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:
1. **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].
2. **"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].
3. **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].
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.
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 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.
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.
Senate amendments improved the legislation.** After initial opposition from Labor and the Greens, the Senate eventually passed amended versions of the bills.
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].
**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 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 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.
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].
* * * * 批判 nounHihan : : * * * *
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.
The Coalition attempted to resolve the issue through legislation, albeit with a controversial approach that prioritized ADE viability over full worker compensation.
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.
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.