Will cuts to Sunday penalty rates become a textbook example of unintended consequences?

ABC News, 23 February 2017:

Let's start by calling a spade a spade. Sunday penalty rates have been cut by the Fair Work Commission. Not "equalised" or "brought in line" with Saturday rates. Cut.

Business, big and small, has been seeking this cut for years, saying Sunday penalties are a legacy of a bygone era where families went to church — one that's costing them a tidy sum.

They also argue it's a legacy that's been costing jobs, with many employers choosing not to open on Sundays, or to maintain just a skeleton staff (although ask yourself, just how many retailers, restaurants, cafes and bars are actually shut on Sunday?).

But the cuts to Sunday penalty rates could become a textbook example of unintended consequences, where a move supposed to increase employment instead hurts the economy and increases business failures and job losses.

Why? Because the hundreds of thousands of retail and hospitality workers affected by this decision are also customers.

What do you think happens when you cut someone's pay packet by as much as 25 per cent for their Sunday shifts?

(For a typical permanent retail worker on the award who always works Sunday shifts this will cut their annual pay by about $3,500).

They either have to work more, or they have to cut their spending to match their new, lower wage.

Given that unemployment is stubbornly high at 5.7 per cent, and underemployment is near record levels, it seems unlikely they'll actually be able to get more work to make up the lost pay — and, remember, these staff already work Sundays, so it's not like they'll benefit from any increase in jobs on that day.

According to the Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) an est. 850,300 people were employed in the accommodation and food industry sector in November 2016 as their main job and another est. 1.25 million people have their main job in the retail sector [ABS 6291.0.55.003 - Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly, Nov 2016].

An est. 54.7 percent of female employees in the accommodation/food industry work part-time and an est. 45.3 per cent males do likewise. While in retail an est. 54.6 per cent of females and 45.3 per cent of males work part-time.

In accommodation/food businesses part time employees work for an average of 16.1 hours while in the retail trade part-time employees work for an average of 16.7 hours.

Underemployment appears to be highest in the food and hospitality sector, third highest in the retail sector and females highest in both sectors. [Workplace Gender Equality Agency, Gender composition of the workforce: by industry, April 2016]

Females with only one job were more likely to work on weekends - 73% compared to 68% for males.

These statistics tend to confirm that “hundreds of thousands” of single person and family households will be hit by cuts to Sunday penalty rates as set out in the Fair Work Commission’s 4 yearly review of modern awards – Penalty Rates Decision covering Hospitality, Fast Food, Retail and Pharmacy Awards and, I have no doubt that their loss of income will affect local economies to a significant degree.

The reductions in Sunday penalty rates we have determined are set out below:

Award Sunday Penalty Rate

Hospitality Award full-time and part-time employees: (no change for casuals) 175 per cent -> 150 per cent

Fast Food Award (Level 1 employees only)

Full-time and part-time employees: 150 per cent ->125 per cent

Casual employees: 175 per cent ->150 per cent

Retail Award Full-time and part-time employees: 200 per cent ->150 per cent

Casual employees: 200 per cent ->175 per cent

Pharmacy Award

(7.00 am – 9.00 pm only)

Full-time and part-time employees: 200 per cent ->150 per cent

Casual employees: 200 per cent ->175 per cent

Local and regional economies on the NSW North Coast - where often low levels of employment opportunity combined with the fact that few hospitality/food outlets in tourism-orientated towns and none of the big retail stores currently close on a Sunday anyway - suggest that this wages cut will be nothing more than a straight forward cost saving for local businesses, with no or very little additional full-time, part-time or casual employment eventuating.

That a backlash to the Fair Work Commission decision appears inevitable is indicated by this online poll active on the day the decision was published:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/penalty-rate-cuts-who-gains-and-who-will-be-hit-the-hardest-20170222-guj8bv.html

A university education and a highly paid job the road to home ownership in Australia for the masses?

The Turnbull Government’s tin ear was on full display in The Sydney Morning  Herald on 21 February 2017:

The Coalition MP tasked with tackling Australia's housing affordability problems has said a "highly paid job" is the "first step" to owning a home.

The federal Victorian MP Michael Sukkar, who is the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer and has been charged with finding solutions to the country's housing affordability woes, also pointed to his own experience in purchasing two properties by the age of 35 as an example to struggling homebuyers. 

"We're also enabling young people to get highly paid jobs which is the first step to buying a house, it's not the only answer but it's the first step," Mr Sukkar told Sky News on Monday night.

