Posts

Coal LSL Under the Microscope – Again

,

During a session with Ms. Darlene Perks from Coal LSL, I inquired about the case of Mr. James Joseph, who is currently in a significant dispute with Coal LSL regarding payment of his long service leave entitlements.

Ms. Perks stated that Coal LSL would not take any action until they received notification from the employer via a levy form. She said that disputes arising from the failure to provide correct information should be directed to the Fair Work Commission for resolution. Ms. Perks explained that employers often make errors on certain forms, which then require adjustment. She added that if an employee is no longer employed, levy payments would cease.

I asked about the risks that were alluded to in a recent ANAO audit and was told that the concerns related to errors in financial statements and the valuation of unlisted trusts, which are quite complex.

When I questioned why the management of billion-dollar government funds is in private hands, I was told it would be taken on notice and answered at a later time.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Perks and everyone from Coal LSL. Mr James Joseph was injured on BHP’s Mount Arthur coal mine on 7 June 2023. Are you familiar with James Joseph?  

Ms Perks: We are familiar with James Joseph, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coal LSL have confirmed with Mr Joseph that they were not informed of his workers comp status, which was approved in May 2024 following a six-month delay. Mr Joseph’s correct workers compensation status seems not to have been reported to Coal LSL by BHP or the insurer, Coal Mines Insurance. The board of directors of Coal Mines Insurance, I understand, has 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors and 50 per cent coal owners.

Ms Perks: I’ll answer the last part. The shareholding of Coal Services, which I think you were just referring to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Coal Mines Insurance.  

Ms Perks: Yes. It is not an organisation we have any relationship with in our jurisdiction, but I can confirm that the shareholding is as you have reflected—the Minerals Council and the CFMEU.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the composition of the board? Fifty-fifty?  

Ms Perks: Our board?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Coal Mines Insurance board.  

Ms Perks: I can confirm that, but I think they do have independent directors.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about your board?  

Ms Perks: The legislative framework hasn’t changed in all the hearings we’ve had. Our board has six directors who are appointed by the responsible minister—three directors nominated by employee companies or bodies and three directors nominated by union organisations. They are minister appointed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for correcting that. It’s fifty-fifty again?  

Ms Perks: Our director composition?  

Senator ROBERTS: Your board composition.  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Fifty-fifty employers and union—okay. What is being done to rectify this particular case, and is this a common occurrence—that is, an employee is medically terminated whilst on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or their insurer? This seems, by the way, very familiar. It is similar to the mistreatment of Mr Simon Turner by BHP and his employer at the time, the labour hire firm, Chandler Macleod. What’s being done to resolve this, and is it common?  

Ms Perks: The scenario we’re talking of is termination. I tried to explain this in a couple of hearings over the years as well, but I appreciate there are a lot of new members, and I’ll explain the process again. Our GM of Legal, Michael Dowzer might be able to add to the process. The employer will advise us through their monthly levy returns a termination code for the employee. One of the reasons for termination can be ill health. Others would be redundancy or cessation. That process hasn’t changed. That is the legislative arena that we operate within. Nothing has changed from the explanations over the years with regard to how we collect the data, how the employer advises us and how we then verify the data through the relationships and interactions with the employers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was that one of the problems that Coal LSL was encountering—a lack of verification of the data? I’m not saying you didn’t do this here. It’s common then for someone’s employment to be terminated while still being on workers comp?  

Ms Perks: I can’t talk to the commonality of that with regard to the data. As I said, the reason for cessation will be advised to us by the employer.  

Senator ROBERTS: But sometimes the employer won’t notify you.  

Ms Perks: They will notify us of a reason for termination.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, but sometimes they won’t notify you that he has actually been terminated.  

Ms Perks: Would you like to add to that, Michael?  

Mr Dowzer: The notification comes through our levy form, and they identify when employment has ceased and the cessation code which indicates the reason for termination. That is a report from the employer. If subsequently there is an issue in relation to that, we’ll engage with both the employee and the employer to seek to understand that issue, but, ultimately, it’s to be resolved between the employer and the employee.  

Senator ROBERTS: The question was: is it a common occurrence that an employee is medically terminated while on workers comp and Coal LSL are not informed by the employer or the insurer?  

Mr Dowzer: What we are notified of is the cessation of the employment. There’s no requirement to notify us in relation to any other details in the employment relationship.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, in your experience of checking up, it’s not really common that you’re not notified?  

Ms Perks: The way I’d answer that is in relation to complaints. Your question is: is it a common occurrence? No, we don’t have volumes of complaints which would illustrate a systemic issue in the common occurrence of employers advising us of termination codes which an employee doesn’t agree with. I know there are a couple of cases, and, certainly, we’ve had a lot of conversations around those. But I wouldn’t say it’s a systemic issue that has been understood through volumes of complaints for the scenarios that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of governance issues at the moment. We sorted them out, hopefully, after the review. What are the implications when this occurs—for example, an impact to levy payments, because the employer is no longer paying, super payments and internal workloads of Coal LSL to investigate and resolve such matters? Does that put a burden on you?  

