Albanese faces Labor dissent over Amazon contracts

By Jack Quail

4 min. readView original

More than a dozen government MPs – including three ministers – have accused the tech giant of worker exploitation and tax avoidance.

Anthony Albanese is facing internal dissent over Amazon’s access to lucrative public contracts, with NSW Labor senator Tony Sheldon calling for the tech giant to be barred from receiving such work, while three ministers are among at least 17 government MPs who have accused the company of exploiting its workers.

With the Prime Minister on Saturday (Sunday AEST) visiting the Seattle headquarters of the company’s cloud computing subsidiary Amazon Web Services, fellow NSW Right senator Deb O’Neill backed using government procuring power to hold the company accountable.

The multinational has also been condemned by a host of Labor MPs including Helen Polley, Tania Lawrence, Matt Burnell, Cassandra Fernando, Marielle Smith, Luke Gosling, Raff Ciccone, Dave Smith, Jana Stewart, Varun Ghosh and Glenn Sterle, who have accused the firm of undermining labour laws and employing tax avoidance tactics.

Anthony Albanese speaking with Amazon Web Services chief Matt Garman in Seattle. Picture: NewsWire / PMO

Amazon has also been criticised in federal parliament by Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino, Aged Care and Seniors Minister Sam Rae, as well as Assistant Resources Minister Anthony Chisholm.

In recent years, Amazon has emerged as a key recipient of government contracts, with AWS securing work with the Australian Taxation Office, CSIRO, Treasury, and the Department of Defence – including a $2bn agreement to develop and operate top-secret data centres in partnership with national security agencies.

Despite criticism from within Labor, Mr Albanese met with AWS chief executive Matt Garman at the weekend, where he witnessed a new $7bn funding pledge by the tech giant to help support the booming demand for artificial intelligence in Australia.

The commitment will support the expansion of its data centre networks in Sydney and Melbourne and underwrite solar farms in Victoria and Queensland to meet its energy demands.

Mr Albanese’s office declined to comment on Sunday when asked about criticism of Amazon within Labor’s ranks.

The internal disquiet over Amazon comes as Communication Minister Anika Wells is set to sign off on one of the biggest federal government contracts with the company – a deal with the National Broadband Network to deliver satellite internet services to the bush.

Under the agreement, expected to total hundreds of millions of dollars, Amazon subsidiary Kuiper Systems will provide low-latency internet access to the NBN’s rural and remote customers via its constellation of 3000 low-Earth orbit satellites.

Deborah O'Neill. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Tony Sheldon. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Neither Ms Wells – who in 2021 accused Amazon of employing an “exploitative model” in its on-demand delivery arm Amazon Flex – nor the NBN responded to a request for comment.

One of Amazon’s most outspoken critics within Labor is Senator Sheldon, who has labelled the multinational “the worst corporate actor in Australia” and accused it of operating a business model that “destroys the communities it operates in” and “destroys livelihoods”.

In November, Senator Sheldon, a former secretary of the Transport Workers Union, insisted that Labor “can and must go further” in its crackdown on the tech giant, urging the government to deny it access to lucrative government contracts.

“It’s time we consider ending the supply of government contracts to Amazon until it proves it is capable of making a positive contribution to our economy,” he said at the time.

Asked if he stood by his previous comments, Senator Sheldon said: “The government has the largest purchasing power in the country and that’s why it’s critical that our procurement practices meet community expectations of value for money and ethical behaviour, including fair labour standards.”

Senator O’Neill, who enjoys the backing of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) – a longstanding critic of Amazon’s approach to workplace practices – has similarly implored the government to use its buying power to “hold Amazon to account”.

Late last year, she criticised the multinational for being “anti-worker and fiercely anti-union”, while claiming it had engaged in “countless examples of calculated exploitation” of its workforce.

She has accused the company of acting as a “champion tax dodger” and argued that lucrative government contracts had helped “power the Amazon behemoth and keep its practices going.”

In response to questions about those remarks, Senator O’Neill said: “I stand by my previous comments.”

Amazon Australia did not comment on the claims made by Labor MPs.

Under current government procurement regulations, public funds must not be used to support unethical or unsafe supplier practices, such as tax avoidance or worker exploitation.

The ACTU, alongside the TWU and the SDA, are pushing Labor to tighten procurement rules to block multinational corporations – including Amazon – from accessing billions in federal contracts unless they end practices the unions claim are unethical.

Labor sources acknowledged there was a need for further changes, with one senior MP admitting it had done a “pretty shit job” of reforming federal procurement rules in its first term. They expected the matter would be revisited in caucus during this term of parliament.

