Is this an individual mental-health assessment?

No. This tool examines organisational systems, work design and controls. It is not designed for, and must not be used as, an assessment of an individual worker's mental health.

Does the tool produce a risk score, percentage or matrix?

No. It applies transparent rule-based classification-risk logic and returns an action priority together with a Control-Gap Action Plan. It does not produce a numerical score, percentage, gauge or risk matrix.

Do policies, training and EAP count as controls?

They may form part of a control framework, but source-focused controls that change work, systems or the environment often address exposure more directly. The tool flags when controls rely mainly on policy, training or individual support.

Does the tool replace worker consultation or a formal risk assessment?

No. Consultation with workers and any HSRs is a fundamental part of the risk-management process. This tool supports employer thinking; it does not replace consultation or a formal, jurisdiction-specific risk assessment.

Are answers saved or transmitted?

No. All answers stay in the current browser session. Nothing is saved, sent to AWS or transmitted to any third party.

Does the same regulation apply in every Australian jurisdiction?

No. Duties and terminology vary between the Commonwealth, States and Territories. Victoria has its own psychological-health regulations; other jurisdictions apply variations of the model work-health-and-safety framework.

Employer Tools

Psychosocial Hazard Control Review

Review workplace psychosocial hazards, existing controls and the matters requiring priority attention.

This employer self-review examines organisational systems and controls. It helps identify potential psychosocial hazards, consultation and evidence gaps, and priorities for further control review. It is not an individual mental-health assessment or a substitute for a formal risk assessment.

Approximately 10–15 minutes, depending on the number of hazards selected for detailed review.

Psychosocial hazard control review at a glance

This Australian employer self-review considers 14 standard psychosocial hazard categories plus an Other option. It examines identification, exposure characteristics, controls, consultation, evidence and review triggers. It applies transparent rule-based classification-risk logic and produces a Control-Gap Action Plan. It does not use a numerical score, percentage, gauge or risk matrix.

Organisational and work-system review — not an individual mental-health assessment.
Rule-based Immediate, Priority, Planned, Monitor and Information-required outcomes.
Combined-hazard, consultation and evidence-gap flags.
Answers remain in the browser session; nothing is saved or transmitted.

Legal content reviewed 12 July 2026.

What are psychosocial hazards?

Psychosocial hazards are aspects of work design, organisation, management, environment or workplace interactions that can cause psychological or physical harm. Australian frameworks recognise categories including high or low job demands, low job control, poor support, lack of role clarity, poor change management, inadequate recognition and reward, poor organisational justice, remote or isolated work, traumatic exposure, poor physical or environmental conditions, violence and aggression, bullying, harassment (including sexual and gender-based harassment) and conflict or poor workplace relationships.

The identify, assess, control and review process

Australian psychosocial hazard frameworks apply a general risk-management cycle: identify hazards, assess the associated risks, implement controls (with consideration of source-focused controls that change work, systems or the environment) and review the effectiveness of those controls. This tool follows that cycle at an operational level and does not replace a formal jurisdiction-specific risk assessment.

Why consultation matters

Australian work-health-and-safety frameworks require duty holders to consult with workers and any health and safety representatives about matters that may affect their health or safety. Consultation often surfaces exposure and control information that management systems miss. Missing or partial consultation is treated as a gap in this tool and appears as a Consultation-gap flag in the results.

Why policies and EAP are not always sufficient controls

Policies, training, EAP, debriefing and complaint response may form part of a control framework. They are not, however, always sufficient by themselves. Where reasonably practicable, source-focused controls that change work design, staffing, rostering, systems of work, management practices or the physical environment often address exposure more directly. The tool flags where controls rely mainly on policy, training or individual support.

How psychosocial hazards can interact

Psychosocial hazards frequently combine. High job demands with poor support, low control with poor organisational justice, remote work with violence or aggression, traumatic exposure with poor support, organisational change with low role clarity, harassment with poor organisational justice, and conflict with poor support are common operational combinations. The tool identifies confirmed interactions and places a combined-hazard review item in the action plan. Priority is only increased where the combined facts justify it.

When controls should be reviewed

After a relevant incident or near miss.
After an organisational change, restructure or new work arrangement.
After a change to legislation, a code of practice or regulator guidance.
After material worker or HSR feedback.
At the documented review date or trigger.

Frequently asked questions

Is this an individual mental-health assessment?: No. This tool examines organisational systems, work design and controls. It is not designed for, and must not be used as, an assessment of an individual worker's mental health.
Does the tool produce a risk score, percentage or matrix?: No. It applies transparent rule-based classification-risk logic and returns an action priority together with a Control-Gap Action Plan. It does not produce a numerical score, percentage, gauge or risk matrix.
Do policies, training and EAP count as controls?: They may form part of a control framework, but source-focused controls that change work, systems or the environment often address exposure more directly. The tool flags when controls rely mainly on policy, training or individual support.
Does the tool replace worker consultation or a formal risk assessment?: No. Consultation with workers and any HSRs is a fundamental part of the risk-management process. This tool supports employer thinking; it does not replace consultation or a formal, jurisdiction-specific risk assessment.
Are answers saved or transmitted?: No. All answers stay in the current browser session. Nothing is saved, sent to AWS or transmitted to any third party.
Does the same regulation apply in every Australian jurisdiction?: No. Duties and terminology vary between the Commonwealth, States and Territories. Victoria has its own psychological-health regulations; other jurisdictions apply variations of the model work-health-and-safety framework.

Official guidance