Self Employed Australia

"Everyone needs an Advocate"

“Everyone needs an Advocate”

Campaigns

Campaigning is under way—Defending your right to Be Your Own Boss

by

campaigningWe thought we’d give you an understanding of the mechanics of our campaign to try and stop the Albanese government from implementing its ‘employee-like’ agenda.

We explained early in May that the government had started the implementation process with the release of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations’ (DEWR) consultation paper.

Our first task was to assess and respond to the paper. We lodged our long submission (11,000 words) to DEWR and in late May provided you a brief overview. The reason for the long submission is simple. The government is throwing up a concept—‘employee-like’—which at first glance could appear reasonable. But it’s only when you delve into the detail of what this means that a full understanding is possible. And it means a direct attack upon your right to be your own boss, to be self-employed.

The next phase in our campaign started last week. This involves focusing on the independent Senators that the government needs to pass any legislation in the Senate. There are seven independent Senators. The government needs four of them to pass legislation.

Last week we began the engagement process with the Senators. It needs to be understood that all Senators and MPs are incredibly busy trying to comprehend a huge range of complex issues. Our responsibility is to present our arguments clearly, factually and as concisely as possible. To this end we’ve produced a four-page summary of our position.

Last week we had initial discussions with staff of some Senators and had one Senator ask us to come to Canberra to explain the issues in person. We did this and had a very productive discussion. It was pleasing to have this level of interest.

We’ve been conducting pro-self-employed advocacy campaigns for over 20 years and we’ve learnt one thing. It’s essential to sit down with Senators and MPs and explain one’s position face-to-face. We’re committed to this. And it’s not just independent Senators we seek to talk to, but also the government itself, the opposition and independent MPs.

This costs money, of course, and this is where your membership fees go.

For example, a one-day trip to Canberra (from Melbourne) usually involves:

  • $500 in airfares, $100 for buses, taxis, etc.

And staying overnight in Canberra (if needed) is expensive during Parliament sitting days—usually starting at around $250 a night (just for basic accommodation!!!)

The government plans to introduce its contentious legislation later this year. To run our advocacy campaign, we anticipate that around eight to ten trips to Canberra will be required before years’ end.

If you’d like to help fund any of those trips, you can do so through our dedicated campaign membership link here.

There’s quite a ‘battle’ going on, with the ACTU (unions) putting out a very aggressive ‘research’ paper which attacks the High Court and is hugely misleading on many fronts. It’s this sort of thing that we need to explain to Senators and MPs otherwise the union agenda will prevail.

We’ll keep you informed.

Labor’s ‘employee-like’ agenda assaults competition law

by

employee-likeWe informed you on 7 May that the Federal government’s anti-small business plan was progressing. It released a Consultation Paper on 13 April requiring submissions by 12 May. We’ve lodged our submission opposing the planned legislation. The submission is here.

Sorry, but the submission is long—yep, 11,000 words.

The reason for the length is that the government’s plan is presented as if it’s a ‘tweaking’ of law and of limited application. It’s not. It’s a massive assault against the very principles and practices of contract that determine your right to be your own boss, to be self-employed. This can only be understood by understanding the detail.

We’ll explain the detail in shorter ‘chunks’ through this and a series of future news alerts. If you have queries, please contact us.

Competition law ‘protects’ self-employed, small business people

Today we cover the grave threats posed to competition policy and law, the jurisdictional authority of the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC), and the right of people in Australia to earn their income as a small business person.

Competition law regulates commercial contracts.

Employment law regulates employment contracts.

  • The government’s plan is to allow employment regulation to regulate commercial contracts.

This is a massive step across a fundamental threshold.

The plan is to legislatively redefine commercial contracts to be employment contracts on the alleged grounds that some self-employed people are ‘employee-like’.

This defies the High Court’s declaration in February 2022 (Personnel Case) that:

  • “The employment relationship with which the common law is concerned must be a legal It is not a social or psychological concept like friendship…”

In effect, the plan is to ‘invent’ a new legislative contract form that is outside common law to thwart common law contract.

This also breaches Australia’s International Labour Organisation obligations where the ILO declared in 2006 that:

  • “National policy for protection of workers in an employment relationship should not interfere with true civil and commercial relationships…”

Competition clash

The provisions will immediately set up a clash between competition law and employment regulation. Specifically, the ACCC and the Fair Work Commission (FWC) will both be required to regulate commercial contracts that have been declared ‘employee-like’, but each with different and opposing public policy objectives. The ACCC to prevent collusion over pricing and ensure competition. The FWC to facilitate price collusion thereby creating the circumstances for anti-competitive behaviour.

