Posts

Why are casual coal miners getting ripped off? Coal LSL at Senate Estimates

, ,

Despite possibly tipping more into their entitlements from working more hours, casual miners pull out less on the other end from the entitlements pool at Coal LSL. I also queried $33 million dollars that has been paid out at Coal LSL with no description of why.

If that wasn’t enough, we also believe there are money laundering risks due to insufficient record keeping and the amount of money being held by Coal LSL. The entire model and governance needs a root and branch review as it is totally inadequate.

Transcript

[Chair]

Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Chair. And thank you for coming again. First of all, The Coal LSL Scheme. The Coal Long Service Leave Scheme was established specifically for the Coal Mining Sector. Is that correct?

[Witness]

That’s correct. Back in 1949, The portable long service leave scheme was established.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. The objective of this scheme is to provide long service leave for employees in the Coal Mining Sector. Is that correct?

[Witness]

For eligible employees who are defined under the Admin Act? Yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The scheme provides the ability for employees to request to be paid extra amounts directly rather than contributing into the scheme. If they do this, it immediately becomes their money rather than going into the pool funded Coal LSL. Is that correct?

[Witness]

You’re referring to the clause on Waiver Agreements,

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes

[Witness]

Senator, I believe and that is underpinned by a separate regulation, but yes Waiver Agreements are enabled under the legislation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Coal LSL has a guidance note explaining how it calculates the “levies” on the eligible wages for coal employees. It provides two formulas; one for casual employees and one for permanent employees. Casual employees are required to pay the levy on all hours worked. Whereas permanent employees contribute based on a maximum of 35 hours per week. Is that correct?

[Witness]

It’s the employers who are paying Senator, but 3B under the Payroll Levy Collection Act does outline how the different calculations are to be performed by the employer. And they are linked to the employees classification, employment classification but the employer is paying that payroll levy.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, a casual employee though, accept that so casual employee working the same weekly shifts as a permanent employee pays in more because they contribute on all hours worked whereas a permanent pays not more than for 35 hours. Is that correct?

[Witness]

No, the employer is paying the levy and it is a different calculation. So it is linked to different assessment of hours. That’s correct, but the formula is different between the two classifications.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When it comes to a crowing and taking long service leave casuals and permanents are treated differently again. Permanents automatically get long service leave accrued for the maximum of 35 hours , regardless of the hours worked in that week. But the casual only gets it for the actual hours worked in a week. If the roster patterns of a casual don’t fall neatly in a week, there is the potential for them to work the same shift pattern as a permanent employee yet accrue less entitlement than a permanent on the same shift. Is that correct?

[Witness]

Correct. In the sense we’re relying on the hours reported for the employees working week to inform the accrual calculation for the casual employee. That’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So casual employees working in the coal mining sector can work the same weekly shifts as a permanent employee, but pay more in levies to Coal LSL through their employer and get a lower accrual of long service leave than a permanent employee. This is despite working the same shifts. They pay in more, their employer pays in more on their behalf but they get less out of it. Is that a fair outcome?

[Witness]

I don’t agree that the employers paying more in that scenario Senator, because they are very different formulas that are linked to the wages that are paid for each in different employee. So I don’t agree that is as simple as the way it’s been described. And I’d also say for the casual who is working the 35 hour week, they will accrue the same entitlement as the full-time equivalent. So if they are working the 35 hour week and the employer reports those hours they’ll accrue that full-time equivalent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

A lot of them are not working that 35 hour week, if they’re on production, they’re on a roster.

[Witness]

We’re relying on the hours and yeah

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, we’ve seen what happens with that relying on employers hours. This is in the past, this is all based on a Coal LSL guidance note, which interprets the act. Given the potential for such an inequitable outcome, is it possible that your interpretation is wrong?

[Witness]

No, I’m confident our interpretations right. It’s been through legal channels over the years and that guidance note is verified. It has not been tested in a court as such but it has been formulated based on legal interpretation.

[Malcolm Roberts]

When the coal, this is the last question on this thread. I’ve got some more on others. When the coal long service leave system was established for coal mine workers. Do you think that it was intended to make one employee through their employer pay so much more and get less?

[Witness]

I don’t agree, that it’s as simple as that Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sorry.

[Witness]

Okay. The intent of the scheme coming back to the intent of a long service leave scheme is for the employee to access a benefit when they meet certain milestones. So i think the intent of the scheme is structured correctly and that all workers should be able to access an equivalent entitlement when they meet the AES qualifying service milestone.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. So moving on to another topic, do you ensure that casuals are made aware that they do not have to pay contributions paid to coal LSL and that they may be able to X to be paid the approximate 2% cash in hand, so they can elect to take the cash instead of having it accumulated.

[Witness]

Colleague will talk to the detail their regs of a Waiver Agreement.

So Peter Kembrey, General Manager legal calls Hill. Senator there is information on our website in regard to the Waiver Agreements. I think it is important to point out that Waiver Agreements are only available for a small category of employees. So they’ve targeted. The intent of that is for people coming to either on high incomes or coming to the end of over 55 that already have the 8 years qualifying service or have no qualifying service to be able to redirect those contributions as you say, to other forms of savings whether that be superannuation, which is the commonly what we see is, is the conversation that we have with people that are interested in that. So most people in this game, can’t quote don’t count

[Malcolm Roberts]

But those who are eligible for the Waiver, are they notified?

[Witness]

Well, they are not notified individually but there is information in respect of

[Malcolm Roberts]

So they’re not notified. They could have to go to a website, which they might not know about.

[Witness]

Senator. We don’t know the ages of people necessarily who are in the fund.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, but no employers do it either. Is that right?

[Witness]

I can’t speak for what employers do, but

[Malcolm Roberts]

Do you tell the employers that they need to do it?

[Witness]

Well, we don’t instruct the employers to do it but we certainly make it clear to employees that information in regard to aspects of the fund are contained on the website. There is information in regard to Waiver Agreements, better than say the waiver Agreements. There’s no many people in the fund or a significant minority of people in the fund can actually apply for these.

[Malcolm Roberts]

From the research we’ve done into Coal LSL it would seem that when an employer registers an employee with Coal LSL, that Coal LSL just asks for a name and a date of birth. Does this mean that because you did not take a Tax file number that you are not able to verify that people named are indeed real people that they exist. What do you do to verify they are real people and provide me with a summary of the last three occasions when this was done.

[Witness]

Sorry. The last three occasions we verified people

[Malcolm Roberts]

When you verified someone was done.What was real?

[Witness]

My understanding of the process is when a new entrant comes. Firstly, I say, we are not authorised to collect tax file numbers. That would mean amendments in legislations. So it’s not it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Is anyone raised that with the government?

[Witness]

It’s been raised, but like, it’s there’s very few entities that can do that. But, so we don’t collect tax file numbers at this point in time.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But you collect names and dates?

[Witness]

We collect names and dates of birth.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And you collect money

[Witness]

And we collect money, Yes. We collect money and we keep records of entitlements but we write to those new entrants into the scheme at the time that they appear on it. So we get their addresses, we contact them and we follow them up in regard to this is what we’ve been told, are these details correct? Particularly in cases where there might be employers registering them in registering them in regard to historical service. So we asked, we say this is what the records we’ve been given. Can you verify these are correct.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So let me continue then. Also from the research we have done, I was concerned to see reference to approximately $33 million in levy reimbursements made to entities with a statement beside it saying, “not readily available”. This is a lot of money to have no detail attached to it. Can you explain what’s happening. And I can give you a reference in the report, given last Senate estimates. The report was EEC-BE20-82, pages 121-144. As you provided to me.

[Witness]

Senator, the further detail that we provided in that written response to the question on notice was to explain why that reference was associated to a number of the transactions. So in the Excel spreadsheet that were provided to you which was data from July 17 to June, 2020 had 5,594 lines. And there was a 100 or 407 odd lines, which had that category. The reason being we insourced our operations in 2017. So when we took over the administration from the previous administrator that resulted in us implementing a new financial system. So all the records live in the administration system going back to day one. So all the historical records reside there which is the employees entitlements, the money in and the money out. We, and in our response to we said it would be an unreasonable division of resources to be able to extract that data because we were only migrating it to our new finance system from 2017 where we’re able to readily access the data through reporting frameworks that had been established. So the period of three months where we had that description that we explained in our response to the QON that was that migration stage. And all of the detail, I’ll say migration hadn’t been established but I do assure you, it will always residing in the administration system but it would be unreasonable allocation of time and money to be able to put a reporting framework around that, to extract that data, as you requested.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you don’t know about it then. You don’t know

[Witness]

No, we do know about it

[Malcolm Roberts]

But you know about it but you don’t know the identities.

[Witness]

No, we do. It lives in the administration system and should we receive inquiries at a transactional level, We will investigate or access that transaction to pay but to pull thousands, hundreds of thousands of lines of records out of that system, establish the reporting framework to extract that in the timeframe that was needed. It was an unreasonable allocation of resources to extract that. And we’ve provided you with the information that was readily available.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. I note from records provided that registered and unregistered employers, make long service leave contributions. And then in some instances they claim the funds back. Yet I’ve seen no evidence whether these bulk refunds made by Coal LSL are linked to a list of employees or that if employees are referred to that, they are real people. To me, this leaves open the question as to whether the coal LSL could leave themselves open to claims of potential money laundering. Do you ensure that the money laundering does not happen? And if so, how, how do you do it?

[Witness]

It would be highly unlikely for money laundering to be existing in the fund. For an employer to come into this scheme, through a registration project process, we verify their details through ASIC, ABN and verify their bank banking details. So their, the source information that we rely on to ascertain that the employer or the entity is a found entity. The employer would then need to have an employee in their records for years of years of service and paying a levy for that period in order to see that that employee meets the qualifying service provisions and then ultimately access any reimbursement from the fund should that employee access their long service leave. So it is, there are many hurdles that an employer would need to jump through over a very extended timeline in order to launder money through our fund. So first up, Senator Roberts look at the time, we’ve got a minute left. So the one very quick question or we have to ask you to put the rest on notice, please.

[Malcolm Roberts]

How many board members or members of the bodies they represent have been on either registered or unregistered companies that made contributions and or received reimbursements from Coal LSL? Could you please provide a list of them and the entity names and the dollar value of all the transactions.

[Witness]

The current directors?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes.

[Witness]

Senator,

/by

Why didn’t Fair Work raise the alarm on casuals? Fair Work Ombudsman at Senate Estimates

, ,

In Senate Estimates today, I continued to pursue the case to support casual coal production workers. I showed the FWO that the hunter valley CFMEU bosses sold out casual mine workers and left them significantly underpaid and unsupported. This union ignored casuals and trapped them in the “permanent casual trap”

The FWO made us all aware that the Fair Work Commission has known about the problem with the lack of a definition for casuals that left them fall through cracks in the IR and WH&S systems. Yet they have done nothing. We stood up for small business and successfully put up and amendment to enable a simpler system for casual conversion for small business.