"I want to see young people like me, leave university, I was a terrible university student but I left university because the economy was so good, I got a great start and I was able to forge a career," he said.

The Liberal MP for Deakin since September 2013 and Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, 35 year-old Michael Sven Sukkar LLB, BComm (Deakin), LLM (Melb), who apparently walked straight into well-paying employment at PricewaterhouseCoopers after leaving university and eleven years later owns his own home in Blackburn and a residence in Canberra after selling a second investment property in Fitzroy.

Conveniently the Australian taxpayer is assisting Mr. Sukkar with the mortgage on the possibly negatively geared Canberra property by supplying him with $273.00 for every night he stays in his own residence while parliament is sitting – an est. $11,466 for the 2017 calendar year alone.

Even at a stretch, married to a professionally qualified wife with a business partnership in a multinational firm, Michael Sukkar’s economic progress though life is hardly typical of a couple seeking to buy their first home.

However, typically of a member of the Liberal Party he assumes almost everyone can be fortunate enough to have small business owners as parents, a good education and a well-paying job before securing a parliamentary seat with an excellent superannuation plan.

According to They Vote For You during his almost three and a half years in the Australian Parliament Michael Sukkar has voted for:

A same-sex marriage plebiscite

An Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC)

An emissions reduction fund

Charging postgraduate research students fees

Decreasing ABC and SBS funding

Decreasing availability of welfare payments

Deregulating undergraduate university fees

Increasing funding for road infrastructure

Increasing indexation of HECS-HELP debts

Increasing or removing the Government debt limit

Increasing scrutiny of unions

Increasing the initial tax rate for working holiday makers to 19%

Increasing the price of subsidised medicine

Privatising government assets

Senate electoral reform

Speeding things along in Parliament (procedural)

Stopping people who arrive by boat from ever coming to Australia

Tighter means testing of family payments

Unconventional gas mining

Regional processing of asylum seekers

Temporary protection visas

And voted against:

Implementing refugee and protection conventions

Increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management

Suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)

Increasing Aboriginal land rights

Increasing funding for university education

Increasing investment in renewable energy

Increasing marine conservation

Increasing protection of Australia's fresh water

Increasing restrictions on gambling

Increasing the age pension

Increasing the diversity of media ownership

Increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace

Increasing transparency of big business by making information public

Letting all MPs or Senators speak in Parliament (procedural)

Letting environmental groups challenge the legality of certain government decisions

Protecting citizens' privacy

Restricting foreign ownership

Stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

Looking for work in 2017? Some advice on your rights from the experts

By and large businesses in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales are fair to their employees.

However, there is no denying that there is an element amongst employers which attempts to take advantage of people desperate to find paid work and, under award rates, no payslips, wages not paid on time, deductions from wages for a little as dropping one small bottle of soft drink, unfair dismissal, are not unknown.

So it pays to know your rights upfront and this may help…….

Fair Work Ombudsman, media release, February 2017:

Fair Work Ombudsman out to smash myths relating to young workers

13 February 2017

The Fair Work Ombudsman is seeking to educate employees and business on the myths that are contributing to a concerning number of young workers being underpaid around Australia.

Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James says too many people mistakenly believe that a range of workplace practices relating to young workers are OK when they are in fact unlawful.

“It’s time to address the myths that have achieved widespread levels of acceptance and are resulting in employers short-changing young workers around the country,” Ms James said. 

“Young workers make up about 16 per cent of the Australian workforce but account for a disproportionately high 25 per cent of requests for assistance to the agency. Last year 44% of the litigations we filed in court involved young workers.” 

“It is critical to raise awareness among employees and employers that they may be involved in serious contraventions of workplace laws by unwittingly continuing with practices that they believe are acceptable. 

“Young workers can be vulnerable in the workplace as they are often not fully aware of their rights or reluctant to complain if they think something is wrong. 

“We also come across too many employers who are short-changing young workers and when we contact them they say, ‘I just assumed what I was doing was OK’,” Ms James said. 

Ten common young worker myths the Fair Work Ombudsman encounters are:

MYTH 1: Paying low, flat rates of pay for all hours worked is OK if the worker agrees. 
FACT: Minimum lawful pay rates are mandatory. In many jobs, penalty rates must be paid for evening, weekend, public holiday and overtime work.

MYTH 2: Lengthy unpaid work trials are OK.

FACT: Unpaid trials are only OK for as long as needed to demonstrate the skills required for the job. Depending on the nature of the work, this could range from an hour to one shift.

