Australian HR teams are shouldering unprecedented responsibility as new occupational health and safety (OHS) regulations formalise psychosocial risk management – and the people implementing the changes are burning out fastest.

Speaking to HRD, Sabrina Scherm, customer success manager at HiBob APJ, says the regulatory shift has triggered a “pretty abrupt reality check” for many organisations, with HR now carrying the weight of both compliance and culture change.

From wellbeing perk to legal obligation

According to Scherm, the most significant on‑the‑ground change is that psychosocial risk is no longer treated as a wellbeing initiative, but as a core compliance requirement.

“The biggest shift is the sheer weight of responsibility landing on HR teams,” she said. “Psychosocial risk management has officially moved from being a nice benefit to a legal requirement, and for many businesses, that has meant a pretty abrupt reality check.”

HR teams are now simultaneously auditing workloads and work design, reviewing and tightening incident reporting processes, updating policies and procedures, and managing a sharp rise in conversations about stress, burnout and psychological safety. All of this, Scherm noted, is happening while teams are still trying to interpret what “good” actually looks like under the new rules.

HiBob’s data shows only 10% of organisations have completed formal psychosocial risk assessments, suggesting most employers are still at the starting line. Scherm expects the coming months to bring a shift away from reactive box‑ticking towards more proactive, shared ownership.

Progress will depend on leaders being properly trained to navigate psychological safety, sharing accountability more evenly, and abandoning the notion that mental health compliance is something HR should absorb on its own.

The paradox: protecting mental health by burning out HR

While the laws are designed to protect workers’ mental health, HiBob’s research paints a stark picture of the toll on HR itself.

“It’s a classic case of emotional labour being invisible,” Scherm explained. “HR professionals are the ones employees turn to when something goes wrong, whether it’s burnout or stress, but they’re rarely given the same protection themselves.”

HiBob’s research shows 57% of HR professionals say they have no energy left for their own wellbeing after supporting others, exposing a fundamental organisational blind spot.

The irony exists because organisations are concentrating on what needs to be delivered – policies, processes and compliance outputs – without addressing who is actually carrying the emotional and operational burden.

“You can’t build a mentally healthy workplace by wearing out the people responsible for holding it together,” Scherm said.

When HR becomes the 24/7 crisis line

The same research shows 61% of HR professionals feel they’re expected to solve every internal problem. In practice, that expectation is turning HR into an all‑purpose escalation point, from performance issues to mental health crises.

HR professionals are now “part counsellor and part mediator, all while managing audits and day‑to‑day responsibilities,” Scherm added.

When HR is treated like a 24/7 crisis hotline, there is effectively no off switch. Issues that should be owned and managed across the broader leadership group often end up funnelling to one individual or a small team. If this pattern continues, Scherm believes it will inevitably result in overload, fatigue and emotional exhaustion for those in HR.

In response, she sees a growing need for clearer boundaries around what HR can realistically carry, along with a more genuine model of shared responsibility. That means equipping managers to handle people issues earlier and more confidently and creating space for HR to step out of constant crisis mode and refocus on prevention, guidance and long‑term culture work.

HR as a ‘single point of failure’

Scherm warned that concentrating psychosocial responsibility in HR doesn’t just pose a wellbeing risk –for the whole business.

“When too much responsibility sits with HR, the risk doesn’t involve just burnout, but also business continuity,” she said.

“If one function holds all the business knowledge around people risk, compliance and employee wellbeing, what happens when those individuals burn out or leave?”

Operationally, this can translate into missed or delayed compliance obligations, slower responses to serious psychosocial risks, and inconsistent or ad‑hoc decision‑making on sensitive issues. On the human side, it can entrench a culture where leaders quietly step back from people responsibilities, comforted by the assumption that HR will “handle it”.

“That’s not sustainable,” Scherm said. “Psychosocial safety has to be owned by leadership as a whole, not outsourced to one team.”

What preparation really looks like

For leaders asking what “good” looks like under the new regime, Scherm’s advice is to start with foundations, not flashy initiatives.

“Being prepared means getting the basics right first,” she said. That includes completing robust psychosocial risk assessments, taking workload and resourcing pressures seriously, and ensuring managers are trained to spot and respond to early warning signs before issues escalate.

In her view, these are not optional extras tagged onto existing work, but the core elements of running a safe, sustainable workplace.

Just as crucial is resourcing HR properly and being willing to rebalance responsibilities. Scherm points to practical steps such as adding headcount where needed, clarifying escalation pathways so every issue does not land in the same inbox, and setting firmer boundaries around what HR can realistically carry alone.

On the other side of the equation, HR professionals need to be given genuine permission and structural support to let go of some responsibilities and place greater trust in their managers.

If leaders want the new laws to work as intended, they must rethink the role of HR. This includes a mindset shift that stops seeing HR as a safety net and begins to see it as a strategic partner.

“Protecting employee wellbeing starts at the top, not in the inbox of one exhausted team,” Scherm concluded.