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.
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.
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Rx2EAtaD-Ew/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-12 18:54:482024-08-12 18:54:53Exposed: 48 Million Reasons to Screw Over Workers
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/-oX9ppgSKOM/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-05 19:22:022024-06-24 16:35:37Labour Hire Scams and Union Corruption
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.
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.
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.
Today the Labor government will vote AGAINST my amendment that would award back pay to casual miners who had more than $30,000 a year stolen from them under union negotiated agreements.
Nothing in Labor’s bill will compensate these ripped off casual workers and now they will vote down my amendment that would pay them back.
So much for Labor being the party of the workers.
This amendment was voted down by Labor and the major parties
Transcript (click here)
Casual miners—so-called casual miners—working in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed an average, due to wage theft, back pay of around $33,000 per year for every year of service. If you’re a casual, you are likely owed $33,000 per year that you have worked. My amendment aims to get these miners their back pay. Before getting to that, I note that the Senate has yet again been hijacked with a guillotine this afternoon, when almost half the Senate want more debate. This is a grotesque abuse of power. It’s a grotesque abuse of democracy. It’s a grotesque abuse of process in this Senate—the people’s Senate. These are serious guillotines. We know that sometimes guillotines are arranged, and that’s fine, with the consent of just about everyone. Regarding serious guillotines, where there’s a genuine disagreement between Labor and the LNP and a need for more debate, here are the figures: in the 45th Parliament, there were two; in the 46th Parliament, there were 24; and, in the 47th Parliament, under Labor, the Greens, Teals and the coalition, we’re halfway through and there have been 39 already. Almost all guillotines involve a Labor-Greens-Teal-Senator Pocock coalition. This morning we have Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock amending significant industrial relations legislation affecting many employees, small businesses and employers around the country. Yet we have limited time to assess and almost no time to debate.
Minister, last night in my second reading speech, I explained, in great detail, what I believe is the largest systemic wage theft in Australia. It’s explained in the independent report that One Nation commissioned. I foreshadowed an amendment to pay casuals working in the black coal mining industry. It’s been tabled. Casual coalminers are being ripped off to the tune of around $33,000 each and every year.
Labor’s bill would put more power with union bosses. After what I unveiled last night, that’s putting the fox in charge of henhouse. The CFMMEU, the Construction Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, enabled and supported wage theft from casual coalminers. The CFMMEU negotiated and endorsed enterprise agreements that pay casual coalminers less per hour than the award combined with a 25 per cent casual loading. Some enterprise agreements in the coal sector paid and still pay paid casual workers less than a full-time worker receives per hour under the award. Ignore the loading; it is less than the award. That’s a casual being paid less than a full-time worker. How? CFMEU union bosses negotiated and approved this wage theft. Minister, union bosses negotiated and approved these agreements that pay casuals less than full-time workers, yet your bill places more power with those union bosses, who failed to protect workers and who betrayed workers— union bosses who enabled theft from mineworkers. The Fair Work Commission failed. They failed to properly assess these agreements and let them sail through. They approved them. When I asked the Fair Work Commission at Senate estimates to provide me with a copy of the better off overall test, the BOOT, that they had conducted for just one of these agreements, they could not hand over a single document or spreadsheet—not one. This is a wage theft resulting from a cosy collusion between the labour hire companies, including the world’s largest labour hire company, which is owned by a Japanese parent company; union bosses who betrayed workers; and the Fair Work Commission. All three are culpable.
My amendment on sheet 2339 will trigger a review of those coal enterprise agreements to ensure they meet all relevant entitlements. It would ensure any underpaid casual coalminers are compensated for the wage theft they have suffered and would pay them the $33,000 each per annum that they’re entitled to. This cost would be apportioned between the offending labour hire company—the employer—the union and the Commonwealth, through the Fair Work Commission, for their culpability in the wage theft. Senators who vote for Labor’s legislation without voting for my amendment are endorsing massive wage theft—Australia’s largest ever wage theft. Legislation must not just attempt to fix it for the future; it must right the wage theft and get the back pay.
Minister, why doesn’t the government support my amendments on sheet 2339 to pay back entitlements for casual coalminers that have had wages stolen from them—$33,000, on average, per year?
Senator WATT (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Senator Roberts, thanks for providing a copy of this amendment to me before the debate started. The government does not support your proposed amendment. We consider that the bill as it stands, which we’re introducing here, provides a considered and balanced framework for defining casual employment and supporting casual employees to convert to permanent employment. The government has consulted with a wide range of stakeholders to reach a position that addresses both employees’ and employers’ needs. The government’s reforms that were passed last year also give labour hire employees the right to seek orders from the Fair Work Commission that provide entitlements to the same pay under a host business’s enterprise agreement. Casual labour hire employees in the black-coal-mining industry can also seek these orders. So, Senator Roberts, the bill as we are presenting it already addresses the needs that casual workers, whether they be miners or others, undoubtedly have. The reforms that we made in our amendments last year, around the labour hire loophole, were also designed to address the rights of casual coalminers in particular. Senator Roberts, I’ve obviously been in a number of estimates hearings where you’ve raised these issues. It is my observation that you have been given answers to these questions by officials on a number of occasions. You haven’t accepted those answers, and you continue to ask the same questions. It’s your right to do so, but I think it’s pretty clear that whatever answer you’re provided with won’t satisfy you. It’s your right to continue campaigning on this issue, but I would remind you, Senator Roberts, that last year, when we did introduce changes to benefit labour hire casual employees to ensure that they are paid at least the same as the permanent workers they work alongside, it was unfortunate and surprising that you voted against that change. I would have thought that, if you were as committed to the rights of casual coalminers as you say you are, you would have voted with the government for those reforms that we implemented last year. I was surprised that, after a number of years of you campaigning on this issue, you voted with the coalition against the interests of those labour hire casual coalminers who you say you represent.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, let’s have the full truth. We voted against that because it didn’t address the core issue. There is no casual permanent rort loophole at all other than the one I’ve just discussed. The simple solution is that the Fair Work Act needs to be enforced. Your bill covers the future. Your previous bill covers the future. It shuts the door to backpay of these miners who are owed, on average, $33,000 per year for the breach of the Fair Work Act. Way you covering up union bosses’ culpability? That is what you are doing. That’s what Minister Burke is doing. Minister Burke has received two letters from me on this issue. We get a polite, ‘Nothing to see here; move on.’ I’ve written letters. Miners have been in touch through personal meetings and provided solid, written evidence to the department’s senior advisers. Nothing has happened. With the minister’s office’s senior advisers, nothing has happened. With the Fair Work Commission, nothing has happened. The Fair Work Ombudsman used a fraudulent document to deny any case for the miners, despite the miners having five documents, including court hearing transcripts, that say their documents are correct. Why you continuing to cover this up against miners in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland? Why are you continuing to cover it up? Is it because union bosses in the CFMEU are culpable because they have engineered this? Is it because union bosses in the CFMEU are the ones who started labour hire in the coalmining industry? Is it because they were actually employers and they had some commercial agreements that we’ve got wind of? Minister, these people are entitled to their back pay. That’s what I want, and that’s what this amendment covers. It covers their back pay. We don’t want this bill to go through and simply bury the issue. That’s what Minister Burke is doing. Why are you covering up for union bosses? Is it because they funnel millions of dollars into Labor Party campaign coffers? Why are you not doing this after almost five years of me bringing this to your attention?
Senator WATT: As Senator Roberts has just made clear, he has been raising these issues for five years. The questions have been answered for five years, and I don’t propose to add to any of them, but again I point out that Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson did have an opportunity late last year to vote with the government to ensure that the rights of labour hire workers in coalmines were protected. Unfortunately, Senator Roberts decided to vote with the coalition.
Senator ROBERTS: I will repeat myself. We are not voting for legislation that covers up, endorses and prevents miners from getting their back pay. When this Labor government stops covering up for CFMEU bosses who’ve done dodgy deals, stops covering up for the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman, which are not doing their job; and stops covering up for labour hire companies—we will not vote for legislation that prevents miners getting their back pay and covers it up.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XOcl4g-FYz4/mqdefault.jpg180320Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2024-02-12 12:19:352024-02-22 06:53:48Labor are Not the Party of the Workers
I detailed one of the most outrageous wage thefts in the country last night in the Senate. Despite having all of this information, the Labor party continues to cover it up, voting down my amendment that would give back-pay to victims.
