Posts

Underpaid Coal Miners: FWO’s Investigation

,

I congratulate the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for at last taking the many complaints from underpaid coal miners seriously and treating them professionally. It’s only taken me five and a half years of persistent questioning to reach this point.

I was informed that preliminary results of the FWO’s investigation would be available around mid-2025. The six-year time limit that applies for enforcement under Section 544 of the Fair Work Act does not prevent investigations from extending beyond that period.

Determining the legality of Enterprise Agreements (EAs) is outside the scope of the FWO. If the Fair Work Commission (FWC) approved an EA, the FWO would consider it legal until a court rules otherwise.

The Senate passed my amendment to a recent Labor bill. That amendment requires the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to investigate this wage theft. Minister Watt agreed to provide me with updates and mentioned that the investigation might take up to 18 months to complete. We will persist in holding the Minister accountable in increasingly detailed ways as to progress in his investigation.

After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners recently submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman -. i.e. a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. I want to congratulate and thank the Fair Work Ombudsman for responding to the Independent Workers Union of Australia request for underpayment assessment on behalf of IWUA casual miner members. I hear that the Fair Work Ombudsman is treating these requests with seriousness and professionalism and that you’ve set up a specific process for handling the claims. Given that the underpayment claims involve detailed investigation of documents relating to each miners’ annual income, their pay rates and so on, going back as far as 2013, I appreciate that the investigations may take some time. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have any idea of the timelines involved? I’m not urging or wanting a fast outcome. Rather than a rushed job, I’d prefer a thorough high-quality investigation.

Ms Booth: Thank you for the question and the compliment. I’ll ask Mr Campbell to commence, but Mr Ronson has direct knowledge of that investigation, I believe.

Mr Campbell: I don’t know that we’ve got a timeframe at this point, but I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist with an answer, given his immersion in the subject.

Mr Ronson: We’ve put together an overarching project plan in response to the requests to investigate the sector. In terms of preliminary findings—this is a guide, not so much necessarily for each request for assistance or each employee—we’re looking at preliminary findings by at least the middle of next year. The challenges we face, of course, as we go back to 2013, are those records, available witnesses and so forth.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; that’s good. When you said ‘next year’, I suddenly realised we’re nearly at the end of the year. I understand that the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigation is subject to a six-year time limitation. Can you advise of the specific legislation, regulation or policy that creates that six-year time limitation?

Mr Ronson: That’s section 544 of the Fair Work Act. But there’s an important distinction to make, and this is one that we’ve put into our plan. That provision relates to enforceability. If I can just take you back—if someone puts in, as we’ve received, claims that go back to 2013, that does not prohibit us from investigating back to that period. However, if we were to find underpayment and request an employer or previous employer to compensate the employee for their underpayment, we would be restricted or limited by the impact of section 544. What that really means is: say we had to take someone to court. It would mean that at the time we file proceedings—I’m happy for chief counsel to help me here—we’d only be able to enforce an underpayment that goes back six years.

Senator ROBERTS: To 2018. Thank you; that’s pretty clear.

Mr Ronson: That doesn’t preclude us investigating historic underpayment.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s even more encouraging. Thank you so much. My next question is: is the Fair Work Ombudsman able to investigate back beyond—yes, you’ve said that. The One Nation report detailed coalminers’ wage theft and detailed the way casual coalminers’ underpayments have been justified by the people involved. The report identified what was called legal trickery that argued that, because the black coalmining industry award does not allow for casuals, a comparison to what would ordinarily be a casual rate under the award could be ignored in assessing the claimed underpayments of the national Independent Workers Union of Australia member coalminers. What is the approach of the Fair Work Ombudsman to this legal argument that claims to justify underpayments? What bearing does or would this argument have on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s investigations?

Mr Ronson: In terms of the requests for assistance that have come from workers who are being assisted by the Independent Workers Union of Australia, their argument is that the enterprise agreements are unlawful. There are various reasons they have put forward, probably in line with the report you just held. The question of whether those agreements are unlawful is outside our scope. The chief counsel, I think, on previous occasions gave evidence to this committee as to why we don’t go to second question. Nor can we guess the enterprise agreement approval process. What is in scope—what is in jurisdiction for us—is whether there was any coercion or any breach of general protections in the making of the agreement. As to the foundation or the status of the enterprise agreement, if it’s been approved by the Fair Work Commission, we take it as approved. There are a whole range of questions that flow from that, but that’s it in summary.

Senator ROBERTS: So, it’s not necessarily compliant with the law just because the Fair Work Commission approves it, but it has been approved.

Ms Volzke: Senator Roberts, I think we’ve traversed these issues before. It’s the Fair Work Commission that approves agreements, and it’s our job to apply the law to any particular case. As Mr Ronson said, that is exactly what we’re going to do with all of those requests for assistance that have been made. Certainly, there have been issues of legal complexity which still haven’t been authoritatively determined: what actually is the effect of the black coalmining award not providing for casual employment in operational roles. Certainly, there’s been some commentary around that, but it hasn’t been formally determined.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. In undertaking the investigations, will the Fair Work Ombudsman report to the Senate on the progress of the investigations, findings and follow-up, obviously within the bounds of required confidentiality in relation to each miner?

Mr Ronson: We’re very happy to, at these appearances, provide updates, if you like, without jeopardising the integrity of any particular investigations. So it’d be at a fairly high level, but we’re more than happy to provide updates.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have questions to Minister Watt. Minister, when will you start your investigation that the Senate ordered on 16 May by passing my successful second reading amendment to the government’s recent so-called closing-the-loopholes Fair Work Amendment Bill?

Senator Watt: I would have to go back and take a look at that, Senator Roberts. I must admit I—

Senator ROBERTS: It was at the time Minister Burke was in the chair.

Senator Watt: Okay, that’s probably why I’m not familiar with it. Let me take that on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m surprised that you’re not aware of it. No-one in the handover made you aware of it?

Senator Watt: I don’t remember anything like that in the terms you’ve described, but Ms Volzke might know.

Ms Volzke: Yes, certainly. Minister Watt wrote to us—I think it was in August, so a couple of months ago— in relation to tasking us to effectively look at investigations of underpayments in black coal mining.

Senator Watt: Yes, I do remember that now. Sorry, I forgot.

Senator ROBERTS: So you are interested in workers?

Senator Watt: I think my record shows I am pretty interested in workers, including coalmining workers, Senator Roberts. I sign a lot of letters, but I do remember that one now.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I can understand. What’s your planned format, in terms of reference and scope, for the investigation?

Senator Watt: That’s probably a question for the—

Mr Ronson: That’s what I’m working on, and that’s where we’re developing what we’re calling an overarching project plan. What we’ve got at the moment is around 20 workers who have already approached the Fair Work Ombudsman, and obviously each of those persons will be very helpful to our investigation, because we’ll be able to talk to them about the sector. I can just give you a couple of key features of the project plan. One is to map out and identify who are the key players, the key influences. Senator, you’re on the record, for example, as saying that there are five labour hire entities of significance that you claim warrant attention.

Senator ROBERTS: We think there are more, but we’ve only investigated five.

Mr Ronson: Yes. Labour hire entities will obviously be a sharp focus for this plan.

Senator ROBERTS: Good.

Mr Ronson: Just in the nature of the industry, there are tensions, which we’ve already talked about before, between entitlements that are owed under the award and those under the enterprise agreement, so that’s in scope. We’ll also be working and talking with other regulators—for example, the coal long service leave board—where there are entities of mutual interest. We might be able to collaborate with that agency to enhance our capability and capacity.

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s broad, and—

Mr Ronson: Yes. There’s an overarching plan that will take us around the next 18 months to deliver, but within that we’ve already set up, for example, a dedicated email address for anyone in the sector to approach us. We’re in communications with the Independent Workers Union. They’ve already started using the dedicated email address. We’re active and open for business now, but there’ll be other initiatives and steps we take to enhance awareness of this investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: I might come up with some more questions, but I’ll put them on notice. You’ve told us it will be about 18 months?

Mr Ronson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, I refer to the letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia to the CFMEU administrator in relation to the Independent Workers Union of Australia’s application to the Fair Work Ombudsman for investigation—you and I were copied, as was Senator Cash—and the activities of the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to those underpayments. The IWUA sent you a copy. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s reviews of the underpayment assessments.

Senator Watt: Certainly I will no doubt be informed of the result of the work that the Fair Work Ombudsman is doing.

Senator ROBERTS: Before the 18 months for the overarching inquiry.

Senator Watt: I’m sure the ombudsman will keep me informed of that, as they do on a range of matters.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Have you made yourself, or do you intend to make yourself, cognisant of the One Nation report on this matter, specifically with a view to understanding the CFMEU’s role?

Senator Watt: I haven’t read the report, but you and I have talked about this many, many times at estimates, so I think I’ve got a bit of an understanding of the issues that you’ve raised.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve always been sceptical, but I encourage you to read the report.

