Labor prepares to legislate a 'living wage' by changing the Fair Work Act   

March 12, 2019
Sydney Morning Herald
 

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is preparing to legislate a "living wage" if he becomes prime minister, in a move that would boost minimum pay packets and embolden unions but alarm corporate Australia just two months out from the federal election.

Dismissing business leaders opposed to a rise as "fat cats", the Labor leader on Tuesday foreshadowed a change in the law to encourage the independent Fair Work Commission to set a higher minimum wage.   

Business threatened job losses within hours of Mr Shorten's comments, which have placed industrial relations firmly at the centre of the impending election campaign.


“It could see one person’s pay rise cost another person their job," Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive James Pearson claimed.


“For more than a century, minimum wages have been set by an independent body - not the government, nor Parliament."

Mr Shorten is under pressure to increase the living wage amid a renewed push by the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

In its submission to the commission's annual minimum wage review to be lodged this week, the union peak body will demand an initial increase of 6 per cent from $719.20 to $762.20 - or $43 a week - for the 2.23 million Australian workers who depend on the minimum wage.

Under the plan, the rate would increase by 10.7 per cent over two years, bringing the minimum wage in line with the ACTU's "living wage" target of 60 per cent of the national median wage, or $852 a week.

The ACTU will kick off its industrial relations campaign with a rally in Attorney-General Christian Porter's marginal seat of Pearce in Western Australia.

"No one in Australia should be forced to work below the poverty line," ACTU secretary Sally McManus said.

Speaking in Canberra on Tuesday, Mr Shorten noted governments could make a submission to encourage the independent Fair Work Commission to lift wages, but for the first time said "another tool or mechanism which is available is to change the legislation".

"We’ll have more to say on this in coming weeks," he said.

University of Adelaide employment law expert Andrew Stewart said Labor could amend the Fair Work Act to require the commission to set a "living wage" but predicted Mr Shorten would likely take the approach of only "encouraging" it to do so.

He said Labor was unlikely to remove the requirement for the commission to also consider "the performance and competitiveness of the national economy, including productivity" when deciding by how much to lift pay packets.

Professor Stewart said it "would not be feasible" to reach the ACTU target of 60 per cent of the median full-time wage within a year, saying a phased introduction of this target would likely need to be implemented over more than two years.

Data from the Australian Council of Social Services shows the share of wage-earning Australians in poverty is growing, a statistic seized upon by Mr Shorten to claim the status quo was not working.

"It simply isn't fair, nor sustainable for economic confidence in this country that an adult could work full-time and be earning $18.93 an hour at the minimum wage before tax," he said.

"We trust the Fair Work Commission. But periodically, they do get it wrong."


A legislative change to the Fair Work Act would dwarf any of the other six wage proposals floated by Mr Shorten in an election he has labelled a "referendum on wages".

Mr Shorten has pledged to restore Sunday penalty rates, target sham contracting, close down dodgy visas, crackdown on labour hire operators, and close the gender pay gap.

He is yet to unveil a detailed policy on industry wide bargaining, which Labor is expected to roll out in low-paid industries.

Research published by the Reserve Bank of Australia last year found that there was "no evidence that small, incremental increases in award wages" resulted in higher unemployment but noted that at some point there would be an impact.

The Fair Work Commission increased the minimum wage by 3.5 per cent in 2018, and 3.3 per cent in 2017 – well above wage growth and inflation across the economy at around 2.1 per cent, but from a lower base.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said wages were driven by boosting productivity and more competition for labour, not by increasing taxes or intervening in the market.

whiteknight wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 6:30pm:


So the independent FWC will no longer be truly independent? Having to abide by what Parliament decides.

This is a why we need a Shorten labor government.  Get rid of the coalition, and their trickle down rubbish.   

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:


That's what some people keep saying.  But i also heard that by the time FWC said reduce penalty rates, some people were replaced with Libs. 

Also, independent bodies makes mistakes.  ALP trying to fix them.

Stacked with Coalition cronies who are costing us a motza....Business was not happy they had to deal with public servants....Let the peasants pay for the right too keep their wages low!!!

Edited....
Quote:




https://www.afr.com/news/policy/industrial-relations/fair-work-president-sidelin...

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 7:49pm:


And? Positions change, they are generally appointed for a fixed period. You want them to be there still in their dotage?

And they tend to change in between changes of government.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 8:10pm:


Well it was a Labor child.

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 8:13pm:


Who cares just fix it.

Voters know who was responsible for cutting Sunday penalty rates for low paid workers....No amount of bullshit can change history!!!

Quote:




https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/turnbull-government-backs-penaltyrate-cu...

The Government and business got what it wanted....Why are the Coalition and it's supporter trying to change history if they are so proud of their achievement....Talk about gutless wankers who refuse to own their dirty work???

Quote:




https://www.penaltyratesrecord.com/wentworth

Labor and the Leftists showing their economic illiteracy again.

Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman on minimum wages.

