Modern Slavery Reporting Requirements For Australian Subsidiaries and Foreign Entities in Australia

Kenneth Hong, Laura Oh 29 May 2026

As we approach mid-year, many Australian subsidiaries of multinational corporations and foreign entities registered in Australia should be preparing their modern slavery statements. This article examines the reporting obligations under Australian laws, including the critical issue of revenue consolidation that often catches foreign-owned entities by surprise.

The Reporting Obligation
Australia’s Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth) (the “Act”) requires entities to submit annual modern slavery statements if they meet the revenue threshold. The statement must be lodged within 6 months after the end of the reporting entity’s financial year.

Who Must Report?
The Act captures:
• Australian entities with annual consolidated revenue of at least $100 million
• Foreign entities carrying on business in Australia (e.g. Australian branch of overseas companies) with annual consolidated revenue of at least $100 million
The legislation uses consolidated revenue worked out in accordance with the Australian accounting standards, meaning it may be necessary to look beyond the single legal entity and to the wider corporate group.

The $100 Million Threshold: Consolidated Revenue
The $100 million threshold is based on consolidated revenue, not the Australian subsidiary’s standalone revenue. This is an often overlooked point when businesses determine whether they are under reporting obligations.
This means multinational corporations with Australian operations and/or subsidiaries will need to take particular care and potentially apply the threshold test at both the parent entity level and the subsidiary level. By way of example:
• a foreign company with an Australian subsidiary with local revenue of only $30 million may still have reporting obligations if it also carries on business in Australia apart from the subsidiary (e.g. through an Australian branch or otherwise) and has global revenue of $80 million (in addition to the Australian subsidiary’s revenue);
• an Australian subsidiary with local revenue of only $30 million may still have reporting obligations if it controls other downstream foreign entities with overseas-sourced revenue of $80 million.
This catches many Australian entities and branches off-guard, particularly those of Asia-Pacific, European, and North American parent companies operating substantial global operations.

Mandatory Content Requirements
Each statement must address seven mandatory criteria:
1. Identity of the reporting entity;
2. Structure, operations and supply chains;
3. Modern slavery risks in operations and supply chains;
4. Actions taken to assess and address those risks, including due diligence and remediation processes;
5. Effectiveness of actions taken;
6. Consultation process with owned or controlled entities; and
7. Any other relevant information.

The Public Register
All statements are published on a public, searchable register maintained by the Attorney-General’s Department (https://modernslaveryregister.gov.au/). This creates reputational risk for non-compliance or inadequate disclosure.
Further, where an entity fails to comply with its reporting obligations, the Minister has powers under the Act to request an explanation and remedial action. If the entity does not comply with this request, the Minister may publish the entity’s name and details on the public register, which may result in reputational damage.

Enforcement Landscape: Penalties Are Coming
The current absence of penalties has created a false sense of security. This is about to change.

The McMillan Review
In May 2023, Professor John McMillan AO completed a comprehensive statutory review of the Act’s first three years. His findings were stark: the Act had not "yet caused meaningful change for people living in conditions of modern slavery” and modern slavery statement reporting was "frequently deficient'.
The review made 30 recommendations to strengthen the Act, with civil penalties as a central reform. The review recommended penalties for:
• Failing to submit a modern slavery statement;
• Knowingly providing false or misleading information in statements;
• Non-compliance with Ministerial requests for remedial action.
While specific penalty amounts were not recommended, the review referenced comparable regimes with penalties ranging from CAD $250,000 (Canada) to AUD $1.1 million (former NSW regime).
The review also recommended lowering the reporting threshold from $100 million to $50 million in annual consolidated revenue, which would extend reporting obligations to a significantly wider group of entities. The Government has not adopted this recommendation at this stage, but entities with consolidated revenue approaching $100 million should monitor developments closely.

Government Response
In December 2024, the Australian Government published its response. Importantly, the Government “agrees in principle” to introduce civil penalties for non-compliance, with stakeholder consultation to follow on the penalty framework design.
Additionally, Chris Evans commenced as Australia’s first Anti-Slavery Commissioner on 2 December 2024, with a mandate to increase compliance, support businesses, and prepare updated guidance for reporting entities. The Commissioner is expected to have powers to publish lists of non-compliant entities and declare high-risk industries, regions and products.
Although no implementation timeline has been announced, the direction of reform is clear – civil penalties are expected to be introduced, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner is now operational and may publish lists of non-compliant entities, and entities that have never reported despite meeting the threshold face potential exposure across multiple reporting periods, alongside potential “bluewashing” claims under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law.
Entities that continue to ignore their obligations risk creating permanent public records of non-compliance and exposure to penalties that may apply once the penalty regime commences.

