Posts

Thousands of Miners Underpaid for Years

,

During the June Estimates sessions, I exposed a regulator unwilling to confront the obvious – thousands of coal miners have been underpaid for years while the Fair Work Ombudsman hides behind outdated enterprise agreements and technical excuses.

Miners provided evidence and the regulator ignored it. Awards required permanency and enterprise agreements undermined it. Australia’s largest wage-theft scandal, affecting an estimated 5,000 workers, continues because no one in authority will confront it.

This session laid bare a system that has failed miners, failed the award, and failed it’s statutory duty to uphold a fair minimum safety net.

If the system won’t protect workers, someone has to call it out.

One Nation will always call it out.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again, Ms Booth.  

Ms Booth: Thank you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree, as a matter of principle and community expectation, that no worker in Australia should be paid less than that required under a relevant award that applies to the worker?  

Ms Booth: What I would say is that all workers in Australia should be paid their legal entitlements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong had no trouble in confirming what I just said—twice. Are you familiar, Ms Booth, with the 2016 case where the Fair Work Commission found that an enterprise agreement between the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association and Coles was invalid because the enterprise agreement paid below the award?  

Ms Booth: I’m not personally familiar with that case, but we can take questions on notice about it and its relevance to the FWO activities, if you wish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would you agree that this ruling of the SDA sets a clear legal precedent that any enterprise agreement that pays below the award, even when the Fair Work Commission endorses such an enterprise agreement, is invalid?  

Ms Booth: Since I’m not familiar with the case, I wouldn’t comment on it. Ms Volzke might be familiar with it and might be able to give you further insight.  

Ms Volzke: I think we’ve discussed at previous Senate estimates hearings that the Fair Work Commission applies the better off overall all test, or BOOT, in determining whether or not an agreement can be approved, and, so long as it passes that test, that agreement will be approved.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will ask it again, Ms Volzke. Would you agree that this ruling sets a clear precedent that any enterprise agreement that pays below the award, doesn’t meet the BOOT, even when the Fair Work Commission endorses it, is invalid?  

Ms Volzke: At previous estimates, we’ve also spoken about the mechanisms that might be available to an aggrieved party if they wish to seek to set aside an enterprise agreement, and that would usually be one of the parties that is a party to that agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: I noticed that you didn’t agree or disagree. I’ve repeatedly raised with the Fair Work Ombudsman the situation of casually engaged coal workers subject to the black coal mining industry award being paid less than the casualised award rate when employed by labour hire companies utilising enterprise agreements. We’ve previously discussed that a quantity of cases with specific details have been referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Ombudsman has investigated. Can you tell me how many individual investigations have been completed?  

Ms Booth: As you know, Senator Roberts, a number of investigations are underway. Mr Ronson is in charge of that, and we’ll ask Mr Ronson to come up and give you a report on our progress.  

Senator Watt: While Mr Ronson is coming up, Senator Roberts, you are absolutely right that you have raised these issues a number of times at estimates, and every time I have reminded you that the One Nation party voted against our same job, same pay laws, which were designed to fix this problem.  

Senator ROBERTS: Because those laws were designed to cover up the problem.  

Senator Watt: No, they weren’t.  

Senator ROBERTS: They were designed to cover up. We mentioned it at the time, in the Senate.  

Senator Watt: Can you point out to me the section of the act that covers up this?  

CHAIR: This is a debate at another time. Mr Ronson.  

Mr Ronson: What I can confirm is that, in our black coal mining investigation, we’re about two-thirds of the way through, so we’re in the home stretch. The figures I can give you are these. Since we commenced this activity, we’ve investigated 56 cases and we’ve finalised 35, and, since I last provided evidence to this committee, we have received six new cases. We finalised 18 cases since our last update. Importantly—and I think this is relevant to the particular cohort of workers you’ve been interested in—we’ve now issued preliminary finding letters to all the workers represented by the Independent Workers Union of Australia. They have all our preliminary findings, whereby they’ve been given an opportunity to review those letters and findings, and, if they have any additional or new evidence or they disagree or confirm the findings, they have an opportunity to make submissions to us, as do the other parties.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that a secure mechanism?  

Mr Ronson: They’ve got an opportunity to say ‘you’ve got this right,’ or ‘you’ve got this wrong,’ or ‘we agree with you’ or ‘you’ve missed that.’ But these are at quite an advanced stage, and so we’re confident that, within the next month or two, we should have finalised nearly all investigations.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total number of complaints you’ve received? The total number is still outstanding.  

Mr Ronson: There are 21 cases outstanding, but, since we began this discrete activity, it’s 56 investigations, and 35 finalised.  

Senator ROBERTS: Plus six new.  

Mr Ronson: Since I last gave evidence, there have been six new ones. But we haven’t had a new case since February.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve received feedback on a number of completed Fair Work Ombudsman investigations from coalminers that have been affected. The Fair Work Ombudsman seems to be consistent in saying, ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person—’terms and conditions are governed by’ the named labour higher enterprise agreement, ‘we do not consider that the black coal mining industry award 2010 applied to the person named.’  

Mr Ronson: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: And, ‘Consequently,’ the Fair Work Ombudsman says, the named persons’ ‘wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award,’ but rather the named labour hire enterprise agreement. In light of the rulings in relation to the SDA case of 2016 and the Fair Work Commission general manager, why does the Fair Work Ombudsman now take the view that paying a worker less than the award is justifiable if the worker is being paid under a certified EA? On what legal basis does the Fair Work Ombudsman justify this?  

Ms Booth: I think we’re going to hear from Ms Volzke again, and it will traverse the same topic, and that is the legal framework within which we operate, and our job is to assess whether or not that framework has been breached. Perhaps Ms Volzke will elaborate again for you.  

Ms Volzke: I can’t talk to all of those outcomes of those investigations, but, thematically, and with a lot of those historical complaints also, we took the approach of assessing the situation where the agreement might apply, which was our view, but also, in the event that the agreement didn’t apply, we also looked at the situation of whether the underlying award might be relevant. In that case, as we’ve spoken about in previous estimates hearings, the legal consequences can be unclear as to whether or not that particular employee might have received an underpayment under the award anyway. That’s because, as you know, the black coal mining award doesn’t provide for casual employees in operational roles.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are a number of things there that I’m going to come back to. In relation to the actual comparing of paid rates, one assessment by the Fair Work Ombudsman that I’ve seen compares full-time rates under the award with casual rates under the enterprise agreement. The data provided by the Fair Work Ombudsman quotes the following rates and labels: contract rate per hour, $46.50. What’s the contract rate per hour?  

Mr Ronson: In those findings, what that would mean is the payment that employee would have received, so this would be a contract rate under a common law contract of employment. In that situation, you’ve got your common law contract of employment, but then there are also minimum entitlements in this country, informed by either an award or an enterprise agreement. But that contract rate would have been the rate that employee received.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. Then there is the award minimum rate, $21.97—these are your classifications.  

Mr Ronson: Yes, that would have been either a relevant agreement rate—  

Senator ROBERTS: This is award minimum rate.  

Mr Ronson: Or an award rate, at the time. This could be back in 2017 or 2018. Some of these cases have gone back years.  

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise bargaining agreement 2012 minimum rate is $23.10.  

Mr Ronson: Again, that would have been the lawful minimum entitlement at that time in that particular situation for that worker.  

Senator ROBERTS: These are your figures again: named enterprise bargaining agreement 2012, casual rate, $28.88.  

Mr Ronson: That’s right. What Ms Volzke has been explaining is that the peculiarity of this whole sector is that enterprise agreements provide for casual rates because it’s been approved by the Fair Work Commission, but the black coal award doesn’t provide for casual production employees. This is the whole peculiarity of this sector.  

Senator ROBERTS: So these quoted rates omit important information and should in fact read as follows, in our opinion, based on the rates easily accessible under the award. Your award minimum rate should be the award minimum rate without entitlements. It’s the same figure, $21.97.  

Mr Ronson: I’m just presuming that, in that particular case, because there’s no casual provision in the award, we’re at a loss. We can’t confect one. There is no such thing. This is the very odd nature. So we’re reliant upon that contractual rate that they received.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the award has a rate plus entitlements, and what you’re doing is forgetting the entitlements and just taking the rate, even though the casuals should be paid a loading for all of those entitlements.  

