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the obvious – thousands of coal miners have been underpaid for years while the Fair Work Ombudsman hides behind outdated enterprise agreements and technical excuses.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

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

Fair Work Fails Exploited Workers

,

This is a case of the Ombudsman adding insult to injury.

In the May 2023 Senate Estimates I asked the Fair Work Ombudsman how their office decided that Ready Workforce could be a person’s employer when payslips, PAYG summaries, employer Super contributions and all ATO records indicated that the true employer was Chandler MacLeod, a labour hire company.

Apparently the investigation is continuing.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Ms Parker, is it true that, prior to your position at the Fair Work Ombudsman, you were the assistant secretary for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations?

Ms Parker: I was Deputy Secretary, Workplace Relations Group.

Senator Roberts: In your role as a deputy secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, were you aware of the appropriation monies that the department sent to Coal Long Service Leave?

Ms Parker: Yes, I was.

Senator Roberts: Were you involved in the production of documents table for the annual financial reports for the department whilst in that role?

Ms Parker: In terms of the Coal Long Service Leave, that agency provide its own reports and its own financial reports.

Senator Roberts: But, given that you were the deputy, wouldn’t you have taken an interest in something that was worth a few hundred million dollars?

Ms Parker: We’re going back a way, but it was part of the overall reporting, for example under the annual report. But they were independent, in that sense. They were an agency that managed their own resources, so we didn’t have—

Senator Roberts: But you compiled the report.

Ms Parker: No, not for their own financial—

Senator Roberts: Not for their part, but you compiled their report into your department’s.

Ms Parker: That’s generally speaking. I’m just trying to think back. Our own finance area within the department looked at every single outcome, so, while they sat under the workplace relations auspice, if you like, the financial arrangements and et cetera were done through our finance and corporate areas in the department.

Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman reported Simon Turner to New South Wales Police recently about a document?

Ms Parker: I’ve not heard that.

Senator Roberts: He was contacted by the police. He wondered what was going on, and the police said it was in regard to an email he sent. I think it was to Robert Evans, Fair Work Ombudsman investigator. Mr Turner then read the email to the police. The police then said he’d been through the wringer and ended by saying there was no need to see him. Why did the Fair Work Ombudsman involve the police?

Mr Scully: I recall the email. I looked at it. I haven’t got a copy of it here, but I was concerned about the language in it, and I was concerned about Mr Turner’s welfare based on that language. So I asked for a welfare check to be done by the New South Wales police on that person.

Senator Roberts: Given what he’s been through, I have the utmost admiration for Mr Turner. He’s very, very solid.

Ms Parker: He is, but there are times when we get aggressive, abusive emails—

Senator Roberts: I’m not criticising Mr Scully.

Ms Parker: That was this occasion. I take those things very seriously, and it’s not acceptable. I understand he has had some stress—

Senator Roberts: Stress? Wow.

Ms Parker: I understand, but it doesn’t entitle him to be aggressive towards Fair Work Ombudsman staff.

Mr Scully: If I can clarify, that was for a welfare check. I asked for a welfare check on Mr Turner to be arranged by the New South Wales police.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Mr Scully: To clarify that further, it wasn’t in respect of any interactions he had had with the Fair Work Ombudsman. It was the language within his email. I was actually concerned about his welfare.

Senator Roberts: How long has this investigation been going? I understand it’s been underway since 2018.

Mr Scully: I haven’t got the exact date in front of me, but it has been ongoing. Mrs Volzke might have some more information.

Mrs Volzke: There have been a number of inquiries or requests for assistance made by Mr Turner. The initial one, as I understand it, was subsequently completed, but then there are other concerns that he has more recently raised about pay slips, as you know. That investigation is still ongoing, but we hope to be in a position to finalise it shortly.

Senator Roberts: I hope so.

Chair: I’m a bit reluctant to be talking in detail about an individual. If it’s helpful, Senator Roberts, maybe we can talk about the particular case you’re taking forward, rather than the individual. I also might have a bit of a discussion with the committee. I don’t think this should be on—

Senator Roberts: Mr Turner has given me his permission to divulge his name so that the case is clear.

Ms Parker: I would say that I know that you may not agree but the Fair Work Ombudsman staff have put an enormous amount of time and effort into this matter and have taken it very seriously. It’s a complex issue—

Senator Roberts: Very complex.

