Progress report 2026: Understanding compliance feedback

On this page

Overview

Who is this page for?

This page is for organisations with 2026 progress reports that have areas marked as “did not demonstrate compliance”. It will help you understand what is required to demonstrate compliance in future cycles.

What does this page contain?

This page lists the criteria that we used to assess your progress report. We explain why your progress report may not have demonstrated compliance, with reference to the Gender Equality Act 2020 (the Act) and Regulations.

To find which criteria the Commission marked as “compliance not demonstrated” for your organisation, check your progress report compliance outcome report on the Reporting platform.

Criterion 1: Attestation

The head of organisation attests the accuracy of the progress report and confirms required gender impact assessments (GIAs) were undertaken (or explains why not).

Common issues

  • One or more attestation boxes were not marked.
  • The attestation was completed by someone other than the head of organisation.
  • The head of organisation did not include their signature and date.
  • A foreword from the head of organisation was included, but the required attestation wording was missing.

Required for demonstrating compliance in future progress reports

  • Mark all required attestation boxes.
  • Ensure the head of organisation completes the attestation.
  • Ensure the head of organisation provides their name, title, signature and date.
  • To review the relevant section of the guidance, see Cover page and attestation by head of organisation.

Criterion 2: GIAs

For policies, programs, and services (with direct and significant impact on the public) subject to a GIA, the duty holder explains either:

  1. how they were developed or varied in response to the GIA to:
    1. meet the needs of people of different genders
    2. promote gender equality, and/or
    3. address gender inequality.
  2. OR adequately explains why no action was taken.
  3. OR has a permitted reason for not reporting on any GIAs.

Common issues

  • Head of organisation attestation for the completion of relevant GIAs was not confirmed.
  • The actions taken were not clearly linked to the GIA findings. For example:
    • the actions appeared to already be part of the initiative
    • the description did not explain how the initiative changed because of the GIA
    • the action did not clearly respond to gendered impacts.
  • The actions taken did not relate to gender equality. This was common in diversity and inclusion initiatives. For example, mention of a disability action plan without explaining how women, men or people of self-described gender may experience disability differently.
  • GIAs reported were not in scope, including:
    • Internal policies, programs or services
    • GIAs that are retrospective, suggested, in progress, or planned. If a final decision had not been made about whether to change the policy, program or service by the end of the reporting period, the GIA should be included in your next progress report.
  • No GIAs were reported and no permitted reason was provided.
  • Compliance with this criterion could not be confirmed due to unclear reporting or missing information.

Required for demonstrating compliance in future progress reports

  • List every policy, program and service that was subject to a GIA.
  • Include GIAs only on relevant policies, programs and services that are:
    • new or up for review
    • public facing (have a direct and significant impact on the public), and
    • finalised during the reporting period.
  • Make the link to gender equality clear: describe the action taken, or why no action was taken, as a result of the GIA. Explain how this responds to different gendered impacts, promotes gender equality, or addresses gender inequality.
  • Explain why no GIAs were included, if relevant, using the permitted reasons:
    • Doing so would make the progress report an exempt document within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
    • Doing so would result in a disclosure prohibited by a different Act.
    • Doing so would reveal confidential information.
    • The entity had no policies, programs or services that met the threshold for a GIA.
  • To review the relevant section of the guidance, see Step 1: Reporting on gender impact assessments.

Criterion 3: Indicators - progress data

For each indicator, the duty holder includes progress data (column L). This must include audit data from 2023 and 2025, ideally using the performance measures as a minimum.

Common issues

  • Missing comparison data: 2023 or 2025 data was missing, so it was not possible to assess change over time.
  • Insufficient data was provided to assess progress, including some data marked as unavailable (when it appears on the Commission’s reporting platform). Using more than one data point increases accuracy and trust in progress. When not enough data is used, it can be difficult to understand whether progress had been made.
  • Common issues by indicator:
    • Indicator 4 – sexual harassment: missing anonymous workplace experience data, missing formal reporting data, contradictory statements, and 0% appearing to be used in place of missing data. If key data was unavailable or suppressed, organisations are expected to use the data they do have. For future progress reports, where data is suppressed, duty holders should supplement with other relevant data or evidence where possible so that progress can be demonstrated and assessed.
    • Indicator 7 – gendered segregation within the workplace: missing occupational categories, or only gender composition of the whole organisation supplied (i.e. a repeat of data used for Indicator 1 – Gender composition at all levels of the workforce).

