Last week, Lidiar Group’s Darren Cave, Niall Callan, Julio Bara, and I attended the Australian Energy Producers Conference & Exhibition in Adelaide, one of the sector’s most significant annual gatherings and a conference representing organisations responsible for approximately 95 per cent of Australia’s oil and gas production.

Across three days of technical sessions, industry presentations, exhibitions and networking events, a clear theme emerged:

Australia’s energy sector is aligned in direction. The challenge now is delivery.

From gas and LNG through to carbon capture and storage, AI integration, operational efficiency and emissions reduction, the industry is rapidly evolving. What became increasingly clear throughout the conference, however, was that project success is no longer driven solely by technical capability.

Execution, stakeholder confidence, regulatory navigation and delivery certainty are becoming equally important.

An Industry Entering a More Complex Delivery Environment

The conference showcased an industry investing heavily in technology, operational performance and long-term energy security.

Sessions explored:

• Carbon capture and storage pathways
• AI-driven operational capability
• Workforce safety systems
• Methane reduction technologies
• Regulatory reform
• Late-life asset management
• Exploration and development opportunities

While the technologies and technical capabilities continue to advance rapidly, the broader operating environment is becoming more complex.

Approvals pathways, social licence, stakeholder expectations and policy uncertainty are increasingly shaping whether projects proceed successfully and on schedule.

Across many discussions, there was a growing recognition that the energy sector is entering a phase in which integrated project delivery capability matters more than ever.

Beyond Engineering: The Importance of Project Delivery

One of the strongest takeaways from the conference was that successful energy projects now require more than engineering excellence.

They require alignment across:

• Community and stakeholder engagement
• Social impact considerations
• Procurement and supply chain management
• Governance and compliance
• Workforce capability
• Tender strategy and project planning

These are no longer peripheral project functions. They are becoming central to project feasibility, approvals and long-term operational success.

For businesses operating across the oil and gas sector, the ability to manage complexity across the full project lifecycle is increasingly becoming a competitive advantage.

Supporting Industry Across the Full Project Lifecycle

For Lidiar Group, the conference reinforced the importance of practical delivery-focused support across major energy and infrastructure projects.

As the sector continues to evolve, organisations are looking for partners who understand not only the technical environment but also the operational, regulatory, and stakeholder challenges that surround it.

Our experience supporting projects across:

• Exploration and development
• Project and approvals support
• Social impact and community engagement
• Procurement and supplier management
• Tender strategy and delivery

positions us to support clients operating in increasingly high-spec and high-accountability environments.

The conversations throughout the conference reinforced that industry is seeking delivery partners who can help navigate complexity while maintaining strong safety, governance and operational outcomes.

From Industry Alignment to Industry Action

This year’s conference demonstrated that Australia’s energy sector is not lacking direction.

The industry is investing.
Technology is advancing.
Transition pathways are accelerating.

But the defining challenge over the next decade will be turning strategy into successful project outcomes.

That means balancing innovation with execution, technical capability with stakeholder confidence, and operational performance with social licence.

For Lidiar Group, it reinforced the importance of remaining closely connected to industry conversations while continuing to support practical, on-the-ground project delivery across Australia’s evolving energy sector.

An Aboriginal and Veteran executive leader with more than 30 years’ experience across mining, energy, resources, industrial services, facilities management and major projects, Scott brings an exceptional blend of strategic leadership, operational expertise and Indigenous engagement capability to the role.

Throughout his career, Scott has led major commercial portfolios, delivered exceptional business growth and worked closely with Boards, CEOs and executive teams to align operational performance with long-term social and community impact outcomes.

His experience spans Australia, Canada, the United States and Papua New Guinea, where he has successfully delivered multi-site operations, Indigenous engagement strategies, ESG initiatives, governance frameworks and workforce capability programs in complex and high-risk environments.

Lidiar Group Managing Partner Darren Cave said Scott’s appointment reflects the organisation’s ongoing commitment to strategic growth, operational excellence and meaningful industry leadership.

“Scott is an outstanding addition to the Lidiar Group team,” Darren said.

“He brings an incredible depth of experience across strategy, commercial governance, Indigenous engagement and operational leadership, as well as a genuine passion for building strong relationships and creating long-term value for clients and communities alike.

“As Lidiar Group continues to grow, Scott’s leadership, experience and strategic insight will play an important role in supporting our next phase of growth and helping us continue to deliver exceptional outcomes for our clients and industry partners.”

