A practical guide to Respect@Work obligations across roles and industries: domestic and family violence in Australia
Table of Contents
- The compliance illusion in Australian workplaces
- What Respect@Work actually requires of employers
- Why domestic and family violence is now a workplace responsibility
- How domestic and family violence shows up at work
- Why most organisations are still not compliant
- Where workplace systems break down in practice
- Why policies alone are not enough
- The business and workforce impact
- Understanding your role in workplace DFV compliance
- Industry-specific DFV risks and obligations
- What best practice workplace DFV compliance looks like
- Case Study: Culture Amp
- How to assess your organisation’s DFV risk and compliance
The compliance illusion in Australian workplaces
Compliance isn’t just a paperwork question. It’s the difference between a workplace where people feel safe to speak up and one where they don’t.
Across Australia, many organisations believe they are meeting their workplace compliance obligations.
This belief is rarely based on negligence or disregard for employee safety. More often, it stems from visible activity that signals progress: a policy has been written, training has been delivered, and leadership has communicated expectations around respectful behaviour.
However, compliance is not determined by what exists on paper.
It is determined by what happens in practice, particularly in moments of uncertainty, risk, or disclosure.
When organisations examine their systems more closely, a different reality often emerges.
- Managers may be unsure how to respond when an employee raises a concern.
- Employees may not know where to go for support or may not trust that reporting pathways are safe.
- Policies may exist, but are difficult to access or apply in real-world situations.
This gap between perceived compliance and operational capability is not uncommon.
If we look at this example, similar obligation, same story – The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has consistently highlighted that workplace sexual harassment remains widespread, with one in three workers reporting experiencing it in the past five years. At the same time, reporting rates remain low, suggesting that organisational systems are not effectively supporting employees to come forward.
The implication is clear: many organisations are doing something, but not necessarily what is required to meet their obligations or protect their people.
What Respect@Work actually requires of employers
The Respect@Work reforms introduced a fundamental shift in how workplace safety and compliance are understood in Australia.
Rather than focusing solely on responding to incidents after they occur, the legislation introduced a positive duty, requiring employers to take proactive steps to prevent harm.
This duty requires organisations to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and hostile work environments. According to the AHRC’s Positive Duty Guidelines, this includes seven key standards, such as leadership commitment, risk assessment, policies and procedures, training, reporting mechanisms, and monitoring and evaluation.
Importantly, the emphasis is not only on implementation but on effectiveness. Organisations must be able to demonstrate that their systems are working in practice. This includes evidence that risks have been identified, controls have been implemented, and outcomes are being monitored over time.
Despite the clarity of these expectations, awareness remains a significant barrier. Research indicates that approximately 40% of leaders are unaware of their sexual harassment obligations. This lack of awareness creates a foundational challenge. If leadership does not fully understand the scope of their obligations, it becomes difficult to design systems that meet them. We believe leaders want to do the right thing, they just don’t know how.
This pattern is not unique to sexual harassment. It is highly relevant to domestic and family violence.
Why domestic and family violence is now a workplace responsibility
Domestic and family violence (DFV) has historically been viewed as a private issue, separate from the workplace. However, this perspective is rapidly changing.
Regulators, policymakers, and organisations increasingly recognise that DFV has direct and indirect impacts on work, making it a legitimate and critical workplace concern.
Workplace health and safety frameworks now include psychosocial hazards, which encompass risks to mental health and wellbeing arising from work conditions or environments. DFV is increasingly recognised within this category, particularly where it affects an employee’s safety, attendance, or capacity to perform their role.
In addition, sector-specific regulations are emerging that explicitly require organisations to address gender-based violence and related risks. This creates a new layer of obligation that extends beyond traditional compliance frameworks.
Despite this shift, many organisations have not yet adapted their systems. Awareness of DFV as a workplace issue remains limited, and in many cases, organisations are unsure how to respond appropriately. This creates a gap between expectation and capability, increasing both human and organisational risk.
How domestic and family violence shows up at work
Domestic and family violence rarely presents as a clear or isolated workplace issue. More often, it appears indirectly through changes in behaviour, performance, and engagement — signals that are easy to misinterpret without the right context.
