Posts

Labor is Hiding Australia’s Largest Wage Theft

,

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: Of that number? 

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

Mr Furlong: That’s the term— 

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’? 

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

Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many? 

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

Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders? 

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

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

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

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

Ms Scarlett: That’s correct. 

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

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

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

Ms Scarlett: I understand. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. 

Ms Scarlett: Casuals. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that? 

Ms Scarlett: Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: Yes. 

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

Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary? 

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

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

Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

‘Help to Buy’ Bill Fails to Address Australia’s Housing Crisis

,

Australia has a housing crisis fueled by excessive immigration and a shortage of skilled tradespeople. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to offer real solutions.

Why are we importing millions of migrants when Australians are sleeping on the streets?

The major parties talk about the housing crisis but fail to make a real impact.

One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to put Australians first.

Transcript

We have a housing catastrophe due to rampant immigration—excessive, reckless, record immigration. We also have a housing crisis because we don’t have enough tradies to build the houses that we need. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a bill that won’t help anyone. Right now, Queenslanders, in what should be the richest state in the world, are sleeping under bridges and on riverbanks. In one of the world’s richest states, working families with children are living in cars, coming home at night to wonder if their kids are still there. Where do they toilet? Where do they shower? It’s plain inhuman. Rents are skyrocketing—if a rental can be found. House prices are reaching record highs. This is a housing crisis, one of the worst we’ve faced. It’s an inhuman catastrophe. 

Last year, the federal government under Anthony Albanese brought in 517,000 net migrants. This year, after being promised that we would have lower immigration, we are tracking to have another new record—one above last year’s. How can you bring in more than a million people in two years? That’s hundreds of thousands of houses. How can you build them? We aren’t catering for the people already here, and now we’re bringing in record numbers—a million in two years. That’s 400,000 new houses needed, in addition to the already high demand and the people living homeless at the moment. 

The Albanese government, though, wants to look like it’s doing something—not do something but look like. Enter this Help to Buy plan. Under this plan, the government wants to own a significant part of your house. If it’s an existing place, the government wants to own 30 per cent, and, if it’s a new place, 40 per cent, with the government paying for part of it with low-income earners. While a 40 per cent subsidy might sound attractive, it’s fatally flawed. If the government just borrows more money for this plan, then one thing is going to happen. When you give 40 per cent more money to people to buy a house, house prices are going to go up. House prices will go up. The bill’s core concept and premise is flawed and possibly a lie. We can’t subsidise our way out of a house price problem. Subsidies always increase prices and have throughout history. Looking at the bill’s details, or lack of details, the problem is worse. I’ll look at some of the criteria in a minute. 

Thirdly, let’s look at the constitutional basis. This bill is completely outside the federal government’s powers. It’s highly complex. The government has tabled a late amendment to the bill, attempting to clarify a set of constitutional issues—too complex. 

I’ll go back to the immigration. In addition to rampant immigration of people coming into the country, prior to COVID, the number of temporary visa holders in the country was around 2.3 million people. As of the end of 24 July, that number is now 2.8 million—more than 10 per cent of our population—all needing a roof and all needing a bed. These are hard numbers and facts. This is what’s causing the housing catastrophe. These are the hard numbers and facts, as I said, yet the government has continued to lie, claiming, ‘We’re just catching up with immigration.’ Really? We haven’t just caught up; we’ve blown the record out of the water, not only for people on resident visas but also for new immigrants coming in. We’re nearly half a million people above the record for resident visas. Using the average household size of 2½ people per household implies the need for more than 200,000 houses just to cater for new arrivals. It’s actually 400,000. This is what we’re seeing in our country. 

Then there are the details. For an Australian who enters into a Help to Buy arrangement, where the government owns part of their home, what happens if they renovate their home at their own expense, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours swinging hammers and pulling up carpet, and, as a result of their renovations, their $500,000 home increases in value to $600,000? I wonder whether the minister knows how much of that Australian’s renovation profit the government will take for doing nothing. I wonder whether the minister knows that the income thresholds are set nationally—$90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples—despite the average house price varying from $504,000 in Darwin to $1.2 million in Sydney. I wonder why the government is not adjusting the income threshold from state to state. What are the price thresholds for houses eligible under this bill, and why haven’t these been set in the legislation? Why are we bringing yoga teachers into the country, through immigration, when we need tradies? Yoga teachers are wonderful, but we need tradies to get on with the job here. 

The government has appointed three sets of bureaucrats as part of its solution to the housing crisis. That’s just adding to the complexity and inefficiency. It’s adding to the catastrophe. We need tradies to come into this country. We need people to be vetted properly, to bring in their skills and to contribute. We have so many people in this country out of work, living on welfare, and not contributing. We have an abundance of people with good qualifications who want to come into this country. We can put them to work and fix the housing crisis quickly. These are just some of the issues that I’ll be exploring more in the committee stage. I want to put those comments back on the record. 

/0 Comments/by

Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals

,

Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, Labor is using every trick to keep Australians in the dark about their decisions. After 18 months of delays, Labor are protecting their mates while blocking Senate oversight on lobbying done by CBUS Super. The connections between CBUS Super and Labor run deep, with former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan now chairing CBUS.

Despite ordering the government to hand them over, these documents were only unveiled through a separate Freedom of Information claim decided by an independent commissioner.

So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese government.

Transcript

Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we’re trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that’s got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It’s protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.  

The Labor Party’s defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg’s comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I’ve had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.  

To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That’s it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They’re claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It’s taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor’s behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt. 

This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia’s biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It’s over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we’ve got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they’re all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU. 

My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice. 

My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That’s what we want. It’s hiding tens of thousands of homicides.  

Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that’s the reason you’re losing the confidence and support of the Australian people. 

/by

$1 Billion Exploitation of Workers Backed by Labor

,

The CFMEU has stolen over a billion dollars in Australia’s largest wage theft case, exploiting the very workers it was meant to protect. CFMEU union bosses colluded in this theft, as confirmed by an independent report I commissioned called Coalminers’ Wage Theft. An analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley shows wage theft ranging from $21,000 to $41,000 per person, per year.  

The Independent Workers Union of Australia has lodged multiple complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman, including one for $211,000 owed to a single worker. Despite the Mining and Energy Union splitting from the CFMEU, it has recently applied to negotiate a new enterprise agreement, but won’t seek back pay for miners, as they know this would expose them.  The Independent Workers Union now represents miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, charging union dues less than half of the Mining and Energy Union because they don’t donate millions to the Labor Party. The same is true for other sectors, like teaching and nursing, where new unions have much lower dues. We must end monopoly unions and introduce competition, which will allow members to hold unions accountable. 