Scott has built a strong reputation for developing Indigenous engagement strategies, strengthening governance and delivering commercially grounded solutions that create sustainable impact for organisations and communities. During his career, he has worked with some of Australia’s leading organisations and Tier 1 resource clients including BHP, Rio Tinto, Santos, Shell QGC, INPEX and FMG.

Prior to joining Lidiar Group, Scott held senior leadership positions with organisations including Onsite Rental Group, MSS Security, ATCO Structures & Logistics and Morris Corporation, where he led major business transformation, operational improvement and strategic growth initiatives across national and international markets.

Scott said he was excited to join an organisation with a strong reputation, clear vision and genuine commitment to people, partnerships and performance.

“I’m incredibly excited to be joining Lidiar Group at such an important stage of the organisation’s growth journey,” Scott said.

“Lidiar Group has built a fantastic reputation across the industries and communities it supports, and there is a genuine commitment to delivering high-quality outcomes while maintaining strong values and relationships.

“What really attracted me to the organisation was the opportunity to contribute to a growing business that values strategy, innovation, people and long-term partnerships.

“I’m looking forward to working closely with Darren and the broader team to support continued growth, strengthen capability and help create new opportunities for clients, partners and communities across Australia.”

Scott’s appointment further reinforces Lidiar Group’s commitment to building a high-performing leadership team capable of supporting clients across increasingly complex projects, operational environments and strategic challenges. With extensive experience in governance, operational leadership, Indigenous engagement, ESG, and business development, Scott is expected to play a key role in driving the organisation’s continued evolution and long-term growth strategy.

Not because organisations lack frameworks. Most already have them.

The harder question is whether those frameworks are producing real assurance, or simply creating the appearance of control.

Julio Bara said, “We tend to measure governance by its structure, not by its impact. That is where the gap sits.”

That gap shows up most clearly in reporting.

Many organisations produce detailed safety and risk packs. They contain metrics, updates, trends and activity summaries. On paper, they look thorough. But the Summit challenged a more important question: Does the reporting actually help leaders understand what matters most, or does it simply prove that reporting has occurred?

Julio said, “The question is not how much information we provide. It is whether that information helps people understand risk and make better decisions.”

That is the difference between reporting and assurance.

Boards and executives do not need more pages. They need a sharper view of critical risk, the effectiveness of controls, emerging exposure and where challenge is required now. Without that, reporting can become detailed but strangely unhelpful.

The Summit also highlighted how easily risk becomes fragmented. Psychosocial risk sits in one lane. Operational risk sits in another. Technology risk is handled somewhere else again. But work does not experience those issues separately, and neither do leaders trying to make decisions in the middle of them.

Julio said, “When risks are managed in isolation, we lose the ability to see how they combine and amplify each other.”

That is where governance has to do more than maintain structure. It has to connect what would otherwise remain separate.

It also has to keep learning.

Good governance is not static. It responds to new information, shifts with the operating environment, and creates enough challenge that leaders can see not only what is being managed, but what is uncertain, emerging or beginning to drift.

Julio said, “Governance should not just exist. It should learn.”

That may be the most useful way to judge it.

Not by the number of committees or the size of the reporting pack, but by the quality of the questions being asked. Are the real issues visible? Are critical risks clear? Are emerging concerns being surfaced early enough to influence decisions?

If the answer is no, the structure may be in place, but the governance is not yet doing its job.

That is the real shift.

Organisations do not need more governance for its own sake. They need governance that gives leaders confidence that risk is being understood clearly, challenged properly and acted on early enough to matter.

Because the best governance isn’t about appearing perfect.

It’s about supporting people to make good decisions. This is the final article in our 2026 OHS Leaders Summit series. To catch up on the full series, start from Part 1: The Great Safety Correction: Why WHS Must Lead, Not Follow, Digital Transformation – Lidiar Group

We talk a lot about shared ownership in safety. But ownership and accountability are not the same thing.

That distinction matters more than it sounds.

In complex organisations, safety sits across multiple functions. WHS builds frameworks and oversight. Operations direct the work. People and Culture shape capability and behaviour. Leaders set priorities and pressure points. Everyone has a role, but when accountability is unclear, the result is rarely collaboration.

Julio Bara said, “When accountability is not clearly defined, it does not get shared. It gets diluted.”

That is why the Summit’s focus on line-led safety was so important.

At its core, line-led safety is not a slogan. It is an operating model. It says the people who plan, direct and deliver the work must also own the hazards, the controls and the decisions that shape risk in real time.