Transcript

[Chair]

Senator O’Neill could you at least let Senator Roberts.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you all for being here today. First question, in correspondence between myself and the Fair Work Ombudsman, I was disappointed to hear your office repeatedly told casual coal miners that you could not or would not help them, even though their abuses were many. This was because you said that casual black coal miners did not exist, and there’s no provision for them in the award. At this point, the Ombudsman became a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. Why did you not report this gap to the minister or an authority that could fix it? And what can you do to ensure that these sort of abuses by your office and other instrumentalities like Coal LSL do not happen again?

[Ms Parker]

So, senator, we are able to provide basic information around black coal long service leave provision. Is that what we’re taking about?

[Malcolm Roberts]

No we’re talking about the-

[Ms Parker]

Now, my apologies. We’re talking about-

[Malcolm Roberts]

This was about why you would not be able to help them, help black coal mine casual,

[Senator Sandra] Yeah. working casuals in the black coal industry.

[Ms Parker]

Okay. So, has anyone got the… All right then we’ll have a look at… So, in terms of casualization there’s a couple of things happening with this, we’ve been monitoring workpac and rosatto I guess what I would say is we have to… our job is to enforce and apply the law as it stands. And I believe Senator that we have done a lot of work in regards to your requests for assistance, your complaints about the enterprise agreement, the award, the conflict as you say, between the two. And I understand what you have been advised is that you know, once an enterprise agreement is in place it doesn’t have to align directly with the award. So, there’s a contradiction between those two things?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah. I guess the heart of my question really goes to, who did you inform? Which ministers did you inform? Which agencies responsible did you inform? Because this was a problem where there’s no classification of casual in the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. Yet the union did a deal with the employer, that vastly decreased pay rates, substantially decreased pay rates, and enabled casuals with no provision for conversion. So, the union basically locked them into casualization forever.

[Ms Parker]

So, Senator the-

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, they were significant problems and I wanna know, what mechanism you either didn’t follow or you need in the future to be given power so, that you can raise these issues with the relevant authorities.

[Ms Parker]

So, senator the relevant authority is the Fair Work Commission, which ratified the enterprise agreement.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s true, it did ratify it.

[Ms Parker]

Well, we he had nothing to do with that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But Mr. Turner and others raised the issue with you that they were locked in by their union which gave them a substandard deal, and the Fair Work Commission approved it. Mr. Turner originally was employed as a casual under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award even though there’s no classification for it. Then he went to what looks to be a dodgy enterprise agreement that the union signed off and the Fair Work Commission signed off.

[Ms Parker]

Quite possibly. So, we regulate agreements and awards that the Fair Work Commission approves, we have no responsibility to alter them or amend them, that’s not our role, not our tribunal.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But if an employee comes to you and says, I’ve got this problem, can you at the moment go to another group, say, look we can’t fix this because it’s sort of locked in by the union and the Fair Work Commission, but this is a problem that needs to be fixed. The casual problem it could have been fixed years ago, should have been fixed.

[Ms Parker]

So, the Fair Work Commission is aware of this issue, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So that’s what you do? You make-

[Ms Parker]

Well, we have no other option because we are there to regulate an agreement that is published, agreed by the Fair Work Commission, or the award.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, thank you for clarifying. So, if someone was not aware in the Fair Work Commission, you would make them aware? But in this case they were aware.

[Ms Parker]

We do share information with the Fair Work Commission. They are aware of this issue because certainly it’s been running for quite some time.

[Malcolm Roberts]

You’re right it has.

Okay, let’s move on. You may soon be required to prepare, to distribute and to build awareness in regard to the Casual Employment Information Statement, associated with the recent bill that passed, including employment conditions and to educate both business and employees on their rights and obligations. Please detail what you will be doing to ensure integrity and awareness in regard to this information sheet. And also what systems and support will be in place to ensure prompt, clear and informative support for both business and employees?

[Ms Parker]

Certainly. Chief Counsel Financier you can look in it.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Senator, Jeremy O’Sullivan, Chief Counsel Fair Work Ombudsman. You’re quite right. When the bill that’s just passed the parliament, receives Royal Assent, I think there’ll be a new Section 125 capital A that will require the Fair Work Ombudsman to draught and prepare and Gazette a Casual Employee Information Statement. That work is well underway. There’s some consultation requirements because that statement is required to just canvas some of the work of the Fair Work Commission. So, under I think it’s Section 682 sub 2 we’re required to just consult on with the Fair Work Commission on that, that’s occurring now. And so I’m very confident that we will be able to publish that statement as required by the legislation when it comes into force, shortly after it comes into force. We’re also consulting with the department, obviously is it’s novel legislation, and we will be there for appropriate to make sure that the department with the administrative responsibility for the act is comfortable with if you like, giving effect to this new provision.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So, that’ll give you the instructions in a way?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

No, that… Sorry, I’m sorry for interrupting I shouldn’t have done that,

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, that’s fine.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

But no it’s up to us to form our view on the crick content but obviously we consult with the department. And we are obliged to consult with the Fair Work Commission under the Fair Work Act as it is now.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And then you check with them to make sure the interpretation is correct?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Yeah. Yeah. I mean-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. That’s good.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Well, in as much as… So, I don’t wanna act like… sound like we’re acting on dictation, we have to form our own view and we’re responsible, and as Ms. Parker is often reminds me, unfortunately, the buck stops with her, so, we just make sure… I just make sure that we give our advice so that we’re comfortable. Now, there is a mechanism under the legislation for us to update or change the Information Statement as required. And of course now, if any matters came to light that we thought it could be improved, and just like we do with our Fair Work Information Statement, we improve. In particularly for readability, ’cause this is not to be a document that could only be-

[Malcolm Roberts]

Just a living document.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Yeah. That’s okay a good point.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Will you be doing a separate sheet to ensure that small business employers and employees are aware of the requirement that casual employees working in small businesses have a right to apply for conversion?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Indeed. We’re also preparing if you like, complimentary web content to make sure that basically you know, we’re providing a one-stop shop for everything you need to know about this new statement. We’re afraid to ask if I can be of burden, but you know that’s exactly… we’re making sure and striving to make sure that it’s readily accessible and it’s ready to go out as soon as, you know, the legislation receives Royal Assent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

After what I’ve learned in the Hunter in the last two years, what more can the Fair Work Ombudsman do to support casual coal employee… casual employees, especially in regard to both understanding the impact of the recent change and on their right to casual conversion? How much is being invested to ensure that there is a helpline and or accessible information available in regard to casual rights?

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

It’s an excellent question. I was gonna say that this new legislation provides both an opportunity and a challenge for us to deliver on that. So, the proof will be in the pudding.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And there will be arguments. You anticipate there will be arguments with people in larger businesses denied conversion and then the employee wanting to come back later and saying that the denial was not for sound reasons?

And that will be the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission,

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

Right.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah. But you’ll be in touch with them?

[Ms Parker]

I might just clarify to that a little bit. So, the initial conciliation will be the Fair Work Commission, but any disputes we know would go for the small claims court of the Federal Court.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you.

[Jeremy O’Sullivan]

You’re quite correct mam, thanks.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Will Fair Work Ombudsman inspectors be able to help small businesses with things such as, coaching and support? Because it was small business who did most of the heavy lifting during COVID-19 restrictions imposed by governments around the country. And we want to ensure that they’re not burdened with more red tape and unnecessary administrative costs.

[Ms Parker]

The answers is

Yes. Senator, we’ve put a lot of our resources into supporting small business and we’ll continue to do so. We’re certainly developing material for this but we also have a dedicated small business helpline, and we’ve had 34,000 calls to that this year alone as in the financial year. And we have a small business showcase with a whole range of resources. The small business webpage was visited 50,000 times this year, we’ve got best practise guides and we have… So, we do put a lot of effort into small businesses and we’ll continue to do that. It’s important they understand what their, you know, obligations and rights are.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I think it’s important just to mention chair, just in finishing up, that we’ve had a lot of contact with small business and small business organisations who are relieved that the bill went through last week, but now they need to make sure it’s implemented properly. So.

Thank you.

/by

Will the government make a commitment to actual IR reform?

,

Instead of propping up the industrial relations club with excessive, needlessly complex legislation, we need to simplify it. Regulations are written at the moment for the few people, employers and employees, who do the wrong thing.

They should be written for the majority of good people, the fine Australians, with severe penalties for the bad.

We need to turn it upside down: instead of penalising the 100 per cent with the ridiculous workplace arrangements, we need to penalise the real shonks, the real criminals.

Transcript

As an Australian who has been elected to serve the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m very proud to say that I have worked in many countries and I am genuinely proud of Australian workers. We have a phenomenal human resource in this country, unequalled anywhere in the world—the initiative, the hard work, the honesty and the integrity of workers in this country, and of many businesses in this country, especially small businesses, which are the engine room of our economy. More people are employed in small business than in any other sector of the economy. We need to get back the dynamism that has been lost in Australia—lost largely because of the decisions that come out of this building.

The MPI is ‘The Morrison government’s failure to address job security is giving companies that exploit workers an unfair advantage against honest employers.’Let me talk about the example in the Hunter Valley of the exploitation, the abuse and the casual discarding of people who are tossed on the scrap heap when they’re burnt out. Casuals have been exploited in the Hunter Valley by BHP, a major mining company, and Chandler Macleod Group, one of the world’s largest labour hire firms, an offshoot of Recruit Holdings from Japan, with the complicity of the Hunter Valley division of the CFMEU. It would not have happened without all three being complicit and working together.

But let’s go back to the root cause. The root of casualisation started in small business because employers were so confused by the complexity of hiring people and so confused by the complexity when there was a problem to discuss, so they went to employing casuals because it became too hard to deal with disciplinary issues in small business.

Quite often we see a small business having problems with an employee who’s stolen something from their business, and the small business owner then simply trying to address that ends up just paying $8,000 or $10,000. We heard last week from COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, about some companies, some small businesses, paying $20,000 in shut-up money for problems to go away. One of the root causes of the insecurity in this country is the highly complex, needlessly complex and destructive industrial relations situation.

