Posts

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

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 Hides Corrupt Cronies from Scrutiny

We need more accountability, not less. This Bill will promote power for union bosses over workers and is full of unintended consequences.

It’s a Bill all wrapped up in pretty paper with good measures that are widely supported and with poison pills buried inside. The Trojan Horse approach is becoming a bad habit with Labor.

Industrial Relations Minister, Tony Burke, introduced key topics that One Nation completely supports and we already have voted for them separately in November. Yet the government left those bills gathering dust over political issues instead of thinking of the workers. Instead of looking out for workers, the government is more interested in protecting mates and donors while getting away with dodgy legislation.

The core of Minister Burke’s legislation is designed to cover up the permanent-casual rort in the coal sector. Every so-called “casual” coal miner is employed under an unlawful Enterprise Agreement (EA) that the Mining & Energy Union/CFMEU agreed with and signed. So-called “casual” miners are employed under EAs that the Fair Work Commission (FWC) approved against their own protocols and against the law.

These “casual” miners are subject to breaches of law that the FWC and Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) have ignored, and when held accountable it’s been proven that the FWC/FWO resorted to using fraudulent documentation to get away with their shocking failure of duty.

We will continue our work to get “casual” miners ten of thousands of dollars in stolen back-pay.

We will continue to push for restoring all workers’ rights, protections and entitlements.

Transcript

I will be taking up Senator Sheldon’s invitation to put my cards on the table, and we will be putting our cards on the table. I will be doing exactly that.

The Australian Labor Party is Australia’s oldest continuous political party, so you’d think that it would have got the hang of government by now—but no. This week has been a shocker. Perhaps 122 years is enough. It’s time to find a nice twilight home, put your feet up and listen to Alan Jones, enjoy a juicy steak, read the Spectator and contemplate this government’s many, many failures—so many failures that the Labor heartland are turning against Labor. The polls are an indictment of the performance of this one-term Labor government. Now the ALP thinks that doing dodgy deals to get parts of its signature industrial relations policy through will quieten the heartland—a heartland that can’t pay their mortgage or rent, who can’t buy groceries, whose kids are taught a hidden agenda at school and who will now be stalked at every turn, using Labor government sanctioned cameras. This bill doesn’t fix those things. This bill doesn’t fix those basics.

More importantly, from the perspective of the union bosses, this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, is about forcing people to join the union. That won’t fix their declining support. The very thing that turns people off unionism these days—the thuggery and cronyism and backroom deals that only favour the union bosses—will enable more of it. We need more accountability, not less. Union bosses, and some large companies, have become accountable to no-one because they are arrogantly enshrined in a cosy monopoly of being the only union for their sector. Nothing here will claw back the reduction in real wages per capita that Australia’s workers have suffered since Labor took over—a six per cent reduction in real wages in just 18 months, a reduction that just keeps getting worse with every new piece of economic data, as we saw again yesterday.

This bill will be full of unintended consequences, as any legislation that is written out of dodgy ideology always causes. Let me review the detail of this bill. There are four measures that the Senate has already passed. Easier access to PTSD support and compensation for first responders: we voted for that. Domestic violence protections: we voted for that. Asbestos and silica safety: we voted for that. Protecting redundancy entitlements: we voted for that. These four were passed by the Senate, with One Nation’s support, and they’ve been sitting on the books down in the House of Representatives, left by the government to gather dust because it would be too embarrassing not to pass measures the Senate passed in defiance of the government. So much for workers—the government doesn’t give a damn. Instead of looking out for workers, the government is more interested in looking good.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Grogan): Senator Roberts, I’ll ask you to mind your language.

Now the government has brought on this bill, which contains those four uncontroversial measures and wraps into it four more issues for eight in total. The four additional issues in this package of Tony Burke, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, include the criminalisation of wage theft and industrial manslaughter. We support both of those; we agree with them. But his legislation introduced with no notice this morning includes two poison pills wrapped up in the uncontroversial. Those two poison pills are unfettered right of entry for union bosses and the deceptively named same job, same pay framework. It is deceptively named, as I’ll explain.

