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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 664 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

little accountability is associated with that, how little we understand whether or not it is actually delivering benefits of any kind.

This is about the basic question of fairness for people who are struggling. I wonder, sometimes, how many members of various parliaments around Australia, including this one, have any real understanding of what it is like to try to live on that amount of money per week. Perhaps some do, and perhaps they still say that it is okay, but that is not the experience of all the people who we can talk to in the ACT.

Of course, there will always be some who can manage. We can bring out a general kind of anecdotal position "I know someone who lives fine on this amount". However, we know that it is an incredible stress, it is really difficult. People living on that amount of money do not go to the dentist, for example-something as basic as that. Someone on that amount of money who may not be eligible for a health care card will go to the doctor if they can find $30 or $40 for the consultation.

It does not matter that they get the money back. They must have that money in their purse or wallet and, quite often, they will not have it. Therefore, quite often, they will be in a situation where they cannot even access primary healthcare, if there is not the potential for them to go to a bulk-billing doctor. We know there is a huge problem with the number of doctors now providing bulk billing-there are not enough of them. So there are serious issues for people living on that level of income. It is really a very minimal increase that we are talking about.

By the ACTU, it is called a safety net adjustment, and I think the language is appropriate. This is really no more than a safety net, and it is still not going to solve the problems. The suggested increase of $25 per week will give Australia's lowest paid workers a slightly better chance to make ends meet.

It is evident that the GST has hit those who can least afford it. That is an ongoing issue for actually being able to live on these sorts of salaries. The Greens believe it is essential that we provide a minimum wage that can sustain a reasonable existence. Allowing for increases in the cost of living is an essential component of providing a living wage.

As other speakers have said, the ACTU reports a wage increase over the last 12 months of 3.6 per cent. If the living wage claim is granted, wage costs would increase to 3.8 per cent. The basic established principles of the commission are reasonable, and worth stating.

This is the sixth living wage case application to be determined under the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The basic principles which inform the commission are: one, moderate safety net increases will have a minimal impact on inflation; two, moderate wage increases do little or nothing to diminish job prospects; three, employees on low wages experience difficulties making ends meet and affording what are generally considered by the broader community as basic necessities; and, four, while safety net adjustments are not perfectly targeted to meeting the needs of the low paid, they assist in meeting those needs.

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