Senator for Queensland, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party c/ AUSPIC
This report details extensive calculations that demonstrate casual coal miners across the Central Queensland and New South Wales Hunter Valley districts are being ripped off on average $30,000 a year of potential earnings under enterprise agreements negotiated by the union.
This report was summarised in a speech to the Senate here.
The union bosses claim that Labor’s latest Industrial Relations legislation will “close the loophole” of casual workers being paid less than permanents, especially in the mining sector.
You can’t step on site without a union enterprise bargaining agreement, so how are casual workers getting ripped off when they’re working under union negotiated agreements?
The answer is that some union bosses are getting kickbacks from labour hire companies in exchange for passing through dodgy agreements that allow casuals to be exploited.
The Fair Work Commission is meant to stop this, but they’re either asleep at the wheel or deliberately not doing their job.
Transcript
1 November 2023
Presenter
The Fair Work Legislation Amendment, known as the, “Closing Loopholes Bill,” held its hearings in Rockhampton this week. Announced by the federal government in September, the Closing Loopholes Bill aims to criminalise wage theft, introduce minimum standards for workers in the gig economy, close the forced permanent casual worker loophole, and close the labour hire loophole.
It’s all about that thing that we’ve been talking about for yonks, and that is, if you’re doing the same job as someone else, you should get the same pay. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts is in Rockhampton for the hearings, and he’s been raising the issue of the exploitation of the permanent casual workers in CQ miners for years. Frazer Pearce asked him if the proposed legislation would provide a better outcome for miners.
Malcolm Roberts
Look, my position on this Fair Work Act for a start, the current act as it stands, without Labor’s latest draft amendments, is 1,200 pages long, and they’re wanting to add another 800 pages. It already makes the workers vulnerable because there’s no way any single worker or small business can understand it; and it helps the IR club. All regulations in that help the major groups like the major banks, the big pharma, and the Industrial Relations Club.
That’s the lawyers, the Union bosses, the Industry Associations for multinational companies. It hurts the workers. I’ve seen that firsthand in Hunter, the Hunter Valley, and in Central Queensland. The second point I’d make is that we wouldn’t be having this inquiry if it wasn’t for the fact that the cross bench has moved it to extend the opportunity, to extend the reporting date from October through to next February. We would not be here listening to the views of industry unions and individual workers, if it wasn’t for the fact that we got an extension till next February.
The Labor Party voted against that extension. They don’t want to listen to people. We voted in favour of it. It’s a very important bill. It’s a huge bill. Big ramifications for workers as well as all players in the industry. The third point I’d make is that current employment in the coal industry at least, is that illegal employment of casual, supposedly casual, in coal is only possible, only possible, with a mining and energy union endorsed enterprise agreement.
We’ve seen that. I can go into detail if you need, but this is probably not the time. But the Mining Union in the Hunter Valley in particular, and to some extent in Central Queensland, has been passing enterprise agreements that do not protect the basic rights of workers. They don’t meet the award criteria as a basic minimum. They don’t meet the National Employment standards as a basic minimum.
They have been selling out workers in the coal industry and what we need for a solution is just a simple enforcement of the Fair Work Act. Now, early on in the proceedings and dealing with these issues, I proposed the, “Same work, same pay” bill. It’s very simple bill. But what I’ve since realised in doing more work, listening to miners, is that all that’s needed is to enforce the current Fair Work Act.
Frazer Pearce
What’s the level of, do you think of exploitation against these workers? Are you saying it’s widespread or it’s just isolated?
Malcolm Roberts
Yes, it’s widespread and it varies in severity. They’re paying well below the award and as I said, the award is the basic minimum. They have not done , they’ve not done the boot test, which is the, “better off overall test”. And that’s how these dodgy agreements have got through that are shafting coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They have left out basic leave entitlements.
They don’t pay casual loading. Casuals are not legally allowed to be employed in the coal industry other than in a dodgy agreement, which is unlawful in itself; because they bypass the normal processes. People are missing out on leave entitlement. People are, as a result of being hired casual, short term, are threatened with dismissal at any time, people are afraid to raise safety incidents.
There’s a culture of fear there. There’s a culture of fear at many mines from people standing up and and afraid of standing up. There’s also been a lack of reporting of injuries. New South Wales in particular, we suspect also Queensland. There’s a, basically there’s a loss in some cases of workers insurance, workers’ compensation, accident pay. These are fundamental rights.
Frazer Pearce
Is this going to be a strong platform for you in the next election? Was it a vote winner for you in the last one?
Malcolm Roberts
We don’t do things to get votes. We do things because they’re right.
Presenter
That’s One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts having a chat with ABC Capricornia Frazer Pearce, talking about the closing loopholes bill. The hearing’s being held in Rockhampton at the moment. It’s a couple of minutes to eight.
During investigations into the the abuse of casual coal miners I found that the government has spent over $2.4 billion on casual labour hire from one firm, Chandler Macleod Group, alone. The government couldn’t even tell me what the total casual labour hire bill was across all agencies because they don’t even collect that data. The fact that the Australian Public Service Commission don’t even know how much money they’re spending is inexcusable.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing today. When we were investigating, over the last 2½ years, the abuses of casual black-coal miners in the Hunter Valley, we noted that there were thousands of casuals working for the Australian Public Service, with hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to labour hire firms. Why does the Public Service do this?
Mr Woolcott : Could you just put that question to me again, Senator? I didn’t quite understand. You’re talking about why we employ casual hire?
Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. We know that some people prefer to work casually; so I’ve got nothing against casuals. We know that casuals fulfil a basic secondary role within any workplace, with fluctuating workloads, someone going on leave, projects et cetera. Why does the Public Service use so many labour hire firms to employ these casuals?
Mr Woolcott : It’s for agency heads to determine how they construct their workforce. The Public Service Act sets out that the normal method of engagement is full-time, ongoing employment as a public servant, but there are provisions in the Public Service Act for non-ongoing and other aspects. It’s very much for each individual agency head to work out what is the appropriate mix of their workforce. Obviously, if it’s work that fluctuates then it’s quite appropriate for them to use labour hire and casuals to manage those fluctuations. But again, as I say, it’s a matter for each individual agency head. They’re the accountable authority. They have responsibility for delivering for the government and the Australian community and it’s for them to work out their proper mix.
Senator ROBERTS: As the Australian Public Service Commission, I imagine you’d be interested in efficiency, cost-effectiveness and employees’ conditions?
Mr Woolcott : Obviously we’re intimately involved in many of those aspects but, in terms of running that agency and running the duties and obligations that they are committed to undertake, it’s for them to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that point. How many casuals are currently employed across the Australian Public Service—hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?
Mr Woolcott : I think it’s 87 per cent that is ongoing. Ms Steele will have the data.
Ms Steele : That’s correct. In terms of casuals in the last year, we have at the moment 8,696 casuals. That’s an increase of 51 since December 2020.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many of those would you know are casuals in their own right employed directly by the Australian Public Service and how many are labour hire subcontractors or labour hire firms?
Ms Steele : I do not know that. I do know that those who are employed for a specific term or task are a further 10,816.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many casuals have been employed in the Australian Public Service for more than six months?
Ms Steele : I would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you, and could you also provide a de-identified report—anonymous employees—by department, by labour hire company or direct employment, by cost and duration of service?
