The Work Health and Safety Regulation 2025 (NSW) commenced on 22 August 2025, replacing the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017. While the new Regulation largely preserves the existing WHS framework, it introduces strengthened psychosocial risk provisions that change how organisations in NSW must manage psychosocial hazards.

The most significant change: sections 55C and 55D now explicitly require PCBUs to apply the hierarchy of controls when managing psychosocial risks. This aligns NSW with Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, South Australia and the Commonwealth, all of which already require the hierarchy of controls for psychosocial hazards.

What sections 55C and 55D require

Under the amended section 55C, psychosocial risks must now be managed in accordance with the hierarchy of control measures set out in section 36 of the WHS Regulation. This is a departure from the previous position. The model WHS Regulation, which NSW originally adopted, excludes the application of the hierarchy of controls from the psychosocial risk management duty. NSW has now moved beyond the model.

In practice, this means PCBUs must first, where reasonably practicable, eliminate psychosocial risks. Where elimination is not reasonably practicable, PCBUs must minimise risks by applying the hierarchy of controls. SafeWork NSW describes this as starting with higher-order controls, such as implementing flexible working or redesigning the way work is completed, before relying on lower-order controls, such as training or coping strategies.

Section 55D sets out the relevant matters PCBUs must consider when determining control measures for psychosocial risks. These include the duration, frequency and severity of workers' exposure to the psychosocial hazards, how hazards may interact or combine, the design of work including job demands and tasks, the systems of work including how work is managed and organised, the design and layout of the workplace and environmental conditions, the plant and structures at the workplace, and the adequacy of information, training, instruction and supervision provided.

Why this matters: the hierarchy applied to psychosocial hazards

The hierarchy of controls is a fundamental concept in WHS risk management. It ranks control measures from the most effective and reliable to the least effective and least reliable: elimination, substitution, isolation, engineering controls, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment.

Applied to psychosocial hazards, the hierarchy requires organisations to consider controls in order. The first question is whether the hazard can be eliminated altogether. If a particular work process creates sustained excessive workload, can the process be redesigned to remove the hazard? If a reporting structure creates role conflict, can the structure be changed?

Where elimination is not reasonably practicable, PCBUs must apply higher-order controls before lower-order ones. For psychosocial hazards, higher-order controls include work redesign, adequate staffing, adjusted job demands, changes to rostering and shift patterns, modifications to the physical work environment, and changes to supervision and management structures. These are controls that address the source of the hazard rather than asking workers to manage their response to it.

Lower-order controls include policies, procedures, training and information. These remain part of the response, but under the 2025 Regulation they cannot be the primary or sole control measure. An Employee Assistance Programme, for example, supports workers who are experiencing harm, but it does not address the hazard that caused the harm. It sits at the bottom of the hierarchy.

The practical gap

Many organisations in NSW have built their psychosocial risk management around policies, procedures, training and EAPs. These are administrative and individual-level controls. Under the previous regulatory framework, there was no explicit requirement to apply the hierarchy of controls to psychosocial risks, and many organisations defaulted to these lower-order measures.

The 2025 Regulation changes this. As Clayton Utz notes, PCBUs must now manage psychosocial risks using the hierarchy of controls, not just policies or EAPs. Higher-order controls are now required. Policies and procedures and EAPs are not sufficient on their own.

This creates a practical gap for organisations that have not invested in higher-order controls. Conducting a gap analysis of current psychosocial risk management systems is the starting point. Organisations should assess whether their existing controls address work design, systems of work and the physical environment, or whether they rely predominantly on training, policies and individual support programmes.

Alignment with other jurisdictions

NSW is not the first jurisdiction to require the hierarchy of controls for psychosocial risks. The Commonwealth (Comcare) and Queensland both adopted this requirement when they commenced their psychosocial amendments in April 2023. The Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory and South Australia followed. NSW has now aligned with these jurisdictions, which means organisations operating across multiple states and territories now face a more consistent regulatory expectation: the hierarchy of controls applies to psychosocial hazards in the same way it applies to physical hazards.

For the full state-by-state breakdown, see the compliance-by-state collection. For background on the model WHS Regulations that introduced the psychosocial provisions, see Safe Work Australia amends model WHS Regulations to include psychosocial hazards.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information on psychosocial compliance in Australian workplaces. It does not constitute legal advice. Organisations should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. Regulatory references are sourced from SafeWork NSW, Norton Rose Fulbright and Clayton Utz and are current as of the date of publication.