Managing Psychosocial Hazards Across State Lines

If your organisation operates across multiple Australian states, you're navigating a complex landscape. While Victoria's new regulations are state-specific, they exist within the broader context of national Work Health and Safety (WHS) frameworks.

The Similarities: A Common Foundation

Both Victorian regulations and the national SafeWork Code of Practice (adopted in NSW and other jurisdictions) share fundamental principles:

1. Risk Management Framework

Both require systematic identification, assessment, and control of psychosocial hazards following a structured risk management process.

2. Recognised Hazard Categories

The hazards are essentially consistent across jurisdictions: job demands, low control, poor support, bullying, violence, harassment, inadequate recognition, poor organisational justice, traumatic exposure, remote work, role ambiguity, and poor change management.

3. Hierarchy of Controls

Both frameworks prioritise elimination of hazards first, followed by risk reduction through work redesign, with administrative controls and training as supplementary measures—never as the primary solution.

4. Consultation Requirements

Meaningful worker consultation isn't optional in any Australian jurisdiction. Both frameworks mandate consultation with workers and their representatives throughout the risk management process.

5. Focus on Prevention

Both emphasise proactive, preventative approaches rather than reactive responses to incidents.

The Key Differences: Where Victoria Goes Further

1. Regulatory Force

Victoria's approach is embedded in specific regulations under the OHS Act 2004, while many other states rely on codes of practice. This distinction matters: Victorian regulations carry direct legal obligation with penalties for non-compliance, while codes of practice in other states provide guidance on how to meet general duties but with slightly different legal standing.

2. Commencement Date Clarity

Victoria has set a clear deadline: December 1, 2025.

3. Explicit Control Hierarchy Restrictions

Victoria's regulations explicitly prohibit using information and training as the predominant control measure. While the national Code of Practice discourages over-reliance on administrative controls, Victoria makes this restriction crystal clear in regulation.

4. Detailed Review Triggers

The Victorian regulations specify six distinct circumstances that mandate review of control measures. This level of specificity provides clear guidance.

5. Independent Contractor Coverage

Victoria explicitly extends employer duties to independent contractors and 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 psychosocial risk management system to meet Victoria's requirements.

Why?

• 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

The Bottom Line

Don't create separate psychosocial risk management systems for each state. Build one robust system that exceeds all jurisdictional requirements, then adapt at the edges where specific local requirements demand it.