Safety information a worker cannot understand has not done its legal job. The regulation's test is "readily understandable".

The legal hook: one duty in the Act, one test in the Regulations

The duty starts in section 19(3)(f) of the model WHS Act: a PCBU must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, "the provision of any information, training, instruction or supervision that is necessary to protect all persons from risks to their health and safety" arising from the work. The Act says what must be provided; regulation 39 says how, and its third subsection is the one this page is about. The PCBU "must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the information, training and instruction provided under this regulation is provided in a way that is readily understandable by any person to whom it is provided", and the requirement carries its own tier E monetary penalty, separate from the suitability test in regulation 39(2). The precision matters: the "readily understandable" words are the Regulations' language, not the Act's, and they attach to how information is delivered, not merely whether a delivery happened. An induction video in fast idiomatic English, acknowledged with a signature by a worker who followed none of it, is exactly the artefact the subsection exists to disqualify. What counts as suitable and adequate training in the first place, the competency and licensing architecture, is a different question, covered on the WHS training page; this page is about whether the message reaches every worker it is meant to protect.

What the consultation code adds: literacy and language are compliance factors

The Model Code of Practice on consultation, July 2023 edition, turns the principle into stated expectations. On sharing information it says: "The information should be presented in a way that can be easily understood by your workers and take into account literacy needs and the cultural or linguistically diverse backgrounds of your workers." When the code lists the circumstances that shape what consultation is reasonably practicable, it ends the list with "characteristics of the workers including languages spoken and literacy levels", which puts a workforce's language profile on the same legal footing as the size of the business and the severity of the hazard. And it names the failure mode this beat turns on: "Young workers and those with limited English may be less likely to question health and safety practices or speak up if they are unsure. They may find it easier to communicate through a health and safety representative, an interpreter or worker representative." The elected-HSR machinery that gives that sentence its teeth is set out on the worker consultation page. Among the code's practical mechanisms: stagger consultation across shifts, offer anonymous ways to raise issues, and "use culturally appropriate approaches and translation and interpretation for culturally and linguistically diverse workers", including inviting bilingual workers to translate. Consultation as a system element, the thing an officer must verify is happening, is covered on the safety management systems page.

The November 2024 guidance: show, ask back, and mind the messenger

Safe Work Australia's PCBU information sheet on communicating with migrant and multicultural workers, published November 2024, is the most specific national guidance on making the duty work. Its starting move is an audit of preferences, not a translation order: find out workers' preferred languages, their ability to understand written and spoken English, and cultural differences as fine-grained as "whether making eye contact signals attention or is disrespectful". On instructions it draws the line between telling and training: ensure training is task-specific, "show workers how to use equipment safely rather than telling them to 'use the equipment safely'", and close the loop by checking arrival, "ask workers questions and have them demonstrate tasks to check they can competently follow safety procedures". It points employers to TIS National, the free 24-hour translating and interpreting service covering more than 100 languages, and it carries a caveat experienced sites will recognise: a bilingual worker drafted into interpreting is doing a second job, so "their workload may need to be modified to manage high job demands". The sheet also names an exposure imbalance rather than pretending diversity is only a language problem: migrant and multicultural workers "are more likely to be exposed to harmful behaviours such as racist comments", which under the psychosocial framework is a hazard to be managed like any other, as the psychosocial page sets out. Two structural reminders round it out: WHS protections do not depend on visa status, and a labour-hire arrangement leaves both the host and the agency holding the full duty, the seam explored on the gig and labour-hire page. For the workers themselves, SWA publishes its "Work health and safety in Australia" information sheet in 21 languages, from Arabic and Burmese to Vietnamese.

Young and new workers: the same duty, a different barrier

Language is not the only thing that stops safety information landing. Safe Work Australia's young workers guidance describes a cohort that may "appear confident in their capabilities even though they may benefit from additional training and support", is "keen to please and make a good impression", is vulnerable to copying whatever behaviour surrounds them, and may not report hazards because they do not know how, fear for their job, or "see them as just part of the job". For workers "aged 18 and under" the guidance is blunter: they are "particularly vulnerable", and the power imbalance of working closely with adults raises the risk of bullying, aggression and harassment. A handful of age lines are hard regulation rather than guidance: under the model WHS Regulations, workers under 16 must not supply flammable gas or liquids, a high risk work licence requires the holder to be at least 18, and supervisors of asbestos removal work must be at least 18. Everything else runs through the same two provisions as the multilingual workforce: section 19(3)(f)'s supervision limb, which does the protecting while competence and confidence are still being built, and regulation 39(3)'s requirement that what is provided be readily understandable to the person actually receiving it, a 16-year-old included. The common thread across every group on this page is that the duty never transfers to the worker's ability to decode the message. The obligation to be understood sits, like the rest of the primary duty, with the business.