HR and employment

Potentially under several regimes. They may bring an indirect discrimination claim under the Sex Discrimination Act if the tool disadvantages a protected group, or a general protections claim under section 351 of the Fair Work Act, which protects prospective employees. The AHRC can also inquire into the employer's compliance with the positive duty independently of any complaint. From AI Hiring and Performance Tools Under Australia's Positive Duty: What HR Must Control

No. Reasonable business grounds under section 65A of the Fair Work Act depend on the employer, the role, the request, the evidence, the consultation and the consequences of refusal. AI can organise those inputs, but an authorised human must make the decision and obtain advice where needed. From AI Can Map a Flexible Work Request. It Cannot Decide Reasonableness

It can organise transcript evidence or draft coaching observations. It should not make a consequential pass, competence or employment decision. Use a defined standard and an authorised human who can consider context, adjustments and evidence quality. From Use AI to Build Practice Simulations, Not to Award the Pass

Yes. Under model WHS laws a PCBU must manage psychosocial risks so far as is reasonably practicable. Intrusive or constant surveillance can reduce job control and increase stress, both psychosocial hazards in the Safe Work Australia model Code. Assess and control these risks before deployment, not after a complaint. From AI Worker Monitoring in Australia: What HR Can and Cannot Do

The draft guidance recommends generative AI not be used to create the substantive content of a witness statement or declaration at all. If AI helps edit or format one, the witness must read it, correct it so it reflects their own knowledge, and declare in the document that it is true and based on what they personally know. From The Fair Work Commission's Three Rules for AI in a Case

An agent can draft, summarise or flag, but a human must own any decision that significantly affects an employee. Under the general protections in the Fair Work Act, if an agent's output drives a performance, disciplinary or termination outcome, the employer carries a reverse onus to show a protected reason played no part. Build the human decision point into the workflow rather than letting the agent's output stand as the decision. From Your HRIS Now Lets Anyone Build an Agent

The Commission is ordinarily a no-costs jurisdiction, but section 611 of the Fair Work Act allows costs where a matter is pursued vexatiously or without reasonable cause. In Hoverd v M & J D Pty Ltd the Commission invited the employer to seek costs after the applicant kept relying on non-existent clauses once they had been challenged. From When the Other Side's AI Invents the Law

Yes. Following discussion, the parties can agree to a change that differs from the one requested. Where that happens, the employer must set out the agreed change in its written response within the 21 day statutory period, per section 65A(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act and Fair Work Ombudsman guidance. From AI Can Map a Flexible Work Request. It Cannot Decide Reasonableness

Effectively yes. Workday's Developer Agent lets a person describe an agent in plain language and have it built in minutes inside the HR system, and general-purpose tools like ChatGPT Enterprise and Claude Cowork already let anyone assemble one. The real question is no longer whether HR can build an agent, but who should be authorised to, and what has to be true before it touches live employee data. From Your HRIS Now Lets Anyone Build an Agent

That is risky. A distinctive combination of role, event, dates and personal circumstances may still identify someone, and the OAIC treats information about a reasonably identifiable individual as personal information. Build synthetic facts and placeholders rather than lightly disguising a real file. From Use AI to Build Practice Simulations, Not to Award the Pass

No. Classified, confidential or sensitive information should never be disclosed to open-source AI tools or any tool not approved for use. The practical rule: if you would not email the document to a stranger, do not paste it into a consumer model. Use only tools your organisation has assessed and approved. From AI in Workplace Investigations: Organise the File, Not the Finding

Use AI for the admin: drafting a consistent set of reference questions, capturing structured notes, and summarising what a referee said so nothing is missed. Do not use it to auto-generate a candidate risk score, scrape social media by default, or decide whether to hire. The Privacy Act limits what you collect and a person must own the decision. From AI in Reference and Background Checks: Verify Facts, Not Character

Use AI to read and explain a clause and to build a checklist of what to confirm, but never to set the rate. A model states figures as fact with no signal it might be wrong or out of date. Every rate, penalty, threshold and allowance must be verified against the award and the Fair Work Ombudsman Pay and Conditions Tool, and a person makes and records the decision. From AI Can Read the Award. It Cannot Set the Pay.