Ms Steele : We don’t collect that information about labour hire firms or companies; we only collect the number of casuals by agency.
Senator ROBERTS: This one you’ll probably have to take on notice too, Ms Steele: how many casuals, internal or labour hire, have converted from casual to permanent employment in the Australian Public Service in the past 12 months?
Ms Steele : I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are casuals that the Australian Public Service has engaged through labour hire companies able to convert to the Public Service roles that they’ve been working in for more than six months?
Ms Steele : No.
Senator ROBERTS: If someone has been engaged for more than six months it would seem that they’re needed, so why wouldn’t they be eligible? Because the employer is not the Public Service?
Mr Spaccavento : I think it’s important to draw a distinction between a casual employee and a labour hire employee. A casual employee is an employee of the Australian Public Service and is eligible to convert to permanent employment if they meet the criteria laid out in the Fair Work Act and the Public Service Act. A labour hire employee is an employee of an entirely different company and not of the Public Service. A labour hire employee would not be eligible to convert to permanent employment.
Mr Spaccavento : No, because in one instance the employee is a direct employee of the Australian Public Service, directly engaged by an agency. So it’s a contract of service versus a contract for service.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. We’ve seen the abuse of coal miners, for example, and we’ve seen hints of abuse of casual workers in other sectors as well—lost entitlements, basic safety provisions, significant pay cuts—and it seems to me that it’s just a naked attempt to go around the provisions of the Fair Work Act.
Mr Spaccavento : Casual employees in the Australian Public Service are engaged under the terms and conditions of agency enterprise agreements, so they receive essentially the same terms and conditions as permanent employees. I say ‘essentially’ because there’s some leave entitlements they don’t get and there is a casual loading. Labour hire employees are obviously different because they are employees of a different organisation. There’s a range of reasons why agencies would engage labour hire firms, and that would be a decision for that agency head to make.
Senator ROBERTS: In the course of our investigations in the Hunter Valley, Central Queensland and elsewhere we found, for example, that the Chandler Macleod Group was paid an estimated $2.4 billion over four years for providing labour hire contractors or labour hire employees to the Australian government. That seems pretty substantial to me.
Mr Spaccavento : I can’t comment on decisions that agencies have made.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware if these casuals under labour hire firms are paid the same and have the same terms and conditions as similar roles that they work beside?
Mr Spaccavento : Because it’s outside of our remit, we don’t have visibility of what labour hire employees are paid or the conditions they are on. It would be a matter of the employment arrangements they have made with the labour hire company and those employees. I couldn’t say yes or no to that question because we don’t have responsibility or visibility of it.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is a request for an opinion: do you think that’s reasonable?
Senator Duniam: In terms of the decisions that heads of agencies make around it?
Senator ROBERTS: The employment of people for more than six months by a labour hire firm could be a way of getting around the requirement now to offer casual conversion.
Senator Duniam: As the commissioner outlined earlier, heads of agencies make decisions with regard to how they engage their workforce based on the needs at the time. There are a range of circumstances that they obviously take into consideration. I would have every faith in those heads of agencies that they are doing the right thing to ensure that the people they work for, the taxpayers of Australia, are getting the service that’s required and that their employees are being treated properly as well.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, that’s a nice motherhood statement, but I’ve seen people who work for firms with reputable international and Australian reputations completely abusing workers in this country. That has come as a big shock. To compound that, neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party nor the National Party nor state and federal governments nor the various bureaucrats have been interested in this. They’ve ignored requests to investigate.
Senator Duniam: If there are specific cases of abuse of employees then there are appropriate channels to deal with those things. I would encourage you, or those you ask these questions on behalf of, to take action, because that’s the appropriate thing to do. I don’t think there’s anyone around this table, on that side or this side, that would seek to endorse any abuse of employees or withdrawal or withholding of entitlements.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s remarkable—and I’m not accusing people of doing that in the Public Service—and I’m trying to find out whether or not the government and the Public Service understand there is a potential for that. We’ve seen that widely in other industries from so-called reputable firms. I’ve heard some stories about the Public Service hiring $2.4 billion worth of labour hire people over four years. That’s a staggering figure.
Senator Duniam: I appreciate you’re not making an accusation. Certainly, your point is that there could be potential, or you’re trying to seek an understanding of whether there is. If there is a single case of this abuse then I would expect that it would be raised and referred to the appropriate authorities and dealt with accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: What doesn’t give me confidence—I accept what you’re saying—is that some people in the Hunter Valley, for example, raised this repeatedly over the course of about five years and got nowhere, neither from the state nor the federal government, with blatant breaches of the law. I’m just trying to understand, if the Public Service know that this could be going on, what they’re doing to protect not only workers who work for them permanently, casually, directly, but also those who work indirectly through labour hire firms, because not all labour hire firms are ethical.
Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of the particular issues that you are raising. Obviously, if you have concerns, please take them up with the relevant minister or with his department in relation to the way they manage their affairs.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to find out whether or not you’re aware of the particular—
Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of any of the particular concerns that you’re raising, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Or the potential for that. Are you aware that casual workers who are employed either directly or through labour hire firms have less job security and find it harder, for example, to get home loans, because one of the requirements for a home loan is a secure, permanent job?
Mr Woolcott : Again, it’s not an issue that’s been brought to my attention.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware; okay. These workers who are working for the Public Service for more than six months miss out on the terms and conditions of government employment. Is that reasonable?
Mr Woolcott : You’re asking me for an opinion there.
Senator Duniam: With respect to the decisions made by heads of agency around how they engage their workforce, either in the way you’ve characterised or otherwise, as the commissioner has outlined, it’s a matter for them based on the needs of the community they serve and the work that they do. Personally, I would love to ensure that everyone gets everything they’re entitled to, and I have every expectation that, for those who are engaged, under whatever contractual arrangement occurs, those contracts are in alignment with the law and are done in accordance with what is legally required of the employing agency. My hope is that everyone gets what they deserve and nothing less.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my hope, too. But in the Hunter Valley, for a period of seven years now—five years until we started working on it—there were many people who were abused and exploited, and they were told to go and talk with the state department, WorkCover. They were told to take it up with the federal government, and nothing happened. We were then actively misrepresented when we tried to do something about it. Eventually, we prevailed in some areas and we’re still working on others. So it could happen in the Public Service, and I’m checking to make sure that the Public Service is aware of some of these things; that’s all.
Senator Duniam: You have brought this concern to the commissioner’s attention. Certainly, the minister that I’m representing will be aware of your concerns. Again, if there’s a specific instance or a series of them, we should deal with them in the appropriate forum.
Senator ROBERTS: One final question, Chair: what margin is paid to labour hire firms when you engage a casual through them? I’m now putting on my other hat; instead of protecting constituents, I’m protecting taxpayers, who are also constituents. What’s the margin?
Mr Woolcott : We don’t keep data on that, so I can’t answer that question. It would be a matter for each particular agency head, in terms of the arrangements they have. We don’t collect data on that issue.
Senator AYRES: Ms Steele, I didn’t hear your answer to Senator Roberts’ initial question. I think you gave an answer—tell me if I’m wrong—which was about the number of direct casuals and the number of non-ongoing; and, consistent with the APSC’s previous answers to the committee, you don’t have an answer for the number of labour hire employees engaged by the APSC?
