What do the model WHS laws actually contain?
Safe Work Australia developed the model work health and safety laws in 2011 as a nationally consistent template. They are made up of three parts, the model WHS Act, the model WHS Regulations and the model Codes of Practice. Safe Work Australia is responsible for maintaining them but, in its own words, does not regulate or enforce them. See the model WHS laws page.
The model WHS Act sets the framework. Its main object is to provide for a balanced and nationally consistent framework to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces. It does that by requiring duty holders to eliminate or minimise risk, providing for fair and effective representation, consultation and cooperation, promoting advice, information, education and training, and securing compliance through effective and appropriate enforcement measures.
The model WHS Regulations set out detailed requirements that support the duties in the Act, along with procedural and administrative requirements such as licensing for specific activities and record keeping. The current version is the model Work Health and Safety Regulations 2025.
Model Codes of Practice are practical guides to achieving the standards of health and safety required under the Act and Regulations. They are not law in themselves. To have legal effect, a model Code must be approved as a code of practice in a jurisdiction. Once approved, a code is admissible in court proceedings, and courts may regard it as evidence of a hazard, risk or control, and may rely on it to determine what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
Who do the model WHS laws apply to?
The model laws bind nobody until a parliament enacts them. To become legally binding, the Commonwealth, states and territories must each implement them as their own laws. Safe Work Australia states that the model laws have been implemented in all jurisdictions except Victoria, with some jurisdictions making variations to stay consistent with their own drafting protocols and other laws and processes.
Within an implementing jurisdiction, duties fall on three groups. A person conducting a business or undertaking, usually the employer, holds the primary duty to ensure the health and safety of workers while they are at work in the business or undertaking, and of others who may be affected by the carrying out of work. Officers, meaning people who make or participate in making significant decisions affecting the whole or a substantial part of the business, or who can significantly affect its financial standing, must exercise due diligence to ensure the business complies with its duties. Workers must take reasonable care for their own health and safety and that of others affected by their acts or omissions. A person can hold more than one duty at once, so a self-employed person may be both a PCBU and a worker. See duties under WHS laws.
Enforcement sits with the Commonwealth, state and territory regulators, supported by the National Compliance and Enforcement Policy. In the Commonwealth jurisdiction that regulator is Comcare.
Where does AI fit under the model WHS laws?
The model laws do not name artificial intelligence. They do not need to. The primary duty is technology neutral, so an AI system introduced into a workplace is simply another element of the work that has to be identified, assessed and controlled.
Safe Work Australia has been explicit about the direction of travel. The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2023 to 2033 lists the rise of artificial intelligence, automation and related technologies as an emerging challenge. New technology capabilities can bring many benefits, including safer work and workplaces, but they need to be designed and have appropriate oversight to ensure workers are not exposed to new or additional WHS risks. The Strategy gives a concrete example. While automation could replace some dangerous manual tasks and decrease worker exposure to physical risks, the workers overseeing that technology could be exposed to more psychosocial hazards resulting from increased or more complex interpersonal interactions as part of their job role.
That is the shape of the AI question under the model laws. Introducing an AI tool rarely removes risk outright. It more often moves it, from a physical hazard to a psychosocial one, and from the person doing the task to the person supervising the machine. More on that shift sits under psychosocial safety.
What should practitioners do about the model WHS laws?
Work from your own jurisdiction's Act, not the model text. The model is a template and variations exist. If you operate across borders, the model WHS Act Cross-Comparison Table published by Safe Work Australia summarises the differences between jurisdictions.
Treat an AI deployment as a change to the work. That triggers the ordinary risk management process of identifying hazards, assessing the associated risks, implementing control measures and reviewing them, all in consultation with workers and any health and safety representatives. Document the consultation, because its absence is the easiest failure for a regulator to find.
Check whether the relevant model Code of Practice has been approved in your jurisdiction before relying on it. An approved code is admissible and a court may use it to determine what was reasonably practicable, which makes it the most useful available benchmark for showing a duty was met.
Finally, make sure officers can evidence due diligence over AI decisions. The officer duty is personal, and Safe Work Australia states plainly that an officer can be prosecuted for failing to exercise due diligence, so signing a vendor contract does not discharge it.
Bottom line
The model WHS laws are a nationally consistent template made up of the model WHS Act, the model WHS Regulations and the model Codes of Practice, and they bind nobody until a parliament enacts them, which every jurisdiction except Victoria has done. Because the primary duty is technology neutral, an AI system introduced into a workplace is simply another element of the work that has to be identified, assessed and controlled in consultation with workers. Safe Work Australia's own framing is the part practitioners should carry: new technology rarely removes risk outright, it more often moves it, from a physical hazard to a psychosocial one and from the person doing the task to the person overseeing the machine. Work from your own jurisdiction's Act rather than the model text, document the consultation, and make sure officers can evidence due diligence over AI decisions, because that duty is personal and signing a vendor contract does not discharge it.
TheAICommand. Intelligence, At Your Command.*
TheAICommand. Intelligence, At Your Command.