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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 658 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, it is wrong to say, and it is disappointing for members of the Liberal Party to claim, that this will have an adverse impact on employment. People are entitled to a reasonable standard of living. People are entitled to a standard of living that is protected through these sorts of safety net increases. There is a significant gap between the living standards that generally prevail in our community and the living standards of those who are on a minimum wage. The increase of only $25 per week will go some way towards meeting the needs of lower-paid workers and their families in the ACT.

It is very easy to forget that there are people in the ACT who rely on, and live on, this minimum wage. Just for the interests of members, the amount of $25 a week increases the minimum wage from $413 per week, or $10.88 an hour, or $21,500 per year-that is what we are talking about here-to $438 a week, or $11.54 an hour, or $22,860 per annum. Now, that is a low wage. There is no doubt about that-that is a very low wage. To live on that wage by yourself, let alone sustain a family on that wage, is extremely difficult. You can see that the overall increase per year is a little over $1,000.

I believe members might like to reflect on that when the Remuneration Tribunal next makes a decision in relation to members in this place. If I can be so bold, Mr Speaker, members might want to reflect on that in terms of the cost of vehicles in this place as well.

From news reports yesterday, I understand that the federal Workplace Relations Minister, Mr Abbott, has argued that tax transfers would assist low income earners more than the ACTU's claim of $25 per week. He maintains that the ACTU's claim will deliver only $4.45 per week after tax.

Mr Speaker, this is wrong, in the ACT government's view. He has under-estimated the value of the claim. We believe that the ACTU claim will actually deliver $17.50 per week, after tax. It is important to put these in context. Simplistically, it can be argued by those such as Mr Pratt that $25 per week will have a significant impact, but if you look at the after-tax result, you are talking about $17.50 per week.

What will the federal government's position of $10 a week deliver after tax? That is the question, I think, that Mr Pratt needs to answer. He probably has not thought of that, but it is a significant issue.

This wage case is an important opportunity. It does provide an opportunity for meaningful benefit to people who are lower paid, and it is an essential element of maintaining a credible safety net. The ACT government has joined in endorsing this submission, in that it is important in terms of our own social policy framework. In the context of addressing disadvantage, in the context of addressing the issues surrounding people on lower incomes and the challenges they face, this is an important commitment to make.

It is interesting to note also that I do not believe the previous government chose, on previous occasions, to get involved formally in federal wage case determinations around safety nets. I think they declined to have a view and simply accepted the federal government's position. If that is wrong, I am happy to be corrected. However, I think it would be entirely fair to say that this government has taken a far more active interest, as its responsibilities require it to do, in issues surrounding industrial relations matters, in

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