Then what we saw was large companies taking the small business model and using casuals for a ‘try before we buy’. In other words, they would watch the casual worker on their mine site, in their business, and if he or she came up with the goods then they would hire them. That has led to extreme abuse of workers in this country. It’s led to safety hazards, which I have complained about in my submission to the Grosvenor inquiry. But in the Hunter Valley it led to miners being intimidated and being threatened with the loss of their jobs if they reported safety incidents. How stupid is a company when that happens? They’re losing that prime source of information about their company.

I want to give Mr Bukarica, the national legal adviser for the CFMEU mining division, a huge compliment. In Townsville he had the guts, the integrity and the courage to acknowledge that the Hunter Valley CFMEU is part of the problem at those mines in the Hunter Valley because they enabled casualisation to happen. I also want to give him praise because he said that the CFMEU has not done enough for casuals. Indeed, they have caused the casual issue in the Hunter Valley and the casual abuse of casuals. And he’s admitted that his union will need to do more about it.

So what we see is the mess that’s been created in the past by labour laws that have become far too complex and by the Liberals not addressing this issue in 2016 when they should have. Casuals show us the pain of people at work. Casuals are also a sign of the failed industrial relations situation—no getting away from it. What the government is doing in its latest industrial relations legislation, proposed to come before the Senate next month, is shifting the liability for that mess from large business to small business. They’re helping a couple of large companies manage their risk.

We’ve approached this differently. We’ve gone out to listen. We’ve written to 80 different organisations—employers, employee groups, unions, union bosses, welfare associations, organisations, small business groups—and we’ve asked them for their advice, their views. They have come and given us their advice. They said no-one else has invited them to do that; we’re the only ones. In addressing this legislation, we have three aims that ensure security for Australian workers, whether they be in small businesses or large businesses, and security for small businesses and large businesses.

Our three aims are to protect honest workers, to protect small businesses and to restore Australia’s productive capacity. We see the employer-employee relationship as fundamental. It is the primary workplace relationship, and that’s what’s needed to empower workers. We’ve got the best workers in the world. What’s needed is for employers and employees to work together—empowered employees and empowered employers—because that is the only way to create jobs. Government doesn’t create jobs. As much as the Labor Party and the Liberal Party talk about it, government does not create jobs. Honest workers create jobs. Small businesses create jobs. Large employers create jobs. The government creates the environment. Labor and Liberal governments have stuffed this country’s workplace environment.

The Morrison government talks about security and recovery from COVID. How can that be possible when we’ve destroyed our electricity sector? How can it be possible when we’ve got one of the worse tax systems in the world? How can it be possible when we’re not supplying the right infrastructure? How can it be possible when we haven’t got the skills development needed? How can it be possible when we’ve got overregulation? Just go and talk to people, not only small or large business employers but also employees, who are sick to death of energy prices, which have gone from the cheapest in the world to the highest in the world under this government and its predecessor, the Labor Party.

Instead of propping up the industrial relations club with excessive, needlessly complex legislation, we need to simplify it. In fact, I put that to Peter Strong when he was in my office last week. I said to him that regulations are written at the moment for the few people, employers and employees, who do the wrong thing. They should be written for the majority of good people, the fine Australians, with severe penalties for the bad. We need to turn it upside down: instead of penalising the 100 per cent with the ridiculous workplace arrangements, we need to penalise the real shonks, the real criminals. Instead of assuming people are bad—employees are bad, employers are bad—we need to free people to produce. We need to penalise and handicap those who deserve it. That’s what we need in this country: empowering, not frightening.

What we see at the moment is an IR club of big employers, big industry associations, large unions, employee consultants, employer consultants, industrial relations consultants and, above all, lawyers. Again I come back to the ETU legal adviser in Townsville, Michael Wright, and Mr Bukarica from the CFMMEU, who both said that we have far too many lawyers involved in industrial relations and that’s why it’s a mess. They both said they want fewer lawyers, that they want to remove the lawyers. Full credit to the CFMMEU mining division and full credit to the ETU for saying that. The big companies and the crooks are the ones who do the best out of the industrial relations club, because they have deep pockets and they can afford to fund the lawyers and others who live off the backs of Australian workers.

What we need to get back to is a simple workplace relationship. Will Labor make a commitment to properly and honestly reform IR? Will you? Will the Liberal Party and the National Party make a commitment to properly and honestly reform IR, to free people so that they’re free to compete with the people in Korea, China, India, Africa, Malaysia and Singapore? That’s the way to get security of employment: by empowering people. One Nation is the party of energy security and affordability. One Nation is the party of job security.

/by

The detailed breakdown of the Industrial Relations Bill

https://youtu.be/lU4SFG_Uyl4

I was unable to give this speech in the Senate last night but it’s important you get these details. While the government has backed down on changing the BOOT test after One Nation pressure, there is still much to fix in the casual employment mess. There is a lot of chest beating about this bill but no real detail, only One Nation will give you this amount of detail and transparency about our analysis.

Transcript

In serving the people of Queensland & Australia I want to discuss our shared need for: 

  • Improving industrial relations to protect honest workers and employers, especially casual workers.
  • Our concerns for business, particularly small business.
  • The bigger picture and a vision for a secure future for Australia. Today the government took the first step in recognising One Nation’s legitimate concerns for employers and employees – it booted out the BOOT! 

We listened: We are listening to workers – casual and permanent – across Queensland and Australia. Listening to all stakeholders in employment including welfare organisations. Listening to UB’s and union bodies. Listening to small and medium sized businesses. Listening to employer and industry groups. Listening to the government.Listening reveals that across our country, people are hurting, feeling vulnerable. Afraid for their jobs, worried they won’t be able to pay the mortgage, afraid of the future. Everyday Australians are hurting from government COVID restrictions and lock-downs keeping people away from jobs, businesses and loved ones. 

The Problems with this Bill: There are many problems with this Bill that need to be resolved to make it safer for both employees and employers. There are many ‘hairs’ on this Bill that need to be trimmed to make it fit-for-purpose. Our concern is for the unintended consequences of this government’s so-called reforms that are really just tinkerings. We’re investing the time and effort to work with all parties to improve outcomes for employees and employers. 

The first problem is with the definition of “casual”, The proposed casual definition at Section 15A is lengthy and complex, it suggests that the employer’s intention expressed at the time of commencement of employment is the only important factor, determining employment status. It’s not.  Hunter Valley casual coal miners we’ve championed were clearly permanent and not casual as the dishonest labour hire company, Chandler MacLeod designated. 

This must be clarified in the Bill or Explanatory Memorandum. The definition also refers to “no firm advance commitment” yet many casuals have a firm advance commitment. Because it suits both them and the business as in single parents working during school hours and in takeaway shop. The definition of casuals in S.15(A)(2) is a loose compromise because the term ”as required” is confusing and must be removed. Last week, Mr Bukarica, Legal Director for the CFMEU Mining Division and his team agreed that their union had ignored casuals for many years. The same can be said of this government. The CFMEU in the Hunter Valley and the government have contributed to the exploitation and confusion in the permanent casual rort. 

The second concern we have is with the proposed ‘right to conversion’ Many casuals have a regular pattern of hours, yet Sections 66A and B suggests that this means casuals are actually permanent. This section as it stands throws many burdens on small business and puts the casual loading at risk for workers who enjoy the benefit of a casual loading. 

The proscriptive nature of required record keeping and timeframes for offers of conversion, as in the proposed Section 66B, represent a burden for small business who cannot afford the time off the tools.The answer is to take this unnecessary burden away from small business and likewise to review the silly ‘windows of opportunity’ workers have to apply for conversion.

Even more record keeping. Yet sadly this change will do nothing to change how companies like BHP exploit and abuse casuals through labour hire arrangements. BHP and big business can randomise rosters and extend casual arrangements to suit themselves. Some already are and that disrupts workers needlessly. 

The third concern is the new Section 545A for offsetting claims This introduces a statutory rule for offsetting claims for unpaid entitlements from permanent casuals.  Calling this double dipping in many instances is a lie. Let’s be clear I do not support double dipping on entitlements. Yet employees have a right to entitlements under circumstances where they have been treated differently to a true casual. 

We will fight for retaining and protecting these workers’ entitlements just as we have done for 18 months in the Hunter Valley. The Full Court in the Rossato case clearly stated that the casual loading paid to a casual worker did not offset their entitlement to paid leave as guaranteed to all permanent workers under the Fair Work Act.

The government seems to think it has to change this because the decision could impact big business profits. Section 545A (1) (b) takes this even further and states that it protects employers where they pay a flat hourly rate even when it’s not clear whether a loading is being paid. What’s going on here? How is this fair or making things simple? 

In the Hunter Valley, casual mine workers were put on permanent rosters and in permanent roles beside the permanent workforce. It could not be more clear, yet the IR laws created ambiguity and injured workers are still waiting for their just entitlements nearly six years later. As it stands, this provision could deny workers their lawful entitlements where they were not given a casual loading or when the EA resulted from a flawed process. 

I commend the CFMEU Mining Division’s Legal Director Mr Bukarica for the courage and integrity he showed when in answer to my questions he acknowledged the Hunter Valley CFMEU’s role in colluding with employers to deprive casuals of basic employment entitlements and rights. 

We will work with the government to create a workable solution to ensure workers are treated fairly. This is crucial and not negotiable. Small Business: Small business needs clarity and simplicity. It deserves a fair go and cannot afford the days or weeks away from work to defend a case when the big end of town can dig into deep pockets to pay lawyers and consultants. 

While the overwhelming majority of claims against small business settle before arbitration, small business owners have suggested this is because they have learned to pay ‘go away’ money. Thousands of dollars. We have received representations suggesting that the increases in fines (Schedule 5, Parts 1, 4, and 5) and new criminal penalties (Schedule 5, Part 7) be suspended for 2 years for small businesses to soften the blow for an already damaged part of Australia’s economy. 

We believe this is worthy of support. Small business deserves and needs a tailor-made solution for them. Small business spans multiple awards and cannot afford enterprise agreements. They cannot submit to the inflexible rules that the IR Club creates for its benefit and for lawyers’ financial benefit. 

The IR Omnibus Bill so far: The Prime Minister describes the IR system as, quote: “not fit-for-purpose, especially given the scale of the jobs challenge that we now face as a nation.” Who can forget the Dyson Heydon’s (Royal Commission) diabolical findings on union bosses? The whole nation saw the need for changes to protect workers from lawbreaking union bosses. 

One Nation supported govt legislation to implement the Royal Commission’s findings. We supported the ABCC, ROC and the first Ensuring Integrity bill. Yet we could not support the govt’s ill-considered second Ensuring Integrity bill. Nor can we support this Bill as it stands.

I’ve spoken often about Hunter Valley coal miners being exploited, abused and discarded as a result of the collusion between BHP, Chandler Macleod, the labour-hire firm and the Hunter Valley CFMMEU. And while the government knew about the “casuals” problem for years it did nothing until Rosatto threatened big business profits.

