Australian Workplace Strategies

Employer Tools

Positive Duty Maturity Assessment

Review whether your organisation’s prevention system is designed, implemented and evidenced.

Stage: Introduction.

Introduction

This employer self-review examines organisational systems for preventing and responding to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, hostile workplace environments on the ground of sex and related victimisation. It does not certify legal compliance or assess an individual complaint.

Approximately 15–20 minutes.

A policy is not a system.

This assessment separately examines whether measures are designed, implemented in practice and supported by evidence. A documented measure that is not used, communicated or reviewed must not be treated as embedded.

Prevent. Embed. Evidence.

Effective prevention systems are informed by workplace risks and consultation, supported by leaders, implemented in everyday work and reviewed for effectiveness.

Assess the system, not an individual allegation.

Do not enter complaint details or information about identifiable people. Use the structured organisational questions only.

Important legal limitation

This tool provides general information for Australian organisations. It does not determine compliance with section 47C of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, assess whether unlawful conduct has occurred or provide legal, discrimination, employment or work health and safety advice. What measures are reasonable and proportionate depends on the organisation's circumstances.

The Australian Human Rights Commission assesses positive-duty compliance holistically. Its seven standards, four guiding principles and practical examples are not a mechanical checklist, numerical test or compliance certificate.

Emergency and urgent-safety notice

If people may currently remain exposed to relevant unlawful conduct, retaliation or unsafe reporting arrangements, address the immediate risk and obtain specialist advice rather than waiting to complete a broader maturity review.

If the organisation is currently responding to a specific complaint, use the Workplace Complaint Triage Planner or obtain direct advice. This assessment reviews the standing prevention system rather than the merits or handling of one allegation.

Privacy and data handling

Your answers remain in this browser session. They are not saved or sent to Australian Workplace Strategies.

Do not enter names, complaint details, personal experiences, health information, identifiable demographic information or evidence into this tool.

Exit assessment

Positive duty maturity at a glance

This Australian employer tool reviews the maturity of organisational systems for preventing and responding to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, hostile workplace environments on the ground of sex and related victimisation. It considers the Australian Human Rights Commission's seven standards, four guiding principles, implementation and evidence. It does not certify legal compliance.

Maturity is assessed separately for design, implementation and evidence and effectiveness. A documented measure that is not used, communicated or reviewed cannot be treated as embedded. Findings identify where controls are missing, documented only, inconsistently applied, operating without evidence or substantially embedded. Adverse findings are not suppressed by information gaps.

What the positive duty requires

Section 47C of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) requires organisations and businesses to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate, as far as possible, sex discrimination in the work context, sexual harassment in connection with work, sex-based harassment in connection with work, conduct that creates a workplace environment that is hostile on the ground of sex, and related acts of victimisation. The duty is proactive; it is not triggered only by complaints.

The duty applies to conduct by workers and agents and, so far as reasonable and proportionate, to conduct by third parties connected with the work. The Australian Human Rights Commission has powers to inquire into and enforce compliance. Compliance is assessed holistically against the Commission's Guidelines for Complying with the Positive Duty (2023) rather than by mechanical checklist.

Reasonable and proportionate measures

The Sex Discrimination Act identifies factors that inform what is reasonable and proportionate: the size, nature and circumstances of the business or undertaking, its resources, the practicability and effectiveness of a measure, the cost of a measure and any other relevant matter. These factors work together. Cost or size does not, on its own, justify the absence of core prevention, reporting, support, accountability or review functions.

Smaller organisations may meet the duty with simpler arrangements and shared responsibilities. Larger organisations are ordinarily expected to have more differentiated governance, specialist capability, consultation infrastructure and evidence systems. Regardless of size, the same functional expectations apply: identify and control risk at source, consult workers, respond fairly and safely, support affected people and monitor whether the measures work in practice.

The four guiding principles

The Commission's four guiding principles apply across every standard. Consultation requires that workers and their representatives are genuinely engaged in the design, implementation and evaluation of prevention measures. Gender equality requires that policies, controls and employment systems are viewed through a gender-equality lens because gender inequality is a driver of the conduct the positive duty targets.

Intersectionality requires that overlapping disadvantage and reporting barriers are considered, that controls and pathways remain accessible, and that data is, so far as practicable, disaggregated to expose disparate impact. Person-centred and trauma-informed approaches require that safety, dignity, autonomy and meaningful choice are prioritised, that responsible personnel understand trauma responses and that support is separated from any merits decision.

