Does NSW's AI work law cover your lead routing?
NSW has passed a law that makes AI, algorithms and automation that hand out work a health and safety issue. The duties have not started yet. Here is what is in scope for a sales or service team on HubSpot, and the checks worth running before they do.
Probably, once the law starts. NSW's Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Act 2026 defines a digital work system as an algorithm, artificial intelligence, automation or online platform. If one of those decides which person gets which lead, ticket or task, the business has a duty to make sure that allocation does not put workers' health and safety at risk.
The Act was assented to on 18 February 2026. As at 12 October 2026, the duties themselves have not commenced. The NSW legislation website lists Schedule 1 items [1] to [6], [8] and [10] as not commenced. The three items in force, [7], [9] and [11], set up the guidelines SafeWork NSW must write and the rules for the inspection power. The duties start on a date set by proclamation, no earlier than one month after the first guidelines are issued, and those guidelines have not been released.
So nothing is enforceable today. But if you run a NSW team on HubSpot round robin, AI lead scoring or activity targets, the work to get ready is small, and it is much easier to do before an inspector or a union permit holder asks to see the system.
This is general information about a new law, written by people who build CRM systems. It is not legal advice. Talk to your employment lawyer about your own setup.
What does the Act actually add?
Two duties and one inspection power, all inside the existing Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). The duties have not commenced, so their text is not yet in the consolidated Act on the NSW legislation website. The wording below comes from law firm summaries of the Act as passed, mainly Hamilton Locke and Norton Rose Fulbright.
A line in the primary duty (section 19). The list of things a business must make sure of, so far as is reasonably practicable, gains one more: that workers' health and safety is not put at risk from the business's use of digital work systems.
A specific duty about allocating work (new section 21A). A business that uses a digital work system to allocate work must consider whether that allocation creates or results in:
- excessive or unreasonable workloads
- excessive or unreasonable performance metrics
- excessive or unreasonable monitoring or surveillance
- unlawful discriminatory practices or decision-making.
An inspection power (section 118(1)(a1)). A WHS entry permit holder, usually a union official, will be able to require reasonable assistance to access and inspect a digital work system relevant to a suspected breach. The rules for it are already in the Act: section 118(2A) says notice must be given during business hours, at least 48 hours and no more than 14 days before entry, and the power is subject to guidelines under section 118A. A transitional clause goes further: even after it starts, the power can only be used for a class of workplace once guidelines covering that class have been published.
None of the four terms above is defined. "Excessive or unreasonable" will be read against the facts, the same way the rest of WHS law works.
Why would a CRM be a "digital work system"?
Because the definition is broad on purpose. The first version of the Bill also listed "software". That word was dropped during debate after concerns it would catch ordinary tools like email and messaging.
What stayed is "algorithm", "automation" and "artificial intelligence". A HubSpot workflow that rotates leads between reps is automation. A lead score that decides which rep gets a lead is an algorithm. A Breeze agent or a Claude agent that creates and assigns tasks is AI. Your CRM as a database probably is not the issue. The rules you built on top of it that decide who does what, how much, and how fast, are.
The three shaded boxes are the factors new section 21A asks a business to consider when a digital work system allocates work, as summarised by Hamilton Locke and Norton Rose Fulbright. As at 12 October 2026 the duty has not commenced and the guidelines have not been issued.
Which HubSpot setups are likely in scope?
Here is how we would read the common setups we build and maintain. This is our view from the definition and the four factors, and it will need checking against SafeWork NSW's guidelines once they exist.
| Setup | Our read | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Round robin lead rotation in a workflow | Likely in scope | Automation allocating work. Low risk on its own, unless the rotation ignores leave, capacity or territory and piles work onto whoever is left |
| Ticket assignment by rule or rotation | Likely in scope | Same logic. Watch for queues that keep assigning to the person who closes fastest |
| AI lead scoring that decides who gets the best leads | Check | It is an algorithm allocating work. The discrimination factor matters here: if the score sends good leads away from part-timers or a particular group, that is the risk the Act names |
| Activity targets and leaderboards (calls, emails, meetings per day) | Check | Targets set by a person are ordinary management. Targets the system raises or enforces on its own, with automated nudges, edge toward "performance metrics" and "monitoring" |
| Call recording, email tracking and conversation intelligence used to score reps | Check | Likely to be read as monitoring. Fine with a clear purpose and limits. A problem when the data feeds a rank nobody can explain |
| AI agents that create and assign tasks to people | Likely in scope | This is the Act's core case: AI deciding what a person works on |
| Sequences and email automation aimed at customers | Unlikely | The system is doing work for customers. It does not allocate work to your staff |
| Reports and dashboards a manager reads | Unlikely on their own | A report does not allocate work. How the manager uses it is ordinary management |
If you only take one thing from that table: the risk sits where a rule decides how much work a person gets, and nobody is looking at the total.
Does your lead routing hand out work by algorithm?
We will find every rule in your portal that rotates leads, assigns tickets or sets targets, show you which ones the new duty would reach, and what to change first.
What does "reasonably practicable" look like in a HubSpot portal?
WHS law does not ask you to remove every risk. It asks you to do what is reasonably practicable. For a HubSpot portal, these are the checks we would run first. Most take an afternoon.
- List every rule that hands out work. Workflows with a "rotate record to owner" action, ticket routing, lead assignment in forms and chat, agents that create tasks, and any external tool doing the same through the API. Search workflows by action type. You will find more than you expect.