Ms Steele : That is correct.
Senator AYRES: The justification for what I think is an impossible proposition is still the same, Mr Woolcott, is it?
Mr Woolcott : We collect data on Australian public servants, and arrangements under the APS act fall outside our terms of reference. Having said that, Senator, it’s always appropriate to look at ways to improve data collection and our understanding of the public sector workforce. We will continue to do so, and use the COO committee to that end.
Senator AYRES: Does that mean that you’re heading towards being able to collect that data, to be able to identify what proportion of the workforce is privatised, or are you just making a general comment?
Mr Woolcott : I’m just making a general comment at this point, Senator.
Senator AYRES: So it’s still studied ignorance on labour hire. With the survey work that the commission does on a regular basis, there’s been no consideration given to extending that survey work to the experience that labour hire employees have with the Public Service?
Mr Woolcott : Not at this point.
Senato r ROBERTS: There’s no guarantee—you can’t provide a guarantee—that there’s no wage theft going on in the industry, in the public sector?
Mr Woolcott : No, I can’t provide that guarantee.
Senator Duniam: Again, it’s important to say that, if there are examples of that, I’ll walk with you to the appropriate authority; we’ll make sure that they’re made aware, that investigations occur and justice is done.
Mr Woolcott : The workforce ombudsman, Sandra Parker, obviously looks at this aspect very closely in terms of both the private sector and the public sector.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/AkCEICCD1DM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-04-07 15:39:162022-04-07 15:41:05Government spending $2.4 billion on casuals with one Labour hire firm alone
I’ve pursued allegations of fraud, conflicts of interest and risk management about the Coal Long Service Leave Corporation for years. Finally, an independent review has confirmed dozens of governance and fraud risks that have left casual workers without their fair entitlements. It’s a hard-fought win for casual coal miners by One Nation, but there is still much further to go.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Sheldon, you are making a statement. We will now go to Senator Roberts.
Senator Cash: Do you feel better, Senator Sheldon, for getting that off your chest because—
Senator SHELDON: I do feel better.
Senator Cash: I’m glad you do because, as I said, I don’t believe, Senator Sheldon, that you as the head of the TWU would indulge in this behaviour. I don’t believe that you, three years later, after a case has been dismissed by the full bench of the Federal Court, would actually stand up and say, and make admissions, the national executive did not approve any of the 20 donations, the subject of the investigation, which contravened the registered organisations act. As I said, that was as recently as December 2021. You’re referring to a statement made on 7 March this year, I would reflect, backed on the admissions made by the AWU in December 2021—a range of admissions concerning contraventions by the AWU. They submitted they made mistakes; they did not comply. So I think, if anyone’s providing an apology, perhaps the AWU should apologise to its members for those contraventions.
Senator SHELDON: And the minor breaches that they were fully aware of throughout the entire five years—
CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Senator Sheldon.
Senator Cash: Senator Sheldon, as you and I know, you need to comply—
Senator SHELDON: The ROC was fully aware that they were minor breaches all the way through, and yet they continued to pursue it.
Senator Cash: You and I are going to have to agree to disagree in relation to the incorrect information you’re providing by way of your questioning.
Senator SHELDON: That’s not incorrect. It was minor breaches, and they were fully aware for the whole five years, and they dragged this out—
Senator SMALL: Who decides whether it’s major or it’s minor? Is that how you plan to act in government?
CHAIR: Order! Order, Senator Small! We would like now to move on to Senator Roberts, who has a series of questions on a different topic.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. Most of my questions, I think, will be going to the minister, or certainly to the department. Minister, recently KPMG presented their report into Coal LSL. How are you progressing in relation to implementation of this review and report, and when will it be completed? I understand that some are immediate and some are—
Senator Cash: Understood. I know this is a genuine interest for you, so what I will do is ask Ms Williams to take these questions for you.
Ms T Williams : Senator, you asked how we are progressing with implementation of the recommendations. As you might know, the government has accepted all 20 recommendations of the review. In terms of the 10 recommendations specifically directed at government, the government response to the review identified that the government will take legislative action to clarify eligible employees and ensure that no eligible employee is worse off; ensure fairness for casuals to be treated equitably with permanent employees; address legacy coverage issues to ensure fairness and transparency for employees, employers and employers that may register with the scheme; and strengthen decision-making, review and dispute resolution to enhance accountability and compliance.
The government response to the review really highlights that. It recognises that the reforms are complex and they will require further technical legal advice to ensure that the changes really have the desired impact and benefit for employees and employers under the scheme. The intention is for consultation and action to continue in the spirit of the review, which, as you may be aware, included consultation with producers, employer groups and peak bodies, employers, employees, unions and representatives from modern industry stakeholders. We’ll draw on their expertise and stress test ideas going forward. We’ll need to do that closely and methodically with the stakeholders, including the provision of exposure drafts of legislation. The department is just working through that now, and consultations will begin as soon as practicable.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that it’s still being digested. When do you think the plan will be available—or you will have one, even if you’re not sharing it?
Ms T Williams : We’re working through. The review also canvassed that there were a number of existing proposals put to government and suggested that they provided a really good foundation to start to work through some of those ideas. The department is working through that now. In terms of the exact specifics of the consultation, we’ll provide advice to government in due course.
Senator ROBERTS: Reading parts of the report—I haven’t read the whole report—I believe some can be remedied by legislative changes, some can be remedied by the existing proposals and some can be remedied by further consultation. When do you think you will you have the plan together?
Ms T Williams : We’re working on that now. The specifics of that will be a decision for government but, as I said, it will continue in the spirit of the review and be broad-ranging in terms of the consultations. I think the other thing that the review really recognises is the deep industry expertise from employers and employees in this sector and also a real commitment by all the stakeholders that were consulted in the review to get this right. So we’ll provide advice to government on how to take that forward, but the consultations will be very much in that vein.
Mr Hehir : I might just add to that. We’re still some months away. The consultation process will still take a few months to work our way through. Then, following the consultation process, we’ll need to put our advice to government. So we’re still some months away.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will just go to page 126, and I’ll read the main points, the issues in red that are not—
Senator Cash: Just hold on for one moment. Have you got the whole—
Ms T Williams : Yes, I do.
Senator Cash: It will assist if the official is reading it with you.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fairly simple question, even though the question will be long. I’ll read out the issues not addressed—the ones in red. On waiver agreements, it says:
The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.
The report says the same thing about conflicts of interest, which it says are significant; allegations of fraud; culture; communications; risk management; adoption of technology; data security and privacy; and validation of data. So none of them are being addressed. For each of them, the report says:
The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.
When do you think you will have something around those? They’re the core issues. That’s not a complaint about the report; the report is fine. But we need to understand when they will be addressed.
Ms T Williams : I will just clarify for you that this section of the report is actually talking about the existing proposals that were put to government before the government realised, or in the process of the government realising, that we needed to have a holistic response to the issues in the sector. So these proposals were actually put by stakeholders, and then the government commissioned an independent review. So the review itself and the recommendations do cover those issues. I think conflicts of interest are covered by recommendation 11.
Senator ROBERTS: What about changes to the board structure and composition?
