Punished for prosperity, persecuted for productivity
Desperation has taken over the Treasury.
Jim Chalmers is staring down a trillion-dollar black hole which is threatening to consume the bedrock of Labor’s leadership strategy – soft-core socialism.
Thanks to poor choices, reckless spending, self-indulgent policy, and attempts to buy voter loyalty with last-minute election promises – the wealth of Australia has been spent.
There’s nothing left.
It’s all gone.
Government addiction to public money has become a threat to the savings of sensible Australians who did everything right.
And that’s not all.
Barely three years into Albanese’s ‘era’ as Prime Minister, the government hasn’t only run out of other people’s money – it’s run out of other people’s homes.
With 1,544 migrants coming into the country every day, Australians are being squeezed out of the housing market by deliberate government policy designed to cook the Treasury books with migration numbers – fabricating economic growth to disguise a financial crisis.
Wrecking the housing market is cruel and it’s leading to equally cruel policy thought-bubbles designed to kick innocent, hard-working people out of their family homes to ‘make way’ for new arrivals.
Introducing … the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
Essentially, instead of being entitled to the property you worked hard to earn – the government thinks you’re entitled to the living space it deems appropriate for your family size. If you’re single – get into that shoebox! It’s one step from a coffin.
Without any attempt to disguise the motivation of this tax behind ‘productivity’ or ‘environmental concerns’, this particular potential tax is expressly designed to pressure people financially into abandoning their homes.
And this time, it’s not solely directed at conservative-leaning retirees ‘downsizing’. This tax comes after struggling young Aussies trying to start a family or work from home.
If you have what the government perceives as ‘extra’ bedrooms, those will be taxed.
The government knows this is a cost-of-living crisis and that any tax will tip a renter or owner over the edge. The point is to weaponise poverty against living space.
It doesn’t matter if that room is an office, a bedroom for relatives, or a room set aside for a future child. The government wants that space right now.
Let me preface this by saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Australians be forced to bargain for the rooms in their home. Private property is exactly that. Private. Australians are under no obligation to justify the space they have chosen to live in. It is not the Treasurer’s business how many rooms a person has or what those rooms contain.
If you find yourself negotiating over bedrooms – you have come to live under a communist dictatorship.
One Nation will never, ever, accept this sort of infringement into the living space of people who should be commended for doing everything possible to carve out a comfortable life for themselves and their families. This is the first-world, after all. Or it used to be.
Nor should anyone feel guilty for having room to breathe.
That is an aspiration.
It is an achievement.
Not a sin.
The Bedroom Tax is an outrageous and toxic proposition, which is why the Labor government have not floated it directly.
Using the cover of the ‘Productivity Roundtable’ (a tax-spawning Petri dish of ‘industry leaders’), various university academics and ‘economists’ have come out of the woodwork to publish their tax wish lists in the media.
It is common practice for a weak government to allow these entities in the press to do the bulk of the dirty work when it comes to introducing new taxes. They let the bad ideas float around and normalise until the outrage dies down into discussion. Which is where the danger starts. Discussion quickly becomes a negotiation and, if not stopped early, the government picks up these ideas – claims they have ‘community support’ – and then implements them without having to own-up to their creation.
That is not good enough.
Socialism by stealth is not a productive future for Australia.
Which is why I confronted the Senate this week seeking answers on the topic of the Bedroom Tax.
If, as some have claimed, this is ‘just a conspiracy theory’ – why did the Labor government refuse to rule out a Bedroom Tax?
Surely that would be straightforward…
It is not difficult to say the words, ‘We will not tax your spare bedrooms.’
Easy? No. What we saw in the Senate was a masterclass of avoidance where Senator Gallagher ‘uh’d’ and ‘um’d’ her way through replies that did everything except reject the tax.
I asked the Senator if the government would ‘force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty – a tax – if they don’t’ and added:
‘Why did the Roundtable even consider this monstrous idea and will the Labor Party rule it?’
Senator Gallagher replied:
‘Thank you – uh – President, I thank Senator Roberts – uh – for the question. Uh – there was a pretty wide discussion on – uh – tax in Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of those sessions – uh – and I was not at a session where that was raised – uh – Senator Roberts – uh – there was discussion around housing as you would expect and – um – you know, different views being put around the table – uh – I think that – the – what I – what I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was there was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient – uh – there were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation – um – and there were also discussions – uh – around intergenerational equity – about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised was not raised with me … it’s not something the government has worked on.’
No, perhaps not, but taxing bedrooms is something that was headlining the media discussion during the Roundtable with serious intent.
Too many times, ideas hatched by university economists mysteriously find their way into government policy – particularly when we have the Treasurer grasping at straws, brainstorming all manner of tax (including tax on imaginary profits).
Why won’t Labor rule the Bedroom Tax out?
Is it already scrawled in the margin notes of the Treasurer’s Budget?
Has it been discussed?
Would Labor consider it?
‘No plans’ does not mean ‘no’.
As we have learned from Albanese declaring ‘no change to super’ – ‘no plans’ means ‘probably’.
My question to the Senator has been viewed over 150,000 times and of the thousands of replies I have received, the overwhelming response to Ms Gallagher is, ‘She didn’t answer the question.’
Rarely have I seen a tax instill more fury in voters – particularly young voters.
Private property is the last outpost of sanity we have in a nation swiftly falling into the arms of socialism. Labor has created a high-taxing, over-spending, open-borders, anti-productivity, unfair and over-crowded reality that Australians barely recognise from the paradise of 30 years ago.