Labor Ministers, departments and agencies are colluding to enable wage theft, especially in the Hunter Valley electorate, where Labor MPs are complicit. Despite a Senate investigation being ordered months ago, nothing has happened — Labor is turning a blind eye, likely because they rely on millions in donations from the CFMEU. Minister Watt’s push for “no disallowance” is about maintaining control, with the party entangled in a power struggle with the CFMEU. 

The CFMEU, tied to criminal bikie gangs, shows no concern for its members’ health, wages, or retirement. Union bosses, sitting on agency boards meant to protect workers, are either stealing from members or allowing it to happen. The conflicts of interest, particularly with CFMEU members holding positions on superannuation boards, are enormous.  Labor won’t fix this, and their collusion with the CFMEU puts them above the law. 

Transcript

The CFMEU stole more than a billion dollars from members it was supposedly protecting in Australia’s largest ever case of wage theft. The key to this theft was CFMEU union bosses appointed as directors to oversight agencies supposedly protecting workers. They colluded and enabled that theft from their own members. This is verified. The figures are verified in an independent report that I commissioned called Coalminers’ Wage Theft, printed earlier in the year. 

We have seen an analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley with the wage theft varying from $41,000 per person, per year to $21,000 per person, per year. The Independent Workers Union of Australia, now getting members in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, has just lodged a number of complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman. One of the complaints is for $211,000 in money owed due to wage theft for one person. 

The CFMEU drove that theft of wages, so what we can see is the former protector of miners has been their exploiter, with collusion of the regulator, the Fair Work Commission. It’s been verified independently because the Mining and Energy Union, which split off from the CFMEU—it couldn’t handle the CFMEU—and which looks after miners recently applied to the Fair Work Commission to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. The uptick in wages has been around $50,000. It’s been verified they’ve been underpaid. What has not happened is that same union, the Mining and Energy Union, which used to be part of the CFMEU, will not go back and seek back pay, because they know that will expose them. There is no back pay. They will let these miners lose $211,000. They will let these miners lose $41,000 per person, per year. 

So now we have the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia making inroads in the mining industry in the coalmines of Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Their union dues are less than half of the Mining and Energy Union. Why? That’s because they don’t pay millions of dollars in donations to the Labor Party. It is the same with the Queensland Teachers’ Union. The new Red Union’s dues are less than half of the Queensland Teachers Union. It is the same with the nursing union, where the dues of the new Red Union and the Nurses’ Professional Association of Queensland are less than half of the Queensland Nursing Union. What we need to do in the union side of things is end monopoly unions and make sure unions have competition. That will fix it. Members can scrutinise when there is competition. 

Let’s move to what I said earlier in my opening statement. The directors in the coalmining agencies that oversaw this theft from coalminers, the directors of Coal Mines Insurance, ignored the plight of miners. We even know of miners who failed to get their Coal Mines Insurance that they were entitled to, scrimping and saving and sleeping on their parents’ garage floor in the Hunter Valley. That’s what the CFMEU directors have done. They turned a blind eye to their duty to look after miners. 

Coal Mines Insurance is a statutory agency with the CFMEU providing half the directors. AUSCOAL Superannuation, another one supposed to look after super, has provided admin services to coal long service leave, another government entity. So AUSCOAL Superannuation, which has directors from the CFMEU, provided the administrative services for coal long service leave and that enabled the hiding of the wage theft, because the CFMEU directors were 50 per cent of Coal Mines Insurance, AUSCOAL Superannuation and Coal Services, which looks after basic things like health checks, medical checks. AUSCOAL, by the way, has been renamed Mine Wealth + Wellbeing—that’s a cute little phrase!—and now Mine Super. These directors have prevented many of the benefits that they should have been overseeing going to miners. They stole the rights and entitlements of their own members. 

By the way, the Labor Party under Julia Gillard changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011 to enable the use of casuals, because casuals are not allowed in the black coalmining industry award. They wouldn’t have been able to get their super. So the Labor Party, to enable this scam, changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011. The next thing: we can’t rely upon the normal back stop, which is the Labor ministers, departments and agencies. I’ve just explained how the agencies are colluding, the departments are colluding and the Labor ministers are colluding. This wage theft would not have occurred without the deliberate collusion of Labor Party MPs in the Hunter electorate, who just hid this atrocious theft. The Senate ordered an investigation a couple of months ago into this. Two ministers since then, Minister Burke and Minister Watt—they’ve done nothing. They had not even reported back to the Senate—they’ve done nothing. That’s the Labor Party. So much for looking after the workers! 

I wonder if it’s because the Labor Party relies on millions of dollars of donations from the CFMEU? Would that be the answer? Would it? 

Senator Hanson: Yes. 

The Labor Party is wedded to donations from the CFMEU, the crooked CFMEU. Minister Watt, in section 323B(2) of his legislation, to which we have an amendment, wants an absence of a disallowable regulation. He wants no disallowance, so that he can control the whole show. Then we see the Labor Party also being tainted by John Setka. In a report in the Australian Financial Review, on 12 April this year, David Marin-Guzman, a journalist with the Australian Financial Review, said that ‘the core issue here is that John Setka stood up and said he will take over the Labor Party and move members of the CFMEU into branches and then preselect various candidates, and also the Premier’. That’s what we see going on here—the Labor Party in a massive cover-up and massive wrestle with the CFMEU. By the way—I think Senator Hanson mentioned it—the size of the funds in question is just short, $1 billion short, of $100 billion in funds. That is twice the Australian defence budget. That’s more money than Belgium makes in a year. And we want to take it away from parliamentary scrutiny? Like hell. That’s why we need this reference to the committee. 

Then we see more tainting, with the CFMEU being connected with bikie gangs, criminal bikie gangs. Then we see Senator Hanson’s terms of reference. I must commend Senator Hanson for introducing this motion. The first term of reference that I want to highlight—I’ll read it for the reference committee: 

  • … the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds … 

That’s basic. These people have shown that they don’t care about their members—their members’ lives, their members’ health, their members’ workers compensation, their workers’ livelihoods, their workers’ wages or their workers’ retirement. They don’t care. They bypassed the retirement provisions. The next one I want to read out is term of reference (a): 

  • … the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise … 

The potential conflicts of interest are enormous. We can’t rely on the Labor Party to clean it up, nor on departments and agencies from the Labor government. We see them tightly knit together. The second of Senator Hanson’s six terms of reference is: 

the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees’ compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds; 

This is absolutely essential. The CFMEU union bosses who are directors of agencies—statutory bodies charged with the responsibility to protect members—are stealing from the members or enabling their agencies to steal from members. This lot are above the law. Senator Hanson read out the note from the person from Cross River Rail who is not a member of the CFMEU. They are ‘intimidated’, ‘frightened’ and ‘scared to work’—in our country, they are scared to work. We have now a proven record of the CFMEU stealing from members and workers. Wouldn’t it be going on in the $100 billion of super funds they manage? I support the referral of this matter to committee, to protect members so that they can retire with security and dignity. 

