Self Employed Australia

"Everyone needs an Advocate"

“Everyone needs an Advocate”

Federal politics

Inside the Truth Police

by

truth-policeIn late July we alerted you to the planned Misinformation and Disinformation laws. The laws will require social media platforms (Facebook, etc.) to determine what is ‘true’ and to warn people for posting ‘untruths’ and then ‘cancelling’ them.

Here’s the government’s information sheet on the law.

We mentioned that we, Self-Employed Australia, have had experience with such ‘truth’ suppression. A member put up on their Facebook page a post we made commenting on the outcome of our Supreme Court action over hotel quarantine. Facebook had its ‘truth police’ sanction the member. We’ve now completed a detailed analysis of that experience.

The full detail is available on Ken’s Substack post here: ‘The Truth Police are here’.

It’s a detailed analysis of how Facebook imposes its ‘truth’ on the public and suppresses dissenting ‘truths’. We go into the detail because it gives an insight from a real experience to which anyone could be subjected.

The essence is that Facebook took an objection to the exposure of this statement by a judge in the ruling on SEA’s court action. The judge said:

“If SEA is not granted an extension of time the individuals referred to in the First Request will be freed from the not insignificant stress of potentially being subjected to prosecution for serious criminal offences… the 20 individuals identified in the First Request may suffer considerable prejudice if SEA is granted an extension of time…”[emphasis added]

That is, the opinion could be reasonably formed that the judge was commenting that if a person subject to potential prosecution was under stress, then that was a reason not to proceed.

Facebook sought to close down and suppress that comment in our view, and we explain in detail how Facebook’s outsourced ‘truth police’ approached this. Rather than determining what Facebook says is ‘fact’, our analysis is that they were in fact expressing an opinion on SEA’s opinion on the Court’s judgement. That’s okay if opinion is presented as opinion. It’s a different matter altogether, however, to present opinion as ‘fact’.

We say that it’s fine if Facebook wants to determine what is true for its platform. It owns the platform. It can do what it likes. But it is something entirely different for parliament to pass a law that all social media platforms must do as Facebook has done.

The compulsory silencing of opinion on the basis of political ‘fact’ determination by appointed ‘truth police’ heralds an era of oppression of the people. We have seen this far too often in the history of human activity. The consequences are always ugly, sometimes horrifyingly so.

The full analysis is here.

Working from Home is making us our own bosses!

by

working-from-homeThe Work From Home (WFH) movement has been coming under attack. Office real estate valuations are crashing globally and ‘workers’ are to blame, it would seem.

But what is WFH? It’s nothing more than millions of workers taking advantage of technology that allows office work to be done anywhere, anytime. Effectively ‘we’ workers are acting like consumers and exercising our individual choices as to how we earn our incomes. In truth, we’re witnessing the crashing of market forces (millions of people making billions of individual choices) into the labour environment. To real estate moguls I say: ‘suck it up’ and adapt!

WHF goes further. It’s challenging the underpinnings of labour law and management, at least in the office setting. It is a moment in time, a revolution!

Even if you’re legally tagged an ‘employee’, in fact working from home takes on more of the features of self-employment (being your own boss) than employment. Progressively more and more WFH people will become formally self-employed.

I discuss this in greater length (in between putting on a load of washing – I work from home as a self-employed person!) on my Substack site. You can link here (it’s free).

But there’s another angle I don’t discuss on Substack—the gig economy. Quite often substantial aspects of WFH involve gig work. Think of WFH translators, transcriptionists and private tutors. They almost exclusively work from home, sourcing and managing their work through gig platforms. And they are almost universally self-employed. Yet the federal government’s agenda is to attack these people.

You’ll probably be well aware of our campaign to attempt to have this agenda blocked in the Australian Senate. The WFH movement adds further weight to our argument that the government’s agenda is nonsensical and defies the choices that workers (people) are making to have control of their own working lives. This is a ‘movement’ of individual choices by huge numbers of people.

Here’s the summary of our other reasons for opposing the government’s anti-gig, anti-worker agenda.

