managing the risk. I think the important thing is, and I might just, if it's appropriate, share my screen of one particular slide. I don't know if you can see that, David. Can you see that?

David Morgan: Yes, I can see that. Right.

Tony Morris: So this is just one slide that I wanted to show, and those listeners that can also see visual, I'd recommend having a look at this. These are the psychosocial hazards that Safe Work Australia, the policymaking body in Australia for work health and safety, have indicated. And they're not limited to these, but these are the types of psychosocial hazards that we are talking about. In the social sort of section, there's violence and aggression, bullying, harassment and discrimination, and poor support, work relationships, and conflict. In the environmental section, there are traumatic events or material, which was one of the things in the case, the physical environment, and remote or isolated work.

Tony Morris: Remote or isolated work, people that have to work like that. Then we've got the governance issues, change management, which is to me probably the biggest psychosocial hazard raising its head right now because every organisation is undergoing change. AI is a good example of that, but other changes as well. Organisational justice, which is about fairness and due process, whether you're being promoted or whether there's a pay review or whether it's connected to a bullying or harassment matter. And then reward and recognition, which also includes career development. And then we've got the work design hazards, the job demands, which includes fatigue, role clarity, and job control. So these are the psychosocial hazards that a well-functioning organisation would have had risk assessments and controls and monitoring reporting for. The key questions for boards and executive leaders are have you conducted risk assessments for psychosocial risks? Have you consulted with your working group, your employees? They might have another way to consult. But have you consulted and communicated? Have you used the hierarchy of controls when you look at controls to minimise the risk? That's the next thing. And finally, you know, what reporting is going to officers about the control environment, whether or not it's working?

David Morgan: Now, I'm, yeah, just listening to you, fascinated. How do you find the, those internal dynamics then from the work that you're doing and the organisations you're advising? Workplace health and safety, the look forward, being proactive, trying to get ahead of it. And then the people, you know, the people in the business that deal with the stuff day-to-day, HR and the like. How do you find that those two areas within an organisation are working together?

Tony Morris: Very challenging. In some areas, those areas are working really well together, but in my opinion and experience, they're few and far between. Because each of those areas, HR and WHS for instance, are very good at what they do. That's their focus, and they've spent their whole careers to that end. The issue is they're not working together on psychosocial risk in particular, with having an understanding that there are multiple jurisdictions in play, each with their own purpose. And my take on it and my recommendations are that those areas work really well together. And then you layer in on top of that, in my opinion, the whistleblowing function for those more complex, systemic, cultural, significant matters. And this is a leadership issue. It is a leadership issue.

Tony Morris: If those senior managers aren't sharing and working together, they're not going to get good reporting back, so therefore they can't exercise due diligence. For me, it's a focus on those executive leaders to make sure that those two areas and others are working together well to manage this risk.

David Morgan: Otherwise, it's not going to work. And there's been changes, Tony, right, to the Workplace Health and Safety regulations. Can you perhaps just give us a snapshot of those changes, what's happened and how that you think has impacted perhaps some of these dynamics as well?

Tony Morris: Yeah, in the context of psychosocial risk. So the first thing to say is that the work health and safety laws are separate in each state and territory. And the Commonwealth have their own laws for the Defence and Commonwealth employees. They don't all have to do the same thing. Every jurisdiction bar Victoria has adopted harmonised work health and safety laws, and they all have regulations that deal with psychosocial risk. Victoria is separate. It hasn't harmonised. So Victoria has its own laws. Very similar, largely similar, but some differences. And then in the last few years, you've had updates to the regulations that address psychosocial risk.

Tony Morris: So the updates to the regulations have really been around— these are the psychosocial hazards, you need to do a risk assessment. You need to consider the hierarchy of controls. There's codes of practice to provide a bit more guidance on that. New South Wales has introduced the fact that if you fail to comply with a code of practice, there's a reverse onus that the employer has to demonstrate that it did what it did at least to the standard of the code of practice.

David Morgan: Yeah, and certainly the, you know, obviously don't know it as in-depth as yourself, but, you know, I've looked at that law in recent times and it is more prescriptive, isn't it? These regulations that refer them to here to try and, I suppose, help with guidance. But in terms of practical implementation, there's a lot of work for organisations to do.

Tony Morris: There is a long way to go. In fact, I've created a maturity model for work health and safety, which I'll see if I can bring up here for you as we're talking. I can find it for you.

David Morgan: Yeah, Tony, really interesting, this maturity model that you've presented here. Is there any differences between size of business in terms of the requirements here and what the expectations are of organisations in Australia?

Tony Morris: Great question. The short answer is no. The requirements to proactively manage this health and safety risk is the same. However, the safety regulators and the courts need to take into consideration the size and time, cost, and resources an organisation has to manage the risk. In other words, when it comes to your large organisations, you have more money, more resources, and more time, and you should be doing a lot more. When it comes to a smaller one, you've got limited resources, limited time, and less access to money. They're not going to expect that same sort of scale or response. But the requirement to manage the risk is the same.

