Posts

Labour Hire Scams and Union Corruption

,

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

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

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

Transcript | Session 1

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That’s not my question.  

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

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

Mr Furlong: No, nor would it be appropriate.  

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: No, Senator.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware.  

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

Senator Watt: I’m happy to—  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Mr Furlong initially.  

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

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, perhaps you could answer that.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Watt: Fair Work Ombudsman or commission?  

Senator ROBERTS: Fair Work Ombudsman.  

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: You were so embarrassed, Minister—  

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

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

Senator Watt: No.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Watt: You just rattled off—  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Transcript | Session 2

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

Senator Watt: Is that a general proposition?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the compliment.  

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

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

Senator Watt: No.  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Called things like?  

Senator Watt: Secure jobs and better pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about state governments?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Watt: No.  

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

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

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

Senator Watt: About what?  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

The Decade-Long Scam Robbing Some of Our Miners

,

By Robert Gottliebsen | The Australian

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

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

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

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

See all material on this issue

Casual Coal Wage Theft

Related Parliamentary Speeches

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

Labor are Not the Party of the Workers

, ,

Today the Labor government will vote AGAINST my amendment that would award back pay to casual miners who had more than $30,000 a year stolen from them under union negotiated agreements.

Nothing in Labor’s bill will compensate these ripped off casual workers and now they will vote down my amendment that would pay them back.

So much for Labor being the party of the workers.

This amendment was voted down by Labor and the major parties

Transcript (click here)

Casual miners—so-called casual miners—working in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed an average, due to wage theft, back pay of around $33,000 per year for every year of service. If you’re a casual, you are likely owed $33,000 per year that you have worked. My amendment aims to get these miners their back pay. Before getting to that, I note that the Senate has yet again been hijacked with a guillotine this afternoon, when almost half the Senate want more debate. This is a grotesque abuse of power. It’s a grotesque abuse of democracy. It’s a grotesque abuse of process in this Senate—the people’s Senate. These are serious guillotines. We know that sometimes guillotines are arranged, and that’s fine, with the consent of just about everyone. Regarding serious guillotines, where there’s a genuine disagreement between Labor and the LNP and a need for more debate, here are the figures: in the 45th Parliament, there were two; in the 46th Parliament, there were 24; and, in the 47th Parliament, under Labor, the Greens, Teals and the coalition, we’re halfway through and there have been 39 already. Almost all guillotines involve a Labor-Greens-Teal-Senator Pocock coalition. This morning we have Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock amending significant industrial relations legislation affecting many employees, small businesses and employers around the country. Yet we have limited time to assess and almost no time to debate.

Minister, last night in my second reading speech, I explained, in great detail, what I believe is the largest systemic wage theft in Australia. It’s explained in the independent report that One Nation commissioned. I foreshadowed an amendment to pay casuals working in the black coal mining industry. It’s been tabled. Casual coalminers are being ripped off to the tune of around $33,000 each and every year.

Labor’s bill would put more power with union bosses. After what I unveiled last night, that’s putting the fox in charge of henhouse. The CFMMEU, the Construction Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, enabled and supported wage theft from casual coalminers. The CFMMEU negotiated and endorsed enterprise agreements that pay casual coalminers less per hour than the award combined with a 25 per cent casual loading. Some enterprise agreements in the coal sector paid and still pay paid casual workers less than a full-time worker receives per hour under the award. Ignore the loading; it is less than the award. That’s a casual being paid less than a full-time worker. How? CFMEU union bosses negotiated and approved this wage theft. Minister, union bosses negotiated and approved these agreements that pay casuals less than full-time workers, yet your bill places more power with those union bosses, who failed to protect workers and who betrayed workers— union bosses who enabled theft from mineworkers. The Fair Work Commission failed. They failed to properly assess these agreements and let them sail through. They approved them. When I asked the Fair Work Commission at Senate estimates to provide me with a copy of the better off overall test, the BOOT, that they had conducted for just one of these agreements, they could not hand over a single document or spreadsheet—not one. This is a wage theft resulting from a cosy collusion between the labour hire companies, including the world’s largest labour hire company, which is owned by a Japanese parent company; union bosses who betrayed workers; and the Fair Work Commission. All three are culpable.

My amendment on sheet 2339 will trigger a review of those coal enterprise agreements to ensure they meet all relevant entitlements. It would ensure any underpaid casual coalminers are compensated for the wage theft they have suffered and would pay them the $33,000 each per annum that they’re entitled to. This cost would be apportioned between the offending labour hire company—the employer—the union and the Commonwealth, through the Fair Work Commission, for their culpability in the wage theft. Senators who vote for Labor’s legislation without voting for my amendment are endorsing massive wage theft—Australia’s largest ever wage theft. Legislation must not just attempt to fix it for the future; it must right the wage theft and get the back pay.

Minister, why doesn’t the government support my amendments on sheet 2339 to pay back entitlements for casual coalminers that have had wages stolen from them—$33,000, on average, per year?

Senator WATT (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Senator Roberts, thanks for providing a copy of this amendment to me before the debate started. The government does not support your proposed amendment. We consider that the bill as it stands, which we’re introducing here, provides a considered and balanced framework for defining casual employment and supporting casual employees to convert to permanent employment. The government has consulted with a wide range of stakeholders to reach a position that addresses both employees’ and employers’ needs. The government’s reforms that were passed last year also give labour hire employees the right to seek orders from the Fair Work Commission that provide entitlements to the same pay under a host business’s enterprise agreement. Casual labour hire employees in the black-coal-mining industry can also seek these orders. So, Senator Roberts, the bill as we are presenting it already addresses the needs that casual workers, whether they be miners or others, undoubtedly have. The reforms that we made in our amendments last year, around the labour hire loophole, were also designed to address the rights of casual coalminers in particular. Senator Roberts, I’ve obviously been in a number of estimates hearings where you’ve raised these issues. It is my observation that you have been given answers to these questions by officials on a number of occasions. You haven’t accepted those answers, and you continue to ask the same questions. It’s your right to do so, but I think it’s pretty clear that whatever answer you’re provided with won’t satisfy you. It’s your right to continue campaigning on this issue, but I would remind you, Senator Roberts, that last year, when we did introduce changes to benefit labour hire casual employees to ensure that they are paid at least the same as the permanent workers they work alongside, it was unfortunate and surprising that you voted against that change. I would have thought that, if you were as committed to the rights of casual coalminers as you say you are, you would have voted with the government for those reforms that we implemented last year. I was surprised that, after a number of years of you campaigning on this issue, you voted with the coalition against the interests of those labour hire casual coalminers who you say you represent.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, let’s have the full truth. We voted against that because it didn’t address the core issue. There is no casual permanent rort loophole at all other than the one I’ve just discussed. The simple solution is that the Fair Work Act needs to be enforced. Your bill covers the future. Your previous bill covers the future. It shuts the door to backpay of these miners who are owed, on average, $33,000 per year for the breach of the Fair Work Act. Way you covering up union bosses’ culpability? That is what you are doing. That’s what Minister Burke is doing. Minister Burke has received two letters from me on this issue. We get a polite, ‘Nothing to see here; move on.’ I’ve written letters. Miners have been in touch through personal meetings and provided solid, written evidence to the department’s senior advisers. Nothing has happened. With the minister’s office’s senior advisers, nothing has happened. With the Fair Work Commission, nothing has happened. The Fair Work Ombudsman used a fraudulent document to deny any case for the miners, despite the miners having five documents, including court hearing transcripts, that say their documents are correct. Why you continuing to cover this up against miners in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland? Why are you continuing to cover it up? Is it because union bosses in the CFMEU are culpable because they have engineered this? Is it because union bosses in the CFMEU are the ones who started labour hire in the coalmining industry? Is it because they were actually employers and they had some commercial agreements that we’ve got wind of? Minister, these people are entitled to their back pay. That’s what I want, and that’s what this amendment covers. It covers their back pay. We don’t want this bill to go through and simply bury the issue. That’s what Minister Burke is doing. Why are you covering up for union bosses? Is it because they funnel millions of dollars into Labor Party campaign coffers? Why are you not doing this after almost five years of me bringing this to your attention?

