Following the code is no longer optional: what NSW businesses need to know about psychosocial hazards
If you run a business in NSW, a change has just come into effect that quietly reshapes how psychosocial risk is judged, whether you have caught up with it yet or not.
As of 1 July 2026, section 26A of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) has commenced. In plain terms, it means the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice has stopped being "recommended reading" and is now the benchmark a regulator will hold your business against.
We know WHS can feel overwhelming, especially when the rules shift. So let's break down what has actually changed, why it matters most for psychosocial risk, and what you need to do about it now.
What is section 26A?
Section 26A was inserted into the WHS Act by the Industrial Relations and Other Legislation Amendment (Workplace Protections) Act 2025 (NSW). It commences on 1 July 2026.
Under this new duty, a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) must either:
Comply with an approved Code of Practice that applies to a risk in their workplace, or
Demonstrate that their alternative approach achieves an equivalent or higher standard of health and safety.
This applies to every approved Code of Practice in NSW, not just the psychosocial one. But psychosocial hazards are where this change will bite hardest, because it is an area many businesses have already treated as a wellbeing initiative rather than a hard compliance obligation.
What actually changed on the day
Your underlying duty to manage psychosocial risk is not new. That obligation has existed under the WHS Regulation since October 2022. What has changed is the standard of proof.
Before 1 July 2026: A code of practice was admissible evidence in court. If something went wrong, a regulator had to prove your business failed to eliminate or minimise a risk so far as reasonably practicable. The code was one piece of evidence used to support that argument.
From 1 July 2026: The code is now the benchmark itself. A regulator no longer has to prove that harm occurred. Falling short of the code, without a documented and equivalent alternative, can be treated as a breach in its own right.
That is a meaningful shift. It moves psychosocial safety from "we manage this reasonably" to "we can prove we meet or beat the code."
Why this matters more for psychosocial hazards than anything else
Most businesses have a system for physical hazards. Fewer have anything close to that rigour for psychosocial ones.
The Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code sets out specific expectations, including:
Identifying hazards across the full range of psychosocial categories, not only the ones that have already caused an incident (think high job demands, low job control, poor support, bullying, harassment, remote or isolated work, poor role clarity, and workplace violence)
A proper risk assessment methodology, not a generic checklist
Genuine worker consultation, not a survey sent to a distribution list
Controls that follow the hierarchy of control, starting with how work is designed, not just training and policies sitting in a shared drive
Ongoing review, with evidence that controls are actually working
If your current approach to psychosocial safety is an EAP, an annual wellbeing session, and a policy nobody has read since induction, that will not hold up as "equivalent or higher" under section 26A. Training sits low in the hierarchy of control. It matters, but it cannot be your only control.
What a SafeWork NSW inspector will actually ask for
Under the new duty, the question shifts from "do you care about this?" to "can you show me?" Expect inspectors to look for:
Controls mapped clearly to the code, or a documented justification for your alternative approach
Evidence the hierarchy of control was genuinely applied, starting with work design
Records of real worker consultation
Documented review cycles showing controls are monitored and adjusted over time
Good intentions and a values statement on the wall will not be enough. The evidence trail is the whole point.
What to do now that the change is in effect
Section 26A commenced on 1 July 2026, so this duty is now live. If your business has not closed the gap yet, the priority is to act promptly rather than treat it as a future item. Here is where we would start:
Map what you have against the code.
Go through the Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code section by section and compare it to what your business actually does today. Be honest about the gaps.
Check your hazard identification is complete.
Most businesses have only identified the psychosocial hazards that have already caused a problem. The code expects you to look at the full range, before something goes wrong, not after.
Look at your controls, not just your policies.
Ask whether your controls address how work is designed and led, not only training and awareness. Work redesign, realistic workloads, clear role definition, and better support structures sit above training in the hierarchy of control.
Build a genuine consultation process.
Workers need to be meaningfully involved in identifying and responding to psychosocial hazards. This should be an ongoing conversation, not a once-off survey.
Start the evidence trail now.
Risk registers, consultation records, control documentation, and review dates. If it is not written down, it did not happen, at least as far as an inspector or a court is concerned.
The bottom line
Section 26A does not create a new duty to manage psychosocial risk. That duty already exists. What it does is remove the grey area around what "good enough" looks like, and it puts the burden of proof on your business to show your approach measures up.
For many businesses, this is actually a helpful forcing function. It gives you a clear, specific standard to build towards instead of a vague sense that you should probably be doing more about workplace stress and mental health.
If you are not sure where your business sits against the code, or you know your current approach is more paperwork than practice, now is the time to find out. The sooner you close the gap, the sooner you are working from evidence instead of exposure.
If you are not sure where your business sits against the code, or you know your current approach is more paperwork than practice, now is the time to find out. Book our Codes of Practice Readiness Review
This article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance specific to your business, contact Anzen Safety & Training or seek advice from a legal representative.