Ms Parker: and I hope you’d appreciate we have been doing a lot of work to try to assist. It has been going on, as you said, for some time, but it’s not a simple matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could ask that question of yourself after I ask the next few questionsinvolving one of your Fair Work Ombudsman investigators. Mr Robert Evans has a—

Ms Parker: Sorry, Senator; I thought we had agreed we wouldn’t talk about individuals. I’m very happy for you to talk about an inspector. I’d really prefer you didn’t name him. There have been some issues, as I mentioned before, including some aggressive behaviour towards my inspector.

Senator Cash: Chair, I don’t think Senator Roberts deliberately did that—

Chair: Absolutely not.

Senator Cash: but I think you are right, going forward, given the nature of the issues.

Chair: Yes. Given the nature of the issues that have been raised and the answers that have been given, can we be very mindful of the appropriateness of going into any details.

Senator Roberts: Is it true that a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has an ATO document that states Ready Workforce was not the aggrieved miner’s employer?

Mrs Volzke: As I said, there is still an ongoing investigation in relation to the tax documentation and how that goes to the true employing entity of a particular individual. As you know, we’ve been looking at those issues and trying to engage not only with Mr Stephens and Mr Turner but also with the ATO. I’ll have to take on notice the question about that particular document that you refer to. I have to say I have no knowledge of it.

Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has been given a copy of a court decision that states that Chandler Macleod was the true employer of the aggrieved miner and not Ready Workforce?

Mrs Volzke: The name of the case escapes me at the moment, but what I would say is that that was a case that was particular to the individual in that matter. It’s not necessarily the case that you can extrapolate from those findings in that matter about a particular person and say that that must mean the same conclusions will be made in relation to—

Senator Roberts: I would strongly disagree with you. You’re entitled to your opinion. It’s quite clear tome. Can you explain how a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator could come to a decision that Ready Workforce, ABN 037, was the aggrieved miner’s employer?

Mrs Volzke: Again, talking at a broad, general level, whenever we’re trying in one of our investigations towork out who the employer is, the first place to start is always: what is the contract of employment that is enteredinto? It is from that that we work out where the entitlements flow. That’s on the basis of a number of High Courtcases—Rossato, Jamsek, Personnel—but even the current definition of casual in section 15A of the Fair WorkAct essentially gets you to the same place.

Senator Roberts: I understand you have to check, but the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision is in direct conflict with all the evidence documents given to the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator, which showed payslips, PAYG summaries, tax documents, employer super contributions, Coal LSL contributions and all ATO records held by the aggrieved miner, who was paid his wages by Chandler Macleod using ABN 052.

Mrs Volzke: Again, we obviously don’t want to get into details, but you start with the proposition that, on the basis of the documentation at the time, that employment was entered into. Unless there’s a variation or some other sham or estoppel mechanism that casts doubt on that, those other matters don’t necessarily displace that. You’ll also know that we have made inquiries with the relevant employer in this case, as well, to seek an explanation about the discrepancy in relation to their ABN being on those pay slips.

Senator Roberts: The court ruling also stated that Chandler Macleod, ABN 052, was the true employer. The court affidavit showed that the mine contract was with Chandler Macleod and all payments from invoices from the mine went to Chandler Macleod, ABN 052. On this basis, I can’t see how it’s possible at all for your Fair Work Ombudsman investigator to arrive at a decision that is in direct conflict with all of this evidence.

Mrs Volzke: Again, Senator, I think you’re quoting that particular court case, which was in relation to another individual, and drawing conclusions. I would reiterate what Ms Parker has already said. We are doing the most thorough investigation that we can. We understand the concerns that have been raised. I don’t really know—

Senator Roberts: They’ve been raised, alright—with the Fair Work Commission; with the Fair Work Ombudsman; with the CFMMEU in the Hunter; with the local Labor MPs, state and federal; with the Attorney-General’s Department twice; with senators; with coalmines insurance; with Coal LSL; with state departments looking after safety, reporting injuries, workers compensation—

Mrs Volzke: It may well be in those—

Senator Roberts: He’s taken it up with me, and I’m the only one who has persisted. And it’s taken me four years to get to this point.

Mrs Volzke: It may well be that, in terms of what you’ve described, particularly in labour hire industrieswhere there are complex employment and corporate arrangements, it may be easier for there to be complexity inworking out who the employer is. I think these are issues that the government is looking at also, in the context of’same job, same pay’.

Senator Roberts: A hell of a lot of government departments have looked at it, and they just don’t do anything. They don’t come back with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. They just don’t do anything, and yet they’ve given him assurances along the way. There have been so many parasites who’ve made money off these people along the way.

Mrs Volzke: Senator, as I’ve told you as well, it’s our job as the regulator to apply the law, and that’s what we’re doing our very best to do here.