Yes, for the drafting and structure, with a hard boundary. AI is genuinely useful for turning rough notes into a clear, neutral warning or improvement plan and for checking tone and completeness. It must not be the source of the facts. Every incident, date, policy reference and quotation in the document has to be verified by the manager against the real record before it is used, because the document may end up as evidence in an unfair-dismissal claim. From AI Can Draft the Warning. It Cannot Fake the Facts.

Yes. The Commission has not banned it. But an applicant who relies on AI-generated cases or award clauses that do not exist can have the claim dismissed and, as in Hoverd v M & J D, face an application for costs. As the respondent, your task is to verify what the other side cites, not to assume it is real. From When the Other Side's AI Invents the Law

Not into a public or unapproved tool. The Privacy Act's employee records exemption gives employers some latitude with their own records, but it does not safely extend to disclosing sensitive employee information to an external AI service, and collecting sensitive information generally needs consent. Use an approved, contained tool with names left out, or fully de-identify the data before it goes anywhere near a model. From AI Can Build the Redundancy. It Cannot Decide It

Not safely. The OAIC's 2024 AI guidance treats personal information entered into a commercial AI product as attracting Australian Privacy Principle obligations, including use limits under APP 6 and accuracy under APP 10. Candidate data should only go into an approved, contracted system that has been assessed for privacy, not a general consumer chatbot. From AI Hiring and Performance Tools Under Australia's Positive Duty: What HR Must Control

No. AI can help design fair, role-related selection criteria, but it should never score or rank named employees. A model's ranking can encode proxies for protected attributes such as age or carer's responsibilities through variables like tenure or leave patterns, and discrimination law applies whether a decision is made by a human or a machine. If you cannot explain a selection in terms a person chose and can defend, the process is exposed. From AI Can Build the Redundancy. It Cannot Decide It

No. The Deputy President assessed the conduct, which was an inordinate volume of demanding and overbearing communications, a refusal to accept investigation outcomes and dishonesty. The use of AI was considered separately, as possible mitigation, and rejected on the basis that the employee had taken responsibility for the communications. The tool was not the wrong, and it was not the excuse. From AI Did Not Send Those Emails. Your Employee Did.

Generally no, but you need notice. NSW and ACT surveillance laws require written advance notice, not consent. The Privacy Act requires notification under APP 5 and collection that is reasonably necessary under APP 3. Consent matters most for sensitive information and for shortening the NSW 14 day notice period. From AI Worker Monitoring in Australia: What HR Can and Cannot Do

Yes, in full. The Privacy Act applies the moment the agent collects, uses or holds employee personal information. You must collect only what is reasonably necessary under APP 3, notify people under APP 5, use the data only for the purpose it was collected under APP 6, and secure it under APP 11. From 10 December 2026 your privacy policy must also disclose where a computer program significantly drives a decision about a person. From Your HRIS Now Lets Anyone Build an Agent

Telling candidates is both good practice and the direction of the law. The Privacy Act requires notification about how personal information is collected and used, and from 10 December 2026 your privacy policy must disclose where a computer program makes or substantially drives a decision that significantly affects someone. A clear candidate notice before an AI screening interview is the practical way to meet that expectation. From Your Recruiter Is Now an Agent, Not a Search Box

Often yes. Most modern awards and enterprise agreements contain a consultation term covering major change, including new technology likely to significantly affect employees. You must notify affected workers and representatives, discuss the change, provide written information and consider their views. Consultation also helps discharge WHS psychosocial duties. From AI Worker Monitoring in Australia: What HR Can and Cannot Do

It can. The trigger in the model consultation term is a definite decision to introduce a major change to technology that is likely to have a significant effect on employees. Significant effect is then defined to include a major change in the composition, operation or size of the workforce or to the skills required of employees, and the need for employees to be retrained or transferred to other work. Termination of employment is only one limb of seven. Any single limb is enough. From Your AI Rollout Triggers a Clause You Already Signed

Conduct standards that already exist, covering confidentiality, accuracy, respectful communication and honesty, do most of the work. A specific AI policy earns its place by removing ambiguity about what is approved, what must be verified, what must never be entered into a tool, and whether use must be disclosed. Ambiguity is the practical problem: Australian survey data suggests only a minority of employees think leadership expectations about AI use are clear. From AI Did Not Send Those Emails. Your Employee Did.