Senator WATT: As Senator Roberts has just made clear, he has been raising these issues for five years. The questions have been answered for five years, and I don’t propose to add to any of them, but again I point out that Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson did have an opportunity late last year to vote with the government to ensure that the rights of labour hire workers in coalmines were protected. Unfortunately, Senator Roberts decided to vote with the coalition.

Senator ROBERTS: I will repeat myself. We are not voting for legislation that covers up, endorses and prevents miners from getting their back pay. When this Labor government stops covering up for CFMEU bosses who’ve done dodgy deals, stops covering up for the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman, which are not doing their job; and stops covering up for labour hire companies—we will not vote for
legislation that prevents miners getting their back pay and covers it up.

See all the material on this issue

Casual Coal Wage Theft

News Article and Related Parliamentary Speech

The Decade-Long Scam Robbing Some of Our Miners
Exposing the Permanent-Casual Rort
/by

Exposing the Permanent-Casual Rort

, ,

I detailed one of the most outrageous wage thefts in the country last night in the Senate. Despite having all of this information, the Labor party continues to cover it up, voting down my amendment that would give back-pay to victims.

Casual coal mine workers are being individually underpaid up to $33,000 per year under union-negotiated deals. Minister Tony Burke is aware of this yet he does nothing about it.

The so-called ‘Loopholes’ Bill will only protect the union bosses at the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and give them more power. It will protect labour-hire companies including the big, foreign-owned ones, and it will protect the government’s Fair Work Commission who is failing Australian workers.

The only loopholes I see are the ones protecting big business and the government and there’s nothing ‘fair’ about it.

Labor has abandoned the workers. One Nation will not stop fighting for ripped off casual coal miners to receive what they’re owed.

Transcript (click here)

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. In doing that, I will illustrate why this bill is a sham that does not protect workers like the name implies.

Nothing in this bill will fix the absolute scandal that One Nation has uncovered. The Labor government is giving more power to union bosses, which is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. As I will explain, union bosses are the ones that have been ripping off workers, and the government regulator, the Fair Work Commission, has endorsed it. I challenge anyone to explain to me in detail how the closing loopholes No. 2 bill will fix the cases I’m about to explain.

An independent report details the largest wage theft scandal Australia has ever seen. Coalmine workers have each had tens of thousands of dollars stolen from them every year. Labour hire companies, union bosses and governments have been covering it up for a decade or more. The culprits are labour hire companies supplying casual workers to some Central Queensland and Hunter Valley coalmines. The CFMEU—the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union—enabled and supported the wage theft. The Fair Work Commission signed off and endorsed the enterprise agreements, enabling the wage theft.

One Nation commissioned an independent analysis which shows that hardworking, casual coalminers are each being shafted on 2023 pay rates by an average of around $33,000 every year. This is systemic wage theft resulting from collusion between labour hire companies—including major foreign multinationals—the CFMEU and the Fair Work Commission. My grave and disturbing allegations are based on solid facts and hard data.

A quirk in the Black Coal Mining Industry Award makes this scam possible. Under that award it’s illegal for mine employers to have casual employees. Yet, if casuals were legal, everyone in Australia knows that the employer would have to pay casuals 25 per cent more than the award full-time rate, as a 25 per cent casual loading for loss of basic entitlements like leave, sick leave and others. While the award prohibits casuals, labour hire companies—with the CFMEU—created enterprise agreements to employ casuals without any loading. The CFMEU negotiated, approved or sought to become a party to these agreements.

The closing loopholes No. 2 bill claims that all of these problems in industrial relations can be solved if we get the union bosses more involved and give them more power. What is the use of giving the CFMEU bosses more power when they negotiated and approved agreements that have ripped off casual workers for more than a decade? The Fair Work Commission should be policing and rejecting these agreements, yet it approved them. The rates under the agreements were less than the award with a 25 per cent loading. This means that the enterprise agreements are paying much less than what should be paid under the award if it allowed casuals. Some casuals were paid even less than the full-time award through technical legal trickery. All parties claim these agreements are legal, yet everyone knows a casual gets a 25 per cent loading on the hourly rate of a full-time worker. Paying them any less is wage theft. It appears that, once the Fair Work Commission approves an enterprise agreement that pays less than what should be paid under the award, the underpayment then becomes legal.

Yet One Nation is awake. All Australians deserve honest pay for an honest day’s work. We have spent nearly five years investigating wage theft. Nothing in this bill will fix up the absolute scandal One Nation has uncovered. Tonight I launch our major report detailing the extent of the wage theft scam. In 2019, after the CFMEU brushed off many years of casual coalminers’ complaints, the miners brought their underpayment complaints to us in One Nation. We took action. I’ve been holding the Fair Work Commission accountable for nearly five years. We asked the Fair Work Commission to provide their copy of the better-off-overall test—the BOOT—they’ve done on relevant enterprise agreements. The BOOT is supposed to be a safety net that rejects underpaying agreements and protects workers from underpayment. Yet the commission handed us no documents. There are no spreadsheets, no tables comparing conditions and benefits and no real assurance that they’d properly weighed it up. The response was along the lines of, ‘Trust us; it passes.’

The CFMEU has been signing off on dodgy agreements for more than a decade, and the Fair Work Commission is either asleep at the wheel or complicit. Either way, both enable or are responsible for massive wage theft. Last year we raised this issue with the Fair Work Ombudsman and with Minister Burke and his department. Responses from all three have been like that of the Fair Work Commission. ‘Trust us,’ they say, yet they provide no hard evidence.

One Nation then commissioned independent research, with the results in the report. The first part presents the facts of coalmining casual work patterns. It marries those patterns against what the award would require if casual employment were possible under the award. The second part exposes how this scam has been allowed to continue in breach of proper, commonsense application of the law. The report details that coalminers are required to work any time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, close to a 44-hour week—Saturdays, Sundays, public holidays, days and nights. It’s long, hard work that can be dangerous. The report shows that, according to the award, for example, a full-time mine worker doing 12-hour shifts will earn about $120,849 per year or $53.84 an hour. Taking what a full-time mine worker should earn under the award and adding a casual loading, a casual mine worker doing the same hours should earn $151,061 a year, or a flat rate of $66.40 an hour, regardless of hours worked.