MYTH 3: Employees don’t need to be paid for time spent opening and closing a store or for time spent attending meetings or training outside their paid work hours.

FACT: If a meeting or training is compulsory, then it is work. Employees must be paid for all hours they dedicate to work and this includes time spent opening or closing a store. For example, if an employee is required to be at work at 7.45am to prepare for an 8am store opening, they need to be paid from 7.45am.

MYTH 4: Employers can make deductions from an employee’s wages to cover losses arising from cash register discrepancies, breakages and customers who don’t pay.

FACT: Unauthorised deductions from an employee’s pay are unlawful. Deductions can be made only in very limited circumstances. 

MYTH 5: Employees are obliged to buy store produce such as clothing or food.

FACT: Employers cannot require staff to purchase store produce. This includes any items for which the worker may receive a staff discount. For example, an employer cannot require workers to purchase the particular clothing stocked in a retail outlet. 

MYTH 6: Unpaid internships are OK for all inexperienced young workers looking to get a foot in the door.

FACT: Internships can only be lawfully unpaid when they are a requirement of a course at an authorised educational or training institution.

MYTH 7: Employers can pay young workers as ‘trainees’ or ‘apprentices’ without lodging any formal paperwork.

FACT: Employers must negotiate and lodge a registered training contract for an employee in order to lawfully be able to pay trainee or apprentice rates. An employer cannot pay an employee trainee rates just because they are young or new to the job. 

MYTH 8: Paying employees with goods such as food or drink is OK.

FACT: Payment-in-kind is unlawful. Employees must be paid wages for all work performed.

MYTH 9: If a worker has an Australian Business Number (ABN) they are an independent contractor and minimum pay rates don’t apply.

FACT: Having an ABN does not automatically make a worker an independent contractor. Fair Work inspectors apply tests of fact and law to determine whether a worker’s correct classification is as an independent contractor or an employee. Whether an employer has labelled a worker as a contractor and required them to obtain an ABN may not be relevant.

MYTH 10: Pay slips aren’t mandatory – employers only need to give employees pay slips if they ask for them.

FACT: Employers must give all employees a pay slip within one working day of pay-day. Employers can give employees paper or electronic pay slips, such as a link sent via email. 

Ms James says that in 2017 her Agency will have a particular focus on proactively checking that employers of young workers are doing the right thing. 

“Young workers can be vulnerable, so we place high importance on checking and treat cases of their rights being contravened more seriously, which means we are more likely to pursue enforcement action,” Ms James said. 

Between July 2011 and June 2016, the Fair Work Ombudsman received more than 27,000 requests for assistance from young workers and recovered over $18 million for young workers who had been short-changed.

Employers and employees seeking assistance can visit www.fairwork.gov.au or contact the Fair Work Infoline on 13 13 94. An interpreter service is available by calling 13 14 50 and information on the website is translated into 27 different languages.

Resources available on the website include the Pay and Conditions Tool (PACT), which provides advice about pay, shift, leave and redundancy entitlements and an employer’s guide to employing young workers.

Online resources available for young workers include a guide for young workers, the ‘starting a new job’ online learning course and a range of helpful tips.

Follow Fair Work Ombudsman Natalie James on Twitter @NatJamesFWO , the Fair Work Ombudsman @fairwork_gov_au  or find us on Facebook www.facebook.com/fairwork.gov.au .

Sign up to receive the Fair Work Ombudsman’s media releases direct to your email inbox at www.fairwork.gov.au/mediareleases.

Fair Work Commission, May 2016:

Awards

If you are not covered by an agreement, your minimum wages and conditions are likely to be set by a modern award

The modern award will deal with:

minimum wage rates

annual leave, and annual leave loading

other types of leave

hours of work

penalty rates, overtime and casual rates

allowances

consultation, and

many other minimum conditions.

Go to Find an award

Doogan Report recommends the Federal Coalition Government compensate nine Save the Children Australia workers for expulsion from its Nauru detention centre in 2014

On 26 June 2015 Adj. Prof. Christopher M. Doogan submitted a report, Review Of Recommendation Nine From The Moss Review, to the Abbott Government  which stated at pages 22 and 23:

Given the Moss Report was submitted to the Abbott Government on 6 February 2014, the subsequent Doogan Report was conducted and concluded in a relatively timely fashion.

However, public knowledge of the text this report did not surface until almost seven months later on Friday 17 January 2016 when it was released by government with no ministerial comment.

