The Greens are trying to force higher taxes onto Australia’s resource sector and I have to ask: how much is enough?
With the mining, oil and gas industries contributing $45 billion in taxes and royalties last year alone and $335 billion over the past five years, true economic growth comes from expanding, not shutting down, natural resource projects.
A recent meeting with Tamboran in the Northern Territory emphasised the life-changing impact of resource jobs for regional and Aboriginal communities. Providing real skills, stable incomes and financial independence, these projects offer a path out of welfare dependency and toward home ownership and prosperity.
Everyday Australians already see returns in their superannuation from our resource industry, while governments receive critical royalties to fund essential public services, as well as the “free stuff” they love to dish out. The Beetaloo project is already attracting interest from data centres seeking direct access to the Northern Territory’s national internet backbone. With guaranteed gas for power and water for cooling, planning could begin today.
This is One Nation’s approach: maximising resource development for the benefit of all Australians, while maintaining genuine, practical environmental protections. We will focus on our real landscape, not the climate orthodoxy pushed by Labor, the Greens, Teals and globalist Liberals.
Blocking new coal, gas and mine extensions will crush jobs and cripple regional towns. The Federal Court’s recent decision to overturn the government’s ban on the $1.3 billion McPhillamys goldmine reaffirms One Nation’s commitment to sound, responsible resource extraction that delivers long-term abundance for all Australians.
Taxing the resource industry into extinction while expecting it to fund the nation is pure madness!
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for this motion. The first thought I had after reading this motion was simply ‘how much is enough?’ The resource industry, mining, oil and gas paid $45 billion last year in company tax and royalties in Australia. Over the last five years, they’ve contributed $335 billion in tax. If the Greens want even more, there is a simple way to achieve that: more mines, more gas wells, more utilisation of Australia’s immense natural resources to bring in taxation and to create the wealth and opportunity for all who are here, especially in rural and remote areas where the workforce has a large Aboriginal component.
My office met this afternoon with Tamboran, who operate a new gas well in the Northern Territory, and included hearing about their successful Aboriginal employment program. Tamboran are giving Aboriginals breadwinner jobs, training and a future independent of government handouts, empowering Aboriginal workers to break free of welfare dependency. I can see why the Greens don’t like it. Who knows? Once Aboriginals own their own homes, are married with families and enjoying the benefits of resource job brings, they may vote One Nation.
Resources already provide returns into their superannuation funds of everyday Australians, as well as extra royalty into government coffers, to pay for the free stuff that government offers. The Beetaloo project has already attracted inquiries from data centres looking for a location connected to the national internet backbone, which is the Northern Territory. Data centres could start planning today, knowing the gas for power and the water for cooling are available. This is One Nation’s solution: more resource utilisation for the benefit of all Australians while, of course, ensuring the protection of our natural environment—the natural environment, not the sky god of warming as Labor, Greens, teals and globalist Liberals still believe. The green solution is to tax the resource industry while shutting down the resource industry. This is insane. Yes, I know it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Published Greens party policy is no new coal, no new gas and no extensions to coal or gas leases. High taxes will force resource projects out of business and, importantly to the Greens, prevent new developments. Massive job losses will result from this Greens party policy. Huge communities will be cast into poverty, heat and isolation because wind and solar are a useless way to drive air conditioners, transport and industry. Government revenue to pay for all the free stuff goes, and superannuation returns fall, and the Greens celebrated the refusal of a $1.3 billion extension to the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. The reason Minister Plibersek gave for the refusal was the section 10 Aboriginal protection order, as the site hosted a mythical blue-banded bee important to Aboriginal culture, apparently.
Today, the Federal Court officially overturned the mining ban. Justice James Stellios ruled that Minister Plibersek’s protection order was legally invalid due to a procedural failure and a lack of procedural fairness. The company that owns the mine paid $900 million in taxes last year on other projects. The taxes on this mine will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Who knows, there may be enough to cover the operating losses of one of Senator McKim’s Greens supermarkets.
This motion shows the stark contrast between the Greens and One Nation. The Greens will use high taxes to force resource companies out of business in the name of social justice virtue signalling while One Nation will encourage environmentally sound resource extraction in the name of providing abundance for everyday Australians for many, many, many years to come. Voters of Australia, the choice is yours.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EFifNtBTy7w/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-22 15:48:062026-10-22 15:48:12Killing the Golden Goose
Reflecting on a decade in the Senate, it’s clear that every major issue facing Australia — from energy and water to economic decline — stems from the “uniparty” status quo.
We’ve fallen from the #1 highest per capita income a century ago to now hurtling toward 20th. Despite having the world’s richest natural resources per capita, poor policy choices have left us dependent on foreign powers for manufacturing, energy and fertiliser.
We need to restore Australia’s independence.
We need to drill and refine at home, keeping our oil, gas and manufacturing within our borders from start to finish.
We need to secure domestic supply by rebuilding local production for essentials like fertiliser.
I support Senator Bell’s inquiry to get the real data on how this happened and how we fix it.
Australia deserves better than managed decline.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I was elected in 2016 in May-July. I started in July. I’ve had more than 10 years since I first joined the Senate. I’ve been elected once and re-elected twice. In that 10 years, I’ve learnt that every major problem in this country is due to the uniparty. Your policies on energy, your policies on climate fraud, your policies on water—disgraceful. You’ve done everything you can to hammer workers into subservience. You’re both guilty of mass immigration.
Australia has fallen from having the No. 1 highest per capita income in the world a hundred or so years ago to now being headed out the back door. We’re heading for 20th thanks to you lot. We are still the richest nation in the world for resources per capita, yet now we’re dependent on communist dictatorships and the unstable government for much of what we need in this country. Our manufacturing has been shot, thanks to you lot, so we’re now dependent. We must have new capability restored within our borders—we drill for oil or gas within our borders, process it, refine it, transport it, and put it in bowsers, then into cars, trucks and tractors, with the whole process in our country. What’s the matter? You have abandoned that. You’ve both caused it.
We need the same for fertiliser. We need to restore Australia. We have the world’s highest per capita resources, yet we’re heading down the road to poverty, thanks to you lot. We need to get the data on why this has happened. We need to get the data on what we need. We need to get the facts. That’s why I support this inquiry that Senator Bell has had the courage to put forward.
