Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
If you operate a business in Australia, you’ve likely heard the term “harmonised WHS laws.”
However, here’s what many businesses misunderstand. Victoria did not adopt the Model WHS Act.
Instead, it aligns with many of the same principles.
For businesses operating in Victoria or across multiple states, this distinction matters. It directly affects compliance, governance and training.
So let’s break it down properly.
Does Victoria follow the model WHS laws?
Victoria does not operate under the Model WHS Act.
Instead, it operates under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, enforced by WorkSafe Victoria.
Victoria took part in the harmonisation process. However, it chose not to adopt the model laws.
Most other jurisdictions—NSW, QLD, SA, TAS, ACT and NT—follow the model WHS laws developed by Safe Work Australia.
At the same time, Victoria still aligns with many of the same risk management principles.
So the accurate position is simple:
Victoria aligns with the intent of the Model WHS Laws, but does not operate under them.
Where Victoria aligns with the Model WHS Framework
Although the structure differs, the core duties remain consistent.
In both systems, businesses must manage risk in a practical and structured way.
For example, organisations must ensure health and safety so far as is reasonably practicable. They must also eliminate or reduce risks, provide safe systems of work and ensure workers receive appropriate information, instruction and training.
In addition, both frameworks require consultation with workers and the management of psychosocial hazards.
In practice, if you apply sound risk management principles, you will generally meet expectations in both systems.
Where Victoria differs from the Model WHS Act
The difference are structural and legal and they matter for compliance precision. So lets look at some of the differences.
Terminology: Employer vs PCBU
WHS legislation refers to a PCBU (Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking). Victoria refers to an Employer.
The scope is similar but documentation must reflect the correct term depending on the jurisdiction.
Officer Due Diligence
Under the Model WHS Act, Officers have a clearly defined positive due diligence duty. This requires leaders to actively:
- Acquire WHS knowledge
- Ensure resources are available
- Verify systems are implemented
Victoria’s OHS Act does not use the same due diligence wording Instead, executive officer liability provisions apply.
Functionally, leadership accountability exists in both systems however the legal framing differs.
Legislative structure and section numbering
Victorian OHS Act and the Model WHS Act are drafted differently. Section numbers, offence categories and enforcement wording varies.
For National employers, this means that policies must reference the correct legislation for each state.
A “copy and paste” approach across jurisdictions in not technically correct.
Codes of Practice vs Compliance Codes
Model WHS states issue Codes of Practice.
Victoria issues Compliance Codes.
Both provide practical guidance and may be referenced in court proceedings. Different terminology with similar evidentiary weight.
Industrial Manslaughter
Both systems now include industrial manslaughter offences. Victoria introduced workplace manslaughter laws in 2020 under its OHS framework.
Model WHS jurisdictions have incorporated similar offences in their WHS Acts.
Penalties across both systems are severe, including significant fines and potential imprisonment.
Enforcement is active in both frameworks.
What this means for National Businesses
If your organisation operates across multiple states, you need to be precise.
Policies must reference the correct legislation. Terminology must reflect the correct framework. Incident notification processes must align with the relevant regulator.
Training content also needs to be jurisdictionally accurate. In addition, governance systems must reflect the correct officer obligations.
Regulators expect this level of detail, especially during inspections or investigations.
The real risk
The biggest mistake businesses make is assuming harmonised means uniform.
It doesn’t.
The intent is aligned, but the structure and terminology differ. At the same time, enforcement remains strong across all jurisdictions.
If your WHS training or documentation references the wrong legislation, it signals a lack of governance discipline.
Bottom Line
Whether you operate under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Victoria) or the Model WHS Act framework the expectation is the same.
- Design safe work
- Eliminate risks where possible
- Train your people properly
- Document what you do
- Verify that it is working
The law may be drafted differently but the standard is not lower in either systems.
If you’re reviewing your WHS compliance training or national safety documentation, start by confirming which legislative framework applies to your workforce.
Everything else flows from there.
Understanding your legal framework is step one. Implementing it correctly requires structured training such as our WHS Essentials Course, or view our full range of courses on our All Courses page.
Key Takeaways
- Victoria did not adopt the Model WHS laws but aligns with many of its core risk management principles.
- Victoria operates under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, while most other states follow the Model WHS Act.
- Key differences include terminology, officer due diligence definitions, and legislative structure, impacting compliance practices.
- For national businesses, it’s crucial to reference the correct legislation and terminology for each state during training and governance.
- Assuming harmonised means uniform can lead to compliance mistakes; the intent is similar, but the structure varies significantly.