Again we are seeing Labor wrap up a bundle of things everyone supports with the most-controversial proposals in industrial relations law. The right to entry allows union bosses to enter any business at any time under the pretext of safety issues. There are no criteria for what satisfies ‘reasonable entry’, because the assumption is that union delegates should never be prevented from entry. Union bosses will abuse this. Union bosses in some lawless large unions already are concocting safety reasons for claiming entry to businesses and then, inevitably, hanging around to apply pressure on employees to join up. If a business believes the right to entry has been abused, it has next to no recourse. The Australian Building and Construction Commission used to enforce workplace entry and union conduct in workplaces—no more. Employers can’t complain to the Australian Building and Construction Commission because the Labor Party disbanded it for being a check on the unreasonable behaviour of union bosses.

I turn now to the real poison pill: same job, same pay. It sounds good. One Nation totally supports a fair day’s pay for a fair days work. Let everyone in this chamber remember that I introduced into the Senate the first bill for same job, same pay. Let me tell why and then explain why we knew it would cover up the real problem, which is wage theft that the Mining and Energy Union formerly under the name Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union enables—not just sanctions, but enables and drives. I’ll tell you why I support same job, same pay. A courageous miner in the Hunter Valley, Simon Turner, and some of his mates came to see me about what was going on. I thought it was a major coal company and a major international labour hire firm were colluding to screw workers. Then I found that the CFMMEU in the Hunter enables these agreements, that it drives these enterprise agreements. Not only do they not pay the award, not only do they not pay the enterprise agreement of the host company—the employer, the mine owner—they underpay the award, sanctioned by the CFMMEU in the Hunter. It is sanctioned by them, driven by them, resulting in the theft of over a billion dollars from miners. Tony Burke, the minister, knows because we have provided the details from miners on dodgy enterprise agreements that dodge the Fair Work Act. It is something we have been working on relentlessly with the miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter for 4½ years since it was first brought to my attention. Miners provided them directly to senior ministerial staff, to senior staff of his Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in personal meetings the miners had that we arranged.

The provided the details in writing with documented evidence. There were details that I put in writing to the minister himself twice. The loophole is a fabrication that Labor senators echo like propaganda through this chamber. In the mining industry, that is false. There is no loophole. The core problem is that the Fair Work Act has been breached repeatedly, systemically, systematically and cold bloodedly. The underpayment of miners in the permanent casual rort is possible only with enterprise agreements signed by the Mining and Energy Union, formerly the CFMMEU.

In some cases, that union sold enterprise agreements to labour hire firms. In fact, speaking of labour hire firms, the Hunter CFMMEU started the first labour hire firm in our coal industry and pretends to oppose labour hire. It enables labour hire and rewards labour hire companies with dodgy deals, enterprise agreements and paying below the award.

As a former coalface miner and later a mine manager, I am absolutely appalled at what I see going on at the moment in the coal industry and in a union that used to be very proud and strong. Elements of it are now gutless and crooked. The Hunter CFMMEU approved and signed a statutory declaration as part of the Fair Work Act process for approving enterprise agreements. All of the deals were done with the signature of the CFMMEU. The Fair Work Commission oversees the process of developing an enterprise agreement. Repeatedly, it has breached the statutory process. It has broken its own law repeatedly. When we’ve drawn the Fair Work Commission senior management to that fact, they have done nothing. They don’t give a damn about workers, whom they’re supposed to be protecting.

It’s duplicitous. When miners draw the Fair Work Commission’s senior management to that fact, the Fair Work Commission does nothing. We have told Minister Burke, and he does nothing.

Miners have made formal complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman, who were stumped until they were given a bevy of documents including court rulings, an Australian Taxation Office declaration, PAYE slips and PAYE group certificates. Those are legitimate documents. To those legitimate documents, they responded with a fraudulent document that a labour hire firm fabricated. The Australian Taxation Office has said that it is a fraudulent document.

And then the Fair Work Ombudsman’s senior managers used that fraudulent document in the Fair Work Ombudsman’s office knowing it was fraudulent. We will not fall for Minister Burke’s cover-up of his mates in the
CFMMEU. We will continue to fight for back pay for thousands of coalminers. We will not allow this cover-up.

We will not look the other way, as Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock have. We will double down and hold Minister Burke accountable.