Mr Ronson: No, I would imagine that, in those cases, there would be an enterprise agreement that would be at play.  

Ms Volzke: Because the award provides for the full-time rate, but the casual rate isn’t derived from the award. It can be the from the agreement, but also, potentially, if there is no agreement, it may well be that those particular employees are actually award and agreement-free, which would mean they would be covered by the national minimum wage.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the first time I’ve heard that one.  

Mr Ronson: It’s case by case. There are 56 cases. There will be nuances and changes on each one, but typically, for the cohort that has the historical complaints, it’s pretty much the same. It’s the same issue that you’ve been advocating for, agitating for, for some time.  

Senator ROBERTS: So let me add another one: award, notional, casualised rate. That comes to $50.01. Remember that figure. Then, where you’ve got named EBA 2012, minimum rate, we’ve added ‘without entitlements.’ What you’re doing is taking a minimum rate, stripping away the entitlements, not even counting them, and you’re saying that’s the case because—what was it, Ms Volzke?  

Ms Volzke: If there is an enterprise agreement that has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, then that displaces anything that might have otherwise applied in the underlying award, and then the employment conditions are what’s in the agreement. If there is no underlying agreement, you cannot extrapolate the full-time provisions in the award to casuals because, as Mr Ronson has already said, in those production roles, there is no classification for casual employees.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you telling me, Ms Volzke, that, if the minimum rate is the same in the award and the enterprise agreement, because there’s no casual, the casual worker misses out entirely on all the other entitlements? Isn’t that paying less than the enterprise agreement, by a long, long way?  

Ms Volzke: No. For an agreement to be approved by the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Commission must be satisfied that the agreement passes the BOOT, the better off overall test. That will obviously depend on the particular matter and agreement that’s before it. I am only talking at a high level. I won’t make any particular conclusions about specific case examples, but that is the general principle—and, where the agreement has been validly approved, the conditions of employment are derived therein.  

Mr Ronson: What Ms Volzke is saying is that, where the agreement is in play—and that’s mostly the cases that you’re aware of—the agreement knocks out the award; the agreement trumps, in terms of the industrial instrument that informs the rates. But what I can tell you is that—  

Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement, even if it’s inferior to the award, trumps the award.  

Mr Ronson: If it’s a lawful agreement, it trumps, yes; it displaces the award.  

Senator ROBERTS: It can’t be lawful, but we’ll come back to that.  

Mr Ronson: Okay. What I can say is that this is one of the reasons we were very careful to set out our findings very carefully and provide the parties with opportunities to see whether we’ve got anything wrong—and I can confirm that we’ve received no significant evidence that will alter the findings that we’ve made. It might not be the outcome that the employee wants, but it is the application of the law.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is, the named casual worker should have been paid a minimum of $50.01 per hour for the period. On evidence in pay slips supplied to the Fair Work Ombudsman, the named worker was paid $39.55 per hour. That’s less than your contract rate.  

Mr Ronson: Correct, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: All entitlements wiped.  

Mr Ronson: I don’t have that case in front of me, but that case would have been based upon what is the minimum entitlement that applies to this worker in this period, at this time and at this site, and that’s how we would have done the calculations and worked out whether there was a financial injury.  

Senator ROBERTS: The named labour hire EBA rates that the Fair Work Ombudsman quotes omit requirements for entitlements and in this respect are arguably misleading as to the truth. The rate actually paid is less than the award, less than your contract rate and less than the award notional casualised rate. How could the Fair Work Ombudsman get such basic information so wrong?  

Mr Ronson: What I’m trying to say is: out of all the preliminary findings we’ve issued, we’ve had no evidence received in response from parties that would impact or alter our findings. It may not be the outcome that people want, but it is the correct application of the law, in our view.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, at the start of your questions, I asked each senator to keep their questions to 15 minutes. We’ve now gone over that time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I have one question, and then I’ll hand over the call.  

CHAIR: Yes, thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: And then I’d like another block. The miner supplied the Fair Work Ombudsman with all his pay slips. What period did the Fair Work Ombudsman consider in assessing the worker’s complaint—one year or the whole period of underpayment?  

Mr Ronson: The whole period.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll come back.

Trancript

Senator ROBERTS: I will return to my questioning. Ms Booth, I refer to the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision in relation to the miner, appendix C in this case, clause 9, which says, ‘No time or wage records were available during the relevant period.’ From whom?  

Ms Booth: That would be a detail in relation to a particular investigation that I wouldn’t have visibility of. Mr Ronson, do you?  

Mr Ronson: I’m going to presume, but correct me if I’m wrong, that the case that you’ve got in front of you probably relates to the 14 cases represented by the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia. 10 of those cases remain ongoing, so preliminary findings have been issued. From what you have just put, it looks like that’s an attachment to the preliminary findings, which gives an opportunity for the worker and the employer to respond if there’s any contradiction. Your question was about time and wage records not being available. That would be from either party. I’m not sure what particular period or history this is, but it may be that there were no timely wage records available.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the miner supplied his pay-slips and the Fair Work Ombudsman had the miner’s total hours and pay and could calculate the overall hourly rate. So it’s not from the miner. 

Mr Ronson: Okay. If there’s a concern, this is the opportunity to put this evidence to us if there’s something that we’ve missed. This is why we put the preliminary findings out, just in case there’s a question mark over what our findings are. We try to do our investigations to the best of our ability, to be as thorough as we can using the powers we have, but, if we’ve missed something and the parties have evidence, please provide it to us. This is exactly why this process has been undertaken.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ms Booth, were you previously a Fair Work Commission member?  

Ms Booth: Yes, I was, from 2012 to 2020.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did any of the enterprise agreement applications you approved as a member include an enterprise agreement covering casual coal miners?  

Ms Booth: Of course, I would be relying on memory. I don’t recall any. Indeed, throughout my time at the Fair Work Commission I spent a lot of time being the national practice leader of what’s called the Collaborative Approaches Program now, which took me out into the field, and I was relieved of the obligation to approve enterprise agreements quite early on in my time in the commission. I couldn’t tell you which year that was but, for a large part of my time in the commission, I was relieved, very kindly by the President, of that obligation. I don’t recall any black coal cases, but the Fair Work Commission website still has every single decision that I have ever made under my name, and it can be examined to see whether or not any of those enterprise agreements fell within my purview.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you ever check the BOOT?  

Ms Booth: When I did approve enterprise agreements, yes. Indeed, in the early part of my time in the Fair Work Commission, a member was required to do that personally. Then, as I went on towards 2020, the administrative support was provided and a BOOT report was provided to each member from the administrative staff to aid our examination of an enterprise agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to go to section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act, which provides, The Fair Work Commission must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions.’ The use of the term ‘must’ imposes, does it not, a mandatory legal obligation on the commission?  

Ms Booth: I’ll say two things about that. One might be asking Ms Volzke to comment on the provisions of the act. I’ve not got it in front of me. I will be careful not to provide evidence to the committee other than from my current role as the Fair Work Ombudsman. I was happy to answer your questions about the Fair Work Commission, but of course I no longer speak for the Fair Work Commission. What I would say about the modern award objective is that every member, myself included, would have given consideration to all the factors listed in section 134.  

Senator ROBERTS: Before you hand over to Ms Volzke, does the commission—because you’re investigating a commission decision, ultimately—have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty—’must … provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions’.  

Ms Booth: The modern awards objective applies in certain circumstances, not every dispute and not every case, but, where it applies, it is my understanding that at the time I was a Fair Work Commission member I was obliged to weigh all the factors that were in the modern awards objective in any decision that I was making. I would refrain from saying anything more about what I did in those times, because my memory will be faulty and the Fair Work Commission is no longer my area of work.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t referring to your time in the Fair Work Commission. I’m referring to the Fair Work Commission decisions in this case.  

Ms Booth: I think I’ve given you my answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Black Coal Mining Industry Award says that production workers must be permanent workers, permanent employees. How do you get over that condition in an enterprise agreement?  

