The 17 reasons Coles' report is fundamentally flawed and fishy.

The 17 reasons Coles' report is fundamentally flawed and fishy.

One would be inclined to think that a report commissioned by Coles together with the Australian Workers Union, Transport Workers Union and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association and written by Deloitte would be quite credible. I mean a global retail food giant and a well-respected consultancy company teaming up for a report, surely, we can trust the results of that collaboration. Apparently not.

Upon reading the report “Accommodation for horticulture workers: A project for Coles and Ethical Retail Supply Chain Alliance” released last Friday, I was blown away with how fundamentally flawed it is, that I actually became embarrassed for Deloitte. The report’s commissioning wasreportedly due to Coles’ commitment to sourcing their goods and services ethically and responsibly, and upholding expectations for business integrity, labour and human rights, health and safety and the environment through their supply chains.

No problems there Coles, we are on the same page.

It all sounds legit so what is my problem you may ask? I have a few.

Misleading.

1. The title of the report is misleading given Deloitte only focused only on those employed under the PALM scheme (read their limitations at the back of the report).

Flawed methodology and non-representative of the sector.

2. The interviewing of 21 workers in a [PALM] workforce of 31,500 represents 0.06%. Surely, we can do better than that with a national study on such an important topic? (see Figure A)

3. The interviewing of 12 labour hire contractors and farmers (these were grouped together) in a pool of 400 Approved Employers under the PALM scheme (80% of which are labour hire) represents just 3% of the total pool of PALM and 0.1% of growers nationally.

4. The dismal number of accommodation providers, 8 only nationally.

5. The timeframe for field study reflected a lack of depth given it was less than a month 18 Feb – 10 March across two sites nationally.

6. Notable missing stakeholders from the list include Local, State and Federal governments, all of which are huge stakeholders in accommodation in general and the PALM scheme specifically.

Outdated data.

7. Some arguments in the report are derived from redundant 2015/2016 data which now has legislative changes in place to protect the minimum amount a worker and a pieceworker can receive per hour worked.

8. The report (p8) talks to contractors and agencies being attractive to farmers because they remove the problems of workforce recruitment and management. Wrong. Entering into an approved subcontracting arrangement does not limit AE obligations.

9. The report stated they used the key standard PALM Approved Employer Guidelines in their draft version only. There were three finalised versions released since April 2022.

Inaccuracy.

10. The report (p6) contains an inaccurate statement regarding the Fair Farms Standards which we requested be removed/amended/noted prior to public publishing which was refused by a Coles representative.

11. It also indicates (p4) that horticulture accommodation costs are disproportionately high. PALM has a Government Approved Standard of Accommodation, which includes the basis for the rent charged and then breakdown of costs and stipulates that accommodation must be provided at cost.

12. A ‘key finding’ that deductions are made with limited transparency, is questionable given deductions made by Employers must meet the legislative requirements of the Award and/or PALM agreement, and all are to be approved and agreed to in writing by the Employee.

13. The report (p5) refers to “undocumented workers reporting a total dependence on contractors to supply work and housing.” Let’s be clear, undocumented workers are in fact a matter for the federal government.

Legislation/processes that already exist.

14. The recommendations to create a single enforceable standard for accommodation provided by horticulture, is ridiculous. However, an enforceable set of standards already exists.

15. The recommendation to provide clear rules on what costs can be passed onto workers, already exists.

16. The recommendation to develop regulated sustainable labour supply programs and ensure compliance requirements both protect workers and are simple for industry already exists.

17. The recommendation to identify ways programs and practices can be designed to give workers greater choice over their employment and accommodation already exists.

Smoke & Mirrors

Ironically this report was released the same day as the Fair Work Ombudsman released their report into their own investigations into labour hire and horticultural growers.

In Wide Bay, from 36 finalised investigations, only one breach (a minor payslip error) was found. It is interesting that Bundaberg in the Wide Bay was also one of the two places Deloitte based their evidence on this report.

It’s also interesting to note that this report has been released a week prior to the next Agricultural Workforce Working group where workers rights are on the agenda.

With so many flaws the mind boggles as to the reasons this document was commissioned and then publicly released.

I for one am wondering:

? Could the current review of the modern slavery act be playing a role in a smoke and mirrors attempt to deflect Coles’s own purchasing behaviour and habits?

? Could unions be using the report and association with Coles to attempt to drive membership in the horticultural sector?

? Could Deloitte truly not be very good at research?

? Could the report be masked as a huge slap in the political face to all ministers with controlling interests in the PALM scheme?

? Or could it just be another dig once targeting the integrity of the horticultural sector?

The behaviour you walk past is the behaviour you accept. Releasing a report with so many issues is bad behaviour, and it needs to be called out. Do better. Be better.

We get told often of instances where growers fear speaking out against major retailers due to potential ramifications. Lucky for them it is my job description is to give them a voice & speak out on their behalf.

As this report rightfully acknowledged, the horticulture industry is unique in that it can require a significant amount of labour for short, variable and unpredictable picking seasons. Labour and accommodation are significant areas of concern for the sector I represent, please treat the issues with the respect they deserve and stop pretending there’s a silver bullet, or a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

On behalf of Queensland Horticulture, we’d like to make a few recommendations of our own.

Aside from ensuring all future reports are ethically and factually written:

? Please investigate wholesale and retailer’s role in price taking. Given the report suggests 70% of horticultures costs are labour, doesn’t Coles (and other wholesales/retailers) have a role to play in ethical purchasing by paying a price which is reflective of appropriate growing costs?

? Please investigate why illegal operators are not being arrested and charged?

? Please investigate how Coles acts during fresh supply shortages – do they ever bend their own rules on suppliers?

? Please investigate why all ethically proud retailers are not throwing their support behind already approved and government supported programs such as Fair Farms to help support the industry?

? Please explain how taking away the PALM workers right to choose their own standard accommodation and transport isn’t a human rights issue.

? Please investigate a National Labour Hire Licencing Scheme.

Did the report achieve its objectives? You decide.