Senator Watt: I’m sure it’s top-quality work, coming from you, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, we commissioned it. I didn’t do it.

Senator Watt: Oh, okay.

Senator ROBERTS: I just informed some parts of it.

Senator Watt: I’m sure it would have been better if you’d written it yourself.

Senator ROBERTS:Have you investigated, or do you intend to investigate, the historical activities of the CFMEU where the CFMEU either negotiated, oversaw, were aware of, approved, endorsed or were a party to the agreements that are in discussion?

Senator Watt: My recollection is that those complaints that have been made have been investigated previously and, in some cases, are still being looked at. I’ve got full confidence in the authorities that are looking into those matters.

Senator ROBERTS: They haven’t been investigated yet.

Senator Watt: I think there has been some work looking at the veracity of those allegations. From what I’ve seen, there’s a different view compared to what has been put forward by that group of people. I respect the fact that you believe in and support the people who’ve made those complaints. I guess there’s a different point of view.

Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I have copies of that advice, please.

Senator Watt: I’ll get you anything that we’ve got, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether officers of the CFMEU or persons associated with the CFMEU engaged in any collusive activity such as conspiring with other people or entities to enable the underpayment of casual labour hire coalminers?

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, we should make the point that when you’re talking about the CFMEU you’re talking about what was the mining and energy division of the CFMEU. It’s now a separate union.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s the Mining and Energy Union now.

Senator Watt: There’s been a lot of discussion about the CFMEU today, and we’re not talking about the construction division. Again, my understanding is that a number of those matters have been looked at already— or, at least, you’ve had them referred to authorities. I’d be relying on the work that’s already happened there.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us copies of what you’re relying on.

Senator Watt: Sure. I thought, Senator Roberts, that you had actually referred some of these matters to authorities for investigation already. If I’m right in thinking that, I’ll come back to you on what’s happened. If I’m not right about that, then I’d encourage you to refer those, whether it be to the Fair Work Ombudsman or to other groups.

Senator ROBERTS: I think the correct avenue is now being followed by the miners.

Senator Watt: Exactly, so we’ll wait and see the outcome of that.

Senator ROBERTS: If you have anything on what the department has done with it, I’d like to see that.

Senator Watt: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Given the alleged extensive criminal activity within the CFMEU—I know that was a different division, but the divisions do talk—have you investigated or do you intend to investigate whether any criminal activities, such as bribes or other things, could have resulted from or were a feature of the CFMEU’s involvement with the enterprise agreements, resulting in a shameful massive underpayment of casual coalminers? It seems it could not have happened without this.

Senator Watt: I don’t think anyone has ever produced any evidence of bribes or corruption involving the Mining and Energy Union or, previously, the mining division of the CFMEU. If you’ve got evidence of that, then I would strongly encourage you to refer that to the police for investigation, but I’m not aware of any evidence.

Senator ROBERTS: I believe that two miners that I accompanied, along with a barrister in my office, gave evidence to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and to the former minister’s staff—Minister Burke.

Senator Watt: Okay. I’ll take a look at what happened with that. As I say, if you’ve got evidence of someone taking a bribe or engaging in corrupt activity, then I’d strongly encourage you to take that to the police. They’re the authority who can lay charges.

Senator ROBERTS: Do they involve the Fair Work Ombudsman as well? They’d be interested in the motive, wouldn’t they?

Senator Watt: I think what would typically happen, if you’re talking about bribery, corruption or criminal offences—if they came to the attention of the Fair Work Ombudsman, the ombudsman would refer them to the relevant police. The Fair Work Ombudsman has responsibility for enforcing workplace laws, so offences against the Fair Work Act, but criminal offences, whether it be bribery or any other criminal offence, are a police matter.

Senator ROBERTS: To remind you, Minister Watt, this is Australia’s largest wage theft case. It’s outside the legislation that’s been passed since you came to office, and it’s not due to a loophole. Fixing the wage theft and preventing recurrence simply require compliance with the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. Did the government introduce the so-called closing loopholes bill to hide and bury Australia’s largest wage theft case?

Senator Watt: No.

Senator ROBERTS: There were no loopholes that enabled this. It was just straight-out noncompliance with the award.

Senator Watt: No, that’s not why we introduced the law.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.

Senator Watt: We introduced the closing loopholes laws to, among other things, fix the labour hire rort that was being used by some employers.

Senator ROBERTS: This is the rort, Minister Watt.

Senator Watt: What I’m saying is that the purpose of our introducing the legislation was, among other things, same job, same pay. As I’ve pointed out to you before, Senator Roberts, you didn’t support that law.

Senator ROBERTS: Because there was no loophole. This is the cause of the underpayment. This is the cause of Australia’s largest wage theft case.

Senator Watt: If you didn’t think there was a loophole with coalmining labour hire workers getting underpaid, then I don’t agree with you. I think that was a massive loophole that was being exploited.

Senator ROBERTS: It was just noncompliance with the award. Given the extreme wealth of the CFMEU, have you or do you intend to investigate and consider whether you have, at minimum, a moral obligation to cause the CFMEU to financially contribute to compensation to affected coalminers who have been underpaid? Can you do that?

Senator Watt: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Can the CFMEU administrator do that?

Senator Watt: No, because—I wouldn’t think so, because the CFMEU administrator is responsible for the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU not the Mining and Energy Union, which is a standalone union these days.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you legislate to force those responsible for Australia’s largest wage theft case to pay the miners what they’re owed, if the findings show that?

Senator Watt: I guess, theoretically, governments can legislate on anything, as long as they’ve got a constitutional basis for that legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear that.

Senator Watt: You could bring in a private senator’s bill. I probably shouldn’t have suggested that, should I?

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister Watt. Thank you, Chair.

Senator Watt: Can I say this really quickly. Senator Roberts, we’ve had a bit of a joke as we’ve gone along, but we take any report about wage theft seriously. All I can do is keep encouraging people like yourself, if you’ve got evidence of things—there are bodies whose role it is to investigate these things, and I’d encourage you to take them forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. The Independent Workers Union of Australia is showing its mettle.

Senator Watt: They can make complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand they have.

Senator Watt: We’ll wait and see how that goes.

/0 Comments/by

Labor is Hiding Australia’s Largest Wage Theft

,

After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research, we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). For example, a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.

In this session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked Mr Furlong, General Manager of FWC, how many applications for regulated Labour Hire Agreements were currently under the Commission’s consideration. He stated that 55 applications had been submitted, with 11 Orders made—9 in the mining industry and 2 in the meat processing industry.

I then asked a series of questions about the relationships between Awards, Regulated Labour Hire Agreements, and Enterprise Agreements. Mr Furlong confirmed that, under the Labor government’s recent legislation, it’s standard for casual workers performing the same job as full-time workers under a Regulated Labour Hire Agreement to receive an additional 25% in pay as compensation for entitlements they do not receive. Mr Furlong agreed to look into which Awards would have applied in the absence of Labour Hire Agreement Orders and provide that information on notice.

I’ve raised this issue at every senate estimates hearing since late 2019 and finally the Fair Work Commission and Minister seem to be taking this issue seriously. Until recently, bureaucrats and Ministers have been in denial of what has been happening right under their noses and that raises questions of integrity.

Australia’s largest wage theft case has been possible only with the participation of the relevant union bosses in the CFMEU/MEU, labour-hire firms, mine owners and the FWC’s approval.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’m interested in exploring the nature of labour hire arrangements and their relationship with associated awards, and also partly the CFMEU administrator. What’s the total number of labour hire arrangements currently before the commission to date? 

Mr Furlong: I might start here and then ask Ms Scarlett to assist. My understanding is that to 30 September we’ve received 55 applications for regulated labour hire authorisation orders. And of that— 

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘regulated’? 

Mr Furlong: Of that number? 

Senator ROBERTS: No, what does the term ‘regulated’ refer to? 

Mr Furlong: That’s the term— 

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’? 

Mr Furlong: given under the loopholes mark 1 changes. In terms of the number of orders that have been made, there are 11. Nine of them, I understand, are in the mining industry and two are in the meat-processing industry. Ms Scarlett, is there anything you’d like to add? 

Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many? 

Ms Scarlett: It was 55. As Mr Furlong has said, 11 labour hire arrangement orders have been issued since the commencement of the provisions. 

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders? 

Ms Scarlett: Regulated labour hire arrangement orders. Of the 55 applications, 11 orders have been made, a number of applications have been withdrawn and the remaining matters remain before the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown of these labour hire arrangement orders for each award that would otherwise have covered the employees? You might have to take that on notice. 

Ms Scarlett: Yes. I’m not sure that we can go to the award. The regulated labour hire arrangement orders apply where there is a covered employment instrument such as an enterprise agreement in place. So it’s not necessarily an assessment of the award which applies, rather whether an enterprise agreement is in place that would cover the work of the labour hire employees if they were working in the business. 

