This bill became law on Mar 21st, 2023.
Work & employment
Employers and others can now face the toughest federal work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. offence for grossly careless conduct, not just for taking a reckless risk of death or serious harm.
Recent changes to the national model work health and safety lawsThe shared template laws used by the Commonwealth, states and territories so workplace safety rules stay broadly aligned. left the Commonwealth Act out of step after the 2018 Boland ReviewThe 2018 review that recommended changes to the model work health and safety laws and prompted this bill. recommended reforms. This bill brings the federal law into line by expanding serious offences, strengthening inspectors’ powers, extending prosecution requests, and blocking insurance for WHSThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. fines.
Australia already had largely harmonised model work health and safety lawsThe shared template laws used by the Commonwealth, states and territories so workplace safety rules stay broadly aligned., but after Marie Boland’s 2018 review recommended 34 changes and later model-law amendments were adopted elsewhere, the Commonwealth Act was left out of step. The bill, introduced in December 2022, responded by aligning federal law with those reforms through tougher serious offences, stronger inspector powers, longer prosecution-request timeframes and a ban on insuring against WHSThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. fines, before Parliament passed it in March 2023 and Royal Assent followed later that month.
The main criticism was that the bill could unfairly expose employers and workers to very serious penalties, with One Nation arguing parts of it effectively shifted the burden onto accused people unless they could show a reasonable excuse. Broader opposition was limited: most speakers backed the bill, while some supporters such as the Greens said it was only a modest first step because it still left bigger safety problems like silicosis to other reforms.
Tony Burke MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 21 Mar 2023
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
1 recorded amendment or procedural vote was found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
110 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
Employers and others can now face the toughest federal work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. offence for grossly careless conduct, not just for taking a reckless risk of death or serious harm.
Workplace inspectors can send a written notice within 30 days after entering a workplace to demand documents, written answers, or an interview connected to why they entered.
People who think a serious work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. offence was committed get longer to ask the regulator to prosecute, and must receive updates every 3 months if the investigation is still ongoing.
Work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. regulators can share or use investigation information when it is needed to enforce workplace safety laws, prevent a serious public health or safety risk, or work with other jurisdictions.
People and companies are barred from buying, offering or using insurance to cover work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. fines, and company officers can be fined if they are involved.
These items would broaden the Category 1 offence to apply to offences of negligence as well as recklessness. The definition of negligence under section 5.5 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) is used for this offence, which reflects the common law meaning of “gross negligence”. This amendment would implement recommendation 23a of the Boland Review, which recommended that a duty holder commits a Category 1 offence if the duty holder is grossly negligent in exposing an individual to a risk of serious harm or death.Work Health and Safety Amendment explanatory memorandum
New subsection 171(2A) would permit the inspector, within 30 days after the inspector has entered the workplace under this Division, or any other inspector within this timeframe, to give written notice to a person requiring the person to:Work Health and Safety Amendment explanatory memorandum
New subsection 231(2A) would provide that, if the regulator advises that the investigation is not complete, the regulator must provide written updates on the progress of the investigation every three months until the investigation is complete. The regulator is to decide what information they consider appropriate to provide for the update. Once the investigation is complete, the regulator must advise the person whether a prosecution will be brought and, if the decision has been made to not bring a prosecution, the reasons for that decision.Work Health and Safety Amendment explanatory memorandum
The Bill would provide that information sharing under section 271A must be necessary or required in the express and limited circumstances listed in paragraphs 271A(3)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). These are in circumstances where the regulator reasonably believes the disclosure, access or use of the information or document is:Work Health and Safety Amendment explanatory memorandum
New section 272B would create an offence that applies to officers (as defined in section 4 of the WHS Act) of a body corporate. The inclusion of a separate offence for officers of a body corporate is intended to ensure greater deterrence by targeting the conduct of individuals that results in a body corporate contravening new section 272A.Work Health and Safety Amendment explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia already had largely harmonised model work health and safety lawsThe shared template laws used by the Commonwealth, states and territories so workplace safety rules stay broadly aligned., but after Marie Boland’s 2018 review recommended 34 changes and later model-law amendments were adopted elsewhere, the Commonwealth Act was left out of step. The bill, introduced in December 2022, responded by aligning federal law with those reforms through tougher serious offences, stronger inspector powers, longer prosecution-request timeframes and a ban on insuring against WHSThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. fines, before Parliament passed it in March 2023 and Royal Assent followed later that month.
