The Claim
“Tried to pass multiple bills to halve the backpay of intellectually disabled workers who earned only $1 per hour in wages.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are PARTIALLY TRUE but require substantial context.
The Coalition government (Abbott/Turnbull era) did introduce legislation that offered payments equivalent to approximately 50% of calculated backpay to intellectually disabled workers who had been paid subminimum wages under the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) [1][2]. The BSWAT was found discriminatory by the Full Federal Court in Nojin v Commonwealth (2012), which ruled that using this tool to set wages for intellectually disabled workers contravened the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [3][4].
However, the claim contains several elements requiring clarification:
The "$1 per hour" figure: While some workers were paid very low wages, the $1/hour figure represents the extreme end of the range. The BSWAT assessed productivity and competency to determine wage levels, with some workers receiving higher (though still subminimum) wages [5].
"Multiple bills": The government introduced the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014 and the associated Consequential Amendments Bill - so technically two bills, though they were a legislative package [6][7].
The 50% payment: The legislation proposed paying eligible workers up to 50% of what they were owed in exchange for waiving their rights to pursue discrimination claims through the courts [8].
Missing Context
The claim omits several critical pieces of context:
1. The discriminatory system predated the Coalition government. The BSWAT was established in 2005 under the Howard government and continued through the Rudd/Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) without legislative reform. The Full Federal Court did not rule it discriminatory until 2012 [9][10].
2. Legal justification for subminimum wages. Under the Fair Work Act and its predecessors, Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs) were legally permitted to pay subminimum wages to workers with disabilities using approved wage assessment tools. The BSWAT was one of approximately 30 such tools approved by the Fair Work Commission [11]. This practice was not unique to the Coalition but was embedded in Australian employment law across multiple governments.
3. The complex policy dilemma. The government faced a difficult situation: approximately 10,000 workers were affected, and ADEs (formerly "sheltered workshops") were not-for-profit organizations employing people with significant disabilities who might otherwise not have employment at all. Full backpay could have bankrupted many ADEs, potentially putting thousands of vulnerable workers out of employment entirely [12][13].
4. The class action context. At the time the legislation was introduced, Maurice Blackburn lawyers were conducting a class action on behalf of the workers seeking full compensation. The bill's waiver provisions were designed to prevent participation in this class action [14].
5. Senate amendments improved the legislation. After initial opposition from Labor and the Greens, the Senate eventually passed amended versions of the bills. The final legislation was modified to address some worker concerns [15].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source - the Sydney Morning Herald article by Latika Bourke from June 2015 - is credible and factually accurate in its reporting. SMH is a mainstream, reputable Australian news outlet. However, the article's headline ("We'll give you half") and framing focus on the negative aspects without fully explaining the policy rationale or historical context. The article correctly reports on the Senate deal and worker concerns but does not extensively cover the government's justification for the 50% figure [1].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government disability employment policy Australian Disability Enterprises backpay"
Finding: The Rudd/Gillard Labor government (2007-2013) maintained the same BSWAT system without reforming it. The discriminatory wage tool continued operating throughout Labor's term in office. Labor only addressed the issue after the Federal Court's 2012 ruling made the discriminatory nature legally undeniable [9][16].
Labor criticized the Coalition's 50% payment proposal while in opposition, but did not propose an alternative funding mechanism for full backpay when they were in government. The issue only became urgent because of the court ruling during their term, not because of proactive Labor policy reform [17].
Comparison: Both governments maintained subminimum wage systems for workers with disabilities. The Coalition inherited the problem and attempted a legislative solution (albeit flawed) that acknowledged the court ruling. Neither government proactively eliminated discriminatory wage practices before being forced to by court action.
Balanced Perspective
The government's justification:
The Coalition argued that without the payment scheme, thousands of workers might receive nothing at all because ADEs could not afford full backpay and might close. The government stated the scheme would provide certain, immediate compensation rather than uncertain outcomes from prolonged litigation [18]. Disability advocates were divided - some supported the scheme to secure employment continuity, while others demanded full compensation [12][13].
The criticism:
Workers' advocates, the Greens, and Labor argued that the 50% figure was arbitrary and unfair to workers who had been underpaid for years. The requirement to waive legal rights to pursue discrimination claims was particularly controversial, effectively using legislation to protect the Commonwealth from liability [17][19].
The eventual outcome:
In December 2016, the Federal Court approved a settlement in the Maurice Blackburn class action that provided approximately $100 million in compensation to affected workers - significantly more than the government's proposed scheme would have provided [20][21]. This suggests the class action route ultimately delivered better outcomes than the government's 50% offer.