Practical Steps for Compliance
Australian subsidiaries and branches of multinational corporations should:
1. Assess the obligation immediately: determine whether consolidated revenue exceeds $100 million;
2. Identify the reporting entity: determine whether the Australian subsidiary or parent company will report;
3. Consider joint statements: a parent and one or more of its Australian subsidiaries may submit a joint statement provided that the consultation requirements under the Act are met;
4. Map supply chains: identify modern slavery risks in operations and procurement;
5. Document due diligence processes: collate evidence of risk assessment and remediation; and
6. Prepare for disclosure: ensure statements can withstand public and regulatory scrutiny once published on the register.

Assistance with Compliance
Modern slavery reporting is not a box-ticking exercise. Statements become permanent public records, and with the reforms described above now imminent, inadequate disclosure carries reputational, regulatory, contractual and consumer law risks. Reporting entities – particularly those navigating revenue consolidation, supply chain risk, or cross-border group structures – should consider obtaining professional advice before lodging.
H & H Lawyers has assisted many multinational corporations and their Australian subsidiaries and foreign branches with modern slavery compliance, including:
• Revenue threshold assessments and obligation determination;
• Statement preparation, review and lodgement;
• Supply chain risk assessments across multiple jurisdictions;
• Due diligence, process design and various internal documentation;
• Coordination with overseas parent companies and group entities, supported by our bilingual capabilities; and
• Remediation of past non-compliance.
For many multinational corporations, their Australian subsidiary’s reporting obligation only becomes apparent when consolidated revenue is properly analysed. We encourage all subsidiaries and branches of multinational corporations to assess their position and achieve compliance before the penalty regime commences. The cost of doing so may well be modest compared with the reputational damage, penalty exposure and operational disruption of non-compliance.

For assistance with modern slavery reporting obligations, please contact us.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information is current as at May 2026 but laws and regulations are subject to change. Modern slavery reporting obligations depend on your specific circumstances. You should seek professional legal advice before taking any action based on this article.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under the Professional Standards Legislation.

Key Contacts

Kenneth Hong

Partner

Laura Oh

Associate

MORE >

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and International Arbitration