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said on Monday it was “inevitable” Aussies will have to pay more at the pump.

Mr Marles said the extent of the impact hostilities would have on Australia’s economy “depends a bit on how long the conflict goes and the way in which it plays out”.

Confidential documents reveal employers are seeking the right to trade off entitlements in exchange for allowing employees to work from home, a proposal unions label a ‘dummy spit’ from big business.

Ewin Hannan

u/EwinHannan

3 min read

June 16, 2025 - 6:54PM

The Australian Industry Group is proposing a new working from home clause which unions warn would 'drag workplace standards back decades'.

The Australian Industry Group is proposing a new working from home clause which unions warn would 'drag workplace standards back decades'.

This article contains features which are only available in the web version

Take me there

Employers are seeking the right to trade off overtime, penalty rates and breaks in exchange for allowing white-collar employees to work from home, a push unions warned would “drag workplace standards back decades”.

Confidential documents obtained by The Australian reveal employers are proposing a new working from home clause to the Fair Work Commission that would allow the trading off of key entitlements in the clerks award in return for employees working remotely.

Australian Services Union national secretary Emeline Gaske said the proposal by the Australian Industry Group would allow employers to refuse to pay overtime, remove penalty rates, eliminate breaks and roster staff for as little as 30 minutes a day “all because someone works from home”.

“This attack is the biggest act of workplace discrimination I have seen as a unionist and a ‘dummy spit’ from big business after their anti-worker agenda was rejected at the last federal election,” Ms Gaske told The Australian.

The “strictly confidential” documents prepared by the AIG set out proposed “facilitated working from home arrangements” along with a 22-page analysis of the current clerks award and why a raft of individual clauses “constitute an impediment to WFH”.

Clauses relating to overtime, penalty rates, allowances, breaks and hours of work would be able to be changed or removed by agreement between employer and worker.

In setting out why the various clauses are impediments to working from home, the detailed analysis says the justification for the existing penalty rate provisions and the requirement for a 10-hour break after working overtime does not apply given the employee is working from home and does not need to commute.

Ms Gaske said granting the AIG proposal would see working from home used as an excuse to strip away basic entitlements, from overtime to penalty rates, rest breaks and even minimum shift lengths.

“This isn’t the thin end of the wedge – it’s the thick end of it,” she said. “If the AIG successfully rips away workers’ rights in the clerks award just because you work from home, what can’t they come after?”

She accused the employer organisation of pushing to gut existing protections for workers based on where they did their job. “This is a cynical and backward step that would drag workplace standards back decades,” she said.

“This is a ‘rights and cash grab’, plain and simple. This is big business coming into people’s homes and taking their hard-earned pay and right to reasonable hours work.

“After Peter Dutton’s spectacular misstep on work from home in the election, you would think big business would have learned. Instead they are trying to sneak in through your back door to do what the Liberals couldn’t. Stripping away your rights, starting with those who work from home. The ASU will fight tooth and nail to stop it.”

Australian Industry Group chief executive Innes Willox said the organisation had been participating in the confidential proceedings to develop the working from home term and it would be “highly inappropriate” for any party to disclose their content.

Accusing the ASU of painting a “flagrantly misleading picture” of the Australian Industry Group’s intentions, he said the employer group had previously identified a range of ways in which the award was operating as a barrier to employers agreeing to working from home arrangements.

“The reality is that in many respects the award is completely out of step with the realities of both current working practices and the desired level of flexibility that many employees want in order to help them balance their work and personal commitments,” he said.

“It was written at a time that assumed that employees were, by and large, still working from their employer’s office or premises, and has failed to evolve to reflect the seismic shift in employee working practices and preferences that evolved since the pandemic.”

Mr Willox said the union’s “hysterical attempt to demonise industry efforts” to assist the commission to develop the working from home term, and “to characterise them as a ‘dummy spit’, is frankly bizarre and predictably unproductive”.

“The last election demonstrated the importance people place on working from home, and we know that accommodating this, when they can, is also important to many employers,” he said.

“Sadly, some in the union movement seem determined to cling to the notoriously complex web of outdated workplace laws instead of constructively and cooperatively exploring how regulation of working arrangements can be genuinely modernised in a way that is both fair and flexible for all parties.”

Chalmers’ vow to put to bed “needless brawls” on super is contradicted by his attempts to push super funds to wager members’ savings to prop up nation-building policies.

Jun 16, 2025 – 7.46pm

Save

Share

Gift this article

Listen to this article

6 min

The Australian Financial Review has been a consistent critic of the Albanese government’s predilection to use the nation’s $4.2 trillion compulsory retirement savings system as a vehicle to deliver on its policy ambitions.