/by

Labor Government’s Vape Ban

,

This is my response to the Government’s Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024, which aims to ban vaping in Australia.

As a result of the measures already taken by the Government to ban vaping, organised crime is now moving into illegal tobacco and vape markets with horrific consequences.

This is not about selling our children a bergamot herbal vape; rather, it’s so they can sell vapes laced with hard drugs to get our youth addicted and reclaim the market share that vaping has cost them.

I’ve always maintained that the safety of vapes depends on the quality of the device and the liquid it contains. A more effective regulatory approach would have been to support a future Made in Australia by allowing Australian companies to produce legal, quality-tested and regulated vapes. This should include measures to keep these products out of the hands of children and to impose the same usage restrictions as those applied to smoking.

Instead, the Government is doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry, which views vaping—and medical cannabis which vapes often hold—as a threat to their profits and power.

This Bill will backfire badly.

Transcript

I’m speaking to the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. I note the government circulated 11 pages of amendments just an hour or so ago. The large number of amendments indicate the process of consultation was flawed, and concerns from senators have caused fundamental changes to this bill. Is it in, out, in or out? I hope the government learns a lesson from this and in future honours the spirit of genuine consultation. I hope it honours the committee process to produce a bill that doesn’t need last-minute, wholesale changes. 

I note the bill amends the poison schedule, to downgrade vapes from schedule 4 to schedule 3, and adds conditions to their use in that listing. When I tried to do exactly the same thing—to downgrade medical cannabis and add conditions to that listing—I was told, ‘That’s a very strange thing to do,’ and my bill was not supported, in part because of that. Now they’re doing the very same thing that they said was very strange. 

In Queensland, vaping products with or without nicotine are illegal unless on prescription. Vapes are subject to the same laws as cigarettes or tobacco products as to where they can be used and the circumstances in which they can be purchased. Queensland law right now prevents children under 16 accessing or using a vape. Personal health and child welfare are rightly the responsibility of the states. Yet, once again, this government seeks to increase its powers in areas where it has no Constitutional authority. 

This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the Customs Act 1901 to limit the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial and private possession, and advertising of non-therapeutic and disposable vaping goods. Over-the-counter sales at chemists will be permitted, and access to children under 18 will be via the Special Access Scheme. There are substantial differences in how possession for personal use and commercial use are handled, yet the bill does not specify this threshold, which will come later in regulation that we haven’t seen. Too much of this bill will come later in regulations. The government is asking us to trust their judgement on a bill that is a litany of bad judgement. The bill defines a vape as ‘anything that’s held out to be a vape’. It explicitly excludes the need for a lab analysis to prove that the item is in fact a vape. Much of the bill goes into the licensing arrangements for importation, manufacture, distribution and possession. 

The bill was developed after supposed consultation, yet the government’s reaching out to selected friends in the health industry who share the same commercial interests as informed this bill is not consultation. It’s an echo chamber of self-interest, as the substantial last-minute amendments now prove. Everyday Australians were not permitted to make a confidential submission. Their submissions had to be public and accompanied by a declaration of interests—something very few witnesses felt comfortable doing. In particular, this prevented personal stories of how vaping helped defeat a smoking or other addiction and weighted submissions towards self-interested corporate health providers and charities. 

The evidentiary burden of proof in the offences under the bill are reversed. This removes the common law protection that fault must be found before an offence has been committed. While the government may find contesting charges in a court of law tiresome, 800 years of common law rights should not be so lightly dismissed and disposed of. There’s no justification for reversing the burden of proof. For this reason I have submitted an amendment to this bill in the committee stage to restore the presumption of innocence enjoyed by all Australians since our country’s settlement. At section 41P(1), ‘vaping substance’ is defined as ‘any liquid or other substance for use in, or with, a vaping device’. There’s no nuance in the penalties. Possessing a vaping substance carries the same penalty as possessing a vape itself. 

People who make cakes, fudges, chocolates, lollies and similar products use the same flavourings as can be used in vape manufacture. Those flavourings shouldn’t be used in vapes. They may be considered safe for stomachs, but not for lungs. Yet they are used in illegal vaping solutions, and I’ve received complaints from bakers that, for this reason, Border Force are seizing shipments of flavourings. Under this legislation, a baker or confectionary manufacturer importing a food flavouring that can be used in vaping must first have it approved for use, despite its being in use for generations, and then obtain a licence to import or possess commercial quantities—of cake flavouring! The importer and probably their largest customers will need to keep records of their use of these potentially illicit food flavourings to ensure that organised crime is not supplied out the back door, with penalties of up to $3.8 million and/or imprisonment for seven years. This is serious business. 

I appreciate that this is not the intention of the bill. Yet it is the wording of the bill. I point out that the bill and the explanatory memorandum provide no guidance as to which goods should be permitted and which should not. The minister has complete power to make this decision. So far job losses from vaping prohibition are around 2,000, with 500 vaping stores already closed. The trade in vaping has now moved into the hands of organised crime, with a gang war breaking out in our capital cities to control the illicit vaping trade, as well as the illicit tobacco trade now that tobacco has been taxed to the point of idiocy. The bombings, ramraids, murders and violence so far in this underworld war are on the government, for breaking the government’s social licence to act fairly, honestly and reasonably towards the public. The best interest of the public has been replaced with the best interest of crony capitalist stakeholders. 

The last-minute deal with the Greens to add over-the-counter sales at chemists may serve to head off that outcome. Time will tell. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2022 post-market review of medicines for smoking cessation found that 550,000 prescriptions were written for smoking cessation products in 2022. And get a load of this: these included varenicline, from Pfizer, costing $194 a prescription, which in the various formulations was responsible for 2,042 Australian adverse event notifications, including 55 deaths. And there is bupropion, from Aspen pharmaceuticals, which has had 2,100 adverse event notifications, including 22 deaths. The incompetence—does it stop? The post-market review says, ‘The mechanism by which bupropion enhances the ability of patients to abstain from smoking is unknown.’ So, we don’t know why it works. It’s killed 22 people—yet, prescribe it anyway! Just don’t let people buy their own vapes. We can’t have smokers quitting on their own, can we? 

The explanatory memorandum for this bill cites data from the Australian secondary school students’ use of tobacco and e-cigarettes report, which states that the proliferation of vaping across the community represents a severe public health concern. Vaping has been associated with severe public health effects relating to adolescent brain development, worsened pregnancy outcomes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. Vaping also carries other health effects such as burns, seizures and poisoning. 

