NSW Government strengthens guardrails around digital safety in workplaces

When algorithms become auditable, “how work gets allocated” becomes a safety issue — not just a management choice.

What's happening?

• NSW has introduced the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Bill 2025 to explicitly regulate safety risks arising from AI and other digital work systems.
• The Bill proposes to make it explicit that a PCBU’s duty includes ensuring workers’ health and safety is not put at risk from the use of digital work systems.
• “Digital work system” is proposed to mean an algorithm, artificial intelligence, automation, or an online platform.
• A new duty would require PCBUs to consider whether digital allocation of work creates risks like: unreasonable workloads, unreasonable performance metrics, unreasonable monitoring/surveillance, or discriminatory decision-making.
• WHS entry permit holders would be able to request reasonable assistance to access and inspect relevant digital work systems when investigating suspected WHS breaches (with regulator guidelines still to come).
• NSW positions this as a “protect workers now” move, with a mechanism to review alignment if national model WHS laws change.

This signals a possible shift from: digital tools treated as operational/HR tech (often “black box” systems)
to: digital tools treated as inspectable WHS systems — accountable for psychosocial harm (workload, metrics, surveillance, discrimination).

So what for the AFLPA?

If “digital work systems” become more inspectable, what might AFL clubs need to disclose about how athlete data, performance metrics, and monitoring shape workload and expectations?

• If “excessive metrics” and “unreasonable monitoring” are explicitly named as WHS risks, where are the pressure points in high-performance environments (and who decides what counts as “excessive”)?
• If entry permit holders can request access to inspect systems, what does “reasonable assistance” look like in practice, and how might clubs contest it (privacy/IP/third-party platforms)?
• If NSW moves first, does this create a de facto benchmark other jurisdictions (or national bodies) may follow — and what does that mean for a national competition operating across states?
• If the Bill is amended, delayed, or strengthened, what are the early tells AFLPA should watch for next (guidelines, enforcement posture, harmonisation moves, test cases)?

So what for the AFPA (internally)?

• If algorithms become auditable, do organisations need a new capability: “WHS-grade explanations” of how digital allocation, metrics, and monitoring actually work (not just vendor assurances)?
• If the regulatory conversation shifts from privacy/compliance to health and safety, how do leaders learn to spot psychosocial risk inside system design (metrics, targets, dashboards, nudges, ranking, surveillance)?
• If guidelines are still pending, what decision-making questions will employers, unions, and boards be asking first — and where can we provide clarity without pretending the detail is settled?
• If NSW becomes “first mover” regulation, what would a practical ‘readiness’ lens look like that helps clients map their digital work systems and identify where harm can emerge?

Source: NSW Government ministerial release NSW Government
(Background/context also reflected in legal analysis summaries of the Bill.)