Psychosocial hazards are explicitly recognised within Australian work health and safety (WHS) legislation and codes of practice as foreseeable workplace risks. Mining operations, characterised by remote work, extended rosters, contractor interfaces, production pressure and exposure to traumatic events, present distinct psychosocial risk profiles. However, implementation efforts frequently rely on well-being initiatives or survey-based sentiment measures rather than structured hazard identification and risk control processes consistent with WHS principles. This paper presents a systems-based model for managing psychosocial hazards in high-hazard mining environments. The model operationalises psychosocial risk as exposure to work conditions arising from four interacting domains: work design, operational demands, workplace dynamics and organisational defences. It aligns with Australian WHS regulatory expectations, ISO 45001, ISO 45003 and emerging guidance on suicide prevention in workplace contexts. The paper does not seek to diagnose mental illness or attribute causation to work alone; it addresses psychosocial hazards as controllable work system exposures. Mining-specific exposure pathways are examined, including shutdown activities, fly-in, fly-out work arrangements, contractor interfaces, production pressure and exposure to traumatic events. A structured approach to assessing exposure and evaluating control effectiveness is presented, incorporating worker consultation, operational data, contractor voice and governance processes. The paper argues that psychosocial risk is most effectively managed when treated as a system property rather than an individual health issue. Control effectiveness depends on how work is designed, demanded and governed, not solely on worker resilience or support programs. By integrating psychosocial hazards into existing risk management frameworks, mining organisations can strengthen workforce protection, improve operational stability and prevent harm before complaints, claims or serious outcomes become the first visible evidence of exposure. The contribution is a practical governance approach for translating regulatory duties into operational controls, assurance evidence and escalation thresholds before sustained exposure becomes injury or fatal harm.