Ms Perks: In the scenario where it’s found that an employer has advised us of a termination code that an employee disagrees with, certainly the resource from the team would be to engage with the employer, engage with the employee, assess the information et cetera. If that is unresolved, then we would be advising the employee to take it to the Fair Work Commission, because we’d be classifying it as an industrial relations dispute, which is out of our jurisdiction.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the companies fail to notify Coal LSL within a reasonable period, what would normally come of it? For example, there was a six-month failure to inform you in Mr Joseph’s case. What happened there when BHP didn’t inform you for six months?  

Ms Perks: I’ll talk about the obligation under the collection act, where the employer has an obligation to submit a monthly levy return. That is a statutory obligation. In regard to correcting or working through a disagreement or a dispute in information that we’ve received, that would be a process which isn’t time bound in our statutory frameworks. But the employer has an obligation to inform us monthly of employees’ service and any other critical information, such as terminations and eligible wages.  

Senator ROBERTS: If this is proved to have occurred through a registered organisation, what intervention, penalty or enforcement would Coal LSL apply under its constitution to deter recurrence? Is there any?  

Mr Dowzer: The key obligation is to submit a monthly levy return with correct information. We are reliant on that information in terms of being able to conduct any further inquiries. If an issue is brought to our attention by an employee, we will engage with the employer and seek to get the employer and the employee to resolve that issue and communicate the outcome to us. We don’t have any power to adjudicate on that dispute.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there are no consequences for the employer?  

Mr Dowzer: If there’s an incorrect levy return then there could be consequences, but that is a factual matter which we would not have evidence of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please advise why Mr Joseph’s Coal LSL number looks to only exist from September 2022 onwards, as per his Coal LSL commencement letter, recently provided to him under a freedom of information request? What is the specific reason for the delay in creating his Coal LSL member number?  

Ms Perks: I think we’d have to take that one on notice and have a look at the timeframe of his records and provide a response on that review.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph has been provided information under FOI, freedom of information, that shows Coal LSL levies were paid by BHP to Coal LSL in as early as July 2022. However, his welcome member letter was produced in September 2022. Why was that?  

Ms Perks: We’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?  

Mr Dowzer: When the levy return identifies a new employee, we will take that information and effectively create a record for that employee. Our obligation is to keep records— 

Senator ROBERTS: And then you get an identification number out of that?  

Mr Dowzer: There is an identification number which would be created at that point at which the employee is first put on a levy return.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it wouldn’t be possible for levies to be paid when an identification number does not yet exist?  

Mr Dowzer: The first time that a new employee is properly identified on a levy return would be the point at which we would commence a record for that employee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Joseph requested all company audits provided by BHP to Coal LSL for the entire period of his employment, from 2011 to 2024. I don’t think he was continually employed at Mount Arthur for that period; I think he was involved in other divisions of the company, including in Western Australia. Why was he only provided with two years, considering that Coal LSL are reviewing his open recognition of prior service application for periods that fall within this freedom of information date range, 2011 to 2024?  

Ms Perks: Can I take that one on notice as well? I do know the FOI case. I can’t answer without going back to the reasoning as to why that information was provided and some wasn’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.  

Ms Perks: I know that the team work within the jurisdictions of FOI, so we’ll take that one on notice and provide a reasoning.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine, Ms Perks. The December 2023 Coal LSL BHP external audit report indicates potential discrepancies in reimbursement amounts claimed by BHP. Has the investigation into this matter been completed? This is two years later.  

Ms Perks: That’s their audit report? I’d say it’s quite common, through the process of that audit work, for employers to have adjustments in reimbursement claims or levies. It’s through that audit process that the reimbursement, if it’s overclaimed or overpaid, would be rectified, and similarly the levy payment would be rectified. I won’t answer without being able to check with the team that that has been closed out, but I’d be very confident, with an audit report dated December 2023, that an action from the audit report submission would be closed out, as our administrative processes would—  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Perhaps you could take this next item on notice, then. Was this, in fact, found to be a confirmed finding—that is, BHP claiming illegitimate reimbursements? If so, how significant were the findings of this discrepancy?  

Ms Perks: ‘Illegitimate’ is a strong word. Again, if I take us back to the process of the employer, it is a selfreporting scheme. The employers, through the submission of monthly levy returns and then the reimbursement claim process, will be calculating based on our guidance of how to calculate levy payments and also how to claim the reimbursement under the reimbursement rules. It is very common that employers get it wrong. It’s a complex administrative process. So it is quite common that, through the external audit function that we rely on for the assurance of the correctness of levies paid and reimbursement claims, there will be a—  

Senator ROBERTS: An adjustment?  

Ms Perks: An adjustment. I wouldn’t typically classify that as illegitimate or deliberate actions. We would typically see that as human error on the employer’s side, and the audit process provides the assurance to then get the adjustments correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is this a disclosable matter? If it is, was it disclosed in the Coal LSL annual report for financial year 2023-24?  

Ms Perks: No, that’s not a disclosable matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is it true that BHP did not pay any Coal LSL monthly levies from any of their owned entities to the Commonwealth Coal LSL fund in the period between November 2015 and November 2016?  

Ms Perks: I will take that on notice, but I would be very surprised to find that they hadn’t paid levies. I would be very confident in saying they have paid the levies, but we will take that on notice to answer your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Something in my mind is reminding me that that might have been proven in the Iron Mountain document. Can you recall that? I can’t.  