It can. Under the model WHS laws, a person conducting a business or undertaking must manage the risk of psychosocial hazards, and the recognised hazards include low job control. Always-on capture erodes autonomy and can make people feel watched in the very conversations that should feel safe. The control is the same one the protocol gives you, capture by exception, with consent, never by default. From AI Note-Takers in HR Meetings: Consent Before the Transcript

No. The OAIC states that the exemption does not cover future employment relationships, so it does not apply to the collection of personal information about prospective employees who are subsequently not employed, such as unsuccessful job applicants. The OAIC also notes that once an employment relationship is formed, the records the employer holds relating to that individual's pre-employment checks become exempt. From Your Employee Data Is Exempt. That Is Not Permission.

No. The OAIC states that the exemption does not cover contractors and subcontractors when they handle the personal information of the employees of another organisation, notwithstanding their contractual arrangements, and gives recruitment, human resource management, medical, training and superannuation service providers as examples. A contractor that collects employee records from an employer must comply with the Australian Privacy Principles, including the notice requirements in APP 5. From Your Employee Data Is Exempt. That Is Not Permission.

Yes, but with conditions. The Commission's draft guidance does not ban generative AI. It requires you to disclose that AI was used in any lodged document, to verify every factual, legislative and case-law reference against an authoritative source rather than against the AI, and to keep AI out of the substantive content of witness statements and declarations. From The Fair Work Commission's Three Rules for AI in a Case

It can. The OAIC's automated decision-making transparency work notes that using computer programs to target individuals with content and advertisements may have a significant effect on a person if it limits access to employment opportunities. From 10 December 2026, entities that use personal information in automated decision-making that could significantly affect a person must describe it in their privacy policy. If your recruitment advertising relies on algorithmic targeting of personal information, that is worth mapping now, but the immediate issue is fairness of delivery, not just disclosure. From AI Decides Who Sees Your Job Ad. That Is a Hiring Decision.

Yes. The positive duty in section 47C of the Sex Discrimination Act applies to all employers and businesses with obligations under the Act, regardless of size. What counts as reasonable and proportionate scales with the organisation's size and resources, so a small business is expected to do less than a large one, but the duty still applies. From AI Hiring and Performance Tools Under Australia's Positive Duty: What HR Must Control

It depends on who you are and what the act is. Section 7B(3) exempts a private sector employer where the act or practice is directly related to a current or former employment relationship and to an employee record the employer holds. If either limb fails, for example because the person is an unsuccessful applicant or a volunteer, the Australian Privacy Principles apply in the ordinary way. Australian Government agencies cannot rely on the exemption because section 6C excludes an agency from the definition of an organisation. From Your Employee Data Is Exempt. That Is Not Permission.

Yes. Apply the same verification to every authority you cite. The discipline that catches the other side's fabrication is the same discipline that keeps one out of your own filing. From When the Other Side's AI Invents the Law

Because who wrote the ad and who sees it are two different decisions. Once you publish, the platform's delivery algorithm chooses which users are actually shown the ad, and it optimises for who it predicts will engage. Predicted engagement correlates with attributes like gender and age, so the delivered audience can skew even when your targeting was broad and inclusive. A 2019 study of real employment and housing ads found significant skew in delivery along gender and racial lines despite neutral targeting parameters. The wording being clean does not make the delivery neutral. From AI Decides Who Sees Your Job Ad. That Is a Hiring Decision.

Have a five-minute conversation in week one covering which AI tools your organisation has approved and pays for, what they must never paste into a public tool, and where the grounded onboarding assistant lives. People told the rules on day one tend to follow them before a bad habit forms. From AI-Assisted Onboarding: A 90-Day Plan That Keeps the Human In

Build a reusable project in ChatGPT Projects or Claude Projects with custom instructions and your uploaded documents, so the assistant answers only from your real materials. Without grounding documents, a confident answer is just a guess, and a week-one starter cannot tell confident from correct. From AI-Assisted Onboarding: A 90-Day Plan That Keeps the Human In

Use it only on a consented, de-identified copy, and only to draft. Remove names and identifiers, paste the transcript into your organisation's enterprise ChatGPT or Claude workspace rather than a public consumer tool, and ask for a fact-only action summary of decisions, owners and due dates. A person then verifies the draft and the raw transcript is deleted or locked down per your retention rule. From AI Note-Takers in HR Meetings: Consent Before the Transcript

Run a five-step workflow: de-identify comments before anything goes near a model, theme only at the aggregate level with paraphrases not verbatim quotes, set a minimum group size of five or ten, keep a human reading the themes, and close the loop without scoring people. From AI Can Analyse Your Engagement Survey Without Surveilling Your People

Shift the weight from the application to demonstrated capability. Use a short, role-relevant skills task, a structured behavioural interview with the same questions and scoring for every candidate, and where practical a supervised work sample that shows how the person actually works, including how they use AI. The application becomes a filter for basic requirements, not the thing you hire on. From Every Application Now Reads Perfectly. Assess the Person.

