Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025

Psychosocial hazard is the organising concept. The Regulations define it as any factor or factors in the work design, systems or management of work, carrying out of the work, or personal or work‑related interactions that may arise in the working environment and may cause an employee to experience negative psychological responses that create a risk to health or safety (reg 4). The definition expressly covers cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses and the physiological processes associated with them. Examples listed include aggression or violence, bullying, exposure to traumatic events or content, high or low job demands, low job control, poor support, remote work and sexual harassment (reg 4, examples), and a note reminds readers the Act defines "health" to include psychological health (reg 4 note).

Reasonably practicable is the standard applied throughout the duties. Several provisions impose duties "so far as is reasonably practicable" to identify hazards (reg 14), to eliminate or reduce risks (reg 15) and to review controls (reg 16). The Regulations therefore require employers to apply the Act’s established safety standard to psychosocial risks. The instrument does not recast what "reasonably practicable" means; it operates by reference to the Act and the established legal test under that Act (reg 5 note linking to Act compliance).

Hierarchy of control measures is adapted for psychosocial hazards. Regulation 15(1) requires elimination of risks where reasonably practicable. If elimination is not possible, reg 15(2) lists altering management of work, plant, systems, work design and workplace environment as primary control options (reg 15(2)(a)). Information, instruction and training are included as controls at reg 15(2)(b) but their use is constrained: an employer may use training exclusively only if none of the measures in reg 15(2)(a) are reasonably practicable (reg 15(3)), and where a combination is used training must not be the predominant measure (reg 15(4)).

Consultation and representation concepts are central. A health and safety representative (HSR) is given an active role. Regulation 9 prescribes how an employer must involve an HSR in consultation where employees are represented (reg 9(2)(a)-(f)). Part 3 (regs 10-13) specifies default issue resolution roles and processes, the requirement to notify employees and HSRs about employer representatives and the option for employees to nominate representatives if there is no HSR (reg 11). The Regulations treat deputy HSRs as HSRs where the principal HSR has ceased office or is unable to act (reg 7).

Review triggers are defined. Employers must review control measures before alterations likely to change psychosocial risks, when new information appears, on receipt of reports of psychological injury or psychosocial hazards, after incidents to which Part 5 of the Act applies involving psychosocial hazards, if controls prove inadequate, and on request by an HSR (reg 16(1)(a)-(f)). HSRs may request a review where they reasonably believe one of those circumstances exists or where the employer has failed to properly review (reg 16(2)).

Scope and limits: independent contractors and civil liability. Regulation 6 extends some duties to independent contractors where employers have control over matters (reg 6(2)(b)). Regulation 17 limits substantive legal effects in civil proceedings by stating Part 4 does not confer civil causes of action nor affect rights or liabilities in civil proceedings (reg 17(1)-(2)). Act compliance notes attached to many provisions make the duties enforceable under the Act’s offence and penalty scheme (see reg 5 and individual notes).

Administrative concepts include language and form requirements for notifications and agreements: employers must notify employees, HSRs and committees in the appropriate manner and languages about employer representation for issue resolution (reg 11(1)), and any agreement in issue resolution must be in a form approved by the parties and communicated in the manner and language agreed (reg 13(6) and reg 13(4)).

Primary legal subjects are employers and employees within the scope of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, with discrete attention to health and safety representatives, health and safety committees, and independent contractors. The Regulations expressly apply to employers' duties where employees are at risk of psychosocial hazards (reg 14-16). Each duty is framed as "an employer must," making employers the primary duty‑holders (regs 14-16). Where employees are represented by an HSR, the employer’s consultation duties are to involve that representative (reg 9).

Independent contractors and their employees are within the practical scope of the Regulations where the employer has control. Regulation 6(1) extends provisions that set out a way an employer complies with duties under s 21 or s 35 of the Act to independent contractors engaged by the employer and their employees. Regulation 6(2) goes further: where a regulation extends an employer’s duty to an independent contractor, it applies as if "employee" included that independent contractor and its employees, and the employer’s duty extends to matters over which the employer has control or would have control if not limited by agreement (reg 6(2)(a)-(b)). The text therefore targets outsourcing arrangements and contractual allocations that attempt to remove practical control.

