Showing posts with label industrial relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label industrial relations. Show all posts

Thursday 5 January 2017

Next time a man tells you that there is a level playing field.........


Many older Australian women alive today reached retirement age without any superannuation savings. Some will still do so into the future if they have predominately engaged in unpaid work during most of their working-age life.

Superannuation was first paid in the mid‑1800s as a benefit to certain employees in the public service and larger corporate organisations. Invitation to join what were then a limited number of superannuation schemes was predominately restricted to males at professional/managerial level. Full benefits upon retirement could be taken as a lump sum. By 1915 super earnings were exempt from taxation [taxreview.treasury.com.au].

As recently as the late 1960s women often faced an employment bar on marriage and/or once wed were forced to withdraw from any superannuation scheme they may have had the good fortune to be previously eligible for. [Paxton, JA, July 2014, Women and Superannuation: The Impact of the Family Law Superannuation Regime, p.23]

Superannuation was fairly uncommon in Australia until the 1970s, when it began to be included in industrial awards.

In 1985, only 39 per cent of the workforce had superannuation—24 per cent of women and 50 per cent of men had access to super.
At that stage, superannuation coverage was concentrated in higher paid white collar positions in large corporations and, in the public sector.

Superannuation became a major component of Australia's retirement system following the introduction of the Superannuation Guarantee in 1992. The Superannuation Guarantee requires employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's earnings into a superannuation fund, which the employee cannot access until they reach the superannuation preservation age. For most employees, superannuation coverage expanded following the introduction of compulsory superannuation.

In 1993, 81 per cent of employed Australians were covered by superannuation and the gender gap in superannuation coverage had narrowed, with 82 per cent of employed men and 78 per cent of employed women covered by superannuation. The employer contribution rate has increased over time, from 3 per cent in 1992 to the current rate of 9.5 per cent. 
[Economics References Committee, April 2016, 'A husband is not a retirement plan': Achieving economic security for women in retirement, p.6]

The superannuation industry, including the Commonwealth's defined benefit funds, may prefer to forget past practices. There was a time when women were forced to leave their super fund on marriage and, as a result, were deprived of unvested benefits. The winners then were long-term (usually permanent) employees, predominantly male, who reaped their full entitlements on retirement……
It wasn't too long ago that during a family breakdown, women who sacrificed a career to bring up a family were unable to access their partner's vested super benefits. Family law changes now allow women to access a fair share of their former partner's superannuation.  [The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 March 2016]

The table below shows the disparity between men's and women's superannuation balances over time across all age groups.

[Economics References Committee, April 2016, 'A husband is not a retirement plan': Achieving economic security for women in retirement, p.9]

Thursday 22 September 2016

Looking back on the Abbott-Heydon politically motivated fizzer


Professor John Quiggin writing at johnquiggin.com, 10 September 2016:

When Dyson Heydon delivered the report of the Royal Commissioner into Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, he claimed that his findings represented “the tip of the iceberg”. At the time, I commented that, given nearly $50 million of public money and lengthy hearings with the exceptional powers of a Royal Commission, the Australian public was entitled to expect the whole iceberg.

It turns out that I was too charitable. In the months since the Commission reported, a string of the charges he recommended have been thrown out or withdrawn In fact, six months later, there has only been one conviction, resulting in a suspended sentence. The only big fish to be caught since the establishment of Heydon’s star chamber has been the Commission’s own star witness, Kathy Jackson.

And the bills keep coming in. The last budget allocated $6 million more for the AFP-Victorian Police taskforce, which currently has outstanding cases against a grand total of six unionists. By contrast, taskforce Argo in Queensland, focused on child exploitation, has a budget of $3 million.

For another contrast, here are a few of the cases of alleged wage fraud, misappropriation of worker entitlements and so on that have emerged since Heydon’s Commission was launched: 7-11 ( million underpayment), Queensland NickelPizza HutMyers and Spotless, and lots of small employers in the agricultural sector. That’s on top of the general run of sharp practiceenvironmental vandalism, market rigging, and dubious practices of all kinds.

