I have been brushing up on the Victorian (Australia) Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations, along with Worksafe Victoria’s Compliance Codes. It struck me that none of these documents refer to safety differently, blue lines, BBS, AI, incremental safety, resilience, safety culture, HOP, etc. Instead, these documents focus on the control of risk at source and the subsequent employer and employee duties of care in that regard. Therefore, should an organisation find itself in court for breach of the aforementioned Act and Regulations, the judge is likely to base her or his decision on your culpability on whether or not you had controlled the risk in question as far as reasonably practicable rather than if you are doing safety differently.
One of the best video series and books we have ever produced is a collection of conversations between Dr Craig Ashhurst, Greg Smith and myself we called Risky Conversations, The Law, Social Psychology and Risk (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/risky-conversations/).
The video series can be viewed here: https://vimeo.com/user/57711103/folder/27018554?
Since we published the book and videos, they have received several hundred thousand downloads.
All we sought to do in the videos was to dispel the many myths and false beliefs in safety eg. paperwork is a protection in court, investigations should seek root cause and it doesn’t matter what you say in safety.
This last myth is of interest to this blog. In one particular video we seek to tackle myth-busting itself: https://vimeo.com/1129416778 In this video Greg makes a compelling argument about the disconnect between the information we receive about safety and if it has any connection to managing risk.
In another video: https://vimeo.com/user/57711103/folder/27018554 Greg makes it very clear that what you say, preach, believe and speak in safety WILL be held against you in a court.
What happens when something goes wrong in an organisation and the lawyers are brought in, is that every induction, system, mantra, slogan, training program, toolbox talk, risk assessment and all documentation will be trawled over looking for incongruence, myths, data, information or any evidence to be used in a prosecution. Greg Smith endorses this but it has also been my experience in several colonials.
Don’t think that what you say in your organisation doesn’t matter.
If your organisation and hired con artist preaches ‘blame fixes nothing’ or ‘zero vision’ this will be held against you in court.
If your organisation repeats in training or consultancies the myths of ‘accidents are normal’, ‘just culture’ or any other safety differently/S2/HOP jargon, these will be held against you in court.
Nothing escapes the attention of good legal counsel, when it comes to prosecution.
Please note: none of the creators of S2 propaganda, HOP slogans or new view jargon have any expertise in the legal profession, such is the danger of epistemic trespass (https://safetyrisk.net/epistemic-trespassing-and-safety/).
Similarly, these have no expertise in ethics or moral philosophy associated with the legal arguments that will be conducted in court against the myths created by the concocted spin doctors of resilience engineering, S2 or HOP slogans.
When it comes to the legal system, don’t fall for the con, don’t waste your money on the spin (https://safetyrisk.net/the-pcbu-the-law-blame-reality-and-the-con/). Perhaps seek legal counsel in someone like Greg Smith and ask him what will be done with all this stuff when something goes wrong.
Prof. Robert Long
Latest posts by Prof. Robert Long (see all)
- Weick’s Expectations of the Unexpected - May 13, 2026
- The Non-Revolution in Safety - May 12, 2026
- Suspending Your Agenda to Begin Learning in Risk - May 11, 2026
- The De-Ethicization of the Object in Safety - May 9, 2026
- Weick’s Organising as ‘Consensually Validated Grammar’ - May 9, 2026
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below