Ms Perks: I’m not familiar with that document.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you also tell me what was done about it, please.  

Ms Perks: If it wasn’t paid?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was that approach consistent with the Coal LSL constitution at the time, and were any penalties applied? Could you tell us that as well, please.  

Ms Perks: If an employer hasn’t paid a levy in line with their obligations under the collection act, the lever that we have available is to charge an additional levy. It’s an interest calculation. That is the lever that we’d have available to us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we have got some penalty provisions?  

Ms Perks: We do have some penalty provisions.  

Senator ROBERTS: BHP and Coal Mines Insurance previously refused to acknowledge Mr Joseph as a black coal industry covered employee, challenging him on this as recently as July 2024, yet Coal LSL have received levies from Mr Joseph since July 2022. Can you explain how and why this would occur, from Coal LSL’s perspective. I’ve got my thoughts on it. Ms Perks: Other than taking it on notice—  

Mr Dowzer: My position on that is that, for the purpose of compliance with our scheme, the inclusion of an employee on a levy return is a statement by the employee in relation to eligibility under our scheme. As to matters relating to other issues of employment, we do not have visibility on them and wouldn’t have a view on them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m guessing there’s still probably some confusion. Mr Joseph was on what some people call a staff payroll, which is an admin job, a managerial job or a supervisory job, compared with, say, a coalminer at the front line, who would be on an hourly rate.  

Mr Dowzer: I would make the distinction that coverage under any industrial arrangements is, in some cases, a different assessment to eligibility under our scheme, so it’s really not appropriate for us to be commenting on those interpretation questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering whether that’s where some of the confusion comes from. He wouldn’t have been on the supervisory staff or administrative staff. He wouldn’t have been on the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. He would’ve been on the staff award, for example. Does the Coal LSL levy apply to the accident pay component of employee wages when on workers compensation?  

Mr Dowzer: The issue of an employee on workers compensation is dependent upon the nature of the workers compensation arrangement between the employer and the employee. So, if the employee remains employed by the employer, then that is leviable eligible wages. If employment has ceased, then the obligation under our scheme is on the employer. There is no obligation on an insurer under our scheme. There is no leviable eligible wages if employment has ceased.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, if the insurer is paying workers compensation but the employee has been terminated, there’s no obligation on BHP?  

Mr Dowzer: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And there’s no obligation on the insurer to pay either. Is that what you’re saying?  

Mr Dowzer: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Should an employee on workers comp in the black coal mining industry who is medically terminated and who remains on workers comp continue to accrue Coal LSL leave if they remain incapacitated due to their injuries and condition whilst they continue receiving workers compensation wages? You’ve just answered that question. This gets complex, doesn’t it?  

CHAIR: How are you going there, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: I probably need another five minutes—maybe less, because we’re going to change topic pretty soon, and then it should go quickly. In previous estimates, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has stated there is a list of around 80 entities who may have been paying levies in error. Has this investigation now concluded?  

Ms Perks: Paying levies in error?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you remember that?  

Ms Perks: Yes. That investigation has concluded. There were 28 employers who were paying levy in error, and 25 of the 28 employers have been refunded that levy amount. The three remaining, for different reasons, still need to be transacted. We’re waiting on the employer to provide information so that we can refund that amount.  

Senator ROBERTS: So they overpaid.  

Ms Perks: They incorrectly paid into the scheme.  

Senator ROBERTS: Too much. Were any of the entities coal services or coalmining services? They wouldn’t have been, would they? They don’t employ coalminers.  

Ms Perks: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does the list include any BHP owned entities?  

Ms Perks: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will change topics, you’ll be pleased to know. I will move on to the audit. The report of the most recent audit of Coal LSL conducted by the Australian National Audit Office flagged ‘higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements’. What is the real meaning of these two findings of risk in regard to the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? What are the risks and who is at risk of exposure?  

Ms Perks: Mr Windever will answer that question.  

Mr Windever: The external audit focuses on areas of high risk on our balance sheet, and these particularly will be in areas of our provision for reimbursements, which is a piece of analysis that is covered by our actuary, but also our investments, as you pointed out. To be specific, they’re higher areas of risk of misstatement of our financial statements. I’ll speak to the first one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not financial risk, just a risk of error in your statements?  

Mr Windever: In the financial statements—that’s correct. If we talk about the first one, the provision for reimbursements, that analysis is conducted by our actuary. It’s considered to be an area of higher risk, rather than a high risk, for the organisation, just by the very nature of the modelling, the estimations, the assumptions and the judgements that go into that. It’s an inherently high-risk area and one that’s a recurring area of higher risk, if you like, in our audit reports in previous times. It’s not a new finding for us. The second finding around investments is around the valuation of our unlisted trusts. Simply, the reason why this continues to be a high-risk area is the nature of those investments. Unlisted trusts are considered to be more complex from a valuation standpoint compared to other forms of assets. Certainly, there’s a portion of our portfolio that is illiquid assets. They are also, from an auditing standpoint, more complex to assess from a valuation standpoint. That’s why the valuation for investments is also considered a high-risk area. Again, it’s something that we’ve seen in previous audits. It’s not a new set of findings for us.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it doesn’t affect the integrity of the scheme; it’s got more to do with assessing the size of the investments, the rates of payout and the rates of income.  