International arbitration has long been valued for its flexibility, neutrality, and adaptability. In recent years, however, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced a new set of opportunities and challenges that are likely to reshape arbitral practice. Unlike earlier waves of technological change, AI has a particularly pervasive impact: it is capable of touching almost every stage of the arbitral lifecycle; from pre-dispute planning and arbitrator selection to evidentiary and document review, hearings, award drafting, and enforcement. AI in the Context of International Arbitration AI in arbitration may be grouped into several broad categories: • Language and speech technologies: real-time transcription, machine translation, speech analytics, and voice synthesis. • Document and data analysis: technology-assisted review (TAR), document clustering, contract analytics, and predictive search. • Reasoning and drafting support: summarisation, brief drafting, case law synthesis, and award-structuring tools. • Forensics and authenticity: detection of manipulated evidence, such as deepfakes, and analysis of metadata. • Decision support and analytics: outcome prediction, damages modelling, and arbitrator selection analytics. Each class of AI raises distinct questions regarding admissibility, transparency, fairness, and due process, all of which are central to the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of arbitral proceedings. Impact Across the Arbitral Lifecycle Pre-dispute Planning and Arbitrator Selection AI is increasingly shaping arbitration before disputes even arise. Contract drafters now anticipate AI-related risks by including specific provisions in arbitration clauses; for example, restrictions on uploading confidential information to public AI systems, or agreement on translation protocols.In arbitrator selection, AI-driven analytics tools reveal past decision-making patterns, areas of expertise, and potential conflicts. These tools broaden candidate pools and might assist in promoting diversity. However, there is also a danger of over-reliance on statistical patterns, creating feedback loops that favour “safe” or well-documented profiles, while sidelining lesser-known but equally qualified candidates. The key future challenge might be ensuring that arbitrator appointments remain a human decision, informed (but not dictated) by algorithms. Pleadings and Written Submissions AI tools assist counsel in drafting, citation-checking, and issue-spotting, leading to faster production of submissions. However, they also raise the very real risk of ‘hallucinations’, in which non-existent cases or inaccurate authorities are cited. If not carefully verified, such errors may undermine the credibility of submissions and result in disciplinary and costs sanctions.Tribunals may need to implement integrity protocols requiring parties to certify that authorities cited have been human-verified and that any AI-generated drafting has been carefully reviewed. In short, efficiency gains must not come at the expense of accuracy and reliability. Evidence and Document Production One of the most transformative effects of AI is in document review. TAR and clustering tools can reduce costs and streamline discovery, especially in multilingual disputes. But new problems may arise: • Privilege risks: Uploading confidential or privileged documents into public AI systems may inadvertently waive privilege or breach confidentiality obligations. • Authenticity concerns: The rise of deepfakes means tribunals must adopt more robust standards for authenticating video, audio, and photographic evidence. Best practices include adopting AI evidence protocols that require disclosure of the tool used, validation steps, and an auditable chain of custody. Tribunals should also anticipate the need for forensic experts to test the reliability of AI-processed evidence.Although AI can accelerate document production, it can also magnify risks of privilege breaches and fabricated evidence. Hearings AI is already embedded in arbitral hearings through transcription and machine translation. While these tools enhance accessibility, they introduce risks of misinterpretation that may unfairly affect witness credibility. More troubling is the possibility of covert AI assistance during testimony; for example, perhaps even the rather outlandish-sounding risk that a witness might receive real-time AI-generated prompts. Tribunals should consider addressing these risks in their procedural orders by: • approving specific transcription and translation tools, • prohibiting generative assistance during testimony, and • ensuring technological parity so that neither party has an unfair advantage. Going forward, procedural fairness is likely to require careful management of AI use during hearings. Deliberations and Award Drafting AI may certainly help arbitrators structure factual chronologies or verify consistency within an award. However, using AI in deliberations themselves raises two fundamental risks: • Breach of confidentiality: Uploading draft awards to external AI systems may compromise deliberation secrecy. • Improper delegation: If arbitrators rely on ‘opaque’ algorithms to decide on questions of facts or law, the award may be vulnerable to challenge under the New York Convention. The appropriate role for AI should therefore be limited to clerical or stylistic support, with substantive determinations reserved for the tribunal. Arbitrators must ensure that their awards are demonstrably the product of human reasoning. AI should assist, but never replace, the tribunal’s independent judgment. Post-Award Challenges and Enforcement AI use in arbitration could foreseeably feature prominently in set aside and enforcement proceedings. Parties may challenge awards on the grounds that undisclosed reliance on AI deprived them of due process (New York Convention, Article V(1)(b)) or that the award violates public policy (Art. V(2)(b)). Tribunals should mitigate such risks by keeping sealed records of any AI assistance used in drafting, limited to clerical tasks. This approach allows them to rebut speculative challenges without breaching deliberation secrecy. Regulatory and Ethical Considerations AI use runs the risk of introducing several cross-border tensions: • Data protection: Rules such as the EU’s GDPR, China’s PIPL, and Brazil’s LGPD complicate the use of AI platforms that transfer or store personal data abroad. • Confidentiality: Many consumer AI systems retain and train on user data, which conflicts with arbitration confidentiality obligations. • Export controls and sanctions: Some AI technologies are subject to restrictions, which may impact their use depending on the seat of arbitration. • Professional duties: Counsel must exercise competence and candour when using AI. Submitting unverified AI-generated content may breach professional ethics. Regulatory compliance and ethical oversight are essential in order to safeguard the legitimacy of arbitration. Costs, Time, and Environmental Impact AI can reduce costs by streamlining document review and shortening timelines, but it can also generate inefficiencies if inappropriately used. For example, hallucinated citations may necessitate costly corrections. From an environmental perspective, AI may reduce travel by enabling remote hearings, though large scale computation carries its own carbon footprint. It is likely that, in the future, tribunals will increasingly scrutinise whether parties’ AI-related expenditures are proportionate and recoverable as costs of arbitration. AI can undoubtedly make arbitration faster and cheaper if deployed responsibly, but careless use can equally have the opposite effect. Snapshot of Strategic Opportunities and Risks Opportunities: • More accurate multilingual proceedings through AI translation. • Faster and more efficient document review • Enhanced damages modelling and tribunal analytics. • Broader and more diverse arbitrator lists. Risks: • Hallucinated citations and unreliable outputs. • Privilege waivers from inappropriate AI use. • Undisclosed reliance on AI during testimony or deliberations. • Awards undermined by improper delegation to AI systems. Some Recommendations for Good Practice To integrate AI responsibly into international arbitration, tribunals and parties should adopt the following measures: • Include explicit AI provisions in Procedural Order No. 1, covering use, disclosure, authentication, and sanctions. • Require the use of enterprise-grade AI tools that do not train on confidential inputs. • Approve common translation and transcription platforms to ensure parity. • Mandate disclosure of method statements and validation for AI-processed evidence. • Establish forensic protocols for ‘deepfake’ detection. • Ensure that all substantive decisions remain with the tribunal. • Maintain audit trails of AI usage for accountability. • Allocate costs proportionately, rewarding efficient use and penalising misuse. • Safeguard deliberation secrecy by prohibiting external AI in award drafting. • Prepare enforcement-ready records to counter challenges under the New York Convention.