Health and safety representatives and committees have procedural rights. Regulation 7 clarifies that a reference to an HSR includes a deputy HSR when the principal HSR has ceased office or cannot exercise powers (reg 7). Regulation 9 sets specific steps employers must take to involve HSRs in consultation about matters where employees are represented (reg 9(2)). Part 3 requires employers to notify employees, HSRs and committees of the employer’s intended participation in issue resolution and of the name and position description of any nominated employer representative (reg 11(1)).

Employees affected by issues have defined procedural entitlements. Under reg 12 an employee wishing to raise an issue must report it to the HSR if there is one, or to the employer or employer representative if there is not. An employee may take reasonable steps to report an issue, including leaving their part of the workplace if reasonable in the circumstances (reg 12(3)). Where there is no HSR, employees may nominate one or more employees to act on their behalf for resolution (reg 11(4)).

Who pays and who decides. Employers carry financial and operational costs for identifying hazards, altering management, plant, systems and work design and for implementing and maintaining controls (regs 14-16, reg 8). Employers also decide which measures are reasonably practicable to eliminate or reduce risks, subject to the external standard of "reasonably practicable" under the Act and the procedural involvement of employees and HSRs (reg 15 and reg 9). Health and safety representatives make requests for reviews and can participate actively in issue resolution, but they do not, by the Regulations alone, make final legal determinations about compliance; regulatory enforcement under the Act remains the State’s mechanism for resolving compliance disputes.

Secondary effects will fall on organisations that provide training, occupational health and safety consultancy, or equipment and plant modification services because training cannot be the predominant control in combination with other measures and is only permissible as an exclusive control if other controls are not reasonably practicable (reg 15(3)-(4)). The requirement to provide information in appropriate languages (reg 11(1), reg 13(6)) may affect employers with a multilingual workforce and lead to translation costs.

Regulatory timeframe. The Regulations commenced on 1 December 2025 and will sunset ten years after making, that is on 30 September 2035, unless extended or replaced (endnotes). That finite lifespan matters for investment and compliance planning, particularly for long‑term systems changes.

Employer duties

• Identify psychosocial hazards so far as is reasonably practicable (reg 14). The definition of psychosocial hazard is detailed in reg 4 and examples are provided.

• Eliminate risks associated with psychosocial hazards so far as is reasonably practicable (reg 15(1)). Where elimination is not reasonably practicable, reduce the risk so far as is reasonably practicable by altering management of work, plant, systems of work, work design or workplace environment (reg 15(2)(a)) and, subject to constraints, by information, instruction or training (reg 15(2)(b)). Controls using training exclusively are permitted only if no measures in reg 15(2)(a) are reasonably practicable (reg 15(3)). Training must not be the predominant control where used in combination (reg 15(4)).

• Ensure any required risk control measure is properly installed, used and maintained (reg 8). This is expressly tied to multiple Act duties by an "Act compliance" note (reg 8 note).

• Review and, if necessary, revise control measures on enumerated triggers: before alterations likely to change psychosocial risks; if new information becomes available; if an employee reports a psychological injury or psychosocial hazard; after incidents falling within Part 5 of the Act involving psychosocial hazards; if measures are inadequate for any reason; and on request from an HSR (reg 16(1)(a)-(f)). The employer must act "so far as is reasonably practicable" in these duties (reg 16(1) note).

• Involve HSRs in consultation when employees are represented, by providing all relevant information, usually providing it to the HSR a reasonable time before employees, inviting the HSR to meet, giving an opportunity to express views and taking those views into account (reg 9(2)(a)-(f)). Regulation 9 is linked to Act compliance under s 35 via reg 5.

• Where engaging independent contractors, extend duties under certain regulations to those contractors and any employees of the contractor where the employer has control or would have control but for contractual arrangements (reg 6(1)-(2)).

Health and safety representative and employee rights

• HSRs have a participatory role in consultation and may request reviews of controls under reg 16(1)(f). An HSR may request a review where they believe on reasonable grounds that a review trigger exists or the employer has failed to properly review (reg 16(2)(a)-(b)).

• Employees may report health or safety issues and must report them to the HSR where one exists, or to the employer or employer representative if none exists (reg 12(2)). Employees may take reasonable steps to report an issue, including leaving their part of the workplace, if reasonable in the circumstances (reg 12(3)).