The Albanese government removed helium from Australia’s Critical Minerals List in December 2023, allowing the country’s only helium plant in Darwin to close.
Australia now relies entirely on imports from Qatar, the US, Algeria, and Russia —nations tied to current global conflicts.
Helium is irreplaceable and vital for critical domestic sectors, including healthcare (MRI machine cooling), technology (semiconductors, electronics, and quantum computing), data centres, and defence.
This government is mismanaging the economy and harming key industries.
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Tyrrell for this motion, which One Nation supports. My comments go to the connection between helium and the quality of living in Australia. Helium was included on Australia’s Critical Minerals List until this Labor government removed it in December 2023, the same month the government allowed our only helium plant to close. Not only did the government not do anything to save the Darwin plant; taking helium off the Critical Minerals List cleared the way. Now we import our helium from Qatar, the US, Algeria and Russia, three of whom are caught in the current war.
Helium is unique, meaning no other gas can replace it. It’s needed in health care. Every MRI machine in Australia requires liquid helium to cool its superconducting magnets. Without it MRIs can’t operate, disrupting diagnostics for cancer, neurological conditions and more. Running out is not an option; Australians will suffer. It is needed in semiconductors, electronics and quantum computing. Helium is essential for cooling, purging and atmosphere control in chip fabrication, which is a rapidly growing Australian industry that generates things this government hates: non-government jobs and financial independence. It is needed in data centres. The government is forcing more people into the digital economy, then it’s taking away the gas that cools the data centres. What could go wrong? Helium is also needed in defence applications, the other thing this government doesn’t want.
All the Albanese government can offer the Australian people is no petrol, no diesel, no fertiliser, no houses, falling wages, falling per-capita growth, falling wealth, falling productivity and falling prosperity. They have managed to freeze the economy at a complete standstill—no helium is needed now. One Nation will make the Critical Minerals List great again and produce everything on the list here in Australia. We have the minerals. One Nation loves this country, and we want everyone who’s here to have a life of wealth, security and abundance.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WAzY2pRntaA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-03 08:45:312026-09-03 08:47:40Restoring Helium to the Critical Minerals List
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank deny home loans to mining communities
Australian banks are the world’s most profitable, raking in $30bn in profits last year. Much of this was sent overseas to their foreign shareholders, including the usual suspects – Blackrock, First State, and Vanguard. In total, Australian banks paid $27 billion in dividends, of which 26% or around $7 billion was sent to foreign-owned corporations.
Every dollar which goes overseas in dividends is a dollar Australia never sees again, reducing our GDP and making us all poorer.
In this Parliament, One Nation will introduce legislation to create an Australian People’s Bank, with 100% Australian ownership and a Banking Code of Practice which gives customers rights and protections that have been removed from the code being used by Australian banks.
Rural and Regional customers will benefit the most, with many Australian towns no longer having a single bank branch.
Banking greed, dishonesty, and profiteering is something I have been working on since coming into the Senate in 2016.
In 2017 One Nation were successful in creating a Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers. It was obvious to the Senate the banks were screwing over the bush.
Specific issues raised by the Inquiry have been substantially addressed although remediation has not occurred. The big banks are behaving more responsibly in their lending practices as a result of this Inquiry and the Royal Commission that followed.
While lending practices have improved, the banks have turned to other schemes to make their excessive profits.
One area of great concern, one which will be corrected by a People’s Bank, is the closing of bank branches, forcing customers online.
In the last 10 years 2,500 bank branches have closed
I have written about the effect this has before. Today there is a new scam I want to alert you to. I thank the fearless journalist Dale Webster for her work on this topic: link to her article titled “Burning Down the House”.
The culprit this time is the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Australia’s fifth largest bank.
Bendigo are refusing to give home loans to any town or region which hosts a mine. This includes any mine, no matter the purpose – gold, coal, iron ore, bauxite, rare earths needed for the technology – everything.
Yes, the Bendigo Bank is black-banning towns where the very materials are mined that are used to make the computers that run their bank. What folly.
Anyone applying online for a loan to buy property in a mining area is immediately denied. Home lending in all of Queensland’s mining regions – from coal, oil and gas to opal mining – is knocked back by Bendigo Bank. Yes, even opals.
Distinct areas separated from others by favoured postcodes include Moura (4718) in the Bowen Basin coalfield, home to the Dawson Coal Mine, Mount Isa (4825), site of one of Australia’s largest copper and zinc mining complexes, and the world-renowned opal fields surrounding Quilpie and Longreach.
Coal centres Moranbah, Dysart, Clermont, Emerald, and Blackwater are no home-loan zones, as is the Roma-Miles-Dalby district, the site of Australia’s first oil and gas discoveries. Weipa, built by Rio Tinto to house bauxite mine workers in Far North Queensland, gets an instant knockback as does Tieri, built to house coal workers north of Emerald.
In the course of this investigation, more than 1,000 locations across Australia have been run through Bendigo Bank’s online loan process to verify whether this is truly a mining blacklist or if these postcodes are part of a bigger cohort focusing on general risk.
The Australian Taxation Office’s 10 lowest earning suburbs in every state and territory for 2021-22 were reviewed. The top 100 riskiest suburbs to purchase housing in for 2024 according to Realestate.com were reviewed. Climate Valuation’s top 30 suburbs by ‘number of high-risk properties from all climate change hazards by 2030’ were reviewed. All were approved.
Bendigo Bank will lend for housing in the poorest, riskiest, and most isolated places in Australia rather than a mining area.
This is not about risk, this is about social engineering.
Bendigo and Adelaide bank are publicly-listed Australian companies. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to act in their best interests, not indulge their own prejudices.
As Dale points out, the embarrassing thing is that Bendigo, the city from which Bendigo Bank takes its name and where it has its head office, was built on gold mining.
If people cannot finance their home purchases these towns will die. This is a deliberate and possibly criminal attempt by the Bendigo Bank to destroy mining in Australia by destroying the towns that support the mines.
Once an area loses housing credits and mortgages the bank in that area can be closed, using the lie that there is no longer the demand for the branch. The truth is the banks are creating the lack of demand by withdrawing key banking services and engineering the closure.
Do you hear a peep out of the leadership of the Nationals or the Liberals about this? No of course not.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and Nationals Leader David Littleproud take their orders form the same predatory merchant banks that Bendigo Bank does. The Liberals, in particular, have overseen this destruction of retail banking in Australia since the time of Prime Minister Howard.