Required for demonstrating compliance in future progress reports

  • Compare your data over time: compare your current audit data with data from the previous reporting year. You can find current and previous audit data on the reporting platform and on the Insights Portal. Use the performance report on the reporting platform. This will have accurate data, drawn directly from your organisation’s audit. You can cut and paste this into the progress report template in the relevant sections. The performance measures are the key data points from your audit that the Commissioner strongly encourages you use to analyse your progress against the indicators. The measures are already pre-filled in the template. You just need to add your organisation’s specific, quantitative data.
  • Include enough relevant data for each workplace gender equality indicator. Ideally, use the performance measures where available. Advice for key indicators:
    • For Indicator 4 – sexual harassment in the workplace, robust data collection will be expected for the next progress report. You must include at a minimum the anonymous survey rate of sexual harassment experience (disaggregated by gender) and the number of formal reports (workforce data). If your gender-disaggregated survey data is suppressed, please provide the whole-of-organisation rate (i.e. not gender-disaggregated). If this data is also suppressed, consider alternative forms of data collection. This could include consulting on this issue with your workforce to estimate what might be happening in your organisation. Sexual harassment is a serious work health and safety issue, and duty holders are legally required to take proactive steps to prevent and eliminate sexual harassment under a range of legislation.
    • For Indicator 7 – gendered segregation within the workplace, provide data for each occupational group represented in your organisation. If the ANZSCO codes are not useful groupings for your organisation, consider analysing groups that are more meaningful for you. This may include, for example, ‘customer-facing roles’, ‘outdoor maintenance team’ or ‘systems and IT’.
  • The Commissioner has published her expectations for making progress on each of the indicators. These can help you consider what data to analyse to demonstrate progress. To read the Commissioner’s expectations for each indicator, see:
  • To review the relevant section of the guidance, see Step 2: Reporting on progress against the indicators.
  • You can find further advice on how to analyse your data in the Analysing your audit results guidance note.

Criterion 4: Indicators - progress explained

For each indicator, the duty holder has shown either:

  1. Progress was made, demonstrated through measurable change and supporting justification OR the data was stable over the relevant period and did not reveal any gender inequality issues.
  2. OR progress was not made, but the listed factors are used to justify why.

NOTE: The “listed factors” refer to the factors affecting reasonable and material progress. These come from section 16(2) of the Gender Equality Act 2020 and are listed in the progress reporting template.

Common issues

An outcome of ‘compliance not demonstrated’ against criterion 4 means the Commissioner is not satisfied, on the information in your report, that your organisation made reasonable and material progress in relation to that indicator (section 16(1) of the Act). This could be due to a range of reasons, such as the following:

  • Little or no meaningful progress: the data showed little improvement, no change (from a starting point of gender inequality), or a move away from gender equality.
  • Explanation did not match the data: claims of progress were made when the results were unchanged or had worsened.
  • Generic or limited commentary: explanations were too broad and did not address the data.
  • Explanations that did not adequately justify lack of progress.
    • Explanations for lack of progress did not engage with the factors affecting reasonable and material progress listed in the template (from section 16(2) of the Act)
    • In weighing these factors, the Commissioner gave greater weight to circumstances that were outside the organisation's control, and to the genuine attempts an organisation made to make progress within those constraints. Where an explanation relied on the listed factors (for example operational priorities, limited resources, practicality or competing obligations), the Commissioner took these factors into account. In some cases, the Commissioner may still have determined that reasonable and material progress was not made.
  • Limited gender analysis: reports often did not explain what the data showed about progress towards gender equality.
  • Common issues by indicator:
    • Indicator 1 – gender composition at all levels of the workforce: claiming that ‘stability’ meant progress even when gender imbalance remained or worsened; limited analysis of increasing gender concentration; worsening outcomes in senior leadership that were not explained; an argument that more women entering a women-concentrated organisation was progress towards gender equality.
    • Indicator 2 – gender composition of governing bodies: weak explanations where governing body gender imbalance worsened, noting that in some cases, limited organisational control over governing body composition may be taken into account when assessing compliance.
    • Indicator 3 – gender pay gap: gender pay gaps increased or worsened across the majority of measures; reliance on broad statements such as enterprise bargaining agreement coverage rather than analysis of pay gap results; missing comparison data; limited explanation of contributing factors.
    • Indicator 4 – sexual harassment in the workplace: sexual harassment rates showed minimal decrease, remained the same or increased for people of particular genders while formal reporting remained low, showed minimal increase, or decreased; explanations did not show meaningful progress; actions taken were generic, such as training, policies or promotion, without showing prevention, risk identification, review of controls, context-specific actions or evaluation; under-reporting was acknowledged but not adequately addressed; a lack of active monitoring of this serious work health and safety issue using available data or other evidence.
    • Indicator 5 – recruitment and promotion practices: women were increasingly recruited into already women-concentrated workplaces, or men into men-concentrated ones; men were promoted disproportionately, or women were promoted disproportionately without an explanation; perception data worsened or remained at a low level; explanations did not address structural gender imbalance; actions were generic or not tailored to recruitment and promotion issues.
    • Indicator 6 – leave and flexibility: low uptake of parental leave and/or flexible work (particularly for men) was not adequately explained or actioned; gender imbalance in parental leave and carer’s leave continued without adequate explanation or description of actions to address; explanations relied on policy availability rather than showing reasonable and material progress and/or explaining why uptake might be low or gendered and what action was taken to address this.
    • Indicator 7 – gendered segregation in the workplace: occupational categories were missing from the data; most occupations moved further away from gender balance; one subgroup improved while overall segregation worsened; explanations acknowledged challenges but did not show an effective response; no quantitative progress and the duty holder made insufficient genuine attempts; occupational segregation was described as a social problem that the duty holder could not influence.

