General information only — not legal advice
This page provides general information about psychosocial risk obligations and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Legislation, regulations, and regulatory guidance vary by jurisdiction and change over time. For advice specific to your organisation and location, consult your state or territory WHS regulator, WorkSafe NZ, or a qualified legal or health and safety professional.
Authoritative sources: Safe Work Australia · WorkSafe NZ · Australian legislation · NZ legislation
Psychosocial risk management is no longer a “wellbeing initiative” in Australia. It is an enforceable work health and safety obligation, and regulators across every state and territory are moving from education and guidance into active compliance monitoring.
This guide explains what the legislation actually requires, how it differs by jurisdiction, and what “compliance” looks like in practical terms.
The national framework: WHS Regulations and the Model Code of Practice
Australia’s workplace health and safety system is built on a national model, with state and territory regulators responsible for enforcement. The key national documents are:
The Model Work Health and Safety Regulations (2022 amendments)
These updates, adopted across ACT, NSW, QLD, SA, TAS, NT, and Commonwealth jurisdictions, explicitly require PCBUs (persons conducting a business or undertaking) to manage psychosocial risks using the same four-step process applied to physical hazards: identify, assess, control, review.
The Model Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work (2022)
This Code provides practical guidance on how to meet the Regulations. It is not law itself, but compliance with a Code of Practice is evidence that you have met your legal obligations. The Code identifies the following as common psychosocial hazards:
State-by-state obligations — where your organisation sits
New South Wales
Regulatory framework: Work Health and Safety Regulation 2025 (replaced the 2017 Regulation from 22 August 2025) and the Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work.
NSW has gone further than the model WHS Regulation: psychosocial risks must now be managed using the full hierarchy of control measures, the same approach required for physical hazards. This is a significant strengthening. From 1 July 2026, Codes of Practice carry greater legal weight, requiring PCBUs to follow them unless an equal or higher standard can be demonstrated. SafeWork NSW has moved into active inspection mode for psychosocial risk management.
Victoria
Regulatory framework: Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025, in effect from 1 December 2025.
Victoria operates under the OHS Act rather than the WHS Act, but the practical obligations are closely aligned. Employers must: identify psychosocial hazards in work design, systems, environment, management practices, and interactions; implement higher-order controls (work design, supervision, staffing) rather than relying on training or EAP access; consult with employees and Health & Safety Representatives (HSRs); and review controls whenever a psychosocial issue is reported, an incident occurs, or the work changes significantly. The accompanying Compliance Code: Psychological Health provides detailed guidance. Critically: failure to follow this Code can be used as evidence in legal proceedings. WorkSafe Victoria has indicated it will use this compliance framework actively.
A note for national employers: Victoria’s framework is the most explicit and detailed in the country. Meeting Victorian standards effectively means meeting or exceeding obligations elsewhere. Consider using Victoria as your national baseline.
Queensland
Regulatory framework: Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (Qld) and the Code of Practice.
QLD has adopted the national model framework. PCBUs must identify and manage psychosocial hazards through the standard risk management process. WorkSafe QLD is in education-to-enforcement transition mode. Practical focus: consultation evidence and documented risk registers.
South Australia
Regulatory framework: Work Health and Safety Regulations (SA) and the Code of Practice.
SA adopted the national model and local guidance from SafeWork SA. Regulators have highlighted the need for: risk registers, evidence of consultation with HSRs, and clear communication of control measures. Enforcement is currently education-heavy but expected to intensify.
Western Australia
Regulatory framework: Work Health and Safety (General) Regulations 2022 (WA) and the Code of Practice: Psychosocial hazards in the workplace (2022).
WA has its own jurisdiction-specific Code of Practice. The practical obligations align closely with the national model.
Commonwealth employers (Comcare jurisdiction)
Regulatory framework: Work Health and Safety (Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work) Code of Practice 2024.
The Commonwealth Code introduces Fatigue, Intrusive Surveillance, and Job Insecurity as explicitly named hazards. Commonwealth PCBUs must use the full hierarchy of controls for psychosocial risk management.
What does “compliance” actually look like in practice?
Based on regulator guidance and enforcement patterns, these are the elements that demonstrate active compliance:
A documented hazard identification process
Not just a one-off exercise, but an ongoing system for identifying psychosocial hazards through consultation, surveys, incident data, and observation.
A psychosocial risk register
Recording identified hazards, assessed risk levels, control measures in place, and review dates. This is the documented backbone of your compliance.
Evidence of worker consultation
Minutes from safety committee meetings, records of surveys run, HSR involvement in risk identification. PCBUs must consult workers throughout each stage of the risk management process.
Higher-order control measures
Records showing that you implemented controls at the level of work design, management practice, or systems. Awareness training and EAP promotion alone are not sufficient.
Review records
Documentation showing controls were reviewed at appropriate intervals, and in response to incidents, changes, or worker reports. This is the element most organisations are missing.
Incident and reporting records
A clear process for workers to report psychosocial hazards, and documented responses to those reports.
What regulators are finding in inspections: The most common gaps are (1) no documented review process for controls: organisations implement something then never formally assess whether it’s working; (2) over-reliance on EAPs as the primary control measure, without higher-order controls in place; and (3) no systematic consultation process for psychosocial hazard identification, relying instead on managers self-reporting.
Financial context: why enforcement is accelerating
Mental injury compensation claims in Australia crossed $1 billion in 2024–25, five years ahead of projections. They now make up 12% of serious compensation claims but 38% of total claim costs. The average psychological injury claim in NSW has risen from $146,000 in 2019–20 to $288,542 in 2024–25. The median time off work is 37 weeks, compared to 7 weeks for physical injuries.
Against this backdrop, regulators are under pressure to demonstrate that psychosocial risk obligations are being taken seriously. Organisations that cannot demonstrate a systematic, ongoing approach to psychosocial risk management face not just regulatory exposure but significant financial liability if a claim arises.
The three primary drivers of mental health claims in Australia are: harassment and workplace bullying (33.2% of mental health claims), work pressure (24.2%), and exposure to violence and harassment (15.7%). These are all identifiable and manageable hazards with the right monitoring and controls in place.