The independent analysis One Nation commissioned looked in detail at mine workers’ hourly rates under the five most common enterprise agreements covering casuals in coalmining. We found that none of the enterprise agreements were paying casual workers anywhere near the $66.40 an hour they should be receiving. Some were even paying casuals less than the hourly rate a full-time worker gets under the award. The fact that a casual worker could be paid less than the hourly rate of a full-time worker under some of the agreements should have set of alarm bells at the Fair Work Commission. Every single enterprise agreement—all five—has the CFMEU’s fingerprints on it, and the Fair Work Commission signed off every single agreement.

The research assessed five of the major enterprise agreements in consultation with independent analysis, lawyers and coalminers. Let’s go through them. The CoreStaff NSW Black Coal Enterprise Agreement 2018 pays casual mine workers $56.16 an hour, much less than the $66.40 a casual should be paid. The CFMEU is recognised under the agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement. The underpayment of each casual coalminer each year is $22,623. For FES, in Rockhampton, at a hearing of the inquiry into Labor’s closing loopholes bill we received evidence that the FES agreement 2018 pays casual employee Dwayne Arnold $54 an hour, well short of the $66.40 a casual should be paid. This agreement was made with the CFMEU. The Fair Work Commission signed off on the agreement. The underpayment of each casual coalminer each year is $27,563.

The WorkPac Coal Mining Agreement 2019 provides four different pay rates for a casual mine worker: between $42.99 and $51.38 an hour, depending on the day—all less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker. Calculations use the highest weekend rate even though this is more than what an average mine worker will get. It’s far short of the $66.40 that should be paid. The CFMEU negotiated and approved the agreement. The Fair Work Commission signed it. The yearly underpayment for a casual coalminer is $33,555. The Chandler Macleod agreement in 2020 pays a casual $48.85 an hour, far below the $66.40 that should be paid and less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker on the award. The CFMEU was a bargaining representative for the 2015 agreement, supported its approval and is a party to the 2020 agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved the agreement. The yearly underpayment per mine worker is $39,341.

Let’s go to the TESA group. The agreement in 2022 pays a casual $48.28 an hour, far below the $66.40 that should be paid and less than the hourly rate of a permanent worker on the award. The CFMEU is a party to the agreement. The Fair Work Commission approved it. The yearly underpayment per worker is $40,645. That’s almost $41,000 per year underpaid. Across these agreements a casual mineworker loses on average almost $33,000 every year compared to what they should be paid on the standard casual loading on the award rate.

One Nation challenges each of the parties in this scam. To the labour hire companies, the CFMEU union bosses and the Fair Work Commission, One Nation says: prove to us that our report is wrong. Don’t give us the excuse of the legal construct that you have created to enable and endorse the wage theft. Prove to us that the payments to the coal workers is higher than would be paid if the award allowed casual workers. Prove to us casuals are paid a loading. You will fail. Casuals are not paid a casual loading. It’s wage theft. It’s masterful wage theft. It’s hideous wage theft.

There are potentially tens of thousands of victim mineworkers in the history of dodgy agreements we can track over a decade. The total wage theft is massive. The failure of the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman is shocking institutional failure. The fact they covered it up after we informed them is a disgraceful failure. It calls into question the entire structure, promise and integrity of the system in Australia that is supposed to protect Australian workers from underpayment, from wage theft.

Nothing in this bill will fix the absolute scandal One Nation has uncovered. Minister Burke’s bill aims to hide those responsible. Failure of the CFMEU bosses is even more obvious. We have a signed letter from the Hunter Valley CFMEU and labour hire company Chandler Macleod. In that letter, the CFMEU promises to never take action against Chandler Macleod for any breaches of worker entitlements. Our report details that the CFMEU has had commercial business dealings in the coal sector for decades. The CFMEU pretends to be a union. In fact, it is one of the employers, the bosses. It started labour hire casuals in the Hunter. It employed labour hire casuals. It started it. This theft must stop. CFMEU union bosses must be held to account for failing to represent workers, for betraying workers. The Fair Work Commission must be held to account for failing to stop dodgy enterprise agreements.

My amendment that I will be moving in the committee of the whole will ensure that those workers underpaid in the black coal industry will receive their fair pay entitlements in full. It adds transparency missing from the Fair Work Act and will ensure that the Fair Work Commission does its job, while the overprescriptive provisions of the Fair Work Act hide or ignore basic protections for workers. The Fair Work Commission has previously admitted that the Fair Work Act does not provide sufficient oversight of the Fair Work Commission when it fails to do its job.

One thrust of Minister Burke’s appalling bill is to cover up and bury Australia’s largest ever wage theft. Thousands of coalminers have each been underpaid on average around $33,000 per year because their union bosses did a shady deal with their employer. I have detailed proof of this. My amendment will put an end to these dodgy deals and enterprise agreements that pay much less than the award and it will ensure workers are reimbursed their stolen wages. Nothing in the closing loopholes No. 2 bill will hold the unions or the Fair Work Commission to account. Instead, Anthony Albanese’s solution is to give union bosses even more power with no accountability and no scrutiny. With what I have detailed in this speech, it’s obvious that that would be simply putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

The changes contained in the so-called closing loopholes No. 2 bill will be far-reaching and have devastating impacts on the way almost every operation in Australia is forced to do business. We have had countless meetings with unions, small businesses, employees, workers, industry associations, law groups and more. The overarching message that all of them could agree with me on was that the Fair Work Act is simply too complicated for any worker or business to understand. The act is already a bulky 1,341 pages. It’s a sledgehammer that’s killing our economy. It’s so big it has to be split into three volumes so they can print it. It started 15 years ago as just a 652-page act. In the last five years alone, the Fair Work Act has increased by over 300 pages. What hope has someone who runs a bakery? What hope has an individual worker? The only ones who can keep up with all of the legislation changes and the complicated legal sections and find the loopholes are big corporations and big union bosses. They make the loopholes. I call them the industrial relations club. It includes big corporations, industrial relations consultants, lawyers and big union bosses.

Big corporations love a complex Fair Work Act because it stops small businesses who can’t figure out all the red tape from competing with them. Industrial relations lawyers love it because it keeps them in a job. Union bosses love it because it forces them into the conversation, whether the employees want them there or not. That’s why you hear so much support for this bill from the big money players. Genuine small-business owners who are too busy trying to run small operations and to pay their staff don’t have time to write parliamentary submissions or understand some amendments that may come into law. If this bill is passed, the 1,341-page Fair Work Act won’t get smaller and easier to understand. It will make the act longer, more complex, more prescriptive—the opposite of everything we need to fix industrial relations in this country. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I know only One Nation will fight to make sure workers receive their entitlements, and my amendment will do exactly that. We don’t need a so-called loopholes bill; we need enforcement of the award.