Let me deal with the last one first. Yes, illicit vapes do cause internal burns and cause external burns if they explode. They cause poisoning and seizures as a reaction to that poisoning. A poorly made vape will burn and put toxic chemicals into the user’s lungs. Unregulated vaping in the USA caused 28 deaths coming from the use of ethylene glycol, a popular substance in commercial baking. It’s considered safe to be eaten but not safe to be vaporised into the lungs. This illegal use of a legal substance is what caused the popcorn lung syndrome. Illegal vapes can contain thousands of substances we call ‘compounds’ when in legal products and ‘chemicals’ when not in legal products. There are, however, 7,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke—more than are found in a quality vape, not an illicit vape. Telling one side of the story never communicates an honest picture of the truth. It condemns you. It used to be possible to import quality vapes from New Zealand. The Labor government stopped this. Now we have unsafe, illegal vapes. Who knows what’s in them? The TGA’s tweets against vaping were community noted with a comprehensive bibliography of good science that counters their scare stories. I will reproduce those community notes with citations on my website for anyone who wants to educate themselves on legal, safe vaping. 

Is vaping a gateway behaviour to smoking or drug-taking? Actually, no; it’s not. On page 8 of the secondary school report, smoking rates amongst schoolchildren have fallen over the last five years. ‘Ever smoked’ is down from 17.5 per cent to 13.5 per cent. ‘Smoked in the past week’ is down from 4.9 per cent to 2.1 per cent—more than halved. This was in a period when vapes were readily available. Vaping is clearly working to reduce smoking rates. This is what has the quit smoking industry worried. 

The UK government’s periodic data review titled Nicotine vaping in England: 2022 evidence update found that 98.3 per cent of children who had not tried smoking did not try vaping. This means any increase in vaping rates is either in replacement of smoking or in conjunction with smoking. This data is in contrast to the secondary schools report which found that past month vaping alone was at 15 per cent. Let’s have a look at that. The study covered vaping as a generic class, including e-cigarettes and herbal vapes, which are a large part of the vaping market. Despite the effort put into this study, no attempt was made to analyse the vapes consumers were actually using, and no firm conclusion can be drawn as to the presence of nicotine or any other regulated substance. 

The other study the government cited, Australian secondary school students’ use of alcohol and other substances, is alarming. It showed that 22 per cent of secondary school students had used alcohol in the past month, 10 per cent had used alcohol in the past week, and four per cent were engaging in risky drinking. Why aren’t we worried about that? What hypocrisy to introduce the world’s harshest legislation on vaping and ignore the elephant in the room: teenage drinking. Other drug use is down. Figures for ‘used in the last month’ show black market cannabis use down from 8.1 per cent to 6.6 per cent, hallucinogen use down from 1.1 per cent to 0.8 per cent, MDMA use down from 2.1 per cent to 1.1 per cent, pharmaceutical opioid use down from 1.9 per cent to 1.4 per cent, and cocaine use down from 0.8 per cent to 0.6 per cent. These small reductions are more significant than they appear. With 1.5 million Australians in the secondary school age group, every 0.1 per cent of reduction in hard drug consumption means 1,500 young Australians are not getting addicted to hard drugs. Across all types of hard drugs, the figure is over 50,000 lives saved from the misery of hard drug addiction. 

The scare campaign that vaping is a gateway to smoking and to hard drugs is fraudulent and designed to cover up the reverse, because the reverse is true. The committee did look at the use of vaping as a smoking cessation tool and concluded the evidence was inconclusive. So there is no reason to save vaping on that account. Poor judgement indeed. 

In their deliberations, the committee gave a thought of time to the quit smoking industry, which is funded at $500 million across forward estimates—half a billion dollars! This does not include the financial benefit of fundraising. That half a billion dollars is just the government’s contribution, yet quit smoking rates have been stagnating across the Western world. Firstly, that’s because the few people who still smoke have the money to afford smoking, want to smoke and will continue to smoke. Secondly, there are people for whom the current industry of gums, patches and financial blackmail is just not working. Some people have found that, where these other measures did not work, vaping did work. These are the people who will, no doubt, be forced back to smoking as a result of this bill. Imagine all those extra smokers to keep government revenue rolling in—all those extra smokers to keep the ‘quit smoking’ industry and taxpayer money for years to come. The financial impact statement for this bill doesn’t mention the increase in revenue from smokers being forced back to smoking. I imagine it will be substantial. 

Another failure in this bill is forfeiture. The easiest way to control vaping in schools is to allow teachers to seize vapes when they see them. That provision is not in this bill. Seizure is limited to commercial quantities seized with a court order or any good ‘seized by the control of customers at the border’. The one thing this bill could do to help control adolescent vaping is to allow teachers to seize vapes, and it doesn’t do that. I foreshadow my second reading amendment calling on the federal and state governments to sort out jurisdictional issues and give teachers the power to confiscate and destroy vapes brought into schools without a prescription. 

As a result of measures to ban vaping, organised crime is moving into the illegal tobacco and vape market with horrific consequences. This is not so they can sell our children a nice bergamot herbal vape; it’s so they can sell vapes laced with hard drugs to get our children hooked and to take back the market share vaping has cost them. I have said all along that vapes are as safe as the vape and the liquid inside. A better idea is to provide for a future made in Australia and allow Australian companies to produce legal, quality tested, regulated vapes and then ensure these are, firstly, kept out of the hands of children and, secondly, subject to the same restrictions on use as smoking. 

I look forward to the government monitoring the outcome of this hasty, incomplete bill closely and acting quickly if the outcome is not as expected. I think the outcome will bring horrific consequences, so please monitor this for the sake of our children. 

/by

Trump Assassination Attempt Used to Exploit Misinformation and Disinformation Bill

,

[17/07/24] I joined Alexandra Marshall on ADH TV to chat about the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and how PM Albanese has exploited this situation to promote his Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, which is completely inappropriate.

A true leader would use this opportunity to bring people together, denounce the violence, and call for calm and unity. I’m relieved though that Donald Trump emerged with only a minor injury.

/4 Comments/by

The NDIS System is Broken

During recent Estimates, NDIS Integrity Chief, Mr. John Dardo, stated that 90% of plan managers showed significant signs of fraud, and 87% of service providers were unregistered and unmonitored, lacking adequate training for their responsibilities. Mr Dardo said, “we have no idea what they do when putting in their invoices.” This underscores the broken state of the NDIS, stemming from an ill-considered election promise devoid of data, reminiscent of the Gillard government’s hasty policy announcements without sufficient planning.

I proposed that an inquiry should evaluate the merits of returning responsibility for these services back to the states from which they originated. I pointed out that an unintended consequence has been a shortage of workers in the health and aged care sectors due to the excessively high pay NDIS service providers receive—often triple what they would earn in equivalent roles within these sectors.

