Safe Work Australia has released its Best Practice Review of the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws, the first national review since 2018.

The Review's 21 recommendations are significant and could lead to wide-ranging changes to how WHS is regulated in the coming years. However, none of them are law yet. Even if the recommendations are accepted and the model laws are amended, it remains uncertain how, or when, each state or territory subject to the model regime may respond. Despite this, the Review is a helpful indicator of the possible future direction of WHS regulation across the country and provides employers with useful insights into where future compliance expectations are likely to head.

What did the Review find?

The Review's central finding was that harmonisation across jurisdictions remains strong and is credited with contributing to a decline in workplace fatalities since 2012, but that it is not yet complete. The Review recommends a renewed commitment to harmonisation, including a new annual scorecard tracking jurisdictional variation and a new national compliance and enforcement policy.

Three trends that will shape future WHS risk

Beyond harmonisation, the Review identifies three trends it expects to reshape workplace risk, and recommends a dedicated Safe Work Australia strategy for each:

• artificial intelligence (AI) and other digital technologies;

   

• climate change; and

   

• harmful workplace behaviours, including harassment, violence and racism.

Under the Review’s recommendations, on AI and digital technologies, Safe Work Australia would monitor how current WHS laws apply to AI, and introduce new regulations, codes or act amendments only where gaps emerge. On climate change, it would introduce new regulations about extreme heat, air quality and vector-borne diseases, alongside ongoing monitoring and research. On harmful workplace behaviours, it would clarify that the general duty of care covers harmful behaviours and introduce new regulations on workplace facilities and prevention of violence and harassment.

What other recommendations affect employers?

The 21 recommendations broadly span six areas: harmonisation, duties, consultation & representation, compliance & enforcement, modernisation, and emerging risks (AI, climate change and harmful behaviours). If adopted and ultimately legislated, the following would be most likely to affect day-to-day operations:

• clarifying that the general duty of care (section 19) covers harmful workplace behaviours, and extending the hierarchy of controls to psychosocial risks (which is already the case in some harmonised jurisdictions such as Queensland);

   

• extending internal review timeframes (from 14 to 21 days), and allowing workers, health and safety representatives (HSR) and unions to participate in external reviews;

   

• allowing any person or organisation to prosecute WHS offences, drawing on the approaches in NSW and New Zealand;

   

• allowing unions to bring civil penalty proceedings, and giving them wider access to regulator information about matters they raise;

   

• prohibiting insurance or indemnity cover for the legal costs of defending a WHS prosecution, and limiting non-disclosure agreements (NDA) that compromise WHS rights, drawing on Victoria's Restricting Non-disclosure Agreements (Sexual Harassment at Work) Act 2025;

   

• deeming compliance with a code of practice sufficient to meet the related duty, and developing new industry codes of practice, prioritising retail, education and training, agriculture and construction; and

   

• exploring turnover-linked penalties for large corporate groups, alternative verdict powers for courts, and the removal of limitation periods for prosecuting the most serious offences.

What trends do the recommendations point to?

Read together, these recommendations point to a consistent direction for the future of WHS regulation in Australia: more rights for unions and worker representatives, sharper deterrence for large corporates alongside more prescriptive support for small business, tighter national control over standard-setting, and a duty of care that increasingly treats psychosocial and behavioural harm the same as physical risk. The approach to AI remains the exception to this pattern, with Safe Work Australia favouring monitoring over immediate regulation until a clear gap emerges.

What should you be doing now?

Nothing in the Review requires immediate action, because none of it is yet law. However, it is clear that WHS will continue to become a higher-stakes, more closely scrutinised compliance area. Boards and senior management should treat WHS maturity, not just technical compliance, as a standing governance priority. In the meantime, the Review is a sensible prompt to check the fundamentals, particularly if you operate across more than one state:

• Confirm that your psychosocial risk register already treats harassment, bullying, violence and racism as discrete hazards. This is a current duty, independent of any future regulations.

   

• Confirm that AI and other digital tools used in your workplace are captured in existing WHS risk assessments. Current duties already apply, with or without AI-specific regulations.

   

• If you operate in an outdoor, remote or weather-exposed industry, note the Review's recommendation for new regulations on extreme heat, air quality and vector-borne diseases, and consider where current controls may need to go further.

   

• Check whether your insurance currently covers legal defence costs in a WHS prosecution. If the Review's recommendation is eventually legislated, that cover could disappear.

If you operate in Queensland, continue maintaining your existing sexual harassment prevention plan.