65% of Australian Frontline Workers Use AI — 46% Got No Rules

Sixty-five percent of Australian frontline workers have used AI or an AI-enabled tool at work in the past year, while 46% have received no training, briefing or written rules from their employer on the technology, according to new research from workforce software firm Humanforce.

The survey, published November 12, 2026, polled 501 workers across healthcare, hospitality and tourism, and retail and wholesale trade. It paints a picture of AI quietly embedding itself in shift-based jobs while company policy stands still.

Among workers who had used tools such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude or Copilot for work, 24% said their employer did not allow it — or they didn't know whether it was allowed. In healthcare, that figure climbed to 36%. Only 13% of workers across the survey said they had received comprehensive training.

The stakes are practical, not abstract. Nurses, retail staff and hospitality workers are feeding real operational data into general-purpose AI tools without knowing what their employer permits, and Australia's policy conversation hasn't caught up. The takeaway: frontline AI adoption has outrun frontline AI governance by a wide margin.

What do workers actually want from AI?

The survey asked where technology or AI could make work easier, and the answer was strikingly consistent. Paperwork and administration ranked first in every single sector, cited by 43% of respondents overall. Rostering and shift management came second at 31%.

The admin burden is measurable. Nearly half of respondents — 49% — said they spend at least two hours a week on tasks such as forms, timesheets, shift changes, finding information, and resolving pay or leave issues. More than one in four, 28%, said those tasks eat four hours or more of their week.

Healthcare workers carry the heaviest load: 58% said they spend two hours or more each week on admin. Half of healthcare respondents said they had received no AI guidance from their employer at all.

Humanforce Chief Executive Officer Clayton Pyne said the national conversation is missing where the actual usage is happening.

"Australia's AI debate still revolves around people working at desks. Yet frontline workers are already using AI on the job, and guidance hasn't kept pace," Pyne said.

He argued the gap is fixable, and that clarity pays for itself.

"Someone caring for patients, serving customers or moving between shifts should know what they can share with general-purpose AI tools, what they can rely on, and when an answer needs checking. Organisations that provide this clarity early will reduce risk and get far more from AI, including less paperwork, easier shift management and more time with customers and patients," Pyne said.

How bad are the payroll problems?

The survey also documented persistent pay errors in shift-based industries. Two in five workers — 41% — said their pay had been wrong at least once in the past 12 months. More than a quarter, 27%, said it had happened two or more times.

Hospitality and tourism reported the worst results: 48% of those workers said they had been paid incorrectly in the past year, compared with 33% in retail and wholesale trade.

Humanforce linked the error rates to the structure of frontline work itself. Complex awards, penalty rates and frequent roster changes make mistakes easier to make and harder to detect. Pyne framed this as both a worker problem and a business problem.

"Frontline workers feel that admin burden most directly, but for organisations it is also a compliance, cost and productivity issue, which makes the back office a place where AI can provide significant support," Pyne said.

But he was explicit that AI in payroll needs constraints, not free rein. The technology should operate within clear permissions and with traceable, explainable actions, he said.

"Getting pay right is one of the most basic commitments an employer makes, and one of the hardest to keep in shift-based work, where errors are easy to make and hard to spot," Pyne said.

"AI will do far more to help, but only when it is built on the rules, data and approvals that already make pay compliant. Nobody should have to take AI's word for what they're owed," he added.

In short: Humanforce sees the back office as AI's biggest near-term opportunity in frontline industries — but only inside a compliance-first design.

What worries workers most about AI?

Beyond admin relief, workers flagged three areas where they wanted more technological help: training and support, cited by 27%; managing workload, fatigue or wellbeing, at 23%; and understanding pay, entitlements or awards, at 19%.

Their concerns about AI cluster around the human core of the job. Losing human contact was the top concern overall, selected by 47% of respondents. In retail and wholesale, 53% named it their main worry — even though that sector is the most enthusiastic adopter, with 30% of its workers saying they use AI most days.

Healthcare workers showed a different priority. Their top concern, at 40%, was misuse of personal information — unsurprising in a sector where patient data flows through daily work.

Support for AI appears conditional on human oversight staying in place. Almost half of respondents — 49% — said the most important safeguard is having a person review significant AI decisions. Another 39% wanted the ability to question or appeal an AI-assisted decision. Just 8% said no additional safeguards were needed.

Pyne said the pattern of concerns — paperwork first, human contact protected — reflects what frontline work actually is.

"Much of frontline work is human by nature: empathy, in-person care and service, from a carer helping a resident start their day to a host welcoming a guest. That helps explain why paperwork topped their list," he said.

"Workers want technology to take on the admin so they have more time for the people in front of them," he said.

Where does this leave employers?

Retail and wholesale workers were the most likely to have received some form of AI guidance — but even there, 37% said they had received none. That makes the best-performing sector still more than a third unguided.

Pyne's prescription runs in two directions. On the upside: "The frontline organisations that get the most from AI will use it to give their people more time for the human side of the job," he said.

On the guardrail side, he drew a hard line around decisions that touch working lives.

"Workers should never be left arguing with an AI system about a decision that affects their hours, pay or working life. Organisations need to be clear about where AI is used, keep people involved in important decisions and give workers a way to speak up when something looks wrong," Pyne said.

The survey's numbers suggest the market will move in that direction eventually — 92% of workers want at least some safeguard, and only 13% have had comprehensive training so far. For employers in healthcare, hospitality and retail, the open question is whether they write the rules before or after the incidents that force them to.