Only One Nation will fix this profiteering and control agenda by creating a People’s Bank.
Mining towns debanked by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank deny home loans to mining communities
It is a disgrace that the QLD Workplace Health and Safety prosecutor did not charge and make accountable the Grosvenor Mine operators for the badly injured casual coal miners in the mine explosion in May 2020.
Senator Roberts said, “Anglo American have a duty of care to its workforce, and it is inexplicable that an explosion can occur, five miners get badly injured and almost die, and there is no accountability back to the operator.
“Anglo American are treating its casual coal miners as literally being expendable with no serious consequences of their neglect to the keep the mine safe for workers now and in the future.”
Senator Roberts has listened with casual coal miners in NSW and QLD and some of the serious mining incidents can be traced to the culture of disrespect and exploitation of coal mine workers. The culture of penny-pinching, fear and intimidation is especially prevalent in the growing casual / labour hire segment
Senator Roberts said, “It is a gross injustice that casual miners are discouraged from reporting safety issues for fear of losing their jobs.
Queensland Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Committee consists of majority membership of mine owners / operators and unions, and neither group represent nor have any interaction with casual coal miners.
Senator Roberts said, “The casual coal miner does not have a place at the table, nor any representation, on key committees that determine safety standards and address safety concerns. “The Labor Palaszczuk government has no integrity when it comes to keeping casual coal miners safe.”
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/dominik-vanyi-Mining-unsplash-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=117072560Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-02-23 11:54:062022-02-23 11:54:13MEDIA RELEASE: No justice for injured Grosvenor coal miners is a disgrace
Australians have had their workplaces wrecked by the Government’s COVID mismanagement. Casual Coal miners have also been let down for years. I asked the Attorney General about this and more at Senate Estimates.
Transcript
Thank you, chair. And thank you all for attending today.
Nice to see you again, Mr. Hehir, it’s always a pleasure. I mean that sincerely. Minister, I’ll just read 11 points from my additional comments to the job insecurity inquiry report. These are the things that we see in addition to exploitation of casual coal miners which we’re gonna have a further discussion about tomorrow.
[Michaelia] Yes, you and I, yes we are.
Yes. And which we’ve been trying to make progress for a couple of years now, in addition to the exploitation of casual coal minors, Australians are suffering right now from what I consider to be COVID mismanagement both federal and state, due to capricious lockdowns and mandates. People are uncertain. The second thing is the phasing out of the coal industry and jobs under the part under the policies of all four major parties, the erosion of people’s rights and freedoms, especially workplace rights and freedoms in this context. Increasing energy prices which are decimating manufacturing and hurting agriculture. The killing of manufacturing as a consequence. The lack of much needed tax reform. The lack of much needed economic reform. Increasing debt. Workplace health and safety systems being bypassed. Australia’s productive capacity being destroyed. And this is the one I want to ask questions about, the failure around industrial relations systems and more. There’s a lot that’s hanging over workers heads. And small business in particular.
Okay.
Would you agree? And I think the solution in many cases is to come back to the basics of employer-employee relationship, the fundamental workplace relationship. So with regard to the coal miners in Queensland and especially the Hunter Valley, we’ve seen workplace safety and health jeopardised, bypassed, people threatened with firing, being fired if they raise safety issues, made a submission to the Grosvenor mining inquiry. The issue of Simon Turner, no worker’s compensation, no accident pay for injury, sacked while being injured, injuries and incidents not being reported, pay rates for casuals being 40% less than people on permanent employed by the mine owner, right next to them doing the same job and the same roster. Coal LSL, which I commend you for the report that’s come down today.
Thank you. And I think they’re coming later on to-
Yeah, we’ll be there.
Yeah, no, that’s what I thought. Yeah, you’ll be asking the questions, yes.
Yes. As we have been in every session for the last two years. The loss of coal miners, basic leave and other entitlements and the threats of dismissal. So these remain outstanding and still to be addressed. And we’ll be talking more about that tomorrow.
Yes.
What I see, minister… I’ll let you finish.
[Michaelia] No, I’m just having a look at something you’ve written, just to make sure I’m all over it. Yep.
My question is basically the exploitation of casuals, is I believe a symptom of a highly complex, needlessly complex industrial relations system that is not serving workers, not serving small business, and not serving some employees, and families and workers are getting jammed in the middle.
[Man] Does the report correctly address?
We see large companies, multinationals in particular, using casuals to bypass industrial relations systems instead of sitting down and negotiating with their workers and with the union we just see a bypassing through casuals. So what I’m asking you is, is there any understanding in your department that the exploitation of casuals is a signal or a symptom of the fractures in the industrial relation system?
Okay, there was a lot of commentary there but what I might do is hand over to Mr. Hehir, who obviously has looked at the job security report, and get him to take that question.
Thank you, Senator, for the question. In terms of the the casuals, it’s probably just worthwhile clarifying. So where casuals are employed by the company themselves they are still subject to the same industrial instruments that the company has either negotiated or the Fair Work Commission has made. So in terms of where the company itself is the employer, there is the negotiation and discussion process that you talked around the company having with its employee, where there’s an EA, should have occurred. So certainly there should be clear processes within any enterprise agreement around how the various employees will be treated and what they’re entitled to. I think in part, you are referring to the combination of casuals and labour hire?
[Roberts] Yep, thank you for picking that up.
So that does make for a more complex situation recognising that labour high would regard as less than 2% of the workforce traditionally, but it is an important mechanism that is used by both host employers for short term work when they need it. And as part of when the need arises. So recognising that it’s an important and valuable part of the economy. It’s clear that when it leads to different rates of pay it does cause some level of confusion. In terms of-
And beyond that it causes some kind of angst as well, and is not very helpful for safety.