See all related material

Casual Coal Wage Theft

Related Parliamentary Speech and News Article

Labor are Not the Party of the Workers
The Decade-Long Scam Robbing Some of Our Miners
/1 Comment/by

Government spending $2.4 billion on casuals with one Labour hire firm alone

, ,

During investigations into the the abuse of casual coal miners I found that the government has spent over $2.4 billion on casual labour hire from one firm, Chandler Macleod Group, alone. The government couldn’t even tell me what the total casual labour hire bill was across all agencies because they don’t even collect that data. The fact that the Australian Public Service Commission don’t even know how much money they’re spending is inexcusable.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing today. When we were investigating, over the last 2½ years, the abuses of casual black-coal miners in the Hunter Valley, we noted that there were thousands of casuals working for the Australian Public Service, with hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to labour hire firms. Why does the Public Service do this?

Mr Woolcott : Could you just put that question to me again, Senator? I didn’t quite understand. You’re talking about why we employ casual hire?

Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. We know that some people prefer to work casually; so I’ve got nothing against casuals. We know that casuals fulfil a basic secondary role within any workplace, with fluctuating workloads, someone going on leave, projects et cetera. Why does the Public Service use so many labour hire firms to employ these casuals?

Mr Woolcott : It’s for agency heads to determine how they construct their workforce. The Public Service Act sets out that the normal method of engagement is full-time, ongoing employment as a public servant, but there are provisions in the Public Service Act for non-ongoing and other aspects. It’s very much for each individual agency head to work out what is the appropriate mix of their workforce. Obviously, if it’s work that fluctuates then it’s quite appropriate for them to use labour hire and casuals to manage those fluctuations. But again, as I say, it’s a matter for each individual agency head. They’re the accountable authority. They have responsibility for delivering for the government and the Australian community and it’s for them to work out their proper mix.

Senator ROBERTS: As the Australian Public Service Commission, I imagine you’d be interested in efficiency, cost-effectiveness and employees’ conditions?

Mr Woolcott : Obviously we’re intimately involved in many of those aspects but, in terms of running that agency and running the duties and obligations that they are committed to undertake, it’s for them to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that point. How many casuals are currently employed across the Australian Public Service—hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?

Mr Woolcott : I think it’s 87 per cent that is ongoing. Ms Steele will have the data.

Ms Steele : That’s correct. In terms of casuals in the last year, we have at the moment 8,696 casuals. That’s an increase of 51 since December 2020.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many of those would you know are casuals in their own right employed directly by the Australian Public Service and how many are labour hire subcontractors or labour hire firms?

Ms Steele : I do not know that. I do know that those who are employed for a specific term or task are a further 10,816.

Senator ROBERTS: In addition?

Ms Steele : In addition to the casuals. There are two types of non-ongoing. One is casual, and one is you can be engaged for a specific term or task.

Senator GALLAGHER: And that can be contract, labour hire, fixed term?

Ms Steele : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many casuals have been employed in the Australian Public Service for more than six months?

Ms Steele : I would have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, and could you also provide a de-identified report—anonymous employees—by department, by labour hire company or direct employment, by cost and duration of service?

Ms Steele : We don’t collect that information about labour hire firms or companies; we only collect the number of casuals by agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This one you’ll probably have to take on notice too, Ms Steele: how many casuals, internal or labour hire, have converted from casual to permanent employment in the Australian Public Service in the past 12 months?

Ms Steele : I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are casuals that the Australian Public Service has engaged through labour hire companies able to convert to the Public Service roles that they’ve been working in for more than six months?

Ms Steele : No.

Senator ROBERTS: If someone has been engaged for more than six months it would seem that they’re needed, so why wouldn’t they be eligible? Because the employer is not the Public Service?

Mr Spaccavento : I think it’s important to draw a distinction between a casual employee and a labour hire employee. A casual employee is an employee of the Australian Public Service and is eligible to convert to permanent employment if they meet the criteria laid out in the Fair Work Act and the Public Service Act. A labour hire employee is an employee of an entirely different company and not of the Public Service. A labour hire employee would not be eligible to convert to permanent employment.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you see some inconsistency there?

Mr Spaccavento : No, because in one instance the employee is a direct employee of the Australian Public Service, directly engaged by an agency. So it’s a contract of service versus a contract for service.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. We’ve seen the abuse of coal miners, for example, and we’ve seen hints of abuse of casual workers in other sectors as well—lost entitlements, basic safety provisions, significant pay cuts—and it seems to me that it’s just a naked attempt to go around the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Mr Spaccavento : Casual employees in the Australian Public Service are engaged under the terms and conditions of agency enterprise agreements, so they receive essentially the same terms and conditions as permanent employees. I say ‘essentially’ because there’s some leave entitlements they don’t get and there is a casual loading. Labour hire employees are obviously different because they are employees of a different organisation. There’s a range of reasons why agencies would engage labour hire firms, and that would be a decision for that agency head to make.

Senator ROBERTS: In the course of our investigations in the Hunter Valley, Central Queensland and elsewhere we found, for example, that the Chandler Macleod Group was paid an estimated $2.4 billion over four years for providing labour hire contractors or labour hire employees to the Australian government. That seems pretty substantial to me.

Mr Spaccavento : I can’t comment on decisions that agencies have made.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware if these casuals under labour hire firms are paid the same and have the same terms and conditions as similar roles that they work beside?

Mr Spaccavento : Because it’s outside of our remit, we don’t have visibility of what labour hire employees are paid or the conditions they are on. It would be a matter of the employment arrangements they have made with the labour hire company and those employees. I couldn’t say yes or no to that question because we don’t have responsibility or visibility of it.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is a request for an opinion: do you think that’s reasonable?

Senator Duniam: In terms of the decisions that heads of agencies make around it?

Senator ROBERTS: The employment of people for more than six months by a labour hire firm could be a way of getting around the requirement now to offer casual conversion.

Senator Duniam: As the commissioner outlined earlier, heads of agencies make decisions with regard to how they engage their workforce based on the needs at the time. There are a range of circumstances that they obviously take into consideration. I would have every faith in those heads of agencies that they are doing the right thing to ensure that the people they work for, the taxpayers of Australia, are getting the service that’s required and that their employees are being treated properly as well.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, that’s a nice motherhood statement, but I’ve seen people who work for firms with reputable international and Australian reputations completely abusing workers in this country. That has come as a big shock. To compound that, neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party nor the National Party nor state and federal governments nor the various bureaucrats have been interested in this. They’ve ignored requests to investigate.

Senator Duniam: If there are specific cases of abuse of employees then there are appropriate channels to deal with those things. I would encourage you, or those you ask these questions on behalf of, to take action, because that’s the appropriate thing to do. I don’t think there’s anyone around this table, on that side or this side, that would seek to endorse any abuse of employees or withdrawal or withholding of entitlements.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s remarkable—and I’m not accusing people of doing that in the Public Service—and I’m trying to find out whether or not the government and the Public Service understand there is a potential for that. We’ve seen that widely in other industries from so-called reputable firms. I’ve heard some stories about the Public Service hiring $2.4 billion worth of labour hire people over four years. That’s a staggering figure.

Senator Duniam: I appreciate you’re not making an accusation. Certainly, your point is that there could be potential, or you’re trying to seek an understanding of whether there is. If there is a single case of this abuse then I would expect that it would be raised and referred to the appropriate authorities and dealt with accordingly.