Senator Roberts: Well, it’s a bloody slow process. This man and one of his mates, who’s in a similar position, have been to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations recently and had two briefingswith their senior people. The last was two weeks ago, and they still haven’t got back to him—not even anything.They were impressed with what he said and what he gave—but nothing. So I’d like to table this document, Chair.It’s a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley.

Chair: You have another four minutes, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: That should do it. This is a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU Northern Mining and New South Wales Energy District. That’s Hunter Valley CFMEU, if you like, with a few mines outside the Hunter Valley. I’ll read out clause (c), which is at the top of the second page:The CFMEU and Chandler Macleod would present this EA—that’s enterprise agreement—to employees for their consideration, noting that both parties support the approval of the proposed EA and a vote would beheld as soon as possible, and as early as 7 May 2015 seeking employees to endorse the proposed EA—There’s an understanding of an agreement between the CFMEU in Hunter and Chandler Macleod, the employer. Clause (d) states:The CFMEU would agree—this is what the employer is saying, in their understanding—to cease from any current and future actions and claims (in its own right or on behalf of members) directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coal mining production work may be entitled to “leave and other entitlements” associated with permanent employment or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their “lawful terms and conditions”. The union obviously agreed with this, because it went further. The union and Chandler Macleod are clearly colluding to strip entitlements and pay off workers at Mount Arthur mine. If it is the case that unions, purporting to represent miners, are actually colluding with employers and if all these government agencies are not doing their job over many years, what the hell does this man do?

Ms Parker: I have not finished, and we have been—

Senator Roberts: I certainly haven’t. I’ve got three aims. I’ll tell you about them later, if you like.

Ms Parker: We anticipate being in a position to finalise these in the near future, as we’ve said, and we’re still working on this. I’m sorry it’s so frustrating, but we have not stopped looking at it.

Senator Roberts: It’s more than frustrating. It’s damn painful. It’s hurting a lot of people in Central Queensland and in the Hunter and elsewhere.

Ms Parker: We understand, but we do have to apply the law as it stands, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware of the many connections between various involved entities? For example, the lawyer representing the CFMEU in a case was Jennifer Short, who’s on the Coal Long Service Leave Board. She was employed as the CFMEU lawyer. These are just some of the interactions. There are many interactions between mining industry groups, mining companies, labour hire companies and the CFMEU in the Hunter. Are you aware of the many interconnections? You are now.

Ms Parker: Well, I think so. Certainly it’s not particularly relevant to our investigation, but it’s context.

Mrs Volzke: Certainly. Senator, the two clauses that you read out from that Chandler Macleod letter—when an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, which I’m assuming is what occurred here, then we take it as a given that it’s gone through the processes that need to occur within the commission. I know that Mr Furlong—

Senator Roberts: Mr Turner’s evidence shows that it hasn’t gone through correctly. It could not have gone through correctly, because it doesn’t comply.

Ms Parker: We heard our evidence this morning with the Fair Work Commission on that, which is theirresponsibility. We did listen to that.

Senator Roberts: Minister, quite clearly, the Fair Work Act has failed. It needs not just comprehensive reform; it needs replacement. We need something that is short, simple and clear, that workers can understand, that small businesses can understand and that is actually useful not to the industrial relations club but to the actual workers who need to be protected. Workers like these guys that we’re protecting in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are without any protection right now. What’s going on with these people is stuff that would come from a Third World country or Australia 100 years ago. It’s unfathomable. I was shocked when I saw it. What is even more shocking now is that no-one can address it. That’s the Fair Work Act and its systems.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you’ve heard from Ms Parker that the ombudsman is investigating thesematters. But, as I said to you before, the government agrees that the Fair Work Act needs a major overhaul tobetter protect the rights of workers and to close loopholes that exist at the moment, many of which you havetalked about. I think, Senator Roberts, you know that I’ve spent a fair bit of time in coalmining regions inQueensland where we’ve seen a lot of exploitation of coalminers, and that was allowed to go on under the formergovernment. So we hope that we can count on your support when it comes to the amendments that we’re puttingforward.

Senator Roberts: You’ll get my support for amendments that actually fix the issue, not prolong it and add more complexity. The problem with this Fair Work Act is its inherent complexity. That’s what has enabled the IR club, some union boss, some large unions, industry groups, employers, consultants, HR practitioners, lawyers and bureaucrats to feed off this monster. It’s the loopholes in the details. If you keep addressing loopholes, you’ll just create more loopholes. We need something that’s gutting the Fair Work Act and replacing it with something for workers and industrial productivity.