Ms T Williams : That’s recommendation 13. So they are all covered by the review. This is really talking about how, before the government commissioned the review, those existing proposals had that gap in them. So we commissioned the review, which has now addressed those areas.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Now I’d like to move onto the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, the FEG. These are simple questions. You may have to take them on notice. My first question is: have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?
Mr Manning : Is this about the One Key workforce case?
Senator ROBERTS : Yes.
Mr Manning : Ms Saunders, who will be coming up from our waiting room downstairs, should be able to answer that for you. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get a room next door today. But we wouldn’t be told whether or not they were union members. We wouldn’t ask that on the application form. So I’m not sure about that, but, when Ms Saunders arrives, she might be able to answer it. You might need to repeat the question, though, because she’s had to come from downstairs.
Ms Saunders : Would you mind repeating the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sure. It’s from a constituent. Have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?
Ms Saunders : Under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, we pay the five basic employment entitlements: redundancy pay, long-service leave, wages, annual leave and payment in lieu of notice. So our consideration of that doesn’t actually take into account the extent to which they are funded by another organisation, except that, if there is a redundancy trust fund or whatever that will step in to pay a portion of the cost, that is not covered under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee program. I guess, in the sense that any entitlements that were payable under their governing instruments would have been paid under FEG, to the extent that they were eligible for it. For example, with One Key Workforce we paid 346 claimants a total of a $6.8 million in FEG assistance. That covered a range of entitlements.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the total figure?
Ms Saunders : It was $6.8 million.
Mr Hehir : Recognising that covered off a number of different employee entitlements.
Ms Saunders : I don’t have the detail of what made up that in terms of the different entitlements that were covered. I can take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. I’d like to understand this issue because it involves some constituents in the Hunter Valley. My next question is: why did the Fair Entitlements Guarantee not pay One Key employees who were non-CFMEU members all entitlements owed under the black coal award, including shift penalties and overtime rates?
Ms Saunders : Okay.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a complex issue, but it should be able to be boiled down once you have the data. I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator Cash: You’re happy for us to take it?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’d like to get to the bottom of it.
Senator Cash: Yes, understood.
Senator ROBERTS: Finally, the issues raised in here show—I won’t say neglect, but times are changing across industry and the cracks that are exposed in Coal LSL itself are significant for employees and some employers. They’re very important, but they’re minor relative to the cracks in the Fair Work Act that have been exposed with changes in industry and in employment practices over time. Minister, is the government open to comprehensive review of industrial relations? The reason I ask is that Dave Noonan and heads of the CFMEU and the ETU have said they welcome a comprehensive, fair approach to reviewing and revising industrial relations. The Business Council of Australia has told me that they’re open to it as well and they support it. Large employers have told me the same. Small business is crying out for it, and medium businesses are as well. The industrial relations club which consists of major union bosses, major employers, major industry groups, consultants and lawyers are feeding off this, but the workers are not protected. Even unionised workers are not protected today, and they’re coming to us. The Fair Work Act is so complex that people are trying to detour around it, and that’s adding even more complexity. We need to restore fairness, entitlements and protections to workers—especially fairness to the small businesses. Are you open to comprehensive review of industrial relations?
Senator Cash: I think the government is always prepared to listen to stakeholders—it’s obviously subject to the ability to get anything through the Australian Senate—to make the system a better one, a more productive one, both for employers and for employees. You do raise a good point, though, in relation to the complexity of the system, and I might just ask the official who was talking about the budget announcements that we have made in relation to small businesses in particular being able to better navigate the system to come back to the table, because this is something that you and I had actually spoken about. We have made a budget announcement, so it’s embedded in the budget. But this is, in particular, to assist small businesses to be able to better understand and better navigate the Fair Work Act as it currently stands. If you would just indulge us for two or three minutes, I will get you this information.
Ms Huender : The government’s providing $5.6 million over four years to the Fair Work Commission to establish a dedicated small business unit within the Fair Work Commission to provide tailored support to small businesses to assist them to navigate the system. We’re aware that small businesses are a big part of the Australian economy, with 3½ million businesses employing over 40 per cent of the workforce. However, they do find the system complex. They don’t have the support of HR managers or legal support, so they also find navigating the system costly. So this unit’s designed to provide strategic leadership and to develop improved information resources and case management support for small businesses when they engage with the system. Small businesses, I understand, make up 50 per cent of the Fair Work Commission’s customers, as it were, but they represent 95 per cent of first-time users.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, that’s necessary, but it just reemphasises my point. It’s a moribund, complicated, inefficient system. And I’m thinking now that, for not only small business but also workers in the Hunter Valley for some of the world’s largest companies, workers in Central Queensland, workers for other large companies, some of the things that are going on with the COVID injection mandates are just despicable. I could tell you stories that would really shock you. We’re not living in a Third-World country, but we’re behaving as if we are, and some workers have no longer got basic protections and basic entitlements.
Senator Cash: I would disagree.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s like we’re living in a Third-World country.
Senator Cash: And I understand, because you genuinely do prosecute this case that every estimates and in relation to, in particular, the size of the Fair Work Act now and its growth over time.
Unidentified speaker: I’m disappointed you didn’t bring it along today!
Senator Cash: As I’ve said, the government is always prepared to work with stakeholders, employers and employees, to take on board the feedback to improve the system. Ultimately, though, changes are to the Fair Work Act itself, and those changes do need to be got through the Australian Senate. I think the perfect example—and you and I had many discussions on this—was the omnibus bill. There were significant parts of that bill that would have given more certainty to certain sectors et cetera, but we just could not get that through the Australian Senate.
With your support, though, we of course rectified the Rossato decision, and that was later, obviously, confirmed in the High Court of Australia. That was an incredibly important decision, as you know, because of the uncertainty that it had given to small businesses that they might end up with what we’d estimated to be I think it was up to a $38 billion or $39 billion liability. We couldn’t even get the support of the Australian Labor Party to actually take that impost off small businesses. You worked with us, and I was very appreciative of that, and we did make that change.
But, in relation to the other parts of the bill, again I’m prepared to work with people. I think a better system, a simpler system and a more productive system—but it has to reflect the needs of both employers and employees—is a good situation to aspire to, but ultimately, as you know, it does come down to the ability to get legislation through the Senate, and we can’t get the Labor Party or the Greens to support that type of productive change.
Senator ROBERTS: We had to work with small businesses to identify issues that they had, and we were pleased that the government resolved some of those issues and put our suggestions into the revised act. But, again, your recounting of the situation, while accurate, reinforces the need for change, because it is just so difficult and such a complex environment, with so many stakeholders hanging on by their fingernails. It’s just out of date and it’s hurting workers.
Senator Cash: As I said, you and I have had many discussions over many years now, and we’ve always worked constructively together in this regard, with a commitment to improving the system for both employees and employers. Ultimately, though, it is difficult to get through the Australian Senate. But what I think it does show is that it’s not therefore about one policy lever. If that policy lever is difficult to actually pull and properly implement because of the nature of the Australian Senate, you do then need to look at other ways that you can deliver for small business.