In effect, those nine Save the Children Australia workers were forced to wait the better part of fifteen months for final vindication.

Even then mainstream media reported that neither Save The Children Australia nor the nine expelled workers have received an apology from either the Abbott or Turnbull federal governments and, none presumably have received any form of compensation.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton and former immigration minister Treasurer Scott Morrison are acting churlishly by not following Recommendation 61 of the Doogan Report.

But what can one expect from a federal government heavily infested with right-wing ideologues, more intent on ensuring the continuation of their own lucrative parliamentary positions rather than in governing the nation effectively and fairly.

Industrial Relations: if you thought Tony Abbott could not sink much lower....

Australian Government Productivity Commission media release, 22 January 2015:

Productivity Commission release issues papers on workplace relations

The Productivity Commission has today released a suite of five issues papers relating to its current public inquiry into the performance of the Australian workplace relations framework.

The issues papers are intended to canvas all the big questions about Australia's workplace system. The Commission has asked Australians — employees, employers, unions, people not in work and others — to give their views about the best system for the future. While the Commission seeks detailed responses from key stakeholders, people can also make brief comments and can do so by going to its web page.

The Australian Government asked the Commission to undertake the wide-ranging inquiry into Australia's workplace relations system in late December 2014.

The chair of the Commission, Peter Harris, said: 'We know people hold passionate views about workplace relations. I'd like to emphasise that the Commission is open-minded, and our approach will be evidence-based and impartial. We know that a workplace relations system goes beyond its important economic impacts, and will take account of the human and social elements of what is at stake. We are required by our legislation to account of benefits to the community as a whole, and not any particular interest group'.

The Commission's five issues papers cover all the key aspects of the system: its objectives; the safety net provided by minimum wages, awards and the national employment standards; how people bargain in the system, the protections it provides employees, its compliance costs and its institutions.

Peter Harris said that 'The system is complex and interlinked, so the inquiry must be broad ranging. But just because we raise an issue does not mean we will recommend change in that area. We plan to undertake the analysis and hear what people think, and based on that we will reach conclusions. There will be substantial opportunity for public comment on any proposals'.

The Commission has indicated that it will entertain fresh ideas. The first issues paper says that the Commission 'is open to lateral suggestions so long as they are practical, beneficial and backed by solid evidence and argument'. It also asks for lessons from other countries' workplace relations systems.

The Commission is due to report by the end of November 2015, and will produce a draft report midyear, hold hearings after the draft and seek two rounds of submissions over the course of the inquiry. It is also looking at ways to make it easier for regional Australia to participate in this process.

The Commission is seeking initial public feedback on its issues papers by 13 March 2015.

Background information

Ralph Lattimore (Assistant Commissioner) 02 6240 3242

Requests for comment / other

Leonora Nicol (Media and Publications) 02 6240 3239 / 0417 665 443

It takes minimal research to realise that the Abbott Government hopes to use The Workplace Relations Framework: The Inquiry In Context: Issues Paper 1, January 2015 as a first step in introducing Work Choices Mark II, because none of those in the ranks of neo-conservative politics or self-interested business can wrap their minds around the fact that it is the effort of workers (more than average annual investment in a business) which sees owners garner both business and personal wealth.

Make no mistake Prime Minister Tony Abbott & his merry band of fascisti are intent on attacking the basis of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay by dismantling minimum wages, the award system (which includes penalty rates) and National Employment Standards.

OVERCOMING INDIGENOUS DISADVANTAGE 2014 report released 19 November 2014

M e d i a R e l e a s e

Wednesday 19 November 2014

Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision

OVERCOMING INDIGENOUS DISADVANTAGE 2014

The 2014 Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage (OID) report released today shows some positive trends in the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, with improvements in health, education

and economic outcomes. However, results in areas such as justice and mental health continue to cause concern.

The report shows that, nationally, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians:

• economic outcomes have improved over the longer term, with higher incomes, lower reliance on income support, increased home ownership, and higher rates of full time and professional employment.

However, improvements have slowed in recent years

• several health outcomes have improved, including increased life expectancy and lower child mortality.

However, rates of disability and chronic disease remain high, mental health outcomes have not improved, and hospitalisation rates for self-harm have increased

• post-secondary education outcomes have improved, but there has been virtually no change in literacy and numeracy results at school, which are particularly poor in remote areas

• justice outcomes continue to decline, with adult imprisonment rates worsening and no change in high rates of juvenile detention and family and community violence.