It would be absurd to deny the existence of corrupt union officials and, though it is much rarer, systemic corruption, as in the case of the Health Services Union. But the continued failure of a massively expensive, politically motivated inquisition to turn up more than a handful of cases suggests that the problems are isolated, and that the real drive is to attack unions for doing the job of representing workers.

Wednesday 24 August 2016

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment, Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash, is learning the hard way that Australians expect the boss to act fairly


As a recognised bargaining representative of the Turnbull Government, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment, Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash is once more before the Australian Fair Work Commission.

Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), media release, 17 August 2016:

CPSU TAKES ON MINISTER MICHAELIA CASH IN FAIR WORK COMMISSION

The CPSU has taken Employment Minister Michaelia Cash to the Fair Work Commission over her failure to engage in good faith around enterprise agreements for Commonwealth public sector workers.

The case is based on Minister Cash’s refusal to deal constructively with the CPSU, including refusing to discuss or properly consider the union’s fair and reasonable proposals to settle bargaining across multiple Commonwealth agencies.

Action in Fair Work is part of the union’s multi-pronged plan to make the Turnbull Government fix its public sector bargaining mess; the strategy also includes industrial action at international airports and elsewhere, community campaigning targeted in marginal electorates and repeated efforts to engage directly with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Minister Cash.

CPSU National President Alistair Waters said: “Minister Michaelia Cash is responsible for setting and implementing the Turnbull Government’s harsh and unworkable approach to public sector bargaining. We’re taking her to Fair Work to hold her and the Turnbull Government accountable for this debacle that’s unfairly attacked workers for nearly three years.”

“Minister Cash hasn’t just refused to meet with the CPSU, she has also publicly misrepresented our position on numerous occasions and otherwise tried to undermine our attempts to help her fix the Turnbull Government’s bargaining mess. Our members have shown a willingness to compromise but Minister Cash’s responses have been consistently toxic and unfair.”

“There’s a bitter irony that we’ve had to take Minister Cash to the Fair Work Commission to get her to fulfil even her most basic obligations. This is the person who as Employment Minister is responsible for the Fair Work Act she’s flouting by actively undermining bargaining.”

“Public sector workers have fought for nearly three years to protect their existing rights against this Government’s bargaining attacks and they are determined to secure a fair and reasonable outcome. The only way for this protracted dispute to end is for the Turnbull Government to realise that its attempts to force workers to give up family friendly rights and other conditions have failed, and instead engage with us on a sensible alternative.”

“Our action in the Fair Work Commission is just one part of a much broader strategy to pressure Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Cash to fix their bargaining debacle. We’re also planning further industrial action in the wake of last week’s Immigration and Border Force strike at international airports and elsewhere and continuing with our community campaigning in marginal electorates.”

Friday 29 July 2016

Shop at Woolworths on the NSW North Coast? You need to read this



Trolley collection services procurement by Woolworths Limited,  media release date June 2016: 

In June 2014 we commenced an Inquiry into Woolworths’ procurement of trolley collection services.

For nearly a decade before this, we'd been investigating allegations of serious non-compliance with workplace laws involving businesses providing trolley collection services to Woolworths Limited (Woolworths).

In response to a perceived lack of improvement in compliance and disturbing allegations of violence towards workers at some Woolworths' sites, we started an Inquiry into their procurement of trolley collection services. It aimed to comprehensively identify and address the levels and drivers of non-compliance with Australian workplace laws by businesses involved in Woolworths' labour supply chains.

We examined around 130 Woolworths' supermarket sites across Australia and found indications of some form of non-compliance at 79% of them. The findings of this report indicate an entrenched culture of non-compliance in the Woolworths trolley collection supply chain.