Check it at the source. A fabricated authority usually has a plausible name but returns nothing in the FWC decisions database or on AustLII, a citation number that does not resolve, or a quoted passage that is nowhere in the judgment. An award clause cited by a number that is not in the current instrument is another common tell. From When the Other Side's AI Invents the Law

You check every claim against a primary source, and never against the AI that produced it. The Commission points to its own Benchbooks, its decisions database, AustLII for court judgments, and the Federal Register of Legislation for statutes and regulations. A generative tool cannot be used to verify its own output. From The Fair Work Commission's Three Rules for AI in a Case

A model that drafts a likely finding before the person is interviewed has quietly prejudged the matter, and a process that prejudges fails. Assessing credibility, weighing evidence, making findings and ensuring fairness are the investigator's responsibilities, not AI tools. An investigator also cannot lean on a model's confident, fluent tone. From AI in Workplace Investigations: Organise the File, Not the Finding

Under section 65A of the Fair Work Act, an employer must give the employee a written response within 21 days of receiving a valid request made under the National Employment Standards. The Fair Work Ombudsman confirms the response must state whether the request is granted or refused, and a refusal must meet the statutory requirements. From AI Can Map a Flexible Work Request. It Cannot Decide Reasonableness

Address the observable conduct, not the tool. Name the specific behaviour, its effect on others and the standard expected, and separate that from any substantive complaint the employee has raised, which still has to be dealt with on its merits. A conversation framed as stop using AI invites a dispute about the tool and leaves the actual conduct standard unstated. From AI Did Not Send Those Emails. Your Employee Did.

Pilot it with varied users, change demographic details that should not affect performance, test reasonable adjustments and compare scenario difficulty. Record failures and require human review before release. From Use AI to Build Practice Simulations, Not to Award the Pass

The Fair Work Commission has seen a sharp rise in AI-prepared applications, some containing invented citations, misstated law or facts that do not match the person's circumstances. A fluent, authority-citing complaint is not, for that reason, well founded. Verify the substance, do not be moved by the tone. From AI in Workplace Investigations: Organise the File, Not the Finding

Strictly. In 'ALI' and 'ALJ' (Privacy) [2024] AICmr 131, decided on 20 June 2024, the Australian Privacy Commissioner adopted the reading that the act or practice must be directly related to the employment relationship and not merely have an indirect, consequential or remote effect on it, denoting an absolute or exact connection. An email to 110 staff naming an employee and describing her health was held to relate directly to the employer's relationship with the other staff, not with her, so the exemption did not apply. From Your Employee Data Is Exempt. That Is Not Permission.

Not by itself. The employer must follow the statutory process in section 65A, including discussing the request, genuinely trying to reach agreement, considering the consequences of refusal and explaining how reasonable business grounds apply to the particular request. Policies and employment instruments matter, but individual facts and consultation still decide the outcome. From AI Can Map a Flexible Work Request. It Cannot Decide Reasonableness

In NSW it is prohibited unless authorised by a magistrate through a covert surveillance authority, which is limited to investigating suspected unlawful activity. The ACT similarly restricts covert surveillance. As a rule, never run undisclosed AI monitoring of workers without notice and a clear lawful basis. From AI Worker Monitoring in Australia: What HR Can and Cannot Do

Yes. Section 86 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 makes it unlawful to publish or display an advertisement that indicates, or could reasonably be understood as indicating, an intention to do something that is unlawful under Part II of the Act, which includes discrimination in employment. The Age Discrimination Act 2004 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 contain equivalent prohibitions on discriminatory advertisements. The law is written for the content of an ad, and the harder modern question is what happens to a lawful ad once an algorithm delivers it. From AI Decides Who Sees Your Job Ad. That Is a Hiring Decision.