How was it done? Let me give you a hint. The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, formerly the CFMEU, own 50 per cent of coalmines’ insurance and workers compensation for coalminers—Coal Long-Service Leave and AUSCOAL Super. They have co-directors, who approve various contracts. For example, the Coal LSL administration was contracted out to AUSCOAL. A director was on both of those boards when the contract was signed. This is really sloppy stuff. I’m surprised with Senator Lambie, as I said. After I arranged a meeting with her and a particular miner in the Hunter Valley, she spoke with the miner and confirmed it with me.

Senator Pocock was offered the same opportunity. As miners caught in the permanent-casual rort know, the solution is simple: enforce the Fair Work Act and get the more than $1 billion in back pay that miners are entitled to. Simon Turner and other miners in the Hunter initially thought that, yes, the same work, same pay bill that I introduced to this parliament was needed. Now they know, having dug deeper and seen the corruption that’s gone on, all that’s needed is to enforce the Fair Work Act. This bill pretends to be closing loopholes. In reality, though, every time you add a page of legislation, you just create an extra loophole for lawyers to find. The answer is less legislation, not more. The current legislation is too complex and hides protections from miners and small business and makes it easy for the industrial relations club or large union bosses, large employers and industrial groups to clobber workers.

Minister Burke, stop burying the evidence. Face up to the fact that your mates in the CFMMEU are directly responsible for wage theft of more than a billion dollars, as you’ve been informed. The solution is not covering up the rort or fabricating an imaginary loophole. The solution is simply to enforce the Fair Work Act. That is your job as minister.

We will not fall for this bill’s deceit. We will continue to fight for workers to be paid their full entitlements and make up for wage theft and for workers to obtain their full lawful entitlements.

When I started working with miners in the Hunter 4½ years ago I put forward—and they agreed with this—three aims. The first was to get Simon Turner his lawful and moral entitlements in full. We are still chasing that. We have gone part of the way. The second was to stop this permanent casual rort across the coalmining sector. We’ve heard from one large employer group. They’re coming to the party. The third was to bring justice to the Hunter CFMMEU, which is now the Mining and Energy Union, and the Chandler Macleod group, the perpetrators at the Mount Arthur mine. We will continue to fight for industrial relations reform. We will continue until all my three aims are achieved for the miners in the Hunter and Central Queensland.

One Nation will always fight for workers being able to understand their rights and fighting for those rights. The first step towards doing that is making them simple enough to understand. This bill does nothing to help that, and we will be opposing it. The big gorillas in the room—to use Senator Sheldon’s term—are the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter; the CFMMEU; the Chandler Macleod group; Recruit Holdings, the largest labour hire firm in the world; the Fair Work Commission; and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Hiding mates and crooks from scrutiny will not get the Labor Party out of this. This bill will be the Labor Party government’s death knell.

/6 Comments/by

“Closing Loopholes” Split Shows Labor Doesn’t Actually Care About Workers

I spoke in support of Senators’ Pocock and Lambie pulling out sections of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and dealing with them urgently. These are all worthwhile, all simple, and all carved out of the original legislation. This isn’t controversial. It is worthwhile legislation that needs to be dealt with now.

The Closing-Loopholes Bill is a cover-up and combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is a trick. There are some fantastic elements in this package but they’re using those to hide the flawed elements of the bill.

Despite the Labor party lies:

– One Nation will always support workers getting redundancy entitlements.

– One Nation will always support workers’ rights when they are suffering domestic violence.

– One Nation will always support workers safety against silica and asbestos.

– One Nation will always support our first responders receiving injury compensation for the PTSD they got from work.

Labor hates this move to split-out elements of the bill, because it proves they have abandoned the workers.

Labor is no longer the party of the workers. One Nation is the new party of the workers.

Transcript

We absolutely support these elements of the so-called closing-loopholes bill that we are now dealing with, that we will deal with. And I want to commend Senators Pocock and Lambie for their initiative in pulling out these four sections of the bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because the bills that we’re dealing with this morning, which are carved out from the original fair work bill, are the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023, including access to PTSD compensation. These are all worthwhile, all simple, all carved out of the original legislation from Labor—exact copies.

