The products
Platform overviewSee how Hire, Engage, Develop and Assure work together on one platform.By size
By role
.webp)
Interview questionsyou can't ask in Australia
Pick a question, or search for the one you were about to ask. You get a verdict, the protected attribute it touches, the law behind it and a better question to ask instead. Free, no sign-up, and nothing you type leaves your browser.
Very few questions are illegal to say out loud. What the law prohibits is refusing a job, or offering worse terms, because of a protected attribute such as age, sex, pregnancy, family or carer's responsibilities, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or political opinion. A question that draws one out puts it on the record. Some questions can be unlawful to ask: under s27 of the Sex Discrimination Act, asking a woman whether she is pregnant or plans to be is unlawful when it's connected to the hiring decision, and Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory restrict asking for information that could be used to discriminate unless you need it for a non-discriminatory reason.
Not legal advice. The checker explains how Australian discrimination law generally treats common interview questions. It can't weigh your role, your industry or every exception. For a decision that matters, check with the Fair Work Ombudsman, your state or territory anti-discrimination body, or your own lawyer.
Check a question
45 common interview questions, each with a verdict. Search for yours, or filter by topic. Choose a state or territory to add the local law.
How the checker decides
About the job, asked of every candidate in the same way. Still score the answer against what the role needs.
Usually not unlawful on its face, but it invites a protected attribute into the conversation or works as a proxy for one. If the answer influences the decision, you have a problem, and you'll struggle to show it didn't.
The answer reveals a protected attribute, and basing the hiring decision on it is unlawful discrimination. For some questions, asking is unlawful too.
Australian law mostly targets the decision, not the question. It is unlawful to refuse to employ someone, or to offer them worse terms, because of a protected attribute. The question matters because it puts the attribute on the record. Under the Fair Work Act, if a candidate alleges you didn't hire them for a protected reason, the law presumes that was the reason unless you prove otherwise (s361). An irrelevant question asked at interview makes that much harder to prove.
The Australian Human Rights Commission's advice is to be clear about the genuine requirements of the job first, then ask only for the information you need to assess them, and to use a set of common questions that every candidate is asked. That is the standard this checker applies.
The federal laws
| Law | Protects | Recruitment | When asking is itself unlawful |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair Work Act 2009 | Race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, breastfeeding, gender identity, intersex status, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer's responsibilities, subjection to family and domestic violence, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin | s351 with s342 (prospective employees). Union membership: s346 | Not in itself, but s361 presumes the action was taken for the alleged reason unless you prove otherwise |
| Sex Discrimination Act 1984 | Sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy, breastfeeding, family responsibilities | s14(1) | s27: when candidates without the attribute would not be asked the same thing. The Act's example is asking a woman whether she is pregnant or intends to be |
| Age Discrimination Act 2004 | Age | s18(1) | s32: when candidates of a different age would not be asked the same thing |
| Disability Discrimination Act 1992 | Disability | s15(1), with the inherent requirements exception in s21A | s30: also when the information relates to the disability, even if everyone is asked, unless you show a legitimate purpose |
| Racial Discrimination Act 1975 | Race, colour, national or ethnic origin (not nationality or citizenship) | s15(1) | No request-for-information section |
| Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and Regulations 2019 | Irrelevant criminal record, medical record, nationality, trade union activity and other declared grounds | Complaint and conciliation only | Not unlawful under federal law |
Federal protection runs through five laws. The Fair Work Act covers the widest list of attributes and applies to prospective employees through s342. The four anti-discrimination Acts cover recruitment directly, and three of them have a section that makes certain requests for information unlawful in themselves. The Disability Discrimination Act's version is the broadest.
State and territory laws
Every state and territory has its own anti-discrimination law, and it applies alongside the federal Acts. The lists of protected attributes are broadly similar but differ at the edges: NSW doesn't cover religion or political opinion, while Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory protect an irrelevant criminal record.
The bigger difference is the question itself. Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory restrict asking for information that could be used to discriminate unless it is reasonably required for a non-discriminatory purpose, and in Victoria you carry the burden of proving that. Western Australia makes it unlawful to ask one group for information you wouldn't ask others for, and the ACT catches requests connected with an unlawful act. Queensland's 2024 reforms, which would add new attributes such as irrelevant criminal record, are paused with no start date. Choose your state or territory in the checker to see the local position for each question.