Evidence shows that domestic and family violence is already embedded within the workforce. In Australia, approximately 68% of people experiencing domestic and family violence are in paid employment, meaning most organisations are already impacted ( whether they recognise it or not).
The impact on workplace participation is significant. Research shows that nearly half of employees experiencing domestic and family violence report that it affects their ability to attend work, while others experience reduced concentration, productivity, and engagement.
Domestic and family violence does not remain separate from the workplace. Around 19% of employees report that violence continues during work hours, including harassment, monitoring, and physical presence at the workplace.
Read about these stories: how domestic and family violence shows up in the workplace.
In practice, this can show up as:
- Increased absenteeism or lateness
- Changes in behaviour, including withdrawal, anxiety, or irritability
- Safety concerns, including unwanted contact or surveillance
- Financial stress affecting work performance
- Conflict or breakdown in workplace relationships
These indicators rarely appear in isolation. In many workplaces, particularly in high-pressure or male-dominated environments, they are first noticed as stress, frustration, or aggression – and are often managed as performance or behavioural issues, rather than recognised as early indicators of more complex risk.
The impact is not theoretical. It shows up in everyday workplace decisions and interactions.
In one case, an employee was unable to attend work following a domestic violence incident after her partner removed access to communication devices. Despite explaining the situation, she was suspended and later dismissed.
In another example, an employee attempting to leave a violent relationship required time off to secure housing and legal support. Her request was denied, and she was later threatened with termination for failing to attend work.
In more severe cases, employees have been forced to choose between their safety and their employment. One worker, after obtaining a protection order against a colleague who was also her partner, was told she would need to either revoke the order or resign.
Without clear systems, these situations are often handled inconsistently – or missed entirely.
Domestic and family violence can also extend into the workplace through the use of organisational systems and resources.
Research from ANROWS indicates that one in seven Australian adults report engaging in workplace technology-facilitated sexual harassment, highlighting how workplace tools( including email, messaging platforms, and internal systems) can be used to monitor, harass, or exert control.
This means organisations are not only responding to the impacts of violence, but may also be unintentionally enabling it through the systems employees use every day.
Without clear boundaries, guidance, and oversight, workplace infrastructure can become part of how harm is perpetrated, not just where it is identified.
Why most organisations are still not compliant with DFV
The gap between regulatory expectations and organisational capability is not primarily driven by lack of intent. Most organisations have taken steps to address workplace safety, including implementing policies, training, and support services.
However, these efforts often fail in practice.
Evidence suggests that workplace responses to domestic and family violence are frequently inconsistent, and in some cases, actively harmful. Employees experiencing domestic and family violence report being dismissed, denied flexible working arrangements, or penalised for performance issues directly related to their circumstances.
These responses not only fail to provide support, but can increase vulnerability, pushing employees further into unsafe situations or forcing them out of the workforce altogether.
A key issue is the gap between policy and implementation.
Many organisations rely on policies as a primary compliance mechanism. While these are necessary, they are not sufficient. Without integration into day-to-day decision-making, policies remain theoretical and are rarely used effectively in real situations.
Training presents a similar challenge. One-off or generic training programs may raise awareness, but they often do not equip staff (particularly managers) with the practical capability needed to respond to complex, high-risk situations.
Responsibility is also frequently fragmented across HR, legal, and WHS functions, resulting in unclear ownership and inconsistent responses.
The result is a system where organisations may appear compliant on paper, but are unable to respond effectively when it matters most.
Where workplace systems break down in practice
Across industries, a consistent gap emerges between policy and practice.
Most organisations have invested in some form of support — whether through policies, employee assistance programs, or training. However, these systems often fail in the moments where they are needed most.
The challenge is not simply awareness of domestic and family violence. It is the absence of capability in the “middle layer” of organisations, the supervisors, team leaders, and managers responsible for responding to early signals and real-time situations.
In practice, these individuals are often expected to interpret risk, respond to disclosures, and manage complex interpersonal dynamics without clear guidance or training.
As a result, early warning signs (such as stress, conflict, or behavioural changes) are frequently missed or misinterpreted. Opportunities for early intervention are lost, and risk escalates.