Casual coal mine workers are being individually underpaid up to $33,000 per year under union-negotiated deals. Minister Tony Burke is aware of this yet he does nothing about it.
The so-called ‘Loopholes’ Bill will only protect the union bosses at the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and give them more power. It will protect labour-hire companies including the big, foreign-owned ones, and it will protect the government’s Fair Work Commission who is failing Australian workers.
The only loopholes I see are the ones protecting big business and the government and there’s nothing ‘fair’ about it.
Labor has abandoned the workers. One Nation will not stop fighting for ripped off casual coal miners to receive what they’re owed.
Transcript (click here)
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. In doing that, I will illustrate why this bill is a sham that does not protect workers like the name implies.
Nothing in this bill will fix the absolute scandal that One Nation has uncovered. The Labor government is giving more power to union bosses, which is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. As I will explain, union bosses are the ones that have been ripping off workers, and the government regulator, the Fair Work Commission, has endorsed it. I challenge anyone to explain to me in detail how the closing loopholes No. 2 bill will fix the cases I’m about to explain.
An independent report details the largest wage theft scandal Australia has ever seen. Coalmine workers have each had tens of thousands of dollars stolen from them every year. Labour hire companies, union bosses and governments have been covering it up for a decade or more. The culprits are labour hire companies supplying casual workers to some Central Queensland and Hunter Valley coalmines. The CFMEU—the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union—enabled and supported the wage theft. The Fair Work Commission signed off and endorsed the enterprise agreements, enabling the wage theft.
One Nation commissioned an independent analysis which shows that hardworking, casual coalminers are each being shafted on 2023 pay rates by an average of around $33,000 every year. This is systemic wage theft resulting from collusion between labour hire companies—including major foreign multinationals—the CFMEU and the Fair Work Commission. My grave and disturbing allegations are based on solid facts and hard data.
A quirk in the Black Coal Mining Industry Award makes this scam possible. Under that award it’s illegal for mine employers to have casual employees. Yet, if casuals were legal, everyone in Australia knows that the employer would have to pay casuals 25 per cent more than the award full-time rate, as a 25 per cent casual loading for loss of basic entitlements like leave, sick leave and others. While the award prohibits casuals, labour hire companies—with the CFMEU—created enterprise agreements to employ casuals without any loading. The CFMEU negotiated, approved or sought to become a party to these agreements.
The closing loopholes No. 2 bill claims that all of these problems in industrial relations can be solved if we get the union bosses more involved and give them more power. What is the use of giving the CFMEU bosses more power when they negotiated and approved agreements that have ripped off casual workers for more than a decade? The Fair Work Commission should be policing and rejecting these agreements, yet it approved them. The rates under the agreements were less than the award with a 25 per cent loading. This means that the enterprise agreements are paying much less than what should be paid under the award if it allowed casuals. Some casuals were paid even less than the full-time award through technical legal trickery. All parties claim these agreements are legal, yet everyone knows a casual gets a 25 per cent loading on the hourly rate of a full-time worker. Paying them any less is wage theft. It appears that, once the Fair Work Commission approves an enterprise agreement that pays less than what should be paid under the award, the underpayment then becomes legal.
Yet One Nation is awake. All Australians deserve honest pay for an honest day’s work. We have spent nearly five years investigating wage theft. Nothing in this bill will fix up the absolute scandal One Nation has uncovered. Tonight I launch our major report detailing the extent of the wage theft scam. In 2019, after the CFMEU brushed off many years of casual coalminers’ complaints, the miners brought their underpayment complaints to us in One Nation. We took action. I’ve been holding the Fair Work Commission accountable for nearly five years. We asked the Fair Work Commission to provide their copy of the better-off-overall test—the BOOT—they’ve done on relevant enterprise agreements. The BOOT is supposed to be a safety net that rejects underpaying agreements and protects workers from underpayment. Yet the commission handed us no documents. There are no spreadsheets, no tables comparing conditions and benefits and no real assurance that they’d properly weighed it up. The response was along the lines of, ‘Trust us; it passes.’