Julio said, “The closer accountability sits to the work, the more effective it becomes. That is where decisions are made and where risk is managed in real time.”

Within this model, the role of WHS becomes more clearly defined.

Instead of being expected to “do safety” for the business, the function becomes clearer and more valuable. It designs the system, builds capability, and provides governance to ensure the system is working as intended.

Julio said, “Safety does not sit with a function. It sits with the business. The role of WHS is to make that possible.”

That clarity is what makes the model work.

The organisations making progress here are not relying on broad statements about responsibility. They are getting specific. Who is accountable for a particular risk? Who supports? Who makes the decision? Who owns implementation? Those details matter because vague accountability rarely survives operational pressure.

Julio said, “People need to understand exactly what they are accountable for. Without that, even well-designed systems struggle to translate into consistent behaviour.”

The Summit also pointed to a broader challenge. Leaders cannot be held accountable for safety if the systems around them are pulling in the opposite direction. If production targets, time pressure or commercial incentives consistently undermine safe decisions, accountability becomes conflicted before it is even exercised.

Julio said, “You cannot ask leaders to be accountable for safety if the system they are operating in is pulling them in a different direction.”

That is why line-led safety is about more than org charts and reporting lines. It depends on accountability sitting with the people leading the work, backed by a system that gives them the authority, support and clarity to act on it.

The “watermelon problem”.

Green on the outside, red on the inside.

It is a simple way of describing a complex issue: when reported safety performance looks healthy, but the lived experience of work tells a different story.

Julio Bara said, “We rely on data, but we do not always test whether it reflects what is actually happening.”

That tension matters because most organisations already have plenty of data. Lag indicators, lead indicators, audits and reporting packs all offer structure. But structure is not the same as truth. Good-looking data can still sit alongside unease, inconsistency and risk that people on the ground feel long before leaders see it.

Julio said, “Positive indicators should prompt confidence, but they should also prompt us to ask deeper questions.”

That was one of the Summit’s strongest reminders.

If leaders want a clearer picture of risk, they have to look beyond what is easy to count. They have to understand what work actually feels like; where the pressure points are, where the disconnects sit, and where systems sound stronger on paper than they feel in practice.

Julio said, “If we are not hearing uncomfortable feedback, we are unlikely to be seeing the full picture.”

This is where trust plays a central role in this process.

In many workplaces, trust exists within crews or immediate teams, but it does not always extend to the wider organisation. That shapes what people say, what they hold back, and whether issues are raised early enough to matter.

Julio said, “People will share what they feel safe to say, not always what needs to be said.”

That is why the answer is not to abandon metrics. It is to test them against lived experience. To pair data with direct engagement. To create ways for individuals to speak honestly. And when they do, to act visibly enough that people believe the effort was worth making.

Julio said, “Listening without action reinforces the belief that nothing changes.”

That point lands because it is true in more than safety.

The quality of insight a business receives is shaped by what people believe will happen after they speak up. If the feedback disappears into process, trust shrinks. If something changes, even in a small and practical way, credibility starts to build.

That is where the watermelon analogy becomes useful. It reminds leaders not to be seduced by the surface.

What looks green on the surface may not be healthy underneath, and data only matters if it reflects the reality of the work.

At this year’s OHS Leaders Summit, the most useful conversation steered away from the hype and focused on discipline. The real issue was whether organisations were adopting AI with sufficient clarity, governance, and respect for where human judgement must still sit.

Julio Bara said, “There is a tendency to focus on what AI might become, rather than what it can reliably do today.”

Right now, the most practical value of AI in WHS is not replacing professionals. It is reducing low-value administrative load, helping people work through information faster, and creating more time for the work that still depends on human judgement, context and conversation.

Julio said, “The real benefit is enabling safety professionals to spend more time where they add the most value, which is with people.”

But the Summit also made clear that many organisations are moving faster on experimentation than they are on governance. Tools are being tested. Outputs are being used. Yet the boundaries around accountability, verification and appropriate use are often still immature.

Julio said, “AI can support decisions, but it cannot own them. Accountability remains with people.”

That is where the real risk sits.

The issue is not simply whether AI works. It is whether people are clear on what it should be used for, where it can add value, where it must be checked, and what should never be handed over to automation in the first place.

The organisations seeing the most value are not starting with the technology. They are starting with the problem.

Julio said, “The starting point should be the problem, not the technology.”

