When foreign 'contractors' are considered to be employees
The Advertiser7 hours ago
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
The world is now a global village. Remote work means anyone with a laptop can work from anywhere-customer support in the Philippines, accounting in Mumbai, virtual assistants in Vietnam. Hiring offshore talent has never been easier for Australian businesses. Everywhere I go, people rave about their overseas assistants - brilliant, cheap, and indispensable.
But here's the wake-up call: a Fair Work Commission (FWC) ruling has made it clear that just because your workers live overseas doesn't mean Australian employment laws don't apply.
The case involved Joanna Pascua, a paralegal in the Philippines working for Brisbane-based Doessel Group. On paper she was an "independent contractor" earning $18 an hour - well under our minimum wage. But she kept Queensland hours, dealt directly with Aussie banks, and had no other clients. The FWC decided she was actually an employee, which meant she was entitled to all the usual protections under the Fair Work Act, including minimum wage and the right to claim unfair dismissal.
The ruling has rattled plenty of small businesses who thought hiring offshore gave them a clean break from Australia's complex industrial relations system: no super, no payroll tax, no award wage - just a contract and a timesheet. Well, not anymore.
As Amanda Lyras, a partner at law firm Clayton Utz, explained:
"The application of the Fair Work Act to foreign workers is somewhat complex, but it is important for businesses to be aware that the employee protections under the Act can extend to a worker who is based outside Australia."
She warned that simply calling someone an independent contractor won't wash, especially under recent Closing Loopholes reforms.
"Following the reforms, it is not possible to rely on a well-drafted contract alone in establishing that a worker is an independent contractor."
In the end, it's the practical reality of the relationship that counts. Do they report to a manager? Do they have set hours? Are they prevented from taking on other work? Were they engaged in Australia by an Australian employer? If the answer is yes, the law is likely to see them as employees, no matter where in the world they sit.
That's exactly what happened here. The FWC decided Pascua was, in practice, just like any local staff member. The contract said "contractor", but the day-to-day reality said otherwise. She was engaged in Australia, worked fixed hours, reported directly to her boss, and did core work for the company: all the hallmarks of an employee.
Graham Doessel, the company's founder, argued that forcing Australian minimum wages onto overseas hires could crush small businesses. "Thousands of small operators just can't afford to pay Australian rates," he said.
That may be true, but as the Commission pointed out, affordability doesn't trump the law. Which leaves a big question for business owners: what now?
Lyras advises companies to think carefully about how and why they're engaging foreign workers:
"It may be more appropriate for them to be engaged by a foreign company in the group or a foreign employer of record. Businesses should give careful consideration to how the arrangement should be structured."
She also stressed that regular reviews are important:
"We encourage our clients to have a robust process that properly characterises workers... and implement regular checkpoints to monitor changes."
Offshore hiring can be smart and life-changing, but it's no loophole. If your "contractor" works like an employee, the law will treat them like one. Get proper advice and structure it right - or risk a nasty surprise.
Question: I am 82 and own a negatively geared rental property, which I had originally intended to leave to my son under my will. However, I am now considering transferring the property to him during my lifetime. I understand that capital gains tax would be payable based on the property's current market value, less any eligible deductions. Could you please clarify what expenses may be used to reduce the CGT liability? Also, is gift duty applicable, and would stamp duty be payable even though no money will change hands? The property was purchased for $105,000 in 1992 and is now valued at approximately $780,000. Once transferred, it will become my son's principal place of residence. Could you advise how the transfer should be structured, given that no payment will be made
Answer: The cost base includes your original purchase price, plus costs like stamp duty, legal fees, and any renovation expenses you didn't claim as tax deductions. Because you've owned the property for a long time, you'll qualify for a 50% CGT discount. From what you've told me, your net profit after the discount would be about $300,000. This would be added to your taxable income in the year you sign the sales contract. Depending on your other income, your CGT bill could be around $120,000. Given your son plans to live in the house long-term, it might be better to leave it to him in your will. That way, no CGT is triggered now - it would only arise when he eventually sells, and it could be reduced if the property is his home. If you're worried about challenges to your will, you could transfer 50% of the property to him now as a joint tenant. The rest would pass to him automatically when you die, and transferring only half now would mean a smaller CGT hit.
