Victoria's Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025, in effect since 1 December 2025, include a specific restriction on the use of information, instruction and training as psychosocial risk controls. This restriction is unique to Victoria and has practical consequences for how organisations structure their response to psychosocial hazards.

Many organisations have historically relied on resilience training, mental health awareness programmes and Employee Assistance Programmes as their primary response to psychosocial risk. Under the Victorian Regulations, that approach is no longer sufficient.

The two rules

The restriction operates through two provisions in the Regulations.

Rule 1: Exclusivity. Information, instruction or training can only be used as the exclusive control measure for a psychosocial hazard if alteration of the management of work, plant, systems of work, work design or the workplace environment is not reasonably practicable.

Rule 2: Predominance. Where a combination of control measures is used, information, instruction or training must not be the predominant control measure.

Together, these rules create a clear hierarchy. Employers must first consider whether they can eliminate the psychosocial hazard. If elimination is not reasonably practicable, employers must reduce the risk by altering how work is managed, organised, designed or carried out, or by changing the physical environment. Training sits below these measures. It can form part of the response, but it cannot be the main thing the organisation does.

What "predominant" means

The Regulations do not define "predominant." However, the practical test is whether, looking at the full set of controls an employer has implemented for a particular hazard, training-based measures account for the majority of the effort, investment and expected effectiveness.

An employer that has identified high job demands as a psychosocial hazard and responded by providing stress management training, distributing a wellbeing guide, and offering an EAP, but has not altered workloads, staffing levels, rostering or task allocation, has made training the predominant control. That approach does not comply with the Regulations.

An employer that has redesigned rostering to distribute workload more evenly, recruited additional staff for peak periods, introduced task rotation for emotionally demanding work, and provided training on recognising early signs of stress, has made alteration the predominant control and training a supporting measure. That approach complies.

The distinction is between changing the conditions that create the hazard and asking workers to manage their response to those conditions. The Regulations require the former before the latter.

Practical examples of higher-order controls

The Compliance Code: Psychological Health published by WorkSafe Victoria provides detailed guidance on what higher-order controls look like for specific hazards. These are controls that alter work, not controls that equip individuals to cope with unchanged conditions.

High job demands. Develop internal processes for managing peak demand periods and unplanned absences. Review workloads to ensure they are achievable within contracted hours. Arrange rosters so employees can vary tasks that require sustained concentration. Provide adequate support and encourage regular breaks for emotionally demanding work.

Low job control. Give employees greater input into how and when they complete tasks. Reduce unnecessary approval processes. Allow reasonable flexibility in scheduling. Ensure employees have the tools, information and authority they need to carry out their roles.

Poor support. Provide a clear management reporting structure. Ensure supervisors are accessible and trained to have conversations about workload and wellbeing. Establish peer support arrangements for roles with high emotional demand.

Lack of role clarity. Ensure job descriptions are current and accurately reflect what employees actually do. Clarify decision-making authority and escalation pathways. Address overlapping or conflicting responsibilities through structural change, not additional communication.

Poor organisational change management. Consult workers before and during organisational change. Provide adequate time for adjustment. Ensure workers have access to information about how changes affect their roles, reporting lines and job security.

Aggression and violence. Review workplace design to reduce situations where workers are isolated with aggressive customers or clients. Install barriers, duress alarms or other physical controls. Change service delivery models to reduce face-to-face exposure during high-risk periods.

In each case, the control addresses the source of the hazard through work design, systems of work, management practices or the physical environment. Training may supplement these controls, but it does not replace them.

Where training still has a role

The Regulations do not prohibit training. Training remains a legitimate and necessary part of a psychosocial risk management system. The Compliance Code specifies that employers must provide information, instruction or training to employees in appropriate and accessible formats, delivered by a suitably qualified person. Training should be practical and engaging, and must consider any special requirements of the workforce.

Training is appropriate as a supporting control when it helps workers understand the hazards they face, the controls in place, how to report concerns, and how to access support. It is also appropriate for building the capability of supervisors and managers to identify hazards, consult workers and implement controls.

What training cannot do, under the Victorian Regulations, is stand alone as the response to a hazard that could have been addressed through work redesign, system change or environmental modification.

The risk for organisations that rely on training

Clayton Utz notes that for many employers who currently rely on the dissemination of information, instruction or training to control the risk of psychosocial hazards, a review of current processes is needed to determine whether it is reasonably practicable to alter work practices to reduce these risks. Maddocks describes the Victorian approach as a de facto hierarchy of control that will require a new approach from people and culture teams, who should draw on the expertise of their OHS team to assist in risk assessment and review of controls.

The practical risk is straightforward. An employer that has invested in resilience training, mental health first aid, and an EAP, but has not assessed whether workloads are achievable, whether staffing is adequate, whether role clarity exists, or whether change management processes address psychosocial risk, is exposed. If WorkSafe Victoria inspects and asks what controls are in place, a list of training programmes and an EAP will not demonstrate compliance with the Regulations.

MinterEllison observes that the approach in Victoria is more prescriptive than in other states, where training and information may be used more flexibly. For national employers, this means the Victorian position sets the highest bar. Organisations operating in Victoria alongside other jurisdictions should review their psychosocial risk management systems against the Victorian requirements specifically, not assume that compliance in other states is sufficient.

For the full context on the Victorian Regulations and the Compliance Code, see the linked articles.

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 WorkSafe Victoria, Norton Rose Fulbright, MinterEllison, Clayton Utz, Maddocks, and K&L Gates and are current as of the date of publication.