The motion to reorder allows a sensible amount of time for debate, given that these are not controversial issues and they’ve so far received wide support from stakeholders. I agree with Senator Lambie that the closing-loopholes bill, in its entirety, is just a cover-up, a trick. That’s all they’re doing. Combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is dishonest, and that’s what the Labor Party is doing with this bill. It’s fundamentally dishonest. They are protecting and covering up the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter Valley, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, Coal Long Service Leave Corporation, and Minister Burke and his staff, who were aware of some illegalities, some crimes, that have been committed in the topics that I’ve been discussion for the past four years in this place.

That’s why this bill is being lumped in, Senator Cash. We’ve got a lovely title, ‘Closing Loopholes’. There are some fantastic elements of it; I agree with Senator Lambie. But they’re hiding it under a dog. They’re protecting their own rackets.

Ensuring that all questions on the bills are put at 11.30 today will ensure that we get these sensible measures passed, as Senator Cash and Senator Lambie have said. It would be nice to pass some legislation in the Senate. That’s another reason why we need this suspension of standing orders motion. The government has been stuck on its non-sensical sea dumping bill, now in its fourth day. I heard Senator Pocock talking about it the other day. Why would you call it a sea dumping bill—putting pollution in the form of phosphates, nitrogen and iron into the ocean as an experiment? They can’t even name their bill correctly, using a decent term. Maybe it is correct, Senator Pocock, through you, Chair. It’s a sea dumping bill—that’s your title—and you can’t withstand the scrutiny that your own sloppy sea dumping bill has brought upon you. You can’t withstand the scrutiny, and you’re still going. That is what is happening with this motion. The Senate is slapping the government and saying, ‘This is how you get some legislation through.’ So I want to thank Senators Lambie and Pocock again.

We need to pass this motion for the insolvency practitioners that will be done over when the headcount falls below the small business threshold and will miss out on entitlements. This has wide industry support and is an aberration. We should deal with it now, as this motion proposes. People who are suffering from family and domestic violence should have access to protections in the Fair Work Act—sooner rather than later. That isn’t controversial. We need to deal with it now, as this motion proposes. We need to get on with the job with these four bills. I commend Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock, and we support this suspension of standing orders.

/by

Stop the Lies and Dirty Deals Stealing from Miners!

My letter to Tony Burke MP, Minister for Employment & Workplace Relations, dated 26 June 2023 is clear on the facts that workers were deliberately exploited.

When union bosses collude with dishonest multi-national employers and unaccountable government agencies, workers are left with no protection.

I have been working for four years to reverse the serious violations stripping workers of their rights, protections and entitlements.

That’s why I continue, after almost four years, to champion tens of thousands of workers across Queensland and in the Hunter Valley, NSW.

Why have Labor & Liberal-National federal and state governments ignored basic questions?

Stop the rot, Minister Burke. The ball is now in your court.

230626-HonTonyBurke-1Download
/2 Comments/by

Labor silent on dodgy union deal to rip off coal miners

In order to be endorsed, an enterprise agreement must first pass the Fair Work Commission’s better off overall test (the BOOT). Simon Turner has always argued that in his case this test could not possibly have been satisfied. He’s right.

Evidence from the Fair Work Commission itself has recently emerged, proving this test was never applied to the enterprise agreement, stealing from Mr Turner and hundreds of casual coalminers employed at BHP’s Mount Arthur mine in the Hunter Valley.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I now bring you up to date with the fraudulent behaviour that’s resulted in huge wage theft and the stripping of entitlements from Hunter Valley coalminers and from Central Queensland coalminers. You may recall from my many previous Senate speeches on this topic that on 14 April 2015 labour hire company Chandler Macleod Group, in collusion with the Hunter Valley CFMEU, submitted an enterprise agreement to the Fair Work Commission for approval. The Fair Work Commission went on to approve the enterprise agreement even though the agreement did not pass the BOOT assessment and contained false and misleading statutory declarations statements from the employer, Chandler Macleod, and the Hunter CFMEU’s Mr Shane Thompson.

