For every drink you get, the taxman takes two – and he wants to take more. It’s just another tax that’s out of control.
One Nation believes that you should keep more money in your pocket rather than letting Canberra have it.
I spoke to Alexandra Marshall of Spectator Australia on the outrageous tax that is being floated, which will impact those on smaller incomes and families.
The Environment Minister, Tania Plibersek, has warned the fashion industry to turn its back on the concept of fashion that encourages people to buy too many new clothes. This idea is straight out of Chairman Mao’s China where everyone dressed in the same uniform, reducing the need for clothing to just a few sets of clothes.
This is your future under the most radical government in Australian history, who are actively promoting the World Economic Forum’s war on clothing under the guise of ‘saving the environment’, but really they just want us to have less.
Minister Plibersek is trying to justify their levy on clothing by saying it will create a ‘Green Fund’. Based on flawed science, this tax on clothing comes just after the WEF suggested on its website that people wash their clothes less often — you will wear old clothes and be dirty. This is literally what the WEF thinks of us. It’s impossible to be “happy” about this out of control, UN agenda followed loyally by this government.
One Nation opposes any new taxes. For the Prime Minister to even consider more tax on clothing shows how out of touch he is.
Spectator Australia
Watch
Remember when Ivermectin was called a horse paste and they said humans shouldn’t even take it?
Now the World Health Organisation is handing it out to a million humans. 🤷
Award-winning journalist & author, Peter Hitchens, exposes the Net Zero absurdity straight to the face of George Monbiot on BBC Question Time.
“…we didn’t just close down our coal fired power stations, we blew them up, we were so certain we were right to do so. At the same time, China even as we speak is building the equivalent of two new coal fired power stations a week. India has a vast expansion programme of coal fired power stations…”
“If you want to live in a country with Net Zero, if you where nobody can afford to heat their house where people have incredibly expensive and non functioning heat pumps inflicted on them, if you want lots of people to lose their jobs because there’s no energy, if you want to be cold all the time… then carry on believing that the demand to go for Net Zero… is intelligent and thoughtful.”
At the February Senate Estimates I asked the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) how much money has the NDIA been able to claw back through identified National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) fraud? Funding across 16 agencies, including the NDIA, of $140 million over four years was provided in 2022 to tackle fraud. Those agencies are working together. It seems reasonable that we should know what return on this investment we’re getting since we’re paying for it.
There are major concerns with the NDIS. It was hastily brought to life and hastily implemented. There are concerns with both over and under-servicing. That’s not necessarily a reflection on the people in the NDIA, but that’s the reality.
I also asked what is being done in relation to auditing service providers who are sucking the scheme dry through fraudulent claims for services that are overcharged or actually not even provided? My questions regarding the amount actually clawed back was taken on notice, however John Dardo, Deputy CEO of Integrity Transformation and Fraud Fusion Taskforce, freely admits to having layers of concern about NDIS fraud. There are over 600,000 participants in the scheme and Mr Dardo says the system is extraordinarily immature for a scheme paying out over $100 million each day, with 400,000 claims a day. Among the risks they’re managing is whether they can be confident that a participant is a real human being, is in the scheme knowingly and actually exists.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. On the topic of fraud, how much money has the NDIA been able to claw back through identified NDI fraud?
Ms Falkingham: I’ll ask Deputy CEO John Dardo, who leads that program, to come forward to the table.
Mr Dardo: Thanks for the question. There are different ways to measure that. One of the ways to measure it is to think about how much we’ve prevented from going out the door by implementing systems or detecting the integrity leak before the money has left the door. Another way to measure it is to look at whether we’ve asked the participant or provider to pay the money back. Another way to measure it is by the amount of money that is subject to a prosecution activity—so where it has gone to the courts. Not all of that is recoverable, because unless there’s criminal asset confiscation, or unless there are penalties being charged, that money may not be recoverable. So there are lots of different ways to measure it.
What I would say is that, as my colleague mentioned earlier in relation to detecting the anomalies, there are a range of things that we’ve been building up over the last 18 months to allow us to identify where there are integrity leaks, and what I would emphasise is that integrity leaks are very, very strongly correlated to participant risk. The safety of participants is put at risk when money is leaking to the wrong places. It’s because the participants aren’t receiving the services they need, or because we’ve got providers that are dodgy and are actually growing their businesses at the expense of good providers—so they’re wiping out the good providers—or because that money is actually funding activity for participants that is putting them at further risk, whether it be drug abuse, alcohol abuse, risky behaviours or other behaviours. So the money’s important, but the reason we look at the money is the participant safety impact that it has.
What I would also say is that there’s a level of detail that I can’t share in this forum—I’m happy to do it in a private setting—because we do not want to run a 101 session on how to commit fraud against the NDIA. But I’m on the public record in previous hearings talking about the layers of concern that we have. We have, in round figures, over 600,000 participants in the scheme. The system is extraordinary immature for a system that pays out over $100 million a day, with 400,000 claims a day. It is an extraordinarily immature system. Certainly it’s one of the most immature I’ve seen. If I think about the sorts of risks that we’re managing and investing in, being confident that a participant is a real human being, is in the scheme knowingly and—
Senator ROBERTS: Actually exists.
Mr Dardo: actually exists is an area of risk that we’re certainly unpacking and understanding, and we’re identifying things that need to be addressed.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Out of respect for the chair wanting to conclude pretty soon, could you take it on notice to provide the figures around the categories of fraud that you mentioned earlier on, please? What money has been saved?
Mr Dardo: We can do that.
Senator ROBERTS: There are concerns with the NDIS. It was hastily brought to life. It was hastily implemented. There are concerns with overservicing, as you know. There are concerns with underservicing and there are concerns with fraud. That’s not necessarily a reflection on the people in the NDIA at the moment, but that’s the reality. Please also take it on notice to answer: what is being done in relation to auditing service providers who are sucking the scheme dry through fraudulent claims for services that are overcharged or actually not even provided?
