When the Regulator Stays Silent... The Real Cost of Inaction

When people think of a regulator, they picture a watchdog for safety. A body that steps in when systems fail, when workers are ignored, and when leaders forget that duty of care is not optional.

That is how the law intends it to work. The reality is often much harder to watch.

Across industries, government, and Defence, more professionals, managers, and injured workers are finding themselves shouting into the void. They report hazards, raise legitimate concerns, and cite the Work Health and Safety Act. They provide evidence. Then they wait.

The reply often arrives in a neat, polite letter that reads, “After reviewing the information provided, the matter does not meet the threshold for inspection.”

Translated, it means: We are not touching it.

This is not a single story about a single regulator. It is a growing pattern. A slow withdrawal of oversight. A quiet culture of referral and deflection, where the regulator’s primary function appears to be pushing responsibility back on the worker who asked for help.

The Weight of the Silence

As a safety professional, I have spent my career believing in the system of work. You raise issues, follow the procedure, and the system takes care of the rest. Our WHS laws promise that process and accountability keep everyone safe.

But what happens when that process fails?

I once raised a significant health and safety concern inside a large Commonwealth environment. It was not personal, emotional, or trivial. It was a clear systemic issue that created psychosocial risk. A lack of communication. A lack of consultation. A total absence of role clarity.

Months passed without acknowledgment. The internal issue resolution process required under section 81 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) never began.

The consultation duties outlined in sections 47 to 49 were disregarded.

It was a textbook example of what happens when a PCBU forgets that consultation is not a courtesy, it is the law.

When that silence causes harm, the regulator is supposed to step in. Section 152 of the Act makes that clear. It is the regulator’s job to inquire into alleged contraventions, not to sit back and wait for proof beyond a doubt before acting.

Yet the response was another form letter: “The evidence provided does not clearly indicate a systemic failure.”

That single line captures the entire problem. The regulator is asking workers to prove their case before it will investigate. It is the same as asking a patient to diagnose their own injury before a doctor sees them.

A System Designed for Prevention, Not Deflection

The WHS Act was written to prevent harm, not to manage complaints. Section 19 requires every PCBU to provide and maintain safe systems of work. Section 19(3)(f) makes clear that this includes preventing risks to psychological health.

Section 152 defines the regulator’s job: to monitor and enforce compliance. The law does not permit the regulator to disregard credible evidence simply because it is inconvenient or under-resourced.

The problem is not the law. The problem lies in the gap between what the law states and what the regulator actually does.

When workers bring forward evidence of a possible breach, they are not expected to conduct their own investigation. They are expected to trigger one.

If someone reports a serious crime, the police do not ask them to gather the evidence first. They investigate. Work health and safety is no different. These are laws with indictable offences, not internal guidelines. Failing to investigate credible allegations of WHS breaches is a failure of the regulatory function itself.

The Rise of Psychosocial Risk

The 2024 Commonwealth Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work recognises that psychological health is just as important as physical safety. It identifies risks such as bullying, isolation, poor support, and low job control as hazards that must be managed through design, training, and supervision.

It requires PCBUs to identify and control those risks the same way they would a chemical or mechanical hazard.

In practice, too many workplaces still treat psychosocial harm as an HR problem, not a WHS issue. Regulators reinforce this by deflecting psychological injury complaints as “employment matters” rather than health and safety failures.

The law is clear. If the workplace environment causes psychological harm, it is a WHS issue. Section 19 applies. The regulator’s own guidance confirms this. Yet in too many cases, silence follows the complaint.

The result is predictable. Trust in the system collapses, and workers stop reporting.

When the Regulator Retreats, Everyone Loses

When a regulator refuses to act, it sends a signal to both sides of the safety equation.

Workers see that they are on their own. PCBUs know that they can take the risk.

The damage is not only personal, it is systemic.

Psychological injuries now represent a growing share of accepted claims across Australia. They cost more, last longer, and cause deeper harm than physical injuries. Behind every case is a worker who tried to speak up, only to be ignored twice, once by their PCBU, and once by the regulator.

Inaction breeds distrust. Distrust breeds non-compliance. Non-compliance breeds harm.

Lessons for Practitioners

For those of us who live and breathe safety, the lesson is uncomfortable. Never assume the regulator will fix it.

We still need regulators. We still need oversight. But we cannot rely on it as our first or only line of defence.

Every PCBU must build its own capacity to manage psychosocial risk. That means genuine consultation, early intervention, clear role descriptions, and accessible support systems. It means teaching leaders that silence is not neutral.

And it means documenting everything. When communication breaks down, evidence becomes the only protection left.

Restoring Trust in Regulation

Regulators face significant challenges, including limited staff, political pressure, and competing priorities. But none of that justifies inaction. I personally experienced the knock-back for a referral of a serious injury, with slam-dunk evidence, all because the "Investigation Directorate was under-resourced". I’ll never forget that first experience of government inadequacy, and the haunting vision of a person's leg snapping and their screams captured on CCTV audio. So much for "Every worker home safely, every day..."

If a regulator cannot investigate credible allegations of WHS breaches that result in injury, then something more profound is broken.

Transparency is the first fix. Workers deserve to know why an investigation will or will not occur. The reasons should be clear, written, and open to review.

Accountability is the second. There should be independent oversight for complaints that are triaged out. Regulators should publish data on the number of psychosocial cases they investigate, the number they dismiss, and the reasons for dismissal.

The public trust that gives regulators their authority must be earned through action, not rhetoric.

The Path Forward

There are simple steps that could strengthen public confidence overnight.

1. Establish an internal review process for any complaint not investigated.

2. Require all psychosocial WHS cases to be assessed by qualified inspectors with mental health training, or better yet, qualified psychologists or pyshiatrists.

3. Make psychosocial enforcement data public.

4. Ensure the regulator’s communication with injured workers meets the same standards expected of PCBUs.

None of this is radical. It is the bare minimum needed to restore trust in a system that was designed to protect people, not paperwork.

Closing Reflection

Safety is built on faith. Faith that when you report a risk, someone will listen. Faith that when the system fails, another system will step in.

When that faith is broken, the entire framework of prevention starts to collapse.

The law does not keep people safe. People enforcing the law do.

A regulator’s power does not come from its logo or its letterhead. It comes from action. Without that, it is just another agency managing inboxes while people get hurt.

It is time for regulators to remember who they serve. Not the process, not the politics, but the people whose lives depend on them doing their job.

Safety Jon

Helping leaders build safer, smarter, stronger systems.