Last week the Nationals claimed to have significantly changed the Murray Darling Basin plan for farmers. I want to be blunt. THEY LIED.They are wilting under the pressure One Nation has put them under through our use of facts and in response instead of doing good are trying to look good.
Take a listen to what the Nationals claimed the report said and what the report ACTUALLY says.
Transcript
Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts and I’m on the road from Rocky to Mackay in Central Queensland. I wanna make a statement about the and ask some questions about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan notice that came out of the government last week.
And I wanna ask a few basic questions after Friday’s media headlines. And I’m gonna read these questions, because I wanna make sure it’s accurate. Sky News called this the biggest change to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 10 years, oh really? The Australian announced buybacks axed in Murray overhaul.
So I asked Minister Pitt for a copy of this supposed landmark report. And this is it, 10 pages, that’s all. The recommendations are two pages and a bit, that’s it. Does it really represent any change in the current policy? No, it does not. It doesn’t say any such thing and yet the Nationals Party and the government has been saying that.
One major issue and this is the first topic. One major issue with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the last 450 gigalitres of water acquisitions called SDLs. Which is to be taken off farmers and given to the environment in South Australia. Since the plan started 2100 gigalitres of water has been taken from farmers.
That’s forced many farmers off the land and reduced our agricultural output by more than $10 billion. This is money that our economy needs especially when we try to recover from COVID. This is food that has been taken from the world’s hungry.
Now Senator Bridget McKenzie, who is leader of the National’s Party in the senate made this statement just a week ago. Quote, “You cannot take any more water from our communities. The 450 gigalitres will not be coming from our farmers. Enough is enough, you have taken enough.”
Well, that was clear, wasn’t it? But what does the reports really say? Let me read the recommendations. Quote, this is what the report says. “Work with the states to accelerate planning and delivery of the 450 gigalitre SDL acquisitions. Not stop the acquisition accelerate the acquisition.”
What of the promise to not take water off farmers? Perhaps Senator McKenzie is talking about this line. Quote, from the report, “Shift the focus away from on-farm acquisition to off-farm infrastructure.” What sort of a promise is shift the focus? These are with weasel words Minister Pitt.
450 gigalitres through fixing leaky pipes and burying irrigation channels, not possible. And for the record irrigation channels are lifelines for native Australian birds, animals and reptiles in a drought. Those canals are an entire ecosystem full of fish, turtles and crustaceans that die when you bury them underground.
This idea is literally killing our environment to save it. Secondly, as for splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two, not so much. This is recommendation six, which establishes an Inspector General of Water Compliance. Now is this a new post?
No, they are simply renaming the Inspector General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources. When he was appointed, the existing Inspector Mick Keelty was called the tough cop on the block. What happened to that? This is nothing more than a re-branding exercise.
And the media has slapped it up the media has fallen for it. Does the media check anything anymore? Or do they just parrot what this government tells them? Thirdly, as for punitive powers, the Inspector General does not have any. Those powers vest with the State’s New South Wales in particular.
Where the most water rorting is going on. Has not even given the Murray-Darling Basin any punitive powers at all. If big Corporate Agriculture builds a new floodplain harvesting dam in the Northern Basin, the Inspector General has no powers to order that demolished nor even issue a fine.
The New South Wales State Agriculture Minister, Nationals Leader New South Wales, Nationals MP John Barilaro, has to make those orders and the government damn well knows it. Minister Pitt I have three questions. Who wrote this misleading press release?
Secondly, show me where in this report it actually says there will be no more buybacks from farmers? Thirdly, how does re-branding one position without any extra powers suddenly become splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two? It doesn’t, does it?
I’ve heard the Nationals talk a lot of rubbish lately. But this takes the cake. These are lies they speak to distract. Under the Nationals, farmers will lose their water and rural communities will be destroyed. The only winner will be the Nationals Corporate Agriculture Mates.
When will the Nationals for a change? Join us in one Nation in putting Australia first.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Annotation-2020-09-08-135629-002.jpg?fit=1198%2C675&ssl=16751198Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-09-09 10:05:092020-09-09 10:05:31Nationals lied about changes to Murray Darling Basin plan
The timber industry in Queensland is being decimated by regulations that are not based on robust science. The Queensland Labor party has been captured by the Greens who have an ideological opposition to logging.
Even sustainable logging.In Maryborough, layer upon layer of red tape is choking the sustainable harvesting of timber leading to timber being sourced from overseas. The proposed Office of Scientific Integrity would ensure that policy development would be based on independent, empirically based scientific evidence rather than the loopy Greens.
Transcript
[Rosie]
A senator, a businessman, and a scientist claim this report will unearth lies about Australia’s climate change and renewable energy.
[Senator Roberts]
So over the last four years I’ve investigated the CSIRO, in fact, I’ve cross-examined them. I’ve asked them to present me with the evidence that we’re doing something with climate and we need to stop it.
[Rosie]
Senator Malcolm Roberts says common concepts that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to the climate and that today’s temperatures are unprecedented, were fabricated for political gain.
[Senator Roberts]
That’s shoddy. So as a result of that, we’ve been recognising that the corruption of science is right across the country.
[Rosie]
According to Tiaro local Curly Tatnell, the impacts of corrupt science is huge for the timber industry.
[Mr Curly Tatnell]
Country that we should normally be able to harvest and things like that being locked up, which means that we’ve got to produce smaller timber.
[Rosie]
He says farmers are harvesting their properties prematurely because of misinformation. It’s led the men to call for the establishment of an office of scientific integrity.
[Dr Peter Ridd]
To check the science that’s being used for making major public policy decisions, whether they’re state or federal.
[Rosie]
The state government is aware of the groups calls. Rosie O’Brien, 7 News.
Yesterday I spoke in the Senate about the lack of a plan to live with and master COVID19 rather than hiding behind advice from bureaucrats in the health departments. There is no guarantee when or if there will be a vaccine. Where is your plan Prime Minister?
Transcript
I know that there are many grieving families, fearful families and concerned families. I raised the fact that in my correspondence to both the prime minister and to the premier of Queensland.
I expressed concern over their use of insufficient and flawed modelling to lock us all away and cause untold damage to our economy, businesses and jobs. Their responses to my letters avoided addressing the real issues.
Yes. If the federal government and state governments had learned, as I suggested in March from nations like Taiwan and promptly adopted rigorous testing combined with strict isolation of their sick, aged and vulnerable then many Australians could have stayed at work with minimal economic disruption and better health.
The difference is that Taiwan had a plan and relied on solid data. And as a result, Taiwan had seven deaths in the time we’ve had 517. They have a similar population to ours in terms of total population. Yet they are under greater threat because of the highly densely populated country and they’re closer to China.
The honourable John Houston in the Sydney Morning Herald, recently referred to quote, “planning or the lack of it has been the great failure of the Morrison government. It has been building over years of neglect and poor policy, but now it has been laid bare by both COVID-19 and the Royal commission.”
Queensland’s own chief health officer, Dr. Jeanette young, has stated this past week that she is only looking at the health issues. Mr. Acting deputy president. And this is very concerning. Who is looking after the big picture for us all? What about mental health, economic health, jobs, families, businesses?
The Queensland Premier referred us to the website location of her data. We checked there’s no relevant data, weak premier, irresponsibly abdicating, again, hiding behind the chief health officer, abdicating her duties. The Morrison government and the Queensland government need to both step up and to demonstrate leadership and to tell the truth.
They need to show us the data and the plan across all aspects of managing our way out of this pandemic and the resulting recession, and in the process, ensuring security for all Australians.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Capture-4.png?fit=821%2C451&ssl=1451821Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-26 08:58:542020-08-26 08:59:17Where is your COVID19 plan Prime Minister?