Mr Dardo: An enormous amount of activity. Some of that activity is some randomised integrity checks. We’ve done tens of thousands of those to try and understand, at a randomised level, what we’re seeing. The sorts of common things we’re seeing include overclaiming, duplicate claims, claiming for services that were never provided and claiming for services that are not consistent with the plan. If I think about some other risk points, we have some particular cohorts where we have very significant concerns about the behaviour of the cohorts, and, when we cross-reference our data with other data such as tax data, for example, we see that some of our providers are non-compliant with basic obligations to the Commonwealth. If they’re non-compliant with their basic obligations to the Commonwealth but they’re managing money on behalf of participants or managing services on behalf of participants, we’ve got concerns. We have several hundred providers where they’re managing money or services on behalf of participants or managing other providers on behalf of participants and yet they’re not compliant with their most basic tax obligations. We’re cross-referencing data with other agencies.
A taskforce commenced in November 2022. At the most egregious end of the offending, that taskforce has 16 Commonwealth agencies working together to identify networks of providers or syndicates that are targeting the scheme. You may have seen some media coverage about the search warrants being executed, the prosecutions being conducted and passports being seized or surrendered as part of bail conditions. That work is continuing to ramp up. We have over 100 investigations in the pipeline, and some of those cases are very significant both in dollar value and participant numbers being affected and also in the egregious behaviour of those providers.
Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of costs involved. Some of the costs are from the 16 agencies that are working with you and they’ll be hidden from the total cost.
Mr Dardo: No, those agencies were funded as part of that announcement. That funding was $140 million over four years. Those agencies, as well as the NDIA, were funded as part of that Fraud Fusion Taskforce and they’re working in partnership with us.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Thousands of casual miners working in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed, on average, around $33,000 per year in back pay, making them victims of Australia’s largest wage theft.
During my discussion with Ms. Booth and Mr. Scully, I inquired about the calculator that people can use to determine if they are being paid correctly under an Agreement or Award. It is crucial for workers to be paid at least the award rate of pay.
Ms. Booth described the calculator as an interactive template designed to cover all the awards.
An analysis of five significant labour hire coal mining enterprise agreements operating in Queensland and the Hunter Valley, all involving the CFMEU, revealed that all five agreements underpaid the award – see below. I also asked Ms. Booth to provide information on how many requests for assistance had been made relating to underpayments by the Chandler Macleod Group regarding the black coal industry.
It’s worth noting that in the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, there are no rates of pay specified for casuals, raising questions about how so-called “casuals” can use the FWO pay calculator.
The Five Agreements that Underpaid the Award
| Per Person – Per Year – On Average | |
| The Core Staff Enterprise Agreement 2018 | $22,600 |
| The FES Enterprise Agreement 2018 | $27,000 |
| The Workpac Enterprise Agreement 2019 | $33,500 |
| The Chandler Macleod Agreement 2020 | $39,340 |
| The TESA Group agreement 2022 | $40,000 |
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, Ms Booth and Mr Scully.
Ms Booth: A great pleasure, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I refer to the Fair Work Ombudsman website and the black coal mining industry award that asks ‘Pay and entitlements less than the award?’ The Fair Work Ombudsman’s answer is, and I quote,
Employees must be paid at least award pay rates and entitlements.
There’s another instruction or invitation:
If your pay rates are less than the award, go to Help resolving workplace issues to follow our step by step guide on how you can fix it.
Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have a standard process or template it uses to assess whether an employee is being paid less than the award?
Ms Booth: The Fair Work Ombudsman has a pay calculator that allows anyone—an employee or an employer—to provide information as requested. It calculates the correct award rate. That is the case for all sectors.
Senator ROBERTS: So it doesn’t have a template, but an individual can step his or her way through it?
Ms Booth: I think the pay calculator could be described as a template. But it’s interactive. It’s a series of smart forms that you complete and then you get a response at the end which tells you what the award rate is. For further information on the pay calculator, I could turn to my supporters here. Mr Scully, would you like to talk more about the pay calculator for Senator Roberts?
Mr Scully: We call it PACT, which is pay and conditions tool. It is an online calculator that has hundreds and thousands of pay combinations and calculations that can be provided and is tailored to the particular award and classification and the like that the user keys in. It is a very popular tool. I think last financial year, something like 6.4 million people used it. There were something like 7.1 million pay calculations provided, I think, for the year, so it’s widely used by the community.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a template that an individual can attempt to check?
Mr Scully: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that tailored to cover pay rates subject to the coverage of the black coal mining industry award and the rosters that are used in Central Queensland and Hunter Valley?
Mr Scully: It covers all awards, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I know it is a very complex situation involving the 12-hour rosters in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland.
Mr Scully: I would need to check that. I don’t know that it would go to the rosters. It is more awards and classifications. It goes to weekday rates and weekends and shift penalties and the like.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a very complex roster. People have difficulty. Would the Fair Work Ombudsman agree to undertake an assessment with regard to the application of coal enterprise agreements and provide the outcomes to me?
Ms Booth: The Fair Work Ombudsman certainly will respond to any employee who has a question. We will provide information.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that current employees or can they be past employees?
Ms Booth: I will ask Mr Scully to answer that question on the basis that the info line is available to anyone. We don’t ask people to verify their employment status. I’m going to say that anyone can ring the info line and ask a question. Would that be right, Mr Scully? You would not have to be an employee to ring the info line and ask a question? We don’t seek to verify people’s employment status?
Mr Scully: That is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t thinking about calling up myself. I was thinking about past people who have left the industry but have been underpaid dramatically.
Ms Booth: So when a call comes, information is given. If that information doesn’t satisfy the caller and the caller still has a dispute that they regard as unresolved, we call it a request for assistance. We identify that and we move it through to an assessment team. That assessment team will speak directly with the employer and the employee and attempt to resolve the matter. I think you also know that it will go forward beyond that through inspector support to our investigator and inspectors to conduct investigations should it not be resolved by the assessment team. That is the pathway.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. By the way, a team of workplace lawyers, consultants and coalminers reviewed and analysed five significant labour hire coal mining enterprise agreements and the work roster that are operating in Queensland and the Hunter Valley. The CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union were involved in, or were a party to or signed off on, all five agreements. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award. The core staff agreement, for example, 2018 enterprise agreement yearly underpayment is estimated at $22,600. The FES agreement 2018 yearly underpayment is estimated at $27,500. The WorkPac agreement 2019 yearly underpayment is estimated at $33,500. The Chandler Macleod agreement 2020 yearly underpayment of casuals is estimated at $39,341. The TESA Group agreement 2022 yearly underpayment was estimated at over $40,000. But let’s come back. Between 2012 and the present day, could you please provide the number of requests for assistance made regarding underpayments by the Chandler Macleod group relating specifically to the black coal mining industry award and associated enterprise agreements?
