Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 656 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

In the United States, studies by economists David Card and Alan Krueger have shown that the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage and the 1991 increases in the federal minimum wage, resulted in no loss of jobs. So it is not self-evident that giving low paid working people a greater chance of living at a decent standard inevitably leads to fewer jobs.

Another argument that has been raised against the ACTU's claim is that it will create a blow-out in inflation. However, calculations show that the claim, if enacted, would add less than 0.2 per cent to overall wages growth in the economy, and less than 0.1 per cent to the CPI. It would be interesting, in this context, to know how much impact the recent huge increases in executive salaries has had on wages growth.

The truth is that opposing wage increases for the lowest paid, in order to prevent inflation, represents restraint for the worst off, while allowing unparalleled increases for those who are already wealthy. This is hardly a strategic income policy to manage inflation.

Mr Speaker, I have circulated an amendment that I would like to move to Ms Gallagher's motion, which makes a small change to paragraph (2). This is rather minor, but I am trying to raise the standard of the operation of this house.

I am a bit wary of using motions to congratulate the government. I think that might be a bit over-zealous for a resolution of the Assembly. After all, in our system of government, the Assembly is supposed to be the formal body to which the government is accountable. I believe it is important not to let motions that come from either section of the house get carried away. Instead, we should reflect on what this Assembly views as important matters.

My amendments, instead of congratulating the government, would acknowledge the government's positive contribution. I stress that I believe it is a positive contribution that they have made to this ACTU wage claim.

People talk about the gap between the rich and the poor so often that it has become almost abstract. However, it is not abstract, and it is not just about the politics of envy. I would like to know how federal Liberal government members, or even Mr Pratt, think it feels for low paid workers not to be able to let their children participate in school excursions with the rest of their class, or not to have access to the Internet. All around, people are being told to simply log on, to access essential information and services. In job ads, people are told that a mobile phone is an essential prerequisite-as if everybody can afford one. These are not abstract things. They affect people in fundamental ways and exclude them from the common life of those around them.

I am very pleased that the ACT government has acted in recognition of these issues, and contributed to the very fine submission by the ACTU, which asks for $25 for those living on the lowest wages.

I support this motion, with my amendment. Accordingly, I move:

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .