Boardstatute
A payroll diligence and exception workspace for Australian employers that reconciles actual pay, hours, classifications, awards, loadings, allowances, overtime, leave, deductions, and super obligations against effective-dated rule candidates, routes payroll and employment-law review, and prepares a signed bounded board packet while keeping source record, worker classification, rule applicability, calculated entitlement, payroll correction, payment, super contribution, director diligence, legal conclusion, regulator finding, remediation, and compliance outcome separate.
Australia's wage-underpayment criminal offense and 2026 Payday Super change create board-level urgency, but the input overstates a universal personal-criminal-liability and “no-underpayment attestation” product. Criminal liability depends on statutory elements and facts; a director signature does not make payroll lawful or create a court-accepted artifact. Boardstatute surfaces exceptions and diligence evidence for qualified payroll, employment-law, finance, and board review. A clean rules scan cannot prove every award, enterprise agreement, classification, roster, time record, allowance, super contribution, or employee is complete. UK and other jurisdictions are outside the first scope unless separately researched.
An Australian CFO, payroll leader, people executive, company secretary, risk owner, or board committee overseeing payroll governance with qualified workplace-law support.
The supplied 2025 offense start and July 2026 super change create immediate governance work.
CFO, payroll, risk, and board roles have a concrete oversight obligation and high downside.
Three cross-references, one inbound connection, and three direct connections show a coherent payroll-governance cluster.
The source confirms Australia's current wage-underpayment offense, a July 2026 super reform, operational payroll-compliance competitors, and a board-level governance buyer not emphasized by those products.
Legal liability is fact-specific, award and agreement interpretation is complex, competitors already handle wage remediation, source completeness is hard, the signed-artifact claim is overbroad, and no structural copying cost is proven.
Discussion
No comments yet — be the first to weigh in.