Leadership

Senior leaders should understand the positive duty, assign accountability, allocate resources and actively oversee implementation and review. A coordinated prevention and response framework should have a named executive owner, and the Board or governing body should receive regular reporting on prevention outcomes rather than complaint volume alone.

Leader visibility matters: expected behaviours should be modelled at the top of the organisation, and accountability for conduct should apply regardless of seniority, revenue-generating status or business importance. Documented leadership commitment without operational ownership, resourcing or governance reporting is a common maturity gap.

Culture

Workplace culture should support safety, respect, inclusion and gender equality. Expected behaviours and prohibited conduct should be documented, current and known to workers. Culture and psychological safety should be measured on a defined cycle using more than complaint counts, and worker feedback should genuinely influence decisions.

Accountability and consequences should be applied consistently. Where high-performing or senior individuals are protected from accountability, the culture standard is not met, regardless of the strength of documented policies. An absence of complaints is not evidence of a healthy culture; it may reflect fear, lack of awareness or ineffective reporting channels.

Knowledge

Workers, managers and leaders need practical, role-relevant knowledge covering the full scope of relevant unlawful conduct. Generic annual e-learning delivered without evaluation is not a complete prevention system. Induction and refresher education should reach new workers, contractors and workers in non-standard arrangements, and should be accessible across languages, disabilities and work locations.

Managers and leaders need role-specific capability to receive disclosures, respond consistently, avoid retaliation and refer matters for investigation or support. Training completion should be tracked, non-completion should be followed up, and the effectiveness of training should be evaluated — not merely its delivery.

Risk management

Relevant unlawful conduct should be treated as an equality risk and, where applicable, a psychosocial or WHS risk. Risk identification should be structured, informed by worker consultation, and revisited when work, workforce or environments change. High-risk cohorts, tasks and contexts — such as isolated work, public-facing work, alcohol-present contexts, insecure work and steep hierarchies — should be identified and specifically addressed.

Controls should follow the hierarchy of controls, targeting the source where possible: work design, physical environment, staffing, supervision and access arrangements. Policies and training alone are not sufficient risk-management controls. Every control should have an owner, an implementation date and a review date, and should be reviewed after incidents, complaints or reported ineffectiveness.

Support

Support should be accessible to people who experience or witness relevant unlawful conduct, regardless of whether they choose to make a formal report. Support pathways should include options outside the person's direct management chain and should include workplace adjustments, return-to-work support and wellbeing support.

Confidentiality limits should be communicated accurately: absolute confidentiality cannot be promised. Support arrangements should be separated from any decision about the merits of an allegation and from any investigative role. Managers should have documented guidance on responding to disclosures, and the workforce should know how to access support. An employee assistance program is not a substitute for workplace action on the underlying conduct.

Reporting and response

Reporting and response systems should be safe, accessible, timely, proportionate, fair and capable of identifying systemic prevention actions. Multiple confidential channels should be available, including pathways outside direct management, and the system should be able to receive informal, anonymous, third-party and bystander information.

Intake, triage and escalation responsibilities should be assigned. Non-retaliation and confidentiality controls should be documented and enforced. Independence and process selection should be considered on a documented basis, and procedural fairness should be planned before any adverse finding or consequential decision. Response times and outcomes should be tracked and reviewed, and matters that reveal a systemic issue should feed the organisation's prevention actions rather than being closed at the individual level alone.

Monitoring, evaluation and transparency

Organisations should use more than formal complaint counts to identify risks, evaluate measures and improve the prevention framework. Suitable data sources include worker-experience surveys, exit information, culture measures, disclosure patterns, response-time data, trend analysis and independent reviews. Privacy and de-identification safeguards should be applied so that monitoring does not itself become a source of harm.

Leadership or governance should review the prevention framework on a defined cycle. Findings should produce assigned actions, revised controls and tracked completion. Suitable de-identified transparency communications — such as workforce reporting and public statements — support accountability and worker confidence. Low reporting may reflect low incidence, but it may also reflect fear, lack of awareness or ineffective reporting channels; increased reporting may reflect greater confidence rather than increased conduct.