Yes, but the whole existing framework still applies. An AI screen that filters candidates before a person reviews them is automated decision-making affecting someone's interests. You must collect only what is reasonably necessary, notify candidates, keep the process free of discrimination under the Fair Work Act and anti-discrimination laws, and keep a human accountable for the outcome. The tool does not shift the legal responsibility off the employer. From Your Recruiter Is Now an Agent, Not a Search Box

It is high risk. Automated social-media scraping collects personal and often sensitive information that is rarely reasonably necessary for the role, is frequently inaccurate or about the wrong person, and can surface protected attributes that then taint the decision, exposing you to adverse action claims under the Fair Work Act. If you screen at all, scope it tightly, get consent, and keep a person in the loop. From AI in Reference and Background Checks: Verify Facts, Not Character

The Privacy Act does not specifically cover workplace surveillance; state and territory laws do, and they are strict. In NSW, the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (section 7) makes it an offence to record a private conversation, even one you are part of, unless all principal parties consent. The safe operating rule everywhere is all-party consent before anything records. From AI Note-Takers in HR Meetings: Consent Before the Transcript

No. The Fair Work Ombudsman Voluntary Small Business Wage Compliance Code gives small businesses a path to avoid criminal referral where they have taken reasonable steps to pay correctly. The AI told me the rate is not reasonable steps. Documented verification against the award and the Pay and Conditions Tool, with a human sign-off, is. From AI Can Read the Award. It Cannot Set the Pay.

Not as at the time of writing. In its response to the Privacy Act Review Report, released on 28 September 2023, the Government agreed in principle that further consultation should be undertaken with employer and employee representatives on how enhanced privacy protections for private sector employees may be implemented in legislation, which was proposal 7.1. The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 progressed 23 proposals from that response and did not change section 7B(3), which remains in the Act. Plan for the law as it is. From Your Employee Data Is Exempt. That Is Not Permission.

Offering a human alternative is prudent, and in some cases required as a reasonable adjustment. A candidate with a disability, or one who cannot complete a video assessment for a reason unrelated to the role, may need an accommodation. Build a simple, visible route for a candidate to request an adjustment or a human screen, and make sure declining the AI format does not itself count against them. From Your Recruiter Is Now an Agent, Not a Search Box

No. Grievances, complaints, disciplinary meetings, terminations and anything touching health sit in a never-auto-record bucket and are often manual-notes-only. These are the conversations people most need to feel safe in, and an unverified transcript should never stand in for a finding. From AI Note-Takers in HR Meetings: Consent Before the Transcript

Yes. Explain the tool's role, the data collected, access, retention, the review process and whether the activity affects any employment outcome. Provide a way to question errors and raise concerns. From Use AI to Build Practice Simulations, Not to Award the Pass

No. AI-detection tools are unreliable and produce false positives, and penalising a candidate for suspected AI use is both unfair and legally risky, since it can catch people who simply write well or who used assistive technology. Using AI to apply for a job is now normal. The better response is to stop treating the polished application as evidence of ability and to assess capability directly instead. From Every Application Now Reads Perfectly. Assess the Person.

Not as your first move. Treat it as a verification gap and ask in writing for the full citation and a copy of each authority. A real one can be produced, a fabricated one cannot, and the applicant can withdraw it. This protects the record and avoids an ambush that can rebound on the representative who launches it. From When the Other Side's AI Invents the Law

Refusing to employ someone because of a protected attribute (age, sex, race, disability, family responsibilities and more) is adverse action against a prospective employee under the Fair Work Act. If an AI tool surfaces or infers a protected attribute and it influences the decision, the employer wears the risk. The Sex Discrimination Act positive duty also requires employers to take proactive steps to eliminate discrimination. From AI in Reference and Background Checks: Verify Facts, Not Character

Run a 30-60-90 plan prompt turning a role description into a structured draft, a role-specific reading map prioritising required compliance reading, a grounded FAQ answering only from uploaded documents, and a structured day-30 check-in held as a human conversation that also surfaces cohort-wide patterns. From AI-Assisted Onboarding: A 90-Day Plan That Keeps the Human In

Selection must stay fair and lawful. Under the Fair Work Act's general protections, adverse action against a job applicant because of a protected attribute is unlawful, so any AI screening you use cannot encode bias. Under the Privacy Act, you can only collect information reasonably necessary for the role and need consent for sensitive information, and offshore screening tools engage cross-border disclosure obligations. Assess capability, not the person's private life. From Every Application Now Reads Perfectly. Assess the Person.