Ms Volzke: I haven’t got the terms of the award in front of me, but it doesn’t provide for casual employment in those production roles. You will remember as well that, in Closing Loopholes, the same job, same pay audit provisions came in that ensured that labour hire workers—  

Senator ROBERTS: This happened well before that.  

Ms Volzke: Absolutely, but what I’m saying is that anomaly, in the way that you’ve described it, going forward has been closed. We’re talking about, in some circumstances, agreements that were approved many years ago. As the regulator, we must apply the law as it stands at the particular point in time, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. As we’ve spoken about previously as well, a number of these historical matters are outside our statutory time frame for being able to prosecute them, but we are doing our very best to investigate them irrespective of that. That’s what we’re undertaking to do. Mr Ronson has provided some details on that already, and we hope to have that wrapped up soon. I’m very satisfied that we’re doing the best that we can in the circumstances to apply the law to these particular cohorts of employees.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not. Whether it’s been legal, or negligence or deliberate, this is Australia’s largest wage theft scam, and it’s continuing—Australia’s largest wage theft. It’s widespread. We estimate that around 5,000 miners are still being screwed by this. Does that bother you?  

Ms Volzke: As I said, the closing loopholes legislation in 2023 closed that loophole. Going forward, that is what the law is now, but our statutory mandate is to apply the law as it applies at a particular point in time, and these are historical matters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision endorse the breach of the Fair Work Act and what amounts to the Fair Work Commission’s endorsement of Australia’s largest wage theft due to collusions between union bosses and large global multinational employers, including an offshoot in Australia of the world’s largest labour hire firm, Recruit Holdings?  

Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about previously, if an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, then it is part of the legal framework that we must apply, and that is what we’ve done.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, as I indicated at the start of your block of questioning, as we have two senators seeking the call, we’re seeking to split the time, so that’s the conclusion of your block of questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Chair. 

/0 Comments/by

Time to Clean Up Coal LSL

,

I questioned ANAO on the transparency, or lack thereof, surrounding Coal LSL.

While they’ve given the financial statements a “clean” bill of health, serious questions remain about the $2 billion sitting in this fund. I’m particularly concerned for our coal industry casuals. Employers are paying compulsory levies for these workers, but many leave the industry before the 8-year mark, meaning they never see a cent of that benefit.

Where is that money going?

The ANAO confirmed their remit is limited to the finances, not the management. It’s been decades since the courts flagged a lack of government accountability over this corporation, and it’s time we got real answers on board composition and the integrity of the scheme.

I won’t stop asking until we ensure these funds are serving the workers they were meant for, not just sitting in a pot controlled by an unaccountable entity.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing tonight. Have a good evening. The most recent audit report conducted by ANAO of Coal LSL—Long Service Leave—flagged higher risk related to both valuation of investments and the valuation of provision for reimbursements. What’s the real meaning of these two findings of risk as regards the effective operations of and the integrity of the scheme? These are risks of what and to whom?  

Ms Jago: That would be in relation to our annual financial statement audit for Coal Long Service Leave. That is setting out where we see the main risk areas. Often, when there are valuations of assets and liabilities, those are of higher risk in an audit because more assumptions and judgements are involved. In Coal Long Service Leave’s case, they are the two riskier items in their financial statements. We have completed that audit for the 2024-25 year, and they received an unmodified auditor’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: That means you accepted it?  

Ms Jago: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What would be the fallout if these risks crystallised?  

Ms Jago: From a financial reporting perspective, it may be that we would conclude that it’s not a true and fair representation of the liabilities that are actually owed to others or assets held. If that were the case and it weren’t corrected, that may lead to what we would call a modified auditor’s report. That’s the financial reporting aspect. A more financial management aspect is that, if you don’t understand what liabilities you actually have, it’s very difficult to plan for how you’re actually going to meet those liabilities. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The funds arrive in the accounts of the scheme from compulsory levies upon the relevant employers. The funds held by the fund are now in excess of $2 billion. Who gets the excess income generated from the scheme after leave entitlements are paid out? I don’t know if you’re aware that there’s a significant proportion of casuals now in the Coal workforce.  

Ms Jago: No, I’m not.  

Senator ROBERTS: There are a lot of casuals. They don’t like the way they’re treated. They get in and get out before the eight years, so, effectively, their employer pays for their contributions but then they leave the contributions behind and don’t get it because they leave before the eight-year entitlement. Do you know what happens to that money?  

Ms Jago: I think that’s actually a question best directed to Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emmett J, In the Federal Court in 1998, had emphasised that there was a lack of control of the corporation by the government. He’s not talking about today’s Labor government or the last Liberal government; he’s talking about government and a lack of accountability to the government. Now, before I arrived in the Senate in 2016, COLE LSL, I was told, had never appeared at Senate estimates, and yet we saw some startling irregularities. That led eventually, when they were proven, to a review by the LNP, which in my opinion was a pretty soft review. But I would agree with Emmett about the lack of control of the corporation. What change in governance, if any, has occurred within Coal LSL since 1998?  

Ms Jago: That’s quite a long period of time. I don’t know that I could answer that today, and it’s how their governance arrangements changed is probably more a question for Coal Long Service Leave.  

Senator ROBERTS: So your assessment, your audit, was just to do with the financial reports?  

Ms Jago: Correct. We were auditing their financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not the company—not the entity?  

Ms Jago: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got serious concerns about the board composition and many other governance factors. Given the fund was originally set up as a stopgap measure to cover an estimated shortfall of funds to cover Long Service Leave’s claims, can your office comment on what purpose is satisfied for the fund to continue generating millions of dollars per year after the original purpose was met a quarter of a century ago?  

Ms Jago: That’s not something that was part of our financial statement audit.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s beyond your remit.  

Ms Jago: We were just looking at the financial statements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s all. Like me: short and sweet! 

/by

Protecting our Coal Miners

,

During this session with the Fair Work Commission, I asked Mr Furlong if he agreed that you cannot use an enterprise agreement to strip away rights provided by the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. He agreed.

During our exchange, I highlighted several concerns:

I reminded Mr. Furlong that the High Court in Rossato was clear — contract terms must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. You can’t take away annual leave or award entitlements if the law says otherwise.

When I asked how losing annual leave and getting lower pay could possibly make a worker “better off,” the Commission hid behind “abstract” assessments. There is nothing abstract about a coal miner losing their leave and being underpaid compared to the Black Coal Award.

The Commission tried to tell me we’ve “traversed” this ground before. My response was simple: I will keep traversing it until these workers get what’s owed to them in full compliance with the law.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, you have previously agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove all applicable award entitlements. You have agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove entitlements provided under the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. Both of them were in November 2022. Do you still hold the same views today?  

Mr Furlong: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that these propositions were confirmed by the majority of the High Court in the Rossato decision?  

Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the High Court decision, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The court went on to say: …where there are express terms of the contract between the parties, they must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: It has been a long time since I’ve looked at that decision. I can’t comment on it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know what you mean. If an agreement includes terms that would remove statutory rights such as annual leave and other award entitlements, wouldn’t those terms be considered contrary to statute?  

Mr Furlong: It’s difficult to talk in the abstract about such matters. The terms and conditions in an enterprise agreement are that they need to be better off overall. It’s a global assessment in determining whether or not an enterprise agreement will satisfy a member of the commission and subsequently be approved by that member.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This issue was further considered in One Key Workforce v CFMEU. The full bench of the Federal Court held that: It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker— the Fair Work Commissioner— who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction. Isn’t this exactly what the commissioner did when approving an enterprise agreement that ignored the Black Coal Award, which was relevant material? 

Mr Furlong: I think that the circumstance of One Key relate to the One Key enterprise agreement. Are we are talking about Chandler Macleod and other agreements about casual coalminers? Senator ROBERTS: If an enterprise agreement takes away annual leave by calling someone a casual, is that going against statute? Mr Furlong: It depends on whether the employee is a casual or a permanent employee. If they are a permanent employee, they would be entitled to annual leave and sick leave and all the other conditions that would be applicable to a permanent employee. There are casual conversion entitlements now for employees that they can exercise if they want to transition from casual employment to an ongoing role. Senator ROBERTS: How does it comply with the National Employment Standards and the Fair Work Act if someone loses annual leave, ends up on lower pay and doesn’t meet award provisions? It goes against statute.  