This creates a structural gap: while organisations may have policies at the top and support services at the bottom, there is often no clear system connecting the two.
Why policies alone are not enough
Recent reforms, including the introduction of paid domestic and family violence leave under the National Employment Standards, represent an important step forward in recognising domestic and family violence as a workplace issue.
However, evidence suggests that policy alone is not enough.
Research shows that many employees either do not have access to leave, are unable to use it safely, or face stigma and misunderstanding when they do. In some cases, employees report negative career impacts after disclosing their experiences, including reduced opportunities, changes in how they are perceived, or loss of trust within their organisation.
This highlights a broader issue.
Workplace responses to domestic and family violence are often designed around compliance requirements, rather than real-world conditions. Policies may exist, but employees and managers are left without clear guidance on how to apply them in practice.
Organisations may have a domestic and family violence leave policy in place, but when an employee tries to access it, their manager is unsure how to respond. Approval is delayed, guidance is unclear, and the employee withdraws the request rather than continue navigating the process.
In other cases, support is conditional on formal reporting or evidence, creating barriers at the point where immediate action is required.
The challenge is not simply introducing more policies or entitlements. It is ensuring that systems are usable, understood, and effective in the moments where they are needed.
The business and workforce impact
The impact of domestic and family violence on workplaces extends beyond individual wellbeing. It has significant implications for workforce participation, productivity, and organisational performance.
Employees experiencing domestic and family violence may face challenges maintaining consistent attendance, managing workloads, or engaging effectively at work. Over time, this can contribute to increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, and higher turnover.
At an organisational level, these impacts translate into measurable costs. Lost productivity, staff replacement, and operational disruption contribute to substantial economic losses, with domestic and family violence estimated to cost the Australian economy billions each year.
However, the impact is not only financial.
Organisations may also face reputational risk, legal exposure, and challenges in maintaining a safe and supportive workplace culture. In sectors already experiencing workforce shortages (such as healthcare, aged care, and education) the loss of skilled employees due to unsupported domestic and family violence can have long-term consequences.
This reinforces a critical point: domestic and family violence is not external to the workplace. It is already influencing workforce outcomes, whether organisations recognise it or not.
Understanding your role in workplace DFV compliance
HR / People & Culture
HR professionals are often at the centre of DFV-related work, responsible for developing policies, delivering training, and responding to incidents. However, they frequently operate without a complete view of organisational risk or the tools needed to embed systems effectively.
Many HR teams recognise that existing policies are not consistently applied and that managers lack confidence in responding to disclosures. The challenge lies in moving from reactive support to proactive system design, ensuring that policies, processes, and training are aligned and practical.
Executive leadership
Executives and boards hold ultimate accountability for organisational compliance and risk management. However, their visibility into DFV-related risks is often limited.
Governance frameworks require leaders to ensure that risks are identified, managed, and monitored. In the context of DFV, this includes understanding how risks manifest across the organisation and whether systems are effective in preventing and responding to harm.
Without structured reporting and assessment, leaders may rely on assumptions, increasing exposure to regulatory and reputational risk.
Managers
Managers play a critical role in workplace DFV response, as they are often the first point of contact for employees. Despite this, many managers report feeling unprepared to handle disclosures.
This lack of preparedness can lead to inconsistent responses, which may undermine trust and increase risk. Building manager capability requires more than awareness; it requires practical tools, clear processes, and ongoing support.
WHS / Risk / Compliance
The inclusion of psychosocial hazards within WHS frameworks places DFV within the scope of risk and compliance functions. This requires a shift in approach, as traditional WHS systems are often designed for physical hazards rather than complex interpersonal risks.
WHS professionals must now consider how to identify, assess, and manage DFV-related risks, integrating them into broader risk management frameworks.
Legal
Legal teams provide critical guidance on compliance obligations, but their effectiveness depends on how well legal frameworks are translated into operational systems.
A policy that meets legal requirements may still fail if it is not implemented or used effectively. Ensuring that legal advice is embedded into practical processes is essential for defensible compliance.
Industry-specific DFV risks and obligations
Higher education (non-university providers)
The introduction of the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence (2025) represents one of the most significant regulatory shifts in this space. For the first time, higher education providers are required to meet nationally consistent, enforceable standards for preventing and responding to gender-based violence.
