Turnbull Government dragging its heels on legislation to protect vulnerable workers?

The Age, 6 April 2017:

The peak body for the $150 billion franchise sector has launched an intense behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to convince MPs to water down Turnbull government legislation designed to prevent future worker exploitation scandals.

Spearheaded by former Liberal minister Bruce Billson, the Franchise Council of Australia is targeting the government, opposition and crossbenchers as it seeks to pressure Employment Minister Michaelia Cash into changing course on the bill.

It has also directed its members - which include 7-Eleven, Pizza Hut, Caltex and other companies accused of underpaying their workers - to bombard MPs with calls and letters about the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill.

The campaign comes as petrol giant United Petroleum became the latest company to be embroiled in an exploitation scandal, with the workplace regulator blasting it for rampant underpayment of workers across its franchise network. United Petroleum is not listed as a FCA member.

Mr Billson personally pressed the franchisor case with visits, calls and texts to MPs during the most recent parliamentary sitting fortnight in Canberra.

And in emails that have begun arriving in MP's inboxes in recent days, franchisors argue it is "unreasonable" to single out the franchising sector.

"The real issue here is that the risk of worker underpayment exists across the economy," the missives read.

The government's bill was introduced into Parliament last month but subsequently disappeared from the agenda, fuelling speculation from the Opposition that the council's campaign was succeeding.

However Senator Cash said the government remained "firmly committed to this policy"…..

The Franchise Council originally sought to kill off the bill entirely, warning it would lead to unavoidable unintended consequences.

It is now arguing for extensive amendments and is particularly concerned about the world-first "joint liability" provisions, claiming they will negatively impact investment, growth and employment.

It also wants courts and regulators to be explicitly forced to take a businesses size and resources into account, and further clarity about what "reasonable steps" actually means….

Franchises employ close to 500,000 people across 73,000 outlets across Australia and contribute up to 10 per cent of Australia's GDP.

The Age, 7 April 2017:

Shocking cases of wage fraud in the big brands of 7-Eleven, Domino's, Caltex and United Petroleum, ricochet across the country, prompting all sides of politics to promise new legislation to rein in systemic wage fraud.

Or so we thought.

In the weeks before the election the Turnbull government promised to change the law to make franchisors jointly responsible with their franchisees for workplace abuses if they have significant control or influence on the franchisee……

But the sector decided to have none of that.

Enter Bruce Billson, the former small business minister who became chairman of the franchise lobby group just before the last election. His role as chairman of the Franchise Council of Australia has been to tell anyone who will listen that the proposed laws are too draconian.

It was a smart move by the FCA. In one newspaper article Billson described the new laws as "a media-inspired regulatory misadventure to introduce unprecedented laws that fit up the franchisor for the Fair Work Act breaches of their franchisees where they have had no actual involvement".

The article worked itself up into a fervour, arguing that the laws represent an "existential threat" to the successful franchise model of enterprise.

The reality is convenience store giant 7-Eleven became embroiled in a systemic wage fraud scandal in August 2015. It shocked the nation. The business model was flawed and head office agreed to repay exploited workers. More franchisors should follow its lead.

The Protecting Vulnerable Workers Bill was designed to do just that. It was introduced on March 1, with the legislation listed on March 20.

But it quietly disappeared from the program last week with two other Fair Work Bills listed in its place, without explanation.

When it will be re-listed is anyone's guess but it is unlikely to be the next sitting as it will be dominated by the federal budget.

According to the Australian Parliament website the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017: "amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to: increase maximum civil penalties for certain serious contraventions of the Act; hold franchisors and holding companies responsible for certain contraventions of the Act by their franchisees or subsidiaries where they knew or ought reasonably to have known of the contraventions and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent them; clarify the prohibition on employers unreasonably requiring their employees to make payments in relation to the performance of work; provide the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) with evidence-gathering powers similar to those available to corporate regulators such as the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission; and prohibit the hindering or obstructing of the FWO and or an inspector in the performance or his or her functions or powers, or the giving of false or misleading information or documents.”

On 23 March 2017 this bill was referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Submissions were invited but none are listed on the Inquiry’s webpage to date. Public hearings are being held in Canberra on Wednesday 12 April and in Sydney on Thursday 13 April 2017.

Those giving evidence before the Senate  inquiry are:

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI)

Council of Small Business Australia (COSBOA)

Franchise Council of Australia

National Retailers Association

The Australian Industry Group (AIG)

McDonalds Australia

Department of Employment

Fair Work Ombudsman

Fair Work Commission

West Justice (Western Community Legal Centre)

Prof. Andrew Stewart

Gerard de Valence

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)

Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA)

One other to be announced

           

The Committee is due to report to Parliament on 9 May 2017.

Australian Dept. of Human Services and Centrelink sink to a new low

An automated Dept. of Human Services-Centrelink debt recovery system that launched an est. 230,000 investigations into client welfare paymentsin 2016-17, then used an error-prone “income averaging” method to decide that more than 133,000 clients had incurred a debt owed to Centrelink and sent them a bill which included a recovery fee.

If that wasn’t bad enough, around 43 per cent of these debts were immediately referred to heavy-handed private sector debt collectors working on commission.

During this entire debacle spokespersons for the Turnbull Government, the Department and Centrelink have attempted to mislead and misinform welfare clients, mainstream media and the general public.

Now we have been told that for months, perhaps years, the software program being used by Centrelink to run its access to online services portal left users vulnerable to phishing attacks which can steal their credentials including names, addresses, bank account details.