I write in support of Mr Martin Thomson and his son Harry’s application for an exemption from the overseas travel ban to travel from Australia to Scotland. Separately, and without impinging on that request, I ask the government to adopt a more supportive approach to persons wishing to travel from Australia.
Mr Martin Thomson
I am informed of the following:
Martin Thomson is a UK National with permanent residency in Australia. I believe it is important to note that Mr Thomson is a non-citizen trying to leave Australia. Mr Thomson’s father, James, is in Scotland and has prostate cancer. James is on treatment for his cancer and does not know how long he has to live. Mr Thomson’s mother, Susanna, is unable to drive and has arthritis which makes caring for James very difficult. Mr Thomson wishes to leave the country with his son to care for and see his father, in what may be the final stages of his life.
Mr Thomson has booked a one-way flight back to the UK for both him and his son, has resigned from his workplace in Australia and will be freighting his belongings in Australia back to the UK. He understands the quarantine requirements in the UK upon arrival, due to his stopover in Dubai, and has undertaken to comply with them fully.
I have seen handwritten letters from Mr Thomson’s parents pleading for our government’s compassion on this issue. Susanna writes, “… my arthritis is making everything harder! I do need them home very badly! To help!” Heartbreakingly, 80 year old James writes, “I do not know how long I have to live and as you can imagine I am in my later years, I would dearly love to see my son and grandson back home in Scotland before I pass on out of this life”.
I struggle to think of circumstances that deserve our compassion as much as the one Mr Thomson finds himself in. We are Australians and we pride ourselves on fairness. Allowing people to leave this country to take care of dying family members is the absolute least we can do to live up to that pride.
I ask and encourage in the sincerest terms possible that the Government consider favourably the applications of Mr Thomson and his son, and also any others who find themselves in similar circumstances.
Let people leave
Separately to my support of Mr Thomson and his son’s application, I wish to request that the government relax its restrictions on people exiting the country. Many Australians are not aware the government has currently banned them from leaving the country without a permit.
I understand that of the more than 90,000 applications made to leave the country from 25 March to 31 July, Australian Border Force has approved 22,640, around only 1 in 4. As far as we know, Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world with a blanket ban on citizens, let alone non-citizens, leaving the country.
We have heard of people being refused exemptions to leave the country to return to where they hold citizenship, to see a daughter’s marriage and, in the case of Mr Thomson, to care for his dying father.
The only justification presented for this ban on leaving the country has been that if we let people out, they might come back one day. The outgoing travel ban was implemented at a time when states and territories were picking up the bill for hotel quarantine. However, this is no longer the case. Taxpayers are not footing the bill and anyone leaving the country understands they will personally pay up to $3,000 for hotel quarantine if they choose to return.
I suggest that this request is reasonable given the Government is considering welcoming international visitors who are prepared to quarantine and is already trialling bringing in international students. No comparable countries to Australia, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and others have this restriction on departures in place.
We must manage the risk of COVID-19 not by preventing Australians from leaving but controlling their return to Australia as well as foreign arrivals into Australia. We already control the return of people to Australia with user-pay hotel quarantine.
The current policy regarding leaving Australia is causing a great deal of unnecessary heartbreak and is an unjustified infringement of liberty. I ask the government to reconsider its current approach to the prohibition on departures from Australia and to adopt a much more compassionate and practical approach.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Departures.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=18001200Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-20 09:29:002020-09-30 09:47:57Letter to Home Affairs Minister: Foreign Departure Ban
I would like to thank the almost 200 submissions in support of the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 (the Bill). Opposition from the financial establishment has been to maintain the ambiguous wording in the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 (the Act).
I would advise the Committee as follows.
Summary by section
The $250,000 FCS guarantee triggers once a bank fails. A bail-in is designed to save a bank from failing, meaning the FCS does not prevent a bail-in because the bail-in comes first.
APRA’s submission requires the phrase “any other instrument” to remain to meet future developments in financial products. I agree, this bill retains that wording and adds a single modifier – ‘except retail deposits’. APRA’s objection is moot.
Some submissions suggest a bail-in conflicts with Section 2A of the Banking Act which protects deposits. This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to save the bank. In turn this action protects some deposits immediately and the rest are restored years hence. The wording of 2A does not preclude a bail-in, it precludes an unsuccessful one.
The IMF are on record as indicating the Crisis Resolution Powers of the 2018 Act have primacy over the general banking directions (S2A) provided in the Banking Act. These crisis powers allow APRA to order a bail-in before the FCS guarantee would start.
Some submissions relied on the absence of a provision in account Terms & Conditions as the explanation for why bail-in provisions do not apply to retail deposits. As banks are adding this clause to their Terms & Conditions, I would consider this objection moot.
APRA have indemnified bank executives for actions they may take in the implementation of emergency powers, including a bail-in.
Bail-in involves banks issuing new shares in exchange for the funds they take out of depositors’ accounts. This double hit – reduced goodwill towards the brand and dilution of share prices – will comprise a massive hit to our Super Funds, self-managed retirees and the more than one million Australians with bank shares.
Australia is obligated by membership in international banking and financial agreements to have in place a deposit bail-in capability that specifically prevents taxpayers’ money being used to save a bank. It is likely that this clause will prohibit the Treasurer from activating the FCS guarantee should a bail-in fail, simply because that is taxpayers’ money as well.
There is no doubt that the existing legislation allows for a bank bail-in. My bill asks all Senators a simple question – is this what you want? Millions of super fund members and bank shareholders await your answer.
1. The $250,000 FCS Deposit Guarantee
The Financial Claims Scheme (FCS) deposit protection was an excellent initiative from the Rudd Labor Government back in 2008. However, things have changed since then.
The FCS is not active, and therefore “The Scheme is activated at the discretion of the Australian Treasurer”.[1] As confirmation, in 2018 APRA Chair Mr Wayne Byres addressed the Economics Legislation Committee, regarding the FCS: “Well, it’s not currently activated in the sense that it’s only activated when a bank fails…the FCS is there to make sure that particularly retail depositors but also depositors with amounts up to $250,000 are not at risk of losing their money, should a bank fail.”
The Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017, EM states: “In the unlikely event that a bank fails the Treasurer may activate the FCS…these specific depositor protections would generally only apply as a last resort, once an ADI* cannot be resolved.”
The ABC in their article on this billraised the spectre of a run on the banks if, for instance the real estate market melts down.[2] The Government seems to have considered the impact of a bank run on the effectiveness of a bail-in, and recently added secrecy provisions to the Act so that the public would not be alerted prior to a bail-in.
Melissa Harrison’s submission 60 used the IMF’s 2019 assessment of the FCS: “The Banking Act does not compel APRA to make the appointment of a statutory manager public… As the authorities are well aware, the statutory management power should be used very cautiously as the appointment of a statutory manager could destabilize the bank by triggering or exacerbating funding runs”.[3]
A bail-in would occur prior to the FCS guarantee being authorised, with the new secrecy provisions leaving customers in the dark until their money disappears from their bank account.
A few other issues with the $250,000 guarantee are:
It is organised by bank by account holder. This means accounts owned by foreign citizens or entities would be bailed-in using Australian taxpayers’ funds;
The FCS is unfunded;
The FCS is limited to $20bn per bank. The Commonwealth Bank, for example, has 16 million account holders. $20bn will only cover 80,000 of those to the full $250,000. Alternatively, cover could be extended to all 16 million account holders but only for the first $1250.
2. APRA: We need ‘any other instrument’ in the Act
From APRA’s submission 197: “We agree that if the intention of the Act was to only cover Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital, an addition of ‘any other instrument’ would have been unnecessary. However… ‘any other instrument’ was included in contemplation of further classes of capital which may be added in the future.…the reference to ‘any other instrument’ was neither intended to, nor does it in fact extend to, deposits.”