Our homes are the nests into which we raise the next generation. We should not live in fear that a spare corner could bankrupt the family.
Labor MUST go on the record ruling out the Bedroom Tax or we will be forced to conclude that Jim Chalmers is keeping it in reserve if he cannot squeeze enough out of people’s retirement funds.
Labor’s socialist bedroom tax by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Punished for prosperity, persecuted for productivity
Last week at the Productivity Roundtable, a concerning proposal was floated—one that would force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters, under threat of a financial penalty (tax) if they refused. I asked the Minister why such a monstrous idea was even being entertained and pressed her on whether the government would rule it out to give our elderly peace of mind that they won’t be forced to share their family homes.
In response, Senator Gallagher claimed she wasn’t present at any session where that idea was raised and said it’s not something the government is working on. She acknowledged that tax reform and housing were discussed “broadly”, yet denied that specific proposals like this—or death tax or land tax on the family home—were part of any formal outcomes.
I asked whether these proposals were designed to push everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for large, co-located families among new arrivals—who, according to Labor-aligned researcher Kos Samaras, tend to vote Labor. Senator Gallagher refused to rule this out.
Transcript
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, relating to taxation proposals debated at last week’s productivity roundtable. The proposal was to force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty—a tax—if they don’t. Why did the roundtable even consider this monstrous idea, and will you now rule the idea out so our elderly can have peace of mind they won’t have strangers forced into their family homes?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. There was a pretty wide discussion on tax and Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of the sessions and I was not at a session where that was raised. There was discussion around housing, as you would expect, and different views were being put around the table.
What I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient. There were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation, and there were discussions around intergenerational equity—about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised were not raised with me by any roundtable participant, and I was not at a session where they were raised as something that people were seeking. It’s not something the government has worked on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Additionally, the roundtable debated a death tax on the family home and a land tax on the value of the property. Are these mutually exclusive taxes, or will this government be introducing all three?
Senator GALLAGHER: Again, in the sessions that I was a participant at, that was not raised. I think the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were clear in the lead-up to the roundtable that there are no plans to change the taxation of owner occupied homes, and I have not been part of any discussions around that. Part of the discussion that was had was much more high level around how the tax system is working, how complicated it can be and whether or not the system is fair and working in the interest of every generation in this country. There were mixed views about that. But there were certainly no outcomes that went anywhere near what you have been asking about today. The tax reforms we will be doing are the ones we took to the election around standard deductions and income tax.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
All three of these new proposals will force everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for the large families and family co-location evident amongst new arrivals. Labor Party aligned researcher Kos Samaras has shown that these new arrivals vote heavily for Labor. Minister, why are you forcing Australians out of their homes to make way for Labor-voting new arrivals, and where are Australians supposed to go?
Senator GALLAGHER: There was a lot in that. I hope that I have answered your concerns around some of the ideas you say. They were not outcomes. In fact, in the sessions I was at, they were not raised. I don’t know anything about that. In relation to housing more generally, we are trying to build more housing. That is part of what we’ve been doing in this place and will continue to do, and, indeed, the announcement by the Prime Minister and the housing minister today was about how we ensure that owning your own home isn’t out of reach for generations of Australians and how we build more supply. In that respect, I hope that answers the second part. In terms of migration numbers, they’re outlined in the budget papers.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GFREg8txmnQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-25 17:03:042025-09-04 22:47:17Rent Out Your Spare Room or Pay the Price?
Just in case anyone in the Labor Party still believes they are the good guys, have a look at this political interference and discrimination. The Prime Minister directly and personally has taken the jobs of the two advisers who worked tirelessly on my re-election campaign. This is my speech in the Senate last night.
After One Nation’s strongest federal election result ever, Senator Pauline Hanson declared: “This is not the end of an election; this is the start of a movement.” And the people are responding—membership is surging, and support is rising. Yet this election wasn’t easy. Conservative micro-parties fought One Nation harder than they fought the left. Calls for a coalition sounded good—but in practice, it was chaos. Australia doesn’t have years to waste on political experiments.
One Nation has stood firm for 28 years—through media attacks, legal battles, and political sabotage. Every challenge has made us stronger, more united, and more determined to take back government for everyday Australians. Meanwhile, real issues are being ignored. Bendigo Bank is closing 10 branches—5 of them the last in their towns. Queenstown, Tasmania, will lose its only bank. Locals will have to drive 2.5 hours over icy roads just to access basic banking. The Albanese government ignored a 15-month Senate inquiry into regional bank closures. 14 months overdue. No response. No action. Just silence while communities are left behind.
And now, the PM is targeting my office—cancelling my advisers’ positions in a disgraceful breach of parliamentary convention. This is not democracy. This is control. One Nation will not be silenced. We will not back down. We are the only party with the courage, unity, and vision to restore Australia’s prosperity—for all Australians. This is just the beginning.
Transcript
Change is coming. Following One Nation’s best ever federal election result in May, our party leader Senator Pauline Hanson declared on national TV, ‘This is not the end of an election; this is the start of a movement.’ The public have already responded, with party membership surging and their post-election poll support increasing. This was a trying election, though. Micro-parties on the conservative side fought One Nation harder than they fought our political opponents on the communist left. So many called for a coalition of conservative parties, an idea that sounds great in theory yet created an unworkable Frankenstein, setting our movement back years to allow the organisation and recalibration needed to merge disparate political positions, if indeed it were possible at all.