One Nation is standing up to protect workers’ and employers’ rights. One Nation knows that only employers, entrepreneurs, small businesses and workers create jobs. Government COVID restrictions have done enormous damage. Yet the govt-induced recession is not an excuse to cut pay or job security.

Instead, for our country’s sake, let’s make a genuine attempt at IR Reform together. 

We’re ready to work with the government and stakeholders to improve outcomes for employers and for employees. For businesses, especially small businesses and for honest workers.

/by

Bill “trashes” casual regime for small business: One Nation

This article is re-published with the permission of Workplace Express.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation says the Morrison Government’s Omnibus IR Bill is “sadly lacking” on a range of key measures, including proposed changes to casual employment and the Better Off Overall Test. 

The party’s IR spokesperson, Senator Malcolm Roberts, has called for substantial amendments to the Bill, arguing it will “hurt many businesses and affect the working conditions and take-home pay of many everyday Australians”. 

The senator says in a submission to a Senate inquiry into the Fair Work Act Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) that the changes are aimed mostly at big business and the “IR Club” rather than small to medium employers. 

“We do not see genuine reform,” he says. 

“This is more words in legislation, more rules and more vagueness in complex definitions. 

“The outcome of this Omnibus IR Bill is that it will not create certainty for people who just want to get back to work. 

“It will add to the complexity of business life. 

“Australia’s industrial relations system no longer serves employers and employees; it serves the people who benefit from its complexity. 

“The IR Club, the class action lawyers, union bosses and the big employer organisations all earn money which could be better spent by employers and employees on securing jobs and income.” 

With Labor and the Greens opposed to the Bill, its fate looks set to turn on the votes of five crossbench senators – Jacqui Lambie Network’s Jacqui Lambie, PHON’s Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts, Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff and South Australian Independent Rex Patrick. 

Senator Roberts, a former coal mine manager and engineer, has long complained that big employers have abused casual work arrangements in the coal industry through the use of long-term labour hire arrangements (see Related Article). 

The Bill’s proposed definition of casual employment determines an employee’s status based only on the original offer made to the employee, without taking into account “any subsequent conduct of the parties”. 

Senator Roberts argues in the submission that IR Minister Christian Porter is “trashing the ‘long term flexible but predictable’ casual employment arrangements that suited many small business employers and employees”. 

He is doing so, he says, because of abuse by “big business”, citing as an example labour hire arrangements in the coal mining industry. 

Senator Roberts says the legislation will mean that a person is a casual employee if the employer makes an offer of employment on the basis of no firm advance commitment to continuing and indefinite work according to an agreed pattern of work. 

“It is arguable that a consequence of these provisions as they are envisaged is that, if an employer does not make an offer in the exact terms (be it in writing or orally), the employee will, at law, be considered a permanent employee as they will not fall within the definition of casual employee. 

“Many employers, especially small business employers, are unlikely to offer casual employment to a person in such clearly defined terms. 

“This is particularly the case when an offer of employment is made orally which is more common than formalised employment arrangements.” 

The senator says that an employer might consider they have offered casual employment but, if they have failed to meet the prescriptive terms, that employment will be permanent by default. 

“This is likely to lead to significant confusion among employers and employees about their employment relationship and the entitlements that derive from the characterisation of the relationship,” says Roberts. 

“Conversely, an employee who falls within the definition of casual employee at the commencement of employment but whose nature of employment subsequently changes, is nonetheless deemed to continue to be a casual employee. 

“While casual work is not for everyone, rewriting it as the Government has done may have many unintended consequences for everyday Australians, such as pay cuts and rosters that change from week to week to protect the employer from creating a ‘firm advanced commitment’.” 

BOOT change also problematic

Senator Roberts also argues against the Bill seeking to allow a two-year window for the FWC to approve enterprise agreements that do not meet the BOOT where the employer has been affected by the pandemic. 

He says the Fair Work Act already allows the Commission to approve an agreement that does not pass the BOOT if it is satisfied that, because of exceptional circumstances, the approval of the agreement would not be contrary to the public interest. 

The proposed change is an “unnecessary amendment and, furthermore, significantly dilutes the fundamental protection of the BOOT.” 

“I propose that the government keeps the BOOT as it is and ensures that the FW Commission has better governance to review and to improve agreements – due diligence not a rubber stamp.” 

Senator Roberts also calls for the Morrison Government to:

  • create a dedicated small business award or enterprise agreement;
  • simplify the small business code and reduce the maximum compensation payable by small businesses in dismissal cases from 6 months to 3 months;
  • review and rewrite the entire Fair Work Act and IR structure, after the two-year deadline for the flexible arrangements expires in about 2023;
  • focus the efforts of FWO inspectors primarily on solutions rather than penalties; and
  • introducing longer-term greenfields agreements for “tier 2” Australian construction companies.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation submission to the Senate inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Supporting Australia’s Jobs and Economic Recovery) Bill 2020, February 2020

/by

Questioning the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) – Worker’s entitlements

,

For over 12 months I have been trying to find solutions to an unfair industrial relations system that has caused serious issues in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Queensland. There is a systemic issue of ‘full-time casuals’ who are being paid 40% less than their full-time counterparts and not receiving casual loadings or entitlements.

Additionally, these casuals are hired by labour-hire firms who have classed them as ‘office workers’ rather than ‘production workers’ and when injured are not covered by injury or workers compensation. During Senate Estimates this week I questioned the Fair Work Commission on why they allowed this unfair Enterprise Agreement in the Hunter Valley:

  • FWC said that there had been no proposal to change the Black Coal Mining Award by the parties, yet we know there was in 2017 when “the Fair Work Commission rejected the application by a major employers group to extend the casual employment provisions in the Black Coal award to Production and Engineering Employees” CFMEU News 6/7/2017.
  • Commission has no governance to ensure that workers actually agree with an enterprise agreement before the Commission rubber stamps it.
  • The FWC is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for attending. Ms Parker, could you tell me briefly your role, please. What’s the core of your role?

Ms Parker: I’m an independent statutory appointment, and I’m responsible for implementing the functions under the Fair Work Act. That includes: providing education, assistance, advice and guidance to employers, employees, outworkers, outwork industries and organisations; promoting and monitoring compliance with workplace laws; inquiring into and investigating breaches of the Fair Work Act; taking appropriate enforcement action; and performing the agency’s statutory functions efficiently, effectively, economically and ethically. The Fair Work Ombudsman—as in myself—inspectors and staff constitute a statutory office established by the Fair Work Act 2009.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. We’re very concerned about so-called casuals—I say ‘so-called’  in reference to the fact they’re not really casuals; they’re permanents. I’m referring to employees in the Hunter Valley in particular, but there are some aspects that translate into Queensland. This so-called casual coalminer issue has dragged on for years. What are you doing to fix this problem?

Ms Parker: We’re well aware of the issues, and, as you know, you and I have written to each other a couple of times. We take the matter really seriously; I can assure you of that. Where it’s about long service leave, I think we’ve mentioned before that there is a Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Funding Corporation, and we don’t have anything to do with that. Long service leave is not our purview. We do provide basic information around that, and we refer specific inquiries to that corporation if they’re about long service leave. The Fair Work Commission, who you spoke with earlier, has jurisdiction to resolve long service leave disputes under the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act. The Fair Work Commission can assist with disputes under the act as well, when a modern award provides for a procedure to deal with disputes.

We don’t have power of that kind. We can provide general information about the long service leave scheme in the black coal industry. We’re aware of a number of class actions that are being pursued around issues in the coalmining industry. We’re obviously watching those, but they are before the court, so I won’t be able to comment on those, as you probably can understand, or about the circumstances of any individual who has sought our assistance in regard to the matter that’s before the court.

Senator ROBERTS: You did broaden it by mentioning coal LSL, so I might as well put the whole scope in there. I know you can only access or reference or work on some of those. These are in relation to miners in the Hunter Valley: loss of workers compensation; no accident pay; safety issues; nonreporting of injuries; pay rates; leave; loss of leave entitlements; long service leave, which you already mentioned—some of these are beyond your purview—security; threats; intimidation; and bullying. As I said, they’re not all your responsibility, but I’m particularly concerned about the definition of ‘casual mineworker’ and the award. As you know, your website has said and, in a letter to Simon Turner, one of your advisers said that there is no classification of ‘casual’ in the black-coalmining industry award. Specifically on pay and leave, there are no leave provisions in the enterprise agreement. These people are working full-time production roles, but casuals can’t work in production; they’re working extended rosters with no leave; and they’re being underpaid relative to their peers in full-time employment. They also have been neglected by the unions. Sorry, I’ll make that very clear and specific: the Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU, not the whole CFMMEU. These people had no-one to turn to. They turned to you. They’ve written to you, as I said, and one lady said, ‘There is no classification of ‘casual’.’ How can they do a BOOT when there’s nothing to compare against?

Ms Parker: Senator, we’re talking about the enterprise agreement that was negotiated with the unions and employers and approved by the Fair Work Commission.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it was rubber stamped by the Fair Work Commission.

Ms Parker: It does include casuals, as you said, in some categories. The fact that the award doesn’t have casuals does not preclude the enterprise agreement having casuals. I think Mr Hehir said in his evidence that it is the Fair Work Commission’s role to make sure that the enterprise agreement is fair once it’s agreed.

Senator ROBERTS: How then can BHP’s Operations Services recent application for an enterprise agreement be knocked back, and yet the Chandler MacLeod 2015 enterprise agreement be passed even though the BHP OS pay rates are higher than the Chandler MacLeod pay rates?

Ms Parker: It’s a matter you’ll have to ask the commission, I’m sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: I did.

Ms Parker: They are an independent tribunal and they will have had witnesses in front of them, people providing evidence to them, before they made that decision.

Senator ROBERTS: I asked the Fair Work Commission about anybody applying to vary the black- coalmining industry award about casuals, and they said they’re not aware of any. But I notice on one of your websites and also from the CFMMEU in Queensland, that the Fair Work Commission rejected an application to vary the black-coalmining industry award 2010 to enable the engagement of casuals across all classifications of the award. That was an application from a large employer group. The CFMMEU opposed that, and it was defeated. So how would the Fair Work Commission not be aware of that?