Senator ROBERTS: What doesn’t give me confidence—I accept what you’re saying—is that some people in the Hunter Valley, for example, raised this repeatedly over the course of about five years and got nowhere, neither from the state nor the federal government, with blatant breaches of the law. I’m just trying to understand, if the Public Service know that this could be going on, what they’re doing to protect not only workers who work for them permanently, casually, directly, but also those who work indirectly through labour hire firms, because not all labour hire firms are ethical.

Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of the particular issues that you are raising. Obviously, if you have concerns, please take them up with the relevant minister or with his department in relation to the way they manage their affairs.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to find out whether or not you’re aware of the particular—

Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of any of the particular concerns that you’re raising, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Or the potential for that. Are you aware that casual workers who are employed either directly or through labour hire firms have less job security and find it harder, for example, to get home loans, because one of the requirements for a home loan is a secure, permanent job?

Mr Woolcott : Am I aware of that?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Woolcott : Again, it’s not an issue that’s been brought to my attention.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware; okay. These workers who are working for the Public Service for more than six months miss out on the terms and conditions of government employment. Is that reasonable?

Mr Woolcott : You’re asking me for an opinion there.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the minister.

Senator Duniam: With respect to the decisions made by heads of agency around how they engage their workforce, either in the way you’ve characterised or otherwise, as the commissioner has outlined, it’s a matter for them based on the needs of the community they serve and the work that they do. Personally, I would love to ensure that everyone gets everything they’re entitled to, and I have every expectation that, for those who are engaged, under whatever contractual arrangement occurs, those contracts are in alignment with the law and are done in accordance with what is legally required of the employing agency. My hope is that everyone gets what they deserve and nothing less.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my hope, too. But in the Hunter Valley, for a period of seven years now—five years until we started working on it—there were many people who were abused and exploited, and they were told to go and talk with the state department, WorkCover. They were told to take it up with the federal government, and nothing happened. We were then actively misrepresented when we tried to do something about it. Eventually, we prevailed in some areas and we’re still working on others. So it could happen in the Public Service, and I’m checking to make sure that the Public Service is aware of some of these things; that’s all.

Senator Duniam: You have brought this concern to the commissioner’s attention. Certainly, the minister that I’m representing will be aware of your concerns. Again, if there’s a specific instance or a series of them, we should deal with them in the appropriate forum.

Senator ROBERTS: One final question, Chair: what margin is paid to labour hire firms when you engage a casual through them? I’m now putting on my other hat; instead of protecting constituents, I’m protecting taxpayers, who are also constituents. What’s the margin?

Mr Woolcott : We don’t keep data on that, so I can’t answer that question. It would be a matter for each particular agency head, in terms of the arrangements they have. We don’t collect data on that issue.

Senator AYRES: Ms Steele, I didn’t hear your answer to Senator Roberts’ initial question. I think you gave an answer—tell me if I’m wrong—which was about the number of direct casuals and the number of non-ongoing; and, consistent with the APSC’s previous answers to the committee, you don’t have an answer for the number of labour hire employees engaged by the APSC?

Ms Steele : That is correct.

Senator AYRES: The justification for what I think is an impossible proposition is still the same, Mr Woolcott, is it?

Mr Woolcott : We collect data on Australian public servants, and arrangements under the APS act fall outside our terms of reference. Having said that, Senator, it’s always appropriate to look at ways to improve data collection and our understanding of the public sector workforce. We will continue to do so, and use the COO committee to that end.

Senator AYRES: Does that mean that you’re heading towards being able to collect that data, to be able to identify what proportion of the workforce is privatised, or are you just making a general comment?

Mr Woolcott : I’m just making a general comment at this point, Senator.

Senator AYRES: So it’s still studied ignorance on labour hire. With the survey work that the commission does on a regular basis, there’s been no consideration given to extending that survey work to the experience that labour hire employees have with the Public Service?

Mr Woolcott : Not at this point.

Senato r ROBERTS: There’s no guarantee—you can’t provide a guarantee—that there’s no wage theft going on in the industry, in the public sector?

Mr Woolcott : No, I can’t provide that guarantee.

Senator Duniam: Again, it’s important to say that, if there are examples of that, I’ll walk with you to the appropriate authority; we’ll make sure that they’re made aware, that investigations occur and justice is done.

Mr Woolcott : The workforce ombudsman, Sandra Parker, obviously looks at this aspect very closely in terms of both the private sector and the public sector.

/by

One Nation introduces Equal pay for Equal work Labour hire bill

Companies have been using labour hire contracts to cut wages and benefits for workers. Our One Nation ‘Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022’ will put an end to this unfair abuse.

Transcript

In the last Senate week I introduced my bill to make sure workers employed under labour hire contracts are paid the same rate of pay as workers who are employed directly in certain awards, including the black coal Mining Industry Award and the Aircraft cabin crew award. You know, breadwinner jobs used to be able to provide for a family on one wage and still buy a home, a car and have holidays.

Labour hire contracts are one of the devices that large corporations are now using to drive down wages in industries that have traditionally provided breadwinner jobs. My bill, this bill, will help to bring a better life for Australian workers. Coal mining is in my blood. I started work as a coalface minor for three years underground, including in the Hunter, before progressing to mine management.

The exploitation I have seen lately in the coal mining industry is an absolute disgrace. This bill is the product of work I’ve been doing for years with Hunter Valley coal miners and Queensland coal miners.

One Nation was instrumental in achieving positive change to the Fair Work Act in 2021, including protections for casual workers and casual conversion rights for workers: casual to permanent, improvements to work health and safety incident reporting, proper payment of workers compensation, proper payment of accident pay, proper leave and freedom of speech for casuals who are threatened with the sack if they speak up about saefty.

Labour hire contracts have been exploiting workers for years and the CMFEU Union bosses, the mine owners and the Labor Party and the liberal national governments in New South Wales and Canberra have done nothing about it, and they don’t want to do anything about it. Union bosses do very well, very nicely out of these labour hire contracts.

The One Nation, Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022, will put an end to this unfair abuse. With our previous work and this Bill, One Nation is now the party of the workers.

And stay tuned we’ve got a lot more coming.

/by

Government approach to Industrial Relations disastrous

,

Australians have had their workplaces wrecked by the Government’s COVID mismanagement. Casual Coal miners have also been let down for years. I asked the Attorney General about this and more at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

Thank you, chair. And thank you all for attending today.

Nice to see you again, Mr. Hehir, it’s always a pleasure. I mean that sincerely. Minister, I’ll just read 11 points from my additional comments to the job insecurity inquiry report. These are the things that we see in addition to exploitation of casual coal miners which we’re gonna have a further discussion about tomorrow.

[Michaelia] Yes, you and I, yes we are.

Yes. And which we’ve been trying to make progress for a couple of years now, in addition to the exploitation of casual coal minors, Australians are suffering right now from what I consider to be COVID mismanagement both federal and state, due to capricious lockdowns and mandates. People are uncertain. The second thing is the phasing out of the coal industry and jobs under the part under the policies of all four major parties, the erosion of people’s rights and freedoms, especially workplace rights and freedoms in this context. Increasing energy prices which are decimating manufacturing and hurting agriculture. The killing of manufacturing as a consequence. The lack of much needed tax reform. The lack of much needed economic reform. Increasing debt. Workplace health and safety systems being bypassed. Australia’s productive capacity being destroyed. And this is the one I want to ask questions about, the failure around industrial relations systems and more. There’s a lot that’s hanging over workers heads. And small business in particular.