Ms Booth: I think we’d have to take a question like that on notice. We collect information at the info line on a range of demographics. I wouldn’t be sure whether we could go to that degree of disaggregation. I think it is important to reinforce that the Fair Work Ombudsman enforces the law as it exists. As you know, a fair work instrument includes an enterprise agreement that has been approved by the Fair Work Commission. We don’t play a role in interrogating the approvability or otherwise of such an instrument. Once it is in existence, we must take it on its face value.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You can take it on notice. Again, in relation to Chandler Macleod and the black coal mining industry award, how many requests for assistance were closed with the following general determinations—under the award, you can be casual; the 2007 workplace agreement covered your employment; or the insertion of section 15A into the Fair Work Act determines you are a casual? You can take that on notice, too, please.
Ms Booth: It would certainly be a degree of detail that I do not have at my fingertips. Is there anything, Mr Scully, you can say about that?
Mr Scully: I can only advise that from July 2019 to 31 December 2023, we resolved 30 disputes that relate to the coal mining industry. I haven’t got any further details about that. There are 30 over the last 4½ years.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Scully, that’s in coal. This is specifically Chandler Macleod and the black coal mining industry award. You will have to take this on notice too. How many proceeded to the investigation stage? Have any of them not been formally closed? If so, which ones? Thank you, Mr Scully. Thank you, Ms Booth. Thank you, Chair.
Both Labor and the Coalition voted to collect billions of extra income tax dollars because they need more money. Yet foreign multinational corporations in Australia are paying little or no company tax.
Bracket creep is a secret tax that means government makes money out of inflation. The government is not indexing the tax brackets to fix bracket creep meaning Australians will collectively pay $38 billion extra in tax over the next four years.
I moved an amendment that would eliminate bracket creep by indexing the tax thresholds. This means the inflation rates would be adjusted for inflation so Australian’s pay the same rate of tax instead of continuing to pay more which is the current situation the government is failing to address.
Instead of giving tens of billions of dollars back to Australians, both Liberal and Labor are happy to keep secretly collecting more and more tax, and by their own admission, they’ll only ever give it back when they can afford to. When can we expect that to occur, considering the current government’s focus is on funding UN climate goals and inflationary COVID debts?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you agree bracket creep is a problem for taxpayers in Australia?
Senator GALLAGHER: I think all governments recognise bracket creep is an issue. That’s why governments of both major parties return bracket creep when it’s affordable and sustainable to do so. You’ll notice that, in the reforms to the tax proposal that was outlined by the former government, this does that by lowering the two thresholds and dropping the two tax rates; sorry, I’m getting back into tax land! That’s how we’re dealing with bracket creep. It provides relief, and 84 per cent of taxpayers will be getting a bigger income tax cut than they would have under the former government and paying less tax. By 2034-35, someone earning an average income will pay $21,635 less tax than they otherwise would have without these tax cuts.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you said you return bracket creep when it suits you and when you can afford it. Doesn’t that mean that you’re taking money off taxpayers, and that it’s really a stealth tax because taxpayers don’t know they’re moving into a higher tax bracket? Bracket creep is when the brackets stay the same but people’s wages inflate and they move into a higher tax bracket—so they automatically pay a far higher rate of tax in the next bracket and they don’t even know it. Isn’t that tax by stealth?
Senator GALLAGHER: No, I don’t agree with that. I think Australians understand marginal tax rates and the interaction between their earnings and those tax rates. I would say again that’s why, regularly, tax cuts are provided to taxpayers—to deal with bracket creep and provide other assistance where that’s possible, where it’s affordable and sustainable to do so. I say that not to say ‘when we choose to’ or ‘when we feel like it’ but because we have to manage a budget responsibly as well. People expect that because taxes pay for all the services that people consume and expect to receive from their government.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I remind you, before asking my next question, that former deputy commissioner of taxation Jim Killaly, who was in charge of large companies and also international matters for the Australian Taxation Office, said back in 1996 and 2010 that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and have paid little or no tax since 1953, due to Liberal legislation that was passed in 1953 letting major foreign owned corporations off the hook. Bob Hawke made sure that the Labor Party was also giving gifts to major foreign corporations by letting the world’s largest avoider of tax, Chevron, off the hook for tax in the North West Shelf. Surely the fix to bracket creep is to index brackets. If we’d done that 10 years ago we would have saved the people $44 billion in tax. You say, ‘Where can we get the tax from?’ I get that tax is the cost of government, that tax is the price of government and that tax has to be paid, but foreign corporations in this country are paying little or no company tax. That means they’re using our services that every mum and dad and family and small business is paying for in this country, and they’re doing it for free. We used to be the world’s largest exporters of gas, we get very little for it, and these foreign companies are sending it overseas. Japan gets $3 billion a year off import duty for our gas going into their country, and we get very little for it. So what I say to you is that we can’t afford it because you’re not taxing foreign multinationals adequately. You’re letting them off the hook. Because you didn’t index brackets in this attempt, over the next four years Australians will pay $38 billion more tax than if you indexed brackets. Surely, you can look at the spending and cut some of that back. Surely, you can look at the taxation of foreign multinationals and make sure they start paying their fair share. Then let Australian families off the bracket-creep hook. Why can’t you do that proper budget for the Australians?
