I contribute to debate on the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Bill 2025. I understand and support the intent of the bill but, at this stage, I cannot support it. I am not convinced that the bill is necessary, especially after the excellent contribution by the member for Cessnock. Business leaders have raised serious concerns with me about the risks that the laws could pose to business operations around the State. Technology is changing the way we work at a rapid pace. Digital rostering, performance monitoring software, wearable devices, artificial intelligence and algorithm-driven management systems are now part of everyday working life. Where new technologies create new risks, it is absolutely appropriate that our work health and safety laws evolve to keep workers safe

If digital systems are contributing to stress, fatigue, unreasonable workloads or unsafe practices, then those risks should be identified and managed just like any other workplace hazard. I understand that the bill seeks to respond to this legitimate threat to worker welfare. It does that by inserting a definition of "digital work system", creating duties for persons conducting businesses or undertakings involving digital work systems to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the health and safety of a worker is not put at risk. The bill also provides for WHS entry permit holders to access and inspect digital work systems. Those are significant amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act and key stakeholders hold significant concerns, as we have heard, about how the bill has been developed and what it actually does.

First, in the opinion of many, there has simply not been sufficient consultation. Before bringing the laws to Parliament, there should perhaps have been deeper engagement with employers, business representatives, technology experts and industry groups. Instead, many stakeholders are only now grappling with what the bill could mean in practice. Second, I am concerned that the bill risks regulatory overreach into business operations. The bill creates a very broad scope for what may be captured within the definition of "digital work system" and significantly increases access to business information, including sensitive operational data. The amendments of the member for Wagga Wagga are important to clarify the specific terms of the proposed definition of "digital work system", and I support those amendments.

There are real concerns that the current definition and provisions in the bill could open the door to unions accessing proprietary systems, algorithms and commercially sensitive information that go well beyond what is necessary to manage safety risks. As the Business Council of Australia put it,

"The terms of the bill are expansive. They lack appropriate safeguards and could lead to significant unintended consequences, including in respect of proprietary and commercially sensitive algorithms and other intellectual property, and workplace disputation. They go much further than a simple clarification of existing law and are not limited to algorithmic or AI rostering practices. The reality remains that no matter whether a roster is created using a pencil and paper, a basic word processor or an advanced AI system, the existing WHS Act already requires that employers ensure that working practices are safe."

The current Work Health and Safety Act already places a clear, primary duty on employers to ensure the health and safety of workers so far as is reasonably practicable. That duty applies regardless of whether a task is managed by a supervisor, a spreadsheet or an algorithm. We need to be careful not to duplicate or overcomplicate obligations that already exist. We should aim for clarity and practicality, including clear guidance, better enforcement of existing duties and targeted measures to protect worker welfare where genuine gaps are identified, not a sweeping expansion that risks unintended consequences and adversarial workplace relationships. I urge the Government to commit to meaningful, ongoing consultation with business leaders, as regulations and guidelines are developed, and for the bill not to commence until that consultation happens and those guidelines are developed and issued.

04 February 2026, 18:40.