AI and digital technologies are rapidly changing the way Australian workplaces operate.
Article by Jaaden Morrall, Senior Workforce Advisor/Consulant and Angela Farmer, Workforce Advisor
Artificial intelligence (AI) refers to technology that can perform tasks typically requiring human intelligence. From automated scheduling and document creation to predictive analytics and virtual assistants, AI is helping organisations work faster and more efficiently than ever before.
Many of these changes have clear benefits. Administrative tasks can be completed in seconds, repetitive work can be automated, and workers can access information more quickly. In some industries, AI and digital technologies are already reducing exposure to hazardous environments, supporting fatigue management and improving training outcomes.
However, focusing only on the benefits may mean overlooking an important work health and safety (WHS) consideration.
Like any new workplace technology change, AI does not simply remove risk. In many cases, it changes the nature of the risk. A control measure introduced to solve one problem may unintentionally create another.
For Queensland local governments, this matters because obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (WHS Act) and the Managing the Risk of Psychosocial Hazards at Work Code of Practice extend beyond physical safety. Persons Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBUs) must also identify and manage risks to workers’ psychological health, including risks that may emerge from the introduction of new technology or AI.
When efficiency creates new demands
A common way councils and organisations are using AI is to automate low-value administrative tasks. On the surface, this appears entirely positive: if a worker spends less time writing reports, processing forms or searching for information, they have more time available for meaningful work.
However, this shift can create an unintended consequence. When routine tasks disappear, workers may spend a greater proportion of their day dealing with complex problems, difficult conversations, complaints, investigations or decision-making activities. While productivity may improve, cognitive load may increase.
For example:
- A HR professional spends less time drafting letters but more time handling employee disputes.
- A Customer Service Officer spends less time processing requests but more time managing complaints from residents.
- A Safety Advisor spends less time compiling reports but more time investigating incidents and managing risk controls
The result may be a workforce that is technically more efficient but mentally more exhausted.
Safe Work Australia has recently released information that confirms this concern, identifying this as a potential form of work intensification, where automation removes routine work but increases the proportion of work requiring sustained concentration, complex judgement or emotional effort.
The risk of being ‘always on’ at work
Technology has created unprecedented flexibility. Workers can access systems remotely, communicate instantly and some roles can work from almost anywhere. For some workers, this improves work-life balance and autonomy. However, this can also blur boundaries and increase the likelihood of workers feeling pressured to remain connected outside normal work hours. Notifications, automated reminders and real-time reporting can create an expectation of constant availability.
This can increase fatigue, elevate job demands and make it more difficult for workers to disengage from work. These are all recognised as psychosocial hazards under the Queensland psychosocial risk framework.
The danger of over-relying on technology
Where implemented appropriately, AI can identify trends and patterns that humans may miss. It can flag fatigue risks, detect anomalies and assist decision-making, all of which are valuable capabilities. However, a risk arises when workers begin treating technology as fail-safe.
If workers stop questioning recommendations generated by AI or if decision-makers lose the confidence to override automated outputs, new risks emerge. Technology should support professional judgement, not replace human judgement.
This could include relying on AI-generated advice when assessing workforce issues, interpreting legislation, developing safety documentation or identifying workplace hazards. While AI can assist with decision-making, councils should ensure workers continue to apply critical thinking, professional expertise and appropriate oversight to important decisions.
Ultimately, effective risk management still requires human judgement, consultation and regular review of control measures.
Navigating workplace change
While much of the discussion around AI focuses on the technology itself, councils should also consider the impact of introducing AI into the workplace can have on workers.
For some workers, particularly those who have performed their role in a consistent way for many years, the introduction of new technology can create uncertainty, frustration or anxiety. Workers may worry about their ability to learn new systems, whether their skills remain relevant or how their role may change in the future.
This is particularly relevant in local government, where many councils have long-serving employees with significant organisational knowledge and established ways of working. As a result, workers may adapt to technological change at different rates. This does not mean technology should be avoided. Rather, councils need to consider the training, consultation and support required to accompany significant workplace change, as the change process itself can become a psychosocial hazard.
Consultation is particularly important where technology changes how work is performed, as workers are often best placed to identify practical safety concerns, training needs and unintended consequences before they become significant risks.
A smarter approach to innovation
Technology is not the enemy of workplace safety. In fact, AI has the potential to improve WHS outcomes through better information, stronger controls, improved hazard identification and reduced exposure to dangerous work.
The real challenge is recognising that innovation rarely removes risk altogether. Rather, councils should view AI and other workplace technologies through the same WHS lens applied to any workplace change.
Under the WHS Act, PCBUs have a duty to identify hazards, assess risks and implement appropriate control measures so far as is reasonably practicable. This obligation applies equally to psychosocial risks arising from new technology, changes to work design and the way work is performed.
When introducing new changes to the workplace such as AI, councils should consider potential WHS implications, fulfil consultation obligations, assess psychosocial impacts and regularly review whether new systems are creating unintended consequences.
Before implementing new technology, councils should ask:
- What risks will this reduce?
- What new risks could it create?
- How might work change for our workers?
- Could it increase workload, cognitive demand or emotional labour?
- Do workers have the training and support required?
- Have we adequately consulted with affected workers?
- What control measures are required to manage any new risks that are identified?
By incorporating new technologies into existing WHS risk management processes, councils can help ensure productivity gains are not achieved at the expense of worker health and wellbeing. Just because a technology solution improves efficiency does not automatically mean it reduces overall risk.
The safest approach is not to focus solely on what technology can do, but also on how it changes the experience of work for the people using it.
Regardless of whether the change involves new technology, organisational restructuring, new work practices or emerging workplace hazards, effective WHS management relies on identifying risks early and implementing appropriate controls.