Key changes to Australian employment law

On 6 December 2022, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs Better Pay) Act 2022 received Royal Assent, amending the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The key amendments to the Fair Work Act are as follows: 1. Casual Conversion – currently in effect Casual conversion is allowing casual employees to become employed on a permanent basis. It is available for an eligible casual employee, being one who: Has been employed for at least 12 months; Has worked regular pattern of hours during the last six months of employment; and Is able to continue working the regular pattern of hours as a full time or part time employee without significant changes. Employers must offer casual conversion within 21 days of an eligible employee’s 12 month work anniversary. This is an ongoing obligation, and employers must consider an employee’s eligibility each year to make the offer. If a casual employee requests casual conversion, employers must respond in writing by accepting or rejecting within 21 days. An employer must have reasonable grounds for rejecting a request, or not making a casual conversion offer. Employers must also provide casual employees with the ‘Casual Employment Information Statement’ in addition to the Fair Work Information Statement, at the commencement of employment. 2. Pay Secrecy Terms – currently in effect The Fair Work Act now gives employees the right to disclose their salary information. It also prohibits employers from entering into a contract (or other written agreement) with an employee which includes a term which prohibits an employee from disclosing their salary or other terms and conditions reasonably necessary to determine an employee’s salary. Any existing employment agreements which do include a pay secrecy term have no effect, and can no longer be enforced. 3. Prohibiting Workplace Sexual Harassment – effective 6 March 2023 The Fair Work Act will prohibit sexual harassment in connection with work. Employers will potentially be made liable for sexual harassment committed by an employee or agent in connection with work, unless they can prove they took all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment. 4. Flexible Working Arrangements – effective 6 June 2023 The amendments allow pregnant employees and employees experiencing domestic violence to request flexible working arrangements. In addition to existing obligations on employers to provide reasons for refusing an employee’s request for flexible working arrangements, employers may only refuse a request for flexible work arrangements if they have: (a) Discussed the request with the employee;(b) Genuinely tried to reach an agreement with the employee about making changes; (c) Had regard to the consequences of refusal for the employee; and (d) The refusal is on reasonable business grounds. Employers must also set out the particular business ground that it relies on for refusing the request, and explain how those grounds apply to the request. The Fair Work Commission will now be able to hear and make orders about disputes regarding flexible workplace arrangement requests. 5. Fixed Term arrangements – effective 6 December 2023 The term of a fixed term employment contract must not exceed 2 years (including extensions). Fixed term contracts may not be extended more than once. Some fixed term contracts are excluded from this rule, e.g. those relating to casual employees, seasonal labour, specialised skill employment and high-income employees. From 6 December 2023, employers will need to give ‘Fixed Term Contract Information Statement’ prepared by the Fair Work Ombudsman. This has not yet been made available. Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication.