That sounds simple, but it changes the whole approach. Instead of trying to find a use for AI, they identify a clear friction point, test a narrow use case, build verification into the workflow and keep a human decision-maker firmly in the loop.

Just as importantly, they bring people with them.

If a tool is introduced without context, without engagement and without clarity around its limits, trust starts to erode before value has a chance to build.

Julio said, “If people are not engaged in how technology is introduced, it creates resistance rather than improvement.”

That may be the most practical lesson of all.

AI will have a growing role in safety, but its value will not be determined by novelty. It will be determined by whether it helps people make better decisions, protects judgement where it matters, and improves the way work is actually done.

Many organisations are investing heavily in supporting individuals, while leaving the conditions of work largely untouched.

Wellbeing programs, support services and resilience initiatives all have a role to play. But the Summit kept returning to the same underlying question: what if the real issue is not the person, but the way the work is designed?

Julio Bara said, “We are putting a lot of effort into supporting individuals, but not enough into addressing the conditions they are working in.”

That is what makes psychosocial risk such an important leadership issue.

The most common drivers are rarely mysterious. They sit in plain sight; workload intensity, role ambiguity, competing demands, poorly managed change and systems that create more friction than support. These are not soft issues. They are structural ones.

Julio said, “You cannot resilience-train your way out of poorly designed work.”

Too often, organisations respond only after harm becomes visible. By then, the pressure has already been building through the way work is planned, resourced and managed. The stronger opportunity is to move further upstream and examine the design of the work itself.

That means asking harder questions.

Are workloads realistic? Are responsibilities clear? Are change programs being layered too quickly? Are frontline leaders equipped to spot pressure before it becomes injury, disengagement or attrition? Are the data sources already sitting across the business being connected in a way that helps leaders act earlier?

Julio said, “Most organisations already have the information they need. The gap is how that information is used to improve how work is designed.”

The Summit made it clear that psychosocial risk cannot sit neatly inside a single team. It cuts across project delivery, site leadership, People and Culture, organisational development and WHS. That is why fragmented ownership tends to produce fragmented action.

Julio said, “This is not a safety issue in the traditional sense. It is a business issue that requires alignment across multiple functions.”

The organisations making real progress are not necessarily building more layers of process. They are tightening the basics. They are reviewing job design, improving role clarity, integrating psychosocial thinking into change and performance routines, and applying the same discipline to these risks that they already apply to physical hazards.

Julio said, “The goal is not to create more process. It is to improve how work is already being designed and delivered.”

That is the real shift.

Prevention does not start when someone is already struggling. It starts much earlier, in the way work is structured, led and supported.

Fix the system, and you change the conditions for everyone.

Work Health and Safety is still being invited into digital transformation too late.

By the time WHS is asked to review a system, platform or technology change, many of the most important decisions have already been made. Key choices around workflow, functionality and implementation have been made, and the downstream effects on workload, usability and role clarity are already starting to play out.

Julio Bara said, “We’re still seeing safety brought in as a checkbox. If we want better outcomes, we need to be in the room in the earlier planning conversations where those decisions are first taking shape.”

That was the heart of what the Summit described as the great safety correction: a shift from participation to influence.

For years, WHS has too often been framed as the function that reviews risk at the end. But digital transformation is forcing a different expectation. When technology reshapes how work is done, safety cannot sit on the sidelines waiting to respond. It needs to help shape the conditions of work from the outset.

Julio said, “If safety is only about stopping things, we’ll always be sidelined. The real opportunity is showing how WHS can simplify work, reduce friction and improve performance.”

That is where the conversation becomes more commercially relevant.

This is not just about compliance. It is about design quality – whether a new system makes work clearer or more complex, whether it supports better decisions or creates more confusion, and whether the human impact has been considered before the rollout begins.

That was especially clear in the Summit discussions around psychosocial risk. Technology decisions do not just affect process. They shape pressure, pace, ambiguity and the everyday experience of work.

Julio said, “Every new system, every new process, it all shapes how people experience work. If we’re not assessing that upfront, we’re missing the biggest risk in the room.”

The stronger message from the Summit was that this cannot be treated as a separate safety overlay. The best organisations are not building parallel WHS processes around technology. They are embedding safety thinking into the decision pathways that already exist; project assurance, investment approvals, change processes and post-implementation reviews.

That is where WHS starts to move from reviewer to contributor.

Julio said, “The organisations that get this right don’t operate in silos. Safety, tech and operations solve problems together.”