Okay.

Would you agree? And I think the solution in many cases is to come back to the basics of employer-employee relationship, the fundamental workplace relationship. So with regard to the coal miners in Queensland and especially the Hunter Valley, we’ve seen workplace safety and health jeopardised, bypassed, people threatened with firing, being fired if they raise safety issues, made a submission to the Grosvenor mining inquiry. The issue of Simon Turner, no worker’s compensation, no accident pay for injury, sacked while being injured, injuries and incidents not being reported, pay rates for casuals being 40% less than people on permanent employed by the mine owner, right next to them doing the same job and the same roster. Coal LSL, which I commend you for the report that’s come down today.

Thank you. And I think they’re coming later on to-

Yeah, we’ll be there.

Yeah, no, that’s what I thought. Yeah, you’ll be asking the questions, yes.

Yes. As we have been in every session for the last two years. The loss of coal miners, basic leave and other entitlements and the threats of dismissal. So these remain outstanding and still to be addressed. And we’ll be talking more about that tomorrow.

Yes.

What I see, minister… I’ll let you finish.

[Michaelia] No, I’m just having a look at something you’ve written, just to make sure I’m all over it. Yep.

My question is basically the exploitation of casuals, is I believe a symptom of a highly complex, needlessly complex industrial relations system that is not serving workers, not serving small business, and not serving some employees, and families and workers are getting jammed in the middle.

[Man] Does the report correctly address?

We see large companies, multinationals in particular, using casuals to bypass industrial relations systems instead of sitting down and negotiating with their workers and with the union we just see a bypassing through casuals. So what I’m asking you is, is there any understanding in your department that the exploitation of casuals is a signal or a symptom of the fractures in the industrial relation system?

Okay, there was a lot of commentary there but what I might do is hand over to Mr. Hehir, who obviously has looked at the job security report, and get him to take that question.

Thank you, Senator, for the question. In terms of the the casuals, it’s probably just worthwhile clarifying. So where casuals are employed by the company themselves they are still subject to the same industrial instruments that the company has either negotiated or the Fair Work Commission has made. So in terms of where the company itself is the employer, there is the negotiation and discussion process that you talked around the company having with its employee, where there’s an EA, should have occurred. So certainly there should be clear processes within any enterprise agreement around how the various employees will be treated and what they’re entitled to. I think in part, you are referring to the combination of casuals and labour hire?

[Roberts] Yep, thank you for picking that up.

So that does make for a more complex situation recognising that labour high would regard as less than 2% of the workforce traditionally, but it is an important mechanism that is used by both host employers for short term work when they need it. And as part of when the need arises. So recognising that it’s an important and valuable part of the economy. It’s clear that when it leads to different rates of pay it does cause some level of confusion. In terms of-

And beyond that it causes some kind of angst as well, and is not very helpful for safety.

I accept that. And I know that there’s been a number of comments within the report itself around that broad issue. It’s certainly something that the department will look at very carefully. It has been raised both within the main body of the report, as well as within your comments, in terms of how does that work? The reality is The Fair Work Act and the framework upon which it sits was designed around an employer being the legal entity that actually employs the person rather than necessarily the location where they work. So that’s the nature. And the Fair Work Act is clear that we have minimum rates of pay. But what we actually wanna see is higher rates of pay than the minimum, being negotiated by employers and employees. So that’s, I think one of the very clear principles within the bargaining provisions within the Fair Work Act, that we actually want to do that. The only mechanism that… and the mechanism is focused on the individual businesses. And in this case where you’ve got two businesses working, or the employees of two businesses working in the one location. I agree that can cause angst and confusion but it’s certainly something that we need to have a look at in response to the work. And that’s something that we’ll provide advice to the government on once we’ve had the opportunity to finalise our analysis of the report. But I having said that, the very important focus within the Fair Work Act is that we do want people to bargain. We do want businesses and employees to get together and to think about how they can increase productivity and then share that productivity in the form of increased profits and in increase wages. So, and the clearest mechanism to do that we feel at this point is on an individual business basis.

Thank you. You gave us a comprehensive understanding of, and I know you’ve got that, of the casual work situation and the abuse of that. And I’m certainly validating that some casuals want casual work, and I’m not just talking about the coal industry here, but even in the coal industry some casuals do want casual work. They prefer to have that option but there has been some abuse of that. And I believe that the complexities of the industrial relations system in this country right now make it as such that some employers, rather than facing up to negotiation they will bypass that and establish a labour hire relationship. Some labour hire companies are good employers, some are not and some rely upon basically cutting wages so that they can make a profit by getting the margin and still leaving the business owner with superior profits. So that’s definitely a strategy that we can see. So my question that I don’t feel was answered was that do you consider that the complexities… And the Act is what, this high? 600 odd pages? the complexities of that Act lead to workers, small businesses in particular, and even some big businesses, not having clear understanding of the employer-employee relationship. And so we dive into all kinds of other arrangements.

Senator, the Fair Work Act is a substantial piece of legislation. It does have a number of parts. But we’ve certainly heard commentary in the past that it’s complex and difficult, and we acknowledge that commentary. At the same time, and we do understand the importance of this as well. There are important workers protection, in terms of the bargaining process and other things in terms of making sure that the bargaining is done fairly. And certainly there is some concern that those procedures inhibit the bargaining but they’re also really important in terms of the principle of making sure that the bargain is fair. So getting that balance right is something that we continue to think about. We as a department, we honestly really engage in the discussion around productivity growth. We think it’s a significant issue for Australia and large parts of the Western world that productivity growth is low. And we would certainly encourage parties to bargain. But the reality is that the Act is based on both providing the opportunity to bargain but also making sure that those bargains are fair. And I think that’s sometimes where we see the complaints about complexity always happy to have a look and say, how can we attain that fairness in a more simplified fashion? And that’s where we-

And Senator Roberts, I mean, you often come with the Fair Work Act and the various iterations of it in terms of just to demonstrate how big it is and how much both employers and employees have to navigate. Because it’s both parties understanding their rights and obligations. And certainly without a doubt, it is a complex Act. And it was one of the reasons, you and I discussed this. It was last year now, I think, the stimulation to the reforms to casual employment providing a definition, to provide clarity, as to what a casual is. Offering the ability to convert to permanent work, clarifying the Rossato decision, the devastating 39 billion impact on the double dipping and what that would’ve done to business. So I do agree with you and we certainly have been able to make some headway in relation to parts of it, but obviously the other parts of the omnibus bill didn’t get the support, but they are, I think, some concrete examples of where you can actually put in place. So for example, an actual definition, give the ability to convert, clean up a court decision and actually give certainty to employers. But I certainly acknowledge that this is something that you raise time and time again.

Yeah, and the fundamental-

Can I just check how long we have to go? I usually like to rotate the call every 15 minutes,

Another 10 minutes.

That’s absolutely fine.