Mr Windever: That’s correct. It’s so that we can stand behind the accuracy of the financial statements. Again, these two areas are focused on our balance sheet in particular.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said there’s no real risk to your entity—Coal LSL.  

Mr Windever: That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s not going to be much fallout if the risks crystallize.  

Mr Windever: They’re considered to be high-risk areas, but, each year, as we work through the audits—we had a successful passing again of this audit of our financial statements. We’re satisfied with that outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the next part of this. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers, right? The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. What happens to the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out?  

Mr Windever: You’re correct about the size of the fund. It’s $2.6 billion now. We measure the health of that in terms of a fund surplus or a fund coverage ratio. That’s how I would answer that question, if you like. It remains on the balance sheet, but we have some goals that we work towards around the coverage of assets over our liabilities, and we manage to those goals accordingly. That’s how I’d answer that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. Emmett J in the Federal Court in 1998 emphasised that—and I acknowledge that that’s some 27 years ago—there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government and a lack of accountability to the government. Was Coal LSL a government entity at that time?  

Ms Perks: In 1998? Yes. It was in 1992 that the entity was established under the administration act. 

Senator ROBERTS: What change of governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since then to tighten that up?  

Ms Perks: Since 1998? That’s a very big question. I can talk about what we’ve done since I’ve been in the organisations, and we’ve had a lot of conversations around that. I can—  

Senator ROBERTS: Governance was a particularly hot issue.  

Ms Perks: I can talk to that specifically. Since 1998—I wouldn’t answer that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: I hear what you’re saying. Given that the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to build up a money chest, if you like, to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover long service leave claims, can your office comment on the purpose for which it’s satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago. Why is it still continuing?  

Ms Perks: It’s a very good policy question. I can talk with passion about the value of the scheme, and I’m the first one to talk about the value of portable long service leave and what it has done for the industry and employees in the industry. What I would say is—  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me for cutting you off. I didn’t mean that. You don’t need to convince me of that portability. That’s fine. What I’m getting to is that my understanding—I think it’s correct—is that there was a fund created because there was a shortfall in funds. Now, you’ve a massive service in funds. Why is the fund still in existence?  

Ms Perks: That would be a question for government. I think you’re referring to the first reading speech or the explanatory memorandum in 1992, which talked about why the fund was being created. The payroll levy was set at five per cent at that point in time to get the fund back into—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m comfortable with all of that.  

Ms Perks: What I would say, though, is that it wasn’t legislated. There was nothing in the legislation in 1992 to legislate a winding up of the fund. Yes, it’s in the first reading speech as—well, is it an intention? I won’t comment. It’s definitely in the first reading speech, but that didn’t translate into the legislation when the fund and the corporation were established.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not talking about the original coalmine insurance fund. I’m a bit hazy on this, but I understand that there was a stopgap measure of an increase in funds to cover a shortfall due to excessive payouts and not enough revenue coming in. It was probably one of the boom-and-bust years, so they instituted an additional levy as a temporary stopgap. It’s now well past that, and they’ve got a massive $2.6 billion in funds. You don’t need it anymore. Why is it still going?  

Ms Perks: Why is the fund still going?  

Senator ROBERTS: The extra fund.  

Ms Perks: No, the additional payroll levy that you’re talking about was removed in 2008 from memory. The payroll levy was set, and then there was an additional component added, which made it a levy of five per cent. That was in place from 1992 through to—I think it was 2005, from memory. When the fund got back into a neutral position, that’s when that additional levy component was removed. Our levy has been at 2.7 per cent for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I was getting at—not the original fund, the stopgap fund. So that has been removed?  

Ms Perks: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: So this is wrong. Thank you. Minister, a question for you—why is a private company run by the NSW Minerals Council, the Queensland Resources Council and the Mining and Energy Union managing billions of dollars contributed compulsorily by employers on behalf of the federal government?  

Senator Walsh: I’ll have to take that on notice, Senator Roberts and see what I can provide you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Before you came into the chair, a lot of the problems in the coal sector came from entities that have 50 per cent Minerals Council or 50 per cent Queensland Resources Council and 50 per cent Mining and Energy Union directors. There seems to be a very tight cluster of organisations—Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL, Coal Services. There’s another entity in there too that I’ve forgotten.  

CHAIR: I think the minister’s taken that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m just trying to give her some background. That’s it; thank you very much. 

/by

Coal LSL Faces Scrutiny Over Improper Payments

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Kerr: Indeed.

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: When was the breach first detected?

Mr Kerr: I believe it was in April 2023.

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

Mr Kerr: No, it was the department.

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing much is straightforward in Coal LSL.

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

Senator ROBERTS: We will be tonight.

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

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

Mr Kerr: That’s correct.

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: To the Coal LSL legislation?

Mr Kerr: Yes, correct.

Senator ROBERTS: In what year?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/1 Comment/by

Coal LSL Under Scrutiny for Unlawful Levies

,

Coal LSL has been underperforming since I commenced in the Senate in 2019. It appears Coal LSL has been receiving levies from as many as 33 companies that were not required to pay them. These funds were then paid to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and reimbursed to Coal LSL, contrary to Section 83 of the Constitution. 