I accept that. And I know that there’s been a number of comments within the report itself around that broad issue. It’s certainly something that the department will look at very carefully. It has been raised both within the main body of the report, as well as within your comments, in terms of how does that work? The reality is The Fair Work Act and the framework upon which it sits was designed around an employer being the legal entity that actually employs the person rather than necessarily the location where they work. So that’s the nature. And the Fair Work Act is clear that we have minimum rates of pay. But what we actually wanna see is higher rates of pay than the minimum, being negotiated by employers and employees. So that’s, I think one of the very clear principles within the bargaining provisions within the Fair Work Act, that we actually want to do that. The only mechanism that… and the mechanism is focused on the individual businesses. And in this case where you’ve got two businesses working, or the employees of two businesses working in the one location. I agree that can cause angst and confusion but it’s certainly something that we need to have a look at in response to the work. And that’s something that we’ll provide advice to the government on once we’ve had the opportunity to finalise our analysis of the report. But I having said that, the very important focus within the Fair Work Act is that we do want people to bargain. We do want businesses and employees to get together and to think about how they can increase productivity and then share that productivity in the form of increased profits and in increase wages. So, and the clearest mechanism to do that we feel at this point is on an individual business basis.
Thank you. You gave us a comprehensive understanding of, and I know you’ve got that, of the casual work situation and the abuse of that. And I’m certainly validating that some casuals want casual work, and I’m not just talking about the coal industry here, but even in the coal industry some casuals do want casual work. They prefer to have that option but there has been some abuse of that. And I believe that the complexities of the industrial relations system in this country right now make it as such that some employers, rather than facing up to negotiation they will bypass that and establish a labour hire relationship. Some labour hire companies are good employers, some are not and some rely upon basically cutting wages so that they can make a profit by getting the margin and still leaving the business owner with superior profits. So that’s definitely a strategy that we can see. So my question that I don’t feel was answered was that do you consider that the complexities… And the Act is what, this high? 600 odd pages? the complexities of that Act lead to workers, small businesses in particular, and even some big businesses, not having clear understanding of the employer-employee relationship. And so we dive into all kinds of other arrangements.
Senator, the Fair Work Act is a substantial piece of legislation. It does have a number of parts. But we’ve certainly heard commentary in the past that it’s complex and difficult, and we acknowledge that commentary. At the same time, and we do understand the importance of this as well. There are important workers protection, in terms of the bargaining process and other things in terms of making sure that the bargaining is done fairly. And certainly there is some concern that those procedures inhibit the bargaining but they’re also really important in terms of the principle of making sure that the bargain is fair. So getting that balance right is something that we continue to think about. We as a department, we honestly really engage in the discussion around productivity growth. We think it’s a significant issue for Australia and large parts of the Western world that productivity growth is low. And we would certainly encourage parties to bargain. But the reality is that the Act is based on both providing the opportunity to bargain but also making sure that those bargains are fair. And I think that’s sometimes where we see the complaints about complexity always happy to have a look and say, how can we attain that fairness in a more simplified fashion? And that’s where we-
And Senator Roberts, I mean, you often come with the Fair Work Act and the various iterations of it in terms of just to demonstrate how big it is and how much both employers and employees have to navigate. Because it’s both parties understanding their rights and obligations. And certainly without a doubt, it is a complex Act. And it was one of the reasons, you and I discussed this. It was last year now, I think, the stimulation to the reforms to casual employment providing a definition, to provide clarity, as to what a casual is. Offering the ability to convert to permanent work, clarifying the Rossato decision, the devastating 39 billion impact on the double dipping and what that would’ve done to business. So I do agree with you and we certainly have been able to make some headway in relation to parts of it, but obviously the other parts of the omnibus bill didn’t get the support, but they are, I think, some concrete examples of where you can actually put in place. So for example, an actual definition, give the ability to convert, clean up a court decision and actually give certainty to employers. But I certainly acknowledge that this is something that you raise time and time again.
Yeah, and the fundamental-
Can I just check how long we have to go? I usually like to rotate the call every 15 minutes,
Another 10 minutes.
That’s absolutely fine.
What I’m getting at, minister, is that the fundamental problem is that despite the intentions of everyone involved the Fair Work Act, the previous work choices attempt the marren complexity, lack of understanding the fundamentals. And what’s happening with the Fair Work Act is that the workers and some small businesses and even some large employers are sidelined in favour of the industrial relations club. Lawyers, consultants, HR practitioners, large union bosses, large industry groups and the worker is sidelined. And so do you see any need then for restoring the primacy of the workplace relationship, the employer-employee relationship, and I know that the fair work Act, Mr. Hehir, does have protections in it, but when it’s so complex, the protections get lost. And so making it clear on workers’ rights, entitlements, protections, safety, which I know assist productivity. So instead of these things being bypassed they’re actually entrenched and allowing for flexibility because more and more workers today see alternative structures of work and work times in particular whether it be uni students or small businesses or casual coal miners, they want that.
And I think you make an important point in terms of the ability for, in particular employees, to choose the type of work that they want to want to undertake. And that is why you’ll never find the coalition government in any way, demonising casual employment as so often happens. And in particular, in this committee it is a valid form of work that so many choose. And when we can take you through the statistics in relation to casual employment. But also that landmark reform that we did pass in terms of that ability to actually convert should you wish subject to certain conditions. Again, it’s about giving both the employer and the worker, the employee, the choice to do that. Just in terms though of people actually understanding their rights, very important obligations, very important under the Fair Work Act. I think a lot of the work that The Fair Work Ombudsman does and in particular, that investment in its educative role is so important, working with small businesses, because there’s often the small businesses that don’t have that capacity to understand the Fair Work Act. And they’ll be on later on today, if you want to come back and ask them questions in terms of what is the educative role of The Fair Work Ombudsman.
We asked that at the last estimates.
We can get an update then of these estimates. But that’s a really good point because it’s not just about the Fair Work Act itself, as you’ve acknowledged, there are other ways and means, and one of them is ensuring that The Fair Work Ombudsman is able to get out there, talk to employees, talk to employers, and actually educate them on what their rights and responsibilities are.
I know that I’ve had a very positive response and fact agreement that David Newman from the CFMEU, Michael Raba from the CFMEU and from Queensland, from the Business Council, Australia, from Small Business Associations, that they’d be willing to sit down in a process to explore a much simpler and better and more effective industrial relations frame work. So I know an election is coming so I’m not expecting you to make any commitment and this is a touchy area but is there any appetite for that if it’s done properly?
Oh, well, I think when you look at the work that the coalition government has done you look at the omnibus bill that we brought forward. I mean, that was certainly done in a period of over 12 months, I believe. In terms of the consultations amongst different stakeholders. Unfortunately, when we brought it to the floor of the parliament, it wasn’t supported by the Australian Labor Party. But I think our appetite for making things simpler and in particular, as I said, the coalition reforms through casual employment and in particular cleaning up the issue of double dipping and the potential devastating impact of the $39 billion impost on business, I think does show a genuine commitment to working with all stakeholders to improve the system.
