The new psychosocial laws don’t ban accountability. They raise the bar on how we do it.
Victoria’s Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025 took effect on 1 December 2025.
Most leaders I speak to agree this legislation is a good thing, but I’m also hearing a steady undercurrent of worry.
The story goes something like: “I’m worried staff will claim psychosocial harm whenever they feel uncomfortable.” “Psychological safety is going to get weaponised.” “Leaders won’t be able to address poor performance or behaviour.”
After spending time reading the regs and WorkSafe guidance (their factsheets are very good btw*), I keep coming back to a simpler truth:
These duties are about managing psychosocial hazards at work, not banning accountability.
Nothing I’ve seen suggests it’s suddenly “illegal” to:
call out poor behaviour
set clear expectations
ask people to have hard conversations
stretch someone with new responsibilities (when it’s appropriate)
What matters is how it’s done.
Lead with clarity and care (clear expectations, fair process, consultation where required, realistic role design, support, and follow-through) and discomfort can be part of healthy growth. Lead with force, ambiguity, poor consultation, unrealistic demands, or aggression and yes, you may be creating psychosocial risk.
One of the hardest places for leaders to align is this: our sense of what someone’s capacity or resilience “should” be, versus what it actually is.
I’ve heard versions of these frustrations a lot lately: “People are asking for mental health days because they say they're burned out, even though they don’t have that much responsibility.” “Because of a bad day.” “Because they’ve had performance feedback.” “Because they did something wrong and don't want to own it.”
I get it. When someone’s response is different to how you’d respond (or how you were expected to respond when you were starting out), it can be hard to know what to do with it.
Here’s how I’m thinking about it:
Care and accountability aren’t opposites.
Someone might genuinely need a circuit-breaker, and the accountability conversation can still be necessary. The sequencing matters. The tone matters. The fairness matters. Your willingness to be empathic matters.
It’s also worth remembering: reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable way, isn’t bullying.
So I’m encouraging clients to move away from the “weaponising” narrative that is becoming increasingly prevalent. It’s an unhelpful frame. It can make leaders leap to dismissiveness, when the real opportunity here is to lift how we design work, communicate expectations, and handle tough moments with more fairness and care.
If your house is in order, a claim of psychosocial harm is an invitation to get curious: What’s going on for this person? What do they need to know? What does accountability look like here, clearly and fairly? Is there room for improvement in our systems, processes and care? What might we be missing?
But more importantly...
If your house isn’t in order, it’s not being weaponised. It’s being named. It's time to look in the mirror, be accountable, learn and redress.
(If you or your leaders find it difficult to show both care and accountability, our 1:1 coaching or group learning programs can help. DM me for more information or visit www.g2innovation.com.au)
*You can access WorkSafe Victoria's Factsheets here: https://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/psychosocial-hazard-fact-sheets