Screen Producer Australia (SPA) moved to clarify writers’ superannuation rules following the Australian Tax Office’s ruling, but the Australian Writers Guild (AWG) dismissed the organization’s position as a flaw.
The SPA issued a fact sheet yesterday to counter what is called “confusing” media coverage of the issue. In response, the AWG informed its members that it was not considering the sound of Spa’s discussion.
The December 2024 ruling from the ATO referenced the screenplay’s actions in relation to what constitutes “employees” under the Tax Management Act. Anyone deemed “employee” under the law is legally entitled to a pension contribution.
According to the ruling, “People who are engaged in writing scripts are running services, while those who sell existing scripts are not. They are simply selling property.” In the context of the Super Annuation Guarantee (Management) Act of 1992, “A person paid to make or perform services in connection with the creation of a film, tape, disc, or television or radio broadcast is the employee of the person responsible for making the payment.”
In July, the Guardian reported that it was preparing to challenge the SPA behind the decision on the superannuation required for members serving it, and was therefore classified as an employee.
In its fact sheet, Spa emphasized that Australian producers are committed to complying with all retirement pension laws and industry agreements.
The document states that SPA and AWG have reached writer agreements on the TV series (2008), Miniseries (2010), and Children’s TV Series (2011). Under these contracts, producers do not have to pay their retirement pension.
Spa said that during this time, AWG “consistently discussed” that writers were not providing services, but rather licensed or assigned intellectual property, and that freelance writers were not providing tax services.
In granting the ATO ruling, the SPA notes that while the 1992 Retirement Pension Act remains in effect, payments with the characteristic “performing services” would attract a retirement pension.
The AWG responded with a statement to its members, and the language of most writers’ contracts, including the negotiated AWG-SPA writing contracts, called on producers to “consign” writers to write scripts for the series.
“Spa claims that the production company is simply buying the writer’s intellectual property in its scripts and doesn’t attract the writers to “run the service,” the statement reads.
“The characterization of contracts written in this way is at odds with practical words in Section 12(8) of the Superannuation Guarantee Act of 1992 and simple words in Section 12(8) of 1992.”
“The copyright of these scripts cannot be assigned to producers until they are written. Writers are engaged by producers, providing the services of writing scripts, and are assigned their own rights following engagement and provision of services.
“The writers are involved in producers, carry out writing tasks through personal efforts, with high levels of creative control, along with general directions, along with story meetings, notes and directions from the production company.”