Mr Hehir: If I recall Ms O’Neill’s evidence, it was she didn’t believe there had but that she would take it on notice and check. I think that’s where she went to.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty stunning, Mr Hehir, that this issue’s been going on six years and we’ve made such a big fuss about it in the last 12 months and she wouldn’t be aware of it. Anyway that’s for her, as you said. Recently I asked you, Ms Parker, how many casual black-coalminers from the Hunter Valley have referred complaints or matters relating to their pay and entitlements to your office since 2014. Your response was ‘none’. Since that time you’ve been forced to admit that Mr Simon Turner did lodge complaints during this time period. Can you advise if there were more cases? In all instances please advise the outcomes of their complaints.

Ms Parker: We do apologise that we advised ‘none’. We were certainly not trying to hide that. It’s in terms of our search facility. You have to be very precise. This is black coal, and it’s a specific area of black coal. So I apologise. We did correct the record. We’ve had one that we’re aware of, and we’re pretty confident that that’s all we have. As I said, the system searches are maybe not as surgical as we would like. But we’re very much aware of one.

Senator ROBERTS: I take it that the Attorney-General’s Department now, and the preceding minister who looks after industrial relations, are responsible for changing the regulations or the legislation. Who is responsible for advising them of the need to do so? Because casualisation and the abuse of casuals has really been an issue for quite some time, yet now it has landed employer groups and many hundreds of thousands of workers in problems.

Ms Parker: In terms of our role as the Ombudsman, we enforce and apply the law as it stands. As you say, we are not responsible for the policy or legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t imply that you were responsible for the legislation, but I would have thought that you could have been advising the Attorney-General or his predecessor of the need to resolve this problem, which has been going on now for at least six years.

Ms Parker: We certainly have regular conversations with the Department, Mr Hehir, about a whole range of matters.

Senator ROBERTS: About this issue? When did you start talking about this issue?

Ms Parker: I haven’t discussed this particular issue. We’ve talked about the WorkPack v Rossato issue, how we interpret casuals, and what advice we provide to the public on casual employees. We are aware that the government’s review of the IR system and the working groups are looking at this area of casual employment. We are monitoring that, and we will provide advice and data. We’re happy to share with the committee what we do with the casuals issue and what advice we provide. But in relation to the legislation, that is a matter for the government.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s my understanding that the Fair Work Ombudsman told Mr Turner to ‘go and get a lawyer’ in order to resolve this and that you have denied the existence of casual coal production workers. You are, I hope, aware of the significant damage that this stance of yours has caused both employees and employers, who now have been taking advantage of this and have racked up a huge liability.

Ms Parker: I don’t believe that we would advise anybody to go get a lawyer. We provide advice to people about all the various areas of assistance that are available to them. Where we are unable to help them, as in we do not see that they are eligible for payment based on the definition in the legislation as it stands, we will advise that they may be able to go to small claims or they may be able to take a court case. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, there is a class action being pursued at the moment on this particular issue.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you done anything to actually help Mr Turner and casual employees like him? Why has it taken so long and it’s still not resolved? These people are in limbo, they’re living out of garages, they’ve been traumatised—why?

Ms Parker: We provide assistance to everyone who contacts us. I’d rather not discuss Mr Turner. We don’t talk about specific requests for assistance. We haven’t asked Mr Turner if he minds us talking about him in Senate estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Turner has assured me that I can inquire about him. He is very distraught about the lack of support he’s received from anyone, including the union; the employer; the mine owner, BHP; state and federal bureaucracies and agencies; Labor MPs; Liberal ministers—he’s at a loss.

Ms Parker: All I can say there is that we have provided—our website says that only staff employees can be casuals under the award. And the webpage references schedule B of the award. It sets out classifications for staff employees et cetera. We’ve provided the factual information that we have on the actual award. Some people were not satisfied with that answer, so the only option we have is to refer them to those other sources of help, including their ability to go to court if they wish to. We’re not a court or a tribunal.

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a problem here. Obviously within the legislation there’s a problem, and some people are taking advantage of that. You’ve just said, tough, that’s the way the legislation is. You haven’t referred it to anyone who can change the legislation or investigate changing it or advise changing it? These people are still out in the cold.

Ms Parker: The government’s aware of the issues around casuals, and as you know—

Senator ROBERTS: So how long have they been aware of the issue around casuals? Mr Turner has been writing to people in the government since 2014.

Mr Hehir: Sorry to interrupt. I think we’ve talked broadly around the government’s intent to legislate for a definition of a casual and to legislate for casual conversion rights. I accept that the casual conversion rights may not work at this point in time for the individual you are referring to. The issue that perhaps would be worthwhile us meeting with you separately on is how the enterprise agreement definition has actually impacted on the other issues that you raise. What I’m not clear about is how an enterprise agreement arrangement would impact on somebody’s right to workers compensation. So perhaps we could meet with you separately to try and tease out how this all flows to end up where the actual problems are arising. On the face of it, there’s nothing, to my knowledge, that would mean that somebody who has an enterprise agreement isn’t entitled to workers compensation. I’d need to get into more detail to actually understand what’s occurring to cause that break.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Parker raised Coal LSL, and when she did, I said let’s go to the full scope of how these people are being abused, exploited and neglected. You’ve now raised workers’ compensation as well. That’s not the main issue. The main issue here is the complexity of the issues, and nobody is fixing it: not the state government, not the federal government. No federal or state agency, no politician is fixing this thing. These people are continuing to face this after six years of neglect and exploitation. I asked Ms Parker a simple question: how long has the government known about it? She said, we know the government knows. I want to know how long they’ve known about it. Was it last year, the year before, 2014?

Ms Parker: I was talking about casuals in general. I apologise if I confused you.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s not hard to be confused on this issue, I can tell you, because there are several people who know one thing very clearly: they are not being protected by employers, unions, agencies federal and state, politicians, governments, ministers at all. These people have been left out in the cold. We now know there is no legal pay rate for a casual mine worker. So someone made it up then; otherwise you wouldn’t be able to do a boot test.

Mr Hehir: Senator, that’s not the responsibility of Ms Parker.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Mr Hehir, you said it wasn’t the Attorney-General’s responsibility, and I took it that you implied his predecessor. It wasn’t their responsibility. You said look at the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission told me it’s not their responsibility; look at the Fair Work Ombudsman. We’re getting running round in circles. This is a magic circle.

Mr Hehir: My understanding of the evidence provided by Ms O’Neill was that in assessing the enterprise agreement that you referred to the relevant commissioner, under the legislation, would be required to assess whether that award was better off overall compared—

Senator ROBERTS: I get that, but how can you refer to a rate when there is no rate? I offered her the opportunity of giving her the full-time roster that these people were employed on as casuals. Could you cost that?

Mr Hehir: It’s a very complex process that the Fair Work Commission undertake to make sure that people are better off overall. I think Ms O’Neill’s evidence was that they’ve changed their practices to try and insert more rigour into that.

Senator ROBERTS: But that indicates that there was a problem before the change last year. So what is going to be done to look after the people who were affected by the ‘unrigorous’ system?

Mr Hehir: As I said, you’ve raised a number of issues and circumstances around this particular individual and, you say, others which—

Senator ROBERTS: Hundreds of others.

Mr Hehir: As I said, it would be useful if we could meet to go through the relevant issues. As I said, some of the things that you imply arise from the enterprise agreement definition. I’m not clear how they would cause that. So I’d need to work through that and understand the interaction with the New South Wales workers’ compensation laws. There is a separate worker occurring around the long service leave. But certainly I’m not aware of a circumstance in which the arrangements under an enterprise agreement would impact on workers’ compensation, so I’d need to have a look at that.

In terms of the actual decision, I think Ms O’Neill was clear: if someone didn’t think that decision was appropriate or that enterprise agreement was correctly decided in terms of passing the BOOT, they were able to appeal it. I think Ms O’Neill identified that that particular enterprise agreement has nominally expired and that the other option there is for someone to apply for the agreement to be terminated. They are the technical processes that need to be followed. As I said, there seems to be a complex web of interactions here. It would be useful if we could meet with you to go through those.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to meet privately with you and go through them, but we’ve had several meetings and nothing has happened. What’s my main concern, Mr Hehir?

Mr Hehir: Senator, your main concern seems to be that the individual is stuck in limbo—

Senator ROBERTS: And hundreds of others like him.

Mr Hehir: and that he cannot find a straightforward answer from the Commonwealth government or the state governments.

Senator ROBERTS: He’s wanting more than an answer. He and I are wanting a solution. I’ve got three aims for this, and I’ve said this from the start. This goes back to May last year, and I first raised it around about July  last year and then in Senate estimates and so on. My first aim is to make sure that Simon Turner and other people like him get their fair entitlements—morally fair as well as lawfully fair—and I want him to get some compensation for the trauma he has suffered for the last six years. The second aim is to make sure these practices are stopped right across the coal industry. The third aim is to bring some justice to the perpetrators of this, who in my opinion are BHP, Chandler Macleod and the Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU. That’s what I want. Is there any way you can help us in achieving some of those three aims?

Mr Hehir: We can certainly look at what the legal entitlements. In terms of the moral entitlements, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. The legal entitlements we can certainly examine.

Senator ROBERTS: If you go beyond the nitpicky words of the law and you look to the intent of the law,  he’s been diddled by some mistakes, some ways of interpreting the law wrongly. Everyone knows that a minor who works in a black coal mine is entitled to workers’ compensation under coal miners’ insurance. There was nothing for him. I’m not going to ask your salary, but he’s existing on $20,000 a year—a fraction of what he used to have.

Mr Hehir: As I said, I’m not aware of what impact his enterprise agreement status would have on his workers’ compensation. I’ve offered to meet with you to go through the details to try and understand how that flows.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll happily agree to that. But my second concern is that this has been going on unresolved for 16 months now, and I don’t see any sign of it being resolved. These people are still being left in limbo. They’ve just been discarded. My concerns now have become: What are the federal government agencies doing, and is the government at all interested in doing this? How can we possibly support changes to legislation when they’re not even enforcing the current legislation or leaving people out in the cold and there doesn’t seem to be any intent or desire to fix it?

Mr Hehir: That’s certainly not my understanding of the Attorney’s view. As I said, I’m happy to meet to go through the detail. I know that there’s work underway in relation to long-service leave, which was the issue that I recall you—

Senator ROBERTS: After first being denied that there was an issue and then admitting it—that’s a pleasant sign. It took us months to get that.

Mr Hehir: As I said, there is work underway to try and resolve the long-service leave issue. In relation to the actual approach around the enterprise agreement, as I said, I’m happy to have a look at the interaction with other matters. But the enterprise agreement was a document that was accepted by the Fair Work Commission once the employees had voted on it.

Senator ROBERTS: After what we now see—an admission that it’s been tightened up and made rigorous, which implies to me that, before, it wasn’t. So there’s been no investigation of that from what it seems.