Key context: This issue was not unique to the Coalition. Both major parties maintained discriminatory wage systems for workers with disabilities for decades. The Coalition attempted to resolve the issue through legislation, albeit with a controversial approach that prioritized ADE viability over full worker compensation. The ultimate resolution through the courts provided fuller compensation, suggesting the government's approach was insufficient.
PARTIALLY TRUE
5.0
out of 10
The claim is factually accurate in that the Coalition did propose legislation offering 50% backpay to intellectually disabled workers. However, it omits that: (1) the discriminatory wage system operated under both Labor and Coalition governments for years; (2) the government faced a genuine dilemma between full compensation and preserving employment for vulnerable workers; (3) the final outcome through the courts delivered better compensation than the government's proposal; and (4) Labor also maintained the discriminatory system when in government. The framing suggests unique Coalition malfeasance when this was a systemic, bipartisan issue that spanned multiple governments.
Final Score
5.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim is factually accurate in that the Coalition did propose legislation offering 50% backpay to intellectually disabled workers. However, it omits that: (1) the discriminatory wage system operated under both Labor and Coalition governments for years; (2) the government faced a genuine dilemma between full compensation and preserving employment for vulnerable workers; (3) the final outcome through the courts delivered better compensation than the government's proposal; and (4) Labor also maintained the discriminatory system when in government. The framing suggests unique Coalition malfeasance when this was a systemic, bipartisan issue that spanned multiple governments.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (21)
-
1
We'll give you half: Senate's deal for underpaid intellectually disabled workers
Intellectually disabled workers who were paid as little as $1 an hour will have to waive their right to make discrimination claims if they accept a government payment equivalent to 50 per cent of what they are owed.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) payment scheme
Ato Gov
-
3PDF
Court in Nojin v Commonwealth of Australia
Law Unimelb Edu • PDF Document -
4PDF
Chapter 2 - Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme
Aph Gov • PDF Document -
5PDF
An update on the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT)
Humanrights Gov • PDF Document -
6
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Act 2015
Legislation Gov
-
7PDF
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014
Aph Gov • PDF Document -
8
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014 Explanatory Memorandum
Ato Gov
-
9PDF
Addressing Ableism in Workplace Policies and Practices: the Case for...
Classic Austlii Edu • PDF Document -
10
Outrageous decision on disability wages
4 May 2015 A decision by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to grant the Australian Government a further four month exemption to allow Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs) to continue to pay workers under the discriminatory Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) has shocked a coalition of national disability representative and advocacy organisations. As a
People with Disability Australia - -
11PDF
Law and Disability 'Supported' Employment in Australia
Opus Lib Uts Edu • PDF Document -
12
ABC Story on ADE backpay
ELIZABETH JACKSON: A prominent law firm has slammed the Federal Government's moves to legislate a new wages payment scheme for intellectually disabled workers. The peak body representing the disability enterprises, formerly known as sheltered...
ADE -
13
Australian Disability Enterprises can pay workers a fraction of the minimum wage
A year on from the disability royal commission's final report, ABC NEWS takes a closer look at one of the biggest and most contentious proposals for change — phasing out segregated employment.
Abc Net -
14
BSWAT Senate hearing and court case: recent progress and commentary
Progress on the Business Services Wage Assessment Tool (BSWAT) debate is gaining more media attention as Senate hearings approach: Back pay...
Keepingupwithds Blogspot -
15PDF
The Senate BILLS: Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme
Tasmaniantimes • PDF Document -
16
Disability employment reforms
Dss Gov
-
17
Labor misleads on disability wage tool payment scheme
Formerministers Dss Gov -
18
Your rights as an employee under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Learn about the Disability Discrimination Act, what you can do if you experience discrimination and how to make a complaint to the Commission.
Humanrights Gov -
19
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014 - Senate Committee Report
Chapter 2 Key issues 2.1 Participants in the inquiry expressed concern with elements of the BSWAT Payment Scheme and specific provisions of the Bill, including: calculation of the 'payment amount'; legal consequences o
Aph Gov -
20
Workers with intellectual disabilities class action
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, working in conjunction with the AED Legal Centre, has settled a class action against the Commonwealth of Australia in the Federal Court which alleged unlawful discrimination against workers with intellectual disabilities who work in Australian Disability Enterprises (ADE).
Mauriceblackburn Com -
21
Underpaid disabled workers to claim compensation after Federal Court win
Ten thousand disabled workers who were underpaid at government-funded workshops across the country are able to claim compensation from the Commonwealth, following a Federal Court ruling.
Abc Net
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.