Senator GALLAGHER: There was a lot in that, Senator Roberts. I think your final question was around budget management, and the work we have done in the last or two budgets and MYEFO has been to repair the budget. The deficits are a lot less, going forward. We’ve had a surplus budget, we’ve lowered our debt, we’ve contained spending despite the pressures the budget is under, and where we’ve had revenue windfalls we have returned the vast majority of it— over 80 per cent, 88 per cent I think—to the budget to repair it. We do have to manage the budget responsibly and we’ve been able to do that and provide bigger tax cuts to more Australians. On your point about multinational tax reform, I don’t necessarily agree with all of it because I haven’t been able to verify some of the things you’ve said. We agree that we should be making multinationals pay their fair share of tax—we’ve got a bill before the parliament on that, we’ve got a bill on PRRT and we’ve got a bill on high-balance super, and that is about making sure we are putting the budget on a sustainable footing, that we’re able to pay for defence, aged care, hospitals, the interest on our debt and the NDIS, and that we are able to pay for those services that people expect. But this plan does deal with bracket creep, so I don’t accept the position that you put saying we don’t. That’s part of the reason why we’re doing it. The Treasury advice there is very clear. Our plan provides better protection against bracket creep for 70 per cent of all taxpayers over the decade, including the average taxpayer and those on low and middle incomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you say it fixes bracket creep when over the next four years Australians—families and individuals—will be paying an extra $38 billion due to bracket creep? You are not indexing the brackets themselves; you’re just making a one-off adjustment. As soon as that happens, with inflation continuing, you will continue to increase revenues. Inflation hits families in two ways: first of all, goods and services cost more; second of all, they move into a higher tax bracket and they pay more tax. They actually end up with less take-home pay. So I don’t buy your argument. Why doesn’t Labor want to fix bracket creep?
Senator GALLAGHER: I think we’re just agreeing to disagree, Senator Roberts. This plan does deal with bracket creep by reducing two tax rates and increasing two tax thresholds. It does deal with bracket creep. In particular, as I said in my previous answer, for average taxpayers—those on the average wage, and low- and middle-income earners—this substantially improves the money they get back in their pockets, and returns that bracket creep. But you disagree with me—I will keep making that point and, presumably, you will keep making yours.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you cannot argue with the fact that someone who is just below the next tax threshold will soon be paying higher tax because of inflation. That is a fact. The only way to beat that is to index the tax thresholds. As to supporting my amendment, it shows you do not want to stop rampant increases in tax or you want to keep bracket creep to exploit taxpayers. Why don’t you want to fix bracket creep properly by indexing it so that brackets rise as inflation rises and wages rise, so people stay within the same bracket and there is no creep? Why don’t you want to fix bracket creep?
Senator GALLAGHER: The tax rates haven’t been indexed, that’s right. I understand your amendment seeks to do that. I don’t think you’ve moved your amendment, but I may as well cover off. We are not supporting your amendment. The approach in this bill is preferable to your amendment because it provides governments—I’m talking about not our government but all governments; this is the way it’s been done—with greater flexibility to respond to fluctuations in the economic cycle. This proposal does deal with bracket creep. It does return money to taxpayers. I don’t know where you get your $38 billion figure from over the forward estimates, but I think your point there is that there will be—that’s assuming, wherever that number comes from, that there will be no change to tax rates in that. History will show that governments have made decisions to implement tax cuts where it’s affordable and sustainable to do so on the budget, and I expect governments of both political persuasions will continue to take that approach.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, in my view, I don’t think you’re being honest with the people of Australia, because bracket creep is a stealth tax. Inflation helps your tax revenue. How many pages are in our tax act?
Senator GALLAGHER: We might have to take that on notice. I’m just seeing if we can provide you with an accurate answer, but it’s quite detailed and there are obviously pages that underpin the tax act as well. I’m not sure we’ll be able to do that accurately tonight, but we’ll see what we can do.
Senator Scarr: To the nearest ten thousand!
Senator GALLAGHER: I was going to say: it’s a lot!
Senator ROBERTS: To the nearest thousand would be fine, thanks, Minister. The point I’m trying to make is that we already have a very complex tax system, which is confusing for small businesses and confusing for people who don’t have access to lawyers and deep pockets. It’s confusing for individuals and families. We always support returning more money to taxpayers, and $15 a week is a lot of money to many people. In the overall scheme of things, it’s not very much. In a few years, you’ll be recovering far more. Is there any plan to actually reform taxation properly, to do a comprehensive reform so that the tax system becomes simple, clear, effective, efficient, fair and honest? Is there any stomach within the Labor Party to be honest with the people of Australia and really reform taxation comprehensively?
Senator GALLAGHER: I think the government’s been clear about what our tax changes are. They are the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024, the bills I referred to before on high-balance super accounts, multinational tax reform, PRRT—they are the government’s tax plans. Am I missing one?
Senator Hume: Negative gearing!
Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept that interjection. That is the government’s tax agenda going forward.
Senator ROBERTS: I move Pauline Hanson’s One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 2342.
Senator HUME: For the benefit of the chamber, I just want to inform you that the opposition is going to oppose this amendment, Senator Roberts. We won’t be supporting it, because the stage 3 tax cuts were originally designed to address bracket creep but do it in a very structural, costed and fiscally responsible way. While this measure would address bracket creep, you’re absolutely right that the fiscal cost of this change isn’t known, and that’s why we couldn’t support it at this stage. The Prime Minister’s broken promise means that delivering the stage 3 tax reforms as they had been legislated originally is now impossible, but the coalition remains committed to fighting bracket creep and to enshrining aspiration, because strong leaders keep their promises, even when it’s hard to do so.
Senator GALLAGHER: I made some comments previously, but we will also be opposing this amendment. The bill before the chamber does deal with bracket creep. It delivers tax cuts for 13.6 million Australians. It’s carefully calibrated to provide more cost-of-living relief. I know that Senator Roberts said that it was $15. I think that figure he is using is the extra that people will get. Those people will get $15 extra on top of the tax cuts they otherwise would have got, and, for many people, that is a substantial amount of money. We recognise there are other things to do on the cost of living. That’s why our other measures are being put in place. But in terms of your amendment, we oppose it. We think the way we’re approaching it in this bill is preferable, and it’s the way it has been done in the past. It gives government the flexibility to make those decisions when it’s affordable to return bracket creep in a way that can maximise those returns.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I want to take you back briefly to a previous answer you gave when you implied the surplus—which is correct in the budget. The surplus has only been around for two years because of the strength of our agricultural production and our coal and iron ore exports. That’s the only reason. What we’re seeing is a country that is at the mercy of international prices for its major primary products. If something happens, then we have to rely upon bracket creep to pull us out of the mess, and that’s not fair to Australian families and individuals.
