ManagingPsychosocial Hazards Across State Lines: What National Businesses Need to Know
If your organisationoperates across multiple Australian states, you're navigating a complexlandscape. While Victoria's new regulations are state-specific, they existwithin the broader context of national Work Health and Safety (WHS) frameworks.
The Similarities: A Common Foundation
Both Victorian regulationsand the national SafeWork Code of Practice (adopted in NSW and otherjurisdictions) share fundamental principles:
1. Risk ManagementFramework. Both require systematic identification, assessment, and control ofpsychosocial hazards following a structured risk management process.
2. Recognised HazardCategories. The hazards are essentially consistent across jurisdictions: jobdemands, low control, poor support, bullying, violence, harassment, inadequaterecognition, poor organisational justice, traumatic exposure, remote work, roleambiguity, and poor change management.
3. Hierarchy of Controls. Bothframeworks prioritise elimination of hazards first, followed by risk reductionthrough work redesign, with administrative controls and training assupplementary measures—never as the primary solution.
4. ConsultationRequirements. Meaningful worker consultation isn't optional in any Australianjurisdiction. Both frameworks mandate consultation with workers and theirrepresentatives throughout the risk management process.
5. Focus on PreventionBothemphasise proactive, preventative approaches rather than reactive responses toincidents.
The KeyDifferences: Where Victoria Goes Further
1. Regulatory Force. Victoria'sapproach is embedded in specific regulations under the OHS Act 2004,while many other states rely on codes of practice. This distinctionmatters: Victorian regulations carry direct legal obligation with penalties fornon-compliance, while codes of practice in other states provide guidance on howto meet general duties but with slightly different legal standing.
2. Commencement DateClarity. Victoria has set a clear deadline: December 1, 2025.
3. Explicit ControlHierarchy Restrictions. Victoria's regulations explicitly prohibitusing information and training as the predominant control measure. While thenational Code of Practice discourages over-reliance on administrative controls,Victoria makes this restriction crystal clear in regulation.
4. Detailed ReviewTriggers. The Victorian regulations specify six distinct circumstances thatmandate review of control measures. This level of specificity provides clearguidance.
5. Independent ContractorCoverage. Victoria explicitly extends employer duties to independent contractorsand their employees. While WHS duties generally apply to all workers,Victoria's regulations make this extension particularly clear.
Practical Implications for Multi-State Operations
The smart approach:
Design your psychosocialrisk management system to meet Victoria's requirements. Why? Because:
- Victorian standards are among the most stringent, so compliance there generally ensures compliance elsewhere
- Consistency across your organisation reduces confusion and builds stronger culture
- As other states evolve their frameworks, they're likely to converge toward Victoria's specificity
- Managing multiple systems for different states is operationally inefficient and increases compliance risk
Action steps for national businesses:
- Audit your current approach in each state against both Victorian regulations and relevant state codes of practice
- Identify the gaps between your existing systems and the highest standard (likely Victoria's)
- Implement a unified framework that meets or exceeds all state requirements
- Ensure local customisation for state-specific reporting or consultation requirements while maintaining consistent core processes
- Train all managers and supervisors on the unified approach, with supplementary briefings on state-specific nuances
- Document everything consistently across all locations to demonstrate compliance regardless of jurisdiction
The bottom line: Don't create separate psychosocial risk management systems for each state. Build onerobust system that exceeds all jurisdictional requirements, then adapt at theedges where specific local requirements demand it.
