Section 26A Complete Guide: All 34 Approved Codes of Practice and Which Apply to Your Industry

Section 26A of the WHS Act fundamentally changes the legal status of approved codes of practice in Australian workplace health and safety law. Before this amendment, codes of practice provided guidance that a PCBU could choose to follow or could depart from by adopting an alternative approach that achieved the same or better level of safety. Under Section 26A, which takes effect on 1 July 2026 as part of the WHS Regulation 2025 framework, approved codes of practice become the benchmark against which compliance is measured. A PCBU that follows an approved code of practice is deemed to have complied with the duty or obligation to which the code relates. A PCBU that does not follow the code must demonstrate that the alternative approach adopted provides an equivalent or higher level of protection. This shifts the evidentiary burden in enforcement proceedings. Where a regulator can show that an approved code of practice existed and the PCBU did not follow it, the PCBU must prove that their alternative was at least as effective. This is a significant departure from the previous framework where codes were merely admissible as evidence of what was known about a hazard.

The 34 approved codes of practice cover the full spectrum of workplace hazards and management obligations. The general duty codes include How to Manage Work Health and Safety Risks, How to Consult on Work Health and Safety, and Work Health and Safety Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination. The hazard-specific codes address Managing the Risk of Falls at Workplaces, Hazardous Manual Tasks, Managing Noise and Preventing Hearing Loss at Work, Welding Processes, Spray Painting and Powder Coating, Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals, Labelling of Workplace Hazardous Chemicals, Preparation of Safety Data Sheets, Managing the Risks of Plant in the Workplace, Confined Spaces, Excavation Work, Demolition Work, Managing Electrical Risks in the Workplace, Managing the Risk of Psychosocial Hazards at Work, and First Aid in the Workplace. The construction-specific codes cover Construction Work, Safe Design of Structures, and Abrasive Blasting. The high-risk codes include Managing Risks of Asbestos in Workplaces, How to Safely Remove Asbestos, and Managing Risks of Respirable Crystalline Silica. Each code carries equal legal weight under Section 26A and must be treated as a compliance benchmark.

Every industry is subject to the general duty codes covering risk management, consultation, and cooperation. Beyond these universal codes, industry applicability follows the hazard profile of the work performed. Construction businesses are subject to the largest number of codes, typically between 18 and 24 depending on the scope of work, because construction involves falls, manual handling, plant, electrical work, confined spaces, excavation, demolition, noise, hazardous chemicals, welding, silica, and asbestos. Metal fabrication and manufacturing workshops are typically subject to 12 to 16 codes covering welding, noise, manual handling, plant, hazardous chemicals, confined spaces, and electrical risks. The automotive repair and spray painting sector falls under 10 to 14 codes including spray painting, hazardous chemicals, noise, manual handling, and plant. Mining operations are governed by separate mine safety legislation in most jurisdictions but the WHS codes apply to surface operations and support activities. Healthcare, education, retail, and office-based industries are subject to fewer hazard-specific codes but must still comply with the general duty codes, psychosocial hazards code, manual handling code, and first aid code.

The practical compliance strategy under Section 26A begins with identifying every approved code of practice that applies to your business operations. Map each code against your workplace activities, hazard register, and existing safe work procedures. For each applicable code, conduct a gap assessment comparing your current practices against the specific requirements set out in the code. Where your practices align with the code, document this alignment with reference to the relevant code sections. Where gaps exist, you have two options. The first and simplest option is to adopt the code requirements and update your procedures, training, and controls accordingly. The second option is to develop an alternative approach and document why it provides equivalent or better protection. The second option carries evidentiary risk because in any enforcement proceeding you bear the burden of proving equivalence. For most businesses, adopting the code requirements directly is the lower risk and lower cost approach. Your gap assessment should be recorded in a formal document that links each code requirement to your corresponding procedure, work instruction, or control measure. This document becomes your primary evidence of compliance in any regulatory audit or investigation.

Section 26A takes effect on 1 July 2026 across all harmonised WHS jurisdictions. Queensland has operated under a similar framework since 2018 through its own legislative provisions, which means Queensland businesses already have experience with codes of practice carrying enhanced legal weight. For businesses in New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory, 1 July 2026 is the date from which the new evidentiary framework applies. Victoria operates under its own OHS Act 2004 and is not a harmonised jurisdiction, but Victorian compliance codes carry a similar legal effect under Victorian law. Regulators have indicated that the first 12 months following commencement will involve proactive compliance campaigns targeting industries with high injury rates and known gaps in code adoption. Inspectors will ask to see evidence that the business has identified applicable codes, conducted gap assessments, and implemented the required controls. The penalty for failing to comply with a duty to which an approved code of practice relates has not changed, but the evidentiary pathway for regulators to establish non-compliance is now significantly shorter and more direct.