Australia does not have years to lose. The lights are going off in this parliamentary term. One more term from Labor or the globalist Liberals and Australia will be past the point of no return. One Nation has been here for 28 years. Our party’s character has been forged in success and in failure, and in legal warfare, media bastardry, lies and party infiltration—even prison charges that were trumped up and ultimately struck down. Every development has made us stronger, more determined, more organised and readier than ever to take the government benches from those who do not govern in the best interests of Australia. Only One Nation has the strength of conviction, the unity of purpose and the courage necessary to restore abundance and opportunity to all Australians. Only One Nation represents the entire Australian people.
Let me give you an example that 12 Tasmanian senators ignored—none of whom are One Nation senators, which is why I’m having to raise this. There’s a new crisis in regional banking services because Bendigo Bank is now closing 10 branches and 28 agencies. Five of the branches are the last banks in their towns. For those communities, that is devastating.
This is happening because Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has ignored the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia. The government was supposed to respond within 90 days. It’s been 14 months, and the government has simply ignored it. The inquiry lasted 15 months and held 13 public hearings, with locals in town after town testifying that the banks were lying when they claimed people didn’t need branches anymore. The report observed:
When banks close their branches in regional areas, the impact on individuals and communities can be devastating and far-reaching, especially when it is the last bank in town.
This is what Queenstown in Tasmania is facing when it loses its Bendigo Bank branch in September. This is not only the last bank in town; it’s the last bank on the entire West Coast of Tasmania. The locals will have no choice and will be forced to drive 2½ hours over icy mountain roads to the next closest bank, in Burnie. On Tuesday night the West Coast Council passed a unanimous motion calling on the Albanese government to respond to the Senate inquiry—to respond!
There’s no doubt that, had the government responded to the report and its powerful recommendations, it’s unlikely Bendigo Bank would be closing these branches. It’s a scandal for this government to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on an inquiry into rural banking services and then ignore the outcome because it might interfere with the banks’ cashless society agenda. I call on all senators to join me in demanding that the government take the Senate inquiry outcome seriously and fully implement all its recommendations.
I now make note of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s disgraceful attempt to sabotage my office over the last few weeks. The Prime Minister cancelled the positions of my two advisers and then this week arranged their notices of dismissal. I am their employer. They don’t work for you, Mr Prime Minister; they work for me. How dare you terminate my staff? What gives you the right to select my team? Using parliamentary staffing allocations to take all the staff of an Independent or crossbench senator breaks a convention, a trust, going back a hundred years. Denying me and Senator Whitten, Senator Stacey and Senator Payman any advisers at all is a disgraceful act.
One Nation has always welcomed policy debates and contests in the court of public opinion. This prime minister, though, would rather shut the opposition up than debate his rancid, divisive, wasteful policies with the one party prepared to provide real opposition, better policies and a real vision to restore Australia’s abundance—a vision that looks after the Australian people, instead of Labor Party donors, unions and globalist powers. What a bloody disgrace! This is not over.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EBxVRyUzQJk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-24 08:26:092025-07-24 11:48:31Labor’s Dirty Power Play: PM Personally Axes One Nation Advisers in Attack on Democracy
Aussies are sleeping in cars and tents while Labor floods our nation.
Housing costs EXPLODING, services overwhelmed.
Labor has LOST CONTROL of our borders.
Chief Economist, IPA – Adam Creighton says: The Prime Minister did say earlier this year that the rate of immigration would fall to 260,000 net overseas migration. Well, we’re on track at the current rate for this calendar year of 590,000.
And the figure for the financial year that just ended was supposed to be 335,000 net overseas migration. We don’t even have the figures yet for June, but it’s already 27% out of 90,000 more than than the forecast of 335.
So I mean it really is out of control.
Taken from a post by Institute of Public Affairs @TheIPA on X.
22 year olds today are going to be caught up in Labor’s new super tax supported by the greens.
Inflation means eventually almost everyone will be paying the doubled tax rate and unrealised gains tax means the government wants to come after money you haven’t even earned yet.
Index the threshold, abolish taxes on unrealized gains or better yet, throw out the whole bill and start again.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/22YrOld.jpg?fit=625%2C863&ssl=1863625Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-15 16:15:282025-05-15 16:20:28A Shock New Tax on YOUNG People
Assistant Trade Minister Tim Ayres has been caught in a heated stoush with Sky News host Laura Jayes over the ongoing national energy debate.
Despite having been in power for the past three years, the Albanese government refuses to discuss its renewable energy plans.
Instead the government is insistent on just tackling Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s nuclear proposal, running a “scare campaign” against the proven clean source of power.
Minister Ayres repeatedly refused to discuss the cost of the Albanese government’s energy plans during an interview with Sky News on Monday. Asked by Laura Jayes if he could tell voters the total system costs of Labor’s energy plans, Minister Ayres did not give an answer. “I’m very glad you raised it. You don’t make electricity prices and energy prices lower for Australian industry and households by making them higher,” Minister Ayres said.
Laura pressed Minister Ayres on the fact his government had failed to bring down energy prices by $275 per year as promised at the last election – “Here we are three years later, and you still can’t have any upfront conversation with any minister in your government about why that has happened,” she said. Rather than respond to the criticism or discuss any of the government’s energy plans heading into the upcoming election, Minister Ayres changed the subject. “Peter Dutton’s nuclear reactor plan will make electricity $1,200 more expensive from day one,” he said.