DEWR identified the error and notified Coal LSL in April 2023, during the 2022/23 financial year, however Coal LSL had not disclosed this in the 2022/23 Annual Report. The amount collected unnecessarily from these companies is estimated to be around $460,000. 

Ms. Perks indicated that investigations are ongoing to reconcile the error and arrange for the repayment of these overpayments. 

Transcript

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to take you to page 101 of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report 2022-23, which says: 

Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ for the purposes of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992. If so, payment of amounts equivalent to the levy by the department to Coal LSL in relation to those entities would likely have been made in contravention of s 83 of the Constitution. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: I guess I’m concerned because—what you’ve said in your report is accurate, I presume: 

Coal LSL has identified it may have mistakenly received levy payments from entities that do not meet the definition of ’employer’ … 

So they shouldn’t have taken that money. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: The report says: 

Coal LSL has assured the department that it is conducting further investigations to confirm how many entities may have incorrectly paid levy and quantify any corresponding amounts that have been paid by the Commonwealth without a valid appropriation. 

It looks like the money has been collected from individual entities by Coal LSL, sent to you and then it has gone back as a lump sum. Is it true that you have confirmed that the information relating to Coal LSL in your annual report is correct? 

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

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

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

Mr Kerr: Indeed. 

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: When was the breach first detected? 

Mr Kerr: I believe it was in April 2023. 

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

Mr Kerr: No, it was the department. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Nothing much is straightforward in Coal LSL. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: We will be tonight. 

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

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

Mr Kerr: That’s correct. 

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: To the Coal LSL legislation? 

Mr Kerr: Yes, correct. 

Senator ROBERTS: In what year? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Labour Hire Scams and Union Corruption

,

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

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

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

Transcript | Session 1

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: That’s not my question.  

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

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

Mr Furlong: No, nor would it be appropriate.  

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: No, Senator.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware.  

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

Senator Watt: I’m happy to—  

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to Mr Furlong initially.  

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

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, perhaps you could answer that.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Watt: Fair Work Ombudsman or commission?  

Senator ROBERTS: Fair Work Ombudsman.  

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: You were so embarrassed, Minister—  

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

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

Senator Watt: No.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Watt: You just rattled off—  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Transcript | Session 2

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

Senator Watt: Is that a general proposition?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the compliment.  

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

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

Senator Watt: No.  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Called things like?  

Senator Watt: Secure jobs and better pay.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about state governments?  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Watt: No.  

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

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

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

Senator Watt: About what?  

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

Nobody is Immune to this Labour Hire Fix

This is my latest letter to Tony Burke, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.

I’ve been pursuing an outcome and accountability in this horrific labour hire case for over three years now. This is the immoral saga of a mine owner in bed with the union, which has its claws into superannuation, and the government is deliberately turning a blind eye. Workers are getting swindled. Simon Turner was done out of his entitlements, his health, his job and his life. There is an $8 billion black hole hiding in plain sight. 

You might think it won’t affect you. It’s just mining companies wanting cheaper labour. The union’s are happy to comply and they get a cut on the side. This rip-off needs a thorough investigation. People are no longer protected by the government, their unions, industrial relations laws, and certainly not by these corrupt foreign companies.

If this can happen to Simon Turner and hundreds of others in the Australian coal industry, it can just as easily happen to you.

HonTonyBurke-MR190923Download
/1 Comment/by

Pursuing Accountability Among the Agencies

,

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) is thorough and does some fine work. Its audit of the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency (NRRA) found performance accountability missing.

At Senate Estimates the ANAO audit of Disaster Recovery Funding uncovered several reporting deficits with NEMA and NRRA that need to be addressed, vindicating my previous call for a Senate Inquiry into the administration of Disaster Relief Funding Arrangements to expose the misuse funds.

I called for an ANAO audit of Coal LSL (Long Service Leave) after Chartered Accountants KPMG’s concerning report of Coal LSL revealed many governance problems and the non-paying of entitlements to Hunter Valley coal miners.

I’ve been raising these issues for the past four years and will keep raising them on behalf of Australians until these identified problems and governance issues are resolved.

ANAO has agreed to examine this so watch this space.

/by

Coal LSL Under Question

,

At the May/June Senate Estimates I asked questions of the Coal LSL Board to establish that a person working under an Enterprise Agreement contract cannot receive benefits less than the agreed award for the same category.

Under the Black Coal Award there’s no category for casuals because casuals are not allowed to be employed under the Black Coal award.

The Board confirmed that they do not check which category a coal miner works when calculating long service entitlements, merely accepting what the employer tells Coal LSL.

All this contributes to coal miners being exploited in not getting their entitlements.

/3 Comments/by

Labor silent on dodgy union deal to rip off coal miners

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/2 Comments/by

Fair Work and Coal LSL at Senate Estimates

The Industrial Relations system in this country is a mess. One Nation is committed to untangling the web of over-regulation.

The Fair Work Ombudsman

The Fair Work Commission Part 1
Fair Work Commission Part 2

For three years I have been raising the issue of casual coal miners being fraudulently dudded out of Long Service Leave entitlements. Finally, I was able to secure an audit into the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme from the previous government. Yet, exactly how much needs to be paid back to casual coal miners is still unclear. We’ll be following this up again at next estimates and ensuring casual workers receive the leave payments they are entitled to.