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement would be in an industry or work site that is covered by an award, but the enterprise agreement supersedes the award; is that right? 

Ms Scarlett: That’s correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: So would there be any such sites that only have an enterprise agreement and no back-up award? 

Ms Scarlett: I don’t believe there would be, but I’d need to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know the connection to the award, or to the award that would be in place if the enterprise agreement wasn’t there? 

Ms Scarlett: I understand. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice whether there would be a general expectation that anyone working as a casual should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Ms Scarlett: The regulated labour hire arrangement order provisions provide for a 25 per cent casual loading for regulated labour hire employees. 

Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. 

Ms Scarlett: Casuals. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice if there is specific legislation, regulation or policy that requires that a casual employee should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? I know that it’s a community expectation and it’s a right almost, but is it enshrined in law, statute or policy? 

Ms Scarlett: I’m not aware of a specific provision in legislation that requires a 25 per cent loading. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that? 

Ms Scarlett: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take on notice to check it? It is fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? Can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t point to an award, but I’ll happily take it on notice. There are 155 modern awards, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so I’d like to know if that’s normal. 

Mr Furlong: Can I clarify the question so we make sure that we provide you with the information that you require? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. Is it fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? That’s the first part. 

Mr Furlong: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: The second part is: can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong. In applying the better off overall test, the BOOT, to enterprise agreement applications, would it be the normal expectation of the Fair Work Commission, having regard to pay rates of casual workers, that casual employees should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? 

Mr Furlong: I will ask Mr Corcoran to assist you, Senator. 

Mr Corcoran: Each application is considered on its own merits by the member. They take into account the circumstances in their entirety. It’s not a line-by-line assessment that the member will make; the better off overall test is a global assessment. 

Senator ROBERTS: A global assessment. If an award did not allow for casual employment, would this create the circumstance in which casual employees working under enterprise agreements subject to the set award would be paid less than full-time employees and/or be paid a rate that would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent? 

Mr Corcoran: A casual employee wouldn’t be paid less than a full-time employee, I wouldn’t have thought, in normal circumstances. 

Senator ROBERTS: A casual employee would be paid less than a full-time— 

Mr Corcoran: I thought they would not have been paid less. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. And they’d be paid full time plus 25 per cent? 

Mr Furlong: With some of these questions, I return to the correspondence I provided you on 11 January this year regarding information published on your website but also relating to the better off overall test and the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015. I’m not too sure if you still have access to that correspondence. 

Senator ROBERTS: I do. It’s sitting on my desk—with an intent to reply. 

Mr Furlong: This series of questions has been covered in that correspondence. I’m happy to table it, if that would assist. 

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s fine; I know exactly where it is on my desk. Can you envisage a circumstance in which, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections? 

Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed several times, the better off overall test, as Mr Corcoran said, is a global assessment to ensure the employees are better off overall. It is always determined by a member of the commission. Members, as you’re aware, are independent statutory office holders who are required to ensure that, in their decisions, they are satisfying the obligation, functions and prescribed content of the enterprise agreements before they can be satisfied and then ultimately approve the decision to make the agreement operational. If a party to that agreement or someone who has a valid interest in that agreement is unsatisfied, is concerned with that agreement application, they can seek to have the agreement overturned through the mechanism of an appeal; that is their right. The other thing I’d like to add here— 

Senator ROBERTS: Just on the answer to that question: would the commission ignore the objections in assessing the enterprise agreement? Would the commission ignore the objections of the union as part of that? I’m not talking about passing it and then objecting to it; I’m talking about objecting as they’re processing it. 

Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

Mr Furlong: It would be the subject of deliberation of a member before the tribunal. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, though, wouldn’t it? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of our members and their independent decision-making. 

Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever seen a member overturn a union objection? 

Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed, my role is to provide administrative support to the president of the commission to ensure— 

Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, wouldn’t it? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there. 

Mr Furlong: I was just going to say that if an agreement has reached or passed its normal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can seek to have the agreement unilaterally terminated. They will then fall back to the underpinning award—or they can have the right to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the extra detail; it goes outside what I’m looking for. In the process of getting approval for an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would hardly ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections. 

Mr Furlong: It’s a case-by-case basis, on the information provided to the members in the consideration of whether or not— 

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the likelihood? Have you heard of any? 

Mr Furlong: As I said, it’s not my role to comment on cases determined by members of the commission. It’s my responsibility to provide the president with administrative support, as the general manager, to ensure the commission can operate effectively. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you for your opinion. 

Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on cases that come before the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to. I’m not asking for your opinion on the member making the decision. I’m asking: would it happen, and has it happened? 

Mr Furlong: I don’t have any oversight of particular cases that move through the tribunal side of the commission. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would anyone else care to comment? It seems to me to be almost impossible; I won’t say it is impossible! 

Mr Corcoran: I would say a member would always consider the views of the parties, but ultimately the member must be satisfied that the requirements of the act have been met. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have some questions for the minister; I think most of them will be pretty simple, Minister. I table this letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia; it’s the letter that was sent to the CFMEU administrator, copied to you, me and Senator Cash. I think these questions will be fairly simple, given your background, Minister. Why is the CFMEU administrator not here at Senate estimates? 

Senator Watt: They’re not a public official. I think pretty much every person who attends estimates is either a minister or a public servant. The administrator is not a public servant. There are probably other reasons but that would be one of them. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary? 

Senator Watt: He’s being paid by the CFMEU in the same way that officials of the union have traditionally been paid. 

Senator ROBERTS: That explains that. What responsibilities does the CFMEU administrator have with or to the Fair Work Commission? I imagine he’d have to deal with them a fair bit. 

Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed. 

Mr Furlong: Under the registered organisations act, I am the regulator of registered organisations. 

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it? 

Mr Furlong: I oversee all the registered organisations, employer and employee alike. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could the CFMEU administrator authorise payment of the underpaid miners from the CFMEU mining division using CFMEU funds? 

Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of the administrator. I don’t think you were here for this section of my evidence: the administrator operates independent of government. He will make decisions on behalf of the union as he sees fit. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can he investigate wage theft from casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley? 

Mr Furlong: In representing the interests of his members, he can look into the underpayments. It’s a core function of trade unions to do that. 

Senator Watt: Noting that the administrator is the administrator of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To use the colloquial, his members are members of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, not, for example, members of the maritime division and certainly not people who are now members of the Mining and Energy Union. His only responsibility is for the Construction and General Division, and its members. 

Senator ROBERTS: The government said it needed the parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality, didn’t it—amongst other things? 

Senator Watt: I might look back at what we said. We had a debate this morning about it. It’s not possible for me to go into the intention of the administration because of the High Court litigation. I’m sure you can look back at what was said in the second reading speech. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was my impression, so correct me if I’m wrong. Now, management of this is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. You said it would be a matter of immense public importance. 

Senator Watt: I think there has been a lot of public interest in this issue. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes—so wouldn’t it be better to have him subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Senate estimates? 

Senator Watt: I’m looking around at our lawyers. I might get Ms Godden, the departmental chief counsel, back up, if that’s okay. I know departmental people don’t normally appear at the table for this. Senator Roberts, I don’t know if you were here this morning but we had a discussion about issues that we could answer questions on and issues that we couldn’t because they might involve the High Court case. I don’t want to say anything which will interfere with that, and I know you don’t want me to either. Could you ask the question again, so I can get some advice on whether I can answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is the government said it needed parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with the alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality. Now the oversight of the CFMEU administrator is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it was said to be a matter of immense public importance. 

Senator Watt: I have no doubt it’s a matter of great public interest. I was saying before to Senator Payman that either the legislation or the scheme of administration requires the administrator to provide a report to me every six months, which I’m required to table in the parliament, so there is a form of parliamentary accountability through that. That was considered to be the appropriate amount of reporting for a role that is completely independent of government. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I know you’ve been very patient during the day, but this is— 

Senator ROBERTS: Given a report in the media on 12 April this year—I mentioned this in a speech in the Senate, but there was no answer to it—is the real reason for the CFMEU being placed in administration to stop John Setka taking over Labor in Victoria, as he reported? And why wouldn’t constituents be suspicious of the arrangement? 

Senator Watt: As I said in response to an earlier question, I’d really like to be able to answer that question but it’s probably not wise that I do given the High Court litigation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

Senator Watt: But I’m told you might want to have a look at paragraph 11 of the revised explanatory memorandum, which provides some reasoning for the legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Coal LSL Faces Scrutiny Over Improper Payments

,

I inquired with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) about the breach of Section 83 of the Constitution mentioned in their Annual Report regarding improper payments received by Coal LSL. This issue was not noted in the Coal LSL Annual Report for 2022-2023.

