The first workplace health and safety laws were born out of the industrial revolution in the United Kingdom, which primarily worked to protect children in the workplace. Initially, these laws were applied throughout workplaces like factories and mine sites where visible and physical hazards were the most likely risk to the health of workers. Nowadays, many of the dangers in the workplace are not visible to the average bystander.

Growing evidence that supports improved safety mechanisms when working with silica-containing products, as well as legislation that worked to protect asbestos-related lines of work, are good examples of non-visible risks in the workplace, particularly as both have long-term effects upon a person’s health, rather than just their immediate physical safety.

Recent discussions in Victoria as to the limitations or proposed changes to their workers compensation scheme, particularly regarding mental health, highlight that safety systems must go beyond immediate or physical threats to a worker but must also consider the psychological ramifications.

Several states have introduced regulations in Australia as part of their workplace health and safety legislation to address psychosocial hazards. These hazards include things like high levels of job demand, poor employee support and poor organisational justice.

Regulator’s increased focus on psychosocial risks poses a unique series of challenges for those in the role of duty holders, not only highlighting the vast differences between the initial establishment of WHS legislation and its focus on immediate physical risks to employees but because of the extensive range of psychosocial hazards and their broad scope of variability.

The most recent jurisdiction to implement new regulations was the Northern Territory, bringing it into line with New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, where psychosocial regulations are already part of their workplace health and safety regulations.

In New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania, an exception exists, which means that a person conducting a business or undertaking does not need to apply the hierarchy of controls when determining the control measures as they apply to psychosocial risk.

Queensland and the Commonwealth model regulations have removed this exception, meaning that duty holders there are subject to stricter regulation, requiring them to apply the hierarchy of control measures and include psychosocial risks in that application.

These changes to regulation and legislation across swathes of the country show that those managing the regulatory authority are taking psychosocial risks seriously and applying this consideration to all industries, not just those that may have traditionally been considered risky.

The changes also highlight that the impetus to provide a healthy and safe working environment applies across every type of risk, and employers throughout the country should be considering how they manage their legal and regulatory risks in response.

A proactive approach to any hazard or risk, including psychosocial hazards, requires risk assessments, similar to any other task within the workplace. Additionally, these risks call for effective leadership, tailored solutions that work to address the concerns and challenges contained within each specific business, and broad consultation with workers.

The overarching theme of these new changes is, as it has been throughout the history of workplace health and safety legislation, that active prevention is required rather than treatment in order to ensure the safest and best-practice procedures within workplaces.