These standards go beyond general workplace health and safety duties. They require organisations to take a whole-of-organisation approach, embedding prevention, response, and continuous improvement across governance, operations, and culture.
Key requirements include:
- The development and implementation of a whole-of-organisation prevention plan
- Clearly defined and accessible reporting and response processes
- The ability to manage and resolve cases within specified timeframes (typically 45 business days)
- Ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and reporting to demonstrate effectiveness
- Leadership accountability and governance oversight of gender-based violence risk
Guidance from the Department of Education outlines that providers must not only establish these systems, but also demonstrate that they are operational, consistent, and effective in practice.
For non-university providers (including TAFEs and registered training organisations) the challenge is particularly acute.
Unlike large universities, many of these organisations operate with:
- Smaller teams and limited internal specialist expertise
- Less established governance structures for managing complex cases
- Fewer dedicated resources for training, prevention, and system design
At the same time, they are expected to meet the same regulatory standards.
This creates a high-stakes environment, where organisations must rapidly translate regulatory requirements into practical systems, often without clear internal capability to do so.
In practice, this is not simply a policy exercise. It requires organisations to answer operational questions such as:
- How are risks identified and assessed across different parts of the organisation?
- Who is responsible for responding to disclosures, and what guidance do they have?
- How are staff trained to manage complex, sensitive situations consistently?
- What systems are in place to ensure responses are timely, appropriate, and documented?
Without clear answers to these questions, organisations may meet formal requirements on paper, but still face significant risk in implementation.
While the Code is framed around gender-based violence more broadly, this explicitly includes domestic and family violence. These forms of harm often intersect, particularly in higher education environments where students and staff may experience violence both within and outside institutional settings.
As a result, compliance with the Code requires organisations to move beyond narrow definitions of workplace conduct and recognise domestic and family violence as part of the risk landscape they are responsible for managing.
Healthcare, aged care and NDIS
These sectors operate in high-risk, high-pressure environments, where staff regularly engage with vulnerable individuals while managing significant emotional and operational demands.
In aged care and healthcare settings, compliance frameworks are often well established, with clear policies and regulatory expectations. However, organisations still face a critical challenge in translating these frameworks into day-to-day practice.
Teams are frequently under-resourced, and managers are required to balance operational delivery with increasingly complex people-related risks. In this context, domestic and family violence is rarely identified as a standalone issue. Instead, it presents through workforce challenges such as absenteeism, burnout, performance concerns, or staff wellbeing issues.
For many organisations, the question is not whether systems exist, but whether those systems are usable, understood, and effective in real-world conditions.
Energy and telecommunications
Regulatory expectations in the energy and telecommunications sectors have expanded significantly in recent years to include specific protections for customers experiencing domestic and family violence. This represents a shift from internal workplace responsibility to a broader obligation that includes how organisations interact with and support vulnerable customers.
In Australia, regulators such as the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) have introduced or strengthened requirements for family violence protections. These include:
- Family violence policies outlining how customers are identified and supported
- Processes to prevent financial harm, including debt management and account protection
- Safe and confidential communication protocols to reduce the risk of further harm
- Staff training to recognise and respond appropriately to disclosures
- Escalation pathways for complex or high-risk cases
This creates a dual responsibility for organisations. They must not only manage internal workforce risk, but also ensure that frontline staff are equipped to respond to domestic and family violence in customer interactions.
In practice, this significantly increases operational complexity.
Frontline employees (often in call centres or service roles) are required to:
- Recognise signs of distress or risk
- Navigate sensitive conversations
- Apply policy in real time
- Balance customer care with compliance requirements
At the same time, these roles are often high-volume and performance-driven, with limited time and support for handling complex situations.
This creates a critical capability gap.
While policies and regulatory frameworks are increasingly well defined, the ability of staff to apply them consistently in real-world interactions remains a challenge. Without clear systems, guidance, and training, organisations risk inconsistent responses that can expose both customers and employees to further harm.
Remote workplaces
Remote and geographically dispersed workplaces present unique challenges in identifying and responding to domestic and family violence.
