This page is an educational summary for professionals working with AI. It is not the law and not legal advice. Always work from the current authoritative text linked below.
What does section 27 do?
Section 27, headed "Duty of officers", attaches a personal duty to the people who direct a business. Under subsection 27(1), where a person conducting a business or undertaking has a duty or obligation under the Act, an officer of that business must exercise due diligence to ensure the business complies with it. Subsection 27(5) then defines due diligence by listing six kinds of reasonable step, running from keeping work health and safety knowledge current, through resourcing and incident response processes, to verifying that those resources and processes are provided and used. Read the current compilation on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Who does it bind?
Officers personally, not the business. The duty exists because the business has one, but subsection 27(4) allows an officer to be convicted whether or not the business is.
What do practitioners get wrong?
Stopping at paragraph 27(5)(e). The verification limb in paragraph 27(5)(f) is the one that distinguishes an officer who was told the controls work from an officer who checked. A briefing pack is evidence of reporting, not of verification. See the primary duty of care.
Where does AI use touch it?
Wherever a model sits between a hazard and an officer. If AI triages incident reports, paragraph 27(5)(d) still requires processes that respond in a timely way to that information, and paragraph 27(5)(f) requires the officer to verify the tool is actually used as described. See officer due diligence over AI work systems.
Bottom line
Section 27 makes assurance a personal obligation. The six steps are a checklist an officer can be asked to evidence, and the last one is the hardest to fake.
TheAICommand. Intelligence, At Your Command.
