|
Skodel Newsletter · September 2026
What the APS Redundancy Wave Reveals About Managing Psychosocial Risk During Restructures
In this newsletter
| 1 | A common question |
| 2 | Skodel Case Analysis on the 2026 APS Redundancy Wave |
| 3 | Other Common Trigger Events |
| 4 | Hazards At Play |
| 5 | How To Use This In Your Workplace |
| 6 | Example Controls |
|
| |
|
Key Figures
|
$26.6m
Cost of 302 voluntary redundancies at the Department of Social Services (Jul 2025–May 2026), including around 150 middle managers.
|
−17 pts
Fall in DSS staff rating it a “good place to work” in the 2026 APS census, released after the redundancy program.
|
|
| |
|
1 A common question
“A redundancy program isn’t a WHS issue. It’s just business.”
Redundancies themselves aren’t unlawful, and no regulator has found the APS in breach of anything over this program. But the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) doesn’t only apply to physical hazards. Section 19 explicitly covers psychological health, and sections 47 to 49 require consultation with workers on matters affecting their health and safety. A restructure of this scale, run with limited consultation and communication, is precisely the kind of “matter” those sections have in mind. The legal exposure isn’t the redundancy decision itself; it’s how the change is planned, consulted on and supported.
|
| |
|
Quick reference
The APS isn’t the only recent example of a regulator treating a restructure itself as a live psychosocial risk. In December 2025, SafeWork NSW issued a prohibition notice halting a restructure at the University of Technology Sydney, citing a serious and imminent risk of psychological harm to affected staff, believed to be the first time an Australian WHS regulator has used that power over a restructure process rather than a physical hazard. We covered what happened and what the notice required →Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), s.19 and ss.47–49. For federal public servants specifically, the primary duty of care covers psychological health, and the consultation duty requires genuine, timely engagement with workers on changes affecting their health and safety, not a formality after the decision is made.
|
| |
| 2 Skodel Case Analysis |
2026 APS Redundancy Wave |
|
|
Between mid-2025 and mid-2026, federal departments ran large voluntary redundancy programs. Home Affairs processed 679 payouts from around 1,938 staff who applied, and the Department of Social Services saw 302 staff leave, including roughly 150 middle managers, at a cost of about $26.6 million. When the 2026 APS employee census results landed in mid-September, DSS’s “good place to work” score had fallen 17 points, and Home Affairs’ job-security sentiment had dropped 11 points, its largest single decline on record. Home Affairs Secretary Stephanie Foster acknowledged the department had “had a very tough year.” Staff accounts described feeling under-supported and left to absorb extra workload, with one report characterising the process as feeling like “a ruthless razor gang operation rather than a thoughtful structural transition.”
What most people miss. The redundancies themselves aren’t the risk event. The risk is in the gap between a technically well-executed process (payments made, budgets balanced) and a workforce left uncertain, unconsulted and unsupported through it, the exact conditions the psychosocial hazard framework targets.
Let’s look at some potential controls for a hazard like this.
Job insecurity. Set and communicate a firm timeline for when staff will know outcomes, and stick to it; open-ended expression-of-interest windows extend the exposure unnecessarily.
Poor organisational change management. Consult on the pace and scope of change before decisions are locked in, not just on the announcement of them, and resource remaining staff (not just departing ones) through the transition.
Job demands. Revisit workloads and targets for the staff who stay; a smaller team absorbing the same output is a hazard on its own, not just a side effect of the process.
|
|
| |
|
3 Other Common Trigger Events
|
|
A restructure doesn’t need to be public-sector or headline-making to carry the same hazard profile. Watch for it in situations like these.
| Private-sector downsizing staged over several budget cycles rather than announced once | Job insecurity |
| M&A integration where staff must reapply for their own or merged roles | Poor organisational justice |
| A new case-management or ERP system rolled out with minimal training or warning | Poor organisational change management |
| A function earmarked for offshoring, where staff must train their own replacements | Job insecurity |
| Remaining staff absorbing departed colleagues’ workload with no adjustment to targets | Job demands |
|
|
| |
|
4 Hazards At Play
|
|
Indicative only, based on public reporting. This isn’t a formal risk assessment of the APS or any agency named.
|
Job insecurity
Months-long expression-of-interest windows left staff unsure whether they’d have a role, with no fixed end date to the uncertainty.
|
High |
|
Poor organisational change management
Staff and commentary described limited consultation on the change and little communication about why it was needed.
|
High |
|
Poor organisational justice
Staff reported feeling under-supported relative to their workload and unclear on why some functions or levels were affected more than others.
|
Mod-High |
|
Job demands
Remaining staff described working above capacity as they absorbed departed colleagues’ workload, without a matching increase in support.
|
Mod-High |
|
|
| |
|
5 How To Use This In Your Workplace
|
| • | Before announcing any restructure, set a firm decision timeline and communicate it. Open-ended uncertainty is often more damaging than the outcome itself. |
| • | Build consultation into the planning stage, not just the announcement. Give staff genuine input on pace and scope, and document that consultation took place. |
| • | Plan for remaining staff, not just departing ones. Adjust workloads and targets where headcount drops, rather than assuming the work will absorb itself. |
|
|
| |
|
6 Example Controls
Starting points, not a checklist. Every workplace needs to assess its own risk profile.
Poor organisational change management
| • | Run a documented consultation process before finalising any structural change, with a named channel for staff feedback. |
| • | Give remaining staff explicit support during the transition, including adjusted workloads, EAP access, and manager check-ins, not just departing staff. |
All 17 hazard categories, with practical controls for each.
|
| |
|
See it in practice
See how Skodel results actually look
Take a self-guided, interactive walkthrough of a real Skodel results dashboard, no meeting required.
Explore the interactive walkthrough →
|
| |
| Skodel · Psychosocial risk assessment for Australian workplaces · skodel.com |
|
.png)
.png)
.png)