The CFMEU has been signing off on dodgy agreements for more than a decade, and the Fair Work Commission is either asleep at the wheel or complicit. Either way, both enable or are responsible for massive wage theft. Last year we raised this issue with the Fair Work Ombudsman and with Minister Burke and his department. Responses from all three have been like that of the Fair Work Commission. ‘Trust us,’ they say, yet they provide no hard evidence.
One Nation then commissioned independent research, with the results in the report. The first part presents the facts of coalmining casual work patterns. It marries those patterns against what the award would require if casual employment were possible under the award. The second part exposes how this scam has been allowed to continue in breach of proper, commonsense application of the law. The report details that coalminers are required to work any time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, close to a 44-hour week—Saturdays, Sundays, public holidays, days and nights. It’s long, hard work that can be dangerous. The report shows that, according to the award, for example, a full-time mine worker doing 12-hour shifts will earn about $120,849 per year or $53.84 an hour. Taking what a full-time mine worker should earn under the award and adding a casual loading, a casual mine worker doing the same hours should earn $151,061 a year, or a flat rate of $66.40 an hour, regardless of hours worked.
The independent analysis One Nation commissioned looked in detail at mine workers’ hourly rates under the five most common enterprise agreements covering casuals in coalmining. We found that none of the enterprise agreements were paying casual workers anywhere near the $66.40 an hour they should be receiving. Some were even paying casuals less than the hourly rate a full-time worker gets under the award. The fact that a casual worker could be paid less than the hourly rate of a full-time worker under some of the agreements should have set of alarm bells at the Fair Work Commission. Every single enterprise agreement—all five—has the CFMEU’s fingerprints on it, and the Fair Work Commission signed off every single agreement.
The research assessed five of the major enterprise agreements in consultation with independent analysis, lawyers and coalminers. Let’s go through them. The CoreStaff NSW Black Coal Enterprise Agreement 2018 pays casual mine workers $56.16 an hour, much less than the $66.40 a casual should be paid. The CFMEU is recognised under the agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement. The underpayment of each casual coalminer each year is $22,623. For FES, in Rockhampton, at a hearing of the inquiry into Labor’s closing loopholes bill we received evidence that the FES agreement 2018 pays casual employee Dwayne Arnold $54 an hour, well short of the $66.40 a casual should be paid. This agreement was made with the CFMEU. The Fair Work Commission signed off on the agreement. The underpayment of each casual coalminer each year is $27,563.
The WorkPac Coal Mining Agreement 2019 provides four different pay rates for a casual mine worker: between $42.99 and $51.38 an hour, depending on the day—all less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker. Calculations use the highest weekend rate even though this is more than what an average mine worker will get. It’s far short of the $66.40 that should be paid. The CFMEU negotiated and approved the agreement. The Fair Work Commission signed it. The yearly underpayment for a casual coalminer is $33,555. The Chandler Macleod agreement in 2020 pays a casual $48.85 an hour, far below the $66.40 that should be paid and less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker on the award. The CFMEU was a bargaining representative for the 2015 agreement, supported its approval and is a party to the 2020 agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement. The yearly underpayment per mine worker is $39,341.
Let’s go to the TESA group. The agreement in 2022 pays a casual $48.28 an hour, far below the $66.40 that should be paid and less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker on the award. The CFMEU is a party to the agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved it. The yearly underpayment per worker is $40,645. That’s almost $41,000 per year underpaid. Across these agreements a casual mineworker loses on average almost $33,000 every year compared to what they should be paid on the standard casual loading on the award rate.
One Nation challenges each of the parties in this scam. To the labour hire companies, the CFMEU union bosses and the Fair Work Commission, One Nation says: prove to us that our report is wrong. Don’t give us the excuse of the legal construct that you have created to enable and endorse the wage theft. Prove to us that the payments to the coal workers is higher than would be paid if the award allowed casual workers. Prove to us casuals are paid a loading. You will fail. Casuals are not paid a casual loading. It’s wage theft. It’s masterful wage theft. It’s hideous wage theft.