You and I have long talked about lowering taxes. When you look at, say, the tax rate for small business, under the Australian Labor Party it was 30 per cent; under us it is currently 25 per cent. So, whilst that’s not the industrial relations system as such, it is another way that you can ensure that you’re giving back to small business. I know, throughout COVID-19, even just the ability to change the way you process documents to allow for that—the e-technology certainly assists them. There is the availability of the instant asset write-off and the ability to say to them, ‘If you have that capacity to invest in your business, the government’s going to back you every step of the way.’ If one lever proves difficult, there are other levers that you can then look to utilise to ensure that you are responding in every possible way to that commitment that they are the backbone of the Australian economy, that they deserve to be backed by government, which is what we do. In relation to those changes, the omnibus bill is the perfect example: it was a very reasonable bill that would have provided both employers and employees with a more productive workplace, but we couldn’t get it through the Senate. I was grateful for the support you gave on the Rosato decision.
Senator ROBERTS: You fiddling with the tax system, and I don’t mean that derogatorily.
Senator Cash: I know what you’re saying.
Senator ROBERTS: The tax system makes the Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Act look simple. It doesn’t fix basic safety protections that have gone AWOL in workplace relations. It doesn’t fix the basic employer-employee relationship, which is the primary relationship of any workplace and must be such. We need something that’s comprehensively reformed and brought back to something simple that looks after the primary workplace relationship between employer and employee.
Senator Cash: On safety: I think that, for each one of us, that has to be paramount in the workplace. There are no two ways about that. I know that, when I first came into portfolio and I worked very closely with Mr Hehir on this, we were presented with the outcome of the Boland review. That was something that I looked at. As you know, there are model work health and safety laws, and the Commonwealth works with the states and territories to ensure that we can effect change that is recommended to us. We had the Boland review, we had the recommendations of the Boland review and I worked constructively with our state and territory colleagues regardless of political persuasion. If you’re, the relevant minister I work with you. I was very pleased that, within a few weeks of me formally come portfolio, all relevant ministers across Australia had agreed to accept all the recommendations coming out of the Boland review.
So certainly, when it comes do work health and safety, I have a very good relationship with state and territory ministers, and we will make improvements to the model work health and safety laws together by accepting all of the Boland review’s recommendations.
Senator ROBERTS: Notwithstanding what you just said, I have enjoyed working with Mr Hehir. I have found him easy to deal with and open to deal with.
Senator Cash: Thank you for that feedback.
Senator ROBERTS: But there are people being severely injured, not even reporting and then being threatened if they dare raise safety issues in this country, and that’s not good enough. I’m happy to leave it there, but it is an issue that’s really important, and we will be pushing it.
After an independent report vindicated One Nation and casual coal miner’s accusations of unscrupulous malpractice, the pressure has been on the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme to give workers a fair go and on Government to clean up their agency. Coal LSL initially tried to refuse coming to Senate Estimates and over the course of many more sessions repeatedly denied anything was wrong. We now know that was a lie.
Transcript
Chair.
Okay, thank you. I will go to Senator Roberts.
Thank you chair, and thank you for attending again. And, my first question is going to the to the minister, and I note that the KPMG review of Coal LSL report came out today.
Yes.
I haven’t seen it, but it came out.
Yes, it’s out.
So we’re looking forward to reading that. Thank you very much for arranging that.
Thank you for working so constructively with government on it.
Well, it’s a big concern as you know, for us, the coal miners in Queensland and New South Wales. Now, I note that KPMG was engaged to undertake the review of Coal LSL, in relation to the underpayment and abuse of casual coal miners. KPMG has also conducted the audit of Coal LSL. Doesn’t that create a conflict of interest? And what did you do to manage this conflict? Because the audit could have influenced the review and the review could have influenced the audit.
Look, I don’t regard that as giving rise to a conflict of interest. There was no direct financial interest for KPMG to do anything other than act consistently, with its duties as an independent examiner there.
Senator, I’m aware there was an audit,
and commissioned by the corporations, it’s conducted by PWC.
During procurement processor. When we selected an independent review and a KPMG, we looked at any consultant and at the time with engaged to buy. The corporations may causing a perception of a conflict interest, we have exclude them. So at the time we engaged KPMG and the KPMG wasn’t working with the collective corporations or any other projects, but Miss Pearl Kumar may have given updates on. Are they been engaging KPMG on the consult?
You welcome, thank Senator. Thank you, Senator.
I can confirm that KPMG has not been engaged by Coal LSL to conduct any work. They’ve not been involved in our internal audit programmes. They’re not engaged by the ANAO to do our external audit. So, from, yeah, I think we’re confident to say that any conflict of interest certainly wouldn’t exist with KPMG conducting that work on us.
Now I’m going to leave out my second question because the report may, the review report may address that. So I’ll just go straight to my third. When will Coal LSL fix its broken system that disadvantages coal miners, casual coal miners everywhere? And when would you remove the biassed and conflicted members from the board, so workers get a fair go? I’m talking here specifically about what I see and what we’ve talked about for a long time now. The conflicts of interest with having significant, well 50/50 minerals council in New South Wales and CFMEU from New South Wales involved. When will that be addressed?
Senator Roberts, without wanting to spoil your reading, because you know, spoiler alerts are sometimes needed on these things. One of the recommendations in the report is that there’d be independent directors added to the board and the expectation that that would assist with dealing with the problem you raise.
Okay. Thank you. We’re pleased to hear that. Last question, Chair. The one key resources case where many casual coal miners missed out on their fair pay back pay conditions, seems to have been blatant phoenixing to us. Yet, this rip-off of workers was accepted by your government, the courts, labour and the CFMEU and Hunter Valley. More needs to be done to protect casual coal workers to get equal pay and entitlements and safety. One nation has proposed the equal pay for equal work bill to protect casual coal workers. What are you doing to make sure that this doesn’t happen again people have lost there.
The KPMG report and I’ll paraphrase somewhat here, acknowledges that there has been difficulties and confusion associated with a lack of clarity on what constitutes a black coal worker and also the changing environment and timetables on which people work. It plans out our ways in which that can be dealt with so that we don’t face that problem in future. It also provides some good recommendations for how to resolve those concerns as they have arisen in the past. I’m optimistic that as we implement the government’s response to those recommendations, we will have that in a more satisfactory place for everyone involved.
Because this is affecting tens of thousands of families who are significantly underpaid compared with permanent workers doing the same job. But it’s just one of a suite of issues. This is just, it’s very important to coal miners. And we’ve been relentless in this, and we’re pleased to see what you’re doing, but it’s a one tiny aspect of the bigger picture, which we can.
Look, I share your sincere concern for making sure that this works for everybody. And that’s why I’m really optimistic that what’s come to us through the KPMG report, and all the recommendations to government have been accepted, in, you know one form or another. And I’m really pleased to say that we’ll be working to do what’s necessary to make all of that much more functional for the future.
I look forward to reading the report and thank you chair.
Australians have had their workplaces wrecked by the Government’s COVID mismanagement. Casual Coal miners have also been let down for years. I asked the Attorney General about this and more at Senate Estimates.
Transcript
Thank you, chair. And thank you all for attending today.
Nice to see you again, Mr. Hehir, it’s always a pleasure. I mean that sincerely. Minister, I’ll just read 11 points from my additional comments to the job insecurity inquiry report. These are the things that we see in addition to exploitation of casual coal miners which we’re gonna have a further discussion about tomorrow.
[Michaelia] Yes, you and I, yes we are.
