Superannuation guarantee??? or not?
by Daniel Peterson on Jun 15, 2012 at 5:55:11 am
Hi all, this looks like the best place to get some advice or guidance on the issue of Superannuation guarantee (SG) eligibility (within Australia) for editors / vfx / camera operators for broadcast.
I figured that someone here must have run into this question before. I've rung the ato but they didn't help (told me they can't tell me the answer!?)
The situation is ...I am a sole trader but due to my workload I have started contracting a few guys I know in the industry to edit some projects for me... (a similar situation to loads of people I'm guessing). There is this thing called the 'Superannuation guarantee' which means in some situations (regardless of whether they are contractors or employees) you must pay them their super.
there is one particular question that seems to be fairly black and white...
'Is the person paid to perform services in, or in connection with, the making of any film, tape or disc or any television or radio broadcast?'
if you answer 'yes' to that question then you are pretty much liable to pay super to their super fund regardless of whether they are a contractor or employee.
I am editing TVC's all the time and now contracting guys to edit TVC's... that's broadcast right? So I want to know others experience on this.. am I getting all the facts right... do you pay / or receive payment via the Superannuation Guarantee as a broadcast editor of camera operator?
Re: Superannuation guarantee??? or not? by Mark Suszko on Jun 18, 2012 at 3:46:51 pm
I think the American situation is different enough from G.O.E. that whatever we do or say can't be that much help to you. Here, we have a defining concept in freelance relationships called "work for hire".
It goes something like this: Absent a contract on paper, the courts assume what you do for a boss is a "work for hire", which they own completely. The shooter/editor owns nothing, he's considered compensated enough for his work with the one time payment and that's the end of the relationship. Freelancers used on a work for hire basis generally are responsible for all their own taxes and other related costs of doing business. If you are NOT a work for hire guy, then the hiring company assumes all these responsibilities for tax and insurance and etc. That's probably an over-simplification. And as I said, none of it directly applies to your laws there. You'd better hire a real lawyer who knows his facts.