At the time of publishing, as a result of the Inquiry, we've taken enforcement action against a number of businesses (and their Directors) involved in various Woolworths' labour supply chains, including:
commencing legal action against 2 businesses and their Directors, one of which we believe provided us with false and misleading records and the other for allegedly underpaying over $25 000 in wages
issuing 9 letters of caution for various Award contraventions, failing to adequately keep records, and misclassifying employment as an independent contracting arrangement.

We are also considering future legal proceedings against a number of other businesses providing labour to Woolworths for similar alleged contraventions.

Download the full report on our Inquiry into trolley collection services procurement by Woolworths Limited (PDF 1.1MB).

EXCERPTS

Examining 130 (or 13.5%) of Woolworths’ supermarket sites across Australia , the Inquiry found:

n more than 3 in every 4 (79%) of sites visited had indications of some form of non-compliance with workplace laws
n almost 1 in every 2 (49%) of sites visited presented serious issues, that is multiple indicators of non-compliance
n deficient governance arrangements contributing to a lack of Award knowledge and substandard record keeping
n false, inaccurate or misleading records
n failure to issue pay slips to workers
n workers being paid rates as low as $10 an hour
n cash payments which disguised the true identities of workers and actual amounts paid to workers
n manipulation of the identity card system implemented by Woolworths
n workers vulnerable to exploitation and often complicit in acts of non-compliance
n complex labour supply chains with networks of corporate structures and intermediaries to facilitate cash payments, recruitment of vulnerable workers and production of false records.

These characteristics are indicative of an entrenched culture of non-compliance in the Woolworths trolley collection supply chain......

We examined correspondence and the Trolley Collection Service Agreement from 2011 relating to 17 NSW and ACT supermarket sites. By dividing the agreed price by the weekly labour hours required to deliver the service, we found the cost per labour hour was below minimum pay rates at 15 of the 17 sites.

Friday 10 June 2016

Lismore Hospital workers not happy with upstairs-downstairs parking arrangements



OUT IN THE STREET FOR TWICE THE PRICE: THE PARKING RAW DEAL FOR LISMORE HOSPITAL WORKERS

Friday 10 June, 2016

Hospital workers who can’t get into the new car park at Lismore Base Hospital will have to pay more than twice as much to park in surrounding streets.

Health Services Union NSW Secretary Gerard Hayes said the new multi-story car park at the hospital will only provide 270 spaces for around 1,600 hospital workers.

“Hospital staff who were able to secure a spot in the new car park will only have to pay $12 a week, but everyone else will be paying more than double that amount to park out in in the street.

“Why should lower-paid hospital workers such as cleaners and security staff be paying $5 a day when lucky doctors and specialists can get parking for just $2.40 a day?

“Talk about a raw deal. The hospital and the Lismore City Council need to work this out and provide a better arrangement so that all staff are treated equitably.”

Hospital workers will today rally outside Lismore Base Hospital to demand action on the parking situation.

Mr Hayes said a system of providing vouchers for hospital staff to access street parking at the same rate as the new multi-storey car park would be a sensible solution.

“Lismore City Council charges $2 to park all day in the CBD, so it looks like there’s an element of price gouging going on around the hospital. The new car park is due to be opened soon, so the Council needs to act in this situation now.”

Friday 3 June 2016

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis lists some common breaches of the rights, freedoms and privileges recognised by the common law


Australian Attorney-General and Liberal Senator George Brandis has helpfully listed common breaches of a citizen’s rights, freedoms and privileges – the same rights, freedoms and privileges which coincidentally have been eroded in federal legislation enacted since 2001.


