Chapter Four
Government Involvement
1.1 In addition to legislation directly relating to circumstances of
employment (awards and agreements), there are a number of ways in which
government can be involved in, and may influence, the employment conditions
experienced by outworkers. These include ensuring compliance with award
provisions (DIR inspectorate), taxation matters and the reportable payments
scheme, social security benefits, the Labour Adjustment Program, and implementation
of the ILO Convention on Homework. There are also various way in which
state governments and local councils can influence the employment conditions
experienced by outworkers.
1.2 Award Compliance (Enforcement)
1.3 Awards are legally binding and breaches can be prosecuted in a district,
county, local, magistrates or industrial relations court. Inspectors appointed
under federal or state legislation can initiate a prosecution or can assist
an individual to undertake legal action, although this is usually only
carried out after attempts have been made to bring about voluntary compliance.
Inspectors have the power to enter business premises to certify that compliance
is occurring. In doing this they may inspect time and wages books, work,
machinery, material and documents, as well as interview employees.
1.4 The proactive role that the Union plays in enforcing award conditions
is entirely dependent upon the clauses of the various relevant Awards
which require, inter alia, that employers register their identity, that
they notify the appropriate industrial registry about the destination
of all clothing work, and that they record all names and addresses of
people who receive work. The Union currently has powers to enter an employer's
premises to ensure that awards and agreements are being observed and to
inspect both the relevant employer records and the circumstances of the
disbursement of work [1]. These provisions will
change, however, with the implementation of the Workplace Relations
and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996, as discussed earlier (Paragraph
3.24).
1.5 In addition to an increase in non-compliance by industry participants
in recent years, the role of the Department of Industrial Relations Inspectorate
has moved away from proactive activities and has become solely reactive.
That is, the Inspectorate does not carry out investigatory work unless
it has been prompted by a complaint, and it receives very few complaints
from outworkers. [2] This is due to a number
of factors:
- the secretive nature of outworker employment;
- the absence of written contracts;
- fear among outworkers of reprisals from subcontractors;
- low levels of English literacy resulting in an inability to register
complaints;
- ignorance of employment rights; and
- low levels of union membership.
1.6 Thus the low number of complaints received, combined with reduced
funding for inspectorate activities, means that government inspectorates
do not now play a strong role in enforcing award provisions. Considerable
criticism of this decline was made in evidence to the Committee. [3]
1.7 The TCFUA noted that in NSW over the last decade the inspectorate
role has changed from one of proactive investigation to one of simply
following up on complaints. In addition, when complaints are made to the
Federal Department of Industrial Relations, it now appears that the complainant
is referred to the Union for assistance. [4]
1.8 The Working Women's Centre (NSW) argued in its submission that the
activities of government inspectorates with regard to ensuring compliance
were 'totally inadequate'. [5] When questioned
in evidence about the response rate for complaints Ms Alcorso, representing
the Centre, stated:
In Sydney it can take up to three or four months to get a complaint
handled by the State inspectorate … With anti discrimination complaints
there is a similar picture. It takes longer. If there is sexual harassment
or some matter like that being faced by an outworker, certainly, with
the anti-Discrimination Board, it could take eight months. With the
Human Rights Commission, it could take two years for the complaint to
be investigated. So these are not timely remedies at the moment. [6]
1.9 The community group, Asian Women at Work, supported the strengthening
of award policing and argued that existing protections should not be removed
by the proposed Workplace Relations legislation. [7]
1.10 However, in stating its own position the Department of Industrial
Relations noted that, in addition to the fact that a very low number of
complaints were received from outworkers, it was Departmental policy to
secure compliance through voluntary action in the first instance. This
approach was successful such that most complaints (c.95%) were resolved
through mediation rather than through prosecution and it was for this
reason primarily that the number of prosecutions was low. [8]
1.11 In relation to response time for investigation of complaints, the
Department of Industrial Relations provided the following supplementary
information with regard to the federal Clothing Trades Award. In the first
half of the financial year 1995/96, one third of the complaints received
were finalised within three months. As at 31 March 1996, the Department
had 26 complaints relating to the award on hand. Of these 12 (46%) were
less than 3 months old; 10 (39%) were 3-6 months old; 4 (15%) were 6-12
months old; and no cases were over 12 months old.
1.12 Taxation
1.13 Taxation is a major issue for outworkers, particularly as there
is considerable confusion as to whether they are employees or self-employed.
[9] If outworkers are employed under a contract
of service, their employer is required by law to deduct PAYE tax from
wages earned. Because the chain from retailer through manufacturer to
contractor and on to outworkers is often complicated, identifying the
party responsible for tax deduction and payment is also difficult.
1.14 In the minds of outworkers, taxation compliance is complicated by
other matters (such as late payments and eligibility of deductions) and
is made more complicated by the system of provisional tax. Declarations
of total tax liability by outworkers are also complicated by the link
between tax file numbers and social security payments. Outworkers who
have been coerced into applying for social security benefits may be unwilling
to declare home-based income because of the possibility of being charged
with fraud.
1.15 The TCF Union media campaign found that outworkers were particularly
concerned about their tax status and may need to be 'brought into the
formal economy without being penalised'. [10]
This, the Union proposed, would involve some sort of retrospective taxation
amnesty for outworkers.
1.16 In the soft furnishings area of outwork Mr David Kirner, CFMEU Assistant
Secretary, explained to the Committee that tax avoidance was widespread
throughout the industry, not just at the level of outworkers:
… evasion and avoidance of taxation exists within this industry.
We believe that government failure to establish minimum standards of
award entitlement, and therefore employment practice, has led to the
expansion of the cash economy in this area, resourced by social security
payments and widespread avoidance practices, including non-declaration
of income. As you would be aware, most union members are PAYE taxpayers.
They are obviously concerned about the level of avoidance and evasion
that goes on because they actually do believe that they foot the bill.
At an employer level our industry is advising us. As we go through
work places, employers indicate to us that they are suffering significantly
at the hands of companies who they do not believe are paying appropriate
taxation throughout working rings and so forth. They are advising the
union that additional tax evasion is occurring on a consistent basis
with respect to the following taxes - sales tax, payroll tax, workers
compensation payments, effective group tax and company tax. The wage
income and taxation reporting systems which are currently in place are
obviously inadequate and consistently abused. [11]
1.17 Finally, however, it should be noted that while many outworkers
appear to not fully understand their responsibilities with regard to taxation,
some are well appraised of them. At one outworker home in Melbourne visited
by the Committee during inspections, members were shown current provisional
tax notices for husband and wife, both of whom stated that they earned
all their income through garment sewing as self-employed 'contractors'.
1.18 Reportable Payments System
1.19 The Reportable Payments System (RPS) was introduced by the Australian
Tax Office on 1 December 1994. The System was designed specifically to
capture non-complying taxpayers in industries with high levels of tax
evasion and it was initially applied to the fishing and clothing industries.
It has been estimated by the Tax Office that tax evasion on the clothing
industry is between $80 and $100 million. [12]
1.20 The RPS System is an income reporting system which draws on elements
of the PAYE, PPS and Tax File Number (TFN) provisions of income tax legislation.
Under the scheme, Payers are required to report details of all payments
annually to the Tax Office, including the name, address and TFN of the
Payee as well as the amounts paid. [13] Payers
must sent any amounts deducted to the Tax Office where they are credited
for assessment against the TFN quoted.
1.21 Payees may quote their TFN to their Payers using a Reportable Payments
Declaration form which is then sent to the Tax Office for verification.
If the TFN is not provided then the Payer must deduct tax at the highest
marginal rate (currently 48.4%). The System does not distinguish between
particular types of payees such as outworkers.
1.22 In terms of the clothing industry, this means that all garment wholesale
companies should have reported to the Tax Office all payments made to
manufacturing companies or to individuals involved in the making of their
garments. The System applies to all parts of the garment manufacturing
process, including designing, cutting, pattern-making, sewing, clipping,
making-up and embroidery. [14] Thus a retailer
who buys and sells ready to wear clothing and has no involvement in the
manufacturing process will not be reportable whereas a retailer who contracts
a company to manufacture the clothing will be reportable. For four years
prior to the introduction of the System, all major clothing companies
(some 150) were audited to establish a production expenditure norm.
1.23 All company returns for the System had to be lodged by August 1995
and the first full year for of reporting was the 1995/96 year. Research
by the Tax Office indicated that there were some 18,000 entities who would
potentially have obligations as payers and up to 70,000 entities who would
have obligations as payees. By the end of June 1996, the Tax Office had
registered some 6168 payers and identified 22,026 payees in the clothing
industry who had indicated that they had obligations under RPS. By the
end of September 1996 these figures were 6695 and 24,657, respectively.
[15]
1.24 When questioned about the discrepancy between the ATO's estimate
of about 70,000 payees (outworkers) and the some 25,000 who had so far
registered, the ATO responded that the previous strategy used to increase
participation rates was based on field work to identify and register industry
participants with RPS Payer obligations. In the light of results so far
achieved, and the shortcomings of the method used, the ATO had recently
modified its strategy and was now concentrating on an 'extensive examination
of industry participants to determine who they pay and and/or who they
are paid by'. [16] This information was then
followed up with a site visit. Since the introduction of RPS in the fishing
and clothing industries, additional revenue attributable to it has been
estimated at $77 million.
1.25 Mr George Napper, managing Director of My Garment Company, described
the System as ultimately 'inescapable' [17]
[The] distributor or label owner shows the merchandise to the retailer
who places an order. That order is then assembled and goes to a cutting
company. The payment to that cutting company is reported to the tax
office and the tax office has a record of the payment to the cutting
company. When the cutting company distributes it back to the distributor
who then passes it on to the manufacturing companies, all of that is
reportable. Every line of that process and every payment is accumulated
within the tax office under either an ACN number if it is an incorporated
company or a tax file number if it is an individual. If it is a company
it is recorded under its tax file number and its ACN number.
With all of those bona fides as to those companies, it is the responsibility
of the payer to verify that and that goes in a report. So from the very
first payment you make it goes off to your tax office, it is progressively
recorded over a period of a year, at the end of the year we make our
submissions and the government is fully aware of what the ongoing payments
were and the tax liability.
At 30 June this year all the returns have to be in for all those processes
to the tax office by 30 August. At that time, parliament will have access
to all the information. It will have access to the amount of money, who
it was paid to, who it was paid to by whom, who received it, how much,
how much was their total income, what was their tax liability and how
many they were.
1.26 Mr Napper suggested to the Committee that the System could be extended
to apply along the full length of the garment manufacture process so that
companies could be required to report individual Workcover policy numbers
or superannuation policy numbers. The mechanism was there in existence:
it was now up to the Government to make use of that mechanism to regulate
the outworker sector. [18]
1.27 Noting that most people working as outworkers in the garment industry
were relatively recent migrants, the Welfare Rights Centre was critical
of the Reportable Payments System on the basis that there had been insufficient
information made available to community groups to educate outworkers on
how the System would work. [19] The Welfare
Rights Centre also expressed concern about the data matching system between
the Australian Tax Office (using the Reportable Payments Scheme) and the
Department of Social Security if the System was altered to use names,
which among Vietnamese people, for example, could be very similar or the
same, instead of tax file numbers. [20]
1.28 Social Security Benefits
1.29 Some outworkers receive social security benefits, either because
they move into outwork from benefits and fail to cease taking the benefits
or, as alleged by the TCF Union and others, because they are coerced into
it by unscrupulous intermediaries. [21] In
this scenario, potential outworkers are told by intermediaries that because
the rates of pay for sewing are so low, they will need to receive social
security benefits in addition to their outworking income; in other words,
that they must register for benefits before they will receive any work.
However, once the outworker is receiving welfare benefits, the intermediary
is then able to use this information as a lever to coerce the outworker
into accepting even lower rates of pay or completing jobs sooner than
originally requested.
1.30 In estimating the number of people who may be involved in fraud
of this type, the Union stated in evidence to the Committee:
If one takes the assessment of the Department of Social Security as being
reliable, it would seem that 7½ per cent of outworkers may be receiving
social security benefits to which they are not entitled, either in whole
or in part. If the Tax estimate is correct, there are about 4,000 beneficiaries
of social security benefits who should not be getting part or perhaps
all of it. [22]
1.31 In response to representations made by the Union, the Department
of Social Security declared an amnesty for garment industry outworkers
so that their level of benefits could be re-appraised without penalty.
The amnesty operated for 6 months from 1 December 1996 to 31 May 1996
and was advertised widely in a variety of ways including extensive use
of ethnic media and multilingual leaflets. [23]
According to information provided by the Department, as at mid-June 1996,
33 people who worked in the clothing industry had applied for the amnesty.
1.32 A number of witnesses before the Committee were critical of the
results of the amnesty. Among them was Ms Debbie Carstens of Asian Women
at Work who commented that the amnesty had the potential to bring many
outworkers into the formal employment sector but that there had been a
lack of clear information given to community workers about the amnesty
and a lack of information put into community languages. In addition, there
had been insufficient time for outworkers to find out about the amnesty
and take action. The lack of time was particularly significant because
it took considerable time for information to filter through the outworkers
network and for outworkers to overcome their fear of interacting with
government agencies. They also had to overcome the misinformation provided
to some of them by their 'employers'. [24]
1.33 The Working Women's Centre commented in its submission:
In regard to the DSS, women need a genuine motivation to come forward
and in our view the current amnesty does not focus sufficiently on the
fate of the women who come forward. Simply inviting women to come forward
to do the right thing, or to avoid the threat of future legislation
is unlikely to succeed. Threats are unlikely to work as many outworkers
have a social situation that is so desperate that one more threat won't
make much difference. [25]
1.34 The Welfare Rights Centre (NSW) also criticised the amnesty in evidence
to the Committee, stating that the campaign had been a failure due to
poor publicity:
It seems to us that there has been inadequate funding, a sum of only
some $15,000 for the national campaign. The campaign itself has been
rather unsophisticated and tardy in its production of multilingual material
to publicise the amnesty. Those factors are part of the reason for a
very low take up. [26]
1.35 A related issue is that of the time period during which new migrants
are ineligible to apply for welfare benefits. Currently, migrants to Australia
must wait for a 6-month period before applying for social security benefits.
However, the Government is currently considering extending this period
to two years. The Welfare Rights Centre, in evidence to the Committee,
noted that if such a provision were introduced, it may force many new
migrants who became desperate for finance into exploitative employment
situations such as underpaid outworking in the garment industry. [27]
1.36 In addition to the amnesty, the Department of Social Security commenced
a data matching project linking welfare recipients with the Reportable
Payments System established by the Australian Tax Office. Preliminary
results for TCF industries, provided to the Committee just before completion
of the this report, are as set out in the following table. [28]
1.37
| Reviews Selected |
1872 |
| Reviews Completed |
874 |
| Downwards Variations (including cancellations and suspensions) |
69 (7.9%) |
| Suspensions/Cancellations |
51 (5.8%) |
| Overpayments Raised |
156 (17.9%) |
| $ Amount |
275,000 |
1.38 Labour Adjustment Program (LAP)
1.39 The Labour Adjustment Program was established to assist employees
retrenched from TCF industries as a result of restructuring to find alternative
employment. It applies only to people employed before July 1994.
1.40 Outworkers have had a low participation rate in programs such as
LAP and evidence was given to the Committee that this was for two main
reasons: first, lack of knowledge that such programs were available; and
second, previous political experience and social backgrounds, often involving
refugee status, that have made outworkers wary of becoming involved in
any government sponsored activity for fear of reprisals for past breaches
of taxation or social security entitlements. [29]
1.41 However, the importance of the LAP program was outlined in evidence
to the Committee by Ms Carstens who stated:
The only thing that really has been going for our network outworkers
who are Chinese women and have gained permanent residency recently is
that some of these women have applied for the labour adjustment program,
which has allowed them to get retraining to enter into the formal work
force in other areas. This has been really positive. The women who have
had access to that program have improved their English rapidly and their
confidence is improving. I really believe they will get out of that
industry very quickly and into something more constructive as a result
of that program. It is a very good program that is being offered. [30]
1.42 In its submission, the Union expressed concern that people employed
after July 1994 were ineligible for inclusion in the program and that
some retrenched clothing workers had been excluded from the program on
the basis that they had found short-term work outside the industry. The
Union thus recommended that the LAP program continue unrestricted to factory
workers and outworkers. [31]
1.43 ILO Convention
1.44 Conditions experienced by people performing paid work at home have
been of concern to authorities in other countries and on 28 June 1996
delegates to the 83rd Conference of the International Labour Organisation
(ILO) voted to adopt a Convention on Home Work, supplemented by a Recommendation.
1.45 The Convention and Recommendation calls on signatories to establish
guidelines on health and safety and hours of work for home-workers, including
precautions that should be observed by employers and outworkers to avoid
hazards associated with the work, to ensure adequate training is provided,
and to ensure that delivery times do not preclude adequate daily and weekly
rest periods. [32]
1.46 In evidence to the Committee a number of organisations urged that
Australia support the convention and to be a leading nation in its implementation.
[33] The Convention was passed in June. However,
Australia abstained from voting. If Australia were to sign the Convention,
the Government would then have to adopt, implement and periodically review
a national policy on home work aimed at improving the situation of homeworkers,
in conjunction with the most representative organisations of employers
and workers. The national policy on home work would promote, as far as
possible, equality of treatment between homeworkers and other wage earners
taking into account the special characteristics of home work and, where
appropriate, conditions applicable to the same or a similar type of work
carried out in an enterprise. [34]
1.47 In contrast to the views held by community groups, employer groups
argued in evidence to the Committee that the international regulation
of home work through an ILO Convention was premature and inappropriate.
The submission from the Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry
outlined these concerns:
While Employers are sympathetic to the need to protect the most vulnerable
groups of workers in society, we have grave reservations about the content,
scope and practicability of this instrument to achieve the level of protection
appropriate to those who actually need it. [35]
1.48 Specific criticisms about the Convention and its Recommendation
also included concerns that:
- the definition of home worker was wider than appropriate;
- the definition of employer was loose and potentially misleading;
- the definition of an intermediary was ambiguous;
- it would result in competing interests of health and safety on the
one hand and respect for privacy on the other, with privacy possibly
becoming subordinated to public safety; and
- the administrative costs of the development and maintenance of registers
which would most likely have to be borne by employers. [36]
State Government Action
1.49 Two submissions were received by the Committee from state governments
(NSW and Queensland) which outlined action that had been taken to address
problems associated with garment industry outworkers.
1.50 New South Wales
1.51 Since 1993 the NSW Government has conducted three separate task
force inquiries into the clothing industry and has established a Clothing
Industry Strategy Group which had the objective of examining methods by
which Government could facilitate industry self-regulation through on-going
education. One result of the Strategy Group has been the production of
a 'plain English' information booklet for outworkers which was translated
into Vietnamese. It success has led to a proposal to translate it into
other relevant languages, such as Chinese. [37]
1.52 The NSW Government submission noted that while its task force has
had considerable contact with industry workers, outworkers were highly
reluctant to seek assistance from Government agencies and no complaints
had been lodged by outworkers with the Department of Industrial Relations.
The NSW Government concluded that: 'general enforcement activities alone
are inappropriate in attempting to locate and assist outworkers'. [38]
1.53 The NSW Government submission also outlined a number of other proposals
to assist outworkers:
- in conjunction with the TCFUA, carry out an educational program aimed
at employers in the industry to increase awareness of responsibilities
relating to award compliance;
- in conjunction with the TCFUA, carry out an educational program aimed
at outworkers to inform them of their employment rights and to overcome
barriers which impede them from seeking Government assistance to obtain
their legal entitlements;
- in conjunction with the TCFUA, employer associations, retailers and
designers, promote self regulation through Deeds of Cooperation; and
- carry out monitoring of issues and trends in the industry and facilitate
information exchange.
Queensland
1.54 Following concern about outworkers highlighted in the TCFUA report,
The Hidden Cost of Fashion, the Queensland Government's Bureau
of Ethnic Affairs formed a reference group to identify problems confronting
outworkers in Queensland and to develop strategies to address them. From
this, the Vietnamese Outworker Assistance Group (VOAG) was formed with
representatives from the Women's Health Centre, the Bureau and local Vietnamese
communities.
1.55 On finding that outworkers did not have access to information about
the employment entitlements, VOAG produced a pamphlet in both English
and Vietnamese and distributed it through relevant community groups. Feedback
from the pamphlet revealed that outworkers were very concerned about social
security and taxation issues and that they did not feel able to pursue
training courses.
1.56 Contravention of Local Council Regulations
1.57 Finally, the Committee notes that the use of homes and garages for
outwork may contravene local council regulations. [39]
Normally, regulations prohibit 'sweatshop' activities in residential areas
and registration of domestic premises is required if they are to be used
for business purposes. However, in the case of home-work it is often difficult
for councils to make a distinction in practice between a small sewing
business being run from within a home and a house (or more often a garage)
that is being used as a 'sweatshop'. For example, while the City of Greater
Dandenong Council defines a 'Home Occupation' operation as one where there
is no more than one non-resident working at the house, finding out exactly
who is working in the house may prove difficult, if not impossible in
practice.
1.58 The City of Greater Dandenong Council receives complaints from residents
on a regular basis that 'sweatshops' were being operated in residential
areas. The Council follows up such complaints with an inspection and while
some complaints are found to be valid, some are not. [40]
Problems associated with the operation of 'sweatshops' in residential
areas include noise from machinery and noise associated with the loading
and unloading of vehicles, particularly late at night and early in the
morning, and the use of electrical fittings adapted to take a capacity
far in excess of normal residential loads which caused interference with
television reception. [41]
1.59 Conclusions and Recommendations
1.60 The Committee concludes that enforcement by government agencies
of compliance with award wages and conditions has declined considerably
in recent years, being more reactive than proactive, and that this in
itself has contributed to an increase in the level of non-compliance.
However, the Committee acknowledges that the level of non-compliance in
TCF industries is exacerbated by an unwillingness on the part of outworkers
to report non-compliance and to have government agencies involved in the
circumstances of their employment.
1.61 The issues of taxation obligations and eligibility for welfare benefits
are of concern to some outworkers, particularly those who may have been
coerced into infringement of taxation obligations or welfare entitlements,
although the degree to which such infringements are occurring is not clear.
As evidenced by the introduction of the Reportable Payments System and
the Social Security amnesty for outworkers, these issues are clearly also
of concern to the relevant government instrumentalities.
1.62 The Committee strongly believes that the Australian Taxation
Office could take greater advantage of the Reportable Payments System
to fully investigate taxation avoidance in TCF industries. The Committee
notes that an important additional benefit of the Reportable Payments
System is that it will assist in identifying all parties involved in the
garment manufacturing chain, particularly those at the level of intermediary.
In addition, the Committee notes that information gained from the Reportable
Payments System is able to be used by the Department of Social Security
to investigate welfare benefits fraud.
1.63 The Committee concludes that the Social Security amnesty for outworkers
has been of limited success because of the difficulties associated with
conveying information to outworkers and with their reluctance to become
involved with government agencies. The Committee believes that the amnesty
had merit. The Committee recommends that the Government consider reinstating
an amnesty for outworkers for a period to allow community groups sufficient
time to communicate with outworkers and to persuade them of its benefits.
The Committee further recommends that funding from the TCF 2000 Development
Package be made available for community groups to inform outworkers of
the amnesty.
1.64 The Committee notes that despite a low participation rate, the Labour
Adjustment Program has been of benefit to a number of people in TCF industries
who would otherwise have continued to be employed as outworkers in undesirable
circumstances. The Committee believes that more outworkers would benefit
if the cut-off date for prior employment was extended from July 1994 to
some appropriate date in the future. The Committee therefore recommends
that the government consider extending the cut-off date for prior employment
of the Labour Adjustment Program to a date in the future to be determined
in consultation with the TCF Union.
1.65 The Committee notes that Australia has not become a signatory to
the ILO Convention and Recommendation on Home Work, but that the Government
is currently undertaking consultations with the states, the Australian
Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the ACTU with a view to presenting
a report to Parliament on this matter by the end of June 1997. The
Committee will review the Government's position in relation to the ILO
Convention on Home Work in 12 months time.
Footnotes
[1] These provisions are contained within clauses
26, 27, 27A, 29 and 30 of the Clothing Trades Award 1982, clauses 27,
40 and 42 of the Textile Industry Award 1994, clauses 31, 33 and 41 of
the Footwear Manufacturing and Component Industries Award 1979, and in
corresponding provisions of the counterpart state awards.
[2] Evidence, p. E 647.
[3] See for example Evidence, pp. E 168, 224,
549.
[4] Evidence, p. E 256.
[5] Evidence, p. E 168.
[6] Evidence, p. E 196.
[7] Evidence, p. E 224.
[8] Evidence, p. E 657.
[9] Evidence, p. E 505.
[10] Textiles Clothing & Footwear Union
of Australia The Hidden Cost of Fashion - Report on the National Outwork
Information Campaign. March 1995. p. 19.
[11] Evidence, p. E 561-2.
[12] Evidence, p. E 595.
[13] Note: The RPS system defines industry
participants who make reportable payments as Payers and those who
receive reportable payments as Payees. Some participants may be
both Payers and Payees.
[14] Note: Footwear is outside the scope of
RPS and payments made of a private nature are also outside the scheme.
[15] Evidence, p. E 595, and Letter received
from the Australian Tax Office 27 November 1996.
[16] Letter to Committee dated 4 December 1996
from David Butler, First Assistant Commissioner, Australian Tax Office,
p.2.
[17] Evidence, p. E 71.
[18] Evidence, p. E 77.
[19] Evidence, p. E 202.
[20] Evidence, p. E 210.
[21] Evidence, pp. E 156, 169, 754.
[22] Evidence, p. E 898.
[23] Evidence, p. E 629.
[24] Evidence, p. E 224-5, see also Evidence,
p. E 156, 525, 743.
[25] Evidence, p. E 171.
[26] Evidence, p. E 201.
[27] Evidence, p. E 207.
[28] Source: Letter dated 26 November 1996
from Ian Carnell, First Assistant Secretary, Compliance, Fraud & Teleservice,
Department of Social Security.
[29] Evidence, p. E 916-917; see also Textiles
Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia The Hidden Cost of Fashion
- Report on the National Outwork Information Campaign. March 1995.
p. 21.
[30] Evidence, p. E 226.
[31] Evidence, p. E 28.
[32] Evidence, p. E 91.
[33] Evidence, pp. E 276, 301 (ACTU), E 92
(Worksafe Australia), E 171 (Working Women's Centre, NSW), E574 (CFMEU),
E 525 (Dale Street Women's Health Centre). Support for the convention
was also expressed in the TCF Future Strategies Committee Report Future
Strategies for the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industries 1996-2000.
December 1994, p. 16.
[34] The Home Work Convention 1996, Articles
3 & 4.
[35] Evidence, p. E 416.
[36] Evidence, p. E 416-420.
[37] Submission No. 38, p. 3.
[38] Submission No. 38, p. 4.
[39] Evidence, p. E 61, 253, 768.
[40] Evidence, p. E 769-770.
[41] Evidence, pp. E 559, 775, 777-8.