DEWR identified the breach in April 2023. It was discovered that several entities had paid levies to Coal LSL that should not have been paid. The funds were then paid to DEWR and deposited into consolidated revenue, where they were subsequently pooled and returned to Coal LSL from that revenue.

DEWR acted diligently to identify the error, highlighting the loose manner in which Coal LSL manages other people’s money.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. Here we go again. My questions are very short. They involve Coal LSL or your interaction with Coal LSL. Is it true that the Coal LSL annual report for 2022-23
states that no compliance issues were reported to the minister?

Senator Watt: I know Coal LSL will be appearing later tonight. I’ll just check whether we’re in a position to answer those questions now, or whether we might need to deal with them later.

Mr Manning: We’re just waiting for one of our colleagues to come from the waiting room downstairs. I don’t know the answer in relation to the annual report and any qualifications completely, but as I understand it there were none in relation to section 83 of the Constitution.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to take you to page 101 of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2022-23, which says: Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ for the purposes of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992. If so, payment of amounts equivalent to the levy by the department to Coal LSL in relation to those entities would likely have been made in contravention of s 83 of the Constitution.

Mr Manning: Yes, and that was the point I was getting to. Because of the way the money is collected under that scheme, a levy that’s collected is done by Coal LSL acting as an agent of the Commonwealth—because only the Commonwealth can levy taxation—and then goes into consolidated revenue. Then the same amounts go back out to allow Coal LSL, no longer acting as agent of the Commonwealth, to pay money for the purposes for which it exists. In the circumstances of section 83, it would technically be the Commonwealth, as represented by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, who, if there is a breach, has committed that breach. That’s why it’s in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: I guess I’m concerned because—what you’ve said in your report is accurate, I presume: Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ … So they shouldn’t have taken that money.

Mr Manning: My understanding is there is a small number of employers who are not national system employers from whom the levy shouldn’t have been collected.

Senator ROBERTS: The report says: Coal LSL has assured the department that it is conducting further investigations to confirm how many entities may have incorrectly paid levy and quantify any corresponding amounts that have been paid by the Commonwealth without a valid appropriation. It looks like the money has been collected from individual entities by Coal LSL, sent to you and then it has gone back as a lump sum. Is it true that you have confirmed that the information relating to Coal LSL in your annual report is correct?

Mr Manning: That’s our understanding. I might just ask my colleagues, who have now been able to join us, if they have anything to add to that. As I understand it, the issues are still being worked through between the
department and Coal LSL.

Mr Kerr: What my colleague Mr Manning has said is correct. Our understanding is that Coal LSL may have mistakenly received levy payments from employers who do not meet the definition of ’employer’ under the
scheme. Mr Manning has correctly described the money flows—essentially, the amounts collected by Coal LSL flow in and out of the consolidated revenue fund in the department. That’s the standard approach for taxation revenues that all go in to CRF. As a result, that’s led to a section 83 breach that we have disclosed in our annual report. So all of that’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: I find Mr Manning is usually pretty correct.

Mr Kerr: Indeed.

Mr Manning: Thank you; I’m always appreciative of the confirmation that I’ve got it right.

Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t even nervous while he was saying it. You weren’t waiting on the edge of your seat. How did the department become aware of these serious issues when it was not identified in Coal LSL’s annual report?

Mr Kerr: I believe we became aware of it in the context of considering some legislative amendments to the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: When was the breach first detected?

Mr Kerr: I believe it was in April 2023.

Senator ROBERTS: Who identified the likely breach of section 83 of the Constitution? Was it Coal LSL or DEWR?

Mr Kerr: No, it was the department.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the outcome so far of the investigation into this matter?

Mr Kerr: The department has been working with Coal LSL to seek to clarify the scope of the problem. I understand that Coal LSL has undertaken some assurance activities to review the current active registered
employers to identify affected entities, which is not an entirely straightforward endeavour.

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing much is straightforward in Coal LSL.

Mr Kerr: Indeed. As part of that review, Coal LSL has updated its records and introduced some new procedures to mitigate the risk of new ineligible employers being onboarded, and probably Coal LSL is best
placed to speak to that later.

Senator ROBERTS: We will be tonight.

Mr Kerr: From the department’s point of view, we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other relevant Commonwealth agencies to try and clarify the scope of the issue and settle a way forward to resolve it.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re still clarifying the scope.

Mr Kerr: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How was it detected? You said it was while doing some legislative enhancements.

Mr Kerr: Yes. The department was considering some potential legislative amendments to the scheme.

Senator ROBERTS: To the Coal LSL legislation?

Mr Kerr: Yes, correct.

Senator ROBERTS: In what year?

Mr Kerr: In 2023. In the course of that, we were considering the operation of the scheme and uncovered this issue.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your diligence. What checks and balances does the department have in place to confirm that the payroll levy taxes collected are true and correct?

Mr Kerr: The department has obtained legal advice in relation to this matter, but to a large degree we rely on the information provided by Coal LSL with respect to the amounts of levy collected. As we are required to do under section 36 of the Coal Administration Act, the Commonwealth role here is really to withdraw amounts equivalent to the levy collected by Coal LSL out of CRF and pay it back to them, with the effect being that the amount collected ultimately ends up in the Coal LSL fund. So, from the department’s point of view, we rely quite heavily on the information provided by Coal LSL about those amounts.

Senator ROBERTS: What is DEWR doing to remedy this breach? I know you said that you rely a lot on Coal LSL; I understand that.

Mr Kerr: The consequences of a section 83 breach are dealt with in some guidance put out by the Department of Finance. Essentially, what an entity is required to do if concerned that an appropriation may have been spent in breach of section 83 is to conduct an appropriate risk assessment which may include legal advice, which we have done, and also to undertake a section 83 breach disclosure, which we’ve also done in the annual report that you just referred to.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s not much you can do in regard to prevent it happening again.

Mr Kerr: I think I’d say that we’re working closely with Coal LSL and other Commonwealth agencies, including the Department of Finance, to confirm which employers and employees have been affected and the
options for addressing these.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’m asking for an opinion now. Was this disaster another example of Coal LSL’s incompetent best or an indication of the loose way that Coal LSL uses other people’s entitlements, and that
has not started since Labor came into office; that’s preceding Labor coming into office. I’m heartened by what Mr Manning and Mr Kerr said.

Senator Watt: Technically, we can’t give opinions but—

Senator ROBERTS: Ministers can. That’s why I asked the minister.

Senator Watt: Me, have opinions? Look, we support the work of the Coal LSL agency. Obviously, the department is taking you through a range of issues that are being considered and we’re supportive of that work as
well.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems DEWR has done its due diligence and done the job. I’m very concerned because—Coal LSL, at its core—the key issue we exposed in 2019. It took a long time for the government to say,
‘Okay, we finally agree with you.’ It took a lot of things to come out and I’m not sure it’s been fixed yet. Thank you, Chair.

/1 Comment/by

Fair Work Ombudsman Denies Responsibility for Enterprise Agreement Validity

,

I enquired about the number of requests for assistance that had been sent to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and was informed that none had been received during that week, attributing this to potential delays in processing. They mentioned that their preferred method for addressing issues is via phone calls and stated they wouldn’t be establishing any new methods for submitting materials that exceed the current 1000 character limit.

Furthermore, the FWO made it clear that they wouldn’t be accepting responsibility for the validity of any enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.  

Ms Booth: Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has your office received about stolen wages from coalminers working for labour hire companies?  

Ms Booth: We may or may not be able to give you that information right now, but I cannot. My staff may be able to assist. Ms Volzke, do you have those numbers?  

Ms Volzke: I don’t have the exact number. The requests for assistance are low, but you know that we have had a number of formal investigations in relation to black coal mining employees.  

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Volzke, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award were sent to your office recently.  

Ms Booth: We could ask Mr Scully if he has that information, as he’s the responsible person.  

Mr Scully: As for your first question, the information I have before me is that, with respect to disputes received from employees or participants in the coalmining industry, in the 2022-23 financial year there were nine; in this current financial year to the end of March there were six.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that include the recent ones I have learned about?  

Mr Scully: Of the recent ones you are referring to, one was in October 2021, another was in April 2022 and another in June 2023. I understand that they would be included in those numbers.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have learned of three others that were submitted. The Independent Workers’ Union of Australia submitted, I am told, via email address, three requests for the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate worker underpayment under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award, each of the three on behalf of an underpaid coalminer. That was in the last week.  

Ms Booth: We wouldn’t that have data available yet because it wouldn’t have reached the status of an investigation; they would have to be triaged first. So that will be for another Senate estimates.  

Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those most recent complaints, would I be able to ask about the date and time of the underpayments? Are we talking about historical, older underpayments?  