The effect of the enterprise agreement was to strip protections of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award from the coalminers, pay them significantly less than the award, and remove entitlements including workers compensation and accident pay, annual leave, long service leave, superannuation, sick leave and holiday pay. The miners were not compensated with a loading to their pay rates, and they were much worse off under the enterprise agreement than under the award. The Black Coal Mining Industry Award did not authorise the use of casuals in the production side of coalmining. The enterprise agreement was contrary to this limitation under the award. The Fair Work Commission accepts—indeed, confirms—that an enterprise agreement cannot provide conditions less than the award, yet this enterprise agreement did exactly that.

At a meeting held on 13 April 2015, the Hunter CFMEU agreed with the employers, Chandler Macleod Group: ‘The CFMEU would agree to cease from any current and future actions and claims in its own right or on behalf of members directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coalmining production work may be entitled to leave and other entitlements associated with permanent employment, or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their lawful terms and conditions.’ This letter, of which we hold a copy, is damning as to the sickening deal that the Hunter CFMEU made with Chandler Macleod Group to not represent the interest of the member miners, who were now to be dudded of their entitlements and protections and have their wages stolen.

Injured miner Mr Simon Turner has been fighting for his entitlements since he was injured in the mine almost nine years ago, smashing his back and being denied his rightful compensation. Simon was made totally and permanently disabled for life. It’s now very clear that the Hunter CFMEU, in cahoots with the employer, Chandler Macleod Group, and together with an incompetent or possibly dishonest Fair Work Commission, have denied the back payment of all black coal entitlements for all full-time employees and then doubled down on these actions in endorsing an enterprise agreement that removed the legal minimum statutory requirements.

In order to be endorsed, an enterprise agreement must first pass the Fair Work Commission’s better off overall test, or, as it’s known, the BOOT. Mr Turner has always argued that in his case this test could not possibly have been satisfied. He’s right. Evidence from the Fair Work Commission itself has recently emerged, proving this test was never applied to the enterprise agreement, stealing from Mr Turner and hundreds of casual coalminers employed at BHP’s Mount Arthur mine in the Hunter Valley.

In relation to a request for documents pertaining to the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015 and the Chandler Macleod Gunnedah Basin Coal Mining Agreement 2014, a note from the Fair Work Commission says: ‘I have checked both matters and they do not contain the BOOT assessment. It appears the BOOT assessment was not undertaken for either matter. If one was undertaken, a copy of the assessment would be on file.’ The note’s author goes on: ‘has provided you with a complete copy of both files. There is no other documentation or further information we can provide you for these two matters.’ This is damning information. If the enterprise agreement was entered without a BOOT assessment, it could not possibly pass the BOOT and should be considered void. This whole exercise needs to be reviewed so Mr Turner and other coalminers can finally receive their lawful, moral and fair entitlements and compensation.

Despite obstruction and misrepresentations from Labor and LNP governments, we have persisted with this issue for four years. We will continue relentlessly until Simon Turner and his fellow Hunter Valley and Central Queensland coalminers obtain their entitlements and justice. We in One Nation support workers because like our party’s founder Pauline Hanson, we value honesty, fairness, justice and Australians’ values, including mateship and a fair go.

/2 Comments/by

Companies illegally back filling risk assessments to justify jab mandates 

,

Workplaces jumped the gun and implemented jab mandates for employees without doing their legally obligated risk assessment. When caught out, some have tried to ‘backfill’ their risk assessment, to make it look like they had done the process properly in the first place.  

As the Fair Work Ombudsman has told me, on the face of it this would be fraudulent under Workplace Health and Safety laws.  

If you suspect a workplace has backfilled or retrospectively made a risk assessment for a jab mandate after implementing it, you should immediately report them to the Work Health and Safety Regulator in your State. 

Transcript

Thank you.

Oh! Senator Roberts. Sorry. Sorry, It’s the lights.

That’s all right. I don’t mind. Ms. Parker, I’m not aware of the details of the Fair Work Act. Immense as it is. I’m concerned with companies employers including universities, backfilling risk assessments. It’s a topic Senator Matt Canavan touched on earlier, backfilling risk assessments to justify the decisions on mandating injections. Is that part of your remit to explore that?

Look, it’s a work health and safety matter. So, if they are undertaking a health and safety risk assessment, as you say, they’re doing it afterwards to make it look like,

Well, when I meant by back filling is exactly that, to make it look like they do it up front but it’s rubbish.

Yeah, I understand. Yeah.

Yeah. You know what I mean.