There are potentially tens of thousands of victim mineworkers in the history of dodgy agreements we can track over a decade. The total wage theft is massive. The failure of the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman is shocking institutional failure. The fact they covered it up after we informed them is a disgraceful failure. It calls into question the entire structure, promise and integrity of the system in Australia that is supposed to protect Australian workers from underpayment, from wage theft.
Nothing in this bill will fix the absolute scandal One Nation has uncovered. Minister Burke’s bill aims to hide those responsible. Failure of the CFMEU bosses is even more obvious. We have a signed letter from the Hunter Valley CFMEU and labour hire company Chandler Macleod. In that letter, the CFMEU promises to never take action against Chandler Macleod for any breaches of worker entitlements. Our report details that the CFMEU has had commercial business dealings in the coal sector for decades. The CFMEU pretends to be a union. In fact, it is one of the employers, the bosses. It started labour hire casuals in the Hunter. It employed labour hire casuals. It started it. This theft must stop. CFMEU union bosses must be held to account for failing to represent workers, for betraying workers. The Fair Work Commission must be held to account for failing to stop dodgy enterprise agreements.
My amendment that I will be moving in the committee of the whole will ensure that those workers underpaid in the black coal industry will receive their fair pay entitlements in full. It adds transparency missing from the Fair Work Act and will ensure that the Fair Work Commission does its job, while the overprescriptive provisions of the Fair Work Act hide or ignore basic protections for workers. The Fair Work Commission has previously admitted that the Fair Work Act does not provide sufficient oversight of the Fair Work Commission when it fails to do its job.
One thrust of Minister Burke’s appalling bill is to cover up and bury Australia’s largest ever wage theft. Thousands of coalminers have each been underpaid on average around $33,000 per year because their union bosses did a shady deal with their employer. I have detailed proof of this. My amendment will put an end to these dodgy deals and enterprise agreements that pay much less than the award and it will ensure workers are reimbursed their stolen wages. Nothing in the closing loopholes No. 2 bill will hold the unions or the Fair Work Commission to account. Instead, Anthony Albanese’s solution is to give union bosses even more power with no accountability and no scrutiny. With what I have detailed in this speech, it’s obvious that that would be simply putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
The changes contained in the so-called closing loopholes No. 2 bill will be far-reaching and have devastating impacts on the way almost every operation in Australia is forced to do business. We have had countless meetings with unions, small businesses, employees, workers, industry associations, law groups and more. The overarching message that all of them could agree with me on was that the Fair Work Act is simply too complicated for any worker or business to understand. The act is already a bulky 1,341 pages. It’s a sledgehammer that’s killing our economy. It’s so big it has to be split into three volumes so they can print it. It started 15 years ago as just a 652-page act. In the last five years alone, the Fair Work Act has increased by over 300 pages. What hope has someone who runs a bakery? What hope has an individual worker? The only ones who can keep up with all of the legislation changes and the complicated legal sections and find the loopholes are big corporations and big union bosses. They make the loopholes. I call them the industrial relations club. It includes big corporations, industrial relations consultants, lawyers and big union bosses.
Big corporations love a complex Fair Work Act because it stops small businesses who can’t figure out all the red tape from competing with them. Industrial relations lawyers love it because it keeps them in a job. Union bosses love it because it forces them into the conversation, whether the employees want them there or not. That’s why you hear so much support for this bill from the big money players. Genuine small-business owners who are too busy trying to run small operations and to pay their staff don’t have time to write parliamentary submissions or understand some amendments that may come into law. If this bill is passed, the 1,341-page Fair Work Act won’t get smaller and easier to understand. It will make the act longer, more complex, more prescriptive—the opposite of everything we need to fix industrial relations in this country. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I know only One Nation will fight to make sure workers receive their entitlements, and my amendment will do exactly that. We don’t need a so-called loopholes bill; we need enforcement of the award.
