The People at Work survey platform will close on 2 October 2026. Organisations that previously used it for psychosocial surveys should download their reports before the access period ends. Past reports can feed a current or future psychosocial risk assessment. Of course, they cannot substitute for consultation, for controls, or for evidence that the psychosocial controls implemented actually worked.
People at Work closure dates
WorkSafe Queensland’s decommissioning notice records three.
- 1 June 2026 was the final date for new accounts and organisations to register.
- 1 July 2026 was the final date for new surveys to be launched.
- 2 October 2026 is the final date to access the platform and extract all reports.
People at Work was jointly funded by Australian work health and safety regulators. WorkSafe Queensland hosts the platform information and the export instructions, but the closure affects users in every jurisdiction.
Why People at Work is being decommissioned
WorkSafe Queensland gives five reasons for the People at Work Survey ending.
The survey needed modification to cover additional hazards named in the Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work, specifically sexual harassment and isolated work. Response rates had been declining across recent cycles, which the regulator suggests may have been reducing the survey’s impact. Users wanted more detail in the post-survey report to support targeted action. A redesign would have required dedicated investment. And newer research has produced shorter, more precise instruments.
Three of those five are not really about the questionnaire. They are about what happened after the survey finished. A report that does not support targeted action, delivered to a workforce that has stopped filling in the survey, describes a process that had already stalled before the platform was switched off. An organisation that replaces People at Work with a similar annual survey likely buys the same problem back.
How to export People at Work reports before 2 October
Work through each survey cycle and each reporting group that is still accessible. Download the summary report, the detailed report, and the benchmark comparison view for each one. The official export guide sets out where to find them and is worth following rather than working from memory.
File names should carry the survey date and the reporting group. Someone should also keep a short register of what was saved, where it sits, and who checked it. This sounds like housekeeping and it is, but the people who ran the 2022 survey are frequently not the people who will be asked about it in 2028.
Start now rather than in late September. Former administrators, dead email addresses, and unclear account ownership all take time to sort out, and the support channels close with the platform.
What happens to People at Work data after the platform closes
Raw respondent data cannot be downloaded. WorkSafe Queensland states that this protects respondent privacy and anonymity. Organisations can retrieve the reports available through the platform. Everything else on the platform is removed at decommissioning.
The consequence for future analysis is worth being blunt about. An organisation that saves only a whole-of-organisation report will never again be able to break those results down by site, team, shift, or role. There is no later opportunity. Whatever reporting views matter should be saved now, within the anonymity thresholds the platform applies and the confidentiality commitments made to workers when they responded.
Some material stays with government. Certain records are kept under the Queensland Public Records Act and the associated General Retention and Disposal Schedule. Deidentified data used for industry comparisons passes to participating jurisdictions for research, with the Office of Industrial Relations as data custodian. That arrangement serves national research. It does nothing for an organisation trying to reconstruct its own history.
Using old People at Work reports as a psychosocial baseline
A People at Work report records the results for one cycle and one reporting group. Where an organisation ran several cycles, the set shows direction of travel. The benchmark views preserve comparisons that will not be reproducible once the platform closes.
They also fix a date against a finding. An officer asked in 2029 to demonstrate due diligence about a hazard the organisation identified in 2023 is being asked, in substance, what was known and when. A dated report answers the first half of that question. It is also the only sensible baseline for testing whether controls introduced after an earlier cycle actually reduced exposure, which is a duty in its own right and one that organisations routinely cannot evidence.
The limits are equally real. A report shows that a result was produced. It does not show that anyone read it, understood it, chose controls in response, or came back to check. Those need consultation notes, risk assessments, approved actions, implementation records, and later reviews. The gap between a system on paper and a system in practice is a familiar problem in work health and safety, and psychosocial risk has produced a version of it that is unusually easy to spot: a survey report with no decision trail attached.
Keep the exports with the WHS risk records, not in a human resources folder.
Psychosocial risk duties after a platform closure
No Australian jurisdiction requires an organisation to use People at Work. The duty is to manage risks to psychological health, and it sits in the applicable WHS or OHS law.
Most jurisdictions work from provisions based on the model WHS framework. Victoria has its own. Local codes differ in wording and in legal effect, so a national procedure still needs a jurisdiction check.
The Model Code of Practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work sets out the work:
- identify reasonably foreseeable psychosocial hazards;
- assess risk where the level of risk or the suitable controls are not already clear;
- consider the duration, frequency, and severity of exposure, including interactions between hazards;
- eliminate risks where reasonably practicable, or minimise them so far as is reasonably practicable;
- consider work design, systems of work, the work environment, workplace behaviour, and the information, training, and supervision provided;
- consult workers and health and safety representatives, and coordinate with other duty holders where required;
- implement and maintain controls; and
- review controls when they are ineffective, when work changes, when new hazards arise, or when consultation indicates a review is needed.
The Model Code has no automatic legal effect. Each jurisdiction must approve a code before it binds anyone locally, and the approved version may depart from the model text. Safetysure has set out how these duties developed and what the research behind them supports.
Psychosocial hazard laws in each state and territory
What follows is a publication-level summary of the main general workplace framework at the time of writing. Industry-specific laws may add to it.
New South Wales. The Work Health and Safety Act 2011, Work Health and Safety Regulation 2025, and the Managing psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice issued in May 2021. The Regulation applies the hierarchy of controls to psychosocial risks. From 1 July 2026, section 26A of the Act requires compliance with an approved code or another method providing an equivalent or higher standard. Safetysure has examined that change in its NSW code of practice guide.
Queensland. The Work Health and Safety Act 2011, Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, and the Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice 2022, which commenced on 1 April 2023. Queensland also requires a written prevention plan where the prescribed sexual harassment or sex or gender-based harassment risks are identified.