Mr Hehir: Ms O’Neill, I think, was at pains to point out that she wasn’t making the statement that the previous process had caused any issues with that particular agreement.

Senator ROBERTS: But there were changes to make it more rigorous, implying that it wasn’t as rigorous before. What I’m seeing is that the Fair Work Ombudsman is not taking responsibility for suggesting changes to a problem or solutions or even identifying the need to investigate a problem to the Attorney-General, and I’m also seeing that it’s not the Fair Work Ombudsman’s responsibility to come up with a solution. So how does the Attorney-General possibly identify this? This just sits there, and Simon Turner keeps sleeping in a garage.

Mr Hehir: As I said, the responsibility for the actual awards and the approval of the agreements is the responsibility of the Fair Work Commission. Ms O’Neill has outlined what she believes are the alternatives there and taken some questions on notice. In relation to the issue around whether Mr Turner was a genuine casual or whether he was should have been classified as an ongoing employee, the Attorney has identified that he intends to introduce legislation in this calendar year to deal with the definition of a ‘casual’ to make it clearer for both employers and employees of what their actual status is and to also provide greater clarity and certainty around the

right to convert. So, in terms of the future, that particular aspect is certainly being looked at. As I said, I’d need to have a look at the interactions with the other jurisdictions.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that the application that the government has submitted to be part of their Rossato case—I don’t know the technical legal term—was accompanied by some pretty inflammatory rhetoric. All I see in the Rossato case is a decision that says: ‘You tried to have these people passed off as casuals. They’re really permanents.’ So I think we need to have a lot more openness, candour and honesty from the government on Rossato.

Mr Hehir: As I said earlier, the government’s primary interest in Rossato is clarifying whether any claim for the National Employment Standards made by someone who believes they were never or are no longer a casual is able to be set off by the loading. That’s where our interest is, and that’s where the focus is.

Senator ROBERTS: In my opinion, the Rossato decision makes that clear. But that’s up to you, of course.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, how long do you think you’ve got?

Senator ROBERTS: Probably another two questions.

CHAIR: That’s okay. Then I’ll go to Labor.

Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions for you as a participant in this process, Ms Parker: Is  the industrial law in this country at the moment too complex? Is it impossible to cover everything, impossible to enforce and impossible to understand? How can an everyday worker who doesn’t want to become a lawyer possibly understand what’s going on? He relies on other people to interpret for him or her.

Ms Parker: For the bulk of the workforce, who are on awards or agreements, it’s relatively simple. They don’t have to read the whole award. They don’t have to read the whole agreement. They obviously need to understand what they should be getting paid and what their entitlements are. We provide a lot of assistance to people who phone us and ask us. If they have concerns then we help them. We have a pay and conditions tool that they can look at to work out what they should be paid. There’s a lot of information out there to assist workers, and we do that to the best of our ability. There is some complexity in the system but, for an individual worker looking at their own individual entitlements, it should not be that complicated. Obviously, if you look at the whole Fair Work Act and see how large it is, you’ll say it’s really complicated, but most people don’t need to look at the whole Fair Work Act; they only need to look at a small component of it.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Turner impresses me as being very intelligent, very capable and very astute, as does Stuart Bonds, who’s tried to help him with this issue for 16, 17 or 18 months now, and they just can’t get through it. I don’t think it’s a matter of the complexity by itself; it’s a matter of the complexity of all the hangers-on they’re trying to drag with them and trying to shake some sense into. There’s something in this mess that’s causing these people to be discarded and exploited. First of all, a company like Chandler Macleod can exploit them. The Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU enables that, and BHP gets away scot-free and avoids its corporate and moral responsibilities. These people are tossed on the scrap heap. So there’s something wrong with this system. The whole system has broken down.

Ms Parker: This is clearly a complex case. It’s clearly a complex award and a complex enterprise agreement. Our role is to try to make it as simple as we can, but we can’t change what the agreement actually says. It was negotiated; it was approved. It therefore is in play. What the Fair Work Ombudsman—

Senator ROBERTS: So, after six years with the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Attorney-General’s predecessors, they’re still here. I think we’ve done this enough for now. You know where I stand.

/by

Questioning Coal LSL – Worker’s Entitlements

, ,

During Senate Estimates earlier in the year, I was able to get Coal LSL to admit that there were discrepancies in hours worked reported by employers and to start an audit. Since this questioning, many other workers have come forward with issues and questions they wanted asked in Senate Estimates. Accountability and transparency seems to be lacking and workers are in the dark as to best manage their long service leave entitlements.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you both for appearing today. Could you tell me, firstly, what has Coal LSL done since last estimates to address the errors and wrongs identified in employer data and when  will people be compensated, and what is the total value of the errors to date?

Ms Perks: I’ll start with—

CHAIR: We’ve lost you, I think, again. Hello? Can we hear you? Can you speak again?

Ms Perks: Yes. We’re getting a delay.

CHAIR: You’re getting a delay; a delay on your voice? So there’s an echo? We might pull the plugs out. We will suspend briefly again, so can you log off and log on again, please? Thank you.

Ms Perks: We will.

CHAIR: Thank you. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. What has Coal LSL done since last Senate estimates to address the errors and wrongs identified in the employer data and when will people be compensated, and what is the total value of the errors to date?

Ms Perks: Thank you, Senator. The six individuals who were identified back in October who were employed by the Programmed TESA Group have had their records adjusted and it has resulted in a change of 55 hours of entitlement for the total six out of the eight that were identified. Since October, Programmed Tessa, who was the employer—

CHAIR: I think what happened there is that there was more feedback.

Ms Perks: We’re getting the question coming back, circling.

CHAIR: Okay. So the question is on repeat. That would be  amusing.  It’s  a  very  important  question, Senator Roberts. We will suspend again briefly and we’ll do it through Chorus Call. Someone from the secretariat will be in touch to advise you how to do that. We will get you on the phone but not via videoconference.

Ms Perks: Okay.

CHAIR: For the third time, Senator Roberts is going to ask his question. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. What has Coal LSL done since last Senate estimates to address the errors and wrongs identified in employer data and when will people be compensated, and what is the total value  of the errors to date?

Ms Perks: Since the last Senate estimates in March the focus of the organisation has been on getting visibility of the issues that were identified. The six individuals who were addressed in the October Senate estimates have had their records updated, which resulted in a change of 55 hours of entitlement for the six in total. Regarding the other two individuals of the eight, it hasn’t resulted in a change in their record on that review. Now, in saying that, what has commenced outside of those six individuals has been a commitment by Coal LSL to commence an audit of the employer data for any employers who have casual employees within the Coal LSL scheme. That audit has commenced and is in train. We don’t have visibility yet of what the outcome of the audit will be or any changes to individuals’ records as a result of that audit.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The second question: why doesn’t a casual get the same Coal LSL payout as a permanent employee when they both work the same hours and roster on the same site in the same role? If this is because of the act, why hasn’t Coal LSL referred the matter to the government and why hasn’t the government fixed this?

Ms Perks: If a casual employee works a 35-hour week, which is a full-time equivalent, they will accrue the same long service leave entitlement as a full-timer. Our records for the employee are held in hours, and if the employee does work for 35 hours during the week their records will be at that full-time equivalent maximum entitlement.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are casuals made aware that they can waive the Coal LSL scheme and have the contribution paid direct to them? As you will appreciate, this would benefit a lot of casuals that may not stay for the eight-year qualifying period.

Ms Perks: I can’t talk to whether casuals, in particular, have visibility of that. It was an enhancement in our legislation back in 2010 to include waiver agreements as an option for all employees in the scheme. I can take that question on notice. From memory, we have as minimal as four waiver agreements, but I will verify that number and confirm that.

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that last sentence you said?

Ms Perks: From memory, I think we have four waiver agreements in place out of 426,000 records, but I will take that question on notice and verify that.

Senator ROBERTS:   Why,  if a  casual does take  the Coal LSL waiver option,  do  casuals only get paid   two per cent when the Coal LSL payout is based upon 2.7 per cent?

Ms Perks: All employees, irrespective of their employment status, would be paid based on certain criteria in the legislation which my colleague Mr Kembrey will talk to. The two per cent that you’re talking about is our payroll levy and is not correlated with an employee’s long service leave entitlement. That percentage is in relation

to the payroll levy that employers are required to pay. It is a tax that’s imposed, and that levy of two per cent has been in place since 2018. Prior to that it was 2.7 per cent, but it was reduced in 2017 to that lower level. It’s a rate that’s applicable to all employers who are registered in the fund.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide details of the number of casual employees who have contributions made to the scheme for them and detail how they may have been paid out? How many have left the industry and how much money does this represent for those employees who have not returned to the industry in, say, over three years? In other words they haven’t been paid out and they’ve left the industry.

Ms Perks: I could talk to the amount of casuals who are active in the industry today. According to our  records, in round figures it’s 9,000. I will need to take your other questions on notice. They are quite detailed questions that will need to be responded to.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine; take them on notice. They are very important to us. Can you explain in detail why the amounts contributed by employers to Coal LSL for eligible employees, both permanent and casual, are different to the amounts paid out for those employees? Could you please explain the reasons for the discrepancy in detail, the break-up of what funds go where and the total value that this represents annually?

Ms Perks: There are two important components of the fund. The payroll levy is a tax that’s collected on behalf of the government. That is received monthly by employers. It is remitted to the commonwealth and appropriated back. Separate from that is the records that we hold for all employees in the fund, and that entitlement is accrued in hours. The payment that’s made to the employee will be reliant on their employment agreement. Our legislation does specify the minimum that should be paid. Mr Kembrey might be able to refer us to the section in the legislation that talks about minimum payments that are required on termination or in-service leave. But it is a different part of the legislation to the payroll levy collection act, which talks about levies that are received for the fund.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is Mr Kembrey going to add anything?

Mr Kembrey: The best way to break down the question is that the payment of levy is not necessarily correlated with the accrual of the entitlement. When entitlements are paid, they are paid at the rate that the employee is earning at the time that they take that long service leave.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you please reconcile the difference between employer contributions and employee payouts? Please also advise what happens to, firstly, the funds where an employee leaves the industry prior to qualifying and fails to return to the industry and, secondly, the total amount of these funds where employees have left the industry, how much is dispersed, and to whom, on an annual basis over the last seven years.

Ms Perks: The fund is a pooled fund. It’s important that employees of the fund understand we are very different to a financial institution and super funds. The fund is a pooled fund. The nature of portable long service leave means employees can move in and out of the industry, and they can have a maximum break from the industry of eight years before their qualifying service accrual is impacted. That’s important context. We must hold the funds for that period of a break in service of eight years, in case that employee returns to the industry, so that we can continue to ensure that we have sufficient funds to pay out for future long service leave.