What I’m getting at, minister, is that the fundamental problem is that despite the intentions of everyone involved the Fair Work Act, the previous work choices attempt the marren complexity, lack of understanding the fundamentals. And what’s happening with the Fair Work Act is that the workers and some small businesses and even some large employers are sidelined in favour of the industrial relations club. Lawyers, consultants, HR practitioners, large union bosses, large industry groups and the worker is sidelined. And so do you see any need then for restoring the primacy of the workplace relationship, the employer-employee relationship, and I know that the fair work Act, Mr. Hehir, does have protections in it, but when it’s so complex, the protections get lost. And so making it clear on workers’ rights, entitlements, protections, safety, which I know assist productivity. So instead of these things being bypassed they’re actually entrenched and allowing for flexibility because more and more workers today see alternative structures of work and work times in particular whether it be uni students or small businesses or casual coal miners, they want that.

And I think you make an important point in terms of the ability for, in particular employees, to choose the type of work that they want to want to undertake. And that is why you’ll never find the coalition government in any way, demonising casual employment as so often happens. And in particular, in this committee it is a valid form of work that so many choose. And when we can take you through the statistics in relation to casual employment. But also that landmark reform that we did pass in terms of that ability to actually convert should you wish subject to certain conditions. Again, it’s about giving both the employer and the worker, the employee, the choice to do that. Just in terms though of people actually understanding their rights, very important obligations, very important under the Fair Work Act. I think a lot of the work that The Fair Work Ombudsman does and in particular, that investment in its educative role is so important, working with small businesses, because there’s often the small businesses that don’t have that capacity to understand the Fair Work Act. And they’ll be on later on today, if you want to come back and ask them questions in terms of what is the educative role of The Fair Work Ombudsman.

We asked that at the last estimates.

We can get an update then of these estimates. But that’s a really good point because it’s not just about the Fair Work Act itself, as you’ve acknowledged, there are other ways and means, and one of them is ensuring that The Fair Work Ombudsman is able to get out there, talk to employees, talk to employers, and actually educate them on what their rights and responsibilities are.

I know that I’ve had a very positive response and fact agreement that David Newman from the CFMEU, Michael Raba from the CFMEU and from Queensland, from the Business Council, Australia, from Small Business Associations, that they’d be willing to sit down in a process to explore a much simpler and better and more effective industrial relations frame work. So I know an election is coming so I’m not expecting you to make any commitment and this is a touchy area but is there any appetite for that if it’s done properly?

Oh, well, I think when you look at the work that the coalition government has done you look at the omnibus bill that we brought forward. I mean, that was certainly done in a period of over 12 months, I believe. In terms of the consultations amongst different stakeholders. Unfortunately, when we brought it to the floor of the parliament, it wasn’t supported by the Australian Labor Party. But I think our appetite for making things simpler and in particular, as I said, the coalition reforms through casual employment and in particular cleaning up the issue of double dipping and the potential devastating impact of the $39 billion impost on business, I think does show a genuine commitment to working with all stakeholders to improve the system.

And with due respect, I just wanna finish with this point. I think that that casuals conversion was needed and essential. The shame was bogged down in so much misrepresentations by a lot of people, but quite frankly, I think that was tinkering and not reform. It was reform of casuals, but not reform of industrial relations.

[Michaelia] Understood.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, chair.

[Michaelia] A lot of .

I’d like to say one thing. As the minister indicated the casual amendments, the bill, that does introduce the national employment standards casual conversion and national employment standards. And does simplify assistance prior to that introduction into the NAS, you got a different conversions in the awards in the enterprise agreement, in the particularly black coal mining industries, there are confusion about whether the peoples are eligible for conversion or not. There are peoples who may not have a conversion, there was a gap. So by introducing it into the Fair Work Act as a national employment standards that provides a universal right to all the employees and in certain ways also simplified the systems.

And I accept that and appreciate what you said, Ms. Yang. The fact that the black coal mine award prevented, excluded casuals yet there was still casuals under various types of enterprise agreements, which were not, I don’t believe they complied with the law, indicates that the industrial relation system is a mess. But that’s why we supported the introduction of casual conversion because it does clarify things for people. But there’s a long, long way to go to fix this mess.

Yes, and the casual conversion does now apply to the people’s covered by the Black Coal Mining Award.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Roberts

/1 Comment/by

MEDIA RELEASE: Independent auditor vindicates Senator Roberts’ call for scrutiny of coal long service leave

Casual coal miners who have highlighted the unscrupulous practices of the government corporation Coal Long Service Leave (Coal LSL), have been vindicated in a recent audit by consultants KPMG. 

Senator Malcolm Roberts has championed the scrutiny of Coal LSL after he first became aware of many malpractices from Hunter Valley casual coal miners and labour hire companies in 2019. 

Senator Roberts said, “This issue has been in plain sight for years, yet successive Liberal, National and Labor governments have ignored the calls for an investigation, instead sprouting platitudes with no action.” 

The KPMG report, which the Government ordered in late 2021, makes 20 recommendations covering governance, treatment of casual coal miners, exploitation of SMEs, compliance, and Board governance and conflicts of interest. 

Senator Roberts said, “I welcome the recommendation for independent Coal LSL board members to address the current glaring conflict of interest with only Minerals Councils and the CFMMEU representatives. 

“The shame of the current arrangement is that CFMMEU bosses on the Coal LSL Board – and who should have known better – enabled, perpetuated and covered up many malpractices, and sold out their casual coal miner members.” 

Senator Roberts gathered evidence from many casual coal miners that showed LSL entitlements were incorrectly calculated, and yet Coal LSL refused to investigate and rectify. 

“When the casual coal miners themselves could work out that Coal LSL were not calculating their entitlements correctly and notified Coal LSL management, it begs the question why it took a KPMG review for Coal LSL to finally listen,” Senator Roberts said. 

Coal LSL’s attitude toward casual coal miners and SMEs has been shown to be unresponsive, dismissive and highly litigious and “it seems that Coal LSL board and management just didn’t know when to stop the money grab, taking a heavy handed and litigious approach to demanding that SME contractors entering coal mining sites for short term maintenance, also pay into their Coal LSL fund, knowing this group would never be able to access the money,” added Senator Roberts. 

Coal LSL were reluctant first-time attendees at Senate Estimates in 2019, having never faced Senate scrutiny, until Senator Roberts demanded they appear to account for their actions.  They have appeared at every Senate Estimates since 2019 at the request of Senator Roberts. 

Senator Roberts said, “There was no way Coal LSL were going to continue to avoid scrutiny because I knew that hundreds of casual coal miners had been systematically ripped off and ignored over decades.” 

Although some miners prefer to be casuals, all casuals deserve respect as they allow companies to move with changes in the global market and mine site conditions. 

Senator Roberts said, “The mobility of this casual workforce doesn’t mean they should be treated with such contempt and disregard; they too have livelihoods and families to support.  “It’s astonishing that successive governments, Liberal, National and Labor, and union bosses, have shown no care for the plight of casual coal miners over many years.” 