• Where no HSR exists, affected employees may nominate one or more employees to act on their behalf in issue resolution (reg 11(4)).

Procedural duties in issue resolution

• Employers must notify employees, HSRs and committees about whether the employer will participate personally in issue resolution or nominate an employer representative, and if nominating, the name and position description of that representative (reg 11(1)(a)-(b)). The notification must be in the appropriate manner and languages (reg 11(1)).

• After an issue is reported, the employer or employer representative and the HSR or nominated employee(s) must meet as soon as reasonably possible to try to resolve it, and must take into account factors such as number and location of affected employees, whether temporary measures are possible, the likely time to permanent resolution and who will perform and oversee any agreed actions (reg 13(1)-(2)).

• If requested after resolution, the employer must set out in writing the details of the issue and matters relating to its resolution to the satisfaction of all parties, ensure agreements are brought to employees' attention and sent to any HSC, and ensure agreements are in a form approved by all parties and communicated in the agreed manner and language (reg 13(3)-(6)).

Limits on rights and duties

• Reg 17 makes clear Part 4 does not create a civil cause of action or relieve civil liability; it does not confer a right of action in civil proceedings in respect of a contravention nor affect existing rights or liabilities in civil proceedings (reg 17(1)-(2)). The Regulations therefore rely on the Act’s enforcement machinery rather than creating private enforcement routes under these Regulations.

Enforceability and penalty linkage

• Several provisions carry "Act compliance" notes. Regulation 5 explains that such a note indicates the regulation sets out the way a duty under the specified Act section is to be performed and that failure to comply with the underlying Act duty is an offence to which a penalty applies. Examples include reg 8, reg 14, reg 15, and reg 16 whose notes tie to section 21 (reg 8 note and reg 14 note and reg 15 note and reg 16(1) note). The Regulations therefore operationalise Act duties and make contraventions actionable under the Act’s penalty regime.

The Regulations do not themselves specify monetary fines or criminal penalties. Instead, they operationalise duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 and repeatedly attach "Act compliance" notes indicating that non‑compliance is an offence under the Act and may attract penalties provided by the Act (reg 5; notes at regs 8, 14-16). The Regulations therefore function as subordinate instruments that define the required means of compliance; enforcement and sanctioning powers remain with the Act.

Which Act provisions are implicated is signalled in the Act compliance notes. For example, regulation 8's note ties its requirement to ensure proper installation, use and maintenance of risk control measures to multiple Act sections (sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 31) (reg 8 note). Regulation 9's note links its consultation procedures to s 35 of the Act (reg 9 note). Regulations 14, 15 and 16 are linked to s 21 (reg 14 note; reg 15 note; reg 16(1) note). Part 3 is said to set out the procedure for s 73 of the Act (reg 10), which concerns issue resolution where no agreed procedure exists. This repeated link to specific Act sections focuses enforcement on compliance with those statutory duties.

Practical enforcement pathways therefore include inspection, notices, improvement and prohibition notices, and prosecutions under the Act, as provided by the Act’s enforcement framework. The Regulations do not themselves create new enforcement agencies or powers; they require employers to comply with the statutory standard in particular ways. Reg 17 explicitly states Part 4 does not create or alter civil rights, duties or liabilities (reg 17(1)-(2)), signalling the Regulations intend administrative enforcement under the Act rather than civil litigation as their principal compliance mechanism.

Regulatory discretion and evidentiary focus. Because duties are framed by "so far as is reasonably practicable," enforcement will turn on the application of that standard to facts: what measures were available, their cost, and their risk mitigation potential. The Regulations add specific constraints that shape enforcement lines: for example, training cannot be the predominant control when used with other measures (reg 15(4)) and can only be used exclusively where other measures in reg 15(2)(a) are not reasonably practicable (reg 15(3)). Inspectors or courts enforcing the Act will have to assess whether an employer’s chosen controls complied with those constraints.

Administrative enforcement risk includes procedural obligations that may be judged by timeliness and adequacy: the duty to involve HSRs by providing information a reasonable time before employees (reg 9(2)(b)), the duty to notify about employer representatives in specified languages and manner (reg 11(1)), and the duty to act "as soon as reasonably possible" to meet and try to resolve reported issues (reg 13(1)). These procedural qualifiers invite judgement about what is "reasonable" and "as soon as reasonably possible" in context.