Question: If I receive a lump sum payment as part of a genuine redundancy - specifically for unused annual leave and accrued long service leave (Type A) - is this treated as assessable income for tax purposes? And if so, can I offset the tax by making a concessional super contribution before the end of that same financial year?
Answer: Yes, a unused leave payments received as a lump sum is assessable income for tax purposes. However, where it has been received as a result of genuine redundancy, these leave payments will be subject to concessional tax rates. In these circumstances, unused annual and long service leave payments accrued on or after 16 August 1978 are subject to a maximum tax rate of 30% (plus 2% Medicare levy). If you have not used up your concessional contributions cap, you could consider making tax deductible concessional super contributions to reduce your assessable income and offset some or all of the tax on the unused leave payments.
Question: I wonder if you'd consider helping those of us Australians trying to safely transfer funds into CoinSpot - one of the best-known, most-used, and highly respected Australian crypto exchanges. While Westpac allows transactions to CoinSpot, Macquarie has banned them. Staff insist they're "protecting customers" by preventing us from using our own funds to invest in so-called "unsafe" assets like crypto. I've been told there's no one at the bank I can speak to about reversing this decision. De-banking customers in this way is hardly an example of great service. It forces us to leave cash on exchanges and requires older Australians like me to open and juggle multiple bank accounts. Frankly, it's a paternalistic and heavy-handed form of control. Can you be a voice for us?
Answer: A Macquarie Bank spokesperson says "Unfortunately, cryptocurrency exchanges are frequently used by scammers to obtain funds from their victims and so present a high scam and fraud risk. To help protect our customers from the risk of scams, we block payments to BSBs that we assess as being high-risk, predominantly where they house accounts belonging to cryptocurrency exchanges. This decision aligns with our commitment to help ensure the security of customer payments and protect against fraud and scams." I guess your only option is to use Westpac.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
17 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Google cops $55m fine for search engine deals on phones
Internet giant Google could pay a $55 million fine after signing anti-competitive deals with Australia's two largest telcos that banned the installation of competing search engines on some smartphones. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission launched proceedings against the US technology firm in Federal Court on Monday over the behaviour, which Google has admitted. The court will be asked to determine if the $55 million penalty agreed by both parties is appropriate. The legal action follows court-enforceable undertakings from Telstra, Optus and TPG in 2024 to refrain from renewing or making similar deals with Google to limit search services. The anti-competitive deals, in place between December 2019 and March 2021, required Telstra and Optus to pre-install Google's Search app on Android smartphones and to exclude competing search services from the devices. In exchange, the telcos received a share of revenue from advertisements shown alongside Google's search results on the phones. The deals struck by the technology companies unfairly restricted consumers' access to search engine options, commission chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said. "Conduct that restricts competition is illegal in Australia because it usually means less choice, higher costs or worse service for consumers," she said. "Today's outcome along with Telstra, Optus and TPG's undertakings have created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future, and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers." In addition to admitting the deals could have reduced competition, Google has agreed not to require similar restrictions on search services in future contracts with smartphone manufacturers and telecommunication providers. The changes would become increasingly important, Ms Cass-Gottlieb said, as the search engine market was challenged by firms deploying artificial intelligence to deliver different results. "With AI search tools becoming increasingly available, consumers can experiment with search services on their mobiles," she said. The Federal Court in Victoria will determine whether the $55 million is appropriate and if "other relief" should apply. Google Australia issued a statement about the case on Monday, saying similar agreements that restricted search services from other companies were no longer being sought by the company. "We're pleased to resolve the ACCC's concerns, which involved provisions that haven't been in our commercial agreements for some time," the statement said. "We are committed to providing Android device makers more flexibility to preload browsers and search apps, while preserving the offerings and features that help them innovate, compete with Apple and keep costs low." The commission investigated internet competition as part of a five-year inquiry into digital platforms, issuing its final report in March. Google dominates search engine queries in Australia, with Statcounter Global Statistics estimating it delivered 91.7 per cent of search results in July, followed by Bing (5.6 per cent) and Yahoo (1.28 per cent).