Mr Furlong: The Fair Work Act provides the framework that members of the commission have to observe before they can approve an enterprise agreement. If there is an aggrieved party to a decision made by a member of the commission, those decisions can be the subject of an appeal. If the agreement has reached its nominal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can make an application to have that agreement terminated.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the express terms of the contract or EA must be given effect unless they are contrary to this statute?  

Mr Furlong: No. What I’m saying is that for a member, in assessing whether or not to approve an enterprise agreement which has been lodged with the commission for approval, a number of statutory tests need to be satisfied. One of them is the better off overall test. Once a member of the commission who has been allocated that file is satisfied that each of those conditions has been met, they are required to approve the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how the loss of annual leave, a pay rate that is less and the loss of other award provisions complies with better off overall, because the award prevails? That’s the High Court.  

Mr Coyle: It’s very difficult to talk in the abstract here. It’s a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of annual leave, a lower pay rate and the loss of other award provisions—that’s not abstract.  

Mr Furlong: We’ve traversed this several times.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will keep traversing it until we get these people their fair due in compliance with statute. 

/1 Comment/by

Wage Theft in Mining Sector

,

During the December 2025 Senate Estimates session with the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO), I asked about progress on addressing the issue of stolen miners’ wages.

Mr Steve Ronson, representing the FWO, advised that 33 complaints are currently being looked at, and that preliminary findings are close to completion. These findings will enable the parties involved to review their positions and make further submissions if they choose. He also noted that three companies have now self-reported instances of non-compliance, and a total of 25 employers are involved. Several staff members within the FWO are actively working on this matter.

I will not relent until this injustice is fully addressed. Those responsible must be held accountable.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll go over to Senator Roberts. Hello, long time, no see.

Senator ROBERTS: Not since yesterday.

ACTING CHAIR: Would you like to have a crack, mate? We are rolling through, and I’d like to give you the opportunity to put your questions to the Fair Work Ombudsman before we move to Senator Kovacic.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not having a crack. I’m just going to ask some very simple questions.

ACTING CHAIR: That’s code. I know what he’s like.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. No, my questions are really simple. On the matter of complaints from casual coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, where are you up to?

Ms Booth: Thanks for the question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s only really simple.

Ms Booth: We have 33 matters under investigation. Beyond that, I’m going to ask either Mr Campbell or Ms Volzke to add any colour to that response.

Mr Campbell: I’m happy to bring Steve Ronson up as well, Senator.

Ms Booth: Probably makes sense.

Mr Campbell: If you want to start with your specific question, then we can manage it accordingly.

Senator ROBERTS: Just an update.

Mr Campbell: Just an update.

Ms Booth: Where are we up to, Mr Ronson, is the question—the outcome at 33.

Mr Ronson: We’re well advanced with those investigations—there’s the number that Ms Booth just provided—and we’re getting very close to issuing preliminary findings in several cases. The objective of issuing
the preliminary findings is to make sure that both or all parties to a dispute have the opportunity to review what we’ve found in our investigations and give them some time to provide either additional or new evidence or
confirm our findings. We anticipate that, within the next few weeks, the preliminary findings for several cases will be issued. That will then continue in the New Year. We’ve done most of our work in those investigations and we’re now getting up to the point of sharing those findings.

Senator ROBERTS: Roughly, out of the 33, what percentage will have preliminary findings coming out in the next few weeks?

Mr Ronson: Before Christmas, out of the 33 investigations, if we take—sorry, 31 is probably the more precise number—but if we—

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, what you mean by ’31 is more precise’?

Ms Booth: That’s just updated from the 33 last—

Mr Ronson: Sorry, it was 33 cases last time we met. There’s been two finalised since then. It’s 31 cases now. Sorry, apologies. Of that number, three are self-reports. The two cases—

Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean, that they made their own complaints?

Mr Ronson: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: They submitted their own complaints.

Mr Ronson: Three companies have self-reported non-compliance with various elements of the Fair Work Act.

Senator ROBERTS: Employers?

Mr Ronson: Yes. The two cases that I am aware of, the findings that will likely be issued in the next few weeks will cover about four workers. What I can say is that we’re close to issuing findings with two cases that
cover four workers.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the final decision?

Mr Ronson: Well, what will happen—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it going to vary for each of their complaints?

Mr Ronson: Yes. What we’ll do is issue the findings. The employer, or the employing entities, and the workers will receive the findings, and they will be given an opportunity to reflect on them, look at them and
ensure that they are accurate or, if they want to, contest any part of our findings. If so, they’ll be given reasonable time. Possibly, because it’s Christmas, they’ll be given four weeks or thereabouts. By the end of January, if there’s no additional or new evidence or isn’t any contest, then we’ll proceed to finalising those findings. What we’re hoping is that by January and February we’ll be issuing, progressively and sequentially, more findings, because we’ve done most of the investigation work for those 28 cases.

Senator ROBERTS: When do you think all the 31 remaining will be finished?

Mr Ronson: If I exclude the self-reports and we look at the 28 cases, my view would be that the preliminary findings would be issued through not just December but January, February and possibly early March—so
progressively.

Senator ROBERTS: So the final reports will come about four weeks after.

Mr Ronson: The findings of each particular investigation are about four weeks after the preliminary findings. Unless—say, for example—I issue you a letter and you go, ‘Hang on, you’ve omitted this evidence,’ or, ‘You’re missing this.’ That, of course, might continue the investigation.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown, roughly, between Queensland and the Hunter Valley?

Mr Ronson: I’d need to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, please. And the number of employers involved?

Mr Ronson: From memory, it would be 25.

Senator ROBERTS: Twenty-five employers?

Mr Ronson: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll leave it at that. Well, perhaps I will ask a question. Are they labour hire firms or mine owners?

Mr Ronson: I’m happy to take it on notice to provide the particulars of that division, but it’s a mix.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. And how many staff do you have devoted to this?

Mr Ronson: In terms of dedicated staff, there would be at least three. That’s them putting a considerable amount of their time into just this particular sector, but I’m happy to correct that.

Senator ROBERTS: If it’s not correct, you can provide it on notice.

Mr Ronson: Sorry. I’m happy to confirm it, but it would be about three.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you.

/by

Labor’s Legacy of Failure

,

One Nation backed Senator Kovacic’s call for action on CFMEU corruption, criticising Labor for failing to deliver on its promise to clean up the union. Fifteen months after pledging reform, the government has instead seen its own anti-corruption appointee sacked over bribery allegations.

Meanwhile, violence and criminal influence within the CFMEU remain. Recent media reports reveal bikies and gangsters still hold significant power inside the union. Labor made this possible by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) in 2022—no surprise, given the CFMEU is one of Labor’s biggest campaign donors.

On top of corruption, Australia faces its largest wage theft scandal: over $1 billion allegedly stolen from coal miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Thousands of workers have lost entitlements and protections, with some owed more than $200,000.

CFMEU bosses colluded with labour hire firms and mine owners, stripping miners of rights while regulators looked the other way. The union’s influence even extends to boards controlling insurance and leave schemes, creating deep conflicts of interest.

Transcript

Firstly, One Nation wants to thank Senator Kovacic for her matter of public importance. I will quote it: 

The Prime Minister promised to tackle CFMEU corruption, yet 15 months later one of the very people hired to stamp it out has been sacked over allegations of bribery and corruption, demonstrating that Labor’s mismanagement is only protecting the problem, not fixing it 

One Nation agrees, because we support workers. We are the workers’ party today. Labor has had many conflicts of interest in its dealings with the CFMEU over many, many years. It abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission oversight in 2022. Labor gave the CFMEU free rein to just go for it. Channel 9’s 60Minutes program on Sunday showed that violence is continuing as usual from union bosses involved in the CFMEU despite the administrator. Here are some quotes. ‘The people who were running it are still running it, not the administrator.’ ‘The CFMEU remains a harbouring ground for criminals and thugs.’ ‘They are untouchable.’ ‘Bikies and gangsters still have a strong reach into the CFMEU and they thrive within the CFMEU.’ Thugs have a stronger position now within the CFMEU than before the administrator was appointed.’ 