Senator ROBERTS: It varies. Some are over extended years. I can give you some information. The miners whose assessments have been completed have given approval for their data to be shared, with individual names withheld. I can give you their Fair Work Ombudsman reference numbers. One is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3389142, years assessed 2013-18, and amount underpaid $121,000. That is for one man or maybe a woman; I know that there are women involved. Another is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380088, years assessed 2013-21, and underpayment assessed at $104,000. A further one is coalminer Fair Work Ombudsman reference No. 3380122; five years are listed, but he or she is still doing assessments for another three years, and the total there, so far, is $54,000, but it’s expected to top out at $85,000. These are not small amounts of money. My understanding is that many more miners are now applying for the Independent Workers Union of Australia to lodge complaints or, I think you call them, requests for investigation.  

Ms Booth: Requests for assistance.  

Ms Volzke: Senator, in relation to those matters, again, they traverse a period of time when we had the SAJER legislation passed, which was under the previous coalition government, and the Rossato decision; they sit over the top. Now we have the most recent legislation, and I think Minister Watt referred to one of those ‘same job same pay’ orders already having been made. All those matters that you raise still raise those core issues that we spoke about previously, when you and I met, I think, towards the beginning of last year, about the consequences of the black coal mining award not providing for casual employment. The statutory definition changes to casual employment that had retrospective effect—  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you seen their request for investigation?  

Ms Volzke: No. That’s just by the dates that you’ve given me; that’s all. Absolutely, we’ll look at those, but I’m saying that they traverse that same time period.  

Mr Scully: Senator, we call it a request for assistance and, as you’ve indicated, if they’ve come in recently, they will not have got to me or Mr Ronson, who is also with us today. We will find where they are in our system and the circumstances regarding the requests for assistance.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are complainants limited to only 1,000 characters in their request for assistance or request for investigation—that’s about 130 words—in making a complaint about unfair work practices, including wage theft in the coalmining industry; why are they limited?  

Ms Booth: I would imagine that is in order to have both a website that’s capable of being properly hosted and information capable of being absorbed. The full extent of information that’s provided to the Fair Work Ombudsman is not contained in those characters. That’s a commencement process and, thereafter, individuals who have made those communications with us would be spoken to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why does the Fair Work Ombudsman refuse to accept complaints that are more detailed than those that can fit within a 1,000-character limit? 

Ms Booth: The area of technology is in Mr Campbell‘s purview. This will be entirely a technological matter, I’m thinking. Mr Campbell, are you able to say anything about the number of characters in our communications form?  

Mr Campbell: I’m going to have to guess a little bit in my answer and I don’t like to do that in this forum. It depends on the channel through which the people you speak of have sought to engage with us. In certain channels we do have limited fields for the collection of information from customers. Normally, that goes to complaints through our anonymous inquiry facility. But through ‘my account’, where we would normally access most of our requests for assistance, there would be the ability to capture more information, and that’s normally because the person has given us all their information that we’ve sought and they’re seeking to provide us with further information to assist us in making an assessment of their RFA, or request for assistance. I’m not quite sure that they’re limited from writing more than the characters that you’ve said.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that they tried to make an application but couldn’t get beyond the bureaucratic brick wall of that 1,000-character limit, which is roughly 130 words. Why was there no email address on your website, other than one that the submitters are told relates to freedom of information requests? When they couldn’t get their material under the 130-word limit, they then looked for an email, and the only one they could find they used, and were told that it relates to freedom of information requests.  

Ms Booth: Most of our requests for assistance come through a telephone contact. Of course, our 13-13-94 number gives no limit to the amount of information that can be conveyed, so that option perhaps in this case was not one that was undertaken by those people.  

Senator ROBERTS: These are pretty intelligent people. I’m surprised that they did not see it.  

Mr Campbell: I don’t know. I don’t want to speak to that, because I’d be making a judgement about their intelligence, and I can’t do that from here. But our request for assistance online lodgement capability seeks to authenticate the person who’s contacting us, so we know who they are and who we’re dealing with, and information about their circumstances, and that would include seeking them to detail their concerns to us. It’s not my recollection that’s limited. I’m happy to go and have a look because it would seem at odds with how we’re trying to collect information in the authenticated space. As I offered at the start, there is a facility for people to provide us with anonymous information about a workplace or circumstance, and that might have a limited character overlay on top of it, which might be where they’ve started, as compared to seeking to raise with us a request for assistance using online lodgement.  

Senator ROBERTS: With, say, a document with 20, 30 or 40 pages of evidence—these people have a lot of evidence—even just taking a small slice of it, they were wondering initially how they would get that past that bureaucratic brick wall.  

Mr Campbell: I don’t think there is a bureaucratic brick wall.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what they tell me.  

Mr Campbell: Perhaps I could take it on notice and confirm it for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay.  

Ms Booth: As Fair Work Ombudsman, could I reassure the committee that there is no bureaucratic brick wall. If anything, the channels of communication into the Fair Work Ombudsman that I’ve observed, since I have been Fair Work Ombudsman, are many and varied, and there is no constraint on the amount of information that can be provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you would refute any suggestion that the Fair Work Ombudsman is trying to make it impossible for workers to provide evidence?  

Ms Booth: Absolutely, I would refute that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a list, on notice, from Mr Campbell?  

Mr Campbell: I’ll take that on notice and come back—  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, a list of all the optional ways of getting through and maybe some assessment of whether it’s easy to identify those options; that is, whether it would be easy to find, for someone who lands on your website?  

Mr Campbell: Absolutely.  

Senator ROBERTS: How should workers submit a complaint? How do workers communicate with you, and how do workers get through that 1,000-character limit? What are the options?  

Ms Booth: Make a phone call. Ring 131394 and speak for as long as you like to a Fair Work adviser. 

Senator ROBERTS: From there, you would say, ‘Send us the evidence’?  

Mr Campbell: It would be allocated to an officer for assessment and determination about what further assistance we might be able to add or offer. If the circumstance, as depicted to us, warrants an intervention by an inspector, for example, it might be allocated to an inspector, who would then consider it, and they might seek further particulars from the customer or the complainant, depending on the circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman consider creating an email account where complainants, regarding wage theft, can lodge their complaints in full, with all documentation required to prove their complaint?  

Mr Campbell: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why not?  

Mr Campbell: Because it’s an inefficient way to deal with disputes from customers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is it inefficient?  

Mr Campbell: Because they are unauthenticated contacts from a customer. Anyone can create an email address. We seek to create a picture of the customer so that we can determine how we can best assess them: understand award coverage, understand which sections of the Fair Work Act might be triggered by their circumstances, make a determination on their level or ability to self-resolve their workplace dispute and find out whether they’re still employed, the business that they work for and the customer details. We have a portal which is used daily and regularly, and very successfully, by thousands of individuals every year. It is consistent with every other regulator in the Commonwealth and probably at the state level, in terms of how they deal with volume complaints from their ‘regulator’ community.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the Senate has directed Minister Burke to investigate the multimillion-dollar wage theft—we estimate it to be over $1 billion in total—conducted against labour hire coalminers, where their 25 per cent casual loading was not paid and an average of more than $30,000 person per year was not paid?  

Ms Booth: I am aware that a resolution of that nature was passed in the Senate, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that some miners have been underpaid $40,000 a year, person, for up to a decade?  

Ms Booth: I have no comment on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: The number of miners, we believe, is around 5,000 or more?  

Ms Booth: No comment on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: More than $1 billion in wages stolen, it’s estimated?  

Ms Booth: Again, no comment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Including an Australian subsidiary of the world’s largest labour hire company, Japan’s Recruit Holdings?  

Ms Booth: These are matters that you’re asserting; I have no ability to verify them here, so I will not comment on them.  

Senator ROBERTS: On behalf of some of the world’s largest multinational global mining companies?  

Ms Booth: As indicated.  

Senator ROBERTS: In collusion with the CFMEU, which enabled theft by illegal enterprise agreements, which the Fair Work Commission approved?  

Ms Booth: Again, no comment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman aware that the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union has recently admitted publicly, in circulars, that wage theft has occurred?  

Ms Booth: I’m not aware of those alleged admissions in circulars, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: They denied it for many years, when I was raising these issues. Now they’re admitting it publicly, in email newsletter form. They’re basically admitting it, and vindicating me in what I’ve been saying for five years, including the amounts owed. Why has the CFMEU Mining and Energy Union not applied for backpay?  

Ms Booth: I can’t read the mind of the CFMEU.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has it applied to the Fair Work Ombudsman for a ruling? 

Ms Booth: A ruling?  

Senator ROBERTS: An investigation. Has it made a complaint to the Fair Work Ombudsman about underpayment?  

Ms Booth: Not that I’m aware of. Mr Scully, as you previously heard, is responsible for that area.  

Senator ROBERTS: It seems not; I would conclude not. That means they certainly haven’t applied for backpay. Perhaps mine workers are now joining the Independent Workers Union of Australia in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley because they’re finding that they can make applications for backpay.  