David Morgan: So, you know, within the control hierarchy, we know that there's a range of different types of process and control mechanisms. And yes, the policy is sort of at one end of the spectrum, you know, the drafting of a policy. You know, I was talking to somebody the other day who had been recently appointed as a chief people officer in a very large Australian organisation, an ASX-listed organisation. And his opening observation to me was, the policy says all the right things, but it's not being implemented. Do you find that?

Tony Morris: Definitely. Look, what I find and have found is that blue-collar industries and employers are much more understanding because they've proactively been managing physical risk. So they know risk management, they know the hierarchy of controls, they know what they ought to be doing. Yet for many of the white-collar organisations, I would say for most— and I'm saying most— this is a new thing. A new thing. Even in the last few years with the psychosocial risk regulations, it's very new. And that's what I'm saying, that this maturity model captures the organisations that are just starting this process through to the ones that are doing it well. And I've not seen any organisation, government or private, ASX-listed or small, being a dynamic, very right-hand side. No one is managing this risk systematically at the moment. Most, in my opinion, are around about stage two, which is the reactive. Whereas before that, work health and safety was a paper cut or manual handling or, you know, minor things. It's much bigger than that now.

David Morgan: Yeah, and when I think about sort of what you're saying and looking at this diagram, and then we overlay, you know, the whistleblower management system with this model, this maturity model, and then you break the whistleblower management system down into processes and controls, you know, there's a number of similar gaps that we see in that space. You know, do you have a policy? Many organisations would say, yes, we do. We've got a whistleblower policy. The law itself and the protection of whistleblowers under the law is a very small piece of the jigsaw puzzle when it comes to a best-practice whistleblower management system. It is actually around implementation, how it's designed, and making it fit for purpose for organisations. And that's the work that we're doing at Veremark. We're developing a technology platform that helps organisations build the system effectively from the ground up, working with experts such as yourself and others.

Tony Morris: Great. Yeah, well, they're my recommendations, I suppose, to leaders. And this is a real leadership issue, and it is one where the courts expect that you be proactive to manage the risk, not reactive. And so therefore, it focuses one's mind on what reporting— if you're an officer, if you're on the board, what reporting am I getting back about the psychosocial risk control environment? If it's all green, I would say as an officer, well, is it really? Have we done our homework? Have we done our risk assessments? Have we had proper consultation? Because it may not be all green. It may just be that people don't have the confidence to report. Maybe they might need to do a bit more investigating or a bit more inquiry, but then be prepared to make decisions to channel time, cost, and resources to fix an area before it becomes an issue for them.

David Morgan: If regulators are, you know, this is a sort of priority area for them now, and you know, this increased regulation that's coming, you know, through the world in recent years, is driving that appetite as well. So that certainly puts, I think, a lot of companies on notice. Can I just ask one more question, if I may? I wanted to sort of go a little bit broader to do a global sort of check. What's your observation of, sort of, you know, Australia's maturity relative to some of the markets around the world?

Tony Morris: Yeah, in the psychosocial risk space, we're near the front, and we are leading in some areas. I know that even the UK are watching what we're doing, that there are in Europe, in areas, pockets of Europe, it's very good. UK is on to it, probably not as much as we have been today, but they're certainly getting there. And then you've got the rest of the world. If you think about Latin America, South America, the Middle East, African nations, Asia, there are varying degrees of maturity in this space. Some are very well advanced, Japan, for instance, in some areas of psychosocial risk, very much so. And some are doing their own and in pockets, arguably doing better than us in some pockets.

David Morgan: Yeah, it's really interesting because it's not too dissimilar in sort of that whistleblowing world as well. You know, the changes and the strengthening of the Corporations Act in 2019 was seen as a piece of law that was a lot stronger than, you know, many other jurisdictions around the world. And I know a lot of people around the world have been watching what Australia has been doing and seeing the Corporations Act here as a good piece of law and looking to see, you know, what lessons they can learn from that.

Tony Morris: Yeah. And you raise a thing there that brings to mind that some people may argue we're a complex system with our states and territories and various jurisdictions. But the fact is, when it comes to any organisation proactively managing this risk, the systems are the same. You manage this risk the same way. You identify the hazard, you do a risk assessment with proper consultation, you consider the hierarchy of controls, and then you manage and monitor and report. And you do it systematically across the organisation, just like you do for physical safety, and to the degree that you do for physical safety. That's exactly what's required. And that's the key here.

David Morgan: Yeah, no, look, great. I think great final words. I think I might wrap it up there, Tony, because I think really how you've summarised that, and, you know, we've got a very strong view on this as well, and it's very aligned with what you've just said. The, you know, the whistleblower system, the technology that sits behind it, the investigation function, and importantly the data that comes out of it, are really, really vital components to help organisations with this psychosocial risk landscape.

Tony Morris: Thanks, David. And thanks, Veremark.

‍