*ADI = Authorised Deposit Taking Institution. For accessibility this submission uses “bank” wherever possible.
I agree with APRA that this reference is needed for future developments. This is why the wording of the bill does not remove the phrase “any other instrument”. It simply applies a single modifier “not including a deposit account” and then defines what a deposit account is.
As this clause still operates in the manner requested by APRA, their argument is moot.
Treasury have also objected to including this definition in the Act because it introduces a definition not in use elsewhere in the Act. While I feel this is clutching at straws, Treasury are free to introduce an amendment to prevent our definition being used more widely.
3. Bail-in is inconsistent with depositor protection (S2A)
From APRA’s submission 197: “APRA has broad directions powers, all of which must be used consistent with the objects of the Banking Act (particularly the paramount objective of protecting depositors). As such, APRA could not direct the insertion of a conversion or write-off provision into customer deposit accounts given such a direction would be inconsistent with the objective of depositor protection. Such a direction would be found to be invalid.”
This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to PROTECT depositors’ funds by:
Converting some part of depositors’ funds to a security (forced purchase of shares in the bank) that can be converted back to funds upon sale at a future time;
This saves the bank from failure and in turn, protects the remaining depositor funds;
2A does not prevent a bail-in, it prevents a failed bail-in.
This bill is necessary because of the loss of amenity in the period between the funds being seized and many years down the road, when the share price recovers and the shares redeemed. Small business, retirees, low income earners will lose homes and businesses in a bail-in.
4. IMF statements conflict with Treasury and APRA submissions
The IMF disagrees with APRA on the strength of S2A protections. An IMF report states:[4]
“The new ‘catch-all’ directions powers in the 2018 Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill provide APRA with the flexibility to make directions to the ADIs that are not contemplated by the other kinds of general directions listed in the Banking Act.”
In a February 2019 assessment of Australia’s bank resolution and crisis management, the International Monetary Fund noted:[5]
“[APRA’s] Direction powers are also a key element in the resolution process for a distressed ADI; directions can be used to implement a range of resolution options, including facilitating recapitalization. Hence, the framework allows for the possibility that a problem bank could be resolved while under private control as APRA could order an ADI to recapitalize.”
The IMF are saying that the 2018 Crisis Resolution Powers have primacy over the general directions statements in the Banking Act. These allow APRA to ‘facilitate recapitalisation’ which is the definition of a bail-in and “under private control” means before it goes bust and the $250,000 guarantee starts.
If APRA and Treasury’s submissions are correct, then the IMF is wrong.
5. Banks can’t change their Terms & Conditions to allow a bail-in
APRA submission: “While an ADI may unilaterally change terms and conditions for customer deposits, it may not do so where the change is to facilitate a conversion or write-off of customer deposits. This is because to do so would be inconsistent with unfair contract terms legislation under the ASIC Act. A term allowing an ADI to write off or convert a retail deposit would amount to an unfair contract term. Moreover, even if an ADI was not prohibited from changing its terms in this way by unfair contract terms legislation, APRA would use its powers under the Banking Act to protect depositors and prohibit an ADI from changing these terms to insert write-off provisions.”
Treasury’s submission contained the same argument.The legislation referenced actually states: “Only a court can decide whether or not a term is unfair. “ So the legislation does NOT prevent bail-in provisions being added to Terms & Conditions. The protection comes from:
APRA using their oversight powers to unwind such an attempt; or
Affected depositors taking the might of the Australian banks to Court to get a ruling that this was indeed an unfair contract term.
Neither of these has happened. APRA has however had an opportunity to intervene when our banks started adding bail-in provisions to their Terms & Conditions. Please view submission 166 from Adams Economics, Annexe C for more.
APRA and Treasury are relying on a protection provided by APRA’s regulation powers that only exists if those powers are used.
6. APRA indemnifies bank executives who carry out a bail-in
In its 2019 assessment the International Monetary Fund noted:[6]
“Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill, provides for clearer immunity for an institution, its directors, management, employees and agents when taking reasonable steps to comply with an APRA direction…the Bill provides that a person is not liable in an action, suit or proceeding (whether criminal or civil) in relation to anything done, or omitted to be done, in good faith by the person if it is done for the purposes of complying with a direction given by APRA.”
This indemnity protects bank executives from legal action over their decision to conduct a bail-in.
7. Super Funds and self-funded retirees will be devastated
Our banks are some of the most valuable, even beloved brands in Australia. The financial damage to their share price from the loss of goodwill from a bail-in will be in the billions.
A greater loss though will come from the issuing of new shares to depositors in exchange for their savings. This dilutes the share price for existing shareholders. This is the reason for a bail-in given by the IMF – the cost of the bail-in must be worn by shareholders, not taxpayers.
Who are these shareholders if not taxpayers? Fourteen million Australians have superannuation accounts which contain a significant exposure to bank shares. There are more than a million everyday Australians who own bank shares directly.
Australia privatised our State Bank (The Commonwealth Bank) by giving everyday Australians discounted shares. Bank share ownership in Australia is the highest in the world, and our compulsory super ranks third in the world for number of people covered in percentage terms.
The IMF/G20 can champion a bail-in over a bail-out to protect taxpayers all they like. In Australia our taxpayers and our bank shareholders are one and the same.
The Government has looked the other way while banks have lent to the real estate market at the cost of compromising their loan book diversity. If it all melts down that is on the Government, not shareholders.
Government intervention by recapitalisation financed with Government bonds transferred over to the banks over time will, in the long run, not cost taxpayers money but it will avoid millions of everyday Australians getting done over by the IMF.
8. Further notes on our international obligations
Depositors are considered ‘unsecured creditors’ to a bank. This is apparent in the RBA publication ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’, which comments on “…other unsecured creditors, including depositors”.[7]
The Australian government’s 2014 ‘Financial System Inquiry Final Report’ acknowledged:[8]
“Inevitably, failures can and will occur, the system will be exposed to crises and, at times, unsecured bank creditors will be exposed to loss.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system. The Board includes all G20 major economies. Australia is a member and participates in the process.
The Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Key Attributes recommend that a resolution regime should “allocate losses to firm owners (shareholders) and unsecured and uninsured creditors (depositors)”.[9]
Australia is represented on the FSB by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Treasury and we have endorsed the FSB’s ‘key attributes’.
A further look at the ‘key attributes” reveals this provision:[10]
“The TLAC standard has been designed so that failing G-SIBs [banks] will have sufficient loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity available in resolution for authorities to implement an orderly resolution that minimises impacts on financial stability, maintains the continuity of critical functions, and avoids exposing public funds to loss”.
From submission 166 from Adams Economics: At the 2010 G20 Seoul Meeting, the Australian Government committed Australia to the Summit Document13, which included paragraph 30:
“We reaffirmed our view that no firm should be too big or too complicated to fail and that taxpayers should not bear the costs of resolution.”
9. Conclusion
If I may give the last word to Queensland LNP Senator Amanda Stoker. On the 5th November 2018, Senator Stoker explained in a letter to a constituent her view of the Act:
“The legislation facilitates bail-in as a type of resolution power which is available for dealing with financial institution distress. This was done after the G20 leaders endorsed a new Financial Stability Board standard for Total Loss-absorbing Capacity.”
I thank the Senator for that clarity. Clearly the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was in fact an implementation of the Financial Stability Board’s requirements for member nations to have legislation that allows a bank bail-in as a way of preventing public funds being used to bail out a bank.