And a quick campaign update for you…

  • We’ve been in contact now with all of the seven independent Senators’ advisers. Discussions have been very professional and constructive. At this stage of advocacy our experience is that it’s necessary to engage with the Senators’ policy staffers.
  • There’s no legislation at the moment, but when it appears we’ll be doing further analysis and briefings.
  • We need the Opposition and six of the seven independent Senators to oppose any legislation in order to block it.
  • So far, we’ve conducted three trips to Canberra to meet Senators’ policy staffers in person. When the legislation appears, the pace of this will pick up. Phone calls, emails and Zoom chats have been frequent.

Touch base with me if you’re interested in more information.

Full campaign details here.

Einstein is dangerously wrong. Silence him with a new law!

by

einsteinWhen Albert Einstein published his new theories around 1905 he challenged the established ‘truth’ of Newton’s laws of physics. Einstein was attacked by the scientific establishment at the time who were wedded to, and career-dependent on, Newton’s laws. Many sought to stop him. However, Einstein’s theory ultimately became the new ‘truth’.

This is how humans advance. ‘Truth’ is a view or perspective that is universally held, until such time as it is challenged, found to be faulty and replaced by a new view that becomes the new ‘truth’.

The Australian government is proposing a law that will force digital platforms (Facebook, etc.) to be the determiners of what is ‘true’. The government has put out a ‘Fact Sheet’ about this planned law and they are asking for your input.

The ‘Fact Sheet’ is here (with our markups)

We think it’s important that the government receive many responses and we encourage you to do so.

The planned law is very broad in its reach covering “Misinformation and Disinformation” that will “cause serious harm”

  • It defines misinformation as “content that is false, misleading or deceptive” but doesn’t define what those things are, leaving that open to interpretation.
  • It doesn’t define what is ‘harm’, leaving that open to interpretation.

But

  • The ‘Fact Sheet’ talks of “harm” that “…affects a significant portion of the Australian population, economy or environment, or undermines the integrity of an Australian democratic process.”

That is:

  • The law will cover almost anything that anyone says or thinks and that what is ‘true’ is to be determined by ‘truth authorities’ that supply ‘truth’ determinations to Facebook and other digital platforms.
  • The law will not be constrained to criminal or potential criminal incitement, or to issues of defamation and so on. The law will cover anything.

In ‘truth’, this law is an attempt by government (through third parties) to control what they, the prevailing establishment/s in society, decide/s is ‘true’. It will enable misinformation or disinformation that an establishment wants propagated as their ‘truth’ to be the only authorised ‘truth’.

Take this example from the opinion/‘truth’ website Wikipedia on the flat earth theory:

  • It is a historical myth that medieval Europeans generally thought the Earth was flat. This myth was created in the 17th century by Protestants to argue against Catholic.

That is, one religious group used the ‘flat earth’ allegation to take issue with a competing religious group. This is what humans have always done. ‘Truth’ and ‘facts’ are manipulated for purposes of power and oppression. The only way to limit this is to allow the broadest of human expression and challenge to existing ‘truths’.

The beauty of Wikipedia is that almost anyone can put up an opinion on their ‘truth’. Wikipedia allows competing opinions on ‘truth’ to flourish. But this law will surely suppress this feature of Wikipedia.

Self-Employed Australia has had experience with such ‘truth’ suppression. A member put up on their Facebook page a post we made commenting on the outcome of our Supreme Court action over hotel quarantine. Facebook had its ‘truth police’ sanction the member. Did Facebook’s ‘truth police’ contact us to seek our perspective? No! The ‘truth police’ instead ran with a spin the Victorian government would have wanted.

This is what this ‘truth’ law will enforce—government/establishment-sanctioned ‘truth’, with civil and criminal penalties for breaches.

In addition to responding to the ‘Fact Sheet’ above we encourage you to express your ‘truth’ to your local federal MP and State Senators.

The most effective emails are those that are respectful, to the point and personal. A follow-up phone call to the member’s office adds extra weight.

You can find your local member’s contact details through this parliamentary website. The search functions are good.

Robodebt lies and fraud: How corrupt government works

by

robodebtRobodebt was and is a huge a scandal that was eventually investigated by a Royal Commission. We’ve studied the 1000-pages-plus Royal Commission Report—it’s a shocking read—and have written a summary and analysis.