The actuary assesses and protects the fund’s assets and liabilities based on important assumptions. One is investment returns. There is also the probability of employees reaching eight years of qualifying service. In regard to the employees that you’re talking about, the probability of an employee meeting that eight years of qualifying service starts at a base of 50 per cent. Our data tells us that an employee that’s been in the industry for less than one year has a 49 per cent chance of meeting that eight years of qualifying service. We hold the funds as a pooled fund through that duration of a maximum of eight years break period to anticipate that future liability that the  fund may incur. It is a complex calculation that the actuary conducts. It has fundamental assumptions that underpin that assessment of the fund’s assets and liabilities.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please tell us how much money is involved in people who have gone beyond the eight years and are not in the industry, and won’t ever get a payout? What happens to their money?

Ms Perks: Senator, can you ask that question again, please?

Senator ROBERTS: If someone leaves the industry and a period of eight years lapses, what happens to their money?

Ms Perks: The fund is structured as a pooled fund. Employers pay a tax to the government that is appropriated back to the fund. The actuary assesses assets and liabilities. We hold an entitlement in hours for the employee. We do not hold an asset which is financially attributed to that individual record. I’m being specific but the record doesn’t have a monetary dollar correlated with it at the record level. It is reported in hours. The actuary assesses

based on the hours that we hold, and 55 million hours of entitlements were held at June 2020. The actuary assesses the likelihood of paying liabilities out of the fund based on the entitlements that are held in hours.

Senator ROBERTS: You would still have to account for everything in a dollar sense if it’s a pooled fund, wouldn’t you? Some people are not going to come back after eight years, so what happens to that money? What happens to those hours? Where do they end up?

Ms Perks: If an employee has a break from the industry for eight years or further, their records will cease to accrue. If they return to the industry they would start from zero years of qualifying service again. So it is an eight years break, which is the most generous break that any long service leave provision allows for. The actuary assesses the likelihood of someone returning to the industry. In that assessment the actuary says that the fund needs X dollars to pay out future liabilities. With that they correlate a payroll levy that is appropriate to be imposed on employers in regard to the collection of future levies.

In the situation where we have seen a larger number of employees not returning to the fund, one would assume that could result in the pooled fund increasing and the liabilities would decrease. If our assets are in excess, that could result in us recommending to the minister to reduce that payroll levy further from that two per cent to a lower rate. The assets and liabilities are correlated continuously by the actuary to assess whether the payroll levy that’s imposed on employers is sufficient to meet the liabilities that are projected to be incurred by the fund in the future.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying that if someone is out of the industry for more than eight years, if they come back after that, they will go back to zero and start again? If there’s a surplus or an excess of funds in the pooled fund, the minister will have a recommendation to reduce the payroll levy?

Ms Perks: That is it, in a simplified manner, yes. The three correlate, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2019 I drew to your attention discrepancies and outright employer misreporting.  What have you done to fix all employee entitlements? What steps has Coal LSL taken? If this response took the form of, say, a review project, when will the project be completed, how much will the project have cost and will Coal LSL be prosecuting employers who have negligently or wilfully misreported or mispaid Coal LSL contributions?

Ms Perks: The important action that Coal LSL has taken since March is to commence an audit of employers  of casuals; 9,000 casuals are active in the industry to date. That audit program will extend to review those records. That is in train. The outcomes of that audit will be assessed, and certainly they will be reviewed as to whether rectification or penalties would be appropriate if there’s any understanding of deliberate misreporting of hours.

Senator ROBERTS: You have the ability to penalise employers and prosecute them; is that right?

Mr Kembrey: In certain circumstances, that is correct. In terms of the time lines, it will be a rolling time line. We’re in the early stages of this. We’d expect to see some results of the audit in the next month or two, and that rolling out over the next 12 months.

Senator ROBERTS: If Coal LSL is not prosecuting any parties for negligent or wilful misreporting, could  you please advise us of the assessment process that Coal LSL went through, how this assessment process was managed, by whom, and also explain in detail, despite the evidence of misreporting, why no parties were held to account? You won’t be able to do that for another month, at least, but would you be able to do that, please?

Mr Kembrey: Certainly, we can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you please report whether any members of the Minerals Council of New South Wales were parties or related entities to those who misreported, and provide a list of same, including the number of instances by entity? You can take that on notice as well, because that won’t be able to be done for at least a month.

Mr Kembrey: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I also have concerns, as we’ve spoken about in the past, with regard to the governance of Coal LSL. I’d like some data, please. Could you provide an Excel spreadsheet that includes all employers registered with Coal LSL covering the period 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2020, including the company or business name, their ABN, the authorised officers, active dates, and details of payments or reimbursements made to each registered employer for the subject period?

Mr Kembrey: Senator, that would be an extensive task. Potentially, we could discuss what the information is that you’d like from that, over an eight-year period. When you say ‘authorised officers’, I’m assuming you mean directors?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the people you’re dealing with.

Mr Kembrey: Often we’re not dealing directly with directors; we’re dealing with employees of the company. Senator, perhaps we will take this question on notice and we can talk further about how we could present the material that you’re after.

Senator ROBERTS: That would be great; thank you. Could you also please provide details of the process used to calculate payments to entitled employees; that is, how the amounts received, the entitlement and other costs, or inputs and outputs, are calculated? I’d like to understand the process.

Ms Perks: We’ll take that question on notice. We can certainly give more context to the payroll  levy collection, the calculation of the entitlement and the employer reimbursement rules that relate to the outflow.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you please provide details of where Coal LSL funds received for workers who leave the coal industry are held at all material times—I know you talked about them being in hours—who has the records, and the details of the process following the cessation of contributions for employers? Could you tell us where the hours or money goes? Could you also please include full details of where these funds are ultimately repatriated and full details of any service fees, costs or commissions paid and who they are paid to?

Ms Perks: We can take that on notice, Senator. I can say there are no commission service fees in regard to payments, but we will take that question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Could you please provide an Excel spreadsheet of all entities that Coal LSL pays or transfers funds to, including but not limited to company business name, ABN, authorised officers, dates and details of payments or reimbursements made to each entity, including total payments, and an explanation as  to the payment—for example, fees et cetera?

Ms Perks: Is that in relation to the employers in the fund or are you talking more broadly of every transaction that the fund incurs?

Senator ROBERTS: No, just the payments that are made to people who are entitled to have Coal LSL.

Ms Perks: We’ll take that on notice, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m led to believe that registered employers have great difficulty in reconciling the payments made to entitled employees by Coal LSL as they don’t seem to correlate to the employer contributions. Could you please detail the reasons for any differences between employer contributions and the total amounts paid to eligible employees and, in this regard, please advise where unallocated, surplus or  remaining funds or hours are allocated and please advise whether this allocation complies with your constitution and governance framework? Have these matters been raised in any internal or external audit over the period 1  July 2012 to 30 June 2020?

Ms Perks: The first part of the question I’m taking as being similar to a previous question; so we’ll answer that in light of the previous question. Coal LSL is audited by the Australian National Audit Office annually. The audit has been completed. There are no findings in the audit and we’ve had no findings in our audit for the last two years. We can give you a copy of that audit report. It is included in our annual report, which is going through the tabling process currently; so that is available for the public’s review.

Mr Kembrey: I note that in that question there were about five questions; so we’ll take a number of those later ones on notice. I think the first point that you raised was in regard to employers struggling to correlate the reimbursement to the payment to employees; is that correct?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s correct.

Mr Kembrey: The matter of what is paid to an employee is a matter that is to be decided between the employer and the employee. Then the employer requests a reimbursement for that payment and we need to see some evidence that the money that they are requesting from the fund was paid to the employee. And with the reimbursement, there needs to be some correlation with the levy payment that they’re paying—in a sense, the salary, the payment or the wages that they’re paying a levy on—so that we can ensure that either they’re not being over-reimbursed or the employee certainly is not receiving the reimbursement in full. That’s where the correlation should be. Without any specifics, it’s difficult for me to talk to it.

Senator ROBERTS: Then we might be in touch with you for more on that. I’ve raised many concerns in regard to the treatment and payment of Mr Simon Turner. I note that you’re aware that Mr Turner was forced to leave the coalmining industry due to workplace injuries at the Mt Arthur coalmine that left him totally and permanently disabled, TPD. I note that, approximately three years after my raising these injustices in Senate estimates, Mr Turner has had his case only partly reviewed  and  that Chandler  Macleod, his  employer,  and  Coal LSL have yet to resolve his termination status as being TPD. When will this status be updated and when will Mr Turner’s outstanding questions be addressed?

Mr Kembrey: As we discussed back in the estimates in March, we have been assisting Mr Turner for a number of years now. And the difficulty with that particular issue you’re raising is that that is a dispute between Chandler Macleod and Mr Turner. We have been trying to mediate that and obtain some factual evidence to support the position put forward by Chandler Macleod. At this point in time the parties are holding their positions and they don’t agree with each other. The last we were advised is that those matters are subject to court proceedings in the Federal Court at present. So there is not anything more we can do to try to resolve that, unfortunately.

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of records would you turn to for proof?

Mr Kembrey: We would turn to contemporaneous correspondence that evidences the reasons. As you know, this is a dispute about the reason why Mr Turner was terminated by Chandler Macleod back in 2016; so we have requested contemporaneous material that supports the position that Chandler Macleod put forward or justifies that position, and that has been provided. We’re not in a position to make a legal assessment of that, because that is not our role; the Fair Work Commission has the power to do that. But I believe that Fair Work Commission proceedings are on foot and those  proceedings  have  been  transferred  to  the  Federal  Court.  Hopefully,  for Mr Turner, there is some resolution to that matter in the near future.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just before your next question, we will be breaking at quarter to four for the afternoon tea break and concluding with these witnesses and I know that Senator O’Neill does have some questions. If the two of you could perhaps have a conversation about timing for the remaining nine minutes that would be fantastic.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got four more questions that I’ll put to you on notice, Mr Kembrey and Ms Perks,  but I’ll ask this question: Queensland and Hunter Valley coalminers and coalminers everywhere expect Coal LSL to maintain a high standard of probity. Casual coalminers expect that you will do the right thing by them and give them the freedom of choice to  waive  the Coal LSL contributions for them to  receive  the 2.7  per cent or the  two per cent as additional income. I just want to make that point on the record.

/by

Workers left in the dirt by Labor and Union Bosses – 2SM with Marcus Paul

Transcript

[Paul Marcus]

Right now though, as we do each and every Thursday, we have a chat with the wonderful One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good day Marcus, how are you?