Senator GALLAGHER: I accept that our export industry and our resources certainly contribute to our tax revenue through company tax receipts and others, but the strength of the revenue upgrades has also been improved and strengthened by the strength of our labour market. We’ve had many more people in jobs earning money and therefore paying tax than we have previously. Unemployment is at a record low; participation is at a record high. It’s kicking up a bit now, but that has contributed significantly to the improved position of the budget. Yes, we acknowledge that. Part of that has allowed us to pay debt down so that we’re not paying as much into the future and generations of the future are not paying those interest costs—the fastest-growing cost on the budget is managing the interest costs on our debt— and it’s allowing us to deal with all of those areas of pressure that we talk about all the time in here: the NDIS, aged care, hospitals and defence. They are all big costs coming at the budget, and we do have to manage it in a responsible way.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not pretending to say it’s easy. It’s complex, but it’s excessively complex. You’re addressing the need for increasing tax revenues for the extra expenditure, including interest payments, but what you’re not saying is that a lot of that money is coming from individuals through immigration, which is putting enormous pressure on house prices and inflation. That’s a real impediment to people looking for houses right now. We’ve got people in Queensland sleeping in tents in showgrounds in Gladstone, in parks in Bundaberg, in parks and on the banks of the river in Brisbane and in Ipswich, Logan and Townsville. I think we’re making a rod for our own back. When are we going to see comprehensive tax reform to take the load off individuals and put it onto large corporations so they start paying their fair share?
Senator GALLAGHER: Well, I’ve outlined that we do have a bill around multinational tax reform to ensure that those big multinational companies are paying their fair share of tax. I think if you talk to many domestic companies they’ll say they’re paying their fair share of tax right now. People have a view about that, I guess. Individuals do contribute substantially to the Commonwealth budget through income tax. We need to generate revenue in order to pay for services. On your point around population and housing, obviously you can’t do everything through tax cuts, and that’s why all those initiatives we’ve got in housing are so important and why we want the chamber to support the latest part of our housing initiatives, which is Build to Rent. We’ve got a full suite of programs. We acknowledge that supply is the problem, and the Commonwealth is right in there with our sleeves rolled up, working with states and territories, to do whatever we can to generate more supply. Also, as you know, some of the changes we’ve made to the migration system have ensured that those net overseas migration numbers that we’ve seen rise post-COVID are coming back down to our more traditional rates.
Thousands of “casual” miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed an average of $33,000 per year in back pay for every year of service for wage theft.
When inquiring with the Fair Work Commission about applying the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT), I asked if they would expect the pay under an Enterprise Agreement (EA) to at least match that under the relevant Award. Mr. Furlong confirmed that the EA would indeed be compared with the Award. I highlighted that there are workers under EAs who are earning significantly less than the Award, with these EAs being sanctioned by the Fair Work Commission and devised in collaboration between employers and the CFMEU.
I reiterated to Senator Watt that I could not support legislation that goes against the interests of workers and conceals the wrongdoing of unscrupulous unions. Minister Burke is shirking his responsibilities by refusing to deliver justice for thousands of workers ensnared in the casual rort stemming from enterprise agreements crafted in collusion with the CFMEU and labor hire firms, resulting in the largest wage theft in Australian history.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Good to see you again, Mr Furlong. When the Fair Work Commission assesses the application of the better off overall test, the BOOT, to a proposed enterprise agreement, would it be a normal expectation that the pay rate under the enterprise agreement should be clearly equal to or above that of the relevant award?
Mr Furlong: As you are aware, and as we have discussed in previous estimates, the agreement making process involves a statutory decision-holder, a member of the commission, looking at the facts of the matter and then applying a legal test, the better off overall test. There are some other elements that they are required to satisfy. On the basis of that, they make a determination about whether or not the agreement is to be approved or not.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be a normal expectation that the pay rate under the enterprise agreement should be clearly equal to or above? That is a normal expectation?
Mr Furlong: Yes. The better off overall test—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are there circumstances in which, when considering the better off overall test, the BOOT, for an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Commission would not do a comparison against the relevant award?
Mr Furlong: The answer to that question is that there would be an award that they will refer to in terms of the application of the better off overall test. Through that process, they will determine whether or not that agreement as made is better off overall than the underpinning agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: So they would do a comparison against the award?
Mr Furlong: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the enterprise agreement pay rate were not equal to or above the relevant award, and instead paid substantially less than the award, what would be the criteria used to justify that the enterprise agreement still passed the better off overall test, the BOOT?
Mr Furlong: It’s not a line-by-line comparison.
Senator ROBERTS: No. What would be the criteria? Broad criteria? Line by line? Whatever you want?
Mr Furlong: It is the better off overall test. The Fair Work Act prescribes what the member must take into consideration in determining whether or not that agreement meets the requirements that have been approved.
Senator ROBERTS: Are pay rates prescribed in there?
Mr Furlong: They will be. The decisions of the members—the independent tribunal members—will outline the reasons for the approval of those agreements, including whether or not they satisfy the better off overall test.
Senator ROBERTS: That is a wonderful point. Thank you so much. Even if the award excluded certain classes of employees from its provisions, would that exclusion create the legal circumstances to pay such excluded classes of employee less under an enterprise agreement than what they would or could earn under the award if the class of employees were not award excluded? Just to be clear, I’m not posing a theoretical question here. I refer to the black coal mining industry award exclusion of casuals as an example. Casuals are not specifically referred to in the black coal mining industry award.
Mr Furlong: I understand that. As we have discussed in previous estimates, the fact that there are no casual coalminers under the black coal mining award doesn’t preclude an enterprise agreement being made.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. I am talking about the pay. If an award excluded certain classes of employees in the coal industry—casuals—from its provisions, would that exclusion create the legal circumstances to pay such excluded classes of employee less under an enterprise agreement than what they would or could earn under the award if the class of employees were included in the award?
Mr Furlong: Senator, I have tried as hard as I can to be helpful in terms of the second part—
Senator ROBERTS: You are being helpful.
