Digital Work Systems Proposed Legislative Changes

6 min read

Series Part 1 — Duties and Risk Management Expectations

Workplace technologies are evolving rapidly. Software driven rostering, automated workflow allocation, productivity analytics and AI supported decision tools are now common across industries. These developments are redesigning how work is organised and monitored, and regulators are beginning to respond accordingly.

A proposed amendment to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) seeks to formally address this shift by embedding digital work systems into statutory duties. While the Bill is not yet in force, it indicates a clear policy direction that PCBUs should understand and begin considering within their safety governance frameworks.

These developments also reflect a broader regulatory trend, both in Australia and internationally, toward recognising the influence of digital decision making on work design, supervision and psychosocial risk. For many organisations, the shift is less about adopting new practices and more about considerations within existing WHS systems.

This article examines the key duty related elements of the proposed amendments and what they may mean in practice.

Digital work systems enter the WHS legislative framework

A central feature of the Bill is the introduction of a statutory definition of a digital work system.

Digital work system means - an algorithm, artificial intelligence, automation or online platform.

This definition is intentionally technology neutral. Rather than targeting specific industries or tools, it is designed to capture both current and emerging technologies that influence work.

The significance lies not in the definition alone, but in how it triggers obligations elsewhere in the Act. By formally recognising digital systems within the legislative structure, the Bill moves these technologies from an implied component of “systems of work” into clear regulatory scope.

For PCBUs, this represents a shift in how technology driven work processes may be assessed through WHS.

This clarification also reinforces that digital work systems overlap with established WHS processes, including ‘systems of work,’ plant safety considerations, consultation duties and psychosocial hazard management. In many cases, digital systems impact these existing areas rather than creating an entirely new risk category.

Expansion of the primary duty of care

The proposed amendments introduce an additional consideration within the primary duty of care requiring PCBUs to ensure that worker health and safety is not put at risk from the use of digital work systems.

This addition into the core duty framework is significant. It confirms regulatory intent that digital tools influencing work practices should be considered alongside traditional WHS risk sources such as

• Physical plant

• Workplace environments

• Organisational processes

• Instruction, training and supervision

Practical examples may include automated scheduling reducing turnaround times, productivity scoring influencing behavioural expectations, or rostering tools unintentionally contributing to fatigue. These illustrate how digital mechanisms can reshape workload, pace and supervision.

The change does not create an entirely new duty in isolation, rather, it clarifies how existing obligations apply in a technologically work environment.

For organisations, this reinforces that decisions about digital tools carrying WHS implications and should be managed accordingly.

A specific duty relating to digital work allocation

Beyond expanding the primary duty, the Bill proposes a standalone provision placing obligations on PCBUs where digital systems allocate work.

Under this duty, organisations must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that worker health and safety is not put at risk through such allocation of work. Importantly, the legislation identifies specific risk categories that must be considered, including whether digital allocation contributes to

• excessive or unreasonable workloads for workers at work in the business or undertaking,

• the use of excessive or unreasonable metrics to assess and track the performance of workers at work in the business or undertaking,

• excessive or unreasonable monitoring or surveillance of workers at work in the business or undertaking,

• unlawful discriminatory practices or decision-making in the conduct of the business or undertaking.

This reflects an alignment with the broader regulatory course around psychosocial hazards and suggests increasing scrutiny of algorithmic management practices.

While the proposed duty focuses on risk outcomes, organisations should also consider consultation requirements under WHS legislation. Because digital systems may alter work practices or introduce monitoring changes, consultation with workers and HSRs becomes an important mechanism for identifying impacts not immediately obvious through system design alone.

The inclusion of these factors suggests an expectation that organisations actively assess how technology shapes behavioural and organisational pressures, not merely operational efficiency.

Implications for WHS risk management

Although the Bill does not prescribe detailed processes, its direction suggests that digital work systems may increasingly be treated as identifiable hazard sources within WHS risk management frameworks.

This may involve organisations considering

• What digital tools influence work allocation or monitoring

• Whether these tools introduce new safety risk paths

• How worker consultation captures perceived impacts

• Whether governance arrangements reflect safety oversight

Importantly, the legislation does not assume technology creates risk, only that its influence on work should be evaluated in the same structured manner as other operational factors.

In practice, this may mean incorporating digital system considerations into safety hazard identification processes, change management procedures and periodic safety risk reviews. It may also require documenting how digital tools influence work as performed, not just their intended role of the digital tools.

For many safety mature organisations, this may represent an extension rather than a transformation of existing safety risk management practices.

Governance considerations

The proposed changes also highlight an intersection between technology governance and WHS governance. Decisions relating to

• System procurement

• Configuration

• Deployment

• Monitoring

• Performance measurement

These in future may increasingly intersect with safety considerations.

This does not suggest operational decision making should shift to WHS professionals. Rather, it points toward greater cross functional visibility and oversight, ensuring safety implications are recognised during technology adoption and use.

These developments also have implications for officers’ due diligence obligations. Understanding system capabilities, safety risks, and governance arrangements helps officers ensure that resources, processes and verification mechanisms are adequate in the context of technology facilitated work environments.

Organisations with mature governance structures may already incorporate such considerations. Others may find this an area for development as regulatory expectations evolve.

Looking ahead

The proposed amendments indicate a clear regulatory recognition that workplace risk environments are influenced by digital decision-making mechanisms as well as physical conditions.

By embedding digital systems within both the primary duty of care and a specific operational duty relating to work allocation, the WHS legislation signals a shift toward recognition of technology as a potential WHS risk.

With emerging WHS regulation, clarity around interpretation and enforcement will likely evolve through guidance, practice and precedent if enacted. In the meantime, understanding the direction provides organisations an opportunity to reflect on how digital tools overlap with their safety management systems.

The WHS duty changes discussed in this Part provide the foundation for the transparency, access and strategic implications addressed in Parts 2 and 3 of this series. Together, the proposed amendments signal a regulatory approach to the digital influence on work.

Final perspective

For PCBUs, these proposed reforms should not be viewed solely as compliance updates. They reflect an evolution in how work is organised, recognising that digital systems influence workload, supervision, decision making and worker experience.

By identifying, consulting on and managing these impacts through existing WHS processes, organisations can build readiness while strengthening their governance maturity.

Lane Safety Systems continues to monitor legislative developments in this area and works with organisations to integrate emerging WHS risk into practical WHS management approaches.