Yes. And which we’ve been trying to make progress for a couple of years now, in addition to the exploitation of casual coal minors, Australians are suffering right now from what I consider to be COVID mismanagement both federal and state, due to capricious lockdowns and mandates. People are uncertain. The second thing is the phasing out of the coal industry and jobs under the part under the policies of all four major parties, the erosion of people’s rights and freedoms, especially workplace rights and freedoms in this context. Increasing energy prices which are decimating manufacturing and hurting agriculture. The killing of manufacturing as a consequence. The lack of much needed tax reform. The lack of much needed economic reform. Increasing debt. Workplace health and safety systems being bypassed. Australia’s productive capacity being destroyed. And this is the one I want to ask questions about, the failure around industrial relations systems and more. There’s a lot that’s hanging over workers heads. And small business in particular.
Okay.
Would you agree? And I think the solution in many cases is to come back to the basics of employer-employee relationship, the fundamental workplace relationship. So with regard to the coal miners in Queensland and especially the Hunter Valley, we’ve seen workplace safety and health jeopardised, bypassed, people threatened with firing, being fired if they raise safety issues, made a submission to the Grosvenor mining inquiry. The issue of Simon Turner, no worker’s compensation, no accident pay for injury, sacked while being injured, injuries and incidents not being reported, pay rates for casuals being 40% less than people on permanent employed by the mine owner, right next to them doing the same job and the same roster. Coal LSL, which I commend you for the report that’s come down today.
Thank you. And I think they’re coming later on to-
Yeah, we’ll be there.
Yeah, no, that’s what I thought. Yeah, you’ll be asking the questions, yes.
Yes. As we have been in every session for the last two years. The loss of coal miners, basic leave and other entitlements and the threats of dismissal. So these remain outstanding and still to be addressed. And we’ll be talking more about that tomorrow.
Yes.
What I see, minister… I’ll let you finish.
[Michaelia] No, I’m just having a look at something you’ve written, just to make sure I’m all over it. Yep.
My question is basically the exploitation of casuals, is I believe a symptom of a highly complex, needlessly complex industrial relations system that is not serving workers, not serving small business, and not serving some employees, and families and workers are getting jammed in the middle.
[Man] Does the report correctly address?
We see large companies, multinationals in particular, using casuals to bypass industrial relations systems instead of sitting down and negotiating with their workers and with the union we just see a bypassing through casuals. So what I’m asking you is, is there any understanding in your department that the exploitation of casuals is a signal or a symptom of the fractures in the industrial relation system?
Okay, there was a lot of commentary there but what I might do is hand over to Mr. Hehir, who obviously has looked at the job security report, and get him to take that question.
Thank you, Senator, for the question. In terms of the the casuals, it’s probably just worthwhile clarifying. So where casuals are employed by the company themselves they are still subject to the same industrial instruments that the company has either negotiated or the Fair Work Commission has made. So in terms of where the company itself is the employer, there is the negotiation and discussion process that you talked around the company having with its employee, where there’s an EA, should have occurred. So certainly there should be clear processes within any enterprise agreement around how the various employees will be treated and what they’re entitled to. I think in part, you are referring to the combination of casuals and labour hire?
[Roberts] Yep, thank you for picking that up.
So that does make for a more complex situation recognising that labour high would regard as less than 2% of the workforce traditionally, but it is an important mechanism that is used by both host employers for short term work when they need it. And as part of when the need arises. So recognising that it’s an important and valuable part of the economy. It’s clear that when it leads to different rates of pay it does cause some level of confusion. In terms of-
And beyond that it causes some kind of angst as well, and is not very helpful for safety.
I accept that. And I know that there’s been a number of comments within the report itself around that broad issue. It’s certainly something that the department will look at very carefully. It has been raised both within the main body of the report, as well as within your comments, in terms of how does that work? The reality is The Fair Work Act and the framework upon which it sits was designed around an employer being the legal entity that actually employs the person rather than necessarily the location where they work. So that’s the nature. And the Fair Work Act is clear that we have minimum rates of pay. But what we actually wanna see is higher rates of pay than the minimum, being negotiated by employers and employees. So that’s, I think one of the very clear principles within the bargaining provisions within the Fair Work Act, that we actually want to do that. The only mechanism that… and the mechanism is focused on the individual businesses. And in this case where you’ve got two businesses working, or the employees of two businesses working in the one location. I agree that can cause angst and confusion but it’s certainly something that we need to have a look at in response to the work. And that’s something that we’ll provide advice to the government on once we’ve had the opportunity to finalise our analysis of the report. But I having said that, the very important focus within the Fair Work Act is that we do want people to bargain. We do want businesses and employees to get together and to think about how they can increase productivity and then share that productivity in the form of increased profits and in increase wages. So, and the clearest mechanism to do that we feel at this point is on an individual business basis.
Thank you. You gave us a comprehensive understanding of, and I know you’ve got that, of the casual work situation and the abuse of that. And I’m certainly validating that some casuals want casual work, and I’m not just talking about the coal industry here, but even in the coal industry some casuals do want casual work. They prefer to have that option but there has been some abuse of that. And I believe that the complexities of the industrial relations system in this country right now make it as such that some employers, rather than facing up to negotiation they will bypass that and establish a labour hire relationship. Some labour hire companies are good employers, some are not and some rely upon basically cutting wages so that they can make a profit by getting the margin and still leaving the business owner with superior profits. So that’s definitely a strategy that we can see. So my question that I don’t feel was answered was that do you consider that the complexities… And the Act is what, this high? 600 odd pages? the complexities of that Act lead to workers, small businesses in particular, and even some big businesses, not having clear understanding of the employer-employee relationship. And so we dive into all kinds of other arrangements.
Senator, the Fair Work Act is a substantial piece of legislation. It does have a number of parts. But we’ve certainly heard commentary in the past that it’s complex and difficult, and we acknowledge that commentary. At the same time, and we do understand the importance of this as well. There are important workers protection, in terms of the bargaining process and other things in terms of making sure that the bargaining is done fairly. And certainly there is some concern that those procedures inhibit the bargaining but they’re also really important in terms of the principle of making sure that the bargain is fair. So getting that balance right is something that we continue to think about. We as a department, we honestly really engage in the discussion around productivity growth. We think it’s a significant issue for Australia and large parts of the Western world that productivity growth is low. And we would certainly encourage parties to bargain. But the reality is that the Act is based on both providing the opportunity to bargain but also making sure that those bargains are fair. And I think that’s sometimes where we see the complaints about complexity always happy to have a look and say, how can we attain that fairness in a more simplified fashion? And that’s where we-
And Senator Roberts, I mean, you often come with the Fair Work Act and the various iterations of it in terms of just to demonstrate how big it is and how much both employers and employees have to navigate. Because it’s both parties understanding their rights and obligations. And certainly without a doubt, it is a complex Act. And it was one of the reasons, you and I discussed this. It was last year now, I think, the stimulation to the reforms to casual employment providing a definition, to provide clarity, as to what a casual is. Offering the ability to convert to permanent work, clarifying the Rossato decision, the devastating 39 billion impact on the double dipping and what that would’ve done to business. So I do agree with you and we certainly have been able to make some headway in relation to parts of it, but obviously the other parts of the omnibus bill didn’t get the support, but they are, I think, some concrete examples of where you can actually put in place. So for example, an actual definition, give the ability to convert, clean up a court decision and actually give certainty to employers. But I certainly acknowledge that this is something that you raise time and time again.