Mr Furlong: that we have provided. My role as the general manager is to provide administrative support to the president on the efficient running of the tribunal, in essence. The matters that you are going to now traverse instances or occurrences that may end up before tribunal members for their determination. I can’t answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. That’s fine. Thank you. Minister, what would be the attitude of the government where workers working under enterprise agreements were paid less than the award even though the workers were doing exactly the same job they would under the award?
Senator Watt: Well, I would want to know more about the circumstances there. In general, the idea behind enterprise bargaining is for people to obtain pay and conditions above the award level.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is Minister Burke shirking his responsibilities and refusing to provide justice for thousands of workers caught in the permanent casual rort that is the result of enterprise agreements agreed between the CFMEU, now known as the Mining and Energy Union, with some labour hire firms, all with the Fair Work Commission’s approval? When will Minister Burke address this, the largest wage theft in Australian history?
Senator Watt: Well, as we’ve discussed many times, Senator Roberts, Minister Burke is not avoiding that. In fact, Minister Burke has led the government’s efforts to address and fix the permanent casual rort, including through the legislation that we passed only last week. I actually don’t remember how you voted in that legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: I voted against it because it would not address the issue that I am talking about right here. It buries the issue and buries the culpability of the unions.
Senator Watt: I thought you probably voted against that legislation last week, because One Nation has pretty consistently voted against the legislation that has been designed for workers.
Senator ROBERTS: We vote against it, as I explained, because it doesn’t address the issue. It buries the issue.
Senator Watt: Just as you voted against the closing loopholes bill last year, which is all about trying to put labour hire workers on an even footing with other workers.
Senator ROBERTS: Not true, Minister.
Senator Watt: Well, One Nation has consistently voted against these things.
Senator ROBERTS: You are consistently avoiding the issue of thousands of casual coalminers in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, our own state. I want that addressed.
Senator Watt: I’m not. We’re not. We’ve gone over this ad nauseam.
Senator ROBERTS: To make a point here concerning the validity of an enterprise agreement that removes the minimum statutory protections of any award, I quote the following paragraph from the full bench Federal Court decision in One Key Workforce Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, decided in 2018. I go to paragraph 227. This is from the court decision:
It is uncontentious that, where a statute requires an administrative decision-maker to reach a state of satisfaction about a matter, the opinion as to the state of satisfaction must be reached by a rational, reasonable and logical process.
I will go to paragraph 204. I quote:
It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction.
I’m going to read—
CHAIR: If we keep to the time line, I am giving you a heads-up.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m nearly done. I have two questions and I will read some material. We had a team of workplace lawyers—I emphasise the plural—consultants and coalminers review and analyse five significant labour hire coal mining enterprise agreements and their work roster, which is complicated. The CFMEU, now the Mining and Energy Union, was involved in, was a party to or signed off on all five agreements. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award dramatically. Specifically, in the core staff enterprise agreement 2018, the yearly underpayment for casuals working under that award is estimated at $22,623. It is wage theft. The FES agreement in 2018 has yearly underpayment estimated at $27,563 of wage theft for casual workers. The WorkPac agreement in 2019 showed yearly underpayment for casuals estimated at $33,555. Wage theft. The Chandler Macleod agreement 2020 has yearly underpayment estimated at $39,341. Wage theft. The Tesla group agreement 2022 yearly underpayment is estimated at $40,645. Wage theft. The Fair Work Commission has ruled that at least five black coal mining industry enterprise agreements exceeded their authority. Minister, what avenues will Minister Burke and your government take to restore basic entitlements lost under agreements that the CFMEU, the Mining and Energy Union, signed with various employers and that the Fair Work Commission approved?
Senator Watt: Well, Senator Roberts, I have personally sat through probably at least half a dozen estimates committee hearings where you have raised these issues repeatedly. Various officials have answered these questions repeatedly. The matters have been investigated, as I understand it, and dealt with. I understand that you are not satisfied with those answers, but I can’t add to what we’ve said about these things before.
Senator ROBERTS: Does it bother you that I have explained that the Fair Work Ombudsman has used a fraudulent document that has been deemed fraudulent by the Australian Taxation Office as evidenced against five others? It is solid evidence, including a court hearing.
Senator Watt: If that were true, of course I would be bothered by it.
Senator ROBERTS: You would be. Okay.
Senator Watt: But I’m not sure that is true.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is my last question. Why has the process that the Fair Work Commission has adopted since 2010 in approving coal industry enterprise agreements that remove the minimum statutory protections of the black coal mining industry award clearly devoid of any form of rationality, reasonableness or logic?
Senator Watt: What was the beginning of that question?
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the process that the Fair Work Commission has adopted since 2010 in approving coal industry enterprise agreements that remove the minimum statutory protections of the black coal mining industry award—its entitlements, pay rates, the wage theft that I’ve just illustrated—clearly devoid of any form of rationality, reasonableness or logic, as the Federal Court requires?
Senator Watt: That is obviously your opinion, Senator Roberts. I know that it is a strongly held opinion. I don’t think that opinion is shared more broadly.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
The Professional Services Review was created to review misconduct of health professionals in a Medicare context, commonly invoked where there are allegations of over-servicing or Medicare fraud.
This Committee seems to be a law unto itself.
Dr Di Dio confirmed that there is no appeal process from conclusions of the Committee based on Merit. The only appeals available are based on errors of law that would include taking into account evidence that was not relevant or excluding evidence that was relevant. Lawyer Mr Topperwein confirmed that the weight to be placed on evidence was that which the Committee chose to give. He said that the Committee was both the investigator and the judge of the facts with no appeal on merit.
Mr Topperwein could provide no explanation as to why there were no lawyers on the Committee, to ensure the processes were fair and just, stating that the committee comprises practitioner peers.
The concerns about the Review Scheme being a law unto itself seem to be valid, it looks like we need some serious reform in this area.
Transcript
Chair: I welcome the acting director of the Professional Services Review, Dr Antonio Di Dio. Senator Roberts, is it one block of questions here?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, hopefully we should get through it in one block.
Chair: Dr Di Dio, do you have an opening statement?
Dr Di Dio: No, thank you.