And with due respect, I just wanna finish with this point. I think that that casuals conversion was needed and essential. The shame was bogged down in so much misrepresentations by a lot of people, but quite frankly, I think that was tinkering and not reform. It was reform of casuals, but not reform of industrial relations.
[Michaelia] Understood.
Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, chair.
[Michaelia] A lot of .
I’d like to say one thing. As the minister indicated the casual amendments, the bill, that does introduce the national employment standards casual conversion and national employment standards. And does simplify assistance prior to that introduction into the NAS, you got a different conversions in the awards in the enterprise agreement, in the particularly black coal mining industries, there are confusion about whether the peoples are eligible for conversion or not. There are peoples who may not have a conversion, there was a gap. So by introducing it into the Fair Work Act as a national employment standards that provides a universal right to all the employees and in certain ways also simplified the systems.
And I accept that and appreciate what you said, Ms. Yang. The fact that the black coal mine award prevented, excluded casuals yet there was still casuals under various types of enterprise agreements, which were not, I don’t believe they complied with the law, indicates that the industrial relation system is a mess. But that’s why we supported the introduction of casual conversion because it does clarify things for people. But there’s a long, long way to go to fix this mess.
Yes, and the casual conversion does now apply to the people’s covered by the Black Coal Mining Award.
The industry the ALP and Greens want to phase out – mining – is driving a record $10 billion a month balance of trade surplus. This money is going into the local economy, creating jobs and increasing Government revenue. Without the contribution from mining each month Australia would be in a depression.
One Nation supports the mining industry and the ability of Australians to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour.
Transcript:
The national accounts figures published yesterday carried great news for our community and very bad news for those in the Senate for whom ‘mining’ is a dirty word. Australia’s balance of trade surplus is now at a 10-year high, just over $10 billion in June, up from $9 billion in May.
Every dollar of surplus is $1 of growth for the Australian economy, generating jobs and economic security and making Australia more resilient. Every $10 increase in the iron ore or coal price adds $1 billion to government revenue. Overall, metal ore exports reached a record high in April of $16½ billion.
That’s $16.5 billion in mining exports in one month. Consider all the employment this is creating—the breadwinner jobs, the families supported by individual labour rather than by government handouts. Investment in mining is an investment in our future security—it’s that simple. Iron ore is now at $154 a tonne and coal is at $171 a tonne—both against budget projections of $40 a tonne.
The government has a windfall here. Copper is up 23 per cent, steel is up 24 per cent, nickel is up 15 per cent and cobalt is up 57 per cent. Our mining recovery is broadly based and sustained. This revenue must go, in part, to building Australian infrastructure, which is our future, and, in part, to paying back our profligate deficit, caused by temporary COVID measures that now somehow appear permanent. Yet Labor and the Greens are telling miners, ‘Bad luck,’ because both want to ban any new mines and extensions of existing mines.
Their policy will devastate the economy and the government revenue base. Entire communities will be reliant on government welfare and any rules imposed on them in order to keep the benefits. No wonder the Greens and Labor hate mining. There will be none of this supporting of ourselves under a government Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt lead.
We are one community, we are one nation, and mining will keep us free.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/mining-thumbnail.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2021-09-01 12:07:022021-09-01 12:07:20Mining is keeping Australia out of a depression.
Senator Roberts said, “After two years of lobbying the government to look more closely at Coal LSL, I welcome today’s independent review of Coal LSL.”
“I acknowledge all the coal miners who have worked with me to help identify the errors in Coal LSL,” he said.
Coal LSL, an Australian Government corporation, had never appeared at Senate Estimates for scrutiny until Senator Roberts requested their attendance.
“Coal LSL have now appeared at five Estimates hearings and at each hearing my questions have shown embarrassing shortcomings in their governance.”
“One of the positive outcomes for workers from those Estimates’ questions is that twelve employers have been issued with notices for systematic or widespread under-reporting of casual hours.”
Senator Roberts has worked closely with the government in defining the terms of reference that will underpin the inquiry and pleased to see that ex-employees and ex-employers have been included.
Senator Roberts said, ‘I will be watching to ensure that the inquiry will address the structural and governance deficiencies and specifically scrutinise the possible conflicts of interests since directors of Coal LSL are from unions and employers.
“The current make up of the board means that no-one is representing the workers,” he added.
One Nation supports this motion. Cheap reliable hydrocarbon fuels have led to the greatest improvement in human progress in the past 150 years.
One Nation supports Senator Rennick’s proposal to extend the Kogan Creek coal power plant.
Climate policies and renewable subsidies have led to Australia having one of the most expensive power prices in the world and becoming more unstable. Senator Rennick’s proposal is good for Queensland and good for Australia.
For over 12 months I have been trying to find solutions to an unfair industrial relations system that has caused serious issues in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Queensland. There is a systemic issue of ‘full-time casuals’ who are being paid 40% less than their full-time counterparts and not receiving casual loadings or entitlements.
Additionally, these casuals are hired by labour-hire firms who have classed them as ‘office workers’ rather than ‘production workers’ and when injured are not covered by injury or workers compensation. During Senate Estimates this week I questioned the Fair Work Commission on why they allowed this unfair Enterprise Agreement in the Hunter Valley:
FWC said that there had been no proposal to change the Black Coal Mining Award by the parties, yet we know there was in 2017 when “the Fair Work Commission rejected the application by a major employers group to extend the casual employment provisions in the Black Coal award to Production and Engineering Employees” CFMEU News 6/7/2017.
Commission has no governance to ensure that workers actually agree with an enterprise agreement before the Commission rubber stamps it.
The FWC is part of the problem not part of the solution.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for attending. Ms Parker, could you tell me briefly your role, please. What’s the core of your role?
Ms Parker: I’m an independent statutory appointment, and I’m responsible for implementing the functions under the Fair Work Act. That includes: providing education, assistance, advice and guidance to employers, employees, outworkers, outwork industries and organisations; promoting and monitoring compliance with workplace laws; inquiring into and investigating breaches of the Fair Work Act; taking appropriate enforcement action; and performing the agency’s statutory functions efficiently, effectively, economically and ethically. The Fair Work Ombudsman—as in myself—inspectors and staff constitute a statutory office established by the Fair Work Act 2009.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. We’re very concerned about so-called casuals—I say ‘so-called’ in reference to the fact they’re not really casuals; they’re permanents. I’m referring to employees in the Hunter Valley in particular, but there are some aspects that translate into Queensland. This so-called casual coalminer issue has dragged on for years. What are you doing to fix this problem?