Labor’s penchant for wasteful spending was exemplified by the squandering of $430 million on “the Voice,” funds that could have been more effectively allocated to NDIS services. 

Ultimately, taxpayers foot the bill for this waste. I advocate for a shift away from the costly and ineffective centralised service model towards competitive federalism.

Transcript

At the recent Senate estimates hearings, the NDIS integrity chief, Mr John Dardo, admirably confirmed that 90 per cent of plan managers displayed significant indicators of fraud. The level of fraud it is now so high that there are dozens of examples of organised crime groups abusing the systems, with millions of dollars being rorted. The system is so out of control that 87 per cent of service providers are unregistered and unmonitored. I quote words that appeared in an article about Mr Dardo: 

We have no idea of knowing what they do when they put in their invoices. 

It’s taxpayers’ money, spent on something they have no idea of. He had the courage to admit that. He said that existing cases exceeded Australia’s judicial capacity, without finding more. 

NDIS funds must not be used to pay for sex workers, expensive holidays or new cars that other taxpayers cannot afford. Projections are for a blowout of NDIS spending to $90 billion within a decade; it must be prevented. Using the system to peddle drugs is happening extensively. The name of this bill says what we already know about the NDIS. It’s broken and getting worse. It’s a licence for criminals and fraudsters to print money. It’s so far off track that the hope that this bill will get things back on track is a pigs-can-fly pipedream. 

Since the Gillard Labor government’s NDIS inception, there has never been a track. It was hatched with no meaningful metrics or plan. It was simply an election slogan to desperately buy votes in an election that Prime Minister Gillard lost. It was hatched as a headline grabber and a vote harvester. Typical of ‘uniparty’ initiatives—and of policies and legislation in our parliament over recent decades—it lacks the discipline of a system based on hard data and a focus on customer needs. It was done to look good, not to do good. A hastily cobbled together election policy, it had holes in it a mile wide that clearly enabled fraudulent claims to be made with little chance of being picked up and stopped. 

As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, Senator Pauline Hanson and I have been calling out the NDIS fraud model since 2016. A significant effort is now needed to remove dodgy plan managers and service providers and to protect capable and honest plan managers and providers, using stricter laws to prevent participants from being defrauded, to prevent unscrupulous service providers from abusing vulnerable people and to save NDIS for genuinely disabled people with real needs. If we really care, we’ll clean up this mess. If we really care for disabled people, then we’ll have to get tough and sort out the criminals and the rorters. Providers, managers and recipients who commit fraud under this NDIS scheme must be heavily penalised and banned from any involvement in the scheme again. Wasted money through overspending has cost taxpayers well in excess of $8 billion already, and it’s essential to ensure that the current 150,000 unregistered care or service providers become registered and then are monitored for effective compliance. 

The Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS. In their election loss, they handed the incoming coalition government an illegitimate, loose and sloppy mishmash of slogans and empty titles, lacking discipline, coherence, focus and care, and lacking solid systems. If they’d cared, Labor would have put together a proper system, but they didn’t. They should have put together a system to provide effective care and to protect taxpayers’ hard-earned money. The Liberal and National parties tried to refine the monster, and now the NDIS is back in Labor hands for more mismanagement. The NDIS must be reconsidered and protections against mismanagement and abuse strengthened.  

But who should be responsible for management? References to the non-constitutional National Cabinet are just a poor joke. National Cabinet is a mere grouping of state ministers responsible for similar portfolios, with no statutory authority or constitutional recognition of its existence or authority. It’s toothless—all mouth and no accountability. There’s no accountability in the current system. Right at the very top there’s the bogus unconstitutional National Cabinet. In such cabinets the state and federal government ministers just go, ‘They’re responsible.’ That means no-one is responsible. There is no accountability. It’s fundamentally structurally flawed. 

I suggest an inquiry to consider the alternative model: putting the responsibility for providing for the needs of people living with a disability back to the states and territories, where it was stolen from. Clearly, each state is responsible. The states would work to ensure that services were monitored, reasonable and meeting client needs under a model reflecting the proven benefits of competitive federalism, the foundation under which our Constitution and government is made. This will provide the level of accountability that has been missing to date. Centralising doesn’t work; decentralising closer to the surface does. One of the unintended consequences of Labor’s mismanagement of NDIS funds is the shortage of aged-care and healthcare workers who migrated to work in the lucrative NDIS model. This is because NDIS wages are so overinflated that a worker can receive three times the rate of pay for the same work done in other sectors. This is not just hurting the NDIS. This rorting, mismanagement and waste of taxpayer funds is hurting aged-care and healthcare workers. 

Labor wastes money in other areas, too. Look at the wasted $430 million plus that the doomed referendum cost Australians—just like the Gillard government’s NDIS facade, which was based on slogans and empty promises lacking substance. Just think how that $430 million could have been spent directly to improve the lives of remote Australians living in need or spent on improving NDIS services and security for people who are disabled in some way. Then there are the follies of government cutbacks, such as when psychological services were cut from 20 appointments to a relatively useless 10 appointments for needy participants. Just think about what could have been supported with the wasted money—health, education and child protection are a few. Frontline staff are in short supply now, partly because of poor pay, inadequate training and lack of support and partly because of NDIS rorts and sloppiness. Many NDIS carers and support staff have little or no training in basic personal caring skills. Many recipients have physical health needs and their carers should have sound skills in lifting, mobility, feeding, toileting and showering. Expecting NDIS carers to do these things with no, or inadequate, training is unfair and dangerous for the recipient and the carer. 

I have described a support system in crisis. This bill tinkers around the edges. As it is, this bill will not make significant positive differences, and who pays for all of this waste? Always, it’s we the people. Instead of tinkering around the edges of a broken system, do the work! I call on the government to do the work to define disabled people’s needs for service and taxpayers’ needs for protection. Instead of the ubiquitous fraud under low levels of accountability, consider returning to the original system of state governance. One Nation knows what history repeatedly proves: administration and services are of higher quality when services are closer to recipients. That enables understanding of needs, which is core to effective service. Replacing centralisation with competitive federalism provides a marketplace in governance. That’s what we all want. That’s what we need because improved governance provides accountability, effective service and better care. 

/1 Comment/by

Labor’s Policies Are Crushing Everyday Australians

The class struggle in Australia pits the political elites against everyday Australians. I highlighted that Labor’s approach to promoting wealth equality seems to ensure that most of us remain or become poor. The beneficiaries, however, are Labor leaders, union bosses, those profiting from the Aboriginal industry and COVID millionaires.

Labor’s policies are driving up inflation, increased cost of living, higher electricity prices, and destroying the economy, all at the expense of incomes, health and overall economic stability. While political elites enjoy substantial pay increases, everyday Australians are finding themselves falling behind.