High Court Clarifies Definition of Casual Employee

As one of the most significant decisions by the High Court in 2021, the High Court has determined the meaning of a casual employee in Workpac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2021] HCA 23. Mr Rossato was employed as a production worker by Workpac’s labour-hire company under a series of six contracts, or assignments, to perform work for one of Workpac’s clients. While Mr Rossato was required to work regular and full-time hours according to a fixed pattern of work, Workpac treated Mr Rossato as a casual employee, such that Mr Rossato was not paid the leave or public holiday entitlements under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) and the enterprise agreement. The Court confirmed that the question of whether a person is a casual employee is to be determined by considering the express terms of a written employment contract, and not on the basis of any subsequent conduct of either party. To this extent, the court held any such commitment to further work must be contained in an enforceable agreement to be recognised. The High Court held that a casual employee is an employee who has no “firm advance commitment as to the duration of the employee’s employment or the days (or hours) the employee will work” and provides no reciprocal commitment to the employer. In considering the nature of the commitment, the court held that ‘the existence or otherwise of a “firm advanced commitment” must be for enforceable terms’, and should not be held to exist from expectations or understandings borne from the manner in which the parties have performed their agreement. The High Court held that a mere expectation of continuing employment on a regular and systematic basis is not sufficient for the purposes of the Act. Mr Rossato’s employment was expressly on an “assignment by assignment basis”. Mr Rossato was entitled to accept or reject any offer of an assignment, and at the completion of each assignment Workpac was under no obligation to offer further assignments. The High Court also held that it was not the role of the courts to “moderate a perceived unfairness resulting from a disparity in bargaining power between the parties”. In relation to the employment relationship, it should be noted that the High Court held in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266 that: 1. while mutual undertakings may not always be express, where there are express terms of the contract between the parties, they must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute; 2. if the mutual undertakings are said to be implied in what has been agreed, they cannot be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract; and 3. if the mutual undertakings are to be inferred from the conduct, then they may take effect as contractual variations. This decision by the High Court in Workpac v Rossato is important for both employers and employees as it reinforces the importance of specifying the terms of the contract in writing, taking into account the key features of the High Court’s decision. It is also important that casual contract terms and employer’s policies are carefully reviewed to ensure that they do not create any unintentional implied mutual obligations or variations inferred from the conduct. It is also worth noting that a new provision of s 66B of the Act has been introduced which requires employers to offer casual employees to become permanent employees if they have been employed for 12 months and have worked regular and systematic patterns in the last six months. Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are general in nature and do not constitute legal advice. The information may have been obtained from external sources and we do not guarantee the accuracy or currency of the information at the date of publication or in the future. Please obtain legal advice specific to your circumstances before taking any action on matters discussed in this publication.

Modern Slavery Reporting Requirements

In Australia, the Modern Slavery Act 2018 commenced operation on 1 January 2019, creating reporting obligations for certain entities. The term modern slavery is used to describe situations where coercion, threats or deception are used to exploit victims and undermine or deprive them of their freedom. It describes serious exploitation and not substandard working conditions or the underpayment of workers. The Australian government, in support of UN Guiding Principles, aims to combat modern slavery in the Australian community and in the global supply chains of Australian goods and services. Who needs to report? Entities that have: Consolidated revenue of at least $100 million for the relevant reporting period (a financial year), and which Are Australian identities, or Undertake business in Australia in that financial year What do I need to report? The mandatory criterion are: The reporting entity’s structure, operations and supply chains; Modern slavery risks in the reporting entity’s operations and supply chains (including those of subsidiary entities); Actions taken (including by subsidiary entities) to assess and address those modern slavery risks, including due diligence and remediation processes; How the reporting entity assesses the effectiveness of actions taken; and The process of consultation with subsidiary entities in preparing the modern slavery statement. When do I need to report by? Affected entities must report in respect of the first full reporting period following commencement and must report within 6 months of that period ending. For example, the reporting period for entities with a 30 June year end will be 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022, with reporting due by 31 December 2022. Further information Further information and links to the online registers can be found here: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/criminal-justice/Pages/modern-slavery.aspx Please contact H & H Lawyers for further legal advice for submitting a modern slavery report. [Disclaimer] The contents posted are general legal information, not legal advice, and the author and publisher have no legal responsibility for the contents. Each post is based on the law that was in force at the time of writing. Please consult a lawyer directly for accurate legal advice.