- Give each one a named owner. A person who can explain why the rule works the way it does. Our one-page AI policy has a sign-off line you can reuse.
- Check capacity, leave and working hours. Rotation should skip people who are away. Our lead routing guide covers how to set that up. Check whether out-of-hours leads become tasks due at 7am.
- Look at the totals by person. Build one report of open tasks, tickets and new leads per owner per week. If one person is consistently carrying double, the rule is the cause and you can fix it.
- Write down why each target exists. Daily activity targets and SLAs should have a reason a manager can say out loud. Remove automated escalations that nobody reads.
- Test scoring for who it disadvantages. If an AI or rules-based score decides which reps get which leads, compare outcomes for full-time and part-time staff, and across teams. Keep the result.
- Put a person on the decisions that matter. Changes to territory, quotas and lead allocation logic should be approved by a person before they go live. Our piece on where to put a human in the loop covers how.
- Keep a change log. Workflow revision history in HubSpot is a start. If a permit holder ever asks how the system allocates work, you want to show the rule, the owner, and when it last changed.
- Ask your staff. Consultation is already a WHS duty. Ask the people on the receiving end whether the routing and targets feel fair. It is the cheapest test there is.
None of this needs new software. Most of it is writing down what your portal already does.
What has to happen before the duties start?
Three steps, in order.
SafeWork NSW consults and publishes guidelines. Section 118A requires public consultation before the guidelines are issued. According to Australian Workplace Safety's tracker, updated 12 October 2026, SafeWork NSW is still in the first stage of that consultation, which was expected to finish in August. A public draft and a four to six week consultation come after that, and no date has been set.
At least a month passes. The proclaimed start date for the duties and the inspection power cannot be earlier than one month after the first guidelines are issued.
The NSW Government proclaims a start date. As at 12 October 2026 no proclamation has been made and no start date has been announced. The Minister must also review the amendments 12 months after they begin.
- 18 February 2026: assentThe Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Act 2026 becomes Act No 5 of 2026.
- 18 February 2026: three items startSchedule 1 items [7], [9] and [11] commence: the guidelines SafeWork NSW must issue, and the notice rules for inspections.
- Guidelines consulted on and issuedNot issued yet. Public consultation must come first.
- Proclamation: the duties startNo earlier than one month after the first guidelines are issued. No date set.
- ReviewThe Minister reviews the amendments 12 months after they begin.
Sources: NSW Legislation (commencement status of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 consolidation), Australian Workplace Safety's tracker, Hamilton Locke.
Will other states follow?
Possibly. Safe Work Australia has been looking at whether the national model WHS laws should cover digital work systems, and its consultation on crowd and platform work closed on 1 June 2026. The NSW Act requires the Minister to review these provisions if the model laws end up covering the same ground. No date has been published for national advice.
If you have staff across states, building the checks above once for the whole portal is simpler than running NSW teams differently.
This also sits beside two other changes you may already be tracking: the Privacy Act's automated decision transparency rule from 10 December 2026, which is about customers, and the National AI Centre's six practices, which we compared with the older ten in which Australian AI framework applies to you.
Frequently asked questions
Is the NSW Digital Work Systems Act in force? Partly. It was assented to on 18 February 2026, and Schedule 1 items [7], [9] and [11] started that day. They cover the guidelines SafeWork NSW must issue and the notice rules for inspections. The duties in sections 19 and 21A and the new inspection power start on a date set by proclamation, no earlier than one month after the first guidelines are issued. As at 12 October 2026 the guidelines have not been released and no proclamation has been made.
What counts as a digital work system? An algorithm, artificial intelligence, automation or online platform. "Software" was removed from the definition during debate, so ordinary tools like email are less likely to be caught. Automation that allocates work, such as round robin lead routing, fits the words of the definition.
Does it apply if we only have a few staff in NSW? The NSW WHS Act applies to work carried out in NSW. How it applies to a business with staff across several states depends on your setup, so get advice from your employment lawyer.
Can a union official look inside our HubSpot portal? Once the inspection power starts, a WHS entry permit holder can require reasonable assistance to access and inspect a digital work system relevant to a suspected breach. Notice must be given during business hours, between 48 hours and 14 days before entry. The power can only be used for a class of workplace once SafeWork NSW has published guidelines covering it, and none have been published yet.
Do we need to stop using AI lead scoring? No. You need to know what the score does, who it affects, and that someone reviews it. A score you can explain, with an owner and a record of checking it for unfair outcomes, is a reasonable position. A score nobody in the business understands is the risk.
Where to start
Open your workflows, filter by the rotate-to-owner action, and count. Then ask the question the Act will ask: if one of those rules gave someone twice the work of everyone else, who would notice?
If the honest answer is nobody, that is the first thing to fix. Our AI Engineering team builds and reviews these systems for Australian businesses, and can help you set it up properly.
Sources
- Work Health and Safety Amendment (Digital Work Systems) Act 2026, NSW Legislation, for the Act and its commencement status.
- NSW Parliament passes WHS digital work system duty, Hamilton Locke, for the definition, the new duties, the inspection power and the review.
- NSW Parliament passes Digital Work Systems Bill, Norton Rose Fulbright, for the duties and entry notice rules.
- NSW expands WHS framework to capture digital work systems, L&E Global, for the removal of software from the definition.
- NSW Digital Work Systems Act, Australian Workplace Safety, for guideline and national consultation status.
Who would notice if one rule doubled someone's workload?
We will pull the open work per person from your portal and show you where one rule is loading up one person.