The Labor government is failing comprehensively and the losers are young and old Australians and future generations.

Transcript

I wish to thank Senator Lambie for raising this important issue, yet I submit that Senator Lambie may have become a little confused as to what’s really going on in Australia. There are two classes in a class war now: the political class, from the ‘Uniparty’, versus the rest of us—everyday Australians. There are plenty of things going wrong in this Labor government’s attempts at governing this country. 

Labor believes in promoting wealth equality. So did Karl Marx, but the way the government go about it is as if they have been watching some old videos of the Marx brothers. It’s ludicrous. They’re destroying wealth. Labor’s version of promoting wealth equality is to ensure that, in the end, most Australians will be poor. The exceptions will be Labor Party bosses, union bosses and the political elite, including those making a living from the black and white Aboriginal industry and those who profited from the COVID-19 industry fraud. 

Labor are the big achievers in driving up inflation. It’s back to four per cent now; it’s got a four in front of it. As of today they are pushing policies that make even the cost of living out of reach for many Australians and ensuring that energy costs keep rising by trying to force us to rely on unreliable renewables, like wind and solar, that are sending the cost of electricity sky-rocketing. Several years ago, when we were all locked up by governments, pandering to drug companies during the COVID response, the Labor state governments combined with the federal government to print huge amounts of money, with no basis, in a feeble attempt to buy us out of strife that was completely government created. Now we’ve got the inflation. Look at the thousands who lost their jobs and became vaccine injured, and the billions of dollars that were lost to the Australian economy.  

In the meantime, the political elites have given themselves pay rises ahead of inflation rises, and now want to pay a new governor-general a pay rise of 43 per cent. How much of a pay rise do everyday Australians get? Stuff all, as our disposable incomes go backwards by five per cent under this government. Every major problem that Australians face today has stemmed from the decisions made in this building. Labor and the coalition—the ‘Uniparty’—still refuse to make decisions that are evidenced based. Instead, they govern by knee-jerk reaction or brain-snap, instant decision-making to look good, not to do good.  

How nice it would be if the government decided to actually govern for Australians based on data and facts, not spin and looking after mates. As I said, instead of trying to look good, let’s do good. As for affordable housing, how many houses have been built using the much-touted Housing Australia Future Fund? Wait for it: zero, zilch, nada, zip—much the same as the value of Labor promises. We are yet to see workable policy from either side of the ‘Uniparty’ to solve the housing crisis that plagues Australians, including those Australians earning what, historically, would have been considered reasonable incomes. They are housing problems caused by excess immigration, foreign ownership, inflation, COVID restrictions, government restrictions eroding the supply of houses and energy prices.  

The problems in education in Australia stem from the warped curriculums of schools, starting from teaching primary school students about the ins and outs of transexual practices, to slanted views of Australian history that try to rewrite the facts as recorded at the time of writing by explorers and truth-telling observers of the time. Many in our society now want to castrate children and warp children’s minds. Our high schools and universities perpetuate the mistruths and promote political views that our European immigrants immediately recognise as communist, totalitarian extremist views reminiscent of the histories of Nazi Germany and the dark days of Stalin.  

The class struggle that I see in Australia relates to the thuggish actions of some extremist union bosses such as the CFMEU and MEU in the Hunter Valley in Central Queensland, who refuse to actually represent their worker members and steal their wages in secret, dirty deals.  

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I agree this government is failing on multiple levels of policy creation and implementation because it does not make decisions based on data and facts. The losers are Australians, young and old, and our future generations. Today’s class struggle, as I started this speech saying, is between the political class—the ‘Uniparty’, pushing globalist agendas—and everyday Australians, who are the real Australians. 

/5 Comments/by

Labor’s Failure to Deport Dangerous Non-Citizens

,

At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator Watt why Labor is not deporting unsuitable and dangerous non-citizens from Australia. He explained that those who had been in detention could not be deported, citing two distinct groups affected. The first group consisted of approximately 150 detainees released into the community following a recent High Court decision, 29 of which have re-offended since release and include individuals convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual offences.

The second group comprises individuals whose visa cancellations were overturned by the AAT due to issues surrounding the Giles Directive 99 scandal. Despite subsequent visa cancellations for some in this group, there have been no deportations from either cohort since the mishandling by Labor.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. My questions are concise and straightforward, and I hope the answers will be similar. In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of
approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?

Mr M Thomas: All of the releases from detention that we’re talking about with NZYQ were as a result of the new High Court test set in that case around the real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably
foreseeable future.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 37 of these men released into the community have a history of sexually offending, including against children?

Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April 2024, 39 of those individuals did have a previous conviction for sexually based offending.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that seven of these men were convicted of either murder or attempted murder?

Mr M Thomas: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 72 of these men had convictions for assault or violent offending, armed robbery or kidnapping?

Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April that number is 73.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of these released detainees have now illegally reoffended?

Mr M Thomas: I believe the deputy commissioner answered that question earlier today.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the number?

Ms Holben: 29.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What offences have been included in the range of charges, including the senior citizen brutally bashed and allegations of a sexual predator being active here?

Mr Outram: We did provide that evidence before the lunch break.

Senator Watt: We went through that in some detail before the lunch break.

Senator ROBERTS: You are aware of Mr Emmanuel Saki, a Sudanese man who was recently released from immigration detention. He has just been charged with the murder of another man here on 12 May this year. That was two weeks ago. Are you aware of that?

Ms Foster: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s now being done to deport these men?

Senator Watt: You’re mixing together a couple of different categories of people here.

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want them here.

Senator Watt: I’d point out to start with that, for all 153, I think it is, people who were released from detention as a result of the High Court decision, the government actually had those people in detention for a
reason. We don’t want them roaming the streets either, but the High Court has made a decision and we are bound by the law.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you deport these men?

Senator Watt: For starters, as we have gone through before, there are a range of protections in place for the Australian community surrounding these people, such as electronic bracelets, curfews and a range of other
requirements that no government has ever imposed on a cohort released from detention. Obviously, in relation to the NZYQ cohort, the government is in the process of applying for preventative detention orders, which would effectively see those people returned to detention. Before the lunch break, there were some questions about where that was up to. That’s the NZYQ cohort.

Senator ROBERTS: But there has been nothing done to deport them?

Senator Watt: No. I would say that one of the reasons is that the reason for the High Court decision is that the High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of those people being deported, because, for example, they were stateless. They don’t have citizenship in any country. It is not legally possible to deport them. Again, I’m paraphrasing. Officials can jump in if I explain some of this incorrectly. That’s the reason why those people haven’t been deported. That’s the reason why they are now not in detention but subject to all those other protections.

Senator ROBERTS: All of the 150-odd are stateless?