Chair: Alright. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Dr Di Dio, for being here again. During the last estimates hearings I asked some questions, and your answers left me confused. Regarding what you gave me, I was feeling somewhat
misled, potentially, because I reviewed it afterwards. I was concerned by a number of submissions made to me about the lack of fairness of the structure by which this review scheme investigates allegations of misconduct by health professionals in a Medicare context. I’ve since done further research into this area and looked over the transcript closely. Just to start with the transcript, the Professional Services Review scheme was set up to review misconduct of health professionals in a Medicare context, commonly invoked where there are allegations of overservicing or Medicare fraud. Isn’t it true that the committee’s conclusions cannot be challenged on merit as to the accuracy or completeness of the basis for the evidence?
Dr Di Dio: The committee’s conclusions are made after an exhaustive and highly respectful process in which the practitioner under review gives evidence and responses in relation to potential concerns about potential
inappropriate practice, whether it is in the billing of Medicare item numbers or whether it is in conduct in association with the billing. The committee process occurs after an earlier process in which the director, firstly,
decides whether a matter will be reviewed; secondly, undertakes a non-compulsory interview with the practitioner involved; and thirdly, decides whether to take no further action under section 91, or a negotiated agreement or a referral to a committee. At each of those steps the practitioner under review is invited to make their submissions, give their evidence and respond to any preliminary concerns, to potentially make those concerns go away with the additional information that comes from the practitioner’s individual responses to each of those preliminary concerns.
So, even before the committee occurs, the practitioner has ample opportunity to respond. But at the committee stage itself, when the practitioner is reviewed by their peers, the practitioner has a great deal of opportunity to respond in as much detail as they wish about those particular concerns.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that long answer. There were a lot of words there—exhaustive evidence and so on. But the fact is that you did not answer my question. My question said: isn’t it true that the committee’s conclusions cannot be challenged on merit—meaning as to the accuracy or completeness of the basis of the conclusions.
Dr Di Dio: Well, the committee is bound by its own obligations to the act—
Senator ROBERTS: Can the doctor challenge the accuracy or completeness of the evidence presented?
Dr Di Dio: Well, the evidence is presented by the doctor in response to those questions. I think perhaps your question is, can the practitioner challenge the evidence that the committee has before it? Is that what you mean?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Dr Di Dio: The committee issues what’s called a notice to produce to the practitioner to ask the practitioner to produce documents, most typically the medical records of the patients who are being reviewed, for whom the particular services may be of concern. So, that evidence comes from the practitioner.
Senator ROBERTS: And I’ll say it again. The committee’s conclusions cannot be challenged on merit.
Dr Di Dio: I’ll refer you to my legal counsel, Mr Topperwien.
Mr Topperwien: It’s quite right that once a committee has gone through the whole process of providing a draft report and then a final report then any challenge to the findings in that final report must be limited to a
question of law, which includes whether they have taken into account irrelevant considerations or have not taken into account relevant considerations and have held a fair hearing. Those are all questions of law. And a challenge can be made to a committee’s findings on the question of law only. There isn’t an appeal to a merits review body.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So, they cannot be challenged on merit, just on the points of law. What weight is placed on the evidence of witnesses called by the doctor under investigation to challenge the case being
made by the committee?
Mr Topperwien: The weight that a committee will give to any evidence depends on the nature of that evidence and how credible it is, and they are matters for the committee to determine.
Dr Di Dio: I would add to that that the practitioner under review is encouraged very much to bring legal representation, and support persons and witnesses are welcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that the committee takes the role of both prosecutor and decider of facts that make the conclusions and recommendations of the committee?
Mr Topperwien: That is not true. The committee is not a prosecutor. It is an investigatory body. It investigates.
Senator ROBERTS: And once it’s finished its investigation, who does the prosecution of the case?
Mr Topperwien: There is no prosecution of the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Who makes the decision?
Mr Topperwien: There are findings of fact made—whether or not a practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice. And that is the sole duty of the PSR committee—to make a finding as to whether or not the practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice. The consequence of that finding is not a matter for the committee. It is a matter for a separate body called the determining authority.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m of the understanding that the investigation is done by the committee—
Mr Topperwien: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: and then it decides.
Mr Topperwien: Yes. It decides whether or not the practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice.
Senator ROBERTS: Right. So, it decides. It does the investigation, and then it makes the verdict on its investigation.
Mr Topperwien: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, it’s investigator, policeman—
Mr Topperwien: No—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s also judge.
Mr Topperwien: No. It’s an investigator in that it is charged with looking at whether or not the practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice. Clearly, if that’s its task then it has to investigate and obtain all the evidence
necessary to determine that question which it’s charged with answering.
Senator ROBERTS: So it does an investigation, then it makes the judgement and there can be no appeal or challenge on the merits of the case.
Mr Topperwien: That’s right, because it is an expert body that parliament has given the role of making those sorts of findings.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that matter of whether it’s expert or not. Isn’t it true that committee members undergo a training course in prosecution and investigation?
Mr Topperwien: They are not given any training in prosecution. They are given some training in relation to how to fulfil their task of investigating in the context of holding hearings when they question the person under review and take evidence.
Dr Di Dio: They are given further training in asking questions respectfully and appropriately.
Senator ROBERTS: Sounds good. Are they provided training in decision-making and natural justice principles.
Mr Topperwien: Yes, they are.
Senator ROBERTS: They are?
Mr Topperwien: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any section of the Health Insurance Act 1973 where cross-examination of the committee’s case is prescribed?
Mr Topperwien: The Health Insurance Act does not mention at any point cross-examination.
Senator ROBERTS: How can the strength of the committee’s case be tested without substantial questioning given that the committee determines its own outcomes based on its own prepared case?
Mr Topperwien: At the hearings that the committees hold, the person under review is entitled to question any witnesses. They are able to present whatever evidence they wish to present to the committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that any appeals from the committee’s decision are limited to procedural issues and merit review is not allowed? I think you’ve already answered that question.
Mr Topperwien: I’ve answered that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no senior lawyer or judge as part of the committee to ensure fairness of process?