/by

Coal LSL audit vindicates One Nation allegations

,

I’ve pursued allegations of fraud, conflicts of interest and risk management about the Coal Long Service Leave Corporation for years. Finally, an independent review has confirmed dozens of governance and fraud risks that have left casual workers without their fair entitlements. It’s a hard-fought win for casual coal miners by One Nation, but there is still much further to go.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Sheldon, you are making a statement. We will now go to Senator Roberts.

Senator Cash: Do you feel better, Senator Sheldon, for getting that off your chest because—

Senator SHELDON: I do feel better.

Senator Cash: I’m glad you do because, as I said, I don’t believe, Senator Sheldon, that you as the head of the TWU would indulge in this behaviour. I don’t believe that you, three years later, after a case has been dismissed by the full bench of the Federal Court, would actually stand up and say, and make admissions, the national executive did not approve any of the 20 donations, the subject of the investigation, which contravened the registered organisations act. As I said, that was as recently as December 2021. You’re referring to a statement made on 7 March this year, I would reflect, backed on the admissions made by the AWU in December 2021—a range of admissions concerning contraventions by the AWU. They submitted they made mistakes; they did not comply. So I think, if anyone’s providing an apology, perhaps the AWU should apologise to its members for those contraventions.

Senator SHELDON: And the minor breaches that they were fully aware of throughout the entire five years—

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Senator Sheldon.

Senator Cash: Senator Sheldon, as you and I know, you need to comply—

Senator SHELDON: The ROC was fully aware that they were minor breaches all the way through, and yet they continued to pursue it.

Senator Cash: You and I are going to have to agree to disagree in relation to the incorrect information you’re providing by way of your questioning.

Senator SHELDON: That’s not incorrect. It was minor breaches, and they were fully aware for the whole five years, and they dragged this out—

Senator SMALL: Who decides whether it’s major or it’s minor? Is that how you plan to act in government?

CHAIR: Order! Order, Senator Small! We would like now to move on to Senator Roberts, who has a series of questions on a different topic.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. Most of my questions, I think, will be going to the minister, or certainly to the department. Minister, recently KPMG presented their report into Coal LSL. How are you progressing in relation to implementation of this review and report, and when will it be completed? I understand that some are immediate and some are—

Senator Cash: Understood. I know this is a genuine interest for you, so what I will do is ask Ms Williams to take these questions for you.

Ms T Williams : Senator, you asked how we are progressing with implementation of the recommendations. As you might know, the government has accepted all 20 recommendations of the review. In terms of the 10 recommendations specifically directed at government, the government response to the review identified that the government will take legislative action to clarify eligible employees and ensure that no eligible employee is worse off; ensure fairness for casuals to be treated equitably with permanent employees; address legacy coverage issues to ensure fairness and transparency for employees, employers and employers that may register with the scheme; and strengthen decision-making, review and dispute resolution to enhance accountability and compliance.

The government response to the review really highlights that. It recognises that the reforms are complex and they will require further technical legal advice to ensure that the changes really have the desired impact and benefit for employees and employers under the scheme. The intention is for consultation and action to continue in the spirit of the review, which, as you may be aware, included consultation with producers, employer groups and peak bodies, employers, employees, unions and representatives from modern industry stakeholders. We’ll draw on their expertise and stress test ideas going forward. We’ll need to do that closely and methodically with the stakeholders, including the provision of exposure drafts of legislation. The department is just working through that now, and consultations will begin as soon as practicable.

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that it’s still being digested. When do you think the plan will be available—or you will have one, even if you’re not sharing it?

Ms T Williams : We’re working through. The review also canvassed that there were a number of existing proposals put to government and suggested that they provided a really good foundation to start to work through some of those ideas. The department is working through that now. In terms of the exact specifics of the consultation, we’ll provide advice to government in due course.

Senator ROBERTS: Reading parts of the report—I haven’t read the whole report—I believe some can be remedied by legislative changes, some can be remedied by the existing proposals and some can be remedied by further consultation. When do you think you will you have the plan together?

Ms T Williams : We’re working on that now. The specifics of that will be a decision for government but, as I said, it will continue in the spirit of the review and be broad-ranging in terms of the consultations. I think the other thing that the review really recognises is the deep industry expertise from employers and employees in this sector and also a real commitment by all the stakeholders that were consulted in the review to get this right. So we’ll provide advice to government on how to take that forward, but the consultations will be very much in that vein.

Mr Hehir : I might just add to that. We’re still some months away. The consultation process will still take a few months to work our way through. Then, following the consultation process, we’ll need to put our advice to government. So we’re still some months away.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will just go to page 126, and I’ll read the main points, the issues in red that are not—

Senator Cash: Just hold on for one moment. Have you got the whole—

Ms T Williams : Yes, I do.

Senator Cash: It will assist if the official is reading it with you.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fairly simple question, even though the question will be long. I’ll read out the issues not addressed—the ones in red. On waiver agreements, it says:

The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.

The report says the same thing about conflicts of interest, which it says are significant; allegations of fraud; culture; communications; risk management; adoption of technology; data security and privacy; and validation of data. So none of them are being addressed. For each of them, the report says:

The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.

