Kokun was founded by Bec Comac, a former PwC tax partner.
When something is employment in Australia.
Substance over labels
Calling an arrangement a “cultural exchange”, paying “pocket money”, or describing someone as “part of the family” does not mean they aren’t an employee.
Where an au pair has:
regular or expected childcare duties
responsibility for children
direction or supervision from the family
payment provided in return for those duties
the arrangement is likely to be employment, even if cultural exchange and room and board are also part of the experience.
How the ATO sees things.
The ATO distinguishes between:
-
assistance is incidental, optional, or ad hoc,
the family does not rely on the au pair for childcare,
payments are discretionary and not linked to work performed, and
there is no expectation that duties must be performed.
-
families rely on the au pair for ongoing childcare,
there are expected routines or hours, even if flexible,
the au pair is left independently responsible for children,
payment would stop if the work stopped, and
the family would need alternative childcare if the au pair did not assist.
In those circumstances, the ATO has repeatedly concluded that an employment relationship exists, even where the arrangement is informal or described as cultural exchange.
-
The following published rulings illustrate the ATO’s approach:
While not binding, taken together, these rulings provide a clear and consistent picture of how the ATO assesses au pair arrangements in practice.
A quick employment law overview
Employment can happen even if you don’t have a written contract. It can arise through an implied intention to create legal relations.
Courts look at the whole relationship, including:
whether work is expected to be performed
whether the family relies on that work
the degree of control or direction exercised
whether payment or benefits are expected in return
Even informal, family-style arrangements can give rise to an implied employment relationship if these features are present.
Why this matters.
Many au pair arrangements operate informally and are never reviewed by regulators.
This can lead families to assume the legal framework can simply be ignored.
The difficulty is that if something does go wrong, the costs can be huge.
If a regulator decided a typical six-month placement, where an au pair works around 30 hours per week and receives $350 per week in “pocket money” was employment, a family could be up for roughly four times that cost in backpay, penalties and tax liabilities.
Importantly, these issues rarely arise during a harmonious placement.
They usually arise after a relationship breaks down, someone is injured, or expectations become disputed.
Kokun’s approach
Kokun takes a transparent and conservative approach.
Where an arrangement operates like employment, we encourage families to structure it as employment from the outset.
Genuine cultural exchange arrangements do exist - but they are narrower and less common than most modern au pair roles.
Our goal is not to make hosting unviable, but to help families understand the real legal landscape and structure arrangements in a way that is fair, defensible and protective of everyone involved.