If you read anything of what we write, this analysis stands out as one of the most significant we have written. (9-minute read)

The issue goes to the heart of whether government can be trusted to be honest and accountable.

Frankly, Robdebt should shatter any naivety Australians may hold about the ‘purity’ of government. Robodebt shows that governments will lie and cheat, particularly when transparency and accountability are more a public relations con than reality.

The Robodebt Royal Commission Report details how the government of the day decided that there must by wide-ranging social security fraud. It claimed the fraud to be in the order of well over $1 billion per year, but there were no facts to back that claim. Nonetheless, it was pushed as a political priority and the public service was charged with delivering the policy.

The orchestrated ‘scam’ that the government imposed on 866,857 Australians was pretty simple in its design as was its inbuilt flaw.

The scheme involved the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) providing the Department of Human Services (DHS) with income records of welfare recipients over short periods of time, usually a fortnight. DHS then assumed that the income for the short period applied over longer periods, say a year.

Based on this false assumption, DHS then alleged that welfare recipients had more income than they had declared, and that overpayment of welfare had occurred as a result on a massive scale. DHS aggressively collected the ‘debts’. Great hardship followed. There were even suicides.

The Commission’s Report details systemic and deliberate lying, deceit, fraud and cover-up layered over the top of incompetence, bad management, maladministration and ignoring the law at the most senior levels of the public service and politics.

The extent of the scandal would surprise many, but what we observe are patterns of behaviour by government that we have seen before—particularly by the ATO as just one example.

We offer our view of how this needs to be addressed. We say that relying on internal government department policies to stop such government fraud (which is the current dominant structure) is not enough. Government, instead, must be held to at least the same levels of transparency and accountability as are expected of the rest of the community.

We say that Parliament needs to take charge of the bureaucracy.

How government can harm people – The Robodebt scandal

by

RobodebtWe’re currently studying the report of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. The report describes a scandal of huge proportions, in which government inflicted enormous damage on individuals—even to the extent of a number of suicides occurring.

The scheme involved the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) supplying income assessment data to the Department of Human Services (DHS) on some 860,000 social welfare recipients. The ATO data reported PAYG income based on employer returns for specific periods during a year. The DHS then used the income data and assumed that the income from one period of time was income across longer periods of time (say a year). They called this ‘averaging’.

To quote directly from the Royal Commission Report:

“…the way averaging was used in the Scheme was essentially unfair, treating many people as though they had received income at a time when they had not … with the further fiction that they now owed something back to government…”

That is, the income assessments made by DHS based on ATO data were wrong. On the basis of these false incomes, people were sent bills to pay back social security payments they had received.

There is now, of course, a lot of political payback surrounding the issue, much we would observe likely justified. But there is a bigger issue at play.

There is a gross institutional failure in Australia when it comes to government operations being subject to transparency and checks and balance. Much of what are claimed to be ‘check and balances’ is government scamming the people. Take one example.

November this year marks the start of strengthened unfair contract laws for small business people. But government departments are not subject to these laws. That is, Australian governments are not prepared to apply to themselves the same rules which they apply to the community. Australia has a big problem in this respect, and it makes for bad government.

The Royal Commission report runs to over 1,000 pages. When we’ve finished our study, we’ll produce a detailed assessment.

On the issue of contracts, we’ve had a number of people ask us for assistance in devising their own contract or reviewing a contract they have been offered. SEA does not provide legal, accounting or other advice. But we have developed guidelines on contract assessment/construction that many people find helpful. SEA members can access that information here. These give good starting points that can be checked by a lawyer.

100,000 (plus) hear the message – Self-employed under attack

by

Spectator-TV-100Recently I was interviewed on Spectator TV where I explained the attack against self-employed people being prepared by the Albanese government. I presented a simple example of how the promise to provide ‘holiday pay’ was in fact a con that will take money away from people.

Someone has taken a 5-minute clip from the longer interview and posted this on Twitter. This has broken through the 100,000 views mark in just over 24 hours of posting and continues to grow.

You can access the twitter post here.

Spectator-TV

We hope this provides a simple explanation.

We started our campaign on this in March this year – the Be Your Own Boss campaign where we provide lots of detail.

We have many more direct discussions in the pipeline with Senators and MPs and their advisers.

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.