Victoria. The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025, and the Psychological health compliance code, the latter two commencing on 1 December 2025. Victoria uses employer and employee terminology. Its Regulations require employers to identify psychosocial hazards, control the risks, and review the controls.
Western Australia. The Work Health and Safety Act 2020, the Work Health and Safety (General) Regulations 2022 in force since 31 March 2022, and the Psychosocial hazards in the workplace Code of Practice. Separate WHS regulations apply to mining operations.
South Australia. The Work Health and Safety Act 2012 and Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012, with express psychosocial provisions introduced by amendment regulations effective 25 December 2023. The Managing psychosocial hazards at work and Sexual and gender-based harassment codes both commenced on 19 February 2026. The psychosocial code defines 17 hazard types.
Tasmania. The Work Health and Safety Act 2012, Work Health and Safety Regulations 2022, and the Managing psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice, which commenced on 4 January 2023.
Australian Capital Territory. The Work Health and Safety Act 2011, Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011, and the Managing psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice, which took effect on 27 November 2023.
Northern Territory. The Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 and corresponding Regulations, amended with effect from 1 July 2023. The Managing psychosocial hazards at work and Sexual and gender based harassment codes were both approved on 23 May 2024.
Commonwealth. The Work Health and Safety Act 2011, the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2011 as amended with effect from 1 April 2023, and the Work Health and Safety (Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work) Code of Practice 2024. The Commonwealth Code identifies 17 hazards, adding fatigue, intrusive surveillance, and job insecurity to the model set. The Regulations require the hierarchy of controls.
Multi-state employers should map each workplace to the right regulator, legislation, and approved code. A single national process is workable, provided it meets the highest local requirement rather than the average one.
Why a psychosocial survey is not a risk assessment
Surveys give structured worker input and can expose patterns that warrant a closer look. Locating the risk in the work, choosing controls, and testing the result all happen afterwards.
A psychosocial risk assessment should read survey results against evidence the organisation already holds:
- incident and hazard reports;
- complaints, grievances, and investigation findings;
- consultation records and HSR feedback;
- workload, roster, overtime, and fatigue data;
- turnover, unplanned absence, and exit interview themes;
- psychological injury and workers compensation information;
- planned changes to roles, teams, technology, or systems of work.
Two points about that list. A successful reasonable management action defence disposes of a compensation claim and leaves the WHS question untouched, so claims data should be read for hazard signal rather than for outcome. And several hazards surface poorly in a general survey. Customer violence and aggression tends to be normalised by the workers exposed to it and therefore under-reported.
An organisation-wide average can also bury a problem sitting in one team, one occupation, or one interface between functions. Finer reporting helps, but only where group sizes and survey design still protect anonymity. Safetysure’s psychosocial risk management guide covers how these sources fit together.
Choosing a People at Work replacement
A replacement survey may well be useful. Resemblance to People at Work is likely a poor test for choosing one.
Test a proposed method against whether it:
- covers the hazards relevant to the organisation and the jurisdiction;
- can distinguish material differences without compromising anonymity;
- reaches workers who are unlikely to complete an online survey;
- can be read alongside operational, consultation, and injury data;
- produces findings that can be handed to a named control owner;
- supports a defined review of whether controls worked.
We recommend that no further psychosocial survey be commissioned until someone owns the work that follows it. That single decision separates organisations that improve conditions from organisations that accumulate scores.
Psychosocial risk assessment support from Safetysure
Safetysure works with Australian organisations on psychosocial risk assessment and control. For organisations leaving People at Work, that may mean recovering and interpreting earlier reports, checking hazard coverage against the applicable code, reading survey results alongside other workplace evidence, designing the next assessment method, and building controls with review measures attached.
More detail is available through Safetysure’s psychosocial health consulting services and psychosocial risk assessment services. Organisations needing to settle their approach before the platform closes can contact Safetysure.
Frequently asked questions
What if the former People at Work account administrator has left?
Identify the email address and organisation used to create the account, then check internal password-management, records, and IT access processes. Where access cannot be restored internally, contact the platform support channel with enough time to resolve it before 2 October 2026.
Can old People at Work results be compared with a different survey?
Not straightforwardly. Different instruments measure hazards, exposure, and scoring differently. Retain the old results as historical evidence, but do not present a change in score as a trend unless the measures are genuinely comparable. Operational data and worker consultation usually make a more defensible bridge between methods.
How long should exported reports be retained?
No single period fits every organisation and purpose. Set it through the WHS records policy, taking account of the decisions the reports support, applicable legal requirements, privacy obligations, and any claim or investigation hold. Record the decision. Left alone, ordinary email and personnel-file rules will dispose of the reports by default.
How should small reporting groups be handled?
Anonymity comes first. Apply the platform’s reporting thresholds and the confidentiality commitments made to workers. Where a group is too small to report safely, combine the report with consultation and other evidence rather than forcing the breakdown.
What happens to the survey responses after the platform closes?
Certain records are retained by government under the Queensland Public Records Act and the associated General Retention and Disposal Schedule. Deidentified data used for industry comparisons passes to participating jurisdictions for research, with the Office of Industrial Relations as data custodian. Raw respondent data is not released to organisations.
Is another psychosocial survey legally required?
The law prescribes neither People at Work nor any universal replacement psychosocial survey instrument. The duty holder must have an effective way to identify psychosocial hazards, assess risk where needed, control exposure, consult workers, and review the controls under the law applying to that workplace.
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Duties and approved codes vary by jurisdiction, industry, and circumstance. Organisations should check the current law that applies to the workplace before relying on this summary.
You might like to read our article on Shared Duties at Workplaces