Boland reviewThe 2018 review that recommended changes to the model work health and safety laws and prompted this bill. recommends changes to model work health and safety lawsThe shared template laws used by the Commonwealth, states and territories so workplace safety rules stay broadly aligned.
The five-year review led by Marie Boland made 34 recommendations that later underpinned amendments to the national model laws and exposed that the Commonwealth Act had fallen behind.
Hansard ↗Government introduces the bill to align federal law with the updated model laws
The minister said the bill would implement recommendations from the 2018 review by expanding serious offences, strengthening inspectors’ powers, extending prosecution requests and banning insurance for WHSThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. fines.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses agreed to the same bill, clearing the way for the Commonwealth to bring its work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. rules into line with the updated national model.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal Assent turns the bill into law
Royal Assent completed the parliamentary process. The Act’s operative amendments commenced later, on 21 September 2023 under the six-month fallback rule.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step. For this bill, the Federation Chamber reported back later the same day and the House then completed its remaining formal steps that day.
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading debate
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step. The official House record shows the referral out and return both happened on the same day, before the House moved to its final formal votes.
Reported from Federation Chamber
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill could unfairly expose employers and workers to very serious penalties, with One Nation arguing parts of it effectively shifted the burden onto accused people unless they could show a reasonable excuse. Broader opposition was limited: most speakers backed the bill, while some supporters such as the Greens said it was only a modest first step because it still left bigger safety problems like silicosis to other reforms.
Criticism was narrow and mostly conditional rather than a broad cross-party case against the bill.
Risk of unfair liability and harsh penalties
One Nation argued the bill went too far by making it easier to impose severe work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. penalties, saying the drafting effectively reversed the onus in some cases unless a person could prove a reasonable excuse. That criticism was tied to proposed amendments that were not adopted.
Too limited to fix major workplace health dangers
Some supporters said the bill was worthwhile but too modest, because it did not itself deliver stronger action on major hazards such as silica dust and manufactured stone, or wider reforms like industrial manslaughter. The concern was not that the bill was harmful, but that it would leave serious safety problems unresolved unless further laws followed.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Amendments grouped by chamber. These cards include amendment outcomes recorded without a counted division.
Senate
Defeated 5 to 31. Support came from Liberal Party, Nationals, One Nation, and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, and minor parties and independents. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The Senate agreed to a second-reading statement pushing the government toward urgent action on engineered stone, including a possible ban and support for workers with silicosis.
The Senate rejected Pauline Hanson's proposal on voices, which would have removed the phrase "without reasonable excuse" and a related subsection from the bill.
Defeated on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
The Senate agreed to an amendment on voices; the final text changed the short title from the Work Health and SafetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. Amendment Act 2022 to the Work Health and SafetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. Amendment Act 2023.
Carried on voices
The chamber decided this amendment without a counted division, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself. The bill passed both chambers on the voices.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Mr Burke supports the bill and says it is a first step in implementing the Boland reviewThe 2018 review that recommended changes to the model work health and safety laws and prompted this bill., strengthening penalties and safety protections for workers.
Read in Hansard ↗Babet opposes the bill as it stands because he says it fails to deal with workplace vaccine mandates, which he sees as a major human rights and safety problem.
Read in Hansard ↗Michaelia Cash supports the bill and says it will strengthen work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. laws by adopting the Boland reviewThe 2018 review that recommended changes to the model work health and safety laws and prompted this bill. changes, especially gross negligence for category 1 offences, longer time to request prosecutions, and bans on insurance for penalties.
Read in Hansard ↗Fletcher says the coalition supports the bill because it strengthens and clarifies Australia’s work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. laws, especially by adding gross negligence for the most serious offences and extending time for prosecution requests.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
6 speakers · 7 contributions · 6 support
“This bill will make amendments to align the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act with the recently amended model Work Health and Safety Act published by Safe Work Australia as recommended by the Boland review. It will strengthen and promote a consistent national approach to managing work health and safety and will ensure that Safe Work Australia can receive relevant information to perform its research and policy development roles. It demonstrates that we are committed to ensuring all Australians are protected by consistent work health and safety conditions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We have heeded the call, and this legislation is part of our overarching agenda to improve the wellbeing of workers. The Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill implements some of the 34 recommendations from the Boland review in 2018 by Marie Boland, a former executive director of SafeWork SA. It languished under the former government, but we have dusted it off and are starting the work of implementation to make Australian workplaces safer. This bill lowers the bar for conviction of shonky operators. It includes negligence as a threshold, which means that both reckless and grossly negligent employers who expose workers to serious risks will face penalties.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I commend these changes to the chamber. I urge the Senate to support them. I thank the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Our government is committed, as all Labor governments through history have been, to ensuring Australian workers have safe and fair workplaces. This is just the first step of implementing our work health and safety reforms, and anything we can do to make workplaces healthier and safer is surely something this parliament can agree is a good thing. I'm very proud to stand as a member of the government in support of this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Tony Burke on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Mr Burke supports the bill and says it is a first step in implementing the Boland reviewThe 2018 review that recommended changes to the model work health and safety laws and prompted this bill., strengthening penalties and safety protections for workers. He also argues more reform is still needed, including industrial manslaughter and action on silica exposure.