The CFMEU is a major donor to Labor’s election campaigns. Now consider Australia’s largest wage theft case, with casual coalminers in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley losing their entitlements, losing their pay and being grossly underpaid. I want to thank Stuart Bonds from the Hunter for raising it back in 2019. We’ve been pursuing it ever since. That’s because I have been a coalface miner. There are 5,000 to 10,000 victims of the CFMEU in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, individual miners owed as much as $211,000, some more than $40,000 per year. It’s more than $1 billion in wage theft, with workers stripped of protections, workers’ compensation bypassed, coalminers insurance out, safety complaints not followed through and workers stripped of entitlements, long service leave and leave in general. 

There is a web of conflicts, with the boards of Coal Mines Insurance, Coal LSL and Coal Services all having 50 per cent members directors of the CFMEU. It gives them access to miners’ contact details. All of this was due to collusion of the CFMEU union bosses at the time, maintained now by the mining and energy union, in collusion with the world’s largest labour hire firms and large foreign mine owners, which the Fair Work Commission endorsed and approved. Now the Fair Work Ombudsman is saying that it will assess whether or not it is wage theft against the new enterprise agreements that were passed as a wage scam, with the CFMEU leading the way. It’s disgraceful! 

/by

Rubber-Stamped Injustice

,

The Fair Work Ombudsman, when considering 33 cases involving claims of underpayment among coal miners, stated that it was using an Enterprise Agreement (EA) as the base document. This EA is being challenged as invalid and void due to alleged fundamental deficiencies and fraud. The EA pays less than what comparable workers receive under the Award.

I challenged the Ombudsman’s office for betraying workers who were clearly being exploited by their employers, in collusion with the CFMEU. This exploitation was enabled by a highly questionable decision made by a Commissioner, who appeared not to have fully considered the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT) before approving the proposed, inadequate EA.

It appears the Commission can approve an EA “on the papers” when the union and employer are aligned, without a thorough examination of the agreement’s impact on workers.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Great. Thank you very much. We’ll open with questions, then, and I’ll start the call with Senator ROBERTS.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again tonight. We’re getting pretty familiar, Ms Booth.  

Ms Booth: Yes, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are pretty simple tonight. What is the total number of matters being investigated in the coal sector? I’m particularly interested in those matters that came out of the One Nation analysis, in which labour hire payments to coal workers were and are below what would be an award casualised rate, if such a thing existed—it doesn’t, but if it did. Can you confirm for me again how many matters are in that category? My recollection is that there were around 14 individuals.  

Ms Booth: As of 26 September this year, we had 33 cases under investigation and had finalised an additional 13 cases in the black coalmining industry. That is in Mr Campbell’s jurisdiction, so I will pass to him.  

Mr Campbell: I’ll obviously assist you with questioning on this subject. We have Steven Ronson here to assist with details as well, given the nature of your questions. We are happy to go into any detail you like.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll let you get on with resolving the cases and the complaints.  

Mr Campbell: That works for me.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good. Can you give me a rundown on the number and types of entities that have been consulted in relation to those matters—specifically the labour hire companies and the mine owners, perhaps—and what sort of feedback and cooperation you have received?  

Mr Ronson: Of those 33 cases that Ms Booth referred to, there are 25 employing entities. There are 25 different companies, if you like, that are being investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Booth, can I come back to you: what was the total number you said?  

Ms Booth: There are 33 currently under investigation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thirty-three? I thought you said three! Thank you. I know that the analysis we published states that there are large underpayments, based on a comparison to what would or should be a casualised award rate. But there’s a trick, because the coal award does not have casualised rates, as we’ve discussed at length. That being the case, are you investigating the matters and assessing whether underpayments have occurred compared to what would be a casual award rate if such a rate existed?  

Ms Volzke: As I think we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, these issues and some of the complexities arise in relation to the absence of casual operation rules under the award. What we’ve done is proceed on the basis of the information before us in determining what, if any, underpayments might be payable in relation to each of those matters that we’re investigating.  

Senator ROBERTS: What would be the base rates, so to speak, because you’re talking about casual?  

Ms Volzke: If there’s an enterprise agreement in operation in relation to a particular employee, then it would be the enterprise agreement that, notionally, we would be looking at. Obviously, if there weren’t one, there might be contracts of employment et cetera as well. It’s obviously going to depend on the particular circumstances. 

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m getting to is this: would you compare it with the base rate of permanent employees doing the same job and add 25 per cent to take into account a lack of other conditions of employment?  

Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about before, because the award doesn’t provide for that for those employees— who, I think, in that cohort, mostly had enterprise agreements relevant to their employment. That would be the document that we would look to test against any potential underpayments.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the enterprise agreement, which we think was not fair, would still be the base rate that you would compare it to?  

Ms Volzke: As we’ve spoken about previously, as the independent regulator, we apply the law as it stands. Where agreements have been made and approved by the Fair Work Commission as valid enterprise agreements, then those are the industrial instruments that we will use to determine any underpayments.  

Senator ROBERTS: If the Fair Work Commission has approved an enterprise agreement that is grossly underpaid compared to the award, you would go with the enterprise agreement.  

Ms Volzke: I can’t comment on the fairness or otherwise, but what I would say is that, where it has been lawfully made and is in operation for the particular period of time that might be in question for a particular employee. That’s the instrument that we test those underpayments against.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you identified instances where labour hire casual employees have been paid below the full-time award rate? If so, that would clearly constitute underpayment.  

Mr Ronson: I’m not aware that that’s the case so far, but I’m happy to take that on notice just to double-check.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Ongoing underpayments is the next topic. Minister, we have been following the same job, same pay applications in the coal sector, which, on our observation is a very slow process. By the way, I led the development of same job, same pay in the Senate. Given that there are a significant number of coal operations not yet subject to the same job, same pay regime, One Nation would assess that there are still large numbers of casual labour hire coalminers that continue to be underpaid when compared with the casualised award rate. Would you concur with that assessment? I guess you would not.  

Mr Ronson: I think the best way of answering that question would be that what we’ve tried to do in the course of this investigation is heighten awareness of our investigation. We have a dedicated email address specifically for these cases alone, so that anyone who’s working in the sector, or has worked in the sector, can request our assistance. Yet, as we’ve explained, I suppose each case will fall on its own merits. We investigate each case as to what we find. We follow the evidence in that particular case.  

Senator ROBERTS: At the nub of this issue, from the very start, has been the claim by many casual coalminers—and I agree with them entirely; so do some experts in industrial relations—that the enterprise agreements under which they’re working are dodgy. They’re grossly under the award rates. But what you’re saying is that’s become the new benchmark. That’s what I got out of Ms Volzke and you.  

Mr Ronson: What we’re saying, as Ms Volzke put, is that we’ll apply the law as it is. If the enterprise agreement is in place for that particular worker, that’s what we apply.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t look at the roots of the enterprise agreement—that it’s below the award rate with a lack of the casual premium.  

Mr Ronson: We will look to see whether the enterprise agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission. If it has, and if it’s a valid industrial instrument and it’s operative, we will apply it.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you won’t look into whether or not it passes the BOOT test? 

Mr Ronson: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that the 33 matters we’re focused on, and that you’re investigating, are of coalminers who have worked across a range of labour hire companies in a range of mines, would it be fair to say that the numbers of labour hire coalminers who have potentially been underpaid is probably very significant—that is, that large numbers of coalminers worked, and are continuing to work, under exactly the industrial instruments of the individuals you are investigating? Our estimate is that the number would easily exceed 5,000, possibly 10,000. Would that be a reasonable guess?  

