Australia's new biological hazards code covers every workplace, not just labs and hospitals

What the code counts as a biological hazard

The code defines biological hazards as substances and agents of biological origin, from humans, plants and animals, that pose risks to human health. That covers the living agents most people picture, viruses, bacteria, parasites, prions and some types of fungi including mould, and it also covers things people do not always file under "biological": allergens, irritants and toxins such as organic dust, sap and venom. The breadth is deliberate. A sawmill's wood dust, a landscaper's contact with sap, and a healthcare worker's exposure to a virus are all biological hazards under the same code.

The three ways exposure happens

The code groups workplace exposure into three routes, and the third is the one that widens the net. A hazard can be part of the work itself, as in a research laboratory handling viruses, a healthcare worker in contact with ill patients, a farmer handling sick animals, or a waste worker processing untreated waste. It can be tied to where the work happens, such as outdoor work where mosquitoes are prevalent, travel to areas with endemic tropical disease, or an indoor space with contaminated air or mould growth. Or it can be brought into the workplace from the community by workers and other people who come in, which is how the code classifies communicable illnesses such as the common cold, influenza and COVID-19.

The code is candid that this lands differently on different businesses. Some workplaces, such as hospitals and regulated biological laboratories, work with these hazards as core business and already have established practices. For others, such as retail and customer service, biological hazards are incidental and sit inside the broader risk management a business already does. The point of a single national code is that both ends of that spectrum now work from the same reference.

Who the code says is most exposed

An appendix lists occupations at higher risk of exposure, and the striking thing is how far it reaches beyond the obvious. Alongside microbiology and pathology laboratory staff and healthcare workers, it names early childhood educators and school teachers, aged and residential care workers, police and emergency services, funeral workers and embalmers, plumbers and sewage and wastewater treatment workers, waste management and abattoir workers, customer service and hospitality staff, hairdressers and beauticians, tattooists and body piercers, security guards, and workers in shared work accommodation. The list is explicitly not exhaustive, and the code is clear that a duty holder still has to manage the risk whatever the occupation. It is there to make the point that biological-hazard exposure is not a healthcare-and-laboratory problem alone.

What the code asks a PCBU to do

The duty is the familiar one, applied to this hazard. A PCBU must always aim to eliminate the risk, and where elimination is not reasonably practicable, which the code accepts will be the case for many workplaces, minimise it so far as is reasonably practicable. That runs through the usual risk-management process: identify the biological hazards, assess the risk, put control measures in place through the hierarchy of controls, and review them. The code notes that many biological-hazard risks can be handled with what it calls baseline control measures, and it is worth knowing what sits in that baseline: good air quality through ventilation and air cleaning, routine cleaning and proper waste management, good hygiene practices, vaccination where relevant, and personal protective equipment. It also deals with what happens after an exposure, including emergency planning and when an incident becomes notifiable, and it carries a plain-language checklist and glossary as appendices.

Why an approved code is worth reading, not filing

This is an approved code of practice under section 274 of the model Work Health and Safety Act, and that status is the reason it matters beyond being good advice. By the code's own account, approved codes are admissible in court proceedings under the WHS Act and Regulations; a court may treat a code as evidence of what is known about a hazard and its controls, and may rely on it in deciding what was reasonably practicable in the circumstances; and an inspector can refer to an approved code when issuing an improvement or prohibition notice. A business is still free to manage a risk a different way, but only if that way delivers an equivalent or higher standard than the code. In practice that makes a code the yardstick your controls are measured against, which is why a new one covering a hazard as broad as this is worth an hour of a duty holder's attention rather than a place in a drawer.

How this was written. Every description above was read directly from the March 2026 model code (Source 1) on 26 July 2026: the definition, the scope, the exposure routes, the higher-risk occupations table and the control measures are the code's own, paraphrased, not quoted, and no figure or requirement has been added that the code does not state. This is a plain-language guide to a public code, not legal advice; where a specific obligation applies to your workplace, read the code and the WHS Regulations for your jurisdiction, or seek advice.