| Jurisdiction | Law | Asking for the information | Criminal record |
|---|---|---|---|
| New South Wales | Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) | No request-for-information section | Not a protected attribute. Under the Criminal Records Act 1991, a criminal history question is taken to refer only to convictions that are not spent |
| Victoria | Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) | Yes. s107: you must not request information that could be used to discriminate, unless it is reasonably required for a non-discriminatory purpose (s108, burden on you) | Spent conviction is a protected attribute, and the Spent Convictions Act 2021 says you must not request disclosure of a spent conviction (s20) |
| Queensland | Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) | Yes. s124: you must not ask for information on which unlawful discrimination might be based (defence: reasonably required for a non-discriminatory purpose) | Not a protected attribute in force. The 2024 reforms that would add irrelevant criminal record are paused with no start date |
| Western Australia | Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) | Yes, comparative: unlawful to ask for information that people without the attribute would not be asked for (s23, s35J, s49, s65, s66O, s66ZK and others) | Not an Equal Opportunity Act ground, but discrimination on a spent conviction is unlawful under the Spent Convictions Act 1988 (s18) |
| South Australia | Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA) | No request-for-information section | Not a protected attribute. Under the Spent Convictions Act 2009, a criminal history question is taken not to refer to a spent conviction |
| Tasmania | Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) | No request-for-information section, but s17(1) prohibits offensive or humiliating conduct on many attributes | Irrelevant criminal record is a protected attribute (s16(q)), as is irrelevant medical record (s16(r)) |
| Australian Capital Territory | Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) | Yes, narrower. s23: discriminating by requesting information connected with an unlawful act | Irrelevant criminal record is a protected attribute, including spent convictions unless directly relevant |
| Northern Territory | Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT) | Yes. s26: you must not ask for information on which unlawful discrimination might be based (defence: reasonably required for a non-discriminatory purpose) | Irrelevant criminal record is a protected attribute (including spent records), as is irrelevant medical record |
Criminal records and spent convictions
A blanket “have you ever been convicted?” question collides with two sets of rules. First, spent convictions. Under the Commonwealth scheme, a conviction is generally spent 10 years after the day of conviction (5 years if the person was dealt with as a minor) where the sentence was no more than 30 months' imprisonment. The person isn't required to disclose it, and anyone who knows it is spent must not take it into account (Crimes Act s85ZV and s85ZW). That scheme covers Commonwealth and Territory offences; state offences follow each state's own spent convictions law, and some roles are excluded.
Second, discrimination. Criminal record discrimination is not unlawful under federal law, but the Australian Human Rights Commission can investigate complaints about discrimination on an irrelevant criminal record and conciliate them. Some states and territories go further and make it unlawful (see the state table). The safe pattern is the same everywhere: ask about convictions that relate to the inherent requirements of the role, exclude spent convictions, and use the formal police check where the role requires one.
Right to work checks
Asking whether someone has the right to work in Australia is lawful and expected. An employer must not allow a person to work if they are an unlawful non-citizen or would breach a visa work condition (Migration Act s245AB and s245AC), and taking reasonable steps to check is the defence. Home Affairs tells employers to check a potential employee's visa work conditions through its free Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) system. Recruitment and labour hire services have their own obligation before referring someone (s245AE).
Ask every candidate the same question, not only those you assume were born overseas. Ask about work rights rather than citizenship or birthplace: the Racial Discrimination Act protects national origin, and a citizens-only rule that isn't a genuine requirement of the role can raise discrimination issues.
Pay questions and pay secrecy
No Australian law bans asking a candidate about their current or past salary. But since the Secure Jobs, Better Pay changes, employees and future employees have a workplace right to share, or not share, their pay. The Fair Work Ombudsman says employers can't prevent a future employee from exercising it. So treat any answer as optional and never hold a refusal against someone.
Pay secrecy clauses are out. A term that stops an employee disclosing their pay has no effect (s333C), and since 7 June 2023 an employer contravenes the Fair Work Act by including one in a contract made on or after 7 December 2022 (s333D).
New Zealand
New Zealand goes further than Australia on the question itself. The Human Rights Act 1993 lists 13 prohibited grounds (s21): sex (including pregnancy and childbirth), marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins (including nationality or citizenship), disability, age (from 16), political opinion, employment status (being unemployed, or receiving a benefit or Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) entitlement), family status and sexual orientation. Refusing to employ, or offering worse terms, on any of them is unlawful (s22).
Then s23: it is unlawful to use an application form, or make any inquiry of or about a job applicant, that indicates, or could reasonably be understood as indicating, an intention to discriminate. That reaches application forms and reference checks as well as interview questions. The Human Rights Commission's A to Z Pre-Employment Guide, updated in 2026, says employers should not ask about children, pregnancy or childcare, marital status, religion, race, sexual orientation, or whether a candidate is on a benefit or ACC. It also says all applicants should be asked whether they are entitled to work in New Zealand.