If this is yet another example of the innovative and agile government information technology Liberal and National Party MPs boast about - then gawd help us all!

Comment  on office of the Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge

By an IT consultant.......

Senate Standing Committees On Community Affairs, Inquiry Into Design, Scope, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Contracts Awarded And Implementation Associated With The Better Management Of The Social Welfare System Initiative, Excerpt from Submission 38:

That Victorian Legal Aid saw it necessary to update its advice to clients to warn them that their personal information is no longer safe with the Department is an extraordinary situation. This is not advice from tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. This is sober advice from legal professionals that a major part of the Australian Government cannot be trusted. I cannot stress enough how bad this is.

This behaviour from the Department has had a chilling effect, as I believe it was intended to. This chilling effect is not theoretical. I have personally spoken to individuals who have been reluctant to speak out against the Department, either to the media or to this Inquiry, because they fear repercussions from the Department as they are dependant in some way on income support.

At one point I discussed these matters with the office of the Minister for Human Services, Mr Alan Tudge, and was alarmed to discover that his office did not share my view that the Department has an asymmetric power advantage over individuals. They were of the view that if an individual is critical of the Department in the media, they become fair game.

The attitude from Mr Tudge’s office appeared to be one of a siege mentality where they were at a substantial disadvantage despite the vast array of resources at their disposal, particularly when compared to an individual reliant on income support. They felt that there had been a lot of false information being reported in the media and that it was time for them to “start fighting back.” This adversarial attitude, coupled with the astounding levels of secrecy from the Department, indicates major cultural issues in the Department and in the responsible Minister’s office.

The Department of Human Services exists to serve the humans in our society. The clue is in the name of the department. If individuals within the Department are unhappy with their role, then they should be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere.

By a Queen's Counsel.......

ABC News, 3 April 2017:

One of Australia's leading criminal barristers believes Human Services Minister Alan Tudge — or one of his staff — may have broken the law by supplying a journalist with a Centrelink client's personal information.

Robert Richter, a Queen's Counsel and former chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, believes the disclosure could lead to a prison sentence if it is tested beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court.

Mr Tudge has dismissed the legal advice, saying the disclosure was approved by his department's lawyers and was necessary to correct misleading public statements.

"I received clearance to release the information from the Chief Legal Counsel of the Department of Human Services, who is intimately across the details of the case and the relevant laws."

Mr Richter's advice was commissioned by Labor MP Linda Burney and his findings were based on public information, rather than inquiries with Mr Tudge's office.

In his opinion, it is "reasonably clear that either the Minister or one of his office's staff had committed an offence".

"We cannot presently put it higher without knowing precisely the content of the information that was disclosed and by whom it was disclosed," Mr Richter said……

See that furtive chap in the dark glasses? He's a negative gearer!

Just a reminder of the cost to the rest of us of the out-of-control negative gearing of investment properties.     

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2016:

The re-analysis of the 2013-14 tax data, the latest available, shows that each negative gearer claimed an average loss of $8722 per year. Seven out of 10 had income before deductions in the top or second-top tax bracket. The average amount of tax saved by each of the 1.2 million negative gearers was $2900 per year.

Spread over the remaining 11.7 million taxpayers, the average cost was $310 each. The total, $3.646 billion, is about as much as the government spent on assistance to jobseekers and vocational training, and twice what it spent on assistance to indigenous Australians.

Haven't heard any negative gearer bragging about this around the barbeque lately.

President Trump failed to stop yet another lawsuit

https://youtu.be/vwMqf6Y7Md4

On 1 March 1 2016 Donald Trump held a campaign rally at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Kentucky. What occurred at this campaign rally led to the United States District Court Western District Of Kentucky Louisville Division hearing KASHIYA NWANGUMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants (Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-247-DJH), which resulted in this 22 page Memorandum Opinion And Order.

AP News, 1 April 2017:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump's free speech defense against a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a campaign rally.

Trump's lawyers sought to dismiss the lawsuit by three protesters who say they were roughed up by his supporters at a March 1, 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky. They argued that Trump didn't intend for his supporters to use force.

Two women and a man say they were shoved and punched by audience members at Trump's command. Much of it was captured on video and widely broadcast during the campaign, showing Trump pointing at the protesters and repeating "get them out."

Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed. Hale found ample facts supporting allegations that the protesters' injuries were a "direct and proximate result" of Trump's actions, and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

"It is plausible that Trump's direction to 'get 'em out of here' advocated the use of force," the judge wrote. "It was an order, an instruction, a command."

Plaintiffs Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau allege that they were physically attacked by several members of the audience, including Matthew Heimbach, Alvin Bamberger and an unnamed defendant they have yet to be able to identify.

Bamberger later apologized to the Korean War Veterans Association, whose uniform he wore at the rally. He wrote that he "physically pushed a young woman down the aisle toward the exit" after "Trump kept saying 'get them out, get them out," according to the lawsuit.

Heimbach, for his part, sought to dismiss the lawsuit's discussion of his association with a white nationalist group and of statements he made about how Trump could advance the group's interests. The judge declined, saying such information could be important context when determining punitive damages.

The judge also declined to remove allegations that Nwanguma, an African-American, was the victim of racial, ethnic and sexist slurs from the crowd at the rally. This context may support the plaintiffs' claims of negligence and incitement by Trump and his campaign, the judge said.