Ms Volzke: The premise of that question is something that we wouldn’t agree with, for the reasons that we’ve spoken about. Where there are enterprise agreements that applied and were validly approved by the commission, that is the document or instrument that we use to determine whether or not there have been underpayments. The other thing, and I know we’ve spoken about this previously, is that it’s not necessarily the case that, because the award doesn’t provide for operational casual roles, it means that a particular employee would therefore be full time. It might, for example, be that they are award free, in which case their entitlements are by reference to the national minimum wage, for example. Another outcome might be a technical breach of the award that doesn’t necessarily carry consequences. As we spoke about previously as well, the original 15A definition of casual employment that was inserted back in 2021, I think, applied with retrospective application, which was close to a designation approach to casual. It would capture many of the historical complainants in this particular cohort that we’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: It seems to me that miners are not getting justice for a trick that was pulled on them by the mine owner, by the labour hire firm, which includes in one case an Australian offshoot of the world’s largest labour hire firm, Recruit Holdings from Japan, and by the mining division of the CFMEU, which is now back to being the Mining and Energy Union. You’re going to endorse it because they came up with a Fair Work Commission approved document.  

Ms Volzke: We’ve also spoken previously about who has standing to determine or challenge whether or not an agreement has been validly approved. It’s somebody who’s aggrieved by that, and that doesn’t extend to the Fair Work Ombudsman. Certainly it would be open to another party if they so wish to challenge that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Good luck getting a law case cheaply in this country. We’re aware that, in your investigations, the Fair Work Ombudsman has a six-year time restriction on being able to litigate to require compensation for underpayment. You’ve indicated, Ms Booth, in prior Senate estimates hearings that you have not restricted your investigations to the six-year limit but have gone back much further. Is that correct?  

Ms Booth: That is my recollection of the evidence we gave.  

Mr Campbell: That is correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ve discussed in these hearings in the past that the underpayments that we have assessed occurred because of the absence of a casualised rate in the coal award. We’ve discussed that to some extent. I’d like to look at it from another angle. If your investigation finds the practical evidence that supports our analysis in the 33 matters that you are investigating, I assume that there may be legal difficulties in successfully prosecuting for compensation because of this legal trick, which is what I’m hearing now. It may be legally complex to have the courts agree that underpayments were illegal. Is it that underpaid casual labour hire coalminers are victims of a legal trick? Could that be a reasonable point of view?  

Mr Campbell: I don’t think that we’d come to that view. We wouldn’t make a decision around the enforcement outcome we’d seek to impose in a certain circumstance until the conclusion of the investigation. The statute of limitations we’ve talked about previously goes to enforcement by way of litigation, for example, but there are other ways that we can seek to resolve a historical matter, which is also something we’ve discussed before, where we’ve found evidence of that contravention or an enforceable entitlement. We haven’t got to that point in these matters, so it remains open to us to consider how we will resolve them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would the Fair Work Ombudsman’s task of seeking compensation be more straightforward if legislation existed that resolved the legal trick? We refer to clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the coal award. Yes or no—would legislation make it easier?  

Mr Campbell: I don’t think we’ve got an opinion on that.  

Ms Booth: I think you’re asking us, if the law were different, would we apply the different law?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the minister. Minister, we congratulate the government on eventually requesting the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate gross underpayments of casual labour hire coalminers. It’s taken about 6½ years. The investigations from the Fair Work Ombudsman to date appear to be heading in the direction where the underpayments that we assessed were occurring may be confirmed on the evidence of the cases being investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Further it is likely, we believe, that any potential compensation may be legally difficult to enforce, which is what I’m hearing, because of a trick using enterprise agreements to get around the fact that the black coal mining industry award does not allow for a casual rate for comparative purposes. It’s our view that the most likely way to obtain justice for casualised labour hire coalminers would be to have legislation that resolves the legal trick we referred to, clarifying that casualised labour hire coalminers should be and should have been paid at least 25 per cent more than the full-time rate under the award. Assuming that the evidence from the Fair Work Ombudsman that supports the underpayment analysis is forthcoming, would the government be interested in considering such legislation for wage justice for these coalminers? If so, One Nation would be very keen to work with the government on such legislation and to lend our full support. Would the government consider that?  

Senator Walsh: The government has passed a suite of reforms to our workplace laws to get wages moving in this country, including the closing the loopholes legislation that established the same job, same pay principles and the secure jobs, better pay legislation. We’ve improved rights for casuals, we’ve reinvigorated bargaining, we’ve done a lot of work to close the gender pay gap and we’re really focused on improving the rights of Australians to be paid fairly for the work that they do. You’re referring to matters that I think are best addressed by the team that’s at the bench in terms of matters that the Fair Work Ombudsman has apparently been investigating.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re not allowed to talk about policy and legislation. That’s what I’m asking.  

Senator Walsh: You referred, I think, in your question to a report that may be coming. Is that correct?  

Ms Booth: We haven’t concluded the investigation at this time.  

Senator ROBERTS: You talk about rights, Minister. When you look at the people on a dodgy enterprise agreement compared with those on the black coal mining industry award base rate plus 25 per cent casual loading, you see that this is clearly Australia’s largest wage theft case, and that means that workers have been betrayed. This has been signed off on by the Mining and Energy Union, or the CFMEU mining division, by the labour hire companies, including the largest in the world, by mine owners and by the Fair Work Commission. Workers have got no protection whatsoever. If this goes through, workers have got no protection. There are thousands of them in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. It’s blatant exploitation. Will the government step in, subject to the report?  

Senator Walsh: From a government perspective, it seems appropriate to wait for the report of the Fair Work Ombudsman and give it due consideration when the report’s concluded.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

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

94,400 Young Aussie Miners at Risk

,

How Net Zero Threatens the Next Generation!

Nigel Farage’s unapologetically anti-Net Zero #Reform party is making headway in Scotland.

This sounds strange.

Scotland has always been a rather left-leaning, working class, union-centric nation so for Net Zero to suddenly become a defining feature of a minor-right movement is worth a second look.

The answer is simple.

Jobs.

By 2030, it is expected that 58,000 jobs in North Sea oil and gas will be gone.

Replacing them is a meagre (and as yet unproven) 29,000 jobs in offshore wind.

There’s a real and serious concern about how many of these jobs will be filled by foreign nationals, especially as this was already happening before loopholes were closed. If offshore wind cannot convert workers locally, businesses will hire internationally.

Bureaucrats seem to believe that all forms of energy production fall under the same portfolio and that workers can wander between oil rigs and wind farms…

The truth is, just because the two industries revolve around ‘energy’ it does not follow that those employed in the oil and gas industry can change their qualifications to work in offshore wind.

Oil rig workers are highly specialised, well-trained, and experienced. Throwing their livelihoods into the dustbin in pursuit of an increasingly dodgy-sounding ‘decarbonisation’ project is starting to turn voters away from environmental fascism.

Most oil and gas workers know they’ll be forced to retire.

This is a truth Australian Unions refuse to acknowledge.

They remain prepared to throw Australian workers under the Net Zero bus.

The UK is ten years ahead of Australia when it comes to the energy ‘transition’ – and they are in a serious mess.

Net Zero has become the failure that unites Labour and the Tories.

Reform saw the truth early, and maintained its position in support of reality, workers, and sensible energy. One Nation saw the truth years before Reform even existed as a movement.

Of all the parties in the Western world on the centre-right, we were the first to warn about the dangers of Net Zero.

There is nothing modern about Net Zero. If anything, it’s an idea past its use-by date which is starting to fester and grow all sorts of nasty things.

Under Sussan Ley and David Littleproud as leaders, the partly repaired Coalition has shied away from rigorous support of Net Zero, yet they are defending ‘climate goals’ and ‘decarbonisation targets’ with the same zeal that Treasurer Jim Chalmers eyes-off super balances.

Which is the same thing.

When the next election rolls around, we will have an agreement from the major parties that Net Zero is law and the ‘transition’ is unstoppable.

Sadly, we’ll also see voters with little understanding about the source of civilisation’s trappings telling tens of thousands of young Australians who work in the coal and gas industry that they are dirty, evil, and unwanted in the ‘modern’ world.

This is not their fault. Inner-city voters have been lied to by the whole damn system, and they often lack real-world experience to combat these cruel untruths. Nor can they see the families being hurt by green policy.

The Australian Greens, for instance, want to stop fossil fuels.