This is being done under the pretext that some self-employed people need ‘protections’.

But protections are already in place:

  1. Sham contracting laws in Australia are possibly the strongest in the world.
  2. The Independent Contractors Act outlaws payment below similar pay to an employee.
  3. ‘Beefed up’ unfair contract laws begin in November 2023 and will be handled by the ACCC.
  4. Collective bargaining for the self-employed is already available through the ACCC.
  5. Improved, easier dispute resolution can be made available through small business ombudsmen, etc.
  6. New ‘pay on time’ laws are currently being considered.

We are now undertaking a major advocacy campaign directed at Federal MHRs and Senators. We’ll keep you informed.

Labor’s agenda to outlaw the self-employed – Here it comes!!

by

Labor's-agenda-outlawWe’ve alerted you in the past to the Albanese government’s plan to deny people the right to be self-employed. It’s an attack upon your basic freedom to decide how you earn your income. That attack plan is now unfolding.

The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) has released a consultation paper on the implementation of Labor’s plan. We’re preparing a detailed submission (due on 12 May). Legislation is set for the second half of this year.

Be very clear. We totally reject this agenda. It’s bad on many fronts. We’ll explain the multiple problems progressively over the following weeks.

We have started talking to Senators and MPs about why this is so bad and should be stopped. We’ll be very actively pushing to defend the right to be self-employed.

We’ve prepared a summary of the DEWR consultation paper. We’ve tried to reflect what they are saying accurately.

In broad summary, Labor’s plan is to:

  • Treat the commercial contract used by self-employed people as an employment contract.
  • Regulate self-employed people through the Fair Work Commission, thus creating conflict with commercial law and regulation by the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission. The DEWR papers says that this will be done on a limited selective basis. But those limits are as yet unknown.

Frankly, we see our campaign as perhaps the most important one that we have conducted in SEA’s 24-year history. We must attempt to stop this.

We argue that Labor’s plan is a recipe for commercial contract confusion and uncertainty. We find the consultation paper to be a confused hotchpotch itself, as it is forced to weave a path through well-established legal, regulatory and policy principles and practices. This is so because the plan would generate conflict with those principles and practices on a wide scale.

At this stage we seek to understand the detail of Labor’s agenda. The difficulty is that the agenda is wrapped up in seemingly good intentions which mask its true consequences.

Many people have asked us for more information. We suggest that you read our summary first and see what you think. We’ll release our analysis progressively.

Self Employed. Marxism. Corruption. Not Above The Law

by

discernableAt Self-Employed Australia we’re covering what seems to be a wide range of topics. In fact, these all come back to a central ‘thing’ that we seek to protect—namely, your right to be self-employed should you wish. That is, your right to Be Your Own Boss.

One of our great supporters is Discernable, an on-line blog television channel run by Matt Wong. Matt’s a true self-employed, small business innovator. He’s invested his own money, time and effort to pursue a vision that says that media news and issues coverage doesn’t have to be slogan-slamming but can undertake patient, intelligent coverage of issues.

If you haven’t watched Discernable we highly recommend doing so. If you’re like us, you’re likely to find the long (frequently 2 hour) interviews engaging, addictive and binge-watchable. The stories that come from Matt’s guests are fabulously insightful.

Matt has interviewed SEA’s Ken Phillips on several occasions covering our Not Above The Law campaign and more. Just this week Matt interviewed Ken and SEA chairman Nick Karamouzis.

The interview is available here.

discernable

We covered a range of topics. And to make it easy for you here are the timeslots of the issues we covered.

marxism

We trust our interview gives you a good handle on our campaign efforts.

Labor to deny self-employed access to protections

by

protections-deniedThe Albanese government’s determination to legislate an ‘employee-like’ definition will introduce radical law that will deny protections to Australia’s self-employed people.

The government says that it doesn’t want to create any ‘unintended consequences.’ Whether the consequences of its actions are intended or unintended is irrelevant. Denial of protections is what will occur.

Self-employed people currently enjoy protections from:

Further, Australia has built a system of cheap, quick dispute resolution through the network of state and federal small business commissioners and ombudsmen.

This entire protection system will be thrown into chaos and confusion with the creation of an ‘employee-like’ definition.

This is because self-employed people are regulated and protected through commercial law which is entirely different to how employees are dealt with under employment law.

The government’s agenda will defy decisions of the global protector of workers’ rights, the International Labour Organisation. In 2006 the ILO declared principles which stated that it was necessary to:

  • protect the freedom of independent contractors to enter into services contracts;
  • recognise independent contracting as a legitimate form of work arrangement that is primarily commercial; and
  • prevent interference with the terms of genuine independent services contracts.