Ms Booth: Again, I have no knowledge of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman, along with the Fair Work Commission, accept some responsibility for the massive stolen wage bill, an issue that I’ve been raising for almost five years?  

Ms Volzke: We’re aware that the motion has been made and we understand that, in the evidence that was given yesterday, the department is considering their advice to the minister on that, and we will await that as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve been dismayed—I won’t raise the names—that, on a number of occasions, the Fair Work Ombudsman has relied in Senate estimates hearings on documents that I have argued and documented as being fraudulent, as has Simon Turner, and I showed those documents to be fraudulent. Are you aware of that, Ms Booth?  

Ms Booth: I’m aware of your assertions,  

Senator ROBERTS. My observation is that the Fair Work Ombudsman assesses a request for assistance comparing workers’ actual payments received with their lawful entitlements under their work instruments. That is our obligation and that is what we do.  

Ms Volzke: We provided a formal letter in relation to one of those complainants, under a letterhead dated 23 July 2023, about those allegations of fraudulent evidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding of that letter is that it ignores documented evidence and decisions from other federal government agencies saying that the document that the Fair Work Ombudsman officers relied upon was not correct and was fraudulent; is that the same letter?  

Ms Volzke: It is. It is, I think, about a six-page response, so I would consider it to be very thorough. The outcome of our investigation into that is included in that letter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t agree that something is thorough or accurate just because it’s lengthy.  

Ms Volzke: I would say that, in relation to the investigations that we have undertaken into a couple of individuals, which I’m sure you’re well aware of, I feel very confident that the Fair Work Ombudsman has undertaken an extremely comprehensive investigation in relation to all of those matters. I feel very confident in the outcomes. In terms of what the law is and what the legal outcome is, I feel very confident in those outcomes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a copy of that letter dated 23 July 2023, please? That doesn’t have to be right here and now, but could we have that on notice.  

Ms Volzke: Yes, of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman continue to deny that the miners have been the victims of a massive fraud that labour hire companies have perpetrated?  

Ms Volzke: Again, as the regulator, it’s our role to apply the law as it currently stands, including when an agreement has been approved as passing the BOOT by the Fair Work Commission. We apply that agreement. That’s exactly what we’ve done in relation to those investigations where there has been an agreement that has applied.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about if the enterprise agreement is illegal?  

Ms Volzke: I don’t think we should speculate around hypotheticals. We know of various cases, and I think in previous estimates we’ve spoken about them: the Warren case, One Key and another more recent one. The reality is that the legal effect of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award not providing for casual employment in operational roles has not been comprehensively argued or subject to submissions by any party, so there has not been an authoritative determination on that issue.  

Ms Booth: I think it really is very important to understand the distinction between the role of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the role of the Fair Work Commission. Whatever we would like it to be is not in our purview; we look at what is, in terms of the law. We look at the law as it stands and not at how the law came into being or what it ought to be in the future. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. We’re seeing what seems to me to be—and I’ve been advised that this is correct—criminal involvement of some CFMEU or Mining and Energy Union bosses who facilitate, enable and approve the wage theft through illegal enterprise agreements. I’ve asked Mr Campbell for the process that people can follow for various ways of applying. Could you also advise me of any ways that the Fair Work Ombudsman could consider to make the process easier. Maybe think about the perspective of someone making a complaint or a request, including what they would confront when they log on to your website and how that process could be made easier.  

Mr Campbell: I’ve taken the questions on notice and I’ve undertaken to get you the information. I don’t want to open up the dialogue again; I’ve said yes, so I will do it. 

/by

No Progress on Wage Theft

,

I asked officials from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) if they were aware of the second reading amendment, which requires the government to investigate wage theft in the Hunter Valley. This issue could potentially involve up to $1 billion, impacting around 5,000 miners with losses estimated at $40,000 per person per year.

The officials confirmed their awareness but were unable to specify when the minister had been informed or if any plans or discussions had been initiated to advance the investigation.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My first set of questions relates to a recent Senate second reading motion to a Fair Work Act bill. The motion requires the government to conduct an investigation into massive wage theft occurring in the coalmining industry. I will read the motion. The part that is relevant states:  

but the Senate:  

(b) requires the Government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are, and have been, underpaid; and  

(c) if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments;  

Ms Yanchenko: Thanks. We’re certainly aware of that motion.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is Australia’s largest wage theft case, totalling possibly over $1 billion and involving thefts of up to $40,000 per year per miner, stealing from 5,000 or more coalminers. When was the Senate’s second reading amendment to your government’s latest Fair Work Act amendment bill conveyed to the minister?  

Mr Manning: I am not sure, in the sense that we wouldn’t necessarily have conveyed it to the minister.  

Ms Yanchenko: We were watching along in real time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you convey that to the minister?  

Ms Yanchenko: I didn’t personally, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible to find out when the minister—  

Mr Manning: When he first became aware of it?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Manning: We will have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is fine. I don’t expect you to know everything; most things, but not everything. I take it then that no discussions have been held between the minister and the department?  

Mr Manning: We are still thinking through our advice to the minister; so, no, not yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department received or made any instructions?  

Mr Manning: We haven’t yet given advice or a submission to the minister about the motion. We are still working through it.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t made any instructions to him or given him any advice?  

Mr Manning: Not as yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has Minister Burke discussed with you the nature of the investigation the Senate required him to make into wage theft involving Central Queensland and Hunter Valley miners?  

Mr Manning: No, not yet.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have any of your staff raised it with you?  

Ms Wettinger: At this stage we haven’t discussed the matter with any of the minister’s staff, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who do you expect will have a role in the investigation?  

Mr Manning: It is too early to say. There is a long history to the matter—  

Senator ROBERTS: A very long history.  

Mr Manning: So that’s what we are considering in terms of getting ready for those discussions and that advice to the minister.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what would you expect of a fair and independent investigation?  

Senator Watt: That it be fair and independent.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would characterise a fair and independent investigation?  

Senator Watt: I think everyone understands what those concepts mean. I know you have an interest in the conditions of coalminers. Have you caught up on the good news about the first decision or agreement resulting from our ‘Closing Loopholes’ laws?  

Senator ROBERTS: I am aware that there is an agreement in application.  

Senator Watt: I think there might even be a couple, actually.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am aware of two.  

Senator Watt: It is good news that we are seeing coalminers receive what they are entitled to as a result of our legislation. I don’t think you voted for that legislation, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll hear more about that. I have already told you why publicly, Senator Watt.  

Senator Watt: It is delivering more money to coalminers.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll have more to ask you about that tomorrow, with glee. 

Senator Watt: Sure. 

/by

Exposed: 48 Million Reasons to Screw Over Workers

,

Some people ask why the union would screw over workers like they have with casual coal miners. One explanation could be the $48 million in payments flowing from the labour hire company to the union.

During this Senate Estimate session, I raised concerns about the complexity of donation laws and transparency issues, citing that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) received significant money from Abelshore, a subsidiary of coal company Glencore, where the union also donates to the Labor Party. Despite $48 million being transferred, the original source, Glencore, is not visible in the Labor Party’s declarations.

Mr Rogers admitted he had not reviewed the specific return in question but said that it was the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) role to ensure that current legislation is adhered to. Further, Mr Rogers noted that if there are issues with transparency or adherence to the law, it is the responsibility of Parliament to amend the legislation, not the AEC. He agreed to review the details once they were provided to him.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?  

Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party. 

/by

Labour Hire Scams and Union Corruption

,

During my questioning of the Fair Work Commission, I highlighted the fact that when Coal LSL included casual coal miners, it opened the door to labour hire scams and in collusion with the corrupt CFMEU, cost individual miners up to $40,000 per year. 

Labor is now attempting to stifle competition to remove miners’ choice regarding union membership as the RED Union gains traction by supporting thousands whose union fees have historically funded the Labor Party. 

I also detailed a series of breaches by the labour hire company and BHP, leading to a compensation claim by Mr. Simon Turner, which the Minister dismissed.

Transcript | Session 1

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong and your team, for being here again. My first set of questions relates to my recent Senate second reading amendment to a recent Fair Work Act amendment bill. The Senate amendment required the government to conduct an investigation into massive wage theft in the coal mining industry. I’ll read the relevant portions: ‘Clause B—the Senate requires the government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are and have been underpaid. Clause C—if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments’. In regard to this, which is Australia’s largest wage theft case, totalling possibly over $1 billion and involving thefts of up to $40,000 per year per miner for many years and stealing from more than 5,000 miners, we believe, are you aware of the Senate’s second reading amendment requiring the minister to investigate the wage theft?  

Mr Furlong: Senator, I can’t speak to the veracity of the claims that you’ve just made there.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s not my question.  

Mr Furlong: What I can say is that I am broadly aware of what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Has there been any discussion between the minister and the Fair Work Commission or any Fair Work Commission officials?  

