Employment Checks

Payroll and super checks run only on the candidate's recorded consent, captured before the check runs and stored alongside the result. Court and social checks run under your screening policy, through the same consent flow.

Recording consent per check, not once at application, matters if a finding is ever challenged. The record shows precisely what the candidate agreed to and when, instead of relying on a clause in a document they signed weeks earlier.

Because referees are chosen by the candidate, and records are not.

A referee list is a curated sample. It tells you what the people the candidate selected are prepared to say. Payroll and superannuation records tell you whether the employment happened at all, on the dates claimed, in the role claimed.

Superannuation contributions cover nearly every working Australian, which is what makes the check work for thin-file candidates: recent graduates, people returning to work, candidates whose former employer has since closed, and anyone whose referees simply cannot be reached in the time available.

Per-field results, not a single verdict. Employer, period and role each come back MATCHED or UNMATCHED.

That granularity is the point. A candidate who worked at the right employer in the right role but misremembered their start month by a few weeks produces a very different result from one who invented the role entirely. A single pass or fail would render both identically.

You see which specific claims the records support, and you decide which discrepancies matter for the role you are hiring for.

Australian civil and criminal court listings, more than 40 million records, with the court, the matter type and the listing date attached to each result.

One important limit: a court check is not a police check, and it does not replace one where legislation requires a police check for the role. The two draw on different sources and answer different questions. If your role requires a nationally coordinated criminal history check, that requirement stands on its own.

Because each finding carries its court, matter type and date, a reviewer can locate the underlying record instead of acting on a bare name match.

Yes, and for some roles it is the check that matters most.

Banned and disqualified person registers are directly relevant to finance and legal appointments and to anyone being appointed as a director. A candidate who is disqualified from managing corporations is a different category of risk from one with an unremarkable court listing, and the register is the authoritative place that question is answered.

The check is documented like any other, which matters for regulated roles where you may later need to demonstrate that the appointment was made with the register checked.

Only public profile data is returned, and it is licensed for screening and verification purposes, not for marketing.

The practical limits are usually the ones you impose. Most employers restrict use to role-relevant findings under a written screening policy, for two reasons: public profiles surface a great deal of information that has no bearing on the role, and some of it falls into protected categories where acting on it creates discrimination exposure.

A written policy that defines what is in scope before anyone looks is the standard control, and it is worth having in place before the first check runs.

Checks run on recorded consent, results are returned only to your authorised users, and data is processed in Australia under ISO 27001 controls.

Every finding carries its source and its date, which is what makes a dispute workable. A candidate who contests a result can point to the specific record, and it can be re-checked directly against that source instead of argued about in the abstract.

Per-field results help here too: they isolate the single claim in question instead of putting the candidate in the position of disputing an entire screen.

Identity and payroll checks return in seconds once consent has been captured. A full screen including court and social review typically completes within hours, and generally the same day.

That timing has a direct commercial effect. Good candidates hold multiple offers, and a screen that takes a week is a screen that loses people. Offers go out while the candidate is still available, or they do not go out at all.