Yeah, and the fundamental-
Can I just check how long we have to go? I usually like to rotate the call every 15 minutes,
Another 10 minutes.
That’s absolutely fine.
What I’m getting at, minister, is that the fundamental problem is that despite the intentions of everyone involved the Fair Work Act, the previous work choices attempt the marren complexity, lack of understanding the fundamentals. And what’s happening with the Fair Work Act is that the workers and some small businesses and even some large employers are sidelined in favour of the industrial relations club. Lawyers, consultants, HR practitioners, large union bosses, large industry groups and the worker is sidelined. And so do you see any need then for restoring the primacy of the workplace relationship, the employer-employee relationship, and I know that the fair work Act, Mr. Hehir, does have protections in it, but when it’s so complex, the protections get lost. And so making it clear on workers’ rights, entitlements, protections, safety, which I know assist productivity. So instead of these things being bypassed they’re actually entrenched and allowing for flexibility because more and more workers today see alternative structures of work and work times in particular whether it be uni students or small businesses or casual coal miners, they want that.
And I think you make an important point in terms of the ability for, in particular employees, to choose the type of work that they want to want to undertake. And that is why you’ll never find the coalition government in any way, demonising casual employment as so often happens. And in particular, in this committee it is a valid form of work that so many choose. And when we can take you through the statistics in relation to casual employment. But also that landmark reform that we did pass in terms of that ability to actually convert should you wish subject to certain conditions. Again, it’s about giving both the employer and the worker, the employee, the choice to do that. Just in terms though of people actually understanding their rights, very important obligations, very important under the Fair Work Act. I think a lot of the work that The Fair Work Ombudsman does and in particular, that investment in its educative role is so important, working with small businesses, because there’s often the small businesses that don’t have that capacity to understand the Fair Work Act. And they’ll be on later on today, if you want to come back and ask them questions in terms of what is the educative role of The Fair Work Ombudsman.
We asked that at the last estimates.
We can get an update then of these estimates. But that’s a really good point because it’s not just about the Fair Work Act itself, as you’ve acknowledged, there are other ways and means, and one of them is ensuring that The Fair Work Ombudsman is able to get out there, talk to employees, talk to employers, and actually educate them on what their rights and responsibilities are.
I know that I’ve had a very positive response and fact agreement that David Newman from the CFMEU, Michael Raba from the CFMEU and from Queensland, from the Business Council, Australia, from Small Business Associations, that they’d be willing to sit down in a process to explore a much simpler and better and more effective industrial relations frame work. So I know an election is coming so I’m not expecting you to make any commitment and this is a touchy area but is there any appetite for that if it’s done properly?
Oh, well, I think when you look at the work that the coalition government has done you look at the omnibus bill that we brought forward. I mean, that was certainly done in a period of over 12 months, I believe. In terms of the consultations amongst different stakeholders. Unfortunately, when we brought it to the floor of the parliament, it wasn’t supported by the Australian Labor Party. But I think our appetite for making things simpler and in particular, as I said, the coalition reforms through casual employment and in particular cleaning up the issue of double dipping and the potential devastating impact of the $39 billion impost on business, I think does show a genuine commitment to working with all stakeholders to improve the system.
And with due respect, I just wanna finish with this point. I think that that casuals conversion was needed and essential. The shame was bogged down in so much misrepresentations by a lot of people, but quite frankly, I think that was tinkering and not reform. It was reform of casuals, but not reform of industrial relations.
[Michaelia] Understood.
Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, chair.
[Michaelia] A lot of .
I’d like to say one thing. As the minister indicated the casual amendments, the bill, that does introduce the national employment standards casual conversion and national employment standards. And does simplify assistance prior to that introduction into the NAS, you got a different conversions in the awards in the enterprise agreement, in the particularly black coal mining industries, there are confusion about whether the peoples are eligible for conversion or not. There are peoples who may not have a conversion, there was a gap. So by introducing it into the Fair Work Act as a national employment standards that provides a universal right to all the employees and in certain ways also simplified the systems.
And I accept that and appreciate what you said, Ms. Yang. The fact that the black coal mine award prevented, excluded casuals yet there was still casuals under various types of enterprise agreements, which were not, I don’t believe they complied with the law, indicates that the industrial relation system is a mess. But that’s why we supported the introduction of casual conversion because it does clarify things for people. But there’s a long, long way to go to fix this mess.
Yes, and the casual conversion does now apply to the people’s covered by the Black Coal Mining Award.
I spoke on my ongoing investigation into the case of mine worker Simon Turner. A huge abuse has happened here and government agencies have done nothing.
Transcript
As a servant of the people of Queensland and Australia, I have a duty to raise and fix issues that are both hurting and concerning everyday Australians. As a Senator I work for the people.
Today, I raise a matter of great concern for everyday Australians – particularly our hardworking coal miners.
Australian workers are feeling afraid for their jobs, for their livelihoods, for their future. Workers need fairness, integrity, trust and accountability. I’m concerned for the many workers and businesses small and large that have suffered from state and federal govt COVID restrictions. Business leaders and workers are all looking for direction from this government, yet at the same time a government authority is doing the wrong thing and abusing workers.
What I’ve witnessed since coal miner, Stuart Bonds and I took up the cause of the exploited, abused and discarded Hunter Valley casual coal miners, is a mass of evidence pointing to potential systemic failures and possibly corruption inside a government agency. An agency that Hunter Valley CFMEU bosses and Minerals Council of NSW executives jointly govern and direct. We Australians cannot afford our own government to continue shonky behaviour at a time when we should be spending our money wisely.
Thanks to Stuart Bonds’ voluntary help for abandoned workers like Simon Turner and others the Coal LSL scam was uncovered. Simon Turner and many workers wrote for help from their local MPs including Joel Fitzgibbon six times and to this day Joel Fitzgibbons has ignored their letters. Six times.
Joel Fitzgibbon has been the member for Hunter since 1996 so it’s surprising that he does not know that coal miners are the key to this area’s future.
The agency involved is the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation – better known as ‘Coal LSL’. An Australian Government corporation established to regulate and manage long service leave entitlements on behalf of eligible employees in the black coal mining industry.
What I hear is that governance isn’t just lacking, it’s absent. I’m yet to hear why causals get a different LSL rate to permanents on the same rosters, same work.
As an example, Coal LSL’s system seems incapable of checking whether an employee actually receives their correct long service leave entitlement. Coal LSL just accepts an employer letter and pays the employer. No validation or checking of payments to entitlements to actual payment to employees.
A recent analysis of information that Coal LSL themselves provided reveals evidence of duplication, even triplication, of transactions paid to employers. The reporting recently provided to me is unclear[1]. Levy reimbursements during 2018 include a category for details “Not readily available”. For example, the $264,000 of refunds, not reimbursements, paid out from July 2017 to November 2018. What are these refunds, where’s the transparency? Coal LSL makes lump sum payments that, again, make reconciliation complex. For example, one of BHP’s OS entities in the Hunter Valley received $187,881.77 in a single transaction in May 2020. For who?
It seems that Coal LSL may not be able to confirm employees are even real people as they do not collect ABN or tax file numbers. They simply get a name and a date of birth. They’re operating in the dark ages and need a modern system to prevent fraud?