Could it be that as our international agreements require bail-in rather than taxpayer funded bail-out and the Government, The Treasury and APRA have spent two years hoping nobody notices? I wonder because New Zealand have enacted their bail-in laws in the open, based on the same agreements we are signatory to.
The Government has a simple choice:
Either: Oppose our bill and admit the wording of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was indeed to give APRA the power, and the banks the right, to bail-in depositor funds. Then be honest with the electorate that banks have been given bail-in powers under a smoke screen of ambiguous wording.
Or: Pass the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 to give depositors confidence in their bank deposits and provide clarity for stakeholders.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/image.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-17 10:58:132020-08-17 12:51:41Senator Roberts makes submission to Bank Bail-In Inquiry
Right now though, as we do each and every Thursday, we have a chat with the wonderful One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you Malcolm.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Good day Marcus, how are you?
[Paul Marcus]
Look I’m okay. This icare scandal has deepened in New South Wales. And Senator it reminded me a couple of weeks ago, when you raised the issue about Simon, a coal miner in the hunter valley.
You recently went to the Hunter and you released a video introducing key points. Now I’ve had a look at it. It is a massive issue. I can’t tolerate abuse of people, I really can’t. You say the mine owner and employer are acting unlawfully, immorally, and unethically. Can you tell us a little bit about Simon’s story again?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Sure. Simon Turner is the human face of a crisis in this nation’s broken industrial relations laws. The people in agencies who are supposed to protect workers have turned their back on him. That’s unions, employers, industry groups, state, government departments, state ministers, federal government departments, federal agencies.
They’ve turned their backs on hundreds of the workers at New South Wales largest coal mine, BHPs Mount Arthur North mine, Mount Arthur mine I’m sorry. They’re not protected. And they’ve turned their back on thousands of workers across Australia, including my state Queensland and in New South Wales who have lost some basic entitlements that everyone has taken for granted.
The people in agencies, Marcus, who are meant to be protecting workers have enabled the exploitation and abuse of these people. The state and federal government departments, employers, industry groups, unions, safety inspectors, political parties, representatives in parliament have all failed their workers.
[Paul Marcus]
What happened to Simon? I mean, you say that he’s been failed and we’ll get to that, but what exactly happened to him? What were his injuries?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, Simon was driving a truck while he was employed by the Chandler MacLeod labour hire firm. BHB runs the mine. They’ve got permanent workers there. They’ve also got around 400 or so, what they call casuals, but they’re on the permanent roster. And they’ve been working there for years. The truck that Simon was driving was being loaded.
The coal digger operator, didn’t see Simon’s truck because of the dusty conditions. The whole mine had being shut down apparently, except for this one unit and the coal digger smashed his truck. The massive collision directly injured Simon causing swollen L three, L four, and L five discs in Simon’s back, a pinched sciatic nerve, pinch cranial nerve, and a lateral tear in one of the discs.
The lateral tear in his back leaks fluid into the spine and the resulting nerve damage goes all the way down his left leg, leaving him permanently in pain. I’ve watched this man. It is remarkable what he puts up with. As a result, Simon’s leg collapses without notice and he deals with this ongoing posttraumatic stress disorder and depression from that day 2014. So Simon’s injuries have left him totally and permanently disabled, and he cannot return to work.
[Paul Marcus]
Well, that’s what I was gonna say. I mean, this is a debilitating injury that doesn’t allow this man to work and has ruined his future livelihood. Now, I guess the BHP management, I mean, they would have looked into this incident. Now, what’s been said by them?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, it’s amazing. This is where it gets even worse.
[Paul Marcus]
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts]
A BHP manager, even though BHP wasn’t the employer, the BHP manager turned up at hospital and another BHP manager tells Simon to his face that if Simon reported the injury, he would not have a job.
[Paul Marcus]
What!
[Malcolm Roberts]
That’s breaking the law. You must report injuries. So Simon returned to the mine and was told to sit out the shift on a cold steel bench. Imagine that, hip and spinal damage and you’re sitting on a cold steel bench. And what we’ve done, we’ve been to the Hunter, even though I’m a Senator for Queensland, because we were so concerned and no one’s taking any action on these people.
We met with other miners who have been traumatised in 2014, ’15, ’16. And yet, if you go to the New South Wales government report for labour hire miners in those years, they reported no injuries for labour hire miners, none.
[Paul Marcus]
That’s rubbish. I mean, why would the management, why would the supervisor in this case, perhaps not report the injury? What is it? Is it in their best interests not to, or what’s the situation here?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, you’re quite perceptive. The managers at Mount Arthur had a safety bonus that encourages not reporting injuries. If they had injuries, then their safety bonus would drop.
So they would cop it in their wallet. So Simon wasn’t actually getting workers’ compensation or accident pay. Now that’ll shock many miners. It’ll shock many workers around the country. So, you know, desperate for cash. Six months later, Simon tried to access his coal long service leave. They told him he’d been sacked just weeks after his injury.
Simon had not even been told by his labour hire employer Chandler MacLeod nor by BHP, Simon went on to lose his home and he then started living in his parents’ garage, sleeping in his car and three times this man considered ending his life, three times.
[Paul Marcus]
All right. I mean, I don’t understand this, why this has been able to flourish? I mean, Chandler MacLeod pay rates are apparently 40% less than permanent BHP workers on the same 12 month roster as the permanents.
And they’re basically doing the same kind of work, but they’re doing it with no basic work entitlements, like sick leave, annual leave. Look this bloke he’s not even entitled to anything really. I mean, what are you saying about this in Senate estimates?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, he is entitled to it, but that’s just it, he’s not getting any of these things.
[Paul Marcus]
Right, I see.
[Malcolm Roberts]
But I applaud your use of data again. You’re right, Chandler McLeod pay rates for these so-called casuals who are really permanent on a permanent roster when working there for years, in some cases, are 40% less than permanent BHB rosters, then BHP employees, sorry.
And Chandler McLeod people have no basic work entitlements, like sick leave and annual leave. And what’s more is that the fair work commission have authorised the Chandler McLeod Enterprise Agreement and the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley, authorised it and approved it. They’ve signed off on it.
[Paul Marcus]
So the unions endorsed it.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes.
[Paul Marcus]
Well, that’s not looking after members, and that’s certainly not looking after miners in the Hunter.
[Malcolm Roberts]
No, it’s not. And then it goes even further, as you alluded to, or as I said, a little while ago, that Simon approached the long service leave to see if he could get an advance on his long service leave entitlements, just get some cash.
[Paul Marcus]
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts]
And so bear this in mind. That long service leave contributions for Simon were underpaid and not audited. So my questions in senate estimates started finding these chinks and the Senate estimates said, “No, no, no, they’d be correct.” Sorry, the coal long service leave in senate estimates said their records are correct.
“Have you audited them?” “No”, but they’ve, since after my pressure was applied, they’ve since audited to them and found Simon was correct. Note this though Marcus, Coal long service leaves board has a mixture of directors from the CFMMEU and the minerals council or the mine owners.
And then we have other conflicts of interests. I certainly think they’re conflicts of interests, coal mines insurance, the workers compensation for the coal miners is 50, 50 owned by the New South Wales Minerals Council, the mine owners and the CFMMEU. AUSCoal super is 50, 50 CFMMEU and the State Minerals Councils, the mine owners.
AUSCoal controls the money for coal, long service leave and collects money on behalf of the government and its board is made up as I said, a minute ago, 50, 50 minerals council and the CFMMU. But here’s where it gets interesting for Icare. And I hope people in New South Wales are listening.
[Paul Marcus]
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts]
‘Cause your Icare has been underfunded, because it’s paying out workers’ compensation to coal miners, because Simon’s employer Chandler McLeods policy said they only had 22 office workers doing administrative jobs, not coal miners.
They had hundreds of coal miners on a far greater wage than an admin worker and with much greater risk. Now, what that means is that Simon, because he’s not covered by that policy, has been funded by basically iCare.
So the moms and dads who own small businesses and even medium sized businesses in New South Wales, if you wonder why your premiums are going up, it’s because iCare money is going to these unfunded people because a multinational Chandler MacLeod is owned by Recruit Holdings, a huge Japanese recruitment agency that works around the world.
This Japanese firm, recruit holdings, some of its subsidiaries in Australia have been receiving $2.4 billion in the last four years from federal government contracts for labour hire people in our own federal government agencies, and they are not paying for the proper workers’ compensation. That’s why Simon missed out. Instead, they’re being paid by iCare. That’s why iCare is broke, one reason why iCare is broke.
[Paul Marcus]
All right, look this is very big, the attorney general is now proposing to review IR laws, to help the recovery from COVID. It’s a bit difficult to support it, given what is going on with the laws being bypassed and broken anyway, is that right? I mean, everything, the system is broken, it obviously needs to be fixed first.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Completely correct. You’re right onto it. Now, what we’re seeing is the attorney general wants to change the IR laws to help people recover from COVID. That means what he wants to do is condone what’s happening.
What I’ve just outlined. What we need to do is to get compliance, get these laws enforced. The system is broken. You don’t change the system and bring in more breakages, you fix the system first, ensure compliance, ensure the compliance with the law. And then let’s look at fixing it. Otherwise Marcus people like Simon are the ones who we will be paying for this abuse. It’ll never be fixed.
[Paul Marcus]
Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts]
The attorney general has his way and working for these large companies it seems, it’ll never be fixed and the workers will shoulder the burden because the union has abandoned them in the Hunter Valley, the employers and the employer industry and associations have abandoned them.
And the state government and federal government departments have abandoned them. We’re the only ones chasing this.
[Paul Marcus]
All right, well, Simon obviously needs to be a priority. I mean, I’d love to see him get his lawful and certainly moral entitlements and compensation for the trauma and suffering over the last, what, six or so years.
And also, I mean, we need to continue, I guess to apply pressure, to bring maybe some justice on those who exploited Simon, or at least enabled it, whether it’s BHP, Chandler MacLeod, the Hunter, or New South Wales division of the CFMMEU. I mean, something needs to be done, Senator.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes, definitely Marcus. And it’s really significant that if people watch the video that I’ve put out in the last three minutes, what you’ll see is the connections because the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley started the employment of casuals. The CFMMEU’s predecessor, the Miner’s Federation, initiated casuals for a good reason because of unemployment in the late ’80s.
But the CFMMEU, then became the employer and the union representing the employees. And so that’s a conflict of interest, but the CFMMEU now endorses enterprise agreements. We’ve seen cases of enterprise agreements being sold to labour hire companies. And so the union actually started use of casuals, continued the use of casuals, enabled the use of casuals. And this has exploited workers. And some of these people are members of the union.
[Paul Marcus]
Where’s labor on this Malcolm? I mean aren’t they supposed to be looking after the worker, where are they on this? I mean, when you’re highlighting this, which you obviously are doing in Senate estimates, and you’re talking to me and in the media and you’re on social media and one nation and trying to push some changes, to IR our laws, where are labor on this. Are you getting any support at all from Anthony Albanese and the like.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, I’ve written to Anthony Albanese, no response. I’ve written to the local federal member, no response. Simon Turner, the injured miner-
[Paul Marcus]
What about Joel Fitzgibbon?
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes. And Simon Turner, the injured miner himself has written to Joel six times and has never been, never got a response.
[Paul Marcus]
Well I’ll talk to Joel because Joel and I get on very well but I’ll have to leave it there, ‘Cause I’ve got the deputy premier waiting on the line, but you and I will talk further on this
[Malcolm Roberts]
When you talk Joel, remind him the issue is not casuals. That is one part of it. The issue that I’m raising goes well beyond that, into the abuse of these casuals and what the union, the employer and the labour hire firms are doing and what the state and federal governments are abandoning workers on. That’s the issue.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WaveformClean.00_00_29_10.Still002.png?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=110801920Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-13 16:24:262020-08-17 15:40:39Workers left in the dirt by Labor and Union Bosses – 2SM with Marcus Paul
It is vital that our premier takes a tough stand on any unnecessary and risky marches/protests in our State. We can not risk going down the path of Victoria.
Transcript
It’s so pleasing to see the New South Wales Police Commissioner in response to the Black Lives Matter protests, coming out tomorrow, saying to his policemen that they must fine as many people as they can for taking part in that protest.
That’s a welcome change from Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who said when the last Black Lives Matter protest occurred in Brisbane, that “Please don’t attend. “But if you do then maintain social distance.”
And as a result, 30,000 people followed her invitation to maintain social distance. Premier Dan Andrew pretty much did the same and just waved them on through and encouraged the protesters
And now look at Victoria and now look at New South Wales. So what we need to see is Premier Palaszczuk in this state, take the lead from New South Wales and be hard on criminals.
The Labor Government in Queensland has a history of being soft on criminals and very hard on everyday Australians.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Capture-3.png?fit=749%2C418&ssl=1418749Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-07-28 15:45:452020-07-29 15:02:38Throw the book at Black Lives Matter lawbreakers
Over the past 12 months I have been working through an issue and story that has, at times, brought me to tears. It is about a miner, Simon Turner, who was severely injured on site doing his job. The accident left Simon totally and permanently disabled; he can never return to work. But it is also about the tens of thousands of workers across the country who could end up in the same position.
Instead of receiving the support and workers’ compensation we would expect, and that coal miners are entitled to, he has been abandoned. Instead of receiving proper entitlements such as accident pay at a full wage, he lives below the poverty line in a garage. The way this has happened has been unlawful, unjust, immoral and unethical. What we’ve uncovered is that this tragedy can happen to anyone and we must fight to have this gap in our industrial relations laws fixed.
This is Simon’s story. It is the story of how any Australian can be thrown on the scrap heap by all the people and organisations who should be there to protect us.
Simon’s injury
Simon worked for Chandler Macleod, a labour hire company who employed him at Mount Arthur, a BHP Billiton Coal Mine in the Hunter Valley. He was an active person and he recounts that he enjoyed his job. At the time of his injury Simon was working on his shift at the mine driving a coal truck.
A coal digger did not see Simon’s truck because of dusty conditions and struck his vehicle. The massive collision directly injured Simon, causing swollen L3, L4 and L5 discs in his back, a pinched sciatic nerve, pinched cranial nerve and a lateral tear in one of the discs. The lateral tear in his back leaks fluid into the spine and the resulting nerve damage goes all the way down his left leg leaving him permanently in pain. As a result, Simon’s leg collapses without notice and he deals with ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder and depression from that day.
Simon’s injuries have meant he is deemed totally and permanently disabled (TPD) and he cannot return to work.
After the accident he was taken to hospital by ambulance where x-rays were not done due to a broken machine, but a doctor indicated Simon should be off work for at least several weeks. During his return from the hospital a BHP representative asked Simon if he would meet with the coal superintendent. Simon agreed and met with him when he returned to mine site.
Pressure
In that meeting the BHP coal superintendent pressured Simon to not report his injury. He says that there have been too many Lost Time Injuries (LTIs). LTIs are reported incidents where an employee can’t come into work because of an injury.
The coal superintendent tells Simon to not report it, that BHP won’t be reporting it and threatens Simon that the way the industry is now, he won’t have a job if he does report it. Casuals like Simon have no job security.
