Table of contents
- Safety net of dual insurance
- Personal accident cover becomes mandatory
- Workers must insure their own vehicles
- What is the effect of not complying?
- Practice points
Safety net of dual insurance
New minimum standards for digital labour platform operators (DLPOs) and employee-like workers (ELWs) in the on-demand delivery sector, which include insurance requirements, commenced on 17 August 2026.
The Fair Work Commission's Interim On-Demand Delivery Employee-like Worker Minimum Standards Order 2026 (Order) introduces the first minimum insurance obligations for DLPOs and ELWs in the on-demand delivery sector, where workers are mainly independent contractors who fall outside the protections of workers compensation schemes.
The Order establishes a dual insurance model rather than a workers compensation-type insurance scheme for these workers, so that:
- ELWs must maintain compulsory third-party (CTP) insurance for any vehicle used to perform delivery services, while
- DLPOs must obtain and maintain personal accident insurance for workers using their platforms.
Personal accident cover becomes mandatory
Every DLPO must, at its own expense, take out and maintain a personal accident insurance policy providing a "reasonable minimum level of cover" that reflects the work undertaken by ELWs on the platform (cl 9.2).
The Order expressly provides that the insurance need not be held at a level equivalent to workers compensation under Commonwealth, State or Territory laws (cl 9.3(a)).
This means that what is "reasonable minimum" cover will not necessarily mirror the extensive entitlements available to traditional workers under workers compensation legislation, which includes benefit levels, lump sums, weekly payments, medical entitlements or permanent impairment thresholds.
The Order also recognises that some delivery workers may already fall within existing statutory insurance regimes.
A DLPO does not have to maintain the personal accident policy in respect of a worker for whom it is already required to obtain workers compensation or another statutory accident insurance policy under Commonwealth, State or Territory law (cl 9.3(b)).
No double recovery
Lawyers will need to consider the interaction between personal accident policies and statutory compensation schemes, given that:
- benefits paid under a personal accident policy are taken to satisfy, and may be set off against, entitlements under applicable workers compensation or similar insurance schemes to the extent permitted by law (cl 9.3(c)), and
- a worker must not claim the same benefits under both the personal accident policy and a workers compensation or like scheme (cl 9.3(d)).
These provisions are likely to be important where disputes arise about a worker's status, the availability of statutory compensation, or the proper calculation of any offset between competing entitlements.
Consultation required before insurance cover is reduced
The Order also gives workers some protection against reductions in insurance coverage under the significant change clause (cl 5).
If a DLPO makes a detrimental change to the level of personal accident insurance maintained under cl 9.2, the operator must consult with affected employee-like workers as though the change were a significant workplace change under cl 5 with "significant effects" under that clause.
The consultation process requires the operator to notify affected workers, provide a reasonable opportunity for feedback, and genuinely consider that feedback. Affected workers may also seek advice or assistance from a representative (which may include a union).
Workers must insure their own vehicles
While a significant focus is on platform-funded accident cover, the Order also places obligations directly on workers.
ELWs are required, at their own expense, to obtain and maintain CTP insurance for every vehicle used to provide services. Workers must also notify the insurer that the vehicle is being used for delivery work and comply with any insurer requirements (cl 9.1).
The Order separately requires workers to bear the costs of vehicle registration, acquisition, maintenance, repairs, fuel and other operational expenses associated with delivery work (cl 4).
What is the effect of not complying?
Failing to comply with a minimum standard order is a civil penalty offence, carrying a maximum penalty for a serious offence of 600 penalty units or otherwise 60 penalty units (Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 536JB, 539). Corporations can be penalised up to 5 times this amount (s 546(2)(b)). With the current value of a penalty unit at $364, the maximum penalty for each contravention for a standard offence would be $109,200 (60 x 5 x $364) for a corporation and $21,840 (60 x $364) for an individual, with the maximum penalty for a serious offence being 10 times as much.
Practice points
In light of the safety net discussed above, issues that are likely to require consideration by practitioners may include:
- the adequacy of "reasonable minimum" personal accident cover provided by DLPO
- whether a worker falls within a statutory workers compensation scheme or relies solely on the Order's insurance protections
- the operation of offset and double-dipping provisions if multiple compensation regimes potentially apply, and
- challenges concerning reductions in insurance coverage and compliance with consultation obligations.
Source: Expert panel decision on application for minimum standards order: Application by the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia [2026] FWCFB 211, 11 August 2026, accessed 21 September 2026.
Interim On-Demand Delivery Employee-like Worker Minimum Standards Order, MS900103, 11 August 2026, accessed 21 September 2026.
Fair Work Ombudsman, New minimum standards for on-demand delivery workers, 19 August 2026, accessed 21 September 2026.