The @SkyNewsAust host said it was “pretty telling” that when she attempted to discuss Labor’s energy plans, all Mr Ayres wanted to do was talk about the opposition. “This is what really annoys people though,” she said. “That (voters are) told that the other guys – who haven’t been in power for three years – it’s all their fault and you’re not willing to take any responsibility.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has still failed to address the fact his government failed to deliver on its promise to reduce power bills by $275.
While he has blamed international pressures, such as the Ukraine War, the election promise was repeated even after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Mr Ayres told Laura Jayes to “focus on the facts” after she raised the $275 promise. “I am focussed on the facts. Where’s the $275?” she responded. But the Labor minister again pivoted back to the opposition. “Every day that we’re about to have a hot day. Peter Dutton and poor old Angus Taylor and Ted O’Brien … are out there predicting that the power is going to go off,” he said. “And it doesn’t go off.”
The NSW government was forced to ask residents to reduce their power usage during a mild heatwave in November 2024.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) struggled to avoid blackouts and requested factories shut down to reduce power demands.
AEMO was forced to issue a “lack of reserve” notice due to insufficient power supply, exacerbated by breakdowns in several coal-fired plants.
Minister Ayres claimed the blackouts were “inevitably” because of storm damage or coal plant failures but not because of renewables.
During the recent heatwave, renewables were unable to back up the coal-fired plant breakdowns because solar production came off at 3 pm when people return home to use energy at home.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/tKObksunXx4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-06 14:19:002025-02-06 15:43:50Labor Pressed on Cost of Renewables Plan
After five and a half years of holding government departments and agencies accountable, and doing our own research, we continue to pursue Australia’s largest case of wage theft. More than one BILLION dollars of underpayments involving as many as 5,000 workers. Our research has led to miners submitting complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). For example, a miner has been underpaid $211,000 and some miners have had at least $41,000 stolen per year of employment.
In this session with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), I asked Mr Furlong, General Manager of FWC, how many applications for regulated Labour Hire Agreements were currently under the Commission’s consideration. He stated that 55 applications had been submitted, with 11 Orders made—9 in the mining industry and 2 in the meat processing industry.
I then asked a series of questions about the relationships between Awards, Regulated Labour Hire Agreements, and Enterprise Agreements. Mr Furlong confirmed that, under the Labor government’s recent legislation, it’s standard for casual workers performing the same job as full-time workers under a Regulated Labour Hire Agreement to receive an additional 25% in pay as compensation for entitlements they do not receive. Mr Furlong agreed to look into which Awards would have applied in the absence of Labour Hire Agreement Orders and provide that information on notice.
I’ve raised this issue at every senate estimates hearing since late 2019 and finally the Fair Work Commission and Minister seem to be taking this issue seriously. Until recently, bureaucrats and Ministers have been in denial of what has been happening right under their noses and that raises questions of integrity.
Australia’s largest wage theft case has been possible only with the participation of the relevant union bosses in the CFMEU/MEU, labour-hire firms, mine owners and the FWC’s approval.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m interested in exploring the nature of labour hire arrangements and their relationship with associated awards, and also partly the CFMEU administrator. What’s the total number of labour hire arrangements currently before the commission to date?
Mr Furlong: I might start here and then ask Ms Scarlett to assist. My understanding is that to 30 September we’ve received 55 applications for regulated labour hire authorisation orders. And of that—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘regulated’?
Mr Furlong: Of that number?
Senator ROBERTS: No, what does the term ‘regulated’ refer to?
Mr Furlong: That’s the term—
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Come before you guys’?
Mr Furlong: given under the loopholes mark 1 changes. In terms of the number of orders that have been made, there are 11. Nine of them, I understand, are in the mining industry and two are in the meat-processing industry. Ms Scarlett, is there anything you’d like to add?
Senator ROBERTS: That number was how many?
Ms Scarlett: It was 55. As Mr Furlong has said, 11 labour hire arrangement orders have been issued since the commencement of the provisions.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of orders?
Ms Scarlett: Regulated labour hire arrangement orders. Of the 55 applications, 11 orders have been made, a number of applications have been withdrawn and the remaining matters remain before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the breakdown of these labour hire arrangement orders for each award that would otherwise have covered the employees? You might have to take that on notice.
Ms Scarlett: Yes. I’m not sure that we can go to the award. The regulated labour hire arrangement orders apply where there is a covered employment instrument such as an enterprise agreement in place. So it’s not necessarily an assessment of the award which applies, rather whether an enterprise agreement is in place that would cover the work of the labour hire employees if they were working in the business.
Senator ROBERTS: The enterprise agreement would be in an industry or work site that is covered by an award, but the enterprise agreement supersedes the award; is that right?
Ms Scarlett: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So would there be any such sites that only have an enterprise agreement and no back-up award?
Ms Scarlett: I don’t believe there would be, but I’d need to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please do. I’d like to know the connection to the award, or to the award that would be in place if the enterprise agreement wasn’t there?
Ms Scarlett: I understand.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice whether there would be a general expectation that anyone working as a casual should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Ms Scarlett: The regulated labour hire arrangement order provisions provide for a 25 per cent casual loading for regulated labour hire employees.
Senator ROBERTS: Casuals.
Ms Scarlett: Casuals.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you advice if there is specific legislation, regulation or policy that requires that a casual employee should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? I know that it’s a community expectation and it’s a right almost, but is it enshrined in law, statute or policy?