Ms Parker: We’re well aware of the issues, and, as you know, you and I have written to each other a couple of times. We take the matter really seriously; I can assure you of that. Where it’s about long service leave, I think we’ve mentioned before that there is a Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Funding Corporation, and we don’t have anything to do with that. Long service leave is not our purview. We do provide basic information around that, and we refer specific inquiries to that corporation if they’re about long service leave. The Fair Work Commission, who you spoke with earlier, has jurisdiction to resolve long service leave disputes under the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act. The Fair Work Commission can assist with disputes under the act as well, when a modern award provides for a procedure to deal with disputes.
We don’t have power of that kind. We can provide general information about the long service leave scheme in the black coal industry. We’re aware of a number of class actions that are being pursued around issues in the coalmining industry. We’re obviously watching those, but they are before the court, so I won’t be able to comment on those, as you probably can understand, or about the circumstances of any individual who has sought our assistance in regard to the matter that’s before the court.
Senator ROBERTS: You did broaden it by mentioning coal LSL, so I might as well put the whole scope in there. I know you can only access or reference or work on some of those. These are in relation to miners in the Hunter Valley: loss of workers compensation; no accident pay; safety issues; nonreporting of injuries; pay rates; leave; loss of leave entitlements; long service leave, which you already mentioned—some of these are beyond your purview—security; threats; intimidation; and bullying. As I said, they’re not all your responsibility, but I’m particularly concerned about the definition of ‘casual mineworker’ and the award. As you know, your website has said and, in a letter to Simon Turner, one of your advisers said that there is no classification of ‘casual’ in the black-coalmining industry award. Specifically on pay and leave, there are no leave provisions in the enterprise agreement. These people are working full-time production roles, but casuals can’t work in production; they’re working extended rosters with no leave; and they’re being underpaid relative to their peers in full-time employment. They also have been neglected by the unions. Sorry, I’ll make that very clear and specific: the Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU, not the whole CFMMEU. These people had no-one to turn to. They turned to you. They’ve written to you, as I said, and one lady said, ‘There is no classification of ‘casual’.’ How can they do a BOOT when there’s nothing to compare against?
Ms Parker: Senator, we’re talking about the enterprise agreement that was negotiated with the unions and employers and approved by the Fair Work Commission.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it was rubber stamped by the Fair Work Commission.
Ms Parker: It does include casuals, as you said, in some categories. The fact that the award doesn’t have casuals does not preclude the enterprise agreement having casuals. I think Mr Hehir said in his evidence that it is the Fair Work Commission’s role to make sure that the enterprise agreement is fair once it’s agreed.
Senator ROBERTS: How then can BHP’s Operations Services recent application for an enterprise agreement be knocked back, and yet the Chandler MacLeod 2015 enterprise agreement be passed even though the BHP OS pay rates are higher than the Chandler MacLeod pay rates?
Ms Parker: It’s a matter you’ll have to ask the commission, I’m sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: I did.
Ms Parker: They are an independent tribunal and they will have had witnesses in front of them, people providing evidence to them, before they made that decision.
Senator ROBERTS: I asked the Fair Work Commission about anybody applying to vary the black- coalmining industry award about casuals, and they said they’re not aware of any. But I notice on one of your websites and also from the CFMMEU in Queensland, that the Fair Work Commission rejected an application to vary the black-coalmining industry award 2010 to enable the engagement of casuals across all classifications of the award. That was an application from a large employer group. The CFMMEU opposed that, and it was defeated. So how would the Fair Work Commission not be aware of that?
Mr Hehir: If I recall Ms O’Neill’s evidence, it was she didn’t believe there had but that she would take it on notice and check. I think that’s where she went to.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s pretty stunning, Mr Hehir, that this issue’s been going on six years and we’ve made such a big fuss about it in the last 12 months and she wouldn’t be aware of it. Anyway that’s for her, as you said. Recently I asked you, Ms Parker, how many casual black-coalminers from the Hunter Valley have referred complaints or matters relating to their pay and entitlements to your office since 2014. Your response was ‘none’. Since that time you’ve been forced to admit that Mr Simon Turner did lodge complaints during this time period. Can you advise if there were more cases? In all instances please advise the outcomes of their complaints.
Ms Parker: We do apologise that we advised ‘none’. We were certainly not trying to hide that. It’s in terms of our search facility. You have to be very precise. This is black coal, and it’s a specific area of black coal. So I apologise. We did correct the record. We’ve had one that we’re aware of, and we’re pretty confident that that’s all we have. As I said, the system searches are maybe not as surgical as we would like. But we’re very much aware of one.
Senator ROBERTS: I take it that the Attorney-General’s Department now, and the preceding minister who looks after industrial relations, are responsible for changing the regulations or the legislation. Who is responsible for advising them of the need to do so? Because casualisation and the abuse of casuals has really been an issue for quite some time, yet now it has landed employer groups and many hundreds of thousands of workers in problems.
Ms Parker: In terms of our role as the Ombudsman, we enforce and apply the law as it stands. As you say, we are not responsible for the policy or legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t imply that you were responsible for the legislation, but I would have thought that you could have been advising the Attorney-General or his predecessor of the need to resolve this problem, which has been going on now for at least six years.
Ms Parker: We certainly have regular conversations with the Department, Mr Hehir, about a whole range of matters.
Senator ROBERTS: About this issue? When did you start talking about this issue?
Ms Parker: I haven’t discussed this particular issue. We’ve talked about the WorkPack v Rossato issue, how we interpret casuals, and what advice we provide to the public on casual employees. We are aware that the government’s review of the IR system and the working groups are looking at this area of casual employment. We are monitoring that, and we will provide advice and data. We’re happy to share with the committee what we do with the casuals issue and what advice we provide. But in relation to the legislation, that is a matter for the government.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s my understanding that the Fair Work Ombudsman told Mr Turner to ‘go and get a lawyer’ in order to resolve this and that you have denied the existence of casual coal production workers. You are, I hope, aware of the significant damage that this stance of yours has caused both employees and employers, who now have been taking advantage of this and have racked up a huge liability.