Except, of course, for the coal, gas, and oil mined and shipped offshore to generate cheap energy for China so they can make solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries used in the so-called green energy revolution.

Green energy is built on fossil fuels.

This is a wasteful way of utilising Australia’s natural resources while saddling the highly skilled men and women who mine them as the villains of history.

Well, I refuse to believe that, and I refuse to allow Australian miners to be thrown out by ideologues in Canberra chasing inner-city seats.

There are 94,400 workers in the sector under 35 and 52,600 under 30.

The Greens, Labor, the Teals, and a majority of Liberals, all claim to be against this industry and yet the truth is they want these mining jobs to be shipped offshore to places like China, Africa, and the Pacific. They want someone else to benefit economically from the creation of energy and for Australians to circle the drain of consumerism until this nation becomes so dependent that it can’t so much as manufacture the shovel to dig itself out of the mess.

This is the dirty side of carbon trading.

One Nation supports Australian workers. We do not demonise them.

Our party wants young Aussies to have the same opportunity we had to turn the natural gifts of this country’s soil and rock into cheap, reliable energy for other Aussie families – including those who live in the city.

From miners to retail workers, energy is the foundation of a safe, affordable, and prosperous country.

94,400 young Aussie miners at risk by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How Net Zero threatens the next generation

Read on Substack

This article was first published on my Substack. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, consider subscribing to get future posts delivered straight to your inbox.

/4 Comments/by

Labor’s Silence and Cover-Up of Coal Miners’ Wages 

When the Mining and Energy Union signed agreements with big business labour hire companies to underpay coal miners, the Labor Party did nothing and remained silent.

Now, the Albanese Labor government is covering this up.

Albanese’s ‘Same Job Same Pay’ laws fail to backpay underpaid coal miners.

Labor used to be the party of the worker

NOW

It’s the party that screws the worker.

In 2019, miners in the Hunter Valley exposed wage theft. Since then, I have been fighting hard for underpaid coal miners.

One Nation has:

  • Documented evidence of coal miners’ wage theft.
  • Pushed through a parliamentary motion for a full investigation.
  • Prompted the Fair Work Ombudsman to investigate specific miners’ underpayments (it’s big!).

At least 10,000 coal miners in New South Wales and Queensland have been massively underpaid.

One Nation now has a parliamentary bill to compensate the coal miners. The bill will force:

  • Labor hire companies to compensate (pay) the coal workers.
  • The union (MEU) to compensate the coal workers.
  • The Fair Work Commission to compensate (pay) the workers.

The Bill

The important section in the Bill says: 

333AA  Compensation for underpayment 

(2) As soon as practicable after giving the Minister a report under subsection 333Z(5), the Fair Work Ombudsman must provide a compensation notice in respect of the casual employee to the following: 

(a) the employer of the casual employee; 

(b) the industrial association or industrial associations (if any) that supported the enterprise agreement covering the casual employee; 

(c) the Fair Work Commission. 

(3) As soon as practicable after receiving a compensation notice under subsection (2) the notified party must pay the amount of compensation included in that notice to the casual employee. 

(4) A person referred to in paragraph (2)(a) or (2)(b) commits an offence if the person fails to comply with subsection (3). 

Penalty: 

(a) for an individual—imprisonment for 2 years or 500 penalty units, or both; or 

(b) for a body corporate—2,500 penalty units. 

STOP Labor Screwing Workers – VOTE One Nation

For complete details, check out:

One Nation will:

  • Stop Labor, the MEU, and labor hire companies from exploiting coal miners.
  • Enforce compensation for the affected workers.

VOTE FOR THE REAL WORKERS’ PARTY THAT GENUINELY CARES FOR WORKERS.

VOTE ONE NATION!

Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Coal Worker Wage Theft Prevention) Bill 2025Download
/by

Investigation into Wage Theft for Coal Miners in the Hunter

,

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has received a Ministerial directive to investigate wage theft allegations affecting coal miners in the Hunter region. Upon inquiring about the investigation’s status, Mr Steve Ronson, the Executive Director of the FWO shared that there are currently 18 cases under investigation, involving 25 workers and 17 employers, with 2 self-reports also being considered. All complaints are being thoroughly investigated, and the process includes holding meetings with various stakeholders.

A dedicated email address has been established for individuals to contact the FWO regarding these issues. So far, meetings have been held with Coal LSL, the Mining Energy Union, and the Independent Workers Union of Australia. Mr Ronson mentioned that the amounts to be calculated have not yet been assessed, with some claims dating back around 10 years. It’s been estimated that the total claim could potentially reach up to $1.3 billion. He also expressed his willingness to accept a submission from One Nation, which has been advocating for this investigation since 2019, marking it as the largest wage theft claim in Australia.

Interestingly, there has been no liaison with the Fair Work Commission, although other entities are welcome to submit material. Early findings from the investigation may emerge by mid this year, but the final report is expected by mid-2026. Status reports might be discussed through the estimates process. Mr Ronson clarified that while underpayments can be investigated beyond the 6-year period under the Statute of Limitations, enforcement is limited to this timeframe. He committed to securing any identified underpayments through the investigation.

Stay tuned for more updates as this significant investigation progresses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending, everyone. First of all, I understand the Fair Work Ombudsman has received a ministerial directive to investigate underpayments of casual black coal miners working under enterprise agreements; is that correct? 

Ms Booth: We have been asked to conduct that investigation. On the last occasion, you’ll recall, Mr Ronson gave you a thorough rundown. Since that time our enforcement board has approved an investigation plan. I will turn to Mr Campbell to give you any further updates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Before he does so, would it be possible to get a copy of the ministerial directive, please? 

Ms Booth: I’m not sure I would describe it as a ministerial directive, although others might be more aware of the protocol in these matters. I believe it was a letter. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a copy? 

Ms Booth: I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I’ll hand over to Mr Campbell and Mr Ronson to give you more details. 

Mr Campbell: Is there a particular aspect of our inquiries that you’re interested in, or are you looking for a general update? 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d specifically like, please, an overview of the status of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s activities, and could you in particular describe the process the Fair Work Ombudsman is using to conduct its investigations. 

Mr Campbell: I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist. 

Mr Ronson: I can give you an update on the status of the investigation. The Fair Work Ombudsman is currently investigating 18 black coal mining industry matters that involve 25 workers and 17 different employing entities. We’ve also received two self-reports from the sector. All the requests for assistance that we’ve received are being investigated, and as part of our project plan we’re meeting with a whole range of stakeholders. We’ve begun meeting with them to talk about the investigation, to enhance and increase awareness and to encourage those in the sector to come forward. We have a dedicated email address to receive any allegations or information from any member of the sector or the community. So far, we’ve had some very constructive and positive meetings. We’ve had two meetings with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, we’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union, we’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia, and we’ve got a whole range of other stakeholder meetings lined up in the next couple of weeks. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I assume that there’s a dedicated process that casual coalminers can now use to lodge complaints about underpayment with the Fair Work Ombudsman? 

Mr Ronson:  That’s correct. There’s a dedicated email address we’ve set up for the whole project so that anyone in the sector or anyone with information relating to the sector can feel confident that they can go straight through to contacting us through that email, or they can give us a call—whichever way they want to make contact with us. Of course, there’s still the anonymous report function as well, which is available to all members of the community. 

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Independent Workers Union of Australia. I take it that some of the submissions, or complaints, have been lodged through that and some of the others have been individually lodged, for individual work. 

Mr Ronson: That’s right. Probably two-thirds have come through the agency of the Independent Workers Union of Australia and the other third are just individual workers in the sector who have requests for assistance that we’re looking at. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate your succinct and direct answers. Can the Fair Work Ombudsman provide the range of possible underpayment amounts currently being looked at by the Fair Work Ombudsman? 

Mr Ronson: It’s hard to assess at the moment what potential underpayments, if any, exist. Some of the allegations date back at least 10 or 11 years. There are some individuals who’ve worked in the sector for many years. If the allegations are upheld and if the evidence is obtained, there could be significant underpayments owing to certain workers. But at this stage it’s too early. We’ve requested a series of documents, a lot of information from various companies, that will assist us to begin, if you like, the assessment of these particular claims. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many employers—not only mine owners but the labour hire firms—are subject to investigation so far? How many? 