These principles are embedded in the Australian Independent Contractors Act.

And more.

On certainty

In February 2022, The Australian High Court made the most important decision on the definition of self-employment in more than 50 years. In its decision the Court stated that:

“…It is the task of the courts to promote certainty with respect to a relationship of such fundamental importance.” (at par 58)

The government’s ‘employee-like’ agenda will create uncertainty, the very opposite of what the High Court says needs to be achieved.

Legal relationship is not social/psychological

The High Court also said:

“The employment relationship with which the common law is concerned must be a legal relationship. It is not a social or psychological concept like friendship.”

The government wants to turn a social or psychological concept (‘employee-like’) into a legal form through legislation. This defies and erodes the common-law distinction between employment and self-employment which the High Court says must remain distinct.

Bad consultation

The government’s recently announced ‘consultation’ on the issue does not raise or seek to discuss any of these vital issues. This is not ‘consultation’. It is a process of seeking to ram through an agenda that is bad for self-employed, small business people.

We’d appreciate any support you can afford in our campaign to defend the right to be self-employed. It’s important.

Defending the self-employed: 2023 Campaign to counter the creeping attack!

by

defendingThere is no doubt that, in the second half of this year, major legislation is going to be pushed through Federal Parliament that will do harm to self-employed people.

We know this because of the government’s stated agenda. In a significant speech to the National Press Club on 1 February 2023, the Workplace Relations Minister, Tony Burke, laid out the government’s wide-ranging agenda. There are four items on that agenda list that we must oppose.

These are:

  • The creation of ‘employee-like’ legal definitions for self-employed people.
  • Limiting the self-employed’s capacity/rights to engage in the gig economy.
  • Imposing business-crushing ‘employment’ regulations on owner-driver truck drivers.
  • Giving the Fair Work Commission power over self-employed people.

Each of these agenda items is presented by the government as a form of ‘protection’ for the self-employed. But in fact these items reduce the right of Australians to be their own boss. There’s the harm.

We have long fought for protections for self-employed people. But these protections can and must come through commercial law and regulation.

The government’s approach on the items listed above is instead a process of denying the full right of people to be self-employed and instead forcing people into employee-like situations. This approach stems from an ideological view that only employment regulation provides workers with protection. This is a wrong, narrow and harmful perspective. Wherever this is done, great harm is inflicted on self-employed workers. Think of the AB5 laws in California which harm truckers and many others. We must try to prevent such harm being done in Australia.

We’re not saying that the Albanese government is all bad on the self-employed front. In fact, we were and are full of praise for its speedy passing of the ‘beefed up’ unfair contract (protection) laws in October last year. This is exactly the model of protection laws that self-employed (own boss) workers need—namely, protections under commercial law. But where the government heads in the wrong direction we need to oppose it.

Today we’re announcing the start of our campaign. This means:

  • Writing submissions (even if not invited to do so).
  • Communicating directly with government advisers and MPs.
  • Seeking support from the Coalition opposition and Senate/House independents.

One thing that we have learnt over many years is that if we don’t go to Canberra and walk the halls of parliament knocking on doors, presenting our views, and raising awareness, then we will not get anywhere.

We’re asking for your $ support. This campaigning costs money. It requires effort, persistence and money. We will put in the effort and the persistence. But our only revenue is from you—our members/supporters.

You can contribute/Join here as a:

  • Full member ($44 a month)
  • Standard member ($22 a month)
  • Campaign member (you choose $)

More information will follow as our campaign unfolds.

PS: You can also follow Ken Phillips through his Self-Employed Aren’t Stupid, Substack postings.

We give evidence on Tax Fairness solution to UK Parliamentary committee/group

by

UK-parliamentFor over a decade we’ve been campaigning for fairness and for rule of law principles to be applied when the ATO assesses and administers alleged tax debts, particularly those of self-employed, small business people.

We have found a template ‘solution’ based on how USA law requires tax administration fairness from the IRS. Here’s a video explanation and a one-page summary.

It transpires that the UK also has very similar problems with its tax administrator (HMRC) abusing self-employed people. We have a long-standing campaigning partnership with Contractor Calculator in the UK who, like us, campaigns for tax administration fairness. The UK problem is so severe that an all-party parliamentary group/committee has been formed to seek a solution to HMRC abuse. Some 250 UK MPs are in the group/committee.

Last month (on 21 February) we gave a joint presentation to the Taxpayer Fairness Group’s senior parliamentary members. We offered them a vision of a solution based on the USA model which we also recommend for Australia. Three of us gave presentations followed by Q&A (YouTube links below).