/1 Comment/by

Stop the Lies and Dirty Deals Stealing from Miners!

My letter to Tony Burke MP, Minister for Employment & Workplace Relations, dated 26 June 2023 is clear on the facts that workers were deliberately exploited.

When union bosses collude with dishonest multi-national employers and unaccountable government agencies, workers are left with no protection.

I have been working for four years to reverse the serious violations stripping workers of their rights, protections and entitlements.

That’s why I continue, after almost four years, to champion tens of thousands of workers across Queensland and in the Hunter Valley, NSW.

Why have Labor & Liberal-National federal and state governments ignored basic questions?

Stop the rot, Minister Burke. The ball is now in your court.

230626-HonTonyBurke-1Download
/2 Comments/by

Grilling Climate Change at Senate Estimates

, ,

Senate Estimates is a great chance for me to grill these climate agencies and get very specific about the evidence that they base their policies on.

This year, we saw yet again that they love to duck and weave, but won’t actually provide me with the evidence. I talked about this on Marcus Paul last week.

Senate Estimates Sessions: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/category/senate-estimates/march-2021/

Transcript

[Announcer] Now on “Marcus Paul in the Morning” Senator Malcolm Roberts.

[Marcus] All right, 17 minutes away from eight o’clock. Good day, Malcolm. How are you, mate?

[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Good, good, good. Now I see, you’ve got the Bureau of Meteorology, and also Malcolm Turnbull, and also the CSIRO in your sights this morning. Who do you want to pick on first?

[Malcolm] Let’s go with the CSIRO.

[Marcus] All right. What do you have to say about them? Of course, this argument about renewables costing us, what, 13 billion bucks a year or $1,300 per household.

[Malcolm] That’s in addition to the electricity bill, that’s the additional cost per household, $1,300. Marcus, there’s some really simple figures to understand. The median income in Australia is $49,000, so after tax, what’s that, 30 something?

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] The chief executive of the CSIRO is paid a total per year, every year of $1,049,000.

[Marcus] Not bad.

[Malcolm] The group executive in charge of overseeing the climate area, the climate research, is on $613,000, more than the Prime Minister of Australia.

[Marcus] Yeah, not bad.

[Malcolm] I put to them very basic questions about their so-called science, they refused to answer. These were the first time that I had asked questions about these pieces of information that they gave to me last Senate estimates. I’ve never had an opportunity to ask them questions before about this. This is the first time. They refused to answer. The basic things were that they gave me five new references, in senate estimates in October, I asked them questions about this.

They refused to answer. They refused to answer a representative of the people. And the papers that they provided to me, Kaufman 2020, for example, this is the sort of crap that CSIRO dishes up, when the authors of that paper input their data on climate into their calculations, they omitted the first data point and put it in in reverse order, complete false. The second reference they gave me directly contradicts the claims that the CSIRO says that it’s supposed to be supporting.

The third reference said they made conclusions on one data point, and they took it out of context and went against the CSIRO’s own advice to me last October. So what I’m saying to you is we are paying someone $1,049,000 a year, we’re paying someone else $613,000 a year, people in Australia cannot afford this nonsense, and now we’ve got no evidence whatsoever.

The CSIRO has admitted that they have never said to any politician that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to our planet. That’s what politicians are saying. Why is this, Marcus, people are paying dearly for destroying manufacturing all because of this rubbish?

[Marcus] All right, now tell me about the Bureau of Meteorology.

[Malcolm] Well, here we go again, another government bureaucracy that’s claiming about climate. When they measure data, temperature, rainfall, et cetera, at a weather station, they also have metadata about the weather station that tells you, for example, how many times a station has been moved, because when it moves, it can have an effect on temperature and other recording devices. Townsville has been moved eight times.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s metadata says it’s been moved once. Metadata as well at Rockhampton moved four times, the Bureau says it’s been moved once. Cairns moved six times, the Bureau says it’s been moved twice. Charleville been moved four times, the Bureau says twice. The Bureau of Meteorology and its own peer reviewers fail to detect and discuss these glaring inaccuracies.

How can we rely on the Bureau of Meteorology which says temperatures are increasing, but they haven’t increased since 1995 globally, which is about almost 30 years, and our temperatures today are lower than in the 1880s and 1890s in Australia. I mean, we’re being fed this nonsense, people are paying for it, it’s destroying our manufacturing capacity all because of atrocious governments and people won’t hold these people accountable.