[Paul Marcus]

Look I’m okay. This icare scandal has deepened in New South Wales. And Senator it reminded me a couple of weeks ago, when you raised the issue about Simon, a coal miner in the hunter valley.

You recently went to the Hunter and you released a video introducing key points. Now I’ve had a look at it. It is a massive issue. I can’t tolerate abuse of people, I really can’t. You say the mine owner and employer are acting unlawfully, immorally, and unethically. Can you tell us a little bit about Simon’s story again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sure. Simon Turner is the human face of a crisis in this nation’s broken industrial relations laws. The people in agencies who are supposed to protect workers have turned their back on him. That’s unions, employers, industry groups, state, government departments, state ministers, federal government departments, federal agencies.

They’ve turned their backs on hundreds of the workers at New South Wales largest coal mine, BHPs Mount Arthur North mine, Mount Arthur mine I’m sorry. They’re not protected. And they’ve turned their back on thousands of workers across Australia, including my state Queensland and in New South Wales who have lost some basic entitlements that everyone has taken for granted.

The people in agencies, Marcus, who are meant to be protecting workers have enabled the exploitation and abuse of these people. The state and federal government departments, employers, industry groups, unions, safety inspectors, political parties, representatives in parliament have all failed their workers.

[Paul Marcus]

What happened to Simon? I mean, you say that he’s been failed and we’ll get to that, but what exactly happened to him? What were his injuries?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, Simon was driving a truck while he was employed by the Chandler MacLeod labour hire firm. BHB runs the mine. They’ve got permanent workers there. They’ve also got around 400 or so, what they call casuals, but they’re on the permanent roster. And they’ve been working there for years. The truck that Simon was driving was being loaded.

The coal digger operator, didn’t see Simon’s truck because of the dusty conditions. The whole mine had being shut down apparently, except for this one unit and the coal digger smashed his truck. The massive collision directly injured Simon causing swollen L three, L four, and L five discs in Simon’s back, a pinched sciatic nerve, pinch cranial nerve, and a lateral tear in one of the discs.

The lateral tear in his back leaks fluid into the spine and the resulting nerve damage goes all the way down his left leg, leaving him permanently in pain. I’ve watched this man. It is remarkable what he puts up with. As a result, Simon’s leg collapses without notice and he deals with this ongoing posttraumatic stress disorder and depression from that day 2014. So Simon’s injuries have left him totally and permanently disabled, and he cannot return to work.

[Paul Marcus]

Well, that’s what I was gonna say. I mean, this is a debilitating injury that doesn’t allow this man to work and has ruined his future livelihood. Now, I guess the BHP management, I mean, they would have looked into this incident. Now, what’s been said by them?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, it’s amazing. This is where it gets even worse.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

A BHP manager, even though BHP wasn’t the employer, the BHP manager turned up at hospital and another BHP manager tells Simon to his face that if Simon reported the injury, he would not have a job.

[Paul Marcus]

What!

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s breaking the law. You must report injuries. So Simon returned to the mine and was told to sit out the shift on a cold steel bench. Imagine that, hip and spinal damage and you’re sitting on a cold steel bench. And what we’ve done, we’ve been to the Hunter, even though I’m a Senator for Queensland, because we were so concerned and no one’s taking any action on these people.

We met with other miners who have been traumatised in 2014, ’15, ’16. And yet, if you go to the New South Wales government report for labour hire miners in those years, they reported no injuries for labour hire miners, none.

[Paul Marcus]

That’s rubbish. I mean, why would the management, why would the supervisor in this case, perhaps not report the injury? What is it? Is it in their best interests not to, or what’s the situation here?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, you’re quite perceptive. The managers at Mount Arthur had a safety bonus that encourages not reporting injuries. If they had injuries, then their safety bonus would drop.

So they would cop it in their wallet. So Simon wasn’t actually getting workers’ compensation or accident pay. Now that’ll shock many miners. It’ll shock many workers around the country. So, you know, desperate for cash. Six months later, Simon tried to access his coal long service leave. They told him he’d been sacked just weeks after his injury.

Simon had not even been told by his labour hire employer Chandler MacLeod nor by BHP, Simon went on to lose his home and he then started living in his parents’ garage, sleeping in his car and three times this man considered ending his life, three times.

[Paul Marcus]

All right. I mean, I don’t understand this, why this has been able to flourish? I mean, Chandler MacLeod pay rates are apparently 40% less than permanent BHP workers on the same 12 month roster as the permanents.

And they’re basically doing the same kind of work, but they’re doing it with no basic work entitlements, like sick leave, annual leave. Look this bloke he’s not even entitled to anything really. I mean, what are you saying about this in Senate estimates?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, he is entitled to it, but that’s just it, he’s not getting any of these things.

[Paul Marcus]

Right, I see.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But I applaud your use of data again. You’re right, Chandler McLeod pay rates for these so-called casuals who are really permanent on a permanent roster when working there for years, in some cases, are 40% less than permanent BHB rosters, then BHP employees, sorry.

And Chandler McLeod people have no basic work entitlements, like sick leave and annual leave. And what’s more is that the fair work commission have authorised the Chandler McLeod Enterprise Agreement and the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley, authorised it and approved it. They’ve signed off on it.

[Paul Marcus]

So the unions endorsed it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes.

[Paul Marcus]

Well, that’s not looking after members, and that’s certainly not looking after miners in the Hunter.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, it’s not. And then it goes even further, as you alluded to, or as I said, a little while ago, that Simon approached the long service leave to see if he could get an advance on his long service leave entitlements, just get some cash.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And so bear this in mind. That long service leave contributions for Simon were underpaid and not audited. So my questions in senate estimates started finding these chinks and the Senate estimates said, “No, no, no, they’d be correct.” Sorry, the coal long service leave in senate estimates said their records are correct.

“Have you audited them?” “No”, but they’ve, since after my pressure was applied, they’ve since audited to them and found Simon was correct. Note this though Marcus, Coal long service leaves board has a mixture of directors from the CFMMEU and the minerals council or the mine owners.

And then we have other conflicts of interests. I certainly think they’re conflicts of interests, coal mines insurance, the workers compensation for the coal miners is 50, 50 owned by the New South Wales Minerals Council, the mine owners and the CFMMEU. AUSCoal super is 50, 50 CFMMEU and the State Minerals Councils, the mine owners.

AUSCoal controls the money for coal, long service leave and collects money on behalf of the government and its board is made up as I said, a minute ago, 50, 50 minerals council and the CFMMU. But here’s where it gets interesting for Icare. And I hope people in New South Wales are listening.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

‘Cause your Icare has been underfunded, because it’s paying out workers’ compensation to coal miners, because Simon’s employer Chandler McLeods policy said they only had 22 office workers doing administrative jobs, not coal miners.

They had hundreds of coal miners on a far greater wage than an admin worker and with much greater risk. Now, what that means is that Simon, because he’s not covered by that policy, has been funded by basically iCare.

So the moms and dads who own small businesses and even medium sized businesses in New South Wales, if you wonder why your premiums are going up, it’s because iCare money is going to these unfunded people because a multinational Chandler MacLeod is owned by Recruit Holdings, a huge Japanese recruitment agency that works around the world.

This Japanese firm, recruit holdings, some of its subsidiaries in Australia have been receiving $2.4 billion in the last four years from federal government contracts for labour hire people in our own federal government agencies, and they are not paying for the proper workers’ compensation. That’s why Simon missed out. Instead, they’re being paid by iCare. That’s why iCare is broke, one reason why iCare is broke.

[Paul Marcus]

All right, look this is very big, the attorney general is now proposing to review IR laws, to help the recovery from COVID. It’s a bit difficult to support it, given what is going on with the laws being bypassed and broken anyway, is that right? I mean, everything, the system is broken, it obviously needs to be fixed first.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Completely correct. You’re right onto it. Now, what we’re seeing is the attorney general wants to change the IR laws to help people recover from COVID. That means what he wants to do is condone what’s happening.

What I’ve just outlined. What we need to do is to get compliance, get these laws enforced. The system is broken. You don’t change the system and bring in more breakages, you fix the system first, ensure compliance, ensure the compliance with the law. And then let’s look at fixing it. Otherwise Marcus people like Simon are the ones who we will be paying for this abuse. It’ll never be fixed.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The attorney general has his way and working for these large companies it seems, it’ll never be fixed and the workers will shoulder the burden because the union has abandoned them in the Hunter Valley, the employers and the employer industry and associations have abandoned them.

And the state government and federal government departments have abandoned them. We’re the only ones chasing this.

[Paul Marcus]

All right, well, Simon obviously needs to be a priority. I mean, I’d love to see him get his lawful and certainly moral entitlements and compensation for the trauma and suffering over the last, what, six or so years.

And also, I mean, we need to continue, I guess to apply pressure, to bring maybe some justice on those who exploited Simon, or at least enabled it, whether it’s BHP, Chandler MacLeod, the Hunter, or New South Wales division of the CFMMEU. I mean, something needs to be done, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes, definitely Marcus. And it’s really significant that if people watch the video that I’ve put out in the last three minutes, what you’ll see is the connections because the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley started the employment of casuals. The CFMMEU’s predecessor, the Miner’s Federation, initiated casuals for a good reason because of unemployment in the late ’80s.

But the CFMMEU, then became the employer and the union representing the employees. And so that’s a conflict of interest, but the CFMMEU now endorses enterprise agreements. We’ve seen cases of enterprise agreements being sold to labour hire companies. And so the union actually started use of casuals, continued the use of casuals, enabled the use of casuals. And this has exploited workers. And some of these people are members of the union.

[Paul Marcus]

Where’s labor on this Malcolm? I mean aren’t they supposed to be looking after the worker, where are they on this? I mean, when you’re highlighting this, which you obviously are doing in Senate estimates, and you’re talking to me and in the media and you’re on social media and one nation and trying to push some changes, to IR our laws, where are labor on this. Are you getting any support at all from Anthony Albanese and the like.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I’ve written to Anthony Albanese, no response. I’ve written to the local federal member, no response. Simon Turner, the injured miner-

[Paul Marcus]

What about Joel Fitzgibbon?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes. And Simon Turner, the injured miner himself has written to Joel six times and has never been, never got a response.

[Paul Marcus]

Well I’ll talk to Joel because Joel and I get on very well but I’ll have to leave it there, ‘Cause I’ve got the deputy premier waiting on the line, but you and I will talk further on this

[Malcolm Roberts]

When you talk Joel, remind him the issue is not casuals. That is one part of it. The issue that I’m raising goes well beyond that, into the abuse of these casuals and what the union, the employer and the labour hire firms are doing and what the state and federal governments are abandoning workers on. That’s the issue.

/by