In these environments, traditional indicators of risk (such as behavioural changes, physical presence, or informal check-ins) are significantly reduced. Managers and colleagues have fewer opportunities to observe changes over time, making early identification more difficult.
At the same time, remote work can increase exposure to risk.
Employees experiencing domestic and family violence may be working from the same environment in which harm is occurring. This can limit their ability to seek support, speak openly, or safely access workplace resources.
Safe Work Australia recognises that psychosocial hazards include risks arising from remote or isolated work, particularly where workers have limited access to support or supervision.
In practice, this creates several challenges:
- Reduced visibility of behavioural or wellbeing changes
- Limited safe opportunities for disclosure or support-seeking
- Greater reliance on digital communication, which may not be private or secure
- Increased isolation, particularly in regional or field-based roles
In conversations with organisations operating in remote and distributed environments, a consistent issue emerges: managers are often unsure how to identify or respond to risk when there are no clear signals.
Unlike office-based settings, where informal interactions can surface concerns, remote workplaces require more deliberate systems and processes. This includes:
- Clear and accessible reporting pathways that do not rely on physical presence
- Structured check-ins that create safe opportunities for conversation
- Training for managers to recognise indirect signals of risk
- Flexible response options that account for geographic and situational constraints
Without these systems, domestic and family violence can remain hidden, with organisations only becoming aware when situations escalate.
Male-dominated industries
In male-dominated industries such as transport, construction, and logistics, domestic and family violence presents additional layers of complexity.
Cultural norms, stigma, and limited access to support can reduce the likelihood of early disclosure or help-seeking. At the same time, work conditions (including long hours, isolation, financial pressure, and fatigue) can increase stress and reduce emotional capacity.
In these environments, risk often emerges through patterns of behaviour rather than formal reporting. Stress, frustration, and aggression may be visible in day-to-day interactions, particularly in high-pressure or low-control situations.
It is also important to recognise that workplaces may be engaging with individuals who are using violence, often without visibility or understanding of the broader context. National data shows that men are significantly more likely to use domestic and family violence than women, reinforcing the relevance of this issue in male-dominated workforces.
These behaviours do not always present as overt or extreme. They may appear as controlling tendencies, heightened reactivity, or difficulty managing conflict, patterns that are often normalised or addressed solely as performance or conduct issues.
This is not a hypothetical risk. Investigations into FIFO and mining workplaces in Australia have found that harmful behaviours, including harassment and intimidation, can become normalised in high-pressure, male-dominated environments, particularly where reporting is low and accountability is inconsistent.
Without clear frameworks, organisations are not equipped to distinguish between general workplace behaviour and indicators of more serious risk. As a result, responses tend to focus on managing immediate symptoms (such as conflict or misconduct) rather than identifying and addressing underlying drivers.
This creates a missed opportunity for early intervention.
Workplaces are not responsible for resolving domestic and family violence in isolation. However, they are part of the broader system in which these behaviours occur. Where patterns of behaviour are visible, organisations have an opportunity (and increasingly, an obligation) to respond in a way that is informed, consistent, and aligned with risk.
What best practice workplace DFV compliance looks like
Best practice compliance is not defined by the presence of policies or training alone. It is defined by whether systems function effectively in real-world situations, consistently, across roles, and under pressure.
This requires more than isolated interventions. It requires a connected system that brings together:
- Clear risk identification
- Practical, usable policies
- Managers who are confident responding in real situations
- Safe, trusted reporting pathways
- Ongoing monitoring and improvement
What this looks like in practice can be understood through structured assessment.
The example above illustrates how compliance can be broken down into measurable components. Rather than treating compliance as a single outcome, it reflects performance across multiple areas, including:
- Policy: whether frameworks exist and align with obligations
- Response: how effectively the organisation handles real situations
- Leave and support: whether employees can access practical support when needed
- Awareness and capability: whether staff and managers understand their roles
- Leadership: the extent to which accountability is visible and active
In this example, the organisation’s Capybility Score sits at 36 out of 100, with several major gaps identified. While some areas (such as leadership and awareness) may appear strong, others, including leave and response capability, remain significantly underdeveloped.
This highlights a common pattern.