When do you think you will have something around those? They’re the core issues. That’s not a complaint about the report; the report is fine. But we need to understand when they will be addressed.

Ms T Williams : I will just clarify for you that this section of the report is actually talking about the existing proposals that were put to government before the government realised, or in the process of the government realising, that we needed to have a holistic response to the issues in the sector. So these proposals were actually put by stakeholders, and then the government commissioned an independent review. So the review itself and the recommendations do cover those issues. I think conflicts of interest are covered by recommendation 11.

Senator ROBERTS: What about changes to the board structure and composition?

Ms T Williams : That’s recommendation 13. So they are all covered by the review. This is really talking about how, before the government commissioned the review, those existing proposals had that gap in them. So we commissioned the review, which has now addressed those areas.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Now I’d like to move onto the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, the FEG. These are simple questions. You may have to take them on notice. My first question is: have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?

Mr Manning : Is this about the One Key workforce case?

Senator ROBERTS : Yes.

Mr Manning : Ms Saunders, who will be coming up from our waiting room downstairs, should be able to answer that for you. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get a room next door today. But we wouldn’t be told whether or not they were union members. We wouldn’t ask that on the application form. So I’m not sure about that, but, when Ms Saunders arrives, she might be able to answer it. You might need to repeat the question, though, because she’s had to come from downstairs.

Ms Saunders : Would you mind repeating the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. It’s from a constituent. Have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?

Ms Saunders : Under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, we pay the five basic employment entitlements: redundancy pay, long-service leave, wages, annual leave and payment in lieu of notice. So our consideration of that doesn’t actually take into account the extent to which they are funded by another organisation, except that, if there is a redundancy trust fund or whatever that will step in to pay a portion of the cost, that is not covered under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee program. I guess, in the sense that any entitlements that were payable under their governing instruments would have been paid under FEG, to the extent that they were eligible for it. For example, with One Key Workforce we paid 346 claimants a total of a $6.8 million in FEG assistance. That covered a range of entitlements.

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total figure?

Ms Saunders : It was $6.8 million.

Mr Hehir : Recognising that covered off a number of different employee entitlements.

Ms Saunders : I don’t have the detail of what made up that in terms of the different entitlements that were covered. I can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. I’d like to understand this issue because it involves some constituents in the Hunter Valley. My next question is: why did the Fair Entitlements Guarantee not pay One Key employees who were non-CFMEU members all entitlements owed under the black coal award, including shift penalties and overtime rates?

Ms Saunders : Okay.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a complex issue, but it should be able to be boiled down once you have the data. I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator Cash: You’re happy for us to take it?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’d like to get to the bottom of it.

Senator Cash: Yes, understood.

Senator ROBERTS: Finally, the issues raised in here show—I won’t say neglect, but times are changing across industry and the cracks that are exposed in Coal LSL itself are significant for employees and some employers. They’re very important, but they’re minor relative to the cracks in the Fair Work Act that have been exposed with changes in industry and in employment practices over time. Minister, is the government open to comprehensive review of industrial relations? The reason I ask is that Dave Noonan and heads of the CFMEU and the ETU have said they welcome a comprehensive, fair approach to reviewing and revising industrial relations. The Business Council of Australia has told me that they’re open to it as well and they support it. Large employers have told me the same. Small business is crying out for it, and medium businesses are as well. The industrial relations club which consists of major union bosses, major employers, major industry groups, consultants and lawyers are feeding off this, but the workers are not protected. Even unionised workers are not protected today, and they’re coming to us. The Fair Work Act is so complex that people are trying to detour around it, and that’s adding even more complexity. We need to restore fairness, entitlements and protections to workers—especially fairness to the small businesses. Are you open to comprehensive review of industrial relations?

Senator Cash: I think the government is always prepared to listen to stakeholders—it’s obviously subject to the ability to get anything through the Australian Senate—to make the system a better one, a more productive one, both for employers and for employees. You do raise a good point, though, in relation to the complexity of the system, and I might just ask the official who was talking about the budget announcements that we have made in relation to small businesses in particular being able to better navigate the system to come back to the table, because this is something that you and I had actually spoken about. We have made a budget announcement, so it’s embedded in the budget. But this is, in particular, to assist small businesses to be able to better understand and better navigate the Fair Work Act as it currently stands. If you would just indulge us for two or three minutes, I will get you this information.

Ms Huender : The government’s providing $5.6 million over four years to the Fair Work Commission to establish a dedicated small business unit within the Fair Work Commission to provide tailored support to small businesses to assist them to navigate the system. We’re aware that small businesses are a big part of the Australian economy, with 3½ million businesses employing over 40 per cent of the workforce. However, they do find the system complex. They don’t have the support of HR managers or legal support, so they also find navigating the system costly. So this unit’s designed to provide strategic leadership and to develop improved information resources and case management support for small businesses when they engage with the system. Small businesses, I understand, make up 50 per cent of the Fair Work Commission’s customers, as it were, but they represent 95 per cent of first-time users.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, that’s necessary, but it just reemphasises my point. It’s a moribund, complicated, inefficient system. And I’m thinking now that, for not only small business but also workers in the Hunter Valley for some of the world’s largest companies, workers in Central Queensland, workers for other large companies, some of the things that are going on with the COVID injection mandates are just despicable. I could tell you stories that would really shock you. We’re not living in a Third-World country, but we’re behaving as if we are, and some workers have no longer got basic protections and basic entitlements.