Mr Topperwien: The reality is the committee is made up of the practitioner’s peers. They are all practitioners but at the committee hearing there are always two lawyers from PSR who are very experienced in administrative law, the rules of natural justice, to ensure that the committee hearing is conducted fairly, and the PUR—the person under review—is encouraged to engaged their own lawyer to be with them throughout the whole process.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just come to GPs, for example. There is such a wide range of GP services and, if you like, specialties. They’re not specialists—
Mr Topperwien: They are specialists in being general practitioners, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, but they focus on a particular area, niche, within—
Mr Topperwien: Some do; that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: And some GPs cannot understand another GP’s work because they haven’t had the experience or the qualifications, particularly the experience.
Mr Topperwien: We try very hard to ensure that the members who are put onto committees have the relevant experience. As closely as we are able to do from the general practitioners who we have on the PSR panel from whom we can choose members to put on committees, we try very hard to ensure that their experience is such that they can well understand the circumstances and context and the type of services that the person under review provides.
Dr Di Dio: To clarify, you’re quite correct: there are general practitioners who have subspecialties, but we try very clearly to match the subspecialties as much as within reason, through the membership of our panel, to those particular practitioners. Most notably a lot of general practitioners do skin work, and we try to match our panel
Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no independent review process, apart from a limited formal appeal process?
Mr Topperwien: The make-up of the PSR COO committees is such that we have the best practitioners in their specialty appointed to the committees and to the PSR panel in order that we have the practitioners most
appropriate and who we have consulted with the relative colleges in their appointment to ensure that the colleges are confident that these practitioners are ones appropriate to assess the conduct of other practitioners.
Senator ROBERTS: So a GP who could be one of the leaders in the country in his or her field could be swamped with work because hardly anyone else is doing it. There wouldn’t be someone who was capable of
understanding that complete picture?
Dr Di Dio: GPs are generally not stupid. GPs are capable of understanding the work of other GPs. Should a GP be practising in a highly specialised area, we do the best that we can to match our panel of expertise with the relevant practitioner. Further, sometimes GPs may be involved in subspecialist activity where, at a stage even earlier than the committee stage, we might get a specialist in that field to review a case in addition to having a GP review the case. We try as hard as we can to match those skills.
Senator ROBERTS: If the committee refuses to give sufficient weight to exculpatory evidence clear on fault or guilt, where does that leave the doctor if they cannot appeal on merit?
Mr Topperwien: The committee hearings are intended to give the practitioner every opportunity to put whatever evidence they want to give to the committee and the COO. The committee then looks at that in detail
and asks probing questions in relation to that evidence. One can’t satisfy everybody that everybody will agree on an outcome. There will always be people who are not happy with whatever outcome there is. But the process is a very fair process. It gets scrutinised by the courts regularly. The courts time and again have upheld how fair the process has been for the person under review.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to learn more about that.
Dr Di Dio: Could I add a supplementary answer to that?
CHAIR: You can in a moment. I remind you that there are a lot of senators waiting to move to the next outcome, so if you could be courteous in the promptness of your questions.
Dr Di Dio: I will be brief. After a committee, the practitioner under review has the right to tender further information and evidence should they wish.
Senator ROBERTS: But not appeal the decision.
Dr Di Dio: No, but tender as much further evidence as they wish. Furthermore, there is a draft report issued, to which the practitioner, with their legal representative, of course, can make any response they wish. After that, a final report is issued, to which the practitioner can again make as many submissions as they wish. Over and over the practitioner can provide further evidence and submissions to further parts of the process.
Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t it be a better process for a judge to be advised by doctors, as is the case before QCAT, VCAT and a similar structure used in the Medicare Participation Review Committee? Contrary to
previous suggestions, I’d submit that having a judge to chair review proceedings would enhance rather than detract from the fairness of the process.
Mr Topperwien: All I can say is that’s not what the law currently provides. But, from my experience, both as a legal adviser who has assisted with committees and having observed many committee hearings, the process is remarkably fair. The usually three lawyers in the hearing room ensure that it is a fair process.
Senator ROBERTS: My last question. In 2011 there was an inquiry held by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee into the Professional Services Review scheme. Supplementary comments by
senators Eric Abetz and Bridget McKenzie included that the processes of the Professional Services Review scheme were deficient and led to unjust outcomes. Senator Abetz’s view was that merit review would be a
mandatory requirement for the system to be considered fair and just. This flies in the face of your own view, that merit review is unnecessary. Minister, when will the structure of the Professional Services Review scheme be reconsidered?
Senator McCarthy: I will take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Cheaper rents, cheaper houses and a lower cost of living are all possible, but not with the current immigration levels.
There were 518,000 net overseas immigrants last financial year. 2.76 million visa holders are in the country and more are coming with immigration rates accelerating in the second half of last year.
Our country simply cannot handle this amount of immigration in the middle of a housing crisis.
Transcript
The Albanese government is consciously making houses and rents more expensive. An immigration flood is worsening the housing crisis. New figures show that, instead of slowing down immigration as promised, the government has stepped on the accelerator. In the 2022-23 financial year, 737,000 people arrived in Australia, leading to a record net overseas immigration of 518,000. That’s a shocking 64 per cent higher than Australia’s previous record and more than double the average of the years immediately before COVID. The government promised we had hit peak immigration and announced a crackdown on criminal migration abusers. Despite the promises, AMP economist Shane Oliver has shown that net arrivals into Australia through to December 2023 remained very high. This suggests population growth may have accelerated even further in the six months after the record-breaking year of 518,000 net overseas arrivals.
If this immigration acceleration is true, it’s an unbelievable attack on every Australian who’s struggling to buy a house or find an affordable rental. The housing and rental crisis in Australia is a dumpster fire. The Albanese government is pouring petrol on that fire and making it far worse while deceitfully claiming to help. There are 2.8 million temporary visa holders putting huge demand pressure on houses, rentals and holiday accommodation. Very simply, Australia does not have the resources to support this many arrivals. We do not have enough rental properties. We do not have enough roads and public transport. We do not have enough hospitals and doctors to take care of the people already here. In these circumstances, letting in record levels of arrivals is an act of harm against the people of Australia, including against immigrants already here.
Only One Nation will cut immigration to zero net. Zero net means that each year the number of people allowed in matches the number of people who leave so that we can fix the housing crisis and let our essential services catch up. Only One Nation applies common sense to work in the interests of the people.
Malcolm’s Fight
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am