External legal limits. Reg 17 restricts reliance on the Regulations as a source of civil claims: Part 4 does not create a private cause of action or change civil liabilities (reg 17(1)-(2)). Enforcement therefore relies on the Act's criminal/administrative regime and on workplace procedural mechanisms rather than on a new direct tort or contractual remedy framed by these Regulations.

Sunset and review window. The Regulations will sunset ten years after making on 30 September 2035 (endnotes). That limited duration may affect enforcement prioritisation and resource allocation for long-term compliance projects.

These Regulations are expressly made under s 158 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (reg 2) and repeatedly tie compliance to specific sections of that Act. Regulation 5 explains that where an "Act compliance" note appears, the regulation sets out how a duty under the referenced Act section is to be performed and that failure to comply is an offence subject to penalty under the Act. Examples of Act links include s 21 (employer duty of care) referenced in regs 14-16 and s 35 (consultation) referenced in reg 9. Part 3 is stated to set out a procedure for s 73(1) of the Act (reg 10), the Act’s issue resolution provision.

The Regulations do not displace or create civil law claims. Regulation 17 expressly states that Part 4 does not confer rights of action in civil proceedings nor affect any right, duty or liability in civil proceedings or create any new defence (reg 17(1)-(2)). That positions these Regulations as administrative operational rules for the Act rather than as a basis for private civil claims. Any civil consequences arising from psychosocial harm will therefore depend on existing causes of action under tort, contract or statute rather than on the Regulations themselves.

Contractual allocation and control. Regulation 6 engages the boundary between contract and regulatory control by stipulating that certain regulatory duties extend to independent contractors and their employees where the employer has control or would have control if not for agreements purporting to limit control (reg 6(1)-(2)). This interacts with commercial contracting because employers cannot contractually absolve themselves of duties where they retain de facto control. The Regulations therefore limit the effectiveness of contractual offsets of regulatory responsibility in the psychosocial context.

Interpretation and subordinate legislation rules. The endnotes incorporate interpretative provisions under the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (ILA), noting that headings, examples, diagrams and notes form part of the Statutory Rule (endnotes, Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 section). This matters for construction: the examples and notes in the Regulations are legally significant for interpretation, not mere commentary.

Sunset under Subordinate Legislation Act. The endnotes state the Regulations will sunset ten years after making under s 5 of the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (endnotes). That statutory interaction imposes a legislated expiry that may interact with other statutory or regulatory reviews and affect long term compliance planning.

Intersection with incident provisions of the Act. Regulation 16(1)(d) requires review of controls after any incident to which Part 5 of the Act applies involving psychosocial hazards (reg 16(1)(d)). This links the psychosocial provisions to the Act’s incident reporting and investigation regime (Part 5), so employers must coordinate psychosocial controls with incident reporting duties and any inspectorate investigations.

Consultation and workplace representation statutes. The Regulations presuppose the Act’s consultation framework (s 35 and Part 4 of the Act are referenced multiple times at regs 9 and 13 notes). They also require communications in appropriate languages and manners (reg 11 and reg 13), which may intersect with other workplace laws or policies concerning non‑discrimination and equal treatment, although the Regulations do not reference specific anti‑discrimination statutes.

Limit on civil remedies. Because reg 17 disclaims civil causes of action, parties seeking redress for psychosocial injury will need to rely on existing civil law doctrines or on enforcement action under the Act rather than suing directly for breach of these Regulations. The Regulations therefore reshape the compliance environment but not the private law remedies.

Regulatory enforcement remains the Act’s domain. The Regulations do not establish separate enforcement powers or penalties; they form part of the Act’s regulatory architecture. Consequently, enforcement practice and case law under the Act will govern how these particular psychosocial requirements are applied.

The table of amendments records no amendments at the date of publication (endnotes, Table of Amendments). The Regulations are Version No. 001 as at 1 December 2025 and were made on 30 September 2025 by the Lieutenant‑Governor with the advice of Executive Council under s 158 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004; they commenced on 1 December 2025 (endnotes). The endnotes also record that the Regulations will sunset ten years after the date of making, that is 30 September 2035, under the Subordinate Legislation Act 1994 (endnotes).