There is a clear choice at the next election....A vote for the Coalition is a vote to keep wages low and guarantee they do nothing as they do not see stagnant wage growth as their problem or that they have any responsibility to go against the wishes of their Corporate masters....A vote for Labor is a vote for wage growth and a living wage....The Coalition have already admitted they cannot do anything because they have no influence over the FWC and their submissions mean nothing, they are worthless....A vote for Labor is a vote for the Party who can do something about stagnant wage growth....This rabble must go!!!

Frank wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 5:37pm:


If Labor had remained in power Hawke would have been correct....However the Howard Government made sure poverty was built into the system....A vote for the Coalition is a vote for poverty unless you have already exploited workers to build your wealth!!!

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 8:59pm:


The government was pushing for penalty rate changes from the day they came into office. There were not a disinterested observer to the process. They were pushing the business community advising them and having quiet discussions with the commission.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 6:04pm:


An independent umpire would not have made such an incompetent or dishonest decision. They seem to have openly supported a case based on obvious lies.

There is nothing wrong with fixing something that is broken. 

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 7:06pm:


Quote:


You really should not depend on guesses of what other people think. The only thing that fair work was ever going to be better then was workchoices and never by anywhere near enough.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 7:24pm:


Olay....Dickhead!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 7:40pm:



Poor phil. Struggling to attain relevancy .

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 8:05pm:


lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 7:24pm:


Olay....Dickhead!!!

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 8:10pm:


Had you followed the facts at the time for the term of government you would have benifited in 2 ways.

1 Your would know the answer to your question and

2 you would know what you were talking about in general.

For a start you would know that the government kicked off the discussion and put the topic on the table with Fair Work.

You would also be aware that as far back as Hockey the Liberals were persuading business to go after what they wanted through fair work as well as explaining to them how to go about it.

The government set the stage and coached their team. There was a lot more going on than people were made aware of as well.

lee wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 9:53pm:


You make a lot out of them being appointed by Labor - it does not necessarily mean anything.

In fact you have made most of your going bast on a statement which is basically without meaning or relevance.

These guys current boss is a Liberal government and it was fairly clear from the time Abbott took power that if the Libs didn't like their performance they were going to disband Fair work. Removing fair work was under serious discussion at the beginning of the Abbott Government.

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 6:26pm:


So why did the Labor appointed Commissioners vote against penalty rates?



So another conspiracy theory. The FWC voted on penalty rates to save their own arse?


I didn't say that ? However what I did say is solidly based in history, it is what happened.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 8:19pm:


So the independent body wasn't independent? oh dear.

lee wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 10:16pm:


Not the first time Coalition (and perhaps ALP) influenced independent bodies -> RC into unions, ABCC, Aussie Fed Police.

stunspore wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 10:42pm:



Evidence?

Even the AFP union worried about their integrity being under the umbrella of Dutton's department.  Read it up on google.

stunspore wrote on Mar 15^th, 2019 at 11:27pm:


And that is proof of something?

stunspore wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 6:56am:



good grief.....

what sort of idiot would believe that crap...

stunspore wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 6:56am:



What rubbish I see no connection with Anti Vaxers at all.

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 6:41pm:



That argument applies equally to not changing the act as it was politicians who set the original standards.

i.e. politicians set the low wage standard that fair work apply. A government saying to fair work that the standard we expect you to apply is going to change is no different to using the standard that the politicians originally set.

Fair work apply fair independent rulings (or sometimes do) against the framework that live under as have every prior body. The framework regularly changes and always has.

Setting the standards expected is a function of government.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 8:27am:



That is a question. Why don't you answer it.

And then for balance look at the ALP. We wouldn't want an unbalanced view would we?

lee wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 12:03pm:


Fairwork were never set up to have authority over their legislated act, no commission is.

The commission set the level of the low wage they cannot choose to set a living wage (there is no such thing in the act) it is outside of their scope doing this is a function of government in has to be enacted in parliament. Commissions do not enact legislation they function under it.

lee wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 1:04pm:


You did vaguely notice that the Topic is about legislating a Living wage ?

lee wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 8:01pm:


I would say you expert if full of it. Read the legislation the minimum wage is defined in it and mentioned all over the place. There is no such thing as a living wage and the commission has no reference to one, there is effectivly no such thing to the commission. They can not be encouraged to establish something which is not included in their responsibilities.

They have a legislated requirement to produce a minimum wage decision and no ability to modify this to be something else. Not even with a governments encouragement the proposition seems to be silly.

The provision look like this :

Quote:

lee wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 8:01pm:


What they did to penalty rates was evil but also not covered by this topic.

lee wrote on Mar 16^th, 2019 at 9:42pm:


No the minimum wage is very specifically defined the minimum wage is not the same as the living wage as it is defined in a different manner to the minimum wage which is defined in the legislation.

There is all sorts of provisions meant to include different employment groups into the national minimum wage this is one of them, Setting and varying the minimum wage is the process that applies to the minimum wage yearly decisions. It sets a minimum wage not a living wage, they are different things