Senator Cash: I would disagree.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s like we’re living in a Third-World country.

Senator Cash: And I understand, because you genuinely do prosecute this case that every estimates and in relation to, in particular, the size of the Fair Work Act now and its growth over time.

Unidentified speaker: I’m disappointed you didn’t bring it along today!

Senator Cash: As I’ve said, the government is always prepared to work with stakeholders, employers and employees, to take on board the feedback to improve the system. Ultimately, though, changes are to the Fair Work Act itself, and those changes do need to be got through the Australian Senate. I think the perfect example—and you and I had many discussions on this—was the omnibus bill. There were significant parts of that bill that would have given more certainty to certain sectors et cetera, but we just could not get that through the Australian Senate.

With your support, though, we of course rectified the Rossato decision, and that was later, obviously, confirmed in the High Court of Australia. That was an incredibly important decision, as you know, because of the uncertainty that it had given to small businesses that they might end up with what we’d estimated to be I think it was up to a $38 billion or $39 billion liability. We couldn’t even get the support of the Australian Labor Party to actually take that impost off small businesses. You worked with us, and I was very appreciative of that, and we did make that change.

But, in relation to the other parts of the bill, again I’m prepared to work with people. I think a better system, a simpler system and a more productive system—but it has to reflect the needs of both employers and employees—is a good situation to aspire to, but ultimately, as you know, it does come down to the ability to get legislation through the Senate, and we can’t get the Labor Party or the Greens to support that type of productive change.

Senator ROBERTS: We had to work with small businesses to identify issues that they had, and we were pleased that the government resolved some of those issues and put our suggestions into the revised act. But, again, your recounting of the situation, while accurate, reinforces the need for change, because it is just so difficult and such a complex environment, with so many stakeholders hanging on by their fingernails. It’s just out of date and it’s hurting workers.

Senator Cash: As I said, you and I have had many discussions over many years now, and we’ve always worked constructively together in this regard, with a commitment to improving the system for both employees and employers. Ultimately, though, it is difficult to get through the Australian Senate. But what I think it does show is that it’s not therefore about one policy lever. If that policy lever is difficult to actually pull and properly implement because of the nature of the Australian Senate, you do then need to look at other ways that you can deliver for small business.

You and I have long talked about lowering taxes. When you look at, say, the tax rate for small business, under the Australian Labor Party it was 30 per cent; under us it is currently 25 per cent. So, whilst that’s not the industrial relations system as such, it is another way that you can ensure that you’re giving back to small business. I know, throughout COVID-19, even just the ability to change the way you process documents to allow for that—the e-technology certainly assists them. There is the availability of the instant asset write-off and the ability to say to them, ‘If you have that capacity to invest in your business, the government’s going to back you every step of the way.’ If one lever proves difficult, there are other levers that you can then look to utilise to ensure that you are responding in every possible way to that commitment that they are the backbone of the Australian economy, that they deserve to be backed by government, which is what we do. In relation to those changes, the omnibus bill is the perfect example: it was a very reasonable bill that would have provided both employers and employees with a more productive workplace, but we couldn’t get it through the Senate. I was grateful for the support you gave on the Rosato decision.

Senator ROBERTS: You fiddling with the tax system, and I don’t mean that derogatorily.

Senator Cash: I know what you’re saying.

Senator ROBERTS: The tax system makes the Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Act look simple. It doesn’t fix basic safety protections that have gone AWOL in workplace relations. It doesn’t fix the basic employer-employee relationship, which is the primary relationship of any workplace and must be such. We need something that’s comprehensively reformed and brought back to something simple that looks after the primary workplace relationship between employer and employee.

Senator Cash: On safety: I think that, for each one of us, that has to be paramount in the workplace. There are no two ways about that. I know that, when I first came into portfolio and I worked very closely with Mr Hehir on this, we were presented with the outcome of the Boland review. That was something that I looked at. As you know, there are model work health and safety laws, and the Commonwealth works with the states and territories to ensure that we can effect change that is recommended to us. We had the Boland review, we had the recommendations of the Boland review and I worked constructively with our state and territory colleagues regardless of political persuasion. If you’re, the relevant minister I work with you. I was very pleased that, within a few weeks of me formally come portfolio, all relevant ministers across Australia had agreed to accept all the recommendations coming out of the Boland review.

So certainly, when it comes do work health and safety, I have a very good relationship with state and territory ministers, and we will make improvements to the model work health and safety laws together by accepting all of the Boland review’s recommendations.

Senator ROBERTS: Notwithstanding what you just said, I have enjoyed working with Mr Hehir. I have found him easy to deal with and open to deal with.

Senator Cash: Thank you for that feedback.

Senator ROBERTS: But there are people being severely injured, not even reporting and then being threatened if they dare raise safety issues in this country, and that’s not good enough. I’m happy to leave it there, but it is an issue that’s really important, and we will be pushing it.

Senator Cash: Thank you for those questions.

/by