Procedurally significant interpretative details are also recorded in the endnotes: the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (ILA) style and interpretation changes apply, meaning headings, notes and examples are treated as part of the Statutory Rule (endnotes, ILA references). This is not an amendment history but an interpretive history that will matter for later amendment and legal interpretation.

Because the Regulations are newly made (Version 001) and no amendments are recorded, any future changes will be traceable through the Victorian legislation database, which the endnotes cite for current versions. There is no history of incremental changes captured in the instrument itself.

Implications for compliance and planning. The absence of prior amendments means there is no settled administrative practice or precedent under these specific Regulations. Employers and advisers should therefore treat these provisions as the current baseline and watch for future changes before investing heavily in long‑term capital modifications, especially given the ten‑year sunset. The interpretative effect of the ILA comments in the endnotes means examples and notes in the Regulations will form part of the text for future amendment and judicial interpretation; legislative drafting changes later will therefore be formally reflected in the Statutory Rule.

No consequential amendments recorded. The endnotes confirm there are no statutory rules, subordinate instruments or Acts that amend the Regulations at date of publication (endnotes). That means any interaction with other regulatory instruments will come from new subordinate instruments or from the operation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act itself.

The Regulations contain no recorded litigation history. The instrument’s endnotes list no entries under "Explanatory details" or "Table of Amendments" that would indicate prior judicial challenge, and there is no mention of cases or judicial determinations within the text of the Regulations themselves (endnotes). Regulation 17 expressly removes Part 4 as a source of civil causes of action or defences, which reduces the likelihood of direct civil litigation grounded solely in breach of these Regulations. Any litigation concerning psychosocial hazards and employer duties will therefore proceed under existing Act provisions, common law causes of action, or other statutes, not under the Regulations themselves as the basis for private causes of action (reg 17).

Possible future litigation vectors, given the text. While the Regulations do not create civil causes of action, litigation could arise in several contexts that the Regulations will inform.

• Criminal or regulatory prosecutions under the Act. Because the Regulations specify the ways to comply with Act duties (reg 5), enforcement actions by the regulator for alleged breaches of the Act may turn on whether the employer complied with the Regulations’ specific requirements (for example, whether required consultation occurred, whether training was relied upon as the predominant control contrary to reg 15(4), or whether controls were reviewed after an incident as required by reg 16(1)(d)). Such prosecutions would be under the Act and informed by the Regulations as evidence of prescribed standards.

• Judicial review of administrative decisions. Decisions by inspectors or the regulator that rely on the Regulations , for example, issuing improvement or prohibition notices , could be subject to merits review or judicial review on legality grounds. In such proceedings the Regulations will be central to the legal question of what constitutes compliance with the Act.

• Contractual disputes over allocation of responsibility. Although the Regulations limit the effectiveness of contractual attempts to remove control (reg 6(2)(b)), litigation could arise where parties litigate the allocation of responsibility following an incident, and courts will consider whether the employer had control such that the Regulations extended duties to independent contractors.

• Interpretation disputes about "reasonably practicable" and procedural terms. Litigation may focus on whether an employer's choice of controls satisfied the reg 15 constraints on training, or on what constitutes a reasonable time to provide information to an HSR under reg 9(2)(b), or what is "as soon as reasonably possible" in reg 13(1). The Regulations frame these issues but do not define them precisely.

No current case law exists. Because there is no reported litigation history attached to the Regulations at the date of publication, there is no developed judicial interpretation of the specific provisions, constraints and procedural tests the Regulations introduce. Practitioners should therefore monitor enforcement action and any early cases arising from regulator activity once the provisions have been in force.

Regulatory terminology that carries legal effect. The Definitions in reg 4 include examples and a note that "health" includes psychological health per the Act. The ILA endnotes make examples and notes part of the statutory text. That means examples in reg 4 are not merely illustrative but form part of the instrument’s legal fabric, which can surprise readers expecting them to be directionally helpful rather than interpretively significant.

"Reasonably practicable" remains undefined in the Regulations. Multiple duties are qualified by "so far as is reasonably practicable" (regs 14-16). The Act supplies the legal test, but the Regulations do not narrow or clarify it. Employers cannot adopt a fixed compliance checklist; defensible steps will depend on context, available measures, and cost‑risk assessments. Enforcement will hinge on assessments of options, costs and efficacy, not on literal tick‑the‑box steps.