Simon is later asked to come into his next regular rostered shift, ‘just to ensure he gets paid’. Simon goes to site and sits on a steel metal bench for four hours and does nothing. The following shift, Simon is pressured to sign a return to work program which he refuses. It isn’t clear who has made the return to work plan and it certainly hasn’t been done in consultation with Simon.
At this point Simon still has no doctor, no x-rays, no diagnosis and no idea what injuries he has suffered. In Simon’s words, ‘No one knew what was wrong with me and they wanted me to go back out into the pit and start working.’
All of these factors lead me to believe it was an unethical attempt to avoid reporting an LTI. By Simon returning to work for the four hours, even though he did nothing, the mine avoids reporting an LTI because they say he clocked in and therefore returned to work.
It is unlawful to not report a serious injury.
The flaws in the safety system
We now know that some superintendents and supervisors within the mining industry are paid a safety bonus, which is directly related to the number of LTIs that happen on their watch. The less LTIs, the higher the bonus.
The bonus system creates a perverse incentive for superintendents and supervisors to hide injuries and not report them. Simon has been a victim of this perverse incentive.
At the time of his injury Simon, like most of the employees on site, was classed as a casual/labour hire employee. Yet during the year of his injury and the surrounding years, there are no labour hire company employee LTIs reported.
Some labour hire employers are far more concerned about money than they are about people and especially people who stand up for their rights. Simon was terminated without even being told. He found out six months later indirectly through a government agency.
Some companies are known to understate the number of employees on work sites and to describe miners as ‘administration staff’ to get lower insurance premiums – if we did this what would happen to us?
Tragically, we also know that Simon is not the only affected worker. I’ve personally spoken to seven others from the Hunter region who have found themselves in similar situations and believe there are hundreds more in NSW, Queensland and WA. We aren’t talking about just broken fingers.
Their injuries were debilitating. Broken backs, legs broken in half and a myriad of severe and permanent injuries that left people trembling just from talking about them. There have also been suicides within the group. Simon recounts that, ‘I didn’t want to live … three times I’ve thought about killing myself.’
Recently, I presented a submission to the Queensland Board of Inquiry into the Queensland Grosvenor mine explosion that could have had fatal consequences. Here I pointed out to the Board that casuals are not even represented on safety committees, yet they make up such a large part of the industry today.
Mine owners like BHP Billiton and labour hire companies like Chandler Macleod don’t care about anything but money.
The loophole
Under the Black Coal Award, a worker in a coal mine is afforded accident pay and specialised treatment for injuries. However mines avoid their responsibilities by using labour hire companies for their workforce – they are cheaper and have less job security.
In some ways and in some cases, employees aren’t classed by the work they do or where they work, they are classed based on their employer. Importantly when it comes to accessing award entitlements, the employer must be in or about a coal mine. Employers like the mine owner BHP easily pass this test. However, a labour hire firm like Chandler Macleod, the one that employed Simon, is not considered in or about a coal mine and therefore the protections and entitlements don’t apply.
Some mine owners use and explicitly abuse this to avoid their responsibilities to workers like Simon Turner.
Simon worked side-by-side with BHP employees, doing the same job, on the same long-term rosters, on the same site and he came home every day with clothes covered in black coal dust. We believe the current method of classification for miners has led to hundreds of cases of exploitation – pain, poverty and injustice – and this must be addressed.
Simon has not received his accident pay or the specialised treatment he needs to live as good a life as he can with his injuries. He receives a pathetic disability payment which is below the poverty line.
Simon contacted everyone he could – the mine owner, his employer, the workers’ compensation authority, Coal LSL, the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman, his local federal elected representative Labor’s Joel Fitzgerald MP, local state Labor MP, NSW Ministers, NSW government agencies and many more – all of whom ignored his calls for help.
The people and the organisations that should have cared for him did not, and you could be next.
If it had not been for people who cared like Stuart Bonds of One Nation in NSW, nobody would be standing up for Simon Turner today.
Please watch our full video with Simon to learn a bit more about his case and you will see why One Nation stood up for Simon and why we stand up for everyday Australians like you.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MineSimon.png?fit=2250%2C1688&ssl=116882250Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-07-27 18:45:002020-07-27 15:29:57Miners are being left behind by those who are meant to protect them
Mr Simon Turner was an employee of Chandler Macleod, a labour hire company, and worked at the Mt Arthur coal mine in the Hunter Valley.
The mine owner BHP and his employer called him a casual, even though he worked on the same long-term coal production roster and had the same duties and responsibilities as BHP’s permanent full-time workers, doing the same job.
After being severely injured on a mine site, Simon discovered that he was not getting workers’ injury compensation, accident pay and other entitlements that are part of the Black Coal Award.
In fact, his employer did not even classify Simon as a coal miner and instead classified him as office administration, apparently to lower the workers’ compensation premiums. Simon lost all the benefits of the Black Coal Mining Award including workers’ injury compensation.
During our investigation into the issues surrounding Simon, we uncovered a number of actions that you should take to ensure that you are being protected from similar unscrupulous practices. This checklist can help you to be sure that you are being treated fairly and are covered in case of a workplace accident:
Hi, I want to discuss a story of enormous courage and resilience that brought such anger to me and such tears. The whole industrial relations system is broken and complicit in what is happening to people. The deeper issue affects 10s of thousands of men and women, right around this country, especially in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley.
I worked in one of the industries that this is involved with from the age of 18 to 53 and I have never seen anything like this. The exploitation, the abuse, the negligence, it’s horrific, it’s unethical, immoral, and unlawful with deliberate breaches of laws.
I want to introduce Simon Turner, who’s been fighting this for six years, and he’s going to tell us his story. And I also want to introduce Stuart Bonds, who has developed the trust in the Hunter Valley and he came to us with it and because he did listen to people, and he’s been pushing it at a time when state and federal governments had abandoned it.
BHP had abandoned its responsibilities, Chandler Macleod Group, the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley has abandoned its people. Politicians, state and federal, labor and liberal have avoided this issue and done enormous damage. So Simon, can you tell us your story please?
[Simon]
I worked for Chandler MacLeod which is a labour hire company at Mount Arthur, BHP Billiton Coal Mine in Hunter Valley, largest black coal mine in New South Wales. I was severely injured at work, while working in dusty conditions.
I was asked by the BHP Superintendent of Coal not to report my injury, which was clearly a lost time injury. They asked me to come into work and not report my injury at all and BHP weren’t going to report it. Now my employer Chandler Macleod, they didn’t report my injury at all which they both have the same duty of care to report anyone that’s injured at work.
Now, they can’t ask someone not to come into work if they’re injured because that’s also a breach of workplace laws, which they clearly don’t care about. They just get people to do what they need them to do so they don’t record a lost time injury for the mine site.
I started at HVO and then moved to Mount Arthur open cut. I enjoyed my job, I loved it a lot. And then one day we were working in conditions that were very dusty, I was hit by the coal digger because he couldn’t see me.
Now the pit was shut down for dust we were still operating ’cause they “still had to get coal out” as they say, he did not see me as there was too much coal dust and hit a metre behind the back of where I was operating the truck and my injuries are swollen discs L3, 4, 5, pinched sciatic nerve, pinched cranial nerve and a lateral tear in one of the discs, that’s leaking fluid into my spine, and then that nerve damage goes all the way down my left leg.
My left leg collapses without any notice and I’ll just drop. I also have severe depression and PTSD caused by what happened that day.
[Stuart]
So I’m in the coal industry, so I know what’s meant to happen. But do you want to tell us what did actually happen to you?
[Simon]
Well, what happened that day, I was taken back into the first aid and emergency area at the mine site, they then called an ambulance. So I was taken to Muswellbrook Hospital via ambulance. I got there, and they assessed me. I was sucking on the green puffer whistle for pain.