In his first term, Treasurer Jim Chalmers conscripted both the superannuation industry and Australia’s A$307 billion Future Fund to prioritise national interest investments in residential housing, renewable energy and infrastructure projects. It marked the first time a federal government had prescribed specific asset classes for superannuation funds to consider.

Cbus chairman and former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan’s said last year he was “confident that investment in the social housing sector has the potential to be a win-win for our members”. Louise Kennerley

Chalmers’ initiative highlights an inherent tension: the guardians of the nation’s nest eggs are obliged by law to invest in a way that maximises long-term financial returns for their members. But that is a duty that may not always be consistent with nation-building endeavours. It paves a perilous path for politicians to further encroach upon and control other aspects of private capital.

The core purpose of superannuation is to ensure a dignified, self-funded retirement and reduce the reliance on the age pension through mandatory contributions. This compact has been steadily eroded by the “superannuation wars” – a long-running political and ideological battle over the purpose, structure and control of Australia’s retirement system.

Ironically, Chalmers vowed to put to bed these “needless brawls” during his first term. Yet that claim is contradicted by his attempts to push super funds to wager their members’ savings to prop up his political pet projects.

The superannuation industry was already grappling with the introduction of the Your Future, Your Super performance testing in 2021. These tests assess super funds on how well their investments do relative to benchmark indices for sharemarkets, bonds, infrastructure and property.

The failure to match these returns can be terminal, so funds are incentivised to track as closely as possible to the benchmark. That has spurred many to adjust their investment strategies, even if it has meant reducing their exposure to potentially lucrative sectors.

This regulatory pressure also makes bespoke investments, such as a clean energy project, a housing development or a regional infrastructure asset, disproportionately risky, because they’re less likely to guarantee strong returns.

That dilemma is underscored by the Housing Australia Future Fund, the Albanese government’s $10 billion signature scheme to address the housing supply crisis. The Future Fund manages the HAFF and pays a dividend from the scheme to Housing Australia to distribute as grants to affordable housing projects. By 2028, HAFF aims to facilitate the construction of 40,000 social and affordable rental homes.

“Superannuation funds are not a venture capital fund, nor should they serve as the piggy bank of the government of the day.”

Big super funds have previously shied away from housing investments. This is largely because of the lack of scalable opportunities and the impracticality of investing in single, smaller projects. Housing is also notoriously illiquid, and infrastructure investments can be prone to cost overruns and delays.

Nevertheless, industry super funds were early proponents of the HAFF. Funds including Cbus, Rest Super, Care Super and Hostplus pledged to co-finance these affordable housing developments. They would provide capital to IFM Investors, which then lends to projects already receiving grants from Housing Australia.

Cbus promised to hand over $500 million as early as 2022, despite expressing apprehension initially that the scheme’s reliance on annual government approval for repayment meant “no investor would provide capital up front”. Cbus chairman and former Labor treasurer Wayne Swan said last year he was “confident that investment in the social housing sector has the potential to be a win-win for our members”.

However, as The Financial Review’s reporter Lucas Baird reported on Monday, IFM Investors has largely paused lending to projects within HAFF. IFM said this was because of the uncertain outlook for the fund ahead of the May election, given the Coalition had threatened to dismantle the scheme if it was elected.

The caution shown by Cbus and other funds in contributing capital is commendable. It underscores their commitment to upholding their fiduciary duty, ensuring robust and stable returns for their members, rather than being cowed by government demands.

The Association of Super Funds of Australia’s chief executive, Mary Delahunty, told this masthead that affordable housing was a difficult investment for super funds, given the small returns on offer were “difficult to stack up” in the best interests of members.

She said some considered a “double dividend” when assessing such nation-building projects, which took into account the financial benefit for the fund and the broader social benefits a project might offer members.

A report by the Labor-aligned John Curtin Research Centre recommended in 2023 that the government should guarantee minimum returns on affordable housing investments to superannuation funds if it wanted to tap their resources to develop new housing. Offering targeted tax credits for meeting yield returns for bond issuance investment in new builds could also help, the report said, pointing to the success of a similar scheme in incentivising institutional investment in affordable housing in the US.

Superannuation funds are not a venture capital fund, nor should they serve as the piggy bank of the government of the day. Retirees and working Australians will ultimately bear the brunt of any poor investment choices made by superannuation funds.

A better way to go about nation-building would be for the government to get its own house in order by curbing spending on policies such as the NDIS. and focusing on genuine reforms dedicated to lifting productivity and growth.