Review of Commonwealth Laws for Consistency with Traditional Rights, Freedoms and Privileges
I, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, Attorney-General of Australia, having regard to the rights, freedoms and privileges recognised by the common law, REFER to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for inquiry and report pursuant to section 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996 (Cth):
· the identification of Commonwealth laws that encroach upon traditional rights, freedoms and privileges; and
· a critical examination of those laws to determine whether the encroachment upon those traditional rights, freedoms and privileges is appropriately justified.
For the purpose of the inquiry ‘laws that encroach upon traditional rights, freedoms and privileges’ are to be understood as laws that:
· reverse or shift the burden of proof;
· deny procedural fairness to persons affected by the exercise of public power;
· exclude the right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination;
· abrogate client legal privilege;
· apply strict or absolute liability to all physical elements of a criminal offence;
· interfere with freedom of speech;
· interfere with freedom of religion;
· interfere with vested property rights;
· interfere with freedom of association;
· interfere with freedom of movement;
· disregard common law protection of personal reputation;
· authorise the commission of a tort;
· inappropriately delegate legislative power to the Executive;
· give executive immunities a wide application;
· retrospectively change legal rights and obligations;
· create offences with retrospective application; 
· alter criminal law practices based on the principle of a fair trial;
· permit an appeal from an acquittal;
· restrict access to the courts; and
· interfere with any other similar legal right, freedom or privilege.
Scope of the reference
In undertaking this reference, the ALRC should include consideration of Commonwealth laws in the areas of, but not limited to:
· commercial and corporate regulation; · environmental regulation; and
· workplace relations.

The full report can be read here.

Thursday 19 May 2016

Australian Federal Police and the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) in 2016


The Australian Federal Police (AFP) are not covering themselves with glory in relation to one Australian union.......

This article in The Guardian on 16 April 2016 appears to indicate that, in subsequent interactions with Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Australian Federal Police did not forget that the union had successfully defended itself in court in 2015:

A complaint from the construction union to the commonwealth ombudsman paints an extraordinary picture of heavy-handed tactics by special police taskforces, including a police officer allegedly warning one unionist he knew his children’s names and what time he dropped them off to school.

The letter, sent by the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) on Tuesday, complains that police repeatedly attempted to question witnesses without their lawyers present and, in one case, demanded a junior employee grant access to union headquarters during a raid without first showing her a warrant.

The union’s complaint alleges that when the Australian federal police searched the ACT branch’s headquarters on 25 August, one officer told the branch secretary Dean Hall, “I do know about your family things”, to explain how he knew his wife’s name.

“Like, I know your kids’ names and their ages and where they go to school and when you drop them off,” the officer is said to have told Hall. “What do you expect? I am profiling you.”

The union’s lawyer, Phillip Pasfield, told the ombudsman these alleged statements were intimidatory, unwarranted and designed to threaten Hall, who was “extremely upset” about the incident.

In December the Australian Capital Territory supreme court ruled that the raid was unlawful because police withheld information from the magistrate in order to get the warrant.

The CFMEU complained that the officer in charge of the raid told building industry participants that he would prefer to make workplace agreements with the Master Builders Association, not the CFMEU…..

The union claimed the AFP deliberately misled a Fairfax Media journalist by saying a CFMEU official had been “raided” on 2 December then changed its story to say the raid related to the official but was not a raid on his or her property. This was done to “destroy the reputation of the official involved”, it said.

In another incident, the CFMEU said the union police taskforce provided false information or failed to correct journalist Stephen Drill, who incorrectly reported Victoria police’s union taskforce Heracles had raided the CFMEU’s Victorian headquarters…..