The Privacy Act 2020 adds a necessity test: personal information may only be collected for a lawful purpose and where it is necessary for that purpose (Information Privacy Principle 1, or IPP1), by means that are fair and not unreasonably intrusive (IPP4). Since 1 May 2026, IPP3A also requires you to let candidates know when you collect information about them from someone else, such as a referee. Under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, an eligible person may answer a question about their criminal record as if they have none (s14), and asking someone to disregard the scheme is an offence (s18). Employees are protected for discussing their pay (Employment Relations Act s110AB, from 27 August 2025), but no law bans asking a candidate about salary history.
Structure is the defence
Almost every risky question in the bank comes from an unstructured conversation: small talk that drifts, or a hiring manager filling a silence. The fix is the same one that improves hiring accuracy. Decide what the role requires, write the questions that test it, ask every candidate the same ones in the same order, and score each answer against criteria agreed before the first interview. Keep the notes.
A structured interview gives you comparable evidence for every candidate and a record that shows why you chose who you chose. That's the difference between a decision you think was fair and one you can defend.
Sources
- Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
- Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
- Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)
- Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
- Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
- Australian Human Rights Commission Regulations 2019
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
- Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
- Australian Human Rights Commission: step-by-step guide to preventing discrimination in recruitment
- Australian Human Rights Commission: discrimination in employment on the basis of criminal record
- Fair Work Ombudsman: protection from discrimination at work
- Fair Work Ombudsman: pay secrecy
- Home Affairs: VEVO for organisations
- Human Rights Act 1993 (NZ)
- Privacy Act 2020 (NZ)
- Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 (NZ)
- Employment Relations Act 2000 (NZ)
- Human Rights Commission (NZ): A to Z Pre-Employment Guide
Next step
Structured interview
Same questions, same order, scored against agreed criteria. The method that makes a hiring decision defensible.
Read the definition →GlossaryBehavioural interview
Questions about what candidates have done, scored against what the role needs.
Read the definition →GlossaryGeneral protections
The Fair Work Act rules on adverse action, including for prospective employees.
Read the definition →CalculatorCost of a Bad Hire Calculator
What the wrong hire costs once recruitment, lost output and the rehire are counted.
Open the calculator →Free toolRoast My Job Ad
Eight checks on your job ad, including age-coded and gender-coded language.
Roast your ad →Free toolGender Decoder
See which way your job ad leans, with every coded term quoted back.
Decode your ad →Where
Compono Hire fits.
Compono Hire is an applicant tracking system (ATS) that profiles candidates against your culture and your best people, alongside the process every ATS runs.
Every candidate for a role is assessed on the same job-relevant evidence, so the shortlist rests on how people work and what the role needs, not on what a stray question turned up. Every candidate gets the same questions, so you have comparable evidence and decisions you can defend.
See how it worksCommon questions
Is it illegal to ask a candidate's age in Australia?
Asking is not automatically illegal, but refusing a job because of age is unlawful under the Age Discrimination Act (s18) and the Fair Work Act (s351). Under s32 of the Age Discrimination Act, asking is itself unlawful if you would not ask a candidate of a different age the same thing. Ask about age only where a law sets a minimum age for the work.
Can I ask a candidate if they have children?
You shouldn't. The Australian Human Rights Commission uses this question as its own example of how a complaint arises. Describe the hours, travel or availability the role genuinely needs, and ask every candidate whether they can meet it.
Can I ask about a disability or health condition?
Only as far as the inherent requirements of the job and any adjustments the candidate needs. Under the Disability Discrimination Act (s30), asking for information that relates to a disability can be unlawful even if everyone is asked, unless it serves a legitimate purpose such as those. The inherent requirements exception only applies if the person couldn't do the work even with reasonable adjustments.
Can I ask about criminal convictions?
Yes, with limits. Spent convictions need not be disclosed, and an employer who knows a Commonwealth or Territory conviction is spent must not take it into account. Some states also make discrimination on an irrelevant criminal record unlawful. Ask about convictions relevant to the role, and rely on the formal police check where one is required.
Can I ask whether a candidate has the right to work in Australia?
Yes, and you should ask every candidate. Employers must not allow someone to work without work rights or in breach of a visa condition (Migration Act s245AB), and checking is the defence. Home Affairs directs employers to its free Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) system.
Can I ask what a candidate earns now?
It isn't unlawful to ask, but candidates have a workplace right not to share their pay, and the Fair Work Ombudsman says employers can't prevent a future employee from exercising it. Share your range instead, and never hold a refusal against anyone.
Do these rules apply to recruitment agencies?
Yes. The Age and Disability Discrimination Acts cover anyone acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer, the Racial Discrimination Act covers people procuring employment for others, and the Migration Act's work rights rules cover referral services. In New Zealand, both the recruiter and the employer can be liable.
Is New Zealand different?
In one important way. Under the Human Rights Act 1993 (s23), it is unlawful to make any inquiry of or about a job applicant that indicates, or could reasonably be understood as indicating, an intention to discriminate. In New Zealand the question itself can be the breach.