Required for demonstrating compliance in future progress reports

  • Ensure your efforts to drive progress on the indicators are reasonable:
    • Some organisations explained a lack of progress in Section 2.2 of the progress reporting template by reference to their size, resources, operational priorities and competing obligations, or the practical impact and cost of taking action. These are some of the factors affecting reasonable and material progress listed in the template. The Commissioner is required to take these matters into account under section 16(2) of the Act. These issues were considered as part of your compliance assessment.
    • While these factors affect what it is reasonable for an organisation to do to drive progress, you must still take action to make progress. Challenges related to size, resourcing, competing priorities and the other listed factors do not mean you can do nothing.
  • Use other relevant data from your audit where performance measure data is unavailable. If employee experience survey data is suppressed or unavailable, use other relevant data where possible. This is particularly important for work health and safety issues like sexual harassment.
    • Indicator 4 – sexual harassment in the workplace: duty holders have a positive duty to prevent and respond to sexual harassment under several different pieces of legislation. To do this effectively, duty holders should be actively monitoring sexual harassment in the workplace every 6-12 months at a minimum.
  • Consider requirements under other relevant legislation in relation to Indicator 4 – sexual harassment in the workplace:
    • Factors such as size, resources and the cost of action can influence what an organisation can reasonably be expected to do prevent sexual harassment. However, organisations still have a positive duty to take steps to prevent and eliminate sexual harassment under multiple pieces of anti-discrimination, occupational health and safety, and fair work legislation.
    • Federal and state anti-discrimination legislation imposes a positive duty on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment (Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), s. 15; Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), s. 47C). Duty holder size and resourcing may be relevant to what measures are ‘reasonable and proportionate’ to take, but do not eliminate the positive duty.
    • Work health and safety legislation places a duty on employers to provide and maintain a working environment that is safe and without risks to health (as far as reasonably practicable). This requires employers to eliminate (or reduce) workplace hazards, including sexual harassment as a psychosocial hazard. What is ‘reasonably practicable’ depends on several factors. These include the availability, suitability and cost of measures to eliminate or reduce the hazard. (Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic), ss. 20-22; Occupational Health and Safety (Psychological Health) Regulations 2025 (Vic)).
    • Federal fair work legislation holds an employer vicariously liable for sexual harassment by an employee or agent unless they can prove they took all reasonable steps to prevent it (Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Pt. 3-5A).
  • Explain progress clearly: make sure your explanation of progress, or lack of progress, is clear and complete. Progress may include:
    • increased representation of underrepresented genders
    • better employee experience results related to the indicator
    • improved gender balance in occupations, recruitment, promotions, leave or flexible work
    • reduced gender pay gaps at the whole of organisation level, and/or across workforce levels or occupations, using a range of measures such as mean pay gap, median pay gap, base remuneration, and total remuneration. The Commissioner considers the mean total remuneration pay gap to be the best indicator of progress towards gender pay equity. This is because it provides the clearest picture of systemic gender inequality in how economic reward is distributed across the workforce. Median total remuneration and base salary measures can be used in addition to help diagnose specific issues.
    • a meaningful drop in experience rates of sexual harassment from anonymous survey data, and
    • meaningfully higher numbers of formal reporting of sexual harassment in workforce data, where this reflects improved reporting systems or greater trust in those systems.
  • Explain when progress has not been made. If you have not made progress against an indicator, clearly explain:
    • why progress was not possible during the reporting period. As the Commissioner must consider the Section 16(2) factors in the Act when assessing progress, use these factors to guide your explanation (Note: duty holders are required to adequately resource their GEAP.), and/or
    • the genuine attempts you have made to drive progress on this indicator, and/or
    • action you are taking to support progress in future.
  • The Commissioner has published expectations for making progress on each of the indicators. For future progress reports, these can help you demonstrate progress. To read the Commissioner’s expectations for each indicator, see:
  • To review the relevant section of the guidance, see Step 2: Reporting on progress against the indicators.
  • You can find further advice on how to analyse your data in the Analysing your audit results guidance note.

Criterion 5: Strategies listed against indicators

For strategies, the duty holder lists relevant strategies against each indicator (column S).

Common issues

This was a new criterion in 2026. Because duty holders were not required to include a strategy for every indicator in their 2022 GEAPs, some duty holders could not meet compliance for criterion 5. As such, no duty holder was marked as ‘compliance not demonstrated’ on this criterion.

Criterion 6: Incomplete strategies explained

For strategies, the duty holder (section 3.1):

  1. explains if and why any strategies weren’t completed
  2. OR confirms that all strategies were completed.

Common issues

  • No explanation of why strategies were incomplete, often describing reviews of implementation, governance or accountability arrangements.
  • Progress described instead of reasons for incomplete strategies.

Required for demonstrating compliance in future progress reports

  • Clearly explain why some strategies weren’t completed.
  • Clearly confirm if all strategies were completed.
  • To review the relevant section of the guidance, see Step 3: Reporting on GEAP strategies.

Criterion 7: Resourcing

The duty holder adequately describes the resource allocation for the previous GEAP. If the resourcing was insufficient, the duty holder describes how this will be addressed in next GEAP.

Common issues

  • Only talked about planned future resourcing without reflecting on past resourcing.
  • Listed people or groups without enough detail.
  • Description not clearly relevant to GEAP implementation.
  • No or minimal response.

Required for demonstrating compliance in future progress reports

  • Describe the resourcing allocated to implementing the strategies in the GEAP that was in place during the reporting period. For your 2028 progress report, this will be your 2026 GEAP.
  • Ensure that your description at a minimum refers to the GEAP in place during the reporting period. If your resourcing during the reporting period was inadequate, you should also discuss how you will resource your GEAP work in the next reporting period.
  • To review the relevant section of the guidance, see Step 3: Reporting on GEAP strategies.

Updated

Back to top