While this report in The Guardian on 9 May 2016 raises serious concerns about the conduct of the federal police:
Union officials have launched an extraordinary attack on the Australian Federal Police, accusing the force of adopting an "unbalanced and aggressive" approach to union activities and executing the Turnbull government's union-busting ambitions.
Sparking a flare-up of simmering tensions this week, a Victorian union safety officer has become the subject of a criminal investigation after he tested the stability of a guard rail during a site visit and it immediately collapsed.
A letter from the AFP, seen by Fairfax Media, details the allegation of property damage against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union's Peter Clarke. 
The union said the case was "bizarre" and added to serious concerns that police were responding to political pressure to become more heavily involved in industrial relations matters.
"This is a bizarre use of AFP resources that ought to be used to deal with the serious criminality that goes on in the community," union secretary Dave Noonan said.
"It's clear to us that senior officers of the Australian Federal Police are directing some kind of campaign against the union and its officials."
The case is the latest example of what the CFMEU claims is unjust, heavy-handed treatment of its members and officials in Victoria, the ACT and Queensland by the federal police. Slater & Gordon, the union's legal firm, has filed a formal complaint against the AFP with the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
Video footage of the alleged property damage incident shows Mr Clarke – a safety officer with the union's Victorian branch – approaching the guard rail during a safety inspection at a Canberra construction site in February. It appears to show him momentarily shaking the railing before a large section collapses.
Mr Clarke has been called in for interrogation over the incident.
"During the course of the investigation, Mr Clarke was identified as being responsible for damaging a guard rail at that location," AFP acting Commander Robert Wilson said in the letter.
"The allegation against Mr Clarke is property damage ... Police wish to speak to Mr Clarke in relation to the matter in the form of a record of interview."
The union said falls from heights were a leading cause of workplace injury and death, and every safety official was expected to check the stability of guard rails during site inspections. Statistics from Safe Work Australia shows the nation's construction industry accounts for almost 40 per cent of fall-related deaths.
"The fact that this rail was so flimsy it didn't survive a light shake shows it would have been completely ineffective in preventing a fall, and completely fails to comply with the relevant codes of practices," Mr Noonan said.
"Are our priorities saving workers on construction sites from getting killed, or trying to cover up for builders who cut corners on occupational health and safety and put workers' lives at risk?"
The Australian Federal Police said the investigation was ongoing and it would not be appropriate to comment.

CFMEU video footage of the alleged property damage:

The Guardian, 5 May 2016:

In separate proceedings, union official and rugby league great John Lomax will appear in the ACT Supreme Court on Friday against the AFP.

Mr Lomax was investigated and prosecuted for blackmail last year, with police alleging he attempted to force a Canberra painting company and its principal to sign a union enterprise bargaining agreement.

The prosecution was dropped in October. 

Now Mr Lomax is considering a malicious prosecution lawsuit. 

He and his lawyers declined to comment ahead of Friday's court appearance.

But CFMEU national construction secretary Dave Noonan, Mr Lomax's employer, said the former Canberra Raiders hardman's lawyers had been forced to seek a court order to access information about the investigation after requests to the federal police failed.

"The solicitors [who act for Mr Lomax] have sought various documents to ascertain whether or not our concern that there was a malicious element to the prosecution can be sustained," Mr Noonan said.

"Those documents have not been supplied.

"As the documents were not produced it's necessary to make an application in court for pre-trial discovery."

Mr Noonan said the contents of the documents would determine whether Mr Lomax would launch a malicious prosecution suit against the federal police.

"[Mr Lomax] was charged on a completely bogus charge, our QC said so at the time, they proceeded with the charge, they failed to provide any evidence to the court and the charges were dropped.

"If the AFP has got nothing to hide, why not provide the documents? If they acted in good faith, why not provide the documents?

"We think the proper thing for the AFP to do is to produce the documents."


ABC News reporting on the ACT arm of the Australian Federal Police on 22 March 2016:

A former staffer at the centre of an investigation into the office of Labor MLA Joy Burch has hit out at ACT police after it was announced the inquiry had been dropped.

Last year, allegations arose that Ms Burch's chief of staff, Maria Hawthorne, leaked sensitive details of conversations between the ACT Government and the chief of police about the conduct of officers on construction sites in Canberra, to the Construction, Forestry, Mining, Energy Union (CFMEU).

ACT Policing has announced no criminal charges would be laid but revealed that allegations also involved another former staff member.

Ms Hawthorne dismissed the allegations against her and other staff.