The ACTU said in February 2026 that it had written to employer peak bodies reminding them of their obligation to consult when they decide to adopt AI, where it is likely to change employees' jobs or how they do them. Assistant Secretary Joseph Mitchell said employers must consult as soon as a decision is made and before implementation, and that the ACTU will coordinate a response to employers who do not, putting them at risk of disputation proceedings and reputation damage. From Your AI Rollout Triggers a Clause You Already Signed

Three apply. Privacy, since free-text comments and inferences are personal information under the Australian Privacy Principles. Psychosocial safety, since the Commonwealth Code of Practice names intrusive surveillance as a recognised hazard. And fairness, since any decision affecting a person must be a human decision made on a fair basis and explained. From AI Can Analyse Your Engagement Survey Without Surveilling Your People

The preparation. It can model restructure scenarios, assemble the redeployment map the High Court now expects, help design selection criteria, draft the consultation letters and question sheets, and keep the consultation file organised. The decision to make a role redundant, the scoring of individuals, the genuine consultation and the conversation with the person losing their job stay with people. From AI Can Build the Redundancy. It Cannot Decide It

Two things shifted at once. From the first full pay period starting on or after 1 July 2026, minimum award wages rise 4.75 per cent and the National Minimum Wage moves to $26.44 an hour. Since 1 January 2025, intentionally underpaying wages or entitlements can be a criminal offence under the Fair Work Act, with severe fines and possible prison time. From AI Can Read the Award. It Cannot Set the Pay.

Keep statutory obligations on a checklist a person signs off, since every employee must receive the Fair Work Information Statement and casuals the Casual Employment Information Statement. Protect new-starter personal data, and keep AI on the drafting side of the line, as automated decisions about people may engage Privacy Act rules from 10 December 2026. From AI-Assisted Onboarding: A 90-Day Plan That Keeps the Human In

Remove names and unnecessary detail about health, disability, caring, pregnancy, family and domestic violence, family members and performance. Use placeholders such as [EMPLOYEE_NAME] and [PROPOSED_ARRANGEMENT], and work only in an approved enterprise system with restricted access. From AI Can Map a Flexible Work Request. It Cannot Decide Reasonableness

In Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29, the High Court confirmed the Fair Work Commission can ask whether an employer could have reorganised its workforce to redeploy someone, including by insourcing work done by contractors or labour hire. A note that no vacancies existed is no longer the end of the redeployment question, so the redeployment record needs to show the employer genuinely examined reshaping roles and insourcing work. From AI Can Build the Redundancy. It Cannot Decide It

The decision records that his use of AI was unfortunate and counterproductive, that the communications it produced were dense, repetitive and often rambling, demanding and overbearing, and that they lacked context and perspective. It found the use of AI appeared to give him a false sense of security that communications laden with allegations were appropriate in a workplace setting, and that objectively they were not. From AI Did Not Send Those Emails. Your Employee Did.

The Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, introduced on 3 June 2026 and effective 7 July 2026, lets the Commission deal with some dismissal disputes without first holding a jurisdictional hearing, decide suitable matters on the papers, and bar repeat applications already dismissed as having no reasonable prospects. From The Fair Work Commission's Three Rules for AI in a Case

In broad terms, the Fair Work Act asks whether there was a valid reason for a dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct, whether the person was notified of that reason, and whether they were given a real opportunity to respond. AI can help you document each step clearly, but it cannot decide whether a reason is valid, whether a response was genuinely considered, or whether the process was fair. Those are human judgements. From AI Can Draft the Warning. It Cannot Fake the Facts.

Under APP 3 you may only collect personal information that is reasonably necessary for the role, and you may only collect sensitive information (such as health or criminal record) with the individual's consent, unless an exception applies. Consent is not inferred just because you gave notice. An AI tool that hoovers up a candidate's whole digital footprint collects far more than is reasonably necessary. From AI in Reference and Background Checks: Verify Facts, Not Character

The Commission can give the document reduced weight, disregard it, make a costs order, or dismiss the application. A Commission document also carries a declaration of truth, so a knowingly false statement in it is a serious matter that can reach beyond the outcome of the case. From The Fair Work Commission's Three Rules for AI in a Case

Follow the current training product, the RTO's assessment system, assessor credential rules and evidence requirements. ASQA's assessment guidance applies to RTO assessment under the Standards for RTOs. Obtain qualified advice before relying on an AI-supported activity for a formal competency outcome. From Use AI to Build Practice Simulations, Not to Award the Pass

