Same Job, Same Pay shake-up an ‘over-reach’ that will extend beyond labour hire workers: Rio Tinto

Mining giant Rio Tinto has joined BHP and a growing chorus of major miners in savaging the Federal Government’s proposed shake-up of Australia’s industrial relations laws, describing the controversial “Same Job, Same Pay” legislation as an “over-reach”. Labor’s proposals aim to end the overuse of labour hire firms to undercut enterprise bargaining agreements and will also criminalise wage theft. But Rio warned the Same Job, Same Pay provisions would extend beyond labour hire workers and apply to “countless businesses” across the country. “This includes services contractors who have played a significant role in boosting productivity in the mining industry,” its Australia chief executive Kellie Parker said in a submission to a Senate inquiry on the Closing the Loopholes Bill, released on Tuesday. “Not only does such application risk undermining arrangements agreed to between employees and employers in those businesses, but, for mining, it threatens productive models of service delivery that are central to attracting investment in Australia,” she said. Ms Parker conceded Rio had been the beneficiary of “stable” investment in Australia’s mining sector in recent decades, but that had been contingent on a “relatively reliable employment system”. She warned the full impact of the industrial law changes could be felt for decades to come. The submission also echoed fears from other business leaders that the shake-up could “anchor” productivity to record lows, keep a lid on wages, exacerbate the cost-of-living crisis and undermine Australia’s competitiveness at a “critical” stage of the energy transition, with the country seen as a key player in the global supply of minerals necessary for the decarbonisation of global economies. “Our experience is that arrangements tailored for individual business help drive productivity growth,” she said. “This model has delivered for our people, our business, and the country, through the creation of jobs, strong and sustained wage growth for our people over time, and the payment of royalties. “At a time when the minerals industry is working to find better ways to accelerate the global transition to net zero, these reforms have the potential to reduce Australia’s international competitiveness and we believe should not be implemented in their current form.” Last month BHP chief financial officer David Lamont told a shareholder briefing the proposed changes would have a major impact on the company’s massive contingent of Australian shareholders who rely on annual dividends from the big blue-chip stock and potentially cost thousands of jobs. “That $1.3 billion (impact) will come directly off our earnings for the year that will then flow directly to dividends,” Mr Lamont said. “We estimate that to be about 30¢ on a dividend pay out. And that will . . . impact the 17 million Australians that hold BHP shares either directly or through their retirement savings. “Another way to look at it (is) that $1.3b is equivalent to around about 5000 jobs at BHP.” In its submission to the Senate inquiry last week BHP warned that the overall costs of the broader changes would top its previous $1.3b estimate. “These are costs which cannot simply be absorbed and will create difficult decisions for the entire resources sector about making cuts to offset the impact of the Bill, deferring or cancelling investments, or ultimately closing mines when the underlying cost base becomes uncompetitive,” BHP’s submission read. “We therefore expect a significant upward revision to our initial costing.” It claimed 4500 jobs could be in jeopardy with its $300 million FutureFit trainee program, which provides young workers an employment pathway into the mining sector, also at risk. “SJSP will have the effect of not only increasing the cost of OS, but it will also practically remove the flexibility in terms of being able to deploy OS across sites, thus impairing a key reason for OS’ existence,” BHP said. A number of other resource giants have expressed concerns with the Bill, including Hancock Prospecting and Lynas Rare Earths, both of which have argued the changes could stymie investment in Australia’s looming critical minerals boom. Earlier this month Labor Senator Linda White asked Hancock’s chief executive of group operations Gerhard Veldsman if it “passes the pub test” for Australia’s richest person to oppose “a Bill that supports people who are being ripped off through labour hire arrangements?” “We don’t believe we’ve ripped off anybody through labour hire,” Mr Veldsman said, after Roy Hill executive Justin Seal said the company’s 122 labour hire truck drivers were earning “actually equivalent … very similar” to what a permanent employee was being paid. Last week Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke penned an opinion piece noting industry pressure to split the Bill. “Some have argued we should split off the workplace health and safety elements – specifically elements like the silica measures, protections for victims of family and domestic violence and the PTSD support for first responders – to get them through this year,” Minister Burke said. “But the rest of the Bill is also about safety. “The criminalisation of industrial manslaughter is about ensuring that employers take workplace safety seriously. Closing the labour hire loophole is a safety measure too.”