They wanted to do X-rays, so a doctor came in and saw me, and gave me some medication for the pain. And they were going to do X-rays at Muswellbrook Hospital, but then they told me that the X-ray machine wasn’t working. Someone from BHP then turned up at the hospital and he waited there.
The doctor said, “Well, you can go, you got to go and have X-rays. We can’t do the X rays here, you’ll be off for a couple of weeks.” So we go back to the mine site and on the journey back in the car, I was asked if I’d go meet with the Coal Superintendent.
I said, “Yep, okay.” When we got back there, I met him in his office. He said to me, “How are you?” I said, “Pretty sore.” He said, “Listen, I don’t want you to report this. We’ve had too many LTIs.” That’s a lost time injury He said, “Don’t report it, we’re not going to report it, and the way the industry is at the moment, if you report it, you won’t have a job.”
So that’s what happened. Then, they told me to come into the next lot of rostered shifts that I had. Just come into work sign on, I’d only have to stay there for four hours and then they’d send me home and they’d make sure that I got paid. So I went in.
The following day, on day shift for four hours I sat there on a steel metal bench, did nothing. On the night shift someone came out, the fill in OCE and asked me to sign a return-to-work programme, and I didn’t even know what injuries I had, I still hadn’t had the X-rays.
No one knew what was wrong with me, and they wanted me to go back out into the pit and start working.
[Stuart]
So why do you think they wanted you to come back for the four hours?
[Simon]
Well that way, a lost time injury, what we know now is that superintendents and supervisors within the mining industry, their coal bonus is directly related in the amount payable with regards to lost time injuries, so the least lost time injuries, the more bonus they get.
[Stuart]
So lost time injuries in a day lost when the employee can’t come back into work. So when you come back to work, you’re counted as being, worked that day.
[Simon]
Yep.
[Stuart]
Even though you sat on a cold steel bench sticking stickers on hard hat.
[Simon]
I didn’t stick anything, I just sat there. I didn’t stick anything on anything. I actually-
[Malcolm]
You’re in pain
[Simon]
Yeah, in pain. And I actually I was on a fair bit of medication. I went and seen the the ambulance guy. He was on site there at the mine site full time, he gave me a heat pack, that was it, it’s all I had.
And then I never went back after that day ’cause I refused to sign the return-to-work plan because when I looked at it, I didn’t know who done it, it wasn’t done in consultation with myself. It wasn’t done with a doctor. I didn’t even have a doctor at that time.
And my employer who was supposedly Chandler Macleod, hadn’t even spoken to me, so.
[Malcolm]
Now Simon as I understand that you’ve got some graphs which we’re going to put in the video. Can you tell us about those graphs for 20… On the year of your injury?
[Simon]
The year of my injury and the year prior to that and for another two years after my injury, the statistics show for LTIs recorded in the mining industry. When I was injured and I know other people have been injured because they have contacted me, I say there were zero LTIs.
[Malcolm]
And we’ve talked to some of those people.
[Simon]
Yeah, you’ve spoken to them, and they’ll come forward and there’s a lot of people.
[Stuart]
Zero injuries at that mine?
[Simon]
In the whole Hunter Valley. Not just that mine, in the whole Hunter Valley and there is hundreds of injuries, reportable injuries, LTIs where people have not gone to work.
Now, the important thing with that those statistics are coming from Coal Mines Insurance and Coal Services because they’re the monopoly insurer for the industry. Now, when my claim has been put through, it hasn’t been put through on that. I’m not a coal miner I’m employed in the New South Wales Statutory System. So-
[Stuart]
You don’t show up in the mining statistics
[Simon]
It doesn’t show up.
[Stuart]
Under the Black Coal Award as a worker in a coal mine, I know that you’re afforded 78 weeks of accident pay under the Black Coal Award and specialised treatment for your injuries. And that’s given from the monopoly insurer, which is Coal Mines Insurance. So what did you actually receive?
[Simon]
I’ve been receiving $400 per week from two other insurers, at first started out as CGU and then change to GIO, New South Wales Statutory Insurer. So I haven’t received any of the Coal Mine entitlements of the full wage for 78 weeks.
So it’s below the poverty line, what I’ve been living on the whole time. Our Enterprise Agreement had provisions in it for 78 weeks accident pay, which is straight from the Award.
[Stuart]
Can you return to work?
[Simon]
I can’t return to work. I’ve been demmed TPD
[Malcolm]
Totally and Permanently Disabled?
[Simon]
Yeah, I can’t work
[Stuart]
So your $400 is-
[Simon]
$400 a week is for life. That’s it. That’s all I get.
[Malcolm]
That’s $20,000 a year, where you were earning about 92,000 earning less than a quarter.
[Simon]
Yeah. So and that’s… had massive ramifications. for me personally,
[Stuart]
So who’s paying? If it’s not Coal Mines Insurance, who’s paying you, who is paying?
[Simon]
The New South Wales State Government has been paying an injured coal miner from the day that I got injured and the claim was filed with CJU
[Malcolm]
And so that’s the uninsured workers?
[Simon]
Yeah.
[Malcolm]
The uninsured workers-
[Simon]
Uninsured Liability Scheme, that’s where I get paid from.
[Malcolm]
So that’s mums and dads who own small businesses and pay workers compensation, premiums are going up, they’re paying for your injury from a multinational company that’s foreign owned and avoiding its responsibilities. And that’s why your workers compensation premiums for small businesses are going up.
[Simon]
And I’m not the only one. There are a lot more people exactly employed with Chandler Macleod and worked at BHP Mount Arthur.
[Malcolm]
And we met with eight of them when we went to Williamtown near Newcastle, and we listened to 8, the bullying, the harassment, the intimidation, the injuries, were just gross. These people some of them are shattered.
[Stuart]
Yeah, we’re not talking broken fingers here, we’re talking broken backs, legs broken in half severe, permanent…
[Simon]
Bullying and harassment it’s-
[Malcolm]
And people who shake and tremble when you talk to them.
[Simon]
Yeah, there’ve been suicides, we know of suicides that have happened.
[Stuart]
The accident pays there to tie you over until you can return to work. Obviously, deemed TPD you can’t return to work, on $400 a week, running out of money, losing your house. What happened at that point?
[Simon]
Oh, that point. I was about to be evicted. I’ve been deemed TPD so I can’t work again. So I called Coal LSL to check on what long service leave I had accrued. They then tell me that I’m not accruing any because I was sacked. And I said, “Okay.” Now my employer terminated my employment a week after I was injured.
They sent a Separation Certificate to Centerlink. They notified AUS Coal superannuation in January of 16, that I was terminated. They terminated my employment to Coal LSL on the 7th of January 2016. And I find out six months later that I was sacked. I was the last person that got told I was sacked. So they tell everybody else except me.
It’s illegal to sack anyone within six months of them being injured and on workers compensation. So not only have they not paid me what I’m entitled to I’ve been paid from a policy that can’t cover me.
They’ve also sacked me and haven’t told me. On the separation certificate, they say, there’s a question on there, has a workers compensation claim been made or will one be made in the future? And they tick no, and this was filled out six months after I’d been on workers comp.
[Malcolm]
So how did you feel when you find all this stuff out and you’re about to be thrown out your house?
[Simon]
I just couldn’t believe anyone, could be so ruthless and do something like this. I just wanted to give up that’s probably why, you know, the depression and everything and that sets in, I didn’t want to live. Yeah, three times I’ve thought about killing myself.
