What the Feel of Enforceable Undertakings Was Like in 2025 (and the dollars attached)

Enforceable Undertakings (EUs) are not theoretical policy tools or compliance curiosities. Across Australia they are being actively used, accepted, and publicly tested by regulators. When you line them up across jurisdictions, a clear picture emerges of what regulators are rewarding, and what they are quietly rejecting.

This article draws together published Enforceable Undertakings from 2025 across multiple regulators and sectors, not to catalogue them, but to show what they tell us about regulatory intent and decision-making right now.

Enforeceable Undertakings are a final opportunity for Duty Holders to avoid prosecution.

What regulators actually accepted in 2025

In New South Wales, SafeWork NSW accepted several undertakings that combined engineering controls, industry education, and independent assurance.

Poly Pipe Pty Ltd entered into an Enforceable Undertaking executed in February 2025 with a total commitment in the order of several hundred thousand dollars. The undertaking funded replacement of high-risk drop saws with emergency braking technology, development of publicly available industry safety videos, external audits, structured training, and a safety trainee placement. The regulator accepted it because the spend was directed at eliminating risk and spreading learning beyond the business.

Queensland provides a very clear dollar signal. Goondiwindi Regional Council entered into a WHS Enforceable Undertaking commencing 31 Mar 25 with a minimum investment of approximately $450,000. That funding covered development of a critical risk register, remote worker communication systems, chemical storage upgrades, training programs, and publicly accessible WHS resources. The size of the investment matched the breadth of the proposed benefit.

Victoria has been even more explicit. WorkSafe Victoria accepted a $929,000 Enforceable Undertaking from Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd in December 2025. The undertaking followed breaches relating to crystalline silica exposure and failure to report a notifiable incident. The funds were directed to industry-wide silica control tools, national training programs, supply chain supervision forums, new hazard guidance content, and an associated health charity contribution. This was not a symbolic sum, it was a near-million-dollar prevention investment with national reach.

South Australia has published fewer WHS undertakings in 2025, but the regulatory stance aligns with the same thinking. Where undertakings are considered, they are expected to involve substantial, demonstrable investment aimed at industry uplift, not internal remediation.

Beyond WHS, the money gets even bigger

Outside WHS, the scale of Enforceable Undertakings accepted in 2025 is impossible to ignore.

Under the Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Ombudsman published multiple Enforceable Undertakings with remediation figures that dwarf most safety penalties.

Hamilton Island Enterprises Limited entered into an EU in January 2025 involving back payments exceeding $28.1 million.

La Trobe University followed in March 2025 with an undertaking involving approximately $10.77 million in back payments.

Griffith University entered into a June 2025 undertaking involving $8.34 million.

Relationships Australia Queensland Limited committed to more than $5.6 million in February 2025.

Later in the year, the University of Tasmania entered into a December 2025 undertaking involving more than $21.4 million in back payments to over 10,000 staff, while Monash University committed approximately $20.7 million affecting more than 10,800 employees.

While these are not WHS matters, they reinforce a critical point. Regulators are entirely comfortable accepting undertakings with seven-figure price tags where the public benefit and compliance outcome justify it.

What the dollars tell us about regulatory intent

Once the figures are laid out, several truths are hard to argue with.

First, EUs are not cheaper than prosecution. In many cases, they cost significantly more than likely court penalties, particularly once delivery, oversight, and reporting obligations are included.

Second, regulators are buying outcomes, not apologies. Investments approaching half a million dollars or more are being accepted only where they fund engineering controls, industry wide resources, or systemic change.

Third, internal fixes have a price ceiling. If the proposal looks like business as usual dressed up as reform, the figures simply do not stack up in the regulator’s eyes.

Finally, scale matters. The larger and more influential the duty holder, the larger the expected investment. National builders and universities are not being treated like small operators, and their undertakings reflect that reality.

What the dollars tell us about regulatory intent

Once the figures are laid out, several truths are hard to argue with.

First, EUs are not cheaper than prosecution. In many cases, they cost significantly more than likely court penalties, particularly once delivery, oversight, and reporting obligations are included.

Second, regulators are buying outcomes, not apologies. Investments approaching half a million dollars or more are being accepted only where they fund engineering controls, industry-wide resources, or systemic change.

Third, internal fixes have a price ceiling. If the proposal looks like business as usual dressed up as reform, the figures simply do not stack up in the regulator’s eyes.

Finally, scale matters. The larger and more influential the duty holder, the larger the expected investment. National builders and universities are not being treated like small operators, and their undertakings reflect that reality.

The uncomfortable lesson for duty holders

If there is one lesson from Enforceable Undertakings in 2025, it is this. An EU is not a discount option. It is a high-exposure, high-investment pathway that trades punishment for prevention, but only where the prevention is real, costly, and shared.

Any organisation considering an EU needs to ask a blunt question early. Are we prepared to spend hundreds of thousands, or millions, on safety outcomes that extend well beyond our own walls?

If the answer is no, prosecution may be the more honest, and ultimately cheaper, path.

Regulators already know this. In 2025, the numbers prove it.

And, if you haven’t noticed, the common theme between both WHS and Fair Work Australia EUs is that they both require investment in looking after, and treating your people right, along with industry improvements.

So, it's better to invest upfront, boost morale and provide a safe and respectful workplace before a serious incident occurs, because the last thing leaders want to be doing is playing guesswork about how much money they'll have to offer the regulator to avoid prosecution. Not to mention the publication of the organisation's name, which damages reputation and gains media attention.

Red pill or blue pill...