Design, implementation and evidence

The Commission's guidance separates the design of a control (what is intended), its implementation (what actually happens in the workplace) and evidence of its effectiveness (what the organisation can show). This maturity assessment treats these three lenses separately for every standard.

A control that is designed but not implemented is a documented control not yet embedded in practice. A control that is implemented but not evaluated may be operating without evidence of effectiveness. A control that is designed and implemented and evaluated and updated when circumstances change is substantially embedded and evidenced. Findings that separate the three lenses avoid the common failure of over-crediting well-drafted policies that do not affect day-to-day behaviour.

Positive duty and work health and safety

Sexual and gender-based harassment and related conduct are psychosocial hazards under the model work health and safety laws. Safe Work Australia has published a model Code of Practice on Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and a model Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work; State and Territory WHS regulators enforce comparable duties.

An effective response to the positive duty and to WHS obligations will typically be coordinated: shared risk assessments, integrated consultation, common control registers and joined-up reporting. Compliance with one does not automatically discharge the other, but siloed approaches often duplicate work and leave real risks uncontrolled.

Positive-duty improvement planning

A prevention framework matures over time. A useful improvement plan sequences work across horizons: act now for immediate safety and specialist matters; within 30 days for foundational controls that are missing; within 90 days for controls that are documented only, inconsistently applied or operating without evidence; and an annual cycle for governance review and evaluation.

Each action should have a named accountable role — from Board through executive, HR, WHS, risk and compliance, legal, operational leaders, people managers, learning and data or governance owners — a plain-language trigger and a review date. A standing annual governance review of prevention outcomes is periodic maintenance rather than a defect.

When organisations should obtain advice

Specialist advice should be obtained where an active regulator inquiry, notice or proceeding is on foot; where there is a current concern that people may remain exposed to relevant unlawful conduct, retaliation or unsafe reporting arrangements; where an industry-specific elevated risk sits alongside limited internal capability; where foundational controls are missing in the reporting, response or risk-management standards; or where a significant restructure, acquisition, workforce-model change or serious incident engages the framework at short notice.

Australian Workplace Strategies supports Australian employers with positive-duty framework design and review, workplace investigations, mediation and resolution, psychosocial safety, training and governance-technology implementation. This tool provides general information; it does not provide legal, WHS, discrimination, employment or investigative advice.

Workplace advisory & compliance service — scoped advisory support for positive-duty framework design and review.

Frequently asked questions

Common questions from Australian employers about the positive duty, its scope, reasonable and proportionate measures, small-business application, the seven standards, the four guiding principles, consultation, gender equality, intersectionality, person-centred and trauma-informed approaches, WHS overlap, reporting and evidence, the limits of this tool, and when specialist advice should be obtained are answered below. Every visible question and answer matches the FAQPage structured data emitted for this page.

