I'm not sure that the facts as they are presented in this article are correct.

The full text of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 is available online at http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au. Section 28 "Defence" states that:

"It is a defence to any proceedings against a person for an offence against a provision of this Act or the regulations if the person proves that:
(a) it was not reasonably practicable for the person to comply with the provision, or
(b) the commission of the offence was due to causes over which the person had no control and against the happening of which it was impracticable for the person to make provision."

The above suggests that what is "reasonably practicable" and "control" are exactly the defences provided under the NSW Act -- despite that fact that you explicitly state that they are NOT a defense. The central point of you article seems to be invalidated.

I think if you are going to write an article like this you need to do some basic research and gets your facts straight! If there is some complexity to this then it should be included in the article not simply omitted

Well OH&S rules , regulations and employer's workers comp liability in NSW is exactly the reason why many in the building industry will not employ an apprentice.New legislation has meant that the employer not only pays the premium,but also the total cost of the claim.I have also learned today the being a Pty Ltd Company does not protect you from personal litigation.The Judiciary given a dilemma of an injured worker with no prospect of an income will always favour the vunerable.Someone must pay and it will be inevitabily be the employer.Who is to determine what negligence is, when an employee under complicated OH&S rules can simply say on this particular morning there was no special conference on safety?There are so many areas for lawyers to find loop holes that it is an absolute mine field for employers.How do you disprove bad back?How do you know an employee does not have a pre-existing injury?If the crime industrial man slaughter eventuates,this will mean that the principals of a company will be responsible for the actions of their managers. Those involved in Industrial Relations in NSW have lost the plot and they don't care.Those in this NSW Govt are blinded by leftist ideology and have no grasp of economic realities.Why do we bother?

Yes, yes Arjay. Those crazy looney lefties and their out of touch Industrial Relations Cronies have lost the plot. I can't wait to ring the talk back tribe and tell them so either.

The employer is always responsible Arjay, because the employer owns the business Arjay, that means the employer can direct the worker to do what they are asked in terms of safety or leave the site Arjay.

Sadly Arjay, many employers don't seem too keen to tell their employees what to do in terms of safety. Either because of ignorance of simple OHS procedures or because of profit-driven indifference.

Just ask Joel Exner's family and friends Arjay, I'm sure they'll tell you all about it.

Must agree with Gaddo, Ken Phillips, in the parlance of the equi-minded Arjay, has lost the plot.

You need to do your research Ken. Employers in NSW can't currently be sent to gaol ('jail' is a US word Ken), hence the current fuss about impending workplace death amendments. In Victoria, they tried to get the same legislation through, but not as yet. No big difference there.

And as for being charged twice, that would be called "double jeopardy" and CAN'T happen in our legal system or most in the developed world.

If there are variations in state legislation, that's because of Federation...figured that one out in 1901.

If the differing standards for the same offence are a concern, might I suggest that those employers who seem to have a propensity for killing their staff on the job, might wish to do so in the state with the lowest penalty.

Well MaRco,if it eventuates,be prepaired for even more business to move off shore.You will probably have to become self employed,then the shoe will be on the other foot.

A few years ago a friend employed a casual worker who faked an injury.Medical reports said that there was nothing wrong with him.Originally his lawyer was sueing for $750,000.00.The lawyer upon hearing the medical evidence wanted to settle out of court for $300,00.00 The insurance company rather than suffering losses in court costs settled for $300,000.00. The employers premiums for the next three years went up by 80% of the claim and he is still struggling to survive.

It has changed now,the payouts are smaller, but the employer pays not only the premium but the full amount of the claim in increased premiums.

We have the union lunatics in charge of the asylum.They thing that they are helping the worker when they are actually destroying job opportunities.

Small business actually now hates employing people because you don't know when a dishonest one will take you to the cleaners

Ken

I read your article shortly after publication. I queried the logic that an employmer had no reasonable defence.

Checking the wording of the act, I found that there are providsions for employer defences based on control and reasonable practicality.

It has now been a month and a half since I first posted my comment and you have not seen fit to post a rebuttal. From this I, and any other readers of this forum, can only conclude that your article is factually misleading.

Your silence condemns your argument!

Gaddo