Ms Scarlett: I’m not aware of a specific provision in legislation that requires a 25 per cent loading.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you able to check that?
Ms Scarlett: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ll take on notice to check it? It is fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? Can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I can’t point to an award, but I’ll happily take it on notice. There are 155 modern awards, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so I’d like to know if that’s normal.
Mr Furlong: Can I clarify the question so we make sure that we provide you with the information that you require?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. Is it fairly normal that awards require casual employees to receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work? That’s the first part.
Mr Furlong: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The second part is: can you point to any award that does not require a casual employee to be paid 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: We’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong. In applying the better off overall test, the BOOT, to enterprise agreement applications, would it be the normal expectation of the Fair Work Commission, having regard to pay rates of casual workers, that casual employees should or would receive 25 per cent more than a full-time employee doing similar or the same work?
Mr Furlong: I will ask Mr Corcoran to assist you, Senator.
Mr Corcoran: Each application is considered on its own merits by the member. They take into account the circumstances in their entirety. It’s not a line-by-line assessment that the member will make; the better off overall test is a global assessment.
Senator ROBERTS: A global assessment. If an award did not allow for casual employment, would this create the circumstance in which casual employees working under enterprise agreements subject to the set award would be paid less than full-time employees and/or be paid a rate that would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent?
Mr Corcoran: A casual employee wouldn’t be paid less than a full-time employee, I wouldn’t have thought, in normal circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: A casual employee would be paid less than a full-time—
Mr Corcoran: I thought they would not have been paid less.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. And they’d be paid full time plus 25 per cent?
Mr Furlong: With some of these questions, I return to the correspondence I provided you on 11 January this year regarding information published on your website but also relating to the better off overall test and the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015. I’m not too sure if you still have access to that correspondence.
Senator ROBERTS: I do. It’s sitting on my desk—with an intent to reply.
Mr Furlong: This series of questions has been covered in that correspondence. I’m happy to table it, if that would assist.
Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s fine; I know exactly where it is on my desk. Can you envisage a circumstance in which, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed several times, the better off overall test, as Mr Corcoran said, is a global assessment to ensure the employees are better off overall. It is always determined by a member of the commission. Members, as you’re aware, are independent statutory office holders who are required to ensure that, in their decisions, they are satisfying the obligation, functions and prescribed content of the enterprise agreements before they can be satisfied and then ultimately approve the decision to make the agreement operational. If a party to that agreement or someone who has a valid interest in that agreement is unsatisfied, is concerned with that agreement application, they can seek to have the agreement overturned through the mechanism of an appeal; that is their right. The other thing I’d like to add here—
Senator ROBERTS: Just on the answer to that question: would the commission ignore the objections in assessing the enterprise agreement? Would the commission ignore the objections of the union as part of that? I’m not talking about passing it and then objecting to it; I’m talking about objecting as they’re processing it.
Mr Furlong: Prior to the application being made?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Furlong: It would be the subject of deliberation of a member before the tribunal.
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, though, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of our members and their independent decision-making.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever seen a member overturn a union objection?
Mr Furlong: As we’ve discussed, my role is to provide administrative support to the president of the commission to ensure—
Senator ROBERTS: It’d be pretty unlikely, wouldn’t it?
Mr Furlong: I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Alright. I cut you off there.
Mr Furlong: I was just going to say that if an agreement has reached or passed its normal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can seek to have the agreement unilaterally terminated. They will then fall back to the underpinning award—or they can have the right to negotiate a new enterprise agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for the extra detail; it goes outside what I’m looking for. In the process of getting approval for an enterprise agreement from the Fair Work Commission, if a union objected to an enterprise agreement because the pay rate of casuals would be less than that of a full-time employee plus 25 per cent, the Fair Work Commission would hardly ignore the objections of the union and endorse the agreement despite the union’s objections.
Mr Furlong: It’s a case-by-case basis, on the information provided to the members in the consideration of whether or not—
Senator ROBERTS: What would be the likelihood? Have you heard of any?
Mr Furlong: As I said, it’s not my role to comment on cases determined by members of the commission. It’s my responsibility to provide the president with administrative support, as the general manager, to ensure the commission can operate effectively.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you for your opinion.
Mr Furlong: I can’t comment on cases that come before the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to. I’m not asking for your opinion on the member making the decision. I’m asking: would it happen, and has it happened?
Mr Furlong: I don’t have any oversight of particular cases that move through the tribunal side of the commission.
Senator ROBERTS: Would anyone else care to comment? It seems to me to be almost impossible; I won’t say it is impossible!
Mr Corcoran: I would say a member would always consider the views of the parties, but ultimately the member must be satisfied that the requirements of the act have been met.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I have some questions for the minister; I think most of them will be pretty simple, Minister. I table this letter from the Independent Workers Union of Australia; it’s the letter that was sent to the CFMEU administrator, copied to you, me and Senator Cash. I think these questions will be fairly simple, given your background, Minister. Why is the CFMEU administrator not here at Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: They’re not a public official. I think pretty much every person who attends estimates is either a minister or a public servant. The administrator is not a public servant. There are probably other reasons but that would be one of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Who pays his salary?
Senator Watt: He’s being paid by the CFMEU in the same way that officials of the union have traditionally been paid.
Senator ROBERTS: That explains that. What responsibilities does the CFMEU administrator have with or to the Fair Work Commission? I imagine he’d have to deal with them a fair bit.