It’s a work health and safety issue and they would need, I would encourage them, whoever you’re talking about, particularly to contact their Work Health and Safety Regulator in the state that it’s occurring in.

Unfortunately that’s a state government.

Yes, that’s correct.

Which is quite often putting the pressure on the mandate injection.

It depends on, there’s a difference between mandating and actually coming up with a risk assessment after the fact. I think that’s a different issue.

What I’m talking about is the risk assessment is done supposedly upfront.

Yes.

But it’s rubbish.

Yes. I still think they could contact the work health safety regulator because that seems to me a breach of the requirements but it’s on the face of it, but it would have to see it in.

Rather than the breach of due process in negotiating something.

Speaking in the general,

Appears that way, yes.

Speaking in the general, to reverse engineer a risk assessment rather than genuinely taking into account that the risks and benefits and,

Consultation.

And the genuine matters for consideration would without giving you legal advice, be something that’s fraudulent under Workplace health and safety laws. And so I would suggest people in that situation take a good look at that and consider the safety regulator that’s relevant to their workplace.

The only thing I’d add to that Senator is, the Work Health and Safety Authorities are independent statutory authorities. So they operate independent from government and it’s not unusual for Work Health and Safety authorities to take departments to court, etc for where they feel they’ve failing their duties. So, people should have confidence in going to their regulators.

Thank you. One final question, just getting a gut feel from you. The massively thick, Fair Work Act has got a hell of a lot of, I can see you smiling before you broke burst into laughter, got a lot of complexity in it. And it works for the members of the IR club, HR consultants, legal lawyers, large union bosses, employer associations that are kept in work by having problems to fix. The employer-employee relationship, which should be the fundamental and primacy of that relationship at work has been ignored, shoved aside, and too often vested interests get involved. Do you see any sense of that?

So, what I would say is that, it’s our job to try to cut through that. So, we’ve been established to try to educate and help people with that. So, absolutely agree there’s complexity, there’s individual arrangements, they’re all different, people have case by case issues. It’s complex system, but so is work, so is life, so is going, you know, everyone with different jobs has a different arrangement. That’s the nature of the business we operate in. Our job is to try to cut through that and help people to determine what’s the right thing to do. So if an employer rings us then we will talk them through what it is they’re concerned about and we will help them to make it right. We can provide them with outsourced legal advice. We can give them written advice. We have very good education products, very good websites. We try to make them simple. We consult on them. We get feedback on them. We have a small business hotline. We work very hard to try to simplify the system as much as possible. So they don’t have to feel overwhelmed, which is what I think you’re talking about.

I am .

Sorry. In fairness to Ms. Parker, she only gets to work with what we parliamentarians give her.

Exactly.

And it is a very large and it is a very complex act. But as you and I know, Senator Roberts, it’s the kind of sensitive area that requires all the different parties in this parliament to work together in order to get it through. And as we saw recently with the last Industrial Relations Bill to come before the parliament, some in this parliament would stand in the way of the kind of simplicity and transparency that makes it fairer for everybody, and that generates the kind of economic opportunity that works best for the people who need it most in our community.

Can I just highlight, hang on, Senator Roberts. Can I just highlight, we are 20 minutes over our supper break. Is it? What do they call it? Late break. I like supper better Still Late for smoke senators Roberts. But, do you want to continue or-

Yeah, just very briefly in response to the minister.

Be very brief. Thanks

The complexities make it impossible for some small businesses and especially for some workers, including those represented, by so-called, big unions. because the union bosses are part of the club.

They are.

And so what we need, and Ms. Parker alluded to it, the primacy of the workplace relationship between employer-employee needs to be brought back with unions, If the workers want representatives. Got no problem with that. But I’ve already got Dave Nunan, Michael Ravbar, the BCA, other groups, interested in exploring that issue, because the CFMEU legal counsel, the ETU legal counsel had both said we’ve got too many damn lawyers in this mess. They’re lawyers.

Well look, I don’t disagree fundamentally with what you’ve got to say there but the barrier doesn’t lie with government. The barrier lies over that side of the room.

I would say the barrier lies with a lot of people in this room and other rooms.

Okay. Well without getting into a debate. Thank you Senator…

/2 Comments/by