Ken-Phillips     Dave-Chaplin     Jason-Falinski

Jason made some strong points:

“At the core of this is whether governments exist to serve people or citizens exist to serve government … we have provided tax agencies in the Western world with extraordinary powers that are in breach of some pretty fundamental legal rights…”

We provided the UK parliamentary group with:

Almost exclusively, tax debates are about how much money is or should be taken out of which pockets of the people. But the way tax laws are administered cuts to the heart of the power of government over the people. And by ‘government’ we mean the faceless tax bureaucrats who administer the inevitable maze of tax laws.

Tax law administration must be subject to transparency, accountability and checks and balances so that the rule of (tax) law applies in a practical way. That is not the case in Australia nor, it seems, in the UK.

Our campaign is to secure that rule of law. The US model offers a practical template for reform.

 

Trucking billionaires business boost

by

big-truckingFederal Labor is set to bolster the businesses of trucking billionaires and corporations. Unsurprisingly, the billionaires are more than happy to have this happen.

Naturally, Labor’s billionaires business boost is not being promoted this way by Labor. Labor says that its plan is about making trucking rates ‘safe’. But anyway this is looked at, this is about eliminating independent truck drivers as competitors to the big trucking corporations and billionaire trucking empires.

We know this because Labor set up a ‘safe rates’ scheme in 2012. But it wasn’t until 2016 that the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal (RSRT) started dictating trucking rates. It was a disaster for the 35,000 affected self-employed, long-haul truck drivers. Large numbers of these truckies were in the process of being bankrupted and several desperate truckies committed suicide. The Small Business Ombudsman released a report on how bad the laws were.

We campaigned hard against the laws to the extent of mounting a High Court challenge to them. In our hearing before the Chief Justice of Australia he stated that we “may have an arguable case.” However the Turnbull government passed legislation to close down the RSRT in 2016 and we didn’t need to proceed with the rest of the legal challenge.

This saved the livelihoods and businesses of these thousands of hard-working, self-employed Australians. What we know from the 2016 experience is that the ‘trucking safe rates’ argument has a theoretical claim about safety, but is in fact about putting small business people out of business to the benefit of big business. That’s the truth.

The argument about safety is heavily promoted by the Transport Workers Union (TWU) and goes something like this. The TWU says independent truck drivers work too hard. They drive long hours and the rates they charge are too low. These low rates mean that independent truck drivers have crashes. So, according to the TWU, the independent truckies need to be forced by legislation to charge more. Then the roads will be safe. That’s the TWU argument.

But look at the argument from a different angle—that is, from the viewpoint of competition.

Self-employed independent truck drivers are big competitors to the big trucking conglomerates (and they tend not to be union members!) By the nature of their businesses, independent truckies are able to be highly flexible. If, for example, an independent truckie is long-hauling between Perth and Brisbane and different jobs pop up along the way, they can respond in ways that the management bureaucracies of big companies cannot. This gives the independents big competitive advantages.

It’s this flexibility and fast responsiveness to customer needs that is key for the independents. But this does not suit the big transport bosses. And it does not suit the TWU which effectively enforces membership through the big transport bosses.

Now that Labor is in government and seems to have the support of the Greens in the Senate on labour issues, Albanese’s Labor is looking to target independent truck drivers again. Labor has announced that it intends to re-introduce a scheme of ‘safe’ rates for ‘employee-like’ independent truck drivers. They will do this in the second half of 2023.

Again, they are going to control the rates that independent truck drivers must charge. This will be a repeat of 2016. Independent truck drivers will be pushed into hardship, bankruptcies and suicide. Big trucking billionaires will get richer. This is Labor’s direct attack against Australian small business people.

ATO breakthrough on worker classification

by

worker-classificationOne of the most controversial and confusing issues for tax and labour law over the last 50 years is whether a worker is an employee or self-employed.

In February 2022, the Australian High Court released a ruling that establishes major clarity in the law on this issue. We referenced and summarised the ‘Personnel’ decision in August 2022. We included links for SEA members to:

New ATO rulings

Now the Australian Taxation Office has released new rulings (just before Christmas 2022) on the employee vs self-employed issue, based on the clarity established by the High Court in ‘Personnel.’ We consider the ATO rulings to be outstanding, providing explanation in clear lay language.

We think the ATO rulings are necessary reading for accountants, human resources and industrial relations managers, lawyers (yes!) and anyone needing clarity on worker status in Australia. This particularly includes self-employed people. There are two rulings:

The rulings we supply (for members) include highlights to assist understanding.