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
Brand behind world-first recycled hammock launches NRL collab in time for Father's Day
As we near the end of winter and get ready to welcome the warmer months of spring, it's the best time of year to pack up the car and head away for a weekend of camping. Whether you're a regular explorer or keen to see what all the fuss is about, one thing is for certain: You'll need all the gear. Rather than forking out on expensive equipment (think hammocks, towels and blankets), head straight to Nakie to get kitted out with all kinds of outdoor essentials. Home to the world's first recycled hammock, the Aussie brand has thousands of five-star reviews raving about the quality of the best-selling products. And now there's even a range for footy fans. Just in time for Father's Day, Nakie has teamed up with the NRL to bring you hammocks, puffy outdoor blankets, and sand-free towels in the colours of all the 2025 NRL teams — and you can take up to 30 per cent off the new arrivals. Australian-born brand Nakie a B-Corp certified brand, home to all kinds of outdoor essentials made from recycled plastic bottles. From puffy outdoor blankets to best-selling hammocks, the NRL range is perfect for the ultimate footy fan to something unique this Father's Day. There are all 17 teams up for grabs and fast delivery to ensure it'll arrive in time. Offering 30 per cent off orders until September 6, you can save some cash on the new collab, and go into the running to win a brand new caravan. The caravan up for grabs is an MDC XL15-4E MKIII, a $69,990 4-berth, 15-foot hybrid model. With a king size bed, an indoor-outdoor kitchen set up, loads of storage, solar power and more, you could set off to explore the country in comfort. To place your order at Nakie, head to the website here.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Absolute priority': NAB underpays staff $130m
A big-four bank has revealed it will pay back workers $130m due to a payroll system problem at the same time that it announced an eye-watering profit. In its latest quarterly results, NAB announced a slight increase in third-quarter profits while pointing to a jump in operating expenses due to back paying workers. According to the bank, operating expenses were up 4.5 per cent on last year as it dealt with payroll issues estimated to come in at $130m for the 2025 financial year. The bank did not say how many employees need to be back paid. 'NAB payroll review and remediation is ongoing and total costs remain uncertain,' the bank said. The payroll review first began in 2019 and led to costs of more than $250m between 2020 and 2022. In 2020, NAB said it had underpayments to staff dating back all the way to October 2012. Moving staff to a new enterprise agreement in 2024 identified further payroll issues. As a result, NAB has initiated a broader review into payroll-related benefits. NAB group executive people and culture Sarah White said a dedicated team was continuing to investigate and resolve issues, remediate colleagues and ensure sustained future compliance. 'Paying our colleagues correctly is an absolute priority,' she said. 'We are sorry and apologise to our colleagues that this has happened and have commenced remediating those impacted.' Meanwhile, NAB reported a slight increase in third-quarter cash earnings on the back of improved margins and growth in both business and home lending. NAB made $1.77bn for the three months ending June 30, up from $1.75bn this time last year. NAB said business lending grew 4 per cent and Australian home lending grew 2 per cent during the quarter. Net interest margins increased 8 basis points. Expenses were also up 3 per cent on the back of higher staff costs, investment in new technology and remediation costs. Bank deposits were largely stable over the quarter but are up 6 per cent over the nine months to June 30. The major lender also booked a credit impairment charge of $254m in the quarter, mainly related to business lending in Australia and New Zealand as well as unsecured Australian retail portfolios. NAB chief executive Andrew Irvine said focusing on key priorities led to Monday's result. 'We remain optimistic about the outlook and are well placed to manage NAB for the long term and deliver sustainable growth and returns for shareholders,' he said.