In some cases we have heard of companies in Singleton being reimbursed for long service leave even though they do not work in coal mining. In one case, Coal LSL paid reimbursements totalling approx. $57,000 to the wife of the owner of a Queensland company with no state office. Why?
We have learned of an employee not receiving on-boarding information about the Coal LSL scheme, particularly in regard to the employee option to opt out of the scheme and save money. In one case recently a coal miner reported that Coal LSL debited his entitlement for 250 hours of long service, when he actually had not taken leave from his employer. Where’s the governance?
Concerns have been expressed to me that Coal LSL’s current processes might enable a bogus company to register and then to possibly launder money through Coal LSL and then reclaim the funds ‘cleaned’ and available to be transferred to criminals. Where are the checks in the system? The CEO whose annual remuneration is a staggering $430,187 and her Governance Officer have clearly been asleep at the wheel.
I have personally challenged Coal LSL many times in Senate Estimates and even they do not understand how entitlements are accrued, invested, reconciled and paid to individual coal miners. The CEO could not provide a satisfactory response to a simple question in regard to how Coal LSL accounts for monies paid in and monies paid to employees.
The question is that if bogus companies have been paid in the last seven years, then how could this not be picked up? I’m informed that Coal LSL takes registered companies at their word. That has already led to Coal LSL admitting serious errors in miners’ accounts and entitlements.
As Coal LSL has revealed in senate estimates, it has not listened to the complaints of many coal miners who’ve found discrepancies in their entitlements. Once raised, Coal LSL is slow or unresponsive.
I encourage all coal miners to check that Coal LSL has correctly stated their entitlements so they’re not ripped off. Simon Turner, an exploited Hunter Valley coal miner is a case in point where, after years of requests and complaints, Coal LSL took the word of his rogue employer, Chandler Macleod. Over solid evidence and over Simon’s legitimate requests for a fair go.
Coal LSL is lax at informing employees of their options with many casual miners not told that they’re entitled to choose to not contribute to the scheme and to instead take their employers’ contributions as cash in hand. Let’s face it, at the moment Coal LSL receives the employer contributions for many casual coal miners who it never has to pay out if employees do not stay for the eight year qualifying period. Where does this mountain of cash go and how is it accounted for? What I do know is that many casuals would be better avoiding Coal LSL.
There are many, many examples of Coal LSL failing in its obligations and failing to have appropriate checks and balances to verify that employees are getting their entitlements.
For all we know there may be systemic corruption on this governments’ watch. Have unaccountable union bosses and Minerals Council of NSW executives on this Morrison government authority lined their pockets using bogus companies at the expense of coal miners throughout Australia? We just do not know? Clearly, it’s time for change.
We’re talking about an authority that thousands of workers rely on to protect long service leave entitlements. An authority with a culture biased towards pleasing the employer not on protecting and being accountable for employee’s entitlements. This is not the Coal LSL clerical staff’s fault. It’s the Board and management who must stand up and be held to account. Governance does not exist and the culture of Coal LSL is not solutions or customer focussed. Clearly, it’s time for change.
For too long, Coal LSL has operated as a rogue government authority. Until I brought them before Senate Estimates they were never called upon to explain their actions. It was the suffering of exploited and abandoned workers like Simon Turner that put a spotlight on Coal LSL and its culture that ignores abandoned workers. Clearly, it’s time for change. And it must be now.
Today, Stuart Bonds and I are strongly advocating for change in Coal LSL and a reconciliation of all accounts and entitlements to ensure that workers and employers are not being ripped off.
Stuart Bonds and I pledge to work for justice for workers hurting from the actions of unthinking, uncaring, unaccountable government authorities like Coal LSL. Authorities under the joint control of shadowy union bosses and a Minerals Council acting for uncaring mining conglomerates. The same mining companies and union bosses that enabled the exploitation of casual coal miners in the Hunter Valley.
Clearly, it’s time for a change. Coal LSL needs to be taken out of the hands of self-interested parties. Coal LSL management needs a broom put through it. A change to build an open, honest transparent, accountable culture to protect the entitlements of everyday Australian workers.
I implore all workers and everyday Australians – rural and city – to vote with your feet. Please go and tell your local union branch, member of parliament and senator that you expect that workers’ rights and entitlements to be protected. Tell Joel Fitzgibbon that the time for talk is over and it’s time for action. Tell Joel Fitzgibbon, the NSW Minerals Council and the CFMEU Hunter Valley union bosses that Coal LSL like all government bodies must demonstrate the highest standards of integrity, to protect workers’ interests, to behave with common sense and transparency. Workers deserve integrity and support.
The increasing use of casuals and contractors in Bowen Basin mining industry workplace agreements is undermining safety.
Senator Roberts wrote a detailed submission for the Grosvenor Mine Board of Inquiry highlighting the issues of workplace intimidation, job security and the lack of representation for casual coal miners.
Senator Roberts said, “We know that the coal mining industry needs casuals, yet casual workers must retain a voice without fear of retribution when it comes to workplace safety.
“As a former underground coalface miner and manager, I know that nothing trumps safety, and to be informed that Bowen Basin casual coal miners risk losing their jobs if they raise safety concerns is deeply disturbing in today’s industrial relations landscape.”
Casualisation is increasing in the Bowen Basin with some mines operating at up to 90 per cent casuals or contractors.
Many mines have both production and safety targets that can push production ahead of safety and may reward non-reporting of incidents.
Yet previous professional experience in Australia and overseas has demonstrated to Senator Roberts that a genuine focus on safety reduces costs and increases productivity, employee retention and satisfaction.
“Safety is not the enemy of production, rather safety enables profit. Executives and miners who do not understand this merely talk about zero-harm, yet down the pit when push comes to shove, safety can be devalued and sidelined.
“Without security, casuals can be threatened and intimidated into silence and fear of being sacked for raising safety issues. The voice of the casual miner is being quashed and lives are at risk,” added Senator Roberts.
Currently the Queensland Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Committee has a majority of members representing mine owners / operators and unions that focus on the interests of the fulltime miner as a priority, not the casual miner.
In his submission to the Grosvenor Inquiry, Senator Roberts called for committee representation of casual miners to ensure they retain the ability to speak up freely.
Senator Roberts is deeply committed to fair and just employment arrangements for our coal miners. His 2019 Senate Estimates investigation into Coal Long Service Leave exposed errors in miners’ accruals.
“After putting lots of pressure on Coal LSL it finally admitted to inadequate governance resulting in labour-hire firms lodging incorrect hours on behalf of casual miners.
“Miners were being short-changed and I encourage all coal miners to audit their hours being reported to Coal LSL for the purposes of accumulating long service leave,” he said.
Senator Roberts’ close examination of coal mining work practices in the Hunter Valley has exposed severe safety hazards, unlawful non-reporting of injuries, non-payment of workers’ compensation and accident pay, underpayment of wages, loss of award entitlements including leave, workplace intimidation and inaccurate accruals of long service leave.
Senator Roberts said, “Listening to Central Queensland miners has shown practices are not as bad as we found in the Hunter, however the increased use of so-called casuals and contractors on long-term fixed rosters has confirmed some of these issues exist in our state and this must end.”
Senator Roberts is currently touring Queensland and will visit Emerald at the end of the week.
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