[Stuart]
So whilst you’re on workers comp, you’re not meant to be getting your entitlements whilst you’re on it. You’re super’s meant to be paid your long service leave still meant to be accruing. So that’s how you found out that you’re sacked? That you weren’t, those entitlements
[Simon]
I found out through Coal LSL only because I rang up six months later. That’s how I found out and then I find out that none of those entitlements
[Stuart]
Were accruing.
[Simon]
Were accruing, all gone.
[Malcolm]
Okay, Simon, so let me just check with you. You were… You’ve lost your Award entitlements and protections, you’re 40% underpaid compared with your BHP employees doing the same job, same responsibilities, same duties, right next to you. And your Coal LSL Long Service Leave provisions were under reported.
And when I asked them questions about that, they had never done an audit on individuals. They – They hadn’t done an audit. And then when they did an audit after I pursued them in senate estimates, they came back and admitted that you were correct. Is that correct?
[Simon]
Correct. Everything was correct.
[Stuart]
So our entire industrial relations system is set up with a series of checks and balances, because we have a federal award and we have to make sure the awards are minimum standard.
So to check all this, you’ve got the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, you’ve got union bosses that go to negotiations, you’ve got your HR department of your labour hire companies, you’ve got mine safety inspectors, lawyers, senators the State Insurance Regulatory Authority, Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services, Workers Compensation Independent Review Office, which is WIRO, you’ve got the media.
How many of these people have you engaged with and told them what’s going on?
[Simon]
All of them, hundreds of emails.
[Malcolm]
There’s even two more points I would raise. You forgot the Local Federal Member, Joel Fitzgibbon. Now he illustrates what was going on here, because I’ve written to him, he hasn’t responded.
[Simon]
I wrote to him six times.
[Malcolm]
You’ve written to him six times. and in the interactions we’ve had through the media, we’ve explained the enormous scale of this problem, the depth of the problem, he’s come back and said, “Roberts doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s just about the casual employment.”
Well, that’s a misrepresentation of what’s going on. But you’ve also got the fact that some of these players enabled this to happen, they actually created the circumstances. The Hunter Valley Branch of the CFMMEU looks like it has set this up.
[Simon]
It’s the only way, it can happen.
[Malcolm]
Yeah, it can’t happen without that. BHP have been complicit, the Chandler Macleod Group have been complicit. They have stolen part of your life from you. The CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley has done the same. Some of the bureaucrats have done the same.
[Stuart]
Well, you’re meant to have the Fair Work Commission, Fair Work Ombudsman overseeing all this, to make sure that this exact scenario doesn’t occur.
[Simon]
But it doesn’t have to get to that point. And this is what they fail to say in some and some of the media and social pages that they like to comment on. Not once have I put it in for dispute before it was voted on. They can’t say oh, you voted on it or they approved it. If it gets put into dispute before it even gets to that point, nothing happens. No one’s employed as a casual.
[Malcolm]
So the system is rotten Simon and Stuart the system is rotten. But worse, there are senior players in the system that actively make it happen. Make the corruption happen.
[Simon]
Correct.
[Stuart]
Okay, so you were talking before about putting agreements into dispute before they even get to the Fair Work Commission, to challenge them, to make sure they’re better off overall. So the union have recently contested an Enterprise Agreement which was for BHP’s in house labour hire firm.
So that was the OS agreement at Mount Arthur Coal, which was exactly the same Coal Mine that you were employed at, exactly the same Coal Mine that they have Chandler MacLeod’s still working alongside them, but it was for more money. Am I correct in saying that?
[Simon]
Yeah, the Chandler Macleod agreement pays even less than what the OS agreement does.
[Stuart]
And the OS agreement was thrown out, because it didn’t meet the better off overall test. Yet, there’s people being paid less than that working on the same mine site.
[Malcolm]
And correct me if I’m wrong. They don’t have the conditions and protections that even the OS Agreement has got in it, but that was thrown out.
[Simon]
Yep. That’s right
[Malcolm]
How does this go on?
[Simon]
Well, there’s a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU that says, “You will not take any legal action against us now or in the future.
[Stuart]
Yeah.
[Malcolm]
What?
[Simon]
I’m serious.
[Malcolm]
I was an underground coalface miner in the ’70s. in the Hunter Valley, I was a mine manager in the ’80s in the Hunter Valley, I worked in the Hunter Valley as a consultant in the 1990s and in the 2000s. There is no way on earth or even underground that the Coal Miners Union would have let this happen. What did happen?
[Simon]
Well, you would think that but basically, it’s their own business model, the union they own the labour hire company, employing casuals, started out as United Mining Management Services, and then basically progressed on to being owners within Tesa and then selling that model on to a larger company called Skilled.
And then basically endorsing EA’s with casual employment.
[Malcolm]
And the bar graph that the stacked bar graph that we’ll put on the screen here that you showed me yesterday indicated that there’s some pretty dodgy deals happening involving union bosses most likely, making money out of it.
[Simon]
Yeah. it’s … They’re business partners with the big mining companies. They basically, they own Coal Mines Insurance along with the New South Wales Minerals Council, which is all the mine owners. They’re a joint venture of Aus Coal Superannuation with New South Wales and Queensland Minerals Council.
And then you’ve got them on the boards of Coal LSL and Coal Services.
[Stuart]
So if one… We’ve see we’ve seen how easy this is to stop, I mean, you just put the enterprise agreements into dispute, they stop the OS Agreement. So we know it’s possible to happen. So if one person or one government body had done the right thing, this wouldn’t happen. This a eight billion dollar black hole doesn’t exist.
[Simon]
So there’s no external scrutiny whatsoever. They control the whole industry.
[Stuart]
They control their own oversight and auditing. So if the… So this is a mine owner, is in bed with the union, and the government’s turned a blind eye, and you have all got screwed.
[Simon]
Yeah.
[Malcolm]
So some of the mining companies want cheaper labour rates. Some of the dodgy union bosses enable that to happen, and they get a cut on it, by the side. So what we can see here is a need for an investigation of all these entities.
We’ve got Coal LSL, Coal Mines Insurance, We’ve got the State Governments Safety Inspectors, We’ve got Fair Work Commission, Fair Work Commission Ombudsman, we’ve got some politicians that we think, we’ve got union bosses all need investigating.
And what that means is that people are no longer protected by the political, by the industrial or by the unions, and they’re certainly not protected by some of these grubby companies.
What it means is that if this can happen to you and hundreds of people you know, and that we’ve met it can happen to anyone in Australia, it can happen to you.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/dominik-vanyi-Mining-unsplash-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=117072560Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-07-27 18:45:002020-07-27 20:08:21REVEALED: Shocking abuse of workers in mining industry
See the bottom of this article to get your checklist sent directly to you to ensure that you are protected from similar unscrupulous practices.
Mr Simon Turner was an employee of Chandler Macleod, a labour hire company, and worked as a coal miner at the Mt Arthur coal mine in the Hunter Valley. The mine owner BHP and his employer called him a casual, even though he worked on the same long-term coal production roster and had the same duties and responsibilities as BHP’s permanent full-time workers doing the same job.
After being severely injured onsite, Simon discovered that he was not getting workers’ injury compensation, accident pay and other entitlements that are part of the Black Coal Award.
In fact, his employer did not even classify Simon as a coal miner and instead classified him as office administration, apparently to lower the workers’ compensation premiums. Simon lost all the benefits of the Black Coal Mining Award, including workers’ injury compensation.
During our investigation into the issues surrounding Simon, we identified a number of actions that you can take to ensure that you are protected from similar unscrupulous practices.
Enter your details below and we will send you your benefits checklist.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Mine.png?fit=2250%2C1688&ssl=116882250Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-07-27 13:43:442020-07-27 14:34:55CHECKLIST: Are you a miner? Find out if you’re getting ripped off