"ACT Policing's last-ditch attempt to implicate a second staff member should be seen for what it is – a desperate act of distraction," she said.

"The truly unprecedented event of the past three months has been an elected minister losing her job because of unfounded allegations by an unelected official."

BRIEF BACKGROUND

In this ACT Supreme Court judgment, Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2015] ACTSC 362 (2 December 2015), the Australian Federal Police are found to have abused process:

140. The fact that a second or subsequent warrant might be an abuse of process does not go to the question of the validity of any such warrant, but only if it is shown that the second warrant is actually issued for an ulterior or improper purpose or otherwise constitutes an abuse of process.


141. In my view, it could not be said, in this case, that the issue of the second warrant was an abuse of process. No prejudice to the plaintiff was identified that was outside the contemplation of the construction of the relevant provisions.

Relief

266. As I have found the seizure under the second warrant to be invalid because of the failure to disclose fully the circumstances that were required to be disclosed for the issuing officer, the learned Magistrate, to make a proper decision about whether to issue a warrant that is able to be executed after 9.00 pm, I have not found that any of the other complaints invalidated the search or the warrants.

267. In relation to the material obtained under that warrant, the material must be returned or destroyed.

268. In relation to the breaches that I have found, I have been asked to make declarations of non-compliance with the relevant sections.
269. The question of whether I had power to make declarations was not subject to any challenge by the first defendant, other than as to discretion. This is not a case such as Kennedy v Baker where such an issue arose. There is, in this Court, plenary power to make such declarations and I do not need to consider the jurisdiction further.

270. As to discretion, the only basis on which it was urged that I should not make any declaration is that a failure to do so would still leave a court, which was required to deal with any criminal proceedings on which any seized material is sought to be admitted, and which retained jurisdiction under s 138 of the Evidence Act, to deal with any impropriety or illegality then.

271. I accept that a court will be appropriately able to protect an accused’s interests in any such criminal proceeding by such means; see Phong v Attorney-General for the Commonwealth [2001] FCA 1241; (2001) 114 FCR 75. It seems to me, however, inappropriate to deprive such a court of my findings following what was a detailed hearing with not only affidavit evidence but cross-examination and oral submissions.

272. In the circumstances, I am prepared to make the declarations.

273. It seems to me that the plaintiff has had sufficient success to justify an order for costs. I shall permit the parties to seek another order but otherwise so order.

Tuesday 19 April 2016

So Malcolm Turnbull wants to continue Tony Abbott's vendetta against the former Labor Government's industrial relations legislation


After Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull initially promised to abolish a road safety tribunal if re-elected, following the body's attempts to introduce a new minimum pay rate for trucking contractors, he then announced that the demolition process would begin in this week's special parliamentary sitting.

So what did he actually abolish on 18 April 2016 and why?

The Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal (RSRT) began operation on 1 July 2012.

The Tribunal makes road safety remuneration orders, road transport collective agreements, deals with certain disputes relating to road transport drivers, their employers or hirers, and participants in the supply chain and, conducts research into pay, conditions and related matters that could be affecting safety in the road transport industry.

One month after the last federal election which saw the Liberal-Nationals coalition win government, the Abbott Government announced a review of the RSRT as part of its election promise to review industrial relations law made since the abolition of Work Choices.

The Government’s pre-election Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws (May 2013) included a commitment to review the operation of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal as a matter of urgency. [Review of the Road Safety Remuneration System, Rex Deighton-Smith Jaguar Consulting Pty Ltd, 16 April 2014]

This review was published on 16 April 2014 and, such was the alleged urgency of the matter that the government did not act on its recommendations.

On 11 December 2015 the Tribunal published its Contractor Driver Minimum Payments Road Safety Remuneration Order 2016 which was to take effect from 4 April 2016.

This was the second remuneration order it has made – the first being in 2014.

Subsequent to Remuneration Order 2016 the Abbott-Turnbull Government ordered a second review of the RSRT which was published in January 2016 – a year in which not so co-incidentally it faces a federal election.