What is the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act?
The positive duty in section 47C of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) requires organisations and businesses to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate, as far as possible, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, conduct that creates a hostile workplace environment on the ground of sex and related acts of victimisation. It is a proactive, organisation-level duty and is not limited to responding to complaints.
Which workplace conduct does the positive duty cover?
The positive duty covers relevant unlawful conduct that occurs in connection with work, including sex discrimination in the work context, sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, hostile workplace environments on the ground of sex, and victimisation of a person for making, supporting or providing information about a complaint. The duty covers conduct by workers, agents and, so far as reasonable, third parties connected with the work.
Who has the positive duty?
The positive duty applies to persons conducting a business or undertaking that is a Commonwealth-covered employer under the Sex Discrimination Act, together with their agents. It applies whatever the size, sector or structure of the organisation, and applies in addition to work health and safety duties, discrimination law and industrial obligations.
What does “reasonable and proportionate” mean?
Reasonable and proportionate measures are those that are reasonable in the circumstances and proportionate to the nature, size, resources, practicability, effectiveness and cost of the measure. Smaller organisations may use simpler systems, but core prevention, reporting, support, accountability and review functions still need to operate. Limited resources are not an automatic exemption.
Do small businesses have to meet the positive duty?
Yes. The duty applies regardless of size. The Australian Human Rights Commission has published a Small Business Hub setting out how the seven standards apply to smaller organisations. A smaller employer can meet the duty with less complex arrangements, provided the core prevention, reporting, support, accountability and review functions actually operate.
Are policies and training enough?
No. A policy or training program is not, on its own, a prevention system. The Commission expects organisations to identify and control risk at its source, consult workers, provide accessible support and reporting, respond fairly and monitor whether measures are effective in practice. A documented measure that is not used, communicated or reviewed cannot be treated as embedded.
What are the seven positive-duty standards?
The Commission organises the positive duty around seven standards: leadership, culture, knowledge, risk management, support, reporting and response, and monitoring, evaluation and transparency. The standards describe what an effective prevention system does; they are not a numerical test or a compliance certificate.
What are the four guiding principles?
The four guiding principles are consultation with workers and their representatives, gender equality, intersectionality, and person-centred and trauma-informed approaches. They apply across every standard and inform how measures are designed, implemented and evaluated.
What does worker consultation require?
Consultation means genuinely engaging workers and their representatives about the risks of relevant unlawful conduct, the controls applied, changes to work arrangements and the effectiveness of the prevention system. Consultation is not a survey alone; records should show what was raised, how it was considered and how it influenced decisions.
How does gender equality relate to the positive duty?
Gender inequality is a driver of the conduct the positive duty targets. The Commission expects organisations to apply a gender-equality lens to policies, controls and employment systems, and to consider gender representation, pay-gap indicators and the distribution of power when designing prevention measures.
What does an intersectional approach involve?
An intersectional approach recognises that overlapping characteristics — such as sex, race, age, disability, sexuality, gender identity, cultural background and migration status — can create compounded risk and reporting barriers. It requires that risk assessment, controls, support and reporting pathways remain accessible and that, where practicable, data is disaggregated to expose disparate impact.
What is a person-centred and trauma-informed approach?
A person-centred and trauma-informed approach prioritises the safety, dignity, autonomy and meaningful choice of people affected by relevant unlawful conduct. Responsible personnel should understand trauma responses, communicate confidentiality limits accurately, avoid re-traumatising processes and separate support from any decision about the merits of an allegation.
How does the positive duty overlap with WHS duties?
Sexual and gender-based harassment and related conduct are also psychosocial hazards under the model work health and safety laws. Employers must manage the risk at its source, consult workers, apply the hierarchy of controls and review controls when circumstances change. The positive duty and WHS duties operate together; complying with one does not automatically discharge the other.
Does an absence of complaints mean the organisation has low risk?
No. Low reporting may reflect low incidence, but it may also reflect fear, lack of awareness, inaccessible pathways or ineffective reporting channels. Increased reporting may reflect greater confidence rather than increased conduct. Organisations should use multiple data sources beyond formal complaint counts to assess risk and effectiveness.
What evidence should an organisation retain?
Evidence typically includes an assigned prevention and response plan, board or executive minutes, resource-allocation decisions, worker-consultation records, risk assessments and a control register, current policies, training and induction records, support information, reporting and triage procedures, non-retaliation controls, response-time data, culture and worker-feedback data, trend analysis, an action register, review schedules and transparency communications.
Can this tool certify positive-duty compliance?
No. This tool is a maturity self-review. It does not certify legal compliance, does not determine whether section 47C has been satisfied, does not assess an individual complaint and does not replace legal, WHS or specialist advice. The Australian Human Rights Commission assesses compliance holistically.
How often should the framework be reviewed?
Prevention frameworks should be reviewed on a defined cycle — typically annually at governance level — and additionally following triggers such as legal or regulatory change, restructures, workforce growth, new locations or work models, changes to reporting channels, incidents or patterned concerns, regulator engagement or evidence that controls are ineffective.
When should specialist advice be obtained?
Specialist advice should be obtained where an active regulator inquiry, notice or proceeding is on foot, where there is a current concern that people may remain exposed to relevant unlawful conduct or victimisation, where reporting arrangements may be unsafe, where an industry-specific elevated risk sits alongside limited internal capability, or where foundational controls are missing in the reporting, response or risk-management standards.

Legal basis and official guidance

The Commission's Guidelines for Complying with the Positive Duty (2023) are authoritative and set out the steps the Commission expects organisations and businesses to take. They are not legally binding but are used by the Commission when assessing compliance and may be considered by a court. They are not a complete statement of every legal responsibility, and organisations may use other methods that provide equivalent or greater protection.

The following official Commonwealth, Commission and Safe Work Australia sources are the primary references used by this tool. Check the current version at the time of any action, and check State and Territory WHS regulator sources for locally adopted Codes of Practice.