“This bill is only the beginning; there's still much more for us to do to make Australians safer at work.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Mr Burke supports the bill, saying it implements important Boland reviewThe 2018 review that recommended changes to the model work health and safety laws and prompted this bill. recommendations to strengthen work health and safetyThe legal framework for preventing injury and illness at work, often shortened in the page as WHS. laws. He backs the tougher penalties and ban on insurance for penalties as necessary to protect workers and make breaches real deterrents.
“The bill takes the first step towards achieving safer and healthier workplaces in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. There's still a lot left to do. Australian workers deserve to be able to go to work and come home safely to their loved ones, and I commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“This bill takes a first step towards achieving safer and healthier workplaces in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. There is still a lot left to do. Australian workers deserve to be able to go to work and come home safely to their loved ones. I thank all senators who have spoken in support of this legislation and I commend the bill to the Senate.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“I rise to speak in support of the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022. Work health and safety laws in Australia are a shared responsibility. Each jurisdiction is responsible for implementing, regulating and enforcing their own work health and safety laws. Australia has model work health and safety laws that have been adopted in all jurisdictions except Victoria, which has similar laws in place. These model work health and safety laws are developed and administered by an independent statutory body, Safe Work Australia, through a process involving all jurisdictions as well as employer and employee representatives.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“All Australians have a right to be safe in the workplace, and it is important to Australians, whether they be employers or employees, that there are consistent laws around workplace health and safety. This bill makes important changes that further strengthen that consistency and continue the principle of having risk based workplace health and safety laws while further clarifying and improving understanding of those laws. I commend the bill to the House.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I want to say, for the record, that this is a case where the Senate is looking to close this loophole. It is about more than just words on a page. This is about people who have suffered great loss in their families, and the human element of this must always be remembered and always be considered.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting the Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022 and to indicate the context in which this debate is happening.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 2 contributions · 1 mixed
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Malcolm Roberts on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Roberts says One Nation will oppose the bill in its current form because it reverses the onus of proof and could expose employers and employees to severe penalties. He says the party would support it only if its two amendments pass.
“We will definitely be opposing this bill in its current form. It is a sneaky, dangerous bill. We will be raising two amendments and, if they pass, then we will be supporting the bill. Before I get shut down for the night, I want to say that in my experience—”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Roberts says One Nation will only support the bill if its amendments to protect employers and remove vaccine mandate powers are passed. He argues the bill is really about enabling control and coercion, so he will vote against it if those changes are not made.
“What you're doing with the TGA bill and with this bill is setting them up for foreign entities, like the UN World Health Organization, to come in here and take over. That's part of the eternal human battle of control versus freedom. Always, One Nation is on the side of freedom. So far we've seen the United Nations and World Economic Forum alliance on the side of control, pushing through Greens policies that Labor adopts and the Liberals and Nationals adopt: energy and climate—killing our economy and our country's future; COVID-19—killing our country, killing thousands of people and killing our economy; water—stealing rights to use water and stealing rights to use property; and contradicting the data—what we have here is the enablement of mandates so that employers will be forced to mandate treatments, and they'll face serious fines if they don't. We have two amendments to protect employers and remove vaccine mandates. If they pass, we will support this bill. If they do not, we will vote against it.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“This bill, as it stands, unfortunately fails to address the biggest elephant in the room in relation to workplace health and safety. Let's not let this opportunity go to waste. Let's get that amendment in there. Let's protect people from mandates—although I suspect that many in this place will not do that.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Referred to Federation Chamber
Referred to Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Reported from Federation Chamber
Reported from Federation Chamber
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal Assent, turning the bill into an Act.