Senator Watt: I don’t think all of them are, but there were other reasons that it’s not possible to deport them. The officials might be able to explain it to you.

Mr M Thomas: It might be because we have protection obligations for them. It could be because they’re stateless. It might be because there are issues with identifying their identity or their country of origin. All of that
culminates in there being no real prospect of their removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you asked about the Saki case. That is a separate situation. As far as I’m aware, Mr Saki is not one of the NZYQ cohort. He was someone who had come to Australia and was given a visa
at some point along the line. The government cancelled his visa because of character issues or criminal offences—whatever the reasons were. He appealed that decision to the AAT. The AAT overturned the decision to
cancel his visa. He was therefore—

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is that because of any influence of Minister Giles’s directive 99?

Senator Watt: We’ve spent the best part of two days discussing this. What I have been saying is that the direction that Minister Giles gave did ask government decision-makers and the AAT to take into account the
length of time someone had been here in Australia—

Senator ROBERTS: And their ties.

Senator Watt: but not at the expense of the seriousness of their offending. But the AAT has done what it has done, and for that case and other cases they have overturned the government’s decision to cancel those visas,
despite the fact the government, in the AAT, argued for the cancellation of those visas. Now Mr Saki’s visa has been cancelled by the minister, and he is seeking urgent advice from the department about the range of other cases that have come to light in the last couple of days.

Chair: I don’t want to be too hardline about this, because I know that there are different sections of the department that deal with both of these issues, but, Senator Roberts, just for your information, we have moved on
to outcome 3. I know that there might be some crossover and that the department will seek to answer your questions when they can. We did have extensive questioning about outcome 2 from yesterday onwards. We’re now in outcome 3. If that needs to be clarified at the table for senators, then, if you can, assist Ms Foster when questions arise. I know dealing with the different cohorts is difficult, but we’ll do our best to try to keep on track in that way. Senator Roberts, have you got a question?

Senator ROBERTS: Was the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 simply to ensure incarceration as an alternative to being detained for these men?

Senator Watt: Again, I might begin the answer and let officials explain further. The removals legislation, which the government has introduced and which has not yet been passed by the Senate and which the opposition has not agreed to pass yet, is for a different purpose. It was to deal with a different gap in our legal system. So maybe officials could pick up at that point with some more detail.

Ms Foster: There were two primary purposes to the removals bill. The first was to give us the power to compel people who had exhausted all legal avenues of remaining in Australia to cooperate with their removal so
that people couldn’t frustrate our efforts to remove them—by, for example, refusing to fill out applications or come to interviews—and to make it an offence should they not do that. The second element of the bill was to allow us to declare countries who frustrated our attempts to return their nationals to them countries of removal concern and to enable us to take actions about how we manage applications to come to Australia from those countries.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely, Minister, there was a way that the government could’ve addressed this issue before the decision in NZYQ was handed down. Why didn’t you?

Senator Watt: The High Court’s decision in NZYQ essentially went in a different direction to what the law in Australia had always been.

Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t pre-empt that at all.

Senator Watt: Look, we’ve gone over this at length in previous estimates hearings.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to border security then. Why is our border security policy being made on the run? For example, why has the number of surveillance flights by Border Force of our northern
borders by aircraft been reduced over the last year?

Senator Watt: Can I just say one thing. Of course, I don’t accept the proposition that our border security policy is being made on the run. We have increased funding for Border Force and border security to a level that
no government has ever provided, and Admiral Sonter, in his role heading up Operation Sovereign Borders, has pointed out that—I can’t remember the exact words—essentially, there has been no change to the policy settings for Operation Sovereign Borders. But the officials can talk to you about surveillance flights.

Mr Outram: Specific to surveillance flights, I have Deputy Commissioner Dale with me. There has been a reduction in hours flown. That has been for two reasons. The first is persistent mechanical issues with the fleet of Dash 8s that the Border Force has. The second, with the contractor that we employ, is their ability to bring on pilots. There’s a global shortage of pilots, and they’re affected by that. I might hand over to Deputy Commissioner Dale to give you more details.

Ms Dale: The commissioner has flagged that there has been a reduction in flying hours this year and the commissioner has already outlined the causes. I think the rear admiral will go to the point that, notwithstanding
the reduction in hours that we have had in the Australian Border Force, aerial surveillance has been maintained to the standard he requires—fortunately, through the augmentation of flights through the Australian Defence Force.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that signalling a decrease in hours flown in the future, then, if it meets the standard? Or is it going to be that, in the future, standards are changed?

Ms Dale: No. We’re working very closely with the provider to better understand the barriers. The commissioner has spoken to the issue around crew. There is a global shortage of crew for the fixed-wing aircraft
that we’re operating. It’s also true that from time to time we have mechanical issues that are reasonably frequent with any sort of piece of machinery, so they can sometimes be a factor.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the reduction in hours flown a reason for the recent increase in the number of successful arrivals into Australian waters of foreign people smugglers and their human cargo?

Rear Adm. Sonter: There’s no direct correlation there. On a regular basis, I look at what is the threat and risk, and I adjust the posture accordingly. As Kaylene Dale indicated, one of the beauties about this role and the
coordination role is that I have both ABF and Australian Defence Force assets to pull on for this mission. While she’s articulated the decrease from the ABF funded actual air surveillance, we’ve increased the ADF air
surveillance to ensure that we have an enhanced posture in the north-west.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it the soft policy of Labor Party governments in the past, enticing people smugglers to be prepared to risk the boat and cargo for such rich profits as a full boat of paying passengers for the Aussie Express?

Senator Watt: No. Never has been and never will be.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware, Minister, that Australians now feel unsafe personally in their own country due to this failed migration policy? We’ve got boats arriving, we’ve got people who are murdering people.

Senator Watt: I’m sure there are some people in Australia who feel unsafe. What I can say is that this government is spending more money on border security than we’ve ever done before. Unlike certain others, including people in the room, we are not running down and disparaging our border security policies—which is an incentive to people smugglers—and we are taking action to deal with court decisions that are not of the
government’s making and that the government opposed.

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t quoting of spending more money just a lazy way of saying you’re trying to do something? I look at your energy policy and never before have we spent so much money and we see the highest
price of electricity.

Chair: Senator Roberts, that is not relevant to this instance.

Senator ROBERTS: My point is that money does not equate to success.

Senator Watt: You might say that spending $569.4 million more in this year’s budget on things like more boats, planes and unmanned vehicles for Operation Sovereign Borders is lazy. I wouldn’t put it that way.

/1 Comment/by

Government Miscalculates Governor General’s Salary

,

This Government is spending money recklessly, treating it as if it were mere monopoly money. This is partly because of their reliance on career bureaucrats for advice, individuals who have enjoyed very high incomes within the Canberra bubble for so long that money has lost its value to them.