Training cannot be the predominant control. The Regulations restrict the role of training and information: training may be used exclusively only if none of the measures in reg 15(2)(a) are reasonably practicable, and training must not be the predominant measure where combined with other measures (reg 15(3)-(4)). Employers that treat awareness training as their principal psychosocial intervention risk contravening the Regulations where organisational or design changes were practicable.

Independent contractor boundaries. Regulation 6(2)(b) extends duties to independent contractors and their employees in relation to matters over which the employer has control, or would have control if not for agreements purporting to limit or remove control. This will catch arrangements where employers delegate tasks on paper but retain operational control. Agreements that attempt to transfer control will not necessarily absolve the employer of regulatory duties. Contracts should therefore be reviewed to ensure they accurately reflect operational control and risk allocation.

Records and communication in appropriate languages. Employers must notify employees, HSRs and committees in the appropriate manner and languages about employer representatives for issue resolution (reg 11(1)), and agreements must be communicated in the manner and language agreed (reg 13(6)). Multi‑lingual workplaces must plan translations, which may cause delay or cost. Failing to communicate in the appropriate language may be a procedural non‑compliance even where substantive measures exist.

HSR timing requirements are indefinite. Regulation 9 requires the employer, unless not reasonably practicable, to provide information to the HSR a reasonable time before providing it to employees (reg 9(2)(b)). "Reasonable time" is not defined. This invites disputes about timing where an employer distributes information simultaneously or very shortly before employees receive it, potentially undermining the participatory role of the HSR.

Confined civil enforcement routes. Regulation 17 removes Part 4 as a source of civil causes of action or defences (reg 17(1)-(2)). Parties seeking remedies in civil proceedings for psychosocial injury cannot rely on a private right of action under these Regulations; they must proceed under existing civil law, common law duties, or rely on enforcement under the Act. That may limit strategic options for injured employees and affect litigation strategies.

Documentation expectations in issue resolution. Regulation 13(3) requires the employer to prepare written details of an issue and its resolution if requested, "to the satisfaction of all parties." That standard may create negotiation friction, as a single party's refusal could prevent written confirmation. Also, reg 13(4) requires the employer to bring details of any agreement to the attention of affected employees and send them to any HSC. Failure to ensure agreements are approved and communicated in the agreed language and manner could be a procedural breach.

Trigger list for reviews creates many compliance touchpoints. Regulation 16(1) lists multiple triggers requiring review. These triggers include before alterations likely to change risks, new information, employee reports, incidents covered by Part 5 of the Act, inadequacy of controls and HSR requests (reg 16(1)(a)-(f)). Each trigger creates an obligation to act "so far as is reasonably practicable" and employers must have monitoring systems to identify triggers promptly and to evidence responsive reviews.

Regulatory overlap and ambiguity for small employers. The duties apply to all employers but the resources required for identification, elimination, redesign, and review may be disproportionately burdensome for small businesses. The Regulations do not include size‑based thresholds or de minimis exceptions; the "reasonably practicable" test will be the main moderating factor, but its application is uncertain for small‑scale operations.

Sunset date affects long‑term investments. The Regulations will sunset ten years after making (endnotes). Organisations considering major workplace redesigns to satisfy these Regulations should be aware the instrument is not indefinite. That could influence decisions about capital versus procedural controls.

This compliance roadmap sets out pragmatic steps an employer should take to implement the Regulations, tied to specific provisions.

1. Understand scope and legal linkage

• Read regs 14-16 with reg 4's definition of "psychosocial hazard" and the Act compliance notes (regs 5, 14-16). Recognise duties are "so far as is reasonably practicable" and that non‑compliance is actionable under the Act.

2. Identify psychosocial hazards (reg 14)

• Conduct a documented psychosocial hazard identification exercise that maps work design, systems of work, management practices, workplace environment and interpersonal interactions. Use the examples in reg 4 to structure the risk inventory.
• Record methodology, data sources (surveys, incident reports, HSR/employee reports, absenteeism data), and frequency of reviews.