Ms Parker: I don’t believe that we would advise anybody to go get a lawyer. We provide advice to people about all the various areas of assistance that are available to them. Where we are unable to help them, as in we do not see that they are eligible for payment based on the definition in the legislation as it stands, we will advise that they may be able to go to small claims or they may be able to take a court case. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, there is a class action being pursued at the moment on this particular issue.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done anything to actually help Mr Turner and casual employees like him? Why has it taken so long and it’s still not resolved? These people are in limbo, they’re living out of garages, they’ve been traumatised—why?
Ms Parker: We provide assistance to everyone who contacts us. I’d rather not discuss Mr Turner. We don’t talk about specific requests for assistance. We haven’t asked Mr Turner if he minds us talking about him in Senate estimates.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Turner has assured me that I can inquire about him. He is very distraught about the lack of support he’s received from anyone, including the union; the employer; the mine owner, BHP; state and federal bureaucracies and agencies; Labor MPs; Liberal ministers—he’s at a loss.
Ms Parker: All I can say there is that we have provided—our website says that only staff employees can be casuals under the award. And the webpage references schedule B of the award. It sets out classifications for staff employees et cetera. We’ve provided the factual information that we have on the actual award. Some people were not satisfied with that answer, so the only option we have is to refer them to those other sources of help, including their ability to go to court if they wish to. We’re not a court or a tribunal.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a problem here. Obviously within the legislation there’s a problem, and some people are taking advantage of that. You’ve just said, tough, that’s the way the legislation is. You haven’t referred it to anyone who can change the legislation or investigate changing it or advise changing it? These people are still out in the cold.
Ms Parker: The government’s aware of the issues around casuals, and as you know—
Senator ROBERTS: So how long have they been aware of the issue around casuals? Mr Turner has been writing to people in the government since 2014.
Mr Hehir: Sorry to interrupt. I think we’ve talked broadly around the government’s intent to legislate for a definition of a casual and to legislate for casual conversion rights. I accept that the casual conversion rights may not work at this point in time for the individual you are referring to. The issue that perhaps would be worthwhile us meeting with you separately on is how the enterprise agreement definition has actually impacted on the other issues that you raise. What I’m not clear about is how an enterprise agreement arrangement would impact on somebody’s right to workers compensation. So perhaps we could meet with you separately to try and tease out how this all flows to end up where the actual problems are arising. On the face of it, there’s nothing, to my knowledge, that would mean that somebody who has an enterprise agreement isn’t entitled to workers compensation. I’d need to get into more detail to actually understand what’s occurring to cause that break.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Parker raised Coal LSL, and when she did, I said let’s go to the full scope of how these people are being abused, exploited and neglected. You’ve now raised workers’ compensation as well. That’s not the main issue. The main issue here is the complexity of the issues, and nobody is fixing it: not the state government, not the federal government. No federal or state agency, no politician is fixing this thing. These people are continuing to face this after six years of neglect and exploitation. I asked Ms Parker a simple question: how long has the government known about it? She said, we know the government knows. I want to know how long they’ve known about it. Was it last year, the year before, 2014?
Ms Parker: I was talking about casuals in general. I apologise if I confused you.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s not hard to be confused on this issue, I can tell you, because there are several people who know one thing very clearly: they are not being protected by employers, unions, agencies federal and state, politicians, governments, ministers at all. These people have been left out in the cold. We now know there is no legal pay rate for a casual mine worker. So someone made it up then; otherwise you wouldn’t be able to do a boot test.
Mr Hehir: Senator, that’s not the responsibility of Ms Parker.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Mr Hehir, you said it wasn’t the Attorney-General’s responsibility, and I took it that you implied his predecessor. It wasn’t their responsibility. You said look at the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission told me it’s not their responsibility; look at the Fair Work Ombudsman. We’re getting running round in circles. This is a magic circle.
Mr Hehir: My understanding of the evidence provided by Ms O’Neill was that in assessing the enterprise agreement that you referred to the relevant commissioner, under the legislation, would be required to assess whether that award was better off overall compared—
Senator ROBERTS: I get that, but how can you refer to a rate when there is no rate? I offered her the opportunity of giving her the full-time roster that these people were employed on as casuals. Could you cost that?
Mr Hehir: It’s a very complex process that the Fair Work Commission undertake to make sure that people are better off overall. I think Ms O’Neill’s evidence was that they’ve changed their practices to try and insert more rigour into that.
Senator ROBERTS: But that indicates that there was a problem before the change last year. So what is going to be done to look after the people who were affected by the ‘unrigorous’ system?
Mr Hehir: As I said, you’ve raised a number of issues and circumstances around this particular individual and, you say, others which—
Senator ROBERTS: Hundreds of others.
Mr Hehir: As I said, it would be useful if we could meet to go through the relevant issues. As I said, some of the things that you imply arise from the enterprise agreement definition. I’m not clear how they would cause that. So I’d need to work through that and understand the interaction with the New South Wales workers’ compensation laws. There is a separate worker occurring around the long service leave. But certainly I’m not aware of a circumstance in which the arrangements under an enterprise agreement would impact on workers’ compensation, so I’d need to have a look at that.
In terms of the actual decision, I think Ms O’Neill was clear: if someone didn’t think that decision was appropriate or that enterprise agreement was correctly decided in terms of passing the BOOT, they were able to appeal it. I think Ms O’Neill identified that that particular enterprise agreement has nominally expired and that the other option there is for someone to apply for the agreement to be terminated. They are the technical processes that need to be followed. As I said, there seems to be a complex web of interactions here. It would be useful if we could meet with you to go through those.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy to meet privately with you and go through them, but we’ve had several meetings and nothing has happened. What’s my main concern, Mr Hehir?
Mr Hehir: Senator, your main concern seems to be that the individual is stuck in limbo—
Senator ROBERTS: And hundreds of others like him.
Mr Hehir: and that he cannot find a straightforward answer from the Commonwealth government or the state governments.
