Page 3844 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
conditions in these awards make provision for 20 allowable matters, which include penalty rates, annual leave loading and sick leave. If someone covered by such an award signs an individual agreement, that agreement is subject to a “no disadvantage” test, so the worker cannot be worse off as a result of moving to the agreement. Effectively, if the worker gives up penalty rates for working on a weekend, they must be compensated in some other way.
However, under these reforms, the no disadvantage test will be removed. While awards will remain, it is effectively only the five legislative minimums—that is, minimum hourly rate of pay, which is currently $12.75; sick leave; four weeks annual leave, two weeks of which could be “cashed out”; unpaid parental leave; and the 38-hour week—that will be protected. As well as the minimum wage being reduced, low-income earners are also likely to suffer most under the changes to the no disadvantage test. There is no doubt their take-home pay will be substantially cut. The government’s own WorkChoices propaganda includes an example of an unemployed Canberran, Billy, who gives up in the vicinity of 40 per cent in additional pay, including penalty rates, just to get a job.
Recognising the effect these changes will have on the most disadvantaged, church and community leaders have spoken out against them. In particular, leaders from the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting churches have questioned the impact the changes will have on Australian society. One of the most surprising critics, to me at least, given his tacit support for the conservatives in the last election, has been Cardinal George Pell. Cardinal Pell is normally a confidant of the Howard government, but he has concerns that these changes will result in a decline to the minimum wage. Local Catholic bishop Pat Power has joined Cardinal Pell in questioning the reforms. He rightly asks whether the new laws target the most vulnerable people in our society. And there has been cross-denominational support in rejecting these changes. Peter Jensen, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, has raised concerns about the ability of workers to share time for children, families and relationships once the changes are adopted. I cannot help but agree with the Archbishop when he says, “Life is about shared relationships, not the economy.”
The Uniting Church has also joined in the procession of church leaders opposing these reforms. President Dean Drayton has suggested that the package is more about choices for business than about protecting workers. He said of the changes, “Workers are not commodities in the service of greater profits—they are people trying to make a decent life for themselves and their families.” Similarly, the Brotherhood of St Laurence executive director, Tony Nicholson, suggested when launching Anti-Poverty Week earlier this week that up to 1.5 million Australians already living under the poverty line risk being left behind by the federal government’s industrial relations reforms. Already, he suggests, far too many have been left behind by the modern economy despite the unprecedented prosperity many others have enjoyed.
Only yesterday, the Salvation Army rightly pointed out that the reform’s exploitation of the disadvantaged means these changes can only be described as unethical. Salvos spokesman Mr Dalziel suggested that “people such as the homeless, those who have suffered abuse and young people with a poor education would not be able to bargain for decent wages and conditions”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .