“Employer-of-Record” vs “True Employer”

The recent NSW Supreme Court decision in Branded Media Holdings[1] holds some important lessons for recruiters and others who are considering the use of outsourced employer-of-record (EoR) services – especially if they imagine that using EoR services will protect them, in all cases, from liability as the “true employer”.  That’s because statutory and common law liabilities generally rest with the true employer, irrespective of where formal documents might be trying to direct them

In Branded Media, liquidators and deed administrators of two related companies sought directions from the court as to the identity of the employer of specified employees within the Branded Media Group.

The companies were Branded Media Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) (Holdings) and Brand New Media Pty Ltd (subject to a deed of arrangement) (BNM). The liquidators and deed administrators’ position was that Holdings was the employer.

The Commonwealth intervened to contend that BNM was the employer. The Commonwealth had advanced more than $1 million in respect of the employees’ unpaid entitlements under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012  and stood to recover a substantially higher amount if BNM was held to be the true employer.

The contest was clouded by uncertainty because, whilst the formal documents recorded Holdings as the employer, day-to-day management of the work relationship was conducted by BNM.

The court held that the true employer was BNM. Some telling factors included:

  • Holdings did not conduct any business by which it generated income;
  • Holdings was not the recipient of the services of the employees;
  • the employees provided their services to BNM;
  • Holdings was wholly dependent upon BNM to meet its financial obligations;
  • Holdings did not operate any bank accounts;
  • Holdings did not in fact pay the employees;
  • BNM in fact paid the salaries and wages of the employees;
  • BNM had its logo on some employment forms;
  • business cards used by the employees bore the logo of BNM;
  • the sign-off section of emails sent by the employees referenced BNM;
  • the website referencing the Employees referenced BNM.

You might already be getting a sense of how some of those factors might play out in a case where a staffing agency supplies workers to one of its clients, managing their shifts, providing them with agency uniforms, and binding them to agency policies; but arranging for those workers to be employed “on-the-record” by an outsourced payroll company.  

The Branded Media case is important because the Court clarified the principles that are used to determine which of the two companies was the actual employer. In doing so, it made clear that:

The Court must look to the “substance and reality” in identifying the true employer in these circumstances and would look beyond contractual documentation and to the reality of the manner in which the parties conducted themselves in order to do so.[1]

[The Court may also] have regard to whether the suggested arrangement had an “intelligible business objective” which is “consistent with the financial and administrative organisation of the business”.[2]

The case is also helpful to the extent to which it clarifies that employment-of-record is not a distinct category of employment, but nothing more than an expression to describe an arrangement by which certain of the true employer’s statutory or contractual responsibilities are performed by someone else.

Such an arrangement will not necessarily relieve the true employer of those responsibilities if the EoR fails in performance. And some liabilities, such as the employer’s vicarious liability at common law, may continue to rest with the true employer to the extent to which they derive from the true employer’s notional control of its employees.

The need to identify the true employer will also arise in the context of labour hire licensing prosecutions to the extent to which it may be necessary to determine whether workers of an unlicensed provider who has sought to outsource the obligation to pay its workers to an EoR payroll company may be left with the residue of the statutory obligation to pay sufficient to necessitate the holding of a licence -despite having passed to the EoR a contractual obligation to pay the workers.

Andrew C. Wood


[1] In the matter of Branded Media Holdings Pty Limited (in liquidation); In the matter of Brand New Media Pty Limited (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2020] NSWSC 557 at [14] adopting Counsel’s submission to that effect.

[2] At [26], developing a further dimension to the test which may be effective to challenge sham arrangements directed at avoidance.

Labouring the Point: “Workers” and the obligation to pay

A female agent sits at a desk whilst discussing an assignment with a labour hire worker.The workeris wearing hi vis jacket.

One of the more intriguing features of the Australian labour hire licensing schemes concerns the definition of a “worker” and the requirement that a person is only a worker for another person (the provider) if the provider is obliged to pay the worker, in whole or part, for the work.[1] Whether such an obligation exists should be relatively easy to determine in most cases. But it will not always be so; and the issue may sometimes be clouded by the involvement of intermediaries.

Take the case of a labour hire agency’s worker who is engaged through a payroll company that provides outsourced “employer-of-record” services. Where does the obligation to pay the worker lie? Is it with the agency or the payroll company? Does a statutory obligation to pay perhaps rest with the agency as the “true employer”[2], whilst a contractual obligation lies with the payroll company?  

You can already see that we are now having to distinguish between contractual and statutory obligations.

If the payroll company is found to be the “true employer”, is the agency necessarily off the hook? What happens if the payroll company fails to pay – perhaps because of insolvency? Could a restitutionary claim against the agency, as someone who has benefited from the work to the extent that it was paid by the host for supplying the worker – give rise to an equitable obligation on the part of the agency to pay the worker? Would the obligation be to pay “in whole or in part for the work”? What questions of characterisation arise? And to what extent are those questions resolved by the express legislative provisions in South Australia, Victoria and the ACT, but not in Queensland, that the obligation may arise “directly or indirectly”?

So far, we have distinguished between contractual, statutory, and equitable obligations to pay.

Next, take the case of an agency worker who operates through a family company that is the trustee of a discretionary trust which receives payment for the supply of the worker. The trustee may be under no obligation at all to pay the worker; and any distribution under the trust, being an exercise of discretion, might not be able to be characterised as being “in whole or in part for the work”.

As I say, these are intriguing questions – at least for some! They were not answered when the legislation was being drafted. And whilst they may seem highly technical, success and failure in prosecutions and civil actions may well depend upon the answers that the courts will eventually have to provide.  

Andrew C. Wood


[1] Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 (Qld) s. 8(1)(b), Labour Hire Licensing Act 2017 (SA). s. 8(1)(b), Labour Hire Licensing Act 2018 (Vic) s. 9(1)(b), Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020 (ACT) s. 8(1)(b).

[2] For discussion of the distinction between an “employer-of-record” the “true employer” see Gothard (recs & mgrs of AFG Pty Ltd) (in liq) v Davey [2010] FCA 1163; Re Plutus Payroll Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] NSWSC 1171;and In the matter of Branded Media Holdings Pty Limited (in liquidation); In the matter of Brand New Media Pty Limited (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2020] NSWSC 557.

Labouring the Point: Advertising Labour Hire Services

Businessman reading legislation with magnifying glass checking details for compliance

If you’re advertising your ability to provide labour hire services throughout Australia – as many agencies do – please take a moment to consider whether you could be committing an offence in Queensland, South Australia, or Victoria if you don’t hold a licence in those States.

It’s not enough to hold a licence in just one State. That appears to be so regardless of where your business is located, because all three States have a provision that says it’s an offence to advertise your willingness to provide labour hire services unless you hold their licence[1]. They’ve also bestowed inter-state operation on their labour hire licensing laws.[2]

The Australian Capital Territory’s scheme, which has not commenced yet, does not appear to have a similar provision. However, whether advertising the ability to supply labour hire services in the Territory without holding a licence could be prosecuted as an attempt to commit an offence may be a question that warrants careful consideration.

So, have a look at what you claim, on your websites and in your marketing materials, to be able to do, and get it checked out.

Andrew C. Wood


[1] Qld s, 10(2); SA s. 11(2); Vic s, 14.

[2] Qld s. 5; SA s. 4; Vic s. 6.

Still no closer to a concept of “joint employment” in Australia

Two Fair Work Commission decisions handed down in January 2021 confrm that we are still no closer to recognising a concept of “joint employment” in Australian employment law.

Both decisions involved challenges to the Commission’s unfair dismissal jurisdiction.

In Don Allan v Cleanaway Waste Management Company T/A Cleanaway Port Adelaide Solid Waste Services [2021] FWC 20 (5 January 2021), the challenge came about because the applicant for reinstatement, who had previously worked with the respondent employer through a labour-hire firm, was unable to satisfy the minimum employment period necessary to entitle him to seek reinstatement. He argued that time spoent in service of the labour-hire firm should be aggregated with time spent in direct employment of the respondent. To support his contention, he argued that the labour-hire firm and its client had been his joint employers.

In Toni Bou Lattouf v Bechtel Australia Pty Limited [2021] FWC 142 (25 January 2021), the challenge came about because the applicant, an Australian citizen who had been working overseas for a foreign entity within the Bechtel Group at the time of his dismissal, could not establish that it was the Australian entity named as respondent, rather than the foreign entity, that was his employer. To get around the difficulty, he argued that the Australian entity was jointly his employer with the foreign entity.

In both cases, which were heard by Deputy President Anderson in Adelaide, the applicants were unsuccessful. The reasons were similar. It comes down to this (as held in the Cleanaway decision):

Joint Employment

[78] Nor do I accept the proposition that Mr Allan was jointly employed by both Tecside and Cleanaway. There is no legal foundation on which a claim of joint employment in respect of the same work can be made or sustained under Australian law. I adopt the observations of Hampton DP in Costello v Allstaff Industrial Personnel (SA) Pty Ltd [33] and the later observations of a full bench of this Commission in FP Group v Tooheys on this point where it was said:[34]

“the application of a concept of joint employment to labour hire arrangements would involve a very considerable development of the common law…we do not consider that the Commission’s role as a statutory tribunal extends to engagement in the development of the common law. That is a matter for the courts.”

[79] Such an approach is consistent with observations made by a separate full bench in French Accent:

“[26] Moreover, the nature of the ultimate question is such that in any given case that is not clear cut, reasonable judicial minds may differ as to the correct answer in any given case. This was explicitly recognised in Roy Morgan. This necessarily means that there is an area of uncertainty for businesses that wish to engage only on the basis of independent contract and not on the basis of employment. Any change to the present approach is a matter for the legislature. Our duty is to continue to apply the established general law approach until legislation or the High Court requires otherwise.” (emphasis added)

Neither the legislature nor the High Court has shown much sign of requiring otherwise to date.

Andrew C. Wood

Aged Care Royal Commission: Recommendation 89 – “heartening”!

Working my way through the recently released Aged Care Royal Commission’s Final Report into Aged Care Quality & Safety, It was encouraging to read the recommendations for a rights-based approach to safe and quality aged care for people receiving or seeking care and for informal care-givers.

A rights-based approach recognises an entitlement to safe and quality care, placing the care recipient at the centre – as more than a passive subject, who might be expected to be grateful if they receive care, and agreeably accepting if they don’t. It is empowering and, whilst still recognising that we might be dependent on others for our care needs, lifts us out of the sort of relational dependency that can, too often, erode hope and lead to despondency. So that was good.

What I was also hoping to find, was any recommendation for greater recognition of aged care workers’ rights to sustainable employability, balancing the well-being and job requirements of aged care workforce members,* including rights to skills and career development, support, continuity, communication, reasonable staffing ratios, and a right to be respected and valued as a member of a vital and caring workforce.

Maybe these rights are taken as givens – so obvious that they don’t need to be mentioned. But I’m not so sure.

It seems to me that there may be appreciative and relational aspects to aged care workforce development which may be difficult to grasp because they are not always easy to articulate, and even less easy to measure. There is a need for aged care workforce assessment and development that doesn’t always start with, “The problem with the workforce is that…” . The problems may be real; but the solutions might sometimes be found in a different framing.

I was therefore heartened to read Commissioner Brigg’s recommendation (rec. 89) of a requirement for aged care providers’ governing bodies to adopt and implement a plan to manage and support staff training, professional development and continuous learning, staff feedback and engagement, and team building. And to see that it gets done quickly, the Commissioner proposed a July 2021 deadline.

I’m looking forward to reading the Government’s response. I hope they take it up. It’s a fair starting point. I’d like to see it elevated into an aged care workforce “right”. It’s one that would benefit everobody.

Andrew C. Wood

  • See BSI Standards PD ISO/TR 30406:2017.

Modern Slavery Reporting for Labour Hire and Workforce Services Providers: The Basics

If you’re a labour hire or workforce services provider, you’ll likely be receiving requests for information about what steps you’ve taken to combat risks of modern slavery in your supply chains or operations.

You might even be large enough to have to prepare your own modern slavery statements, and you could be requesting similar information from your suppliers. 

That’s because Australian entities that have a consolidated revenue of $100 million or more must lodge statements under the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth),

For most of them, the extended lodgment date is 31 March 2021. But a few entities will have different reporting dates – some as soon as 31 December 2020. You can check it out here.

So, over the coming weeks, we’ll be posting some short updates and commentary in the RCSA-hosted Labour Hire Licensing & Regulation LinkedIn Group. Be sure to look in on us regularly. And if you have questions, don’t hesitate to ask.

Andrew C. Wood

Modern Slavery Reporting about How Labour Hire Workers Are Used

Lately, I’ve been developing a range of modern slavery reporting resources for Australian labour hire and workforce services providers. Amongst the materials provided by the Commonwealth government, I came across this piece of guidance, which had me scratching my head:

Under the Act reporting entities are not required to report on modern slavery risks associated with how their customers use the products or services they purchase. For example, a mining company is not required to report on whether the overseas smelter that purchases its ore uses forced labour. Similarly, landlords and lessors are not required to report on modern slavery risks associated with the operations and supply chains of lessees.

Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act 2018: Guidance for Reporting Entities, p.34

So, I asked the Border Force Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit if it had a view on how that piece of guidance might be applied to labour hire and workforce services providers.

You will see the issue, immediately. Labour hire providers supply workers. So, the use to which customers put those workers may have a direct impact on risks of exposure to modern slavery practices.

The Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit was great. They got back to me straight away. Here is their reply:

We would expect that labour hire agencies required to report under the Modern Slavery Act address possible modern slavery risks associated with the use of workers they provide to other businesses in their modern slavery statements. These workers are usually employees of the labour hire agency and their provision to other businesses forms part of the labour hire agency’s operations.

Reply 2 November 2020

So, if you are a labour hire or workforce services provider, it seems that will need to give some thought to whether your customers’ use of your workers might expose them to the risk of modern slavery practices, and you’ll need to report about that.

Andrew C. Wood

Victoria’s Public Health and Wellbeing Act Amendment – Are we asking the right questions?

A lot of attention has been given recently to claims that the Victorian Government is attempting to extend the current state of emergency for another twelve months. But to my mind, it’s the amendments to the threshold sections that warrant the greater parliamentary and public scrutiny.

To be fair, the amendment to section 198 – the duration section – only provides that the total aggregate length of a state of emergency can be extended to 12 months. If you’re dealing with an event that will last longer than the current six-month limit, there would seem to be some sense in that.

However, the amendment to section 199 is more troubling. It proposes to reduce the threshold required for the Chief Health Officer to authorise emergency powers from a belief that it is “necessary” to a belief that it is merely”reasonably necessary” to do so.

Further amendents would allow a state of emergency to be declared even where the rate of community transmission of COVID-19 in Victoria is low, or there are no new cases of COVID-19 for a period of time. 

We’ll have to see what happens. In the meantime, you can read the explanatory memorandum here:

https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/public-health-and-wellbeing-amendment-state-emergency-extension-and-other-matters-bill-2020

WorkAccord’s “Tuesday TalkAbout” to Return in July

Slide17WorkAccord’s “Tuesday TalkAbout” series of free, short webinars is set to return for a fourth season at 8:30 am AEST on July 21st 2020.

With The Recruitment, Consulting & Staffing Association’s new Code for Professional Conduct, authorised by the ACCC last year, commencing on August 8, the focus of the series will be on the Code’s principles of operational integrity.

As the author of the Code, I’m looking forward to  discussing topics such as Confidentiality, Care, Complaints Handling, Certainty of Engagement, Social Sustainability, Assurance, and Disclosure.

Here’s the Winter programme:

1.   RCSA Code: What’s New? (21/07/20)

Our first Tuesday TalkAbout for the Winter 2020 season presents an overview of the RCSA Code for Professional Conduct and asks, “What’s new?”

We’ll explain why this Code is different from what has gone before. We’ll explore the ethical principles that underpin the Code; and look at its statement of principles for personal professionalism and operational integrity. Finally, we’ll discover what the Code requires of RCSA Members and how RCSA supports its Members’ journey along the “Pathway to Professionalism”.

2.   Social Sustainability (28/07/20)

The new RCSA Code requires Members to

  • conduct business in a way that avoids causing or contributing to exploitation through their activities; and
  • seek to prevent or mitigate risks of exploitation that are linked to their operations or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those risks.

In this session, we’ll discover what the Code means when it talks about “exploitation” and we’ll learn about steps that you can take along your pathway to professionalism to reduce the risk of exploitation in your service networks.

You can register for this webinar here.

3.   Ascertain & Assure (4/08/20)

RCSA Members will be required to:

  • apply resources; and
  • establish and maintain controls

to ascertain and assure themselves, to a reasonable standard of confidence, that they meet the requirements of the regulatory environment in which they operate.

This session focuses on how to identify regulatory requirements and what types of controls you can implement in a recruitment and staffing environment to be confident that you are meeting them.

You can register for this webinar here.

4.   Certainty of Engagement (11/08/20)

Under RCSA’s new Code, Members will need to take reasonable steps:

  • to ensure the certainty, transparency, and scope of their agreements; and
  • to obtain adequately informed consent

for the provision of a workforce service, or for the performance of a service network role.

In this session, we’ll talk about provisions that present regular challenges and discuss what you can do to make their operation more certain. We’ll look at scoping provisions, screening responsibilities, fees & charges, restraints of trade, candidate replacement and other guarantees.

You can register for this webinar here.

5.   Confidentiality & Privacy (18/08/20)

Recruitment & staffing professionals handle vast quantities of confidential and personal information. Much of it is highly sensitive.

In this session, we’ll talk about some of the challenges that you will face and how you can deal with them. You’ll learn to identify when information is confidential and how to handle exceptions. You’ll learn about the different privacy regimes that you might operate within and why it is important to have a good understanding of your privacy obligations when you are obtaining consent to collect, use and disclose personal information. We’ll also look briefly at some of the additional issues that arise when you are operating in an on-line environment.

You can register for this webinar here.

6.   Complaints Handling (25/08/20)

RCSA Members will be required to establish and maintain credible grievance handling mechanisms and corrective action procedures, appropriate to their size and circumstances, to address any failure to meet the standard of professional conduct required by the RCSA Code.

In this session we will talk about how you can do that, using some of the principles in AS/NZS 10002:2014 Guidelines for complaint management in organizations.

You can register for this webinar here.

7.   Care (1/09/20)

A concept of care, requiring attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness underpins the new RCSA Code for Professional Conduct.

In this session, we’ll explore the concept of care and talk about its specific application to Members’ responsibility to meet the value promises they make about the quality of their services. Is there room, in a professional conduct framework, for an “all-care-no-responsibility” approach anymore? Let’s find out!

You can register for this webinar here.

Let’s talk again soon!

Andrew C. Wood Hon, FRCSA (Life)

 

 

 

 

The Labour Hire Licensing Act 2020 (ACT) – More variations on a theme

The Australian Capital Territory has made good its intention to enact labour hire licensing legislation. This is the fourth Australian jurisdiction to enact a licensing scheme – if you count South Australia, which has just started to wind the coverage of its scheme back to imit its application tohigh-risk sectors.

So, what’s the deal in the ACT? You can spend hours on this stuff and still not know what it all means until the courts start to interpret it. But here are a few features you might want to note that give the ACT scheme its own unique character.

Status

Early days. We still need to see the regulations and application forms, which will add layers of detail.

Commencement

Probably 1 January 2021, with a 6-month transition period.

Objects

  • Protect workers from exploitation by providers of labour hire services; and
  • Ensure labour hire service providers meet their workplace obligations and responsibilities to the workers they supply; and
  • Promote the integrity of the labour hire services industry; and
  • Promote responsible practices in the labour hire services industry.

Coverage

You’re a labour hire provider if, in the course of carrying on a business, you supply to another person (the hirer) a worker to do work.

The definition is closer to the very wide Queensland model. There’s no attempt to give meaning to what “supply” means and no use of the complex integration test (to perform work in and as part of the hirer’s business or undertaking) adopted in South Australia and Victoria.

Neither is there any attempt to exclude licensed private employment (placement) agencies (PEAs) as there is in Queensland and South Australia, even though the ACT has a separate PEA licensing scheme.

This will mean that the requirement to hold a licence will often come down to whether the person supplied to do the work is a worker within the meaning of the Act. We’ll look at that in a moment.

Unlike Victoria, there’s no explicit extension of the scheme to PEAs who provide accommodation, or to Contractor Management Services providers. Although, that might be unnecessary in view of the width of the coverage.

The “Regardlesses”

Not an Indie band – but a set of provisions that say you’re a labour hire provider no matter what (regardless).  So, you would need a licence regardless of whether:

  • the worker is employed by you; or
  • there is a contract for the worker to do the work; or
  • the worker is supplied by you directly or indirectly; or
  • the work completed by the worker is under the control of you or the hirer.

All four State and Territory licensing schemes use some version of the regardlesses. They’re designed to extend coverage to tiered supply and contracting chains. They are capable of producing a lot of unintended consequences. You need to do a few worked examples to see what they lead to. But, basically, you can be a labour hire provider even though you’re not engaging the worker. That might cause a few headaches for payroll companies.

Regulations can exempt a stated person from coverage meaning that they would not have to have a licence. That’s not as good as it looks. It relates to “stated persons” rather than to classes of persons and it falls well short of anything you might have heard to the contrary about the Minister or the Commissioner having a power to declare exemptions.

Who is a “worker”?

Only an individual can be a worker. An individual is a worker for a provider if the individual enters into an arrangement with the provider under which—

  • the provider may supply, to another person, the individual to do work; and
  • the provider is obliged to pay the worker for the work—
    • in whole or part; or
    • directly or indirectly.

This definition is also pretty standard across the four licensing schemes. But it’s riddled with problems because there’s no clarity about the nature of the “obligation”. It’s easy enough if the obligation arises directly from a work/wages bargain.

But things get complicated if the obligation arises from an escrow obligation such as you might see with some of the freelancing platforms, or if the worker is not paid for the work but receives distributions from a trust or is remunerated in some other manner.

Also, keep in mind that a person can be your worker, even though you’ve not engaged them. Again, this could cause some headaches for payroll companies and contractor management services providers.

The Minister can declare that a person is or is not a worker. This is a bit easier than the power to exempt a provider by regulation. Still, it’s not an easy path and I doubt that we’ll see anything like the liberal application of the similar power to exempt by gazettal, which we saw in South Australia before the Act there was changed.

The Offences

  • Supplying a worker without having a labour hire licence – huge fine 3,000 penalty units for a corporation; 800 penalty units for an individual
  • False representation that a licence is held – 200 penalty units
  • Breach of licence condition – 300 penalty units
  • Entering into an arrangement to acquire services from an unlicensed provider – huge fine 3,000 penalty units for a corporation; 800 for an individual

Ignorance might actually be an excuse in the ACT – Consider “Kevin”.

If you’re a hirer (host) you won’t commit the offence of entering into an arrangement with an unlicensed provider if you had a reasonable excuse. Consider this example of a reasonable excuse included in the Act:

Kevin decides that he needs a cleaner for his house. He sees an advertisement on a social media site by a company offering domestic cleaning services. Kevin did not know that the company was an unlicensed labour hire services provider nor was there anything in the advertisement or otherwise to make him aware that he should check that the company was licensed.

That’s going to raise a lot of questions about what you should and shouldn’t know about the scheme. You might get away with it if you’re a householder, like “Kevin”; but my guess is that you wouldn’t want to be putting your eggs in that particular basket if you’re a business acquirer of labour hire services.

Where is the anti-avoidance measure?

It seems like a curious omission, but I can’t I can’t find an express anti-avoidance measure. I’d be interested to learn why, if anyone knows the reason. The last thing you’d want is a scheme that is tolerant of a certain degree of contrived ignorance! Maybe there’ll be some attempt to fix it in the regulations.

Fit and proper person test

A version of the now familiar fit and proper person test applies to all “influential” people for a provider. Influential people for a corporation include a person who can exercise a power to:

  • take part in a directorial, managerial or executive decision for the corporation; or
  • elect or appoint a person as an executive officer in the corporation; or
  • significantly influence the conduct of the corporation.

Think about that last point for a moment. Who could that include? Your significant shareholders? Your financiers? Your industry association? Your suppliers? Your clients? Your spiritual advisors?

It’s a pretty wide category and it’s going to take a fair bit of common sense to know where to draw the boundaries. And, of course, there’ll be outliers.

The rest of it

As to the rest of it, there’s a lot of administrative provisions about applications, licence onditions, enforcement, inspectors, appeals, the establishment of a Commission and an Advisory Committee.

You can read a copy of the Act for yourself here.

Treat it as a broad framework and expect more detail  – including information about fees – in the regulations when they become available. There’s still a bit of work to be done before we know how this scheme will actually work.

Andrew C. Wood