Casual vs Permanent

On 20 May 2020, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato. The case centres around labour hire firm WorkPac, which employed Robert Rossato as a mine worker at two Queensland mines owned by Glencore. Mr Rossato was a casual employee, on rolling contracts, over a three-and-a-half-year period. As a casual, he was paid an extra 25 percent loading on top of his wage — which is the usual practice to make up for not being given benefits such as annual leave. The Full Federal Court dismissed WorkPac’s application for a declaration that Mr Rossato was a casual employee, instead finding that Mr Rossato was a permanent employee. It was found that because Mr Rossato's employment was "regular, certain, continuing, constant and predictable", and he was given rostered shifts well in advance, he was eligible to entitlements that full time employees receive under the National Employment Standards (NES) in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and the relevant Enterprise Agreement: being paid annual leave, paid personal/carer’s leave, paid compassionate leave, and payment for public holidays. This is an important decision for employers who engage casuals, whether directly or as a host employer. Pending any intervention by the Federal Government or appeal to the High Court, employers should now carefully review their casual employment arrangements, update the terms of their casual contracts, and revisit their arrangements with labour hire companies and their workers. In particular: • Employers should review their casual arrangements with a view to determining whether some other form of engagement is more appropriate – including part time and fixed term arrangements. • Assuming casual engagement is still appropriate, specific attention should be given to the employee’s written contract to ensure that the casual loading is a separately identifiable amount that is stated to be paid as a result of the employee not being entitled to NES or other entitlements peculiar to permanent employment. We also suggest a statement to the effect that if the employment is subsequently determined not to be casual employment, the employer is entitled to repayment of the casual loading. • Regular reviews of casual arrangements should be conducted – at least once every 12 months – to assess the likelihood of the employment being a “firm advance commitment” of employment. We can assist you if you have any questions about how the Workpac v Rossato decision may impact the work arrangements in your own organisation or more generally in relation to how you are employing or engaging your workforce.

Are You At Risk of Sham Contracting?

Online food delivery competitor Foodora has been accused of sham contracting its own employees and now faces legal action launched by Australia’s Fair Work Ombudsman. As business opportunities increase in Australia more employers turn to flexible and intuitive ways to cut costs and maximise profits, which can sometimes lead to cutting corners and the underpayment of employees. It is important for an employer to enter into valid employment contracts with its employees, as it will assist them in avoiding the risk of being accused of sham contracting. What is Sham Contracting? Sham contracting is an illegal method of employment under section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), where the employer misrepresents the employee as an independent contractor. Any employer that makes such misrepresentation of the employment relationship is liable for penalties under that Act. Penalties for sham contracting include sanctions made against the employer and financial penalties up to $54,000.00 for each contravention. Sham contracting is typically instituted by an employer for their own benefit as it allows an employer to avoid being responsible for an employee, or to avoid paying an employee their entitlements (such as superannuation, worker’s compensation and leave). More likely than not a sham contract is entered into by an employer either knowingly to avoid their employer obligations, or because of an employer’s recklessness in considering whether or not the individual was an employee. One recent example of potential sham contracting is by the online food delivery business, Foodora. Online food delivery businesses are expanding worldwide giving consumers a quick and efficient food experience. The concept of having all types of food delivered to you wherever you are is a great idea and will only keep developing but a non-traditional approach to staffing has left these types of businesses subject to legal action brought against them for sham contracting. If an employer is not careful they can be liable for serious penalties and so it is important that an employer abides by their employment obligations and responsibilities. The Differences between an Employee and Independent Contractor? Before entering into any employment contract it is critical for both the employer and employee to understand the difference between an employee and an independent contractor. The main factor that differentiates between the two is the control that the individual has over their work responsibilities and obligations. The characteristics of an employee are: Any employee working for an employer receives at least minimum entitlements – paid leave, long service leave, worker’s compensation, superannuation. An employee is not responsible for paying for their own tax, an employer will deduct the income tax from an employee’s wage/salary. An employee typically only works for one business. An employee has no control over what type of work to be completed as it is controlled by the employer. An employee works according to standard or set hours. The characteristics of an independent contractor are: A contractor is essentially their own employer. A contractor control how work is to be completed and how long the work will take to complete. Contractors are not restricted to one business but are able to work for multiple businesses/people. Contractors do not have set hours of work instead they agree on how many hours it takes to complete a job. Contractors have high responsibility and liability for their work or injury and need to have their own insurance cover. Contractors are responsible for filing their own tax and GST. A contractor has an Australian Business Number (ABN) and submits invoices. Unlike employees, contractors receive no entitlements and pay for their own superannuation. Actions to Take as an Employer to Minimise Risk As an employer, it would be prudent to review all existing contractual arrangements to ensure that you have not unknowingly misrepresented your employee as a contractor. It is important when hiring an employee that you confirm with them the details of the work and type of work that is required of them throughout their employment contract so that there is no confusion about the employment relationship. You will also need to be aware and up to date with any entitlements and payments that you owe to the employee. [Disclaimer] The contents posted are general legal information, not legal advice, and the author and publisher have no legal responsibility for the contents. Each post is based on the law that was in force at the time of writing. Please consult a lawyer directly for accurate legal advice.