“It has been almost three years since the last OID report. For this report we made a concerted effort to increase the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Their input contributed to significant developments, including broadening the focus from overcoming disadvantage to improving wellbeing, and the inclusion of new indicators, such as Indigenous language revitalisation and maintenance, valuing Indigenous cultures (including experiences of racism and discrimination) and participation in decision making” said Peter Harris, chairman of the Productivity Commission and of the Steering Committee.

The OID report is the most comprehensive report on Indigenous wellbeing produced in Australia. It contains accessible data for an extensive range of wellbeing measures as well as case studies of programs that have led to improved outcomes. “This report should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians or working in service delivery or program design,” said Commissioner Patricia Scott, who convenes the expert working group that advises on the report.

The report is a product of the Review of Government Service Provision. It is overseen by a Steering Committee comprising senior officials from the Australian, State and Territory governments, and supported by a secretariat from the Productivity Commission. This report is the sixth in the series, which traces its origins to the final report of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 2000.

The full report can be found here.

On the same day the Productivity Commission report was released the Abbott Government walked away from another one of its 2013 election promises, according to The Australian, 20 November 2014:

THE national peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services NATSILS is angry at the Abbott government for “back flipping” on a pledge to consider introducing justice targets as part of the Closing the Gap policy agenda, a move which NATSILS along with many other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and organisations have long called for.

It comes after this week’s Productivity Commission Overcoming indigenous Disadvantage report revealed a shocking increase of nearly 60 per cent in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration rates over the last decade.

NATSILS Chairperson, Shane Duffy, said that confirmation from the Minister for indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, during question time in the Senate on Wednesday that the government would not be progressing with introducing a justice target, despite publicly supporting such in the lead up to the 2013 election, was a troubling development…..

Mr Duffy said that the development of Closing the Gap justice targets was not just about throwing more money at the issue, as the Minister had described it, but was rather about getting the policy settings right to affect real change and to make sure resources in the justice space are used most effectively.

“The high cost of incarceration combined with the fact that prisons actually offer little in terms of effective rehabilitation, means that addressing incarceration rates should be an economic priority for the Government and its budget bottom line,” Mr Duffy said.

“It is costing Australian taxpayers more than $795 million per annum just to maintain the current level of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander over-imprisonment, so to reiterate the sentiments of the Minister in recent days, we shouldn’t just keep throwing money down the drain.”

Beliefs versus research in mainstream media

This is where reliance on belief led one university-educated journalist and news director.

The Daily Examiner 31 July 2014:

However I believe there are people out there who are getting benefits a little too easily these days and hopefully this will weed them out.

This is where reliance on research took another journalist.

The Sydney Morning Herald 1 August 2014:

A Department of Employment official has admitted the Abbott government has not done any modelling to estimate how many job seekers will find employment within three months after completing its multibillion-dollar work-for-the-dole program.

That is despite the government's own data showing work-for-the-dole programs are the least effective way to help people find jobs.

Department of Employment data shows that - for job seekers in 2013 - only 19.8 per cent of participants in work-for-the-dole schemes found a full- or part-time job within three months.

That compares with 40.3 per cent of people who did unpaid work experience, 28.4 per cent of those who completed some form of work training, 25.7 per cent who were trained in job search techniques, and 21 per cent of those who did voluntary work….

As of March 31, there were 17,000 job seekers who were doing work for the dole.

What Prime Minister Tony Abbott knows about the Low Income Superannuation Contribution and why he will still rob the Australian working poor

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Coalition colleagues (including National Party MPs Hogan in Page, Hartsuyker in Cowper, Gillespie in Lyne, and Joyce in New England) have sent a bill to the Senate which will allow the potentially abolition of the $500 Low Income Superannuation Contribution. This is being characterised as a budget savings measure.

Not surprisingly the Senate Inquiry into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 indicates that the business community is in favour of the abolition, as can be seen by the evidence given by Dr Burn representing the Australian Industry Group:..... we support the repeal of the minerals resource rent tax, we support the removal of the special accelerated depreciation facilities for motor vehicle write-off by small business, we support the repeal of the geothermal exploration measures, we support the pause to the superannuation contributions guarantee levy, we support the repeal of the low-income super measures and we support the repeal of the income support bonus and schoolkids measures. We do not support the repeal of the loss carryback provisions and we do not support the proposal to reduce the small business asset write-off threshold.

