17 June 2011 Volume: 21 Issue: 11 Australia's ... - Eureka Street

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 20112009 does that.The first wage case heard by Fair Work Australia (FWA) in 2010 was dominated by theneed to address the pent up claims resulting from the 2009 wage freeze. It was perhaps notsurprising that the parties and FWA did not deal with a range of underlying issues.The Government’s 2010 wage submission did not deal with the needs issue, or the questionas to whether Newstart should be taken into account. It said it would ‘provide a more detailedanalysis of the needs of the low paid’ in future wage reviews.This position was curious; the 2011 position is unforgivable: ‘Discussions around the needsof the low paid invariably require a subjective assessment of what constitutes a need, and aworking definition of what constitutes poverty ... translating needs into a specific monetaryamount can be problematic.’The Government made no attempt to deal with the issue, despite earlier promises of adetailed analysis. Indeed it sought to denigrate attempts to measure needs and set povertylines. It seems it intended to weaken or render ineffective the needs-based elements of thelegislation.FWA awarded a 3.4 per cent increase in minimum wage and other pay classifications,which is reasonable given the 3.3 per cent increase in the Consumer Price Index over the past12 months.However, ACCER’s principal claim was for an increase of $16.60 to minimum wage inorder to improve the position of the lowest paid, and a CPI-based increase to all minimumwage rates. Put simply, this claim was based on a comparison betweeen the costs of living anddisposable incomes.But FWA did not adjust minimum wage beyond the general increase. One reason was thatit included, in its calculations of disposable income for a family of four, Newstart for thesecond parent. It estimated disposable income at $100 per week more than asingle-breadwinner family on minimum wage is entitled to.This returns us to the early days of AFPC, with the implicit acceptance that a poverty wagecan be set for a family, and that the second parent should seek or get a job in order to breakout of poverty. Neither AFPC nor FWA gave reasons why Newstart should be taken intoaccount.This year’s wage review was conducted 120 years after the release of the papal documentRerum Novarum, which had a significant impact on the development of Australian industrialrelations and minimum wage-setting.To mark the anniversary, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference issued a statement,which heralded the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Work Act. It noted, however, that ‘it©2011 EurekaStreet.com.au 30
Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011is only by the outcomes of the decisions that the success of the legislation can be measured’.To date, the provisions cannot be regarded as a success.©2011 EurekaStreet.com.au 31
Page 2: Eureka Street is published fortnigh
Page 5 and 6: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011Unsu
Page 7 and 8: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011spir
Page 9 and 10: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011In t
Page 11 and 12: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011abus
Page 13: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011and
Page 16 and 17: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011Beet
Page 18 and 19: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011Exce
Page 20 and 21: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011welf
Page 24 and 25: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011The
Page 26 and 27: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011quit
Page 28 and 29: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011but
Page 30 and 31: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011Tuc
Page 34 and 35: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011Isla
Page 36 and 37: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011New
Page 38 and 39: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011I ma
Page 40 and 41: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011more
Page 42 and 43: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011One
Page 44 and 45: Volume 21 Issue: 1117 June 2011when

17 June 2011 Volume: 21 Issue: 11 Australia's ... - Eureka Street

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?