The risk is that the questions or the ideal answers used to score candidates reward a proxy for a protected attribute rather than the skill itself. Fluency scoring can disadvantage a candidate whose accent or speech is unrelated to the role, and video assessment can pick up disability or age. Under the Fair Work Act and the discrimination Acts, a screen that disadvantages a protected group is the employer's exposure, and general protections claims carry a reverse onus. From Your Recruiter Is Now an Agent, Not a Search Box

Confirm the award through the Pay and Conditions Tool, not the model. Paste the actual clause text so the model is not working from memory. Ask it to explain the clause and list every variable that changes the answer, not to state the rate. Verify every figure against the award and the Pay and Conditions Tool. Record the award, classification, clauses, rate and who signed off. From AI Can Read the Award. It Cannot Set the Pay.

Agent Passport tests and verifies every AI agent, whether Workday-built or third-party, before it goes into production and then continuously monitors it. It produces a signed record that the agent was tested against risks such as prompt injection, jailbreak, goal hijacking, system prompt extraction and leaks of employee data, with each result tied to a public standard like the OWASP LLM Top 10 and verified by an independent attestor. Treat its test list as a checklist for any agent you build. From Your HRIS Now Lets Anyone Build an Agent

Employment guidance identifies four practical uses: investigation planning against policy, producing records of interview through transcription, organising and arranging evidence chronologically, and drafting procedural correspondence such as allegation letters and the report framework. Each maps onto a real bottleneck, while the human investigator checks and owns the output. From AI in Workplace Investigations: Organise the File, Not the Finding

Keep the questions asked, the ideal answers used to score, the rating each candidate received, evidence that a named human reviewed the result before any rejection, the notice given to candidates, consent for any recording, and your retention and access limits. If a rejected candidate later challenges the decision, this is the file that shows the screen was job-related and a person owned the outcome. From Your Recruiter Is Now an Agent, Not a Search Box

Own the top of the funnel the way you own the interview. Use broad, neutral targeting rather than proxies for protected attributes, ask the platform what its delivery optimises on, and where a special audience tool for employment ads exists, use it. Then look at the audience the campaign actually reached and compare it to your applicant pool for obvious skew. Keep a named person accountable for the decision about who sees each role, and record it, so the top of the funnel is a governed step and not a setting no one owns. From AI Decides Who Sees Your Job Ad. That Is a Hiring Decision.

Do not let AI assess credibility, make findings of fact, determine whether an allegation is substantiated, decide an outcome or recommend a sanction. Do not let it draft the disciplinary rationale. That rationale is the reason a person can be performance-managed or dismissed, so it must be a human's reasoning. From AI in Workplace Investigations: Organise the File, Not the Finding

Do not automate belonging, judgements about the person, or any answer you have not grounded. The buddy, team lunch and unprompted check-in make someone stay. Decisions about fit, probation, capability or early performance must be made by an accountable manager, not a chatbot inventing answers. From AI-Assisted Onboarding: A 90-Day Plan That Keeps the Human In

Never let AI score, rank or rate named individuals, never re-identify a result that points to one person, never feed raw identifiable comments into an unapproved public tool, never let AI infer a named worker's health or psychological state and treat it as fact, and never run the analysis silently. From AI Can Analyse Your Engagement Survey Without Surveilling Your People

Never use AI to generate the facts of an incident, to decide the outcome, to weigh an employee's explanation, or to draft a record of a conversation that did not happen the way the draft describes. AI drafts the document from facts you supply and verify. It does not establish what occurred, and it does not make the decision to warn, manage or dismiss. Those stay with the manager. From AI Can Draft the Warning. It Cannot Fake the Facts.

Confirm exactly what employee data it can read and write, test it against prompt injection and jailbreak attempts, check it cannot leak data to the wrong recipient, require a named human to review its outputs before any decision, and keep an auditable record of what the agent can do and who approved it. No agent should touch live employee data until it has passed that gate. From Your HRIS Now Lets Anyone Build an Agent

The AHRC's compliance and enforcement powers commenced on 12 December 2023, one year after the duty itself began on 12 December 2022. Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Commission can inquire where it reasonably suspects non-compliance, issue compliance notices and accept enforceable undertakings, without needing the organisation's consent. From AI Hiring and Performance Tools Under Australia's Positive Duty: What HR Must Control