Mr Ronson: All up, it’s 17. 

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that—okay. Will the Fair Work Ombudsman advertise to coalminers in the black coal mining sector, encouraging them to lodge and apply to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to underpayments they believe they may have been subject to? 

Mr Ronson: By ‘advertise’, do you mean increasing awareness, as in media statements? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes: letting them know you’re open for business and you’re aware that this is an issue. 

Mr Ronson: Yes, that’s definitely an option available and one we’re considering. There are some other ideas that we have as well about enhancing awareness. For example, there’s nothing to prevent us writing to all labour hire providers and employing entities in the sector. This is one of the suggestions that has been put to us and one we’re currently considering. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would that be a wise move in terms of trying to get to the miners? Some of these labour hire firms—some—have been deliberately suppressing this? 

Mr Ronson: That’s right—good point. In terms of former workers, that’s a different sort of ‘audience’, if you like. That’s one we’re turning our minds to in thinking about how we ensure people who either are in the industry now or were formerly in the industry are aware of this investigation. The second point I was making, yes, was in relation to employers. That’s something we’ve done in the past. We’ve written, for example, to the ASX Top 100 companies and encouraged them to review their status, and if they self-identify they can self-report any potential noncompliance. 

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that some of the miners are not aware of it, but it’s a major issue, because we estimate that about 5,000 miners at least have been the subject of Australia’s largest wage theft case, and it’ll cost, ultimately, around $1.3 billion—they’re rough estimates. So I think these people need to be told that there’s an option for them to seek justice and repayment. 

Mr Ronson: Yes. As I say, it’s something we’re definitely turning our minds to, and we’re considering what’s the best way to get the word out, if you like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s hope you can get that out fairly soon. The Fair Work Ombudsman would be aware that One Nation has pushed for investigation into this issue and that One Nation released a detailed report in February 2024. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman taking submissions on how the alleged underpayments have occurred, and would the Fair Work Ombudsman accept One Nation’s report as a submission? We can provide data, companies involved, amounts, enterprise agreements and underpayment. 

Mr Ronson: Yes, sure. We welcome all and any information and any submissions. 

Senator ROBERTS: So we would make submissions in the same way anyone else would? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would One Nation be involved in any follow-up discussions on the nature of the issue and its resolution? 

Mr Ronson: Yes, if there is information that’s material and actionable, by all means, we’ll be in contact. 

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Mining and Energy Union, which is what’s left in the coalmining sector after the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union split, are not seeking back pay. They seem to be hiding it because they were involved in agreeing to the enterprise agreements and signing off on enterprise agreements that were paying much less than the award. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman inviting submissions from other organisations and individuals? If so, who specifically has been approached? 

Mr Ronson: To date, as I said before, we’ve met with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, and we’re asking that agency to provide us with any relevant information. We’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union; we’ve extended the same invitation. We’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia. As you know, they’re actively involved, and they’re assisting our investigation. We also intend to meet with the Queensland Labour Hire Licensing Compliance Unit; RCSA, the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, which is responsible for labour hire; the Minerals Council of Australia, with which we have meetings lined up; and safe work bodies in New South Wales and Queensland. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will you be covering more than the wage theft case and the specific amounts of the wage theft? In other words, will you be covering loss of other entitlements, protections and safeguards? 

Mr Ronson: Our jurisdiction only extends to entitlements or conditions that are actionable or have been created under the Fair Work Act and the regulations, so it’s only what is within our remit. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman consulting with the Fair Work Commission on the issue? 

Mr Ronson: Not to date. There’s been no need at this stage. I’m confident that we said at our last hearing that we don’t have the power or the capability to question any approvals of any agreements that have been made in the past. Others can take that issue up. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who are the others who can do that? 

Mr Ronson: Parties to an agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So only the Mining and Energy Union; its predecessor, the CFMEU; and employers, such as mining companies? 

Mr Ronson: I’ll defer to the chief counsel as to who in particular can question agreements. 

Ms Volzke: I think Mr Ronson has given a reasonable list. I would just say more broadly that one of the issues that I raised at the last estimates is just to remember that we still have that statutory timeframe of six years that applies under the Fair Work Act as well. Obviously, that won’t preclude us from investigating, but it’s important that the miners that we’re looking at also bear that in mind. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’m pleased to say that it wouldn’t preclude you investigating. It may, at the moment, preclude addressing the issues that are raised in the investigation, but it would not preclude the investigation. The premise for my next question is as follows: the black coal award does not allow for casuals. Enterprise agreements were made, and some are still current, but the agreement’s pay rates are demonstrably less than what should be paid under the award if the award allowed for casuals. To an ordinary person, paying casuals less than the award casualised rate—that’s a full-time rate plus 25 per cent—is plainly wrong. That’s the pub test, as people say. And yet the Fair Work Commission endorsed the enterprise agreements. I assume the Fair Work Ombudsman must somehow determine which instrument prevails, being either enterprise agreements that pay less than the casualised award rate or an award rate that incorporates a casualised 25 per cent add-on to a full-time rate. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have an idea as to how this may be resolved? 

Mr Ronson: That’s the $64 question, if I can confirm it. I think, as with previous evidence we’ve provided, there remains uncertainty regarding the legal consequences of the Black Coal Mining Award’s lack of provision for employees in these roles as it hasn’t been authoritatively determined by a court. So it remains an open question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman be issuing a report or reports on its findings of the investigation? If so, what would be the anticipated timeline for such reports? I think the minister made some comment as to [inaudible]. 

Mr Ronson: At this stage we’re more than happy to provide status updates in this forum as we go along, but we’re hoping that we’d have early preliminary findings towards the middle of this year or just after the middle of this year. I think I said last time, and I think it’s still the case, it could be at least until mid-2026 before we’re in a position to provide a final report. But we will keep this committee posted. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you be in a position to provide interim reports as the investigation progresses? 

Mr Ronson: It’s probably easier if we provide status reports, like I have today. The thing about how long an investigation takes is it all depends— 

Senator ROBERTS: It depends on the [inaudible] and what you find. I get it. Would any reports you provide be public and unredacted, except of course for retaining confidentiality of workers allegedly underpaid? 

Mr Ronson: I see no reason why it wouldn’t be. A report that we provide would be as fulsome and comprehensive as we could publish. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not expecting names of individuals to be disclosed. 

Mr Ronson: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: We would expect them to be redacted. Would the reports indicate the employers involved, the organisations involved, the employers and organisations under investigation and any findings that the Fair Work Ombudsman has in relation to the specific employers? 

CHAIR: Just before you answer that question, Senator Roberts we’re running an hour and a bit late. I don’t want to cut off your questions, but if there are some that can be on notice that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will come back to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The way Mr Ronson is answering the questions directly, it won’t be long at all. I’ve only got a few more to go. And I have to move on too. 

CHAIR: No worries. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Ronson? 

Mr Ronson: The best way of answering your question is: it’s the long held practice of the Fair Work Ombudsman to provide reports of all its major investigations. We’ve published all of them and they’re available on our website. It is our practice and it would be our expectation to do so again. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that underpayments had occurred, and based on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s past experiences, does the Fair Work Ombudsman have ideas of scenarios for compensation for any worker underpayments? 

Mr Ronson: Well, we have ideas. As to whether they’re actionable or realisable, that will be determined in due course. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is something Ms Volzke raised. What is the effect of the statute of limitations and how would that apply to someone lodging a complaint today? Can they still lodge it? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. As the chief counsel answered, it doesn’t preclude our investigations. The provision in the act only relates to enforceability in the event of proceedings, but there’s no reason why we can’t go back historically and look at historic underpayments and, if the allegations are upheld and there is an entitlement owing, to seek to secure that underpayment. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman investigating beyond the statute of limitations to ascertain full amounts possibly underpaid? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Chair, I want to express my appreciation for Mr Ronson being direct. It enabled me to get through my questions. I also want to communicate to the secretariat that I’ll be on the road, so I won’t be able to ask the Fair Work Commission questions in the hearings, but I will put them on notice. And it’s the same with the coal long service leave. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by