This is also when the role of WHS begins to shift, with less emphasis on gatekeeping and greater influence over the decisions that shape work, before risk becomes embedded in the system.

Because better technology does not automatically produce better outcomes.

Better decisions do.

Bringing Aboriginal knowledge to the kitchen table and beyond, Maudu Collective also offers a unique range of native products including Davidson Plum infused plum puddings, bush chutneys and the much-loved INDIGI FUDGE!

Since establishing Maudu Collective, Valerie has participated in the Shell QGC Indigenous Business Support Program and the TSBE Business Navigator Program. Lidiar Group has been proud to support Valerie through the Shell QGC Indigenous Business Support Program throughout this journey.

Through Valerie’s hard work, determination, and incredible energy — combined with the targeted business support provided through the program — Maudu Collective has achieved an impressive number of milestones in just over a year, highlighting both Valerie’s entrepreneurial drive and the value of strong support networks for Indigenous businesses!

Some of these achievements include:

• Launch of Maudu Collective’s branding and new website
• Protection of the INDIGI FUDGE trademark
• Introduction of new product packaging
• Development of a 3-day cultural immersion retreat in the Bunya Mountains
• Continued expansion of workshops and retreat offerings

Maudu’s cultural awareness workshops are also proving increasingly popular with larger organisations, particularly during Reconciliation Week and NAIDOC Week. Valerie is now exploring opportunities to expand these offerings throughout the year and diversify into the tourism sector ahead of the Brisbane Olympics.

In addition, Maudu Collective has showcased its products at several major events in 2025, including TSBE Chef’s Table, the Meet the Makers Trade Show on the Sunshine Coast, Supply Nation Connect, and the Fine Food Trade Show in Sydney. Valerie presented her business exceptionally well at each event, with strong product interest, on-the-spot sales, and valuable new client connections.

Lidiar Group is incredibly proud to be part of Valerie’s journey and to support the continued growth of Maudu Collective through the Shell QGC Indigenous Business Support Program in collaboration with TSBE Business Navigator Program. We look forward to seeing Maudu Collective continue to thrive and share culture with communities and businesses across Australia!

By Olenka Garavito Ruas, Associate – Environmental Consultant

Sustainability commitments are now commonplace across infrastructure, resources and industrial sectors. Net Zero targets, ESG frameworks and sustainability reports are part of everyday business language.

The real test, however, is not the commitment itself. It is whether organisations have the environmental capability and operational controls to deliver on what they have said they will do.

This gap between intent and implementation is where many sustainability strategies falter. High-level goals are set, but systems, processes and measures are not always in place to support them. For project teams and operations staff, sustainability can feel abstract or disconnected from day-to-day decisions when it is not clearly linked to actual environmental impacts, compliance obligations and on-site practices.

In practice, sustainability only works when it is grounded in how an organisation actually operates and how environmental impacts are managed on the ground.

Environmental management systems, approval conditions and compliance processes are often seen as technical requirements. In reality, they form the backbone of credible sustainability performance. Without clear procedures, defined responsibilities and measurable indicators, sustainability remains difficult to demonstrate or defend, particularly when environmental performance is questioned by regulators, communities or Traditional Owners.

This is particularly evident in sectors such as mining and large-scale industry, where operations function like small, self-contained cities. Energy use, water management, waste streams, workforce behaviour and community interfaces are all interconnected. Environmental impacts accumulate across systems and small changes, implemented consistently, can have a significant cumulative impact on ecosystems, waterways and local landscapes.

The most effective sustainability strategies are those that focus on what matters most for that organisation and that project. This means identifying material environmental risks, receptors and pathways, rather than attempting to address everything at once. It also means designing systems that teams can understand and use, rather than overwhelming them with documentation.

There is also increasing pressure from outside the organisation. Investors, lenders and rating agencies are asking more detailed questions about environmental performance and climate risk. They are looking not just for targets, but also for evidence of environmental controls, monitoring data, and demonstrated improvement over time. This has shifted sustainability from a reporting exercise to an operational one.

For many organisations, this creates an opportunity. Strong environmental systems can improve efficiency, reduce risk, and support better decision-making. They can also help attract and retain people who want to work for organisations that take environmental responsibility seriously.

Sustainability is no longer about saying the right things. It is about building the capability to prevent harm, manage impacts, monitor performance and continuously improve environmental outcomes over time. When that foundation is in place, commitments become credible, and outcomes become achievable.