Mr Furlong: No, nor would it be appropriate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Between the department and the Fair Work Commission or any Fair Work Commission officials?  

Mr Furlong: Not that I’m aware of, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has the department received from the Fair Work Commission or made to the Fair Work Commission any instructions on this matter?  

Mr Furlong: No, nor would it be appropriate for us to instruct the department on anything.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has Minister Burke or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations discussed with you or Fair Work Commission officials the nature of the investigation the Senate required him to make into the wage theft case involving central Queensland and Hunter Valley miners?  

Mr Furlong: No, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have any of his staff raised it with you?  

Mr Furlong: I might have to take that on notice. There may have been conversations at the officer level, but I’m certainly not aware of any. I haven’t participated in any.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you expect any role in the investigation?  

Mr Furlong: As we’ve traversed at estimates previously, the role of the general manager, my role, is to assist the president in sharing the functions that the Fair Work Commission perform in an efficient way, essentially. Will there be a role—I can’t envision that there would be a role there for the commission, no.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not for anyone from the Fair Work Commission?  

Mr Furlong: Well, it’s hard to talk in the abstract on this. In terms of the context, the letter that I sent to you from 11 January contained a significant amount of information about the operations and the functions of the Fair Work Commission that relate to the making and the approval of the enterprise agreements, including the application of the better off overall test, the approval of agreements, the process and the legislative checklist that we’ve discussed a number of times. The letter was four pages, but there were 28 pages of attachments that I provided to you to hopefully assist with your understanding of the legislative regime and the role of the Fair Work Commission in relation to this issue.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, yesterday evening you seemed uninterested in the investigation of workers’ wage theft—the biggest in Australia.  

Senator Watt: That is a completely unfair characterisation of what I said. I’ve actually got—part of my career has been spent assisting workers to recoup underpayments. I invite you to have a look at my record on those issues. What I was pointing out was that you have raised pretty much the same issues over and over again at estimates hearings over a number of years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and we’ll see why. It’s sad that you have not understood why I’ve continued to raise that. Obviously, my communication needs to improve with you, Minister Watt. Here’s a second chance. What would you expect for a fair and independent investigation? What would the process look like?  

Senator Watt: You asked me the same question yesterday, and I said a fair and independent investigation is obviously one that is fair and independent. I’m not trying to be a smart alec in saying that, but we respect the independence of the Fair Work Commission. We’re trying to redress the imbalance in the Fair Work Commission that existed under the former government when they only appointed employer representatives. We’re trying to make it a more even-handed organisation that does have both employer and employee representatives on it. It’s established as an independent organisation and it should be able to operate independently.  

Senator ROBERTS: Having said that the Fair Work Commission should operate independently and given Mr Furlong’s responses, what would you think a fair and independent investigation would look like?  

Senator Watt: I can’t add anything to what I said today and yesterday.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, are you aware that the CFMEU, or MEU or whatever it’s called today, has applied, apparently, under the Fair Work Act same job, same pay provisions for a new enterprise agreement covering a few hundred miners at just two mines?  

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CFMEU/MEU notices in central Queensland and Hunter Valley mines have even used my figures for the amount of underpay per miner per year—up to $40,000. This vindicates my work over the last five years—work that the CFMEU/MEU had, in fact, denied and continues to deny, doesn’t it? Their notices are saying that miners are being short-changed $40,000. They’re making that submission.  

Senator Watt: I’m happy to—  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Mr Furlong initially.  

Mr Furlong: My initial response to that is that it’s challenging for me to conflate different circumstances in very different cases.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, perhaps you could answer that.  

Senator Watt: What I was going to say is that the Mining and Energy Union has a long and proud history of fighting for mining workers’ underpayments. They were absolutely pivotal to the changes to the law that this government made that you voted against that were about closing loopholes in the labour hire sector which were particularly being abused against mining workers. That has resulted already in at least one case that I’m aware of where those workers have now had their pay rates raised by tens of thousands of dollars. So, yes, the Mining and Energy Union does have a long history of raising these issues. I’ve campaigned with them on it myself, and I think other Labor senators have as well. We’ve now changed the law, and that’s addressing the issue.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I remind you that I used to be a coalface miner for several years in the Hunter Valley, central Queensland and North Queensland. I also was a very proud member the Miners Federation, because it looked after mine workers extremely well. Minister, do you know that the CFMEU, now the MEU, in its application for improving two enterprise agreements, does not seek back pay? Can you explain why they don’t seek back pay?  

Senator Watt: I’m not a representative of that union, so I can’t explain why they included some things and not others in their claim. You’d have to ask the union.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible that the CFMEU/MEU is aware of its support for the previous wage theft and that’s why it’s afraid to raise back pay?  

Senator Watt: Well, I’ve already—we had a bit of a chat yesterday about conspiracy theories, Senator ROBERTS. Again, I can’t tell you why a union makes a particular claim and not others. What I do know is that the application that the MEU made involving the Mount Pleasant mine in the Hunter Valley through the Fair Work Commission has resulted in significant wage rises for those workers.  

Senator ROBERTS: But they’re not seeking back pay. Minister, your use of labels is a refuge that’s commonly used by the ignorant, the dishonest, the incompetent or the fearful. When you use a label, it shows everyone that you haven’t got the data or the logic or the argument to refute me. So thank you very much for using a label. I’m very happy for you to use a label.  

Senator Watt: You’re entitled to have full confidence in your argument, Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister and Mr Furlong, are you aware that the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia has lodged three claims for back pay with the Fair Work Ombudsman?  

Mr Furlong: I’m not aware of that, but you have—  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Watt: Fair Work Ombudsman or commission?  

Senator ROBERTS: Fair Work Ombudsman.  

Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that, but they’re entitled to do whatever they want.  

Senator ROBERTS: Many miners have joined with the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia in the process of lodging claims with the Fair Work Ombudsman. Are you aware that’s happening?  

Senator Watt: No, but people have got a right to join whatever organisation they want. I might just clarify. My understanding actually is that the Mount Pleasant case in the Hunter Valley is ongoing, but agreements have been reached between mining contractors and workers to lift pay on the basis of the laws that were introduced.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s only taken me five years. That’s great to see.  

Senator Watt: Well, if you want to take credit for a Labor government law that you voted against, you’re welcome to do so.  

Senator ROBERTS: You were so embarrassed, Minister—  

Senator Watt: But the record shows that you voted against those laws.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, speaking of conflicts, are you unavoidably conflicted on this matter because of the many millions of dollars from the CFMEU paid to your Labor party?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, does the $48 million from Abelshore, a 100 per cent owned Glencore subsidiary that went from—does the $48 million from Abelshore to the CFMEU in two recent years further conflict you and your party?  

Senator Watt: No. I told you I wasn’t even aware of that yesterday.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does it still conflict you, even though you’re not personally aware of it?  

Senator Watt: I have no idea what you’re talking about—it’s a bit hard to be conflicted when it’s something that you don’t even know about.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue then. On whom can workers rely, Minister?  

Senator Watt: A Labor government which has fixed the laws and delivered secure jobs and better pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, they can’t rely on large, entrenched unions in monopoly positions, meaning their union bosses have no accountability to members. We’ve seen the CFMEU, MEU, SDA in recent years, HSU and Craig Thomson—they did deals stealing workers’ wages and cutting workers’ wages. This is the unions themselves—the powerful unions.  

Senator Watt: I think it’s well understood that you’re not a big fan of unions and that you’ve voted against every piece of legislation we’ve ever tried to introduce to lift workers’ wages and provide unions with the ability to negotiate on behalf of their members. It’s okay in a democracy to be anti-union. You’re antiunion. I’m not. The Labor government supports the role of unions in negotiating workers’ pay, but you don’t have to agree with us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, it’s poor form to mischaracterise someone and misrepresent someone. I have strongly supported unions—  

Senator Watt: You just rattled off—  

Senator ROBERTS: or honest unions, because I think it’s the worker’s right to be involved—  

Senator Watt: Well, everyone can have a look at your voting record, Senator ROBERTS, and see how supportive you’ve been of the unions.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll proceed with that. Can workers rely upon employers such as some of the labour hire firms?  

Senator Watt: I don’t think you can generalise, but I think there have been many examples where labour hire firms have exploited their workforce and have been assisted in that by host employers. That’s why we changed the laws to overcome the loophole that labour hire firms and host employers were using to cut people’s pay. Again, Senator ROBERTS, you voted against us.  

Senator ROBERTS: And we’ve discussed why. Can they rely upon Chandler Macleod, which is a subsidiary of Recruit Holdings and has contracts for supplying casual workers to your government?  

Senator Watt: I’m not going to comment on individual companies, Senator ROBERTS. I don’t know enough about the individual company’s record to comment on them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can workers rely upon the Fair Work Commission that approved the illegal enterprise agreements?  