The Senate Inquiry was also told the following.

Mr Lyons (Australian Council of Trade Unions - ACTU): ....In respect of the low-income super contribution, let me put it this way: this bill proposes to restore the position where large numbers of low-income Australians pay more tax on their superannuation than they pay on their take-home pay. That is an absurd proposition for money which is compulsory and preserved and in contrast to the enormous tax concessions given to high-income earners. This bill will raise superannuation taxes on 3.6 million low-paid workers, 2.1 million of whom are women. Just as an example, about 360,000 retail workers alone will see an increase in super taxes. It is unjustifiable and unfair, particularly in circumstances where the government has chosen to not proceed with a very modest saving in respect of super taxes on high-income earners....

We could just add one or two points. The important point here, I think, is that the repeal of the LISC would leave those earning less than $37,000 per year as the only Australian wage and salary earners who do not receive a concessional treatment of their superannuation contributions. Everybody else in the economy except these low income workers would receive some measure of tax break, and as Mr Davidson has pointed out, at the top end there are very significant concessions.

Mr Cowgill (ACTU): If I could just add something to that, I would draw your attention to some analysis by the Treasury of the distribution of superannuation tax concessions. The Treasury analysis shows that in 2009-10 the top decile of income earners received 38.2 per cent of all superannuation tax concessions, which is more than the share of the bottom 70 per cent of income earners combined. To quote the Treasury, they find that the top one per cent of income earners received the most combined support, and by 'a combined support' they mean both the age pension and the superannuation tax concessions. So high-income earners receive greater support for their retirement than low-income earners, even when you take the age pension into account, and we feel that is a grossly inequitable situation....

Dr Denniss (The Australia Institute): Can I just add very briefly to that? To put these percentages into context, if a high-income earner were to put $1,000 into super, they would save $300 in tax. If a low-income earner were to put $1,000 into super, they would pay $150 more in tax....

The system is obscene. It is obscene and it is bizarre for the parliament to tell itself that this $50 billion a year tax concession for superannuation is 'taking pressure off the age pension system', when the demographic group that will rely on the age pension is penalised for participating, and the people who already have too much superannuation to be even eligible for the age pension when they retire are subsidised. It is obscene....  

I agree entirely. Let us be clear. In 2016-17 the cost of tax concessions for super will be $50,000 million a year, $50 billion, according to Treasury. As the ACTU pointed out, the vast majority of that $50 billion annual expenditure will accrue to the top 10 per cent of income earners, who are probably not even eligible for the aged pension. So if you are worried about the budget, I would not be taking tax concessions off the low-income earners, who will rely on the aged pension.  

Ms Campo (Industry Super Australia):... Of the 3.6 million Australians who will be impacted by this proposed measure, 2 million are our members. We would respectfully ask that this committee take into account their interests. I have a few comments on some of the demographic impacts. As others identified and as we identified in our submission, about two-thirds of those affected are women. We think that the LISC has been the single most important policy setting in the super system which helps to address the inequity in savings gap whereby women are currently retiring with about 40 per cent less than men, which is significant given that their longevity is greater.....

Three of the 3.6 million affected are from second-income earners. The largest single identifiable group is part-time earners in family households. The abolition of the LISC affects around 1.67 million female part-time earners, who constitute around 80 per cent of all part-time female workers nationally—so a very significant impact on women working part time in a family setting....

Ms Wood (Women In Super): Thank you for the opportunity to appear today before the committee. I am the National Chair of Women in Super, which is a national advocacy and networking group for women employed in the superannuation and financial services industries. Women in Super is concerned to ensure that the retirement savings system is fair and equitable and offers the prospect of greater comfort in retirement for all Australians. This is not currently the case for women. Women currently have only half the superannuation savings of men. The average retirement payment for a woman is $112,000 compared to $198,000 for a man. On top of that, women live longer than men, so their reduced savings must stretch over a longer period in retirement. The super savings gap is the result of many factors, including unequal pay, which is currently at 17.5 per cent. It is caused by breaks from the workforce, periods of part-time work, overrepresentation in lower paid industries and barriers to employment beyond age 45. Women in Super support policies that assist low-income earners as women make up the majority of this sector of the workforce.

We see the increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent and the low-income superannuation contribution as crucial policies to deliver adequacy in retirement and to take the pressure off future taxpayers. These measures are doubly important for women who currently have such a marked superannuation savings gap. The LISC is not simply a mechanism to increase superannuation savings; