by Viva la Vida 19 Replies latest jw friends
This commission is awesome. The cult equivalent of a colonoscopy
This is interesting because it means that they identify themselves as a business.
This is the definition of Organization under the Privacy Act 1988 (Aust)
<<PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 6C Organisations
What is an organisation ?
(1) In this Act:
"organisation " means:
(a) an individual; or
(b) a body corporate; or
(c) a partnership; or
(d) any other unincorporated association; or
(e) a trust;
that is not a small business operator, a registered political party, an agency, a State or Territory authority or a prescribed instrumentality of a State or Territory.>>
This is basically stating that you are not considered to be an organization under the Act if you are a small business operator. This is the definition of a small business operator under the same Act
<<PRIVACY ACT 1988 - SECT 6D Small business and small business operators
What is a small business ?
(1) A business is a small business at a time (the test time ) in a financial year (the current year ) if its annual turnover for the previous financial year is $3,000,000 or less.
Test for new business
(2) However, if there was no time in the previous financial year when the business was carried on, the business is a small business at the test time only if its annual turnover for the current year is $3,000,000 or less.
What is a small business operator ?
(3) A small business operator is an individual, body corporate, partnership, unincorporated association or trust that:
(a) carries on one or more small businesses; and
(b) does not carry on a business that is not a small business. >>
Notice that at Paragraph 1 it states that it can only be a small business if it is a BUSINESS in the first instance (and if it's turnover is $3 million or less). That is, it must be a business to begin with before even considering whether it is a small business or not. Therefore the WTBTS Australian Branch are clearly identifying themselves as a business in the letters referred to on this thread.
There is no definition in the act to identify what a Business is therefore it would revert to the common law definition. They might argue that they are only a business in relation to the Privacy Act but they can't because they have to identify as a business (under common law) before they can identify themselves as a small business under the Act.
Just for the record, I am posting extracts from the letter presented by the WTBTS Aust. Branch to the Royal Commission which was addressed to the Head Office.
<<
The legislation applies to non-profit organisations such as charities and religious
organisations. However, “small businesses” are exempt from the operation of the Act. A
business is a “small business” if its annual turnover for the previous year is AUD 3,000,000
(USD 1,500,000) or less. Turnover does not include contributions or donations, but does
include amounts charged to other branches for items supplied by the Australia Branch.
Where funds are transferred without consideration, that is, they are donations or cash
transfers, then those amounts would not be included in the turnover figure......
We now seek your permission to write off all future branch transfers, treating them as
outright donations. In this way we will keep our “turnover” below the threshold and so avoid
the difficulties and obligations that will otherwise apply if we come within the jurisdiction of
this Privacy Act.>>
By their own words, they consider themselves to be a business.
...
In this way we will keep our “turnover” below the threshold and so avoid
the difficulties and obligations that will otherwise apply if we come within the jurisdiction of
this Privacy Act.
They even put "turnover" in quotation marks! This is in their letter!
How knowingly deceptive.
Nice. More evidence of deliberate lies, coverups and deceptive practices all motivated to avoid any liability and accountability.
Too bad there really isn't a Jehovah watching. I'm beginning to think the GB don't even believe in God. If they did, how could they do such things which they clearly know he condemns?
This...
...is almost as shitty as crafting their blood policy to maximize their profits from their own "bloodless" medical science.