KPMG-independent-review-coal-mining-lsl-schemeDownload
/by

Christians silenced in WA and Defence Suicide Royal Commission – 2SM with Marcus Paul

I talked to Marcus Paul on Thursday about the current inquiry into casuals in the workforce, the WA government’s shocking move to ban the Australian Christian Lobby from a state-owned venue and progress on the Defence Suicide Royal Commission.

Transcript

[Marcus] With a smile on his noggin, is Malcolm Roberts, One Nation Senator, hello mate.

[Malcolm] G’day, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus] All right, well you saved a little bit of face up there on the Gold Coast last night.

[Malcolm] Yeah, I didn’t get to watch it because I’m calling from Bowen right now, and last night I was addressing the Chamber of Commerce, we had a fabulous night.

[Marcus] Okay.

[Malcolm] Bowen’s the place with the world’s best mangoes, but I saw the result this morning.

[Marcus] Yeah, and Bowen, I remember it well in my travels up in north Queensland, gorgeous spot, and you’re right, that’s where the world’s best mangoes come from.

[Malcolm] Bowen’s specials mate, absolutely unbeatable.

[Marcus] All right, tell me about this inquiry into security of work at the focus of course, on the casualization of our workforce. What’s happening here?

[Malcolm] Well mate, you know that I’ve been, really pushing hard on this issue for coal miners in the Hunter Valley and in central Queensland, and initially even Labour ridiculed me and just said, no this is nonsense, it’s not happening. I think some of the Labour MPs were trying to cover it up. But it’s now come out after two years of pushing this issue, it’s now come out into the open, and Labour and Liberals, sorry, Labour and the Cross bench, and the Greens have got together and we’ve got this inquiry up, sponsored by Senator Sheldon, and we’re looking into it. They’re taking the gloves off and getting right into it. And, but what I’m doing now is that I’m broadening it because job security, which is what this is all about, is not just about casuals, it’s about industry security because the Labour and Greens’ policies are ending coal mining, and it’s also about personal security because I’ve been shocked, as I’ve shared with you quite openly over the last few months.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] That people’s safety is really jeopardised and people have been crippled, and just tossed on the scrap heap with no workers’ compensation. That kind of stuff has got to end and state and federal governments are at fault, and we’ve really got to shake things up. And I’ve been very critical of the Hunter Valley CFMEU, and I remain so.

[Marcus] Yep.

[Malcolm] They have abandoned workers, completely, they’ve enabled enterprise agreements that have sold workers out. But I want to compliment the CFMEU construction division, because I read their submission into this inquiry, and it is first-class, comprehensive. And what was very disappointing was, yesterday, we did it, we asked questions of various organisations on Tuesday when I was in Rocky. And then yesterday, I had to stop at Marlborough in the bush and ask questions of the mining companies and labour hire companies. They were evasive mate. They just don’t get to the point, ’cause I think all along this whole issue has been, how do we cut miner’s wages? That’s what it’s all about.

[Marcus] Labour hire companies, essentially cut real wages, I don’t care how anybody tries to spin it, that’s exactly what happens. You and I both know it, and it’s high time that we do something about it. Tell me what’s up.

[Malcolm] Some of the companies mate, are actually giving people an introduction to mining. There’s some very good labour hire companies around.

[Marcus] Yeah, but I don’t agree with them.

[Malcolm] But some of them, they’re just ripping people off. I mean how did you get a mining company employing its own people, and then paying a commission to a labour hire firm for hiring other people? Unless you cut mining wages. You can’t give them a profit on top of miner’s wages, so they cut miner’s wages. That’s what’s going on, but there are some good ones.

[Marcus] Yeah well, maybe I might just disagree with these sorts of labour hire companies anyway, because eventually, it comes down to first and foremost how much money the labour hire company can make and workers, who are the ones putting in all the hard yards are always those that seem to lose out. Anyway, let’s put that aside now.

[Malcolm] Well, what it also shows Marcus, is that some of these mining companies, don’t understand that safety is not a cost, safety actually saves money and increases production. They also don’t seem to understand that if you pay people doing the same job, different rates of pay.

[Marcus] Of course.

[Malcolm] Then you’re gonna create animosity, it hurts morale, hurts safety, hurts commitment. That hurts productivity. It doesn’t make sense.

[Marcus] Yeah, it’s not just in the mining sector, labour hire companies hire people in factories across Southwestern Sydney and I can tell you some stories and I will one day that’ll make your toes curl. I mean, they just are ripping off workers.

[Malcolm] Yes.

[Marcus] All right, WA, let’s move over to Western Australia. I see the government there is upset. The Australian Christian Lobby, they’ve cancelled an event hire at the convention centre. The ACL had hired the convention centre, and the Labour state government cancelled the booking. Why?

[Malcolm] Well, apparently some gay and trans activists complained, and so the Labour government said, no, you can’t have that event. After they’d already signed up the Australian Christian Lobby to have that event in their convention centre, and also at one of the towns south of Perth. But Martyn Iles has been doing a fabulous job, I attended his presentation in Brisbane, it was first-class, really getting done. I think he calls it “The Truth of It.” And he’s doing a really good job, and what McGowan’s government, in the Labour of government in WA, I think they’re afraid of what he’s doing, and they’re just trying to shut him down. But really, it’s getting like Nazi Germany and China. It ends religious freedom. These people went out as a legitimate, everyday organisation and booked a venue, and then they’d been cancelled. So, this is just an end of free speech in our country. That’s what Labour is doing in Western Australia.

[Marcus] All right, well, the ACL, I’m certainly no fans of theirs, I think they’re a little too far right in some of their views, but look, they certainly do have a right in this country to assembly and get together and discuss issues that are of concern to them. So, I find it very odd and you’re right, I tend to agree, why are we shutting down conversation? That doesn’t sound very democratic to me.

[Malcolm] No, and that’s a form of control, and Marcus, you know I’ve said it many times, wherever there is control, beneath control there is fear. The Labour government in WA is afraid of these people speaking up. There are a lot of Christians, good solid Christians in WA, and they’re shutting them down. That’s not right.

[Marcus] All right, of course we know that the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has been set up, we’ve got an interim report due in August of next year, a final report, not until 2023. We certainly do need to do more to support our veterans.

[Malcolm] Yes, it’s something that Pauline and I have been pushing for quite a while, but I must give compliments and appreciation to Jacqui Lambie who has been pushing this Royal Commission for quite a while now.

[Marcus] Yep.

[Malcolm] And it’s not just in the veterans, it’s also in the defence suicide, and they wanna look at systemic issues and common themes around suicide, contemplation of suicide, and feelings of suicide, you’ve given a date, and I encourage all veterans and current members of the defence force, who have a point to make, to contact the Commission and make a submission, and then see if you can become a witness before the Royal Commission, it’s really important. I’ve said it before, we have a fabulous armed forces in terms of the commitment of these people, over 100 years. And what it is, is that we actually send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them. And that’s where we’ve gotta do a better job of looking after people, when I think the Romans first noticed that, you know, what’s that a couple of thousand years ago. When a man is sent to war and he comes back, he’s a different person. We’ve gotta acknowledge that and look after these people.

[Marcus] All right mate, good to have you on, we’ll chat again next week.

[Malcolm] All right mate, thanks.

[Marcus] Take care. One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts.

/by