After the employer has formed a proposal but before the decision is locked. The Fair Work Commission's guidance, quoting case law, describes consultation as a bona fide opportunity to influence the decision maker, not perfunctory advice about what is about to happen. Where an award or agreement requires consultation and the employer fails to do it, there cannot be a genuine redundancy at all. From AI Can Build the Redundancy. It Cannot Decide It

At the definite decision, not at go-live. The model term requires the employer to consult as soon as practicable after making its decision, and clause 38 of the Clerks-Private Sector Award 2020 requires discussions to commence as soon as practicable after a definite decision has been made. Signing the contract, approving the budget or locking the rollout date can each be the moment the clock starts. Consultation that begins after implementation is not consultation. From Your AI Rollout Triggers a Clause You Already Signed

It commences on 10 December 2026 through new APP 1.7 to 1.9, inserted by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024. From that date, where AI significantly affects a worker decision, your privacy policy must disclose the kinds of personal information used and the kinds of automated decisions made. From AI Worker Monitoring in Australia: What HR Can and Cannot Do

It is a term of the industrial instrument that applies to you, not a standalone AI law. Section 205 of the Fair Work Act requires an enterprise agreement to contain a consultation term for major workplace change, and if if the agreement has none or the one it has does not meet the Act, the model consultation term is taken to be a term of the agreement, and the current model term is the one set out in the Fair Work (Model Terms) Determination 2025, the model term in the Fair Work (Model Terms) Determination 2025 is taken to be a term of the agreement. Award-covered employers have their duty in the award's own major change clause, for example clause 38 of the Clerks-Private Sector Award 2020. Read the wording of the award that covers you. From Your AI Rollout Triggers a Clause You Already Signed

The employer. Under section 7C of the Sex Discrimination Act, once a candidate shows a condition or practice had a disadvantaging effect, the burden of proving it was reasonable falls on the person who imposed it. For an AI tool, that means producing bias testing, a business rationale and evidence of less-discriminatory alternatives considered. From AI Hiring and Performance Tools Under Australia's Positive Duty: What HR Must Control

The employer. An AI summary can be confidently wrong, mix up two people, or rely on stale data, but the hiring decision and its consequences sit with the organisation, not the vendor. That is why the referee's own words, the candidate's right to respond to adverse information, and the final call all stay with a person. From AI in Reference and Background Checks: Verify Facts, Not Character

Because the written application used to be a signal. Tailoring, clear writing and a well-structured CV suggested effort and communication skill. Now a candidate can produce all of that with a model in minutes, so the signal is gone. Robert Half's Australian data shows more than a third of hiring managers say AI-generated CVs make it harder to assess candidate quality accurately, because uniform, polished applications blur the differences between people. From Every Application Now Reads Perfectly. Assess the Person.

A transcript is not a fleeting set of notes. It is a durable, searchable, copyable record that lives somewhere after the meeting, can be forwarded, and can be produced later in a dispute or an information-access request. When the meeting is a grievance or a medical conversation, you have automatically manufactured a sensitive document, often without deciding where it sits, how long it is kept, or who can open it. From AI Note-Takers in HR Meetings: Consent Before the Transcript

Because generative AI invents plausible detail. The Fair Work Commission has reported documents citing cases and awards that do not exist. If a warning or improvement plan contains an incident that did not happen, a misquoted policy or a date that is wrong, it undermines the valid reason and the procedural fairness a dismissal must show under the Fair Work Act. An inaccurate paper trail is worse than a thin one. From AI Can Draft the Warning. It Cannot Fake the Facts.

A language model is most confident about exactly the things it gets wrong, including penalty rates, classification levels, overtime thresholds and allowance amounts. It paraphrases training data that may be months out of date, so a model trained before the Annual Wage Review does not know award minimums rose on 1 July and will give last year's rate with full confidence. From AI Can Read the Award. It Cannot Set the Pay.

The free, government-backed People at Work psychosocial survey is being decommissioned through 2026, with reports accessible only until 2 October 2026, because legislation and research revealed gaps. As it leaves, commercial AI-powered survey products are moving in, often promising individual-level insight that careful HR teams should question. From AI Can Analyse Your Engagement Survey Without Surveilling Your People

A minimum group size, commonly five or ten responses, sets a floor below which you do not report a result for any team or segment. If only three people answered, their feedback rolls up to the next level. This single rule prevents the most common re-identification accident: a team result that is really one person's words. From AI Can Analyse Your Engagement Survey Without Surveilling Your People