Senator Watt: Mr Furlong might be better placed.
Mr Furlong: Under the registered organisations act, I am the regulator of registered organisations.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re overseeing it?
Mr Furlong: I oversee all the registered organisations, employer and employee alike.
Senator ROBERTS: Could the CFMEU administrator authorise payment of the underpaid miners from the CFMEU mining division using CFMEU funds?
Mr Furlong: I can’t speak on behalf of the administrator. I don’t think you were here for this section of my evidence: the administrator operates independent of government. He will make decisions on behalf of the union as he sees fit.
Senator ROBERTS: Can he investigate wage theft from casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley?
Mr Furlong: In representing the interests of his members, he can look into the underpayments. It’s a core function of trade unions to do that.
Senator Watt: Noting that the administrator is the administrator of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To use the colloquial, his members are members of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, not, for example, members of the maritime division and certainly not people who are now members of the Mining and Energy Union. His only responsibility is for the Construction and General Division, and its members.
Senator ROBERTS: The government said it needed the parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality, didn’t it—amongst other things?
Senator Watt: I might look back at what we said. We had a debate this morning about it. It’s not possible for me to go into the intention of the administration because of the High Court litigation. I’m sure you can look back at what was said in the second reading speech.
Senator ROBERTS: That was my impression, so correct me if I’m wrong. Now, management of this is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. You said it would be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I think there has been a lot of public interest in this issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes—so wouldn’t it be better to have him subject to parliamentary scrutiny and Senate estimates?
Senator Watt: I’m looking around at our lawyers. I might get Ms Godden, the departmental chief counsel, back up, if that’s okay. I know departmental people don’t normally appear at the table for this. Senator Roberts, I don’t know if you were here this morning but we had a discussion about issues that we could answer questions on and issues that we couldn’t because they might involve the High Court case. I don’t want to say anything which will interfere with that, and I know you don’t want me to either. Could you ask the question again, so I can get some advice on whether I can answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is the government said it needed parliament to create the CFMEU administrator to deal with the alleged CFMEU illegality and criminality. Now the oversight of the CFMEU administrator is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and yet it was said to be a matter of immense public importance.
Senator Watt: I have no doubt it’s a matter of great public interest. I was saying before to Senator Payman that either the legislation or the scheme of administration requires the administrator to provide a report to me every six months, which I’m required to table in the parliament, so there is a form of parliamentary accountability through that. That was considered to be the appropriate amount of reporting for a role that is completely independent of government.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I know you’ve been very patient during the day, but this is—
Senator ROBERTS: Given a report in the media on 12 April this year—I mentioned this in a speech in the Senate, but there was no answer to it—is the real reason for the CFMEU being placed in administration to stop John Setka taking over Labor in Victoria, as he reported? And why wouldn’t constituents be suspicious of the arrangement?
Senator Watt: As I said in response to an earlier question, I’d really like to be able to answer that question but it’s probably not wise that I do given the High Court litigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Senator Watt: But I’m told you might want to have a look at paragraph 11 of the revised explanatory memorandum, which provides some reasoning for the legislation.
Australia has a housing crisis fueled by excessive immigration and a shortage of skilled tradespeople. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to offer real solutions.
Why are we importing millions of migrants when Australians are sleeping on the streets?
The major parties talk about the housing crisis but fail to make a real impact.
One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to put Australians first.
Transcript
We have a housing catastrophe due to rampant immigration—excessive, reckless, record immigration. We also have a housing crisis because we don’t have enough tradies to build the houses that we need. The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a bill that won’t help anyone. Right now, Queenslanders, in what should be the richest state in the world, are sleeping under bridges and on riverbanks. In one of the world’s richest states, working families with children are living in cars, coming home at night to wonder if their kids are still there. Where do they toilet? Where do they shower? It’s plain inhuman. Rents are skyrocketing—if a rental can be found. House prices are reaching record highs. This is a housing crisis, one of the worst we’ve faced. It’s an inhuman catastrophe.
Last year, the federal government under Anthony Albanese brought in 517,000 net migrants. This year, after being promised that we would have lower immigration, we are tracking to have another new record—one above last year’s. How can you bring in more than a million people in two years? That’s hundreds of thousands of houses. How can you build them? We aren’t catering for the people already here, and now we’re bringing in record numbers—a million in two years. That’s 400,000 new houses needed, in addition to the already high demand and the people living homeless at the moment.
The Albanese government, though, wants to look like it’s doing something—not do something but look like. Enter this Help to Buy plan. Under this plan, the government wants to own a significant part of your house. If it’s an existing place, the government wants to own 30 per cent, and, if it’s a new place, 40 per cent, with the government paying for part of it with low-income earners. While a 40 per cent subsidy might sound attractive, it’s fatally flawed. If the government just borrows more money for this plan, then one thing is going to happen. When you give 40 per cent more money to people to buy a house, house prices are going to go up. House prices will go up. The bill’s core concept and premise is flawed and possibly a lie. We can’t subsidise our way out of a house price problem. Subsidies always increase prices and have throughout history. Looking at the bill’s details, or lack of details, the problem is worse. I’ll look at some of the criteria in a minute.
Thirdly, let’s look at the constitutional basis. This bill is completely outside the federal government’s powers. It’s highly complex. The government has tabled a late amendment to the bill, attempting to clarify a set of constitutional issues—too complex.