Senator Watt: I think workers can rely on the Fair Work Commission to be an independent organisation, now that we are restoring some balance to it, and that it will operate within the law.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Transcript | Session 2

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve been going through the list of entities or groups of entities that workers can possibly turn to. So far we haven’t found one that they can turn to. What about government? Can workers rely on government?  

Senator Watt: Is that a general proposition?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m looking for people who can support workers.  

Senator Watt: Senator ROBERTS, you’d have a lot more credibility on this if you had ever voted with the government for any of the changes we’ve made to protect workers. We passed some legislation recently. It was in the name of the bill: it was called the secure jobs, better pay bill. Have a guess what it was about: secure jobs and better pay. Have a guess how you voted: you voted no. We give you opportunities to vote for workers. We are protecting workers and you keep voting against it. You keep voting with the coalition.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you know, Minister, that miners tell me that, in their research on the Hunter Valley and central Queensland wage theft, that, when Mr Bill Shorten was workplace relations minister in Julia Gillard’s government, he made the key step that unlocked and enabled the abuse of casual workers? Did you know that?  

Senator Watt: I did not know that some mining workers somewhere said that about Bill Shorten when he was a minister more than 10 years ago. No, I did not know that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Despite the Black Coal Mining Industry Award not allowing casual coal mine workers on production, Mr Shorten apparently changed the coal long service leave regulations to allow casual coal miners to receive long service leave accruals. Were you aware of that?  

Senator Watt: No, I wasn’t in the parliament.  

Senator ROBERTS: That opened the door for the CFMEU and labour hire companies to fabricate the permanent casual rort. That’s why, five years ago, I started holding Coal LSL, the Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman accountable. Do you understand now why I started with the Coal LSL agency?  

Senator Watt: I’m sure there would be different views on that. That’s obviously your view. It’s a view you’ve pursued relentlessly in estimates committees over many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the compliment.  

Senator Watt: The government has done a lot of work in the meantime to assist coal mining workers, all of which you voted against, unfortunately.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, as a result of my work, mine workers watched as the LNP, in my opinion, avoided the core of the issue, but it did do a review of the coal long service leave provisions that may one day lead to improved governance within the Coal LSL. Are you aware of what the LNP did there?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mine workers continued watching in recent years as your government—in the last two years—under Minister Burke, did its best to cover up the permanent casual rort with amendments to the Fair Work Act. Some workers think that was done to protect the CFMEU and its role in the permanent casual rort. Your government has done its best to hide this issue despite support I’ve received from senators, such as Senator Sheldon and Senator Sterle. Why should workers rely on governments—on Labor governments in particular?  

Senator Watt: Because we pass legislation called things like secure jobs and better pay that result in—  

Senator ROBERTS: Called things like?  

Senator Watt: Secure jobs and better pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about state governments?  

Senator Watt: We’re not going to get into state governments in a federal estimates hearing, are we— seriously.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Palaszczuk Miles state government—this is very important for accountability of unions, Minister, because I’m a very strong supporter of accountable unions. Indeed, the Palaszczuk Miles government is banning competitors to the Queensland Nurses and Midwives’ Union, such as the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland. It’s banning competitors such as the Teachers’ Professional Association of Queensland which competes with the Queensland Teachers’ Union. They’re banning or trying to ban the Red Union, apparently, in attempts to protect the Queensland nurses union and Queensland Teachers’ Union donations to the Labor Party. Are you aware that’s what’s going on in Queensland? We have legitimate unions being banned by a state Labor government.  

Senator Watt: I’m aware of the issue in broad terms, but you’ve got a—the last I heard was that you had a One Nation member of the state parliament. It sounds like a very good issue for him to raise in State estimates, and we can deal with federal estimates and federal issues here.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are dealing with this issue. The Red Unions and the new Independent Workers Union of Australia charge around half. In fact, for the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia that’s vying for members with the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter and central Queensland, 43 per cent of the Labor affiliated union fees—because these unions—the Red Union and the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia— refuse to hand members’ money to political parties. Are you aware of that, Minister? Their fees are less than half.  

Senator Watt: I’m certainly aware that there are a number of LNP-backed groups that masquerade as unions and that have been created with a view to undermining the legitimate unions that have been fighting for workers in Queensland for a long time. I know there’s a very strong link between—  

Senator ROBERTS: Where were they when the mandates came in and teachers and nurses lost their jobs?  

Senator Watt: If we’re going to get into COVID mandates, there’s a whole other committee that you’ve been dealing with that issue in for years.  

Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to. Despite the Queensland legislation, are you aware that the Red Unions continue to grow rapidly among nursing and teaching professionals, with a membership now of over 20,000 strong, expanding into New Zealand and into small business, and now it’s expanding into coal mining? Are you aware of that?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to another group that’s supposed to—the Enlighten group—and some of its members may be enlightened—that’s supposed to protect workers. That’s the business owner. Mr Simon Turner, who’s a mine worker, has informed me of the following. The company that owned and operated the mine he was employed at directed him to not report a serious safety incident in which he was critically injured. That’s a statutory breach. They failed to report the accident. That’s a statutory breach. They made him come to work while injured. They sacked him while injured. They falsely changed his onsite digital record. They failed to provide correct workers compensation—a statutory breach of state law. They failed to take the correct coal miners insurance policy—a statutory breach. They failed to provide accident pay—a statutory breach. And so on it goes. They failed to comply with the New South Wales mines health and safety act and New South Wales health and safety act. That company is BHP—the world’s largest mining company. Workers cannot rely on globalist corporations, Minister, especially corporations from globalist labour hire companies that do deals with the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union. Where can workers turn?  

Senator Watt: I think we’ve all known for a number of years now, Senator ROBERTS, that you’ve got a close relationship with Mr Turner. He’s obviously taken his complaint to you. He’s obviously very unhappy with the union that he is or was a member of. I don’t know the circumstances of that. It’s pretty pointless for me to speculate.  

Senator ROBERTS: That leaves one avenue left to protect workers: comprehensive industrial relations reform to simplify industrial relations law so that workers and small businesses can see their entitlements, protections, rights and responsibilities—not buried in 1,800 pages of complex law. Why won’t Labor give workers choice?  

Senator Watt: About what?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re protecting entrenched unions that are abusing the industrial relations system because they’re members of the IR club. You’re protecting corporate employers. You’re protecting labour hire companies. Why won’t you give workers the choice to become members of the union that they choose?  

Senator Watt: I don’t agree with any of the propositions you just put.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

Government to Investigate Biggest Wage Theft in the Coal Sector

Finally! After 5 plus years of calling out dodgy CFMEU union bosses, Labor and the Fair Work Commission, the Senate has backed my call for an investigation into the biggest wage theft in the coal sector.

The industrial relations community was staggered last week when Australia’s senators voting on a show of voices – no one asked for a formal vote – decided to demand that the government investigate what is potentially the nation’s biggest wage underpayment scandal.

If shown to be correct, the alleged underpayment of New South Wales and Queensland coal miners will involve repayment of more than $100 million.

Read more here: Australia’s biggest underpayment case may uncover a few surprises | The Australian

When I first disclosed this scandal, I called on ALP politicians and other supporters of the CFMEU and Fair Work Commission in the parliament to set aside their links and think of what happened to the coal miners. And that’s exactly what the senators did. Full marks. Now the Senate must make sure the government carries out their instructions in a proper manner.

Some years ago, a small group of coal miners came to me telling him that they believed they were not being paid correctly. I have worked tirelessly to discover that thousands of NSW and Queensland coal miners had worked long hours underground for over a decade as casual labour, but did not receive the 25 per cent “casual” premium workers all over Australia receive.

Motion

Fair-Work-Amendment-Bill-2024_RobertsDownload
/1 Comment/by

Labor Abandons Miners

,

Labor voted down my amendment that would backpay miners who have been ripped off by dodgy union deals signed off by the government.

This is what I’m doing about it: senroberts.com/48vbjqm

Casual Coal Wage Theft

/by

The Decade-Long Scam Robbing Some of Our Miners

,

By Robert Gottliebsen | The Australian

Before being elected to the Senate, Malcolm Roberts was a coal miner, following in the tradition of Australia’s sixth Prime Minister Joseph Cook.

Some five years ago, a small group of coal miners came to Roberts telling him they believed they were not being paid correctly — but they couldn’t work out what was wrong.

At the time, Roberts had no idea he was on the edge of uncovering what he calls a “scam” which has the potential to be Australia’s largest ever wage underpayment scheme.

Read more of the article here: Robert Gottliebsen: Miners underpaid by strange legislative loophole | The Australian

See all material on this issue

Casual Coal Wage Theft

Related Parliamentary Speeches

Labor are Not the Party of the Workers
Exposing the Permanent-Casual Rort
/2 Comments/by

Portfolio Items