People at Work is being decommissioned - what this means and what to do next

People at Work is being decommissioned - what this means and what to do next

‍

People at Work (PaW) is being decommissioned following national review. The reasons are important to understand, because they point directly to what organisations should consider next.

PaW is being decommissioned because:

• It no longer adequately covers all hazards in the Model Code of Practice (including sexual harassment, isolated work and others)
• Staff engagement and response rates declined over time
• Users reported limited ability to translate outputs into targeted action
• Updating the survey and reporting would require significant reinvestment
• Newer tools now exist that are shorter and more precise

In short: the issue was not just consultation gaps - it was sustainability and utility.

‍

‍

What the law actually requires

‍

The law requires consultation on psychosocial hazards. It does not require a specific survey.

The Model Code of Practice notes that confidential surveys can be an effective mechanism, particularly for sensitive risks, but the obligation is outcome-focused:

• Can you identify hazards, assess risk, and implement controls?

Any approach that supports those steps can be compliant.Any approach that does not, regardless of pedigree, can present significant risks for compliance and safety.

‍

‍

Immediate first steps for PaW users

‍

If you still have access to People at Work outputs:

• Export and retain all reports and available data
• Document scope, timing, and participation
• Preserve these as part of your psychosocial risk evidence base

Once access is lost, this information cannot be recreated.

‍

The questions organisations now need to ask

‍

Rather than asking “what replaces PaW?”, the better question is:

How will our consultation method feed directly into WHS risk management?

The following questions matter most.

‍

1. How does this help us determine risk?

‍Your consultation outputs must support risk interpretation, not just data collection. Ask:

• How are hazards in our risk register actually being measured?
• If “poor support” is a listed hazard, what survey items inform:
  • Severity
  • Exposure
  • Likelihood
• Can we explain why the risk rating changes, or doesn’t, between cycles?

If results cannot be translated into risk levels, they cannot meaningfully update a WHS risk register.

‍

2. What WHS outputs does this drive?‍

Be explicit about where results go next. For example:

• Updating psychosocial risk ratings
• Identifying control gaps
• Triggering investigations
• Informing new or revised controls
• Assessing whether existing controls are effective

If the output stops at a report, the process stops short of due diligence.

‍

3. Is the output genuinely usable?

One of the stated reasons for PaW’s decommissioning was limited utility. Ask honestly:

• Can leaders interpret the results without specialist translation?
• Do the outputs clearly point to what needs to change?
• Do they surface practical control ideas, not just broad themes?

Running survey cycles does not reduce risk.Using the findings to change work does.

‍

4. Is it sustainable over time?

Sustainability is not optional, PaW itself struggled here. Consider:

• Survey length
• Competing engagement or culture surveys (i.e. timing of these)
• Leader capacity to act on results
• Whether engagement will decline cycle-to-cycle

If participation drops, data quality drops. If data quality drops, risk decisions weaken.

‍

5. Does it support learning, not just measurement?

Strong psychosocial risk management improves over time. Ask:

• Can we see whether controls are working?
• Can workers contribute insight on what helps and what doesn’t?
• Can we refine controls based on lived experience of workers?

This is where consultation becomes prevention.

‍

‍

What good looks like in practice

‍

Organisations with defensible approaches typically:

• Use consultation to inform risk ratings, not just awareness
• Map results directly to psychosocial hazards
• Update a live WHS risk register
• Focus on work design and systems, not individual coping
• Re-measure to assess control effectiveness, not just score movement

‍

‍

A brief note on Skodel (one option organisations are using)

‍

Skodel is designed specifically for psychosocial hazard identification and risk interpretation. At a high level:

• The survey takes under 2 minutes to complete
• Reviewed by clinical psychologists and former CEO of SafeWork SA
• It measures psychological strain as an indicator of harm
• It identifies the key psychosocial hazards contributing to that strain
• Workers can provide structured input on:
  • Contributing work factors
  • What would meaningfully reduce risk
• Outputs are designed to feed directly into:
  • Risk registers
  • Control effectiveness reviews
  • WHS investigations and actions

The focus is not more data, it is clearer risk interpretation and control decisions, in a format that can be sustained over repeat cycles.

View the survey and key outputs  -->

‍