They are probably surprised by the public’s outraged reaction to their decision to raise the Governor General’s salary from $495,000 to $719,000.

Such a large salary increase in the middle of a cost of living crisis showed a severe lack of awareness. Canberra bureaucrats aren’t experiencing the cost of living pain felt by the broader population, as they are insulated by their excessively hire salaries.

Rather than meeting the public outcry with a mea culpa and reducing the salary, Minister Gallagher huffed and puffed. She failed to grasp simple maths (an increase from $495,000 to $719,000 is a 43.2% rise), conflagrated the situation by raising the previous Governor General’s military pension and then accused me of misleading Parliament.

In truth, the Government and their bureaucrats were just looking after a mate and got called out for it.

Transcript

The Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is yet another display of poor judgement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. To increase the salary of the Governor-General by 43 per cent in a cost-of-living crisis is an insult to everyday Australians who are struggling with the Albanese government’s cost-of-living crisis. 

The salary of the Governor-General is fixed for the period of her term, so the rise by $214,000 dollars to a new salary of $709,000 is the only increase in the next five years. A 43 per cent pay rise suggests that the government knows inflation is going to get much worse. Not only will Ms Mostyn be earning $709,000 but the role also includes two homes: Government House in Yarralumla and Admiralty House in Kirribilli, right on Sydney Harbour. The role includes free travel, free food, servants and a pool. The Governor-General receives a pension which is legislated at 60 per cent of salary or $425,000 for life—not a bad pension. 

The appointment of Ms Mostyn is a controversial choice. The tradition for 124 years has been to select our Governor-General from the ranks of the judiciary, the military, state governors and senior politicians. This reflects the skill set a governor-general needs to lead the Australian people in a time of civil crisis or war. The Governor-General is, of course, commander of Australia’s armed forces; the Prime Minister is not the commander of Australia’s armed forces. Ms Mostyn comes to the role with a background in activism. It’s an appointment which may serve to politicise the role of the Governor-General, and that’s sad to see. 

The Commonwealth of Australia deserves more respect than the Prime Minister has shown with this appointment and with this obscene pay rise. One Nation opposes this bill. 

Transcript

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, if a salary rises from $495,000 to $719,000, what percentage increase is that? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure under which part of the portfolio this comes, but I think it relates to the Governor-General’s salary and the bill that this Senate passed this morning. The point I was making there was that it is misleading to suggest that a salary is increasing from the figure that you have used, Senator Roberts, to that high figure, because what it does not take into account is the other income streams that were available to former Governors-General. So this is an adjustment, yes, but it’s an adjustment being made because the incoming Governor-General does not have a military pension that will supplement the income stream and because the Governor-General’s salary has been traditionally linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. 

I think the point you were making this morning in debate and the point that Senator Waters, surprisingly, was making in debate was this was some significant pay increase in the order of 43 per cent, when that is not correct. Former Governors-Generals have had two income streams, particularly if they’ve been in receipt of a pension. This legislation we passed today was to ensure that a commensurate salary be provided for an incoming Governor-General who only has one income stream. So it is not accurate to say that a position has had an increase of that order. It is simply not correct. It is misleading, it is disingenuous and it’s seeking a popular headline, which I agree is easy to get if people don’t understand the detail that underpins that decision. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The answer is 43.2 per cent. Governor-General Jeffery’s salary was $365,000. Quentin Bryce, Labor’s last appointment, was paid $394,000, $20,000 less than the then salary of the High Court Chief Justice. General Cosgrove was paid $425,000, and then General Hurley was paid $495,000. Minister, how much was outgoing Governor-General Hurley’s salary reduced for his military pension? 

Senator Gallagher: I don’t have those figures at hand, but I do understand that the salary that has been agreed to and passed by this chamber this morning and by the House earlier in the week is in line with the salary that the current Governor-General has been earning with the income streams available to him. It might be slightly adjusted for the fact that it lasts over five years, because, once the Governor-General commences in the role, no further adjustments can be made to salary. But it is in line with what His Excellency Governor-General Hurley is earning at this point in time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The incoming Governor-General’s salary is now $70,000 above the High Court Chief Justice’s salary. The Chief Justice gets, as you said, periodic increases to adjust for inflation. The Governor-General does not. Noting that today’s inflation announcement shows inflation increasing again, this huge pay rise seems designed to compensate Sam Mostyn for inflation and has nothing to do with military pensions. Minister, earlier today, did you mislead the Senate to cover up the real reason for this huge pay increase, surging inflation? 

Senator Gallagher: I can assure Senator Roberts that, no, I did not mislead the parliament and I have been clear—indeed, I was clear in the last answer that I gave—that there is some adjustment for future increases based on the fact that the Chief Justice has a salary determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Governor-General’s salary cannot be increased by that, so there is work done, based on some analysis about what that should appropriately be. But, no, it’s not based on today’s inflation forecast, and it’s incorrect to continue to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that His Excellency currently is in receipt of a military pension in addition to the salary that he draws as Governor-General. The simple reality is that the legislation that passed this chamber addresses the fact that there is one income stream, and this allows them to be paid in accordance with what’s currently being paid. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today regarding the incoming Governor-General’s salary. 

Since 1974 the parliament has approved the salary for each incoming Governor-General. The salary level has conventionally been commensurate with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The last time a Governor-General was paid less than the Chief Justice was in 2008, when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Quentin Bryce with a salary $20,000 less than that of the Chief Justice. Precedent does call for consideration to be ‘given to any pension received by the incumbent for previous employment’—for the incumbent, not for the person coming after the incumbent. 

The annual salary during Michael Jeffery’s term was $365,000. Quentin Bryce’s salary was $394,000. General Peter Cosgrove was paid $425,000, which included a small reduction because of his military pension. General Hurley was paid $495,000. General Hurley is in receipt of a military pension as a result of his lifetime of military service. Sam Mostyn is not entitled to a military pension for her lifetime of service to the culture wars. The huge increase offered to Sam Mostyn takes her salary to $70,000 above that of the High Court Chief Justice, despite Labor themselves setting a precedent that less can be paid in hard times, such as in 2008, during the global financial crisis. 

In 2024 we have the crisis of the Albanese government’s runaway inflation. The inflation rate has increased again to four per cent, announced a few moments ago. This persistent high inflation gives a hint as to why the incoming Governor-General got such a large wage rise. The government knows what bad economic news is coming for everyday Australians in the next five years and sought to insulate its appointment from that ruinous inflation. This Labor government simply doesn’t know the value of money and is clearly confused when the public call the government out for it. Sam Mostyn has got a huge increase in salary. Her pension is now hugely increased, and she will have that pension for every day of every year of her life. 

Question agreed to. 

/2 Comments/by