I’ll go back to the immigration. In addition to rampant immigration of people coming into the country, prior to COVID, the number of temporary visa holders in the country was around 2.3 million people. As of the end of 24 July, that number is now 2.8 million—more than 10 per cent of our population—all needing a roof and all needing a bed. These are hard numbers and facts. This is what’s causing the housing catastrophe. These are the hard numbers and facts, as I said, yet the government has continued to lie, claiming, ‘We’re just catching up with immigration.’ Really? We haven’t just caught up; we’ve blown the record out of the water, not only for people on resident visas but also for new immigrants coming in. We’re nearly half a million people above the record for resident visas. Using the average household size of 2½ people per household implies the need for more than 200,000 houses just to cater for new arrivals. It’s actually 400,000. This is what we’re seeing in our country.
Then there are the details. For an Australian who enters into a Help to Buy arrangement, where the government owns part of their home, what happens if they renovate their home at their own expense, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours swinging hammers and pulling up carpet, and, as a result of their renovations, their $500,000 home increases in value to $600,000? I wonder whether the minister knows how much of that Australian’s renovation profit the government will take for doing nothing. I wonder whether the minister knows that the income thresholds are set nationally—$90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples—despite the average house price varying from $504,000 in Darwin to $1.2 million in Sydney. I wonder why the government is not adjusting the income threshold from state to state. What are the price thresholds for houses eligible under this bill, and why haven’t these been set in the legislation? Why are we bringing yoga teachers into the country, through immigration, when we need tradies? Yoga teachers are wonderful, but we need tradies to get on with the job here.
The government has appointed three sets of bureaucrats as part of its solution to the housing crisis. That’s just adding to the complexity and inefficiency. It’s adding to the catastrophe. We need tradies to come into this country. We need people to be vetted properly, to bring in their skills and to contribute. We have so many people in this country out of work, living on welfare, and not contributing. We have an abundance of people with good qualifications who want to come into this country. We can put them to work and fix the housing crisis quickly. These are just some of the issues that I’ll be exploring more in the committee stage. I want to put those comments back on the record.
Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, Labor is using every trick to keep Australians in the dark about their decisions. After 18 months of delays, Labor are protecting their mates while blocking Senate oversight on lobbying done by CBUS Super. The connections between CBUS Super and Labor run deep, with former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan now chairing CBUS.
Despite ordering the government to hand them over, these documents were only unveiled through a separate Freedom of Information claim decided by an independent commissioner.
So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese government.
Transcript
Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we’re trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that’s got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It’s protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.
The Labor Party’s defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg’s comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I’ve had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.
To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That’s it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They’re claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It’s taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor’s behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt.
This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia’s biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It’s over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we’ve got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they’re all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU.
My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice.
My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That’s what we want. It’s hiding tens of thousands of homicides.
Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that’s the reason you’re losing the confidence and support of the Australian people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lSViqRvaiF4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-19 10:17:352024-12-19 10:31:52Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals
The CFMEU has stolen over a billion dollars in Australia’s largest wage theft case, exploiting the very workers it was meant to protect. CFMEU union bosses colluded in this theft, as confirmed by an independent report I commissioned called Coalminers’ Wage Theft. An analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley shows wage theft ranging from $21,000 to $41,000 per person, per year.
The Independent Workers Union of Australia has lodged multiple complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman, including one for $211,000 owed to a single worker. Despite the Mining and Energy Union splitting from the CFMEU, it has recently applied to negotiate a new enterprise agreement, but won’t seek back pay for miners, as they know this would expose them. The Independent Workers Union now represents miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, charging union dues less than half of the Mining and Energy Union because they don’t donate millions to the Labor Party. The same is true for other sectors, like teaching and nursing, where new unions have much lower dues. We must end monopoly unions and introduce competition, which will allow members to hold unions accountable.
Labor Ministers, departments and agencies are colluding to enable wage theft, especially in the Hunter Valley electorate, where Labor MPs are complicit. Despite a Senate investigation being ordered months ago, nothing has happened — Labor is turning a blind eye, likely because they rely on millions in donations from the CFMEU. Minister Watt’s push for “no disallowance” is about maintaining control, with the party entangled in a power struggle with the CFMEU.
The CFMEU, tied to criminal bikie gangs, shows no concern for its members’ health, wages, or retirement. Union bosses, sitting on agency boards meant to protect workers, are either stealing from members or allowing it to happen. The conflicts of interest, particularly with CFMEU members holding positions on superannuation boards, are enormous. Labor won’t fix this, and their collusion with the CFMEU puts them above the law.
Transcript
The CFMEU stole more than a billion dollars from members it was supposedly protecting in Australia’s largest ever case of wage theft. The key to this theft was CFMEU union bosses appointed as directors to oversight agencies supposedly protecting workers. They colluded and enabled that theft from their own members. This is verified. The figures are verified in an independent report that I commissioned called Coalminers’ Wage Theft, printed earlier in the year.
We have seen an analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley with the wage theft varying from $41,000 per person, per year to $21,000 per person, per year. The Independent Workers Union of Australia, now getting members in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, has just lodged a number of complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman. One of the complaints is for $211,000 in money owed due to wage theft for one person.