3. Apply a hierarchy of controls and plan implementation (reg 15)

• Prioritise elimination of risks where reasonably practicable (reg 15(1)). Document why elimination is or is not practicable.
• If elimination is not possible, design controls that alter management of work, plant, systems of work, work design or workplace environment (reg 15(2)(a)). Examples include workload redistribution, job redesign, rostering changes, enhanced supervision, safer plant or equipment, environmental changes or process redesign.
• Treat information, instruction and training as supporting measures only. Do not make training the predominant control where combined with organisational measures (reg 15(3)-(4)). If you intend to rely on training alone, document why other measures in reg 15(2)(a) are not reasonably practicable.

4. Ensure installation, use and maintenance of controls (reg 8)

• For any physical or technical intervention, ensure correct installation and ongoing maintenance protocols, and keep records of maintenance, inspections and responsible persons (reg 8).

5. Put in place review triggers and processes (reg 16)

• Create documented procedures to review control measures before any alteration likely to affect psychosocial risks, on receipt of new information, when employees report psychological injury or hazards, after any Part 5 incident involving psychosocial hazards, if controls appear inadequate or on HSR request (reg 16(1)(a)-(f)).
• Maintain a log of reviews, outcomes and follow‑up actions. Ensure the review process documents cost, risk reduction estimates and decision rationale to support "reasonably practicable" assessments.

6. Consult with employees and HSRs (regs 9, 13)

• Establish consultation protocols consistent with reg 9: provide HSRs with all information about a matter that the employer provides to employees, usually in advance; invite and, where accepted, meet to consult; provide a reasonable opportunity for the HSR to express views and take those views into account (reg 9(2)(a)-(f)).
• For issue resolution, notify employees, HSRs and committees about whether the employer or a named representative will participate and provide the representative’s name and position description in appropriate languages and manner (reg 11(1)).
• When an issue is reported, meet as soon as reasonably possible with the HSR or nominated employee(s) to try to resolve it and take into account the factors in reg 13(2). Keep written records of meetings and agreed temporary or permanent measures.

7. Recordkeeping and communications

• Prepare written records of hazard identification, risk assessments, control selection rationale, implementation plans, reviews and consultations. If parties request written details of issue resolution, provide them to the satisfaction of all parties (reg 13(3)).
• Communicate agreements and notices in the manner and language appropriate to the workforce (reg 11(1), reg 13(6)). Maintain distribution logs and translation documentation.

8. Engage contractors with care (reg 6)

• Review contracts and operational arrangements to determine where the employer retains control over systems, processes or workplace environments. Where control exists or would exist but for contractual allocations, treat duties as extending to independent contractors and their employees (reg 6(2)(b)).
• Ensure contractor arrangements specify roles for psychosocial hazards and include access to employer consultation processes and review procedures.

9. Train decision‑makers and managers

• Train managers and HSRs on the regulatory requirements, including the constraints on training as a control, the need to involve HSRs in consultation, the requirement to review controls on specified triggers and proper documentation practices.
• Emphasise that "reasonably practicable" requires documented risk‑based decision making.

10. Prepare dispute and issue resolution procedures

• If the workplace does not already have an agreed issue resolution procedure under s 73 of the Act, implement the default procedure set out in regs 10-13. Document responsibilities for meeting and for implementing agreed actions, and form templates for agreements in multiple languages as required.

11. Monitor and audit

• Set up an audit schedule to test whether hazards are being identified, whether controls are implemented and maintained (reg 8), whether reviews occur on triggers (reg 16), and whether consultation with HSRs and employees meets reg 9 and reg 13 requirements.
• Use audits to build evidence of "reasonably practicable" decision‑making in case of inspection or prosecution.

12. Liaise with inspectorate and legal advisers

• Where uncertain about what measures are reasonably practicable, seek early engagement with regulators and legal advisers rather than relying solely on internal judgment. Document advice and the steps taken in reliance on it.

13. Plan for resource allocation

• Budget for potential organisational changes, plant modifications, consultation processes, translation services and documentation systems. Given the Regulations’ ten‑year sunset (endnotes), match the scale of investment to the expected operating horizon while ensuring regulatory compliance in the near term.

Following these steps will align workplace practice with the substantive and procedural obligations in the Regulations. Keep records that show how options were considered and why particular controls were selected, because enforcement will centre on whether the employer acted "so far as is reasonably practicable" and complied with the consultation and review processes the Regulations prescribe.