On application by Australian Trucking Association (ATA) and National Road Transport Association (NatRoad) the Federal Court of Australia granted a stay on the remuneration order on 1 April 2016, which it later lifted on 7 April 2016.

This is where the matter stood on 18 April 2016 as to the continuing existence of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and the validity of its remuneration orders relating to time and distanced travelled by contract drivers.

But what of the road safety issue? Many people on the NSW North Coast are concerned about their safety when travelling on routes used by heavy commercial vehicles. Anecdotes concerning near misses and reckless heavy vehicles are common when it comes to travel on the Pacific Highway between Coffs Harbour and the NSW-QLD border.

Heavy vehicles reportedly make up 3 per cent of all Australian road traffic and heavy vehicle speeding above posted limits is recognised by governments, the trucking industry and the community as a serious issue in Australia.

Although speeding is a significant risk factor for road crashes for all types of motor vehicles, it is generally considered to be a more critical factor in heavy vehicle crashes. This is because of:
longer breaking distances—heavy vehicles require between 20 to 40 percent more stopping distance;
shorter reaction times—reaction time is a smaller proportion of stopping distance;
greater instability—heavy vehicles are less stable than lighter vehicles, which makes emergency manoeuvres and loss of control on curves more likely; and
greater collision energy—due to their size and rigidity, heavy vehicles exert more collision energy and cause more damage on impact than do other vehicles (Bishop et al. 2008; Brooks 2002; NTC 2005). [Australian Institute of Criminology, October 2012, Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 446]

The federal Dept. of Infrastructure and Regional Development publishes quarterly bulletins on fatal heavy vehicle crashes.

These following statistics are found in its December 2015 bulletin and accompanying tables.

During the 12 months to the end of December 2015, 210 people died from 187 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks or buses.

These included:

– 115 deaths from 102 crashes involving articulated trucks
– 79 deaths from 72 crashes involving heavy rigid trucks
– 20 deaths from 17 crashes involving buses.

Of those 58 fatal crashes which occurred in NSW:

* 31 involved articulated trucks (5 of which did not involve another vehicle) – resulting in 34 deaths of which 22 were drivers of either the heavy or light vehicle involved

* 22 involved heavy rigid trucks (1 of which did not involve another vehicle) - resulting in 24 deaths of which 16 were drivers of either the heavy or light vehicle involved

* 5 involved buses – resulting in 5 deaths of which 3 were drivers of the bus or light vehicle involved.

The correlation between truck drivers wages and safety has been drawn to the attention of the Turnbull Government.

The Conversation, 13 April 2016:

On the question of pay and road transport safety, the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report said:
directly comparing remuneration and safety does demonstrate statistically significant correlations. However, results vary substantially.
the four most recent papers range in conclusion from a) a very large effect, b) a U-shaped curve, in which a large positive effect of initial remuneration rises eventually turns negative, through to c) and d) with a very small effect
the literature is very limited in size and focuses on employee drivers
Drivers are likely to benefit the most [from tribunal orders] due to increased remuneration and fewer road accidents, followed by government and members of society who face costs following road crashes, and will therefore benefit from an improvement in safety.
You can read the full response from O'Connor’s spokeswoman here.
If you just read that Pricewaterhouse Coopers report excerpt above, you might think that the evidence is fairly mixed. In fact, the overwhelming weight of evidence supports Albanese’s claim: there is persuasive evidence of a connection between truck driver pay and safety. [my red bolding]

So there we have it.

The Turnbull Government ignored evidence and supported trucking industry calls to abolish the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and, with the assistance of Senate cross benchers on 18 April, set in motion the removal of a minimum wages award for contract drivers.

However, voters and other road users are being told ‘don’t you worry about that’ when it comes to the safety of themselves and their families when sharing roads with commercial heavy vehicle operators seeking to make profits under a no minimum wage, performance (time) based system.