Employee or self-employed – Overview of ATO Ruling D3

We will provide a summary/commentary on the employee or self-employed (D3) ruling shortly. But in brief:

  • If a written contract is comprehensive and clear, it stands as the determinator of worker status.
  • If there is no written contract, or a contract is unclear etc., the standard ‘multifactorial’ test applies with the ‘totality’ of the relationship providing the answer.

Worker status – compliance with obligations – Overview of ATO Ruling D5

The ATO has a need to define worker status to ensure community compliance with:

  • PAYG – that is, determining who has responsibility to send income tax withholding payments to the ATO – the worker or the engaging entity?
  • Superannuation – that is, whether an engaging entity must make superannuation payments for a worker.

The ruling on this sets up a simple matrix which explains when the ATO will investigate. This depends on whether the compliance behaviour of the parties is deemed to be very low, low, medium or high-risk. These are explained clearly in the (D5) ruling.

Frankly, we think that anyone who allows their business to fall into the medium or high-risk areas is foolish and asking for trouble.

Non ATO tax issues – helpful but some caution needed

Even though the D3 ruling (employee or self-employed) is ATO-specific, it has strong practical application to other areas, such as definitions for workplace relations. (Note. The ATO is careful to state that the ruling is ATO/Tax/Super-specific only)

However, the law that the ATO must apply on PAYG/Superannuation is exactly the same law (at first instance) that applies to workplace relations—that is, the ‘standard’ or ‘common law’ definitions as declared by the High Court. Given that, in our view, the ATO ruling (D3) is so clearly written in layperson’s language, it is likely to prove very helpful for other areas such as workplace relations.

Even though the same helpfulness applies for workers’ compensation, OHS and payroll tax (all state issues), considerable care should be taken where these laws extend their reach to some types of independent contractors/self-employed. These ‘extension’ laws vary from state to state and are not the same as the ATO’s ‘extension’ laws.

Conclusion – Congratulations to the ATO

We consider these ATO rulings to be a major step forward. The best tax systems maximise voluntary compliance by taxpayers. This cannot occur where the rules are confused or badly explained. On this issue the ATO rulings generate considerable clarity. We recommend that our SEA members take the time to read these rulings. They are not onerous reading and quite clear.

Outcome: Victorian Supreme Court Action

by

supreme-courtThis is a special email to update you on the outcome of our mandamus application to the Victorian Supreme Court over WorkSafe Victoria’s failure to prosecute individuals and entities over the 2020 Hotel Quarantine disaster.

On 2 December 2022, we informed you of the Court’s ruling (delivered that day) which declared that we had not lodged our application ‘on time’. That is, our application was dismissed on a technicality. We disagree with and reject this decision.

For fuller details on the case:

  • This link is to the ruling of 2 December. We’ve highlighted some sections.
  • This link gives an overview of the 3-year campaign, plus some commentary on the ruling.
  • We have made available a full commentary on the ruling to SEA members.

Here’s a summary

Supreme Court rules require that lodgement needs to occur within 60 days of when the named government department failed to do what that department is required to do by law. The issue was: what was that date?

WorkSafe refused to answer whether they had investigated those named entities as required.  But the ruling states that, as of 29 September 2021, we should have inferred, concluded or assumed that WorkSafe had investigated all the 26 entities/individuals that we named (the Victorian Premier, etc). (Our application was lodged on 14 February 2022.)

We say that that conclusion is wrong and that we did not and could not have known. The Court’s ruling was based on interpreting drawn-out correspondence spanning many months about who said what to whom and what we should have inferred by what was said/written.

The ruling then does two curious things in our view.

  1. It spends considerable time rebutting many of our published allegations/assessments we made as to why individuals/entities should be prosecuted. Why bother to do that when the dismissal of our application on technical grounds was all that was needed? The ruling reads as a defence of the government individuals and entities we named.
  2. The ruling then says that if the court allow SEA’s application that this would put the individuals we named under ‘stress’ and this should not occur.

It seems that the Court is saying that an individual should not be prosecuted for alleged offences if the prosecution were to cause the individual ‘stress’. We ask: Would this principle apply to an accused murderer? That is, should an accused not be prosecuted because they would feel ‘stressed’? We find this a disturbing concept. We will have more to say on this issue.

SEA is committed to continuing our ‘Not Above the Law’ campaign, along with our other campaigns on public policy issues affecting self-employed people and more.

I’m available to chat should you want more information or explanation.

Ken Phillips
Executive Director, Self-Employed Australia
0412 393 692