[Marcus] Well, there are some grave consequences, as you say, for these glaring errors and policies devised on numbers that are given by the Bureau of Meteorology, along with the CSIRO. So there we go, I’m glad we got you there asking these hard questions, Malcolm, but you don’t seem to get much support from those that are in power.

[Malcolm] That’s a really good point.

[Marcus] Why don’t you?

[Malcolm] Angus Taylor is the Minister for Energy.

[Marcus] Yes.

[Malcolm] He admits now, two or three weeks ago he admitted that he is afraid, he’s scared of what’s happening, with our reliability of power supply, security of power supply, the cost of power. He’s admitted all this. I know for a fact, in conversations with Angus Taylor, that he’s a sceptic about us affecting the climate, but he is peddling this nonsense.

Mark Butler, the former spokesman from the Labour Party, I’ve challenged him to a debate, ran away from me. I challenged The Greens 10 and a half years ago, and every day since I’ve been in the Senate, sorry, almost weekly since I’ve been in the Senate this time they’ve failed to provide the evidence.

There’s just a whole lot of groupthink. I wrote to about 20 MPS in senior positions, Labour, Liberal, National, and Greens, not one of them was able to provide me with any evidence that we have to have these policies, not one.

[Marcus] Now let’s move to Malcolm Turnbull. Hang on, there, Malcolm Turnbull, of course, former Prime Minister of Australia, claims that the demand for coal is declining, but no one has told Africa they’re building 1,250 more coal plants by the year 2030. Mines are devastating the landscape in the Hunter Valley. Well, is that true?

Reportedly more about his opposition perhaps to the Mount Pleasant coal mine and the extension plan for it which happens to be near Malcolm Turnbull’s own interest including a grazing property. The mining industry is shortening lives by reducing air quality, and taxpayers, of course, you say are left with huge environmental remediation bills covered by mining bonds. Now last week, I don’t know what was going on in the New South Wales government with the Liberals and Nationals appointing Malcolm Turnbull to this role.

You know, zero net emissions by 2050, we had Matt Kean at the centre of it all, and for some reason, somehow both John Barilaro and the Premier of New South Wales went along with this. There were a couple of dissenting voices, but Malcolm was apparently tipped to take this job. Then there was a massive back flip whether it came from pressure from the media or from One Nation’s Mark Latham. I’m not sure. I think it’s a mix of all of those.

[Malcolm] I think you’re right. Malcolm Turnbull has a lot of personal interests, of benefit to him and his family, from pushing their renewables bandwagon. He’s got no evidence, never has had any evidence for pushing their renewables. He’s got no evidence for having to shut down coal mines. And he himself attributed the dumping of his new job to Mark Latham and the right-wing media, but you know, that’s typical Malcolm Turnbull. He can’t look at his own policy and he can’t look at himself, and he’s become a pariah.

[Marcus] Yeah, look, I understand what you’re saying, I get that, but let’s be honest, he’s half right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, of course, he’s right.

[Malcolm] In what way?

[Marcus] Well, until people down the road from us 2GB and the Telegraph and a few others started jumping up and down about it this was gonna go through. I mean, I would tend to think that unless there was a by-election just around the corner in the upper Hunter, perhaps this bloke, Malcolm Turnbull, might’ve gone on.

[Malcolm] Well, I’m not gonna argue with that, I think that you’re making some pretty good comments, but Malcolm Turnbull himself blamed Mark Latham for standing up and speaking the truth. That’s the pressure that Mark brings. Mark’s a very good speaker, he gets his facts and he went straight into bat. Barilaro and Berejiklian are the ones. How could they possibly sign off on this man, Turnbull, being put in this position? But think about this, Marcus.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] Australia’s total electricity coal-fired power station capacity in this country was 25.2 gigawatts in 2017. So it’s less than that now with the closure of a couple of coal-fired power stations in Victoria, it’s less than that. China alone opened 38.4 gigawatts of new coal-fired plants last year alone, so almost double what our total capacity is. The world has opened up 50.3 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity last year alone. India is opening up on average around 17 gigawatts. India itself and China are opening up combined about three times our total capacity of coal-fired power stations.

[Marcus] And the argument, of course, is, Malcolm, I do need to go, the argument, of course, is that if they don’t get our coal, they’ll get it from elsewhere.

[Malcolm] Correct.

[Marcus] Yeah, all right, mate, thank you for coming on. I appreciate it.

[Malcolm] Okay, mate, you’re welcome.

[Marcus] Talk soon.

[Malcolm] See you, Marcus.

[Marcus] See you, mate. Bye-bye. There he is, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Of course, David Lazell…

/by