Organisations often invest in visible elements of compliance, such as leadership messaging or awareness training, while gaps remain in the areas that matter most in real situations – particularly response, support, and consistency of application.
Best practice is not about achieving a perfect score. It is about having a clear, evidence-based understanding of where gaps exist, and taking structured steps to address them.
This requires:
- Regular assessment against recognised standards
- Visibility across different parts of the organisation
- The ability to prioritise action based on risk
- Ongoing monitoring to ensure systems are working in practice
Ultimately, compliance is not a one-off activity. It is an ongoing organisational capability – one that must be actively built, tested, and maintained over time.
To learn from other companies – check out this article on how CommBank are leading the way on family violence in the workplace.
Case Study: Culture Amp
Even organisations with strong people and culture practices can have gaps in how they support employees experiencing domestic and family violence.
Through Capyble’s assessment, Culture Amp identified opportunities to strengthen their existing systems, particularly in how support was accessed and applied in practice.
As the Senior Director of People Operations & Strategic Programs shared:
“One of the things I really appreciated about Capyble was it allowed us to be experts at something we just didn’t have the time or expertise to do.
Improving our domestic and family violence support was something we knew was important, but it was also something that was hard to prioritise and get done.”
This reflects a common challenge.
The issue is not awareness but capacity is.
Without clear guidance, this work often sits in the backlog, recognised as important, but difficult to progress alongside competing priorities.
With the right structure in place, that changed:
“With Capyble, we were able to understand what good looked like, but also have a realistic path to get there, which meant we could treat it as low-hanging fruit instead of something we kept putting off.
Ultimately, it was a great use of time and resources, and it means we can better support our employees.”
This highlights what effective implementation looks like. Not large-scale transformation.
But clear, practical steps that allow organisations to move quickly from intent to action.
VIDEO HERE EMBEDDED: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16HpOcjOcbusO9SifVPusa4RPOGovtOkM/view?usp=sharing
How to assess your organisation’s DFV risk and compliance
For organisations seeking to improve their approach, the first step is gaining clarity on their current state.
In practice, this is where many organisations struggle. While policies, training, and support services may exist, there is often no clear view of how these elements connect, or whether they are effective in real-world situations.
Assessment is not simply about identifying whether something is in place. It is about understanding:
- Where risk currently sits across the organisation
- Whether existing systems are being used in practice
- How consistently responses are applied across teams and roles
- Where gaps exist between policy, capability, and action
Without this level of clarity, efforts to improve compliance are often misdirected — focusing on additional policies or training, rather than addressing the underlying structural issues.
In many cases, organisations overestimate their level of preparedness. Initial assessments frequently reveal that systems are fragmented, inconsistently applied, or not aligned to current regulatory expectations. As a result, organisations may appear compliant on paper, but remain exposed in practice.
As highlighted in Capyble’s assessment approach, most organisations record a Capybility Score between 30–45 out of 100 on their first evaluation, indicating significant gaps in capability, implementation, and evidence of compliance.
This reinforces a critical point: the greatest risk is not non-compliance itself, but the assumption of compliance in the absence of evidence.
A structured assessment approach typically involves:
- Establishing a baseline
Understanding how current systems align with frameworks such as Respect@Work, WHS obligations, and broader regulatory requirements - Identifying gaps
Mapping where policies, processes, and behaviours do not align with expected standards or real-world needs - Prioritising action
Focusing on the areas of highest risk or impact, rather than attempting to address everything at once - Building a defensible plan
Developing a clear, evidence-based roadmap that demonstrates reasonable steps have been taken
This process is not about achieving perfection. It is about building a system that is:
- Clear
- Practical
- Consistent
- Defensible
Increasingly, regulators are not asking whether organisations have policies in place. They are asking whether organisations can demonstrate that their systems work, and that reasonable steps have been taken to prevent harm.
Without a structured way to assess and evidence this, organisations are left exposed.
If you’d like to know where your workplace stands, CapyBenchmark generates a Capybility Score mapped to the AHRC 7 Standards – a structured, evidence-based baseline for the work ahead. Most organisations record a score between 30 and 45 on their first assessment. The number itself isn’t the point. The point is knowing what you’re working with, and where to start.