The CFMEU drove that theft of wages, so what we can see is the former protector of miners has been their exploiter, with collusion of the regulator, the Fair Work Commission. It’s been verified independently because the Mining and Energy Union, which split off from the CFMEU—it couldn’t handle the CFMEU—and which looks after miners recently applied to the Fair Work Commission to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. The uptick in wages has been around $50,000. It’s been verified they’ve been underpaid. What has not happened is that same union, the Mining and Energy Union, which used to be part of the CFMEU, will not go back and seek back pay, because they know that will expose them. There is no back pay. They will let these miners lose $211,000. They will let these miners lose $41,000 per person, per year.
So now we have the Independent Workers’ Union of Australia making inroads in the mining industry in the coalmines of Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Their union dues are less than half of the Mining and Energy Union. Why? That’s because they don’t pay millions of dollars in donations to the Labor Party. It is the same with the Queensland Teachers’ Union. The new Red Union’s dues are less than half of the Queensland Teachers Union. It is the same with the nursing union, where the dues of the new Red Union and the Nurses’ Professional Association of Queensland are less than half of the Queensland Nursing Union. What we need to do in the union side of things is end monopoly unions and make sure unions have competition. That will fix it. Members can scrutinise when there is competition.
Let’s move to what I said earlier in my opening statement. The directors in the coalmining agencies that oversaw this theft from coalminers, the directors of Coal Mines Insurance, ignored the plight of miners. We even know of miners who failed to get their Coal Mines Insurance that they were entitled to, scrimping and saving and sleeping on their parents’ garage floor in the Hunter Valley. That’s what the CFMEU directors have done. They turned a blind eye to their duty to look after miners.
Coal Mines Insurance is a statutory agency with the CFMEU providing half the directors. AUSCOAL Superannuation, another one supposed to look after super, has provided admin services to coal long service leave, another government entity. So AUSCOAL Superannuation, which has directors from the CFMEU, provided the administrative services for coal long service leave and that enabled the hiding of the wage theft, because the CFMEU directors were 50 per cent of Coal Mines Insurance, AUSCOAL Superannuation and Coal Services, which looks after basic things like health checks, medical checks. AUSCOAL, by the way, has been renamed Mine Wealth + Wellbeing—that’s a cute little phrase!—and now Mine Super. These directors have prevented many of the benefits that they should have been overseeing going to miners. They stole the rights and entitlements of their own members.
By the way, the Labor Party under Julia Gillard changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011 to enable the use of casuals, because casuals are not allowed in the black coalmining industry award. They wouldn’t have been able to get their super. So the Labor Party, to enable this scam, changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011. The next thing: we can’t rely upon the normal back stop, which is the Labor ministers, departments and agencies. I’ve just explained how the agencies are colluding, the departments are colluding and the Labor ministers are colluding. This wage theft would not have occurred without the deliberate collusion of Labor Party MPs in the Hunter electorate, who just hid this atrocious theft. The Senate ordered an investigation a couple of months ago into this. Two ministers since then, Minister Burke and Minister Watt—they’ve done nothing. They had not even reported back to the Senate—they’ve done nothing. That’s the Labor Party. So much for looking after the workers!
I wonder if it’s because the Labor Party relies on millions of dollars of donations from the CFMEU? Would that be the answer? Would it?
Senator Hanson:Yes.
The Labor Party is wedded to donations from the CFMEU, the crooked CFMEU. Minister Watt, in section 323B(2) of his legislation, to which we have an amendment, wants an absence of a disallowable regulation. He wants no disallowance, so that he can control the whole show. Then we see the Labor Party also being tainted by John Setka. In a report in the Australian Financial Review, on 12 April this year, David Marin-Guzman, a journalist with the Australian Financial Review, said that ‘the core issue here is that John Setka stood up and said he will take over the Labor Party and move members of the CFMEU into branches and then preselect various candidates, and also the Premier’. That’s what we see going on here—the Labor Party in a massive cover-up and massive wrestle with the CFMEU. By the way—I think Senator Hanson mentioned it—the size of the funds in question is just short, $1 billion short, of $100 billion in funds. That is twice the Australian defence budget. That’s more money than Belgium makes in a year. And we want to take it away from parliamentary scrutiny? Like hell. That’s why we need this reference to the committee.
Then we see more tainting, with the CFMEU being connected with bikie gangs, criminal bikie gangs. Then we see Senator Hanson’s terms of reference. I must commend Senator Hanson for introducing this motion. The first term of reference that I want to highlight—I’ll read it for the reference committee:
… the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds …
That’s basic. These people have shown that they don’t care about their members—their members’ lives, their members’ health, their members’ workers compensation, their workers’ livelihoods, their workers’ wages or their workers’ retirement. They don’t care. They bypassed the retirement provisions. The next one I want to read out is term of reference (a):
… the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise …
The potential conflicts of interest are enormous. We can’t rely on the Labor Party to clean it up, nor on departments and agencies from the Labor government. We see them tightly knit together. The second of Senator Hanson’s six terms of reference is:
the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees’ compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds;
This is absolutely essential. The CFMEU union bosses who are directors of agencies—statutory bodies charged with the responsibility to protect members—are stealing from the members or enabling their agencies to steal from members. This lot are above the law. Senator Hanson read out the note from the person from Cross River Rail who is not a member of the CFMEU. They are ‘intimidated’, ‘frightened’ and ‘scared to work’—in our country, they are scared to work. We have now a proven record of the CFMEU stealing from members and workers. Wouldn’t it be going on in the $100 billion of super funds they manage? I support the referral of this matter to committee, to protect members so that they can retire with security and dignity.