Senator ROBERTS: He’s wanting more than an answer. He and I are wanting a solution. I’ve got three aims for this, and I’ve said this from the start. This goes back to May last year, and I first raised it around about July last year and then in Senate estimates and so on. My first aim is to make sure that Simon Turner and other people like him get their fair entitlements—morally fair as well as lawfully fair—and I want him to get some compensation for the trauma he has suffered for the last six years. The second aim is to make sure these practices are stopped right across the coal industry. The third aim is to bring some justice to the perpetrators of this, who in my opinion are BHP, Chandler Macleod and the Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU. That’s what I want. Is there any way you can help us in achieving some of those three aims?
Mr Hehir: We can certainly look at what the legal entitlements. In terms of the moral entitlements, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that. The legal entitlements we can certainly examine.
Senator ROBERTS: If you go beyond the nitpicky words of the law and you look to the intent of the law, he’s been diddled by some mistakes, some ways of interpreting the law wrongly. Everyone knows that a minor who works in a black coal mine is entitled to workers’ compensation under coal miners’ insurance. There was nothing for him. I’m not going to ask your salary, but he’s existing on $20,000 a year—a fraction of what he used to have.
Mr Hehir: As I said, I’m not aware of what impact his enterprise agreement status would have on his workers’ compensation. I’ve offered to meet with you to go through the details to try and understand how that flows.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll happily agree to that. But my second concern is that this has been going on unresolved for 16 months now, and I don’t see any sign of it being resolved. These people are still being left in limbo. They’ve just been discarded. My concerns now have become: What are the federal government agencies doing, and is the government at all interested in doing this? How can we possibly support changes to legislation when they’re not even enforcing the current legislation or leaving people out in the cold and there doesn’t seem to be any intent or desire to fix it?
Mr Hehir: That’s certainly not my understanding of the Attorney’s view. As I said, I’m happy to meet to go through the detail. I know that there’s work underway in relation to long-service leave, which was the issue that I recall you—
Senator ROBERTS: After first being denied that there was an issue and then admitting it—that’s a pleasant sign. It took us months to get that.
Mr Hehir: As I said, there is work underway to try and resolve the long-service leave issue. In relation to the actual approach around the enterprise agreement, as I said, I’m happy to have a look at the interaction with other matters. But the enterprise agreement was a document that was accepted by the Fair Work Commission once the employees had voted on it.
Senator ROBERTS: After what we now see—an admission that it’s been tightened up and made rigorous, which implies to me that, before, it wasn’t. So there’s been no investigation of that from what it seems.
Mr Hehir: Ms O’Neill, I think, was at pains to point out that she wasn’t making the statement that the previous process had caused any issues with that particular agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: But there were changes to make it more rigorous, implying that it wasn’t as rigorous before. What I’m seeing is that the Fair Work Ombudsman is not taking responsibility for suggesting changes to a problem or solutions or even identifying the need to investigate a problem to the Attorney-General, and I’m also seeing that it’s not the Fair Work Ombudsman’s responsibility to come up with a solution. So how does the Attorney-General possibly identify this? This just sits there, and Simon Turner keeps sleeping in a garage.
Mr Hehir: As I said, the responsibility for the actual awards and the approval of the agreements is the responsibility of the Fair Work Commission. Ms O’Neill has outlined what she believes are the alternatives there and taken some questions on notice. In relation to the issue around whether Mr Turner was a genuine casual or whether he was should have been classified as an ongoing employee, the Attorney has identified that he intends to introduce legislation in this calendar year to deal with the definition of a ‘casual’ to make it clearer for both employers and employees of what their actual status is and to also provide greater clarity and certainty around the
right to convert. So, in terms of the future, that particular aspect is certainly being looked at. As I said, I’d need to have a look at the interactions with the other jurisdictions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned that the application that the government has submitted to be part of their Rossato case—I don’t know the technical legal term—was accompanied by some pretty inflammatory rhetoric. All I see in the Rossato case is a decision that says: ‘You tried to have these people passed off as casuals. They’re really permanents.’ So I think we need to have a lot more openness, candour and honesty from the government on Rossato.
Mr Hehir: As I said earlier, the government’s primary interest in Rossato is clarifying whether any claim for the National Employment Standards made by someone who believes they were never or are no longer a casual is able to be set off by the loading. That’s where our interest is, and that’s where the focus is.
Senator ROBERTS: In my opinion, the Rossato decision makes that clear. But that’s up to you, of course.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, how long do you think you’ve got?
Senator ROBERTS: Probably another two questions.
CHAIR: That’s okay. Then I’ll go to Labor.
Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions for you as a participant in this process, Ms Parker: Is the industrial law in this country at the moment too complex? Is it impossible to cover everything, impossible to enforce and impossible to understand? How can an everyday worker who doesn’t want to become a lawyer possibly understand what’s going on? He relies on other people to interpret for him or her.
Ms Parker: For the bulk of the workforce, who are on awards or agreements, it’s relatively simple. They don’t have to read the whole award. They don’t have to read the whole agreement. They obviously need to understand what they should be getting paid and what their entitlements are. We provide a lot of assistance to people who phone us and ask us. If they have concerns then we help them. We have a pay and conditions tool that they can look at to work out what they should be paid. There’s a lot of information out there to assist workers, and we do that to the best of our ability. There is some complexity in the system but, for an individual worker looking at their own individual entitlements, it should not be that complicated. Obviously, if you look at the whole Fair Work Act and see how large it is, you’ll say it’s really complicated, but most people don’t need to look at the whole Fair Work Act; they only need to look at a small component of it.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Turner impresses me as being very intelligent, very capable and very astute, as does Stuart Bonds, who’s tried to help him with this issue for 16, 17 or 18 months now, and they just can’t get through it. I don’t think it’s a matter of the complexity by itself; it’s a matter of the complexity of all the hangers-on they’re trying to drag with them and trying to shake some sense into. There’s something in this mess that’s causing these people to be discarded and exploited. First of all, a company like Chandler Macleod can exploit them. The Hunter Valley division of the CFMMEU enables that, and BHP gets away scot-free and avoids its corporate and moral responsibilities. These people are tossed on the scrap heap. So there’s something wrong with this system. The whole system has broken down.
Ms Parker: This is clearly a complex case. It’s clearly a complex award and a complex enterprise agreement. Our role is to try to make it as simple as we can, but we can’t change what the agreement actually says. It was negotiated; it was approved. It therefore is in play. What the Fair Work Ombudsman—
Senator ROBERTS: So, after six years with the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Attorney-General’s predecessors, they’re still here. I think we’ve done this enough for now. You know where I stand.