First Dog on the Moon slyly put the case for the continuance of a minimum wage, without the ongoing political interpretive dance (left) being performed by Michaelia Cash in pursuit of the creation of Work Choices Mark II:


Click on image to enlarge

Wednesday 6 April 2016

'Truffles' Turnbull and his reasons for bringing back the ABCC


Prime Minister Malcolm ‘Truffles’ Turnbull has made it clear that if the Senate refuses consent, for a bill re-establishing the federal  Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC) with even greater legislated power, he will call a double dissolution election for 2 July 2016.

Turnbull is effusive in his praise for the effectiveness of the ABCC:

Turnbull's office says his claim about a 20 per cent jump in productivity came from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It's there all right, if you use 2012-13 as the end date for the ABCC even though it finished at the end of 2011-12. But over the same period productivity in the entire market sector jumped 14 per cent. Something other than the ABCC was at play. In the post-ABCC era productivity in the construction sector climbed 3 per cent. Productivity in the entire market sector climbed 7 per cent.

So is he right about the ABCC?

The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC) commenced operating on 1 October 2005 under the Howard Coalition Government. It possessed significant investigative and regulatory powers in relation to the Australian building and construction industry.

In the four years up to the 2011-12 financial year the ABCC reportedly cost taxpayers somewhere between an est. $135 to $165 million, depending on who you’re talking to.

From 1 June 2012 the Gillard Labor Government replaced the ABCC with the  Fair Work Building and Construction (FWBC) regulator.

According to the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Public Infrastructure, Volume 2 (27 May 2014) data covering approximately ten years:

The Commission has carefully reviewed the studies and the empirical evidence on aggregate productivity (appendix I).

This assessment covers the evidence from IE and MBA (sub. DR211), and the Commission’s own synthesis of studies and data.

The Commission’s view is that given the case studies, industry surveys and other micro evidence, there is no doubt that local productivity has been adversely affected by union (and associated employer) conduct on some building sites, and that the BIT/ABCC is likely to have improved outcomes.

However, when scrutinised meticulously, the quantitative results provided by IE or others do not provide credible evidence that the BIT/ABCC regime created a resurgence in aggregate construction productivity or that the removal of the ABCC has had material aggregate effects. Indeed, the available data suggests that the regime did not have a large aggregate impact….

There is no robust evidence that the new industrial relations environment specific to construction had significant effects on the costs and productivity performance of the construction industry as a whole. There is likely to have been more important effects for the non-residential building segment of the industry, but any such effects would be hard to discover in the aggregate construction productivity data.

The report also said this:

FWBC can take matters to court or refer them to other enforcement agencies. Its own enforcement powers relate only to civil matters (as did the ABCC).

Up until February 2014, the ABCC/FWBC had formally referred 21 matters to the State or Federal Police. Data on FWBC’s investigations and court actions suggest that it has commonly found breaches by employers as well as employees (or their nominated agents).

In 2012-13, out of just over 1100 investigations, its four main areas of investigation related to recovering employees’ wages and entitlements (31 per cent), freedom of association (13 per cent), coercion (13 per cent) and unprotected industrial action (12 per cent).

Most investigations have not resulted in actions before the courts. In 2012-13, there were 13 cases before the courts under the FWA, which involved unlawful industrial action (4), wages and entitlements (4), coercion (3), sham contracting (1) and adverse action (1) (FWBC 2013a, pp. 29, 38–39)….

the issue of notices dropped significantly after 2009-10, even though the ABCC was still in place and possessed the same statutory powers (Independent Economics 2013, p. 10)….

What the report shows is that any increases in building and construction industry productivity are more likely to be localised to individual companies/building sites and overall productivity levels cannot be safely attributed solely to the existence of the ABCC.

It also highlights that on average only two matters per year were referred to the courts by either the ABCC or FWBC over an approximately eight-year period.