2 million self-employed
Their interests are our interest
It's your contract: Take control of it!
We say you should control your contract. Here's how. Check for clauses that are:
Red for Stop
Amber for Caution
Green for Go
You can also make use of our Contract Template to design your contract.

Matrixes and template are available here (ICA members only). Not a member? Join here for as little as $55.
You and Your Contract
Charter of Contractual Fairness.

Debate: Suck it up?

Contract problems?
Fixing business disputes
There's lots happening for new dispute resolution services for small business people. The Small Business Commissioner (SBC) model is being rolled out across Australia. Explanation of developments.
Watching: The new world of work
We track and discuss what's happening with work.
The new Cuban revolution.
Watching: The coordinated attack against self-employed in Australia
Do unions hate the self-employed?
Federal tax attack
Sham contracting small problem
Watching: New Technology
Opportunities and new threats for self-employed people
Left versus right: the great debate
Ken Phillips (ICA) and Peter Strong (COSBOA) debate "The Future (or Death) of Employment". Vids are here.
Our Campaigning
We need unfair contract protections
Defend contractor tax laws
Watching: Your Super
We're monitoring superannuation
Watching: Work Safety Laws
Harmonised laws have big problems.
Watching: Government Contracts
Military Aircraft (JSF)

National Broadband Network
Watching: Fair Work Act
We're watching

What the AIG wants
Handy ATO Links
Filing your tax return:
A member's problem
ATO advice

Handy ATO tax links:
ATO debt collection: overview
ATO debt collection: 'Products'
Guide to managing your debt
Not-for-profit tax guide
Lodge your BAS online
PAYG withholding tax tables
New tax form: Taxpayer Statement of Account
New tax form: Notice of Assessment
Mortgage scams
Small business support
Payment arrangement calculator
Want an ATO visit?
ATO Help for small business
ABN eligibility rules
Self managing your tax debt

Handy Super links:
ATO SMSF compliance
ATO free seminars.
SMSF Admin advice
New Super clearing house
Tax on SMSF loans
Watching Global Economies
Watching Global Economies
Watching the USA
Watching China
Central Banks on Debt
Watching Housing Bubbles
Ken Phillips on the debt equation

Work safety spins out of control


21 September 2011

I have to admit to being wrong. In 2009, I declared that the battle over work safety laws was over and that the 'white hats' had won (The OHS battle is won, May 20, 2009).

Now I need to advise that the battle continues, but this time for different reasons. It's to do with the attempt to harmonise Australia's OHS laws. This directly affects every business, manager and worker in Australia.

Australia's OHS laws are specific to each state and territory. They generally comply, however, with international principles that state everyone is responsible for safety according to what people 'reasonably and practicably control'. Those three words, locked together, give each person a clear sense that they must be responsible for safety.

There's also a good thirty years of legal precedent supporting what reasonable, practicable control means when it comes to OHS prosecutions.

New South Wales was the standout exception. NSW laws held that employers were automatically guilty whether they had control or not, even if they had acted reasonably or practicably. It was this NSW disconnect from the rest of Australia that caused pressure to harmonise the laws across Australia.

When all governments agreed to a harmonised model in 2009, it appeared that the NSW model had been dropped. This is where I declared victory for the white hats. The NSW laws pushed a focus away from prevention and systemically-caused injustices in prosecution.

On the surface, Australia's governments appeared to agree to embed the principles of 'reasonable and practicable control'. What's unfolded, however, in the detail of the new model laws is something different. The laws include 'reasonable and practicable' but have removed 'control'. That is, everyone is to be held responsible for safety according to what they consider reasonable and practicable. It doesn't make sense, as I detail here. Essentially, no one will be sure if they are responsible for safety or not.

Instead, you will be held responsible if you are a "person conducting a business or undertaking", or PCBU, and if you 'influence' work. This also doesn't make sense. It's a new and untested concept both at law and in a practical sense. It's dangerous because it's confusing for work safety, particularly prevention.

What will happen is that people will wonder if they are a PCBU and wonder if they are responsible for safety or not. People will wonder if they have influence. This sort of confusion is the reverse of what's needed in good OHS laws.

This PCBU concept will also require extensive legal testing before clarity is achieved. My bet is that it will take 15 or so years and several High Court rulings before clarity is achieved. This is not a pathway to good work safety laws.

The harmonisation process requires each state to enact the model laws. NSW have done this. It's an improvement for them because they've rid themselves of their prior bad laws.

But as the realisation of the flaws in the model laws have spread, implementation is being delayed in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia at least, and could possibly not even occur. My analysis comparing Victoria's current laws to the model laws, and South Australia's laws to the model laws, shows the stark differences.

In the way the harmonisation process has been handled, there's a sense of a slight-of-hand con in play. The federal government pushes harmonisation seemingly for harmonisation's sake, without a full debate over the fundamental new area of law being created. This is not the way work safety laws should be handled.

Further, sitting deep inside the model laws are disturbing aspects not at all discussed. OHS law is criminal law. Yet the model harmonised law takes away basic rights of criminal justice---namely the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination.

There's more: the harmonised laws allow a work safe authority to seize a business without court supervision. This is not something that exists in current laws.

The Victorian government has said they agree to harmonisation on the condition that the new laws do not damage work safety or businesses. My analysis says that this would be the outcome.

In South Australia, attempts to introduce the harmonised laws were defeated in the Upper House early this year. The government is trying again but the opposition and independents continue to see major flaws.

There's a simple principle that must be in place. Harmonising of work safety laws should only occur where an improvement in the work safety environment can be demonstrated. Anything less, risks work safety. These new laws put safety at risk.


From the Business Spectator, September 2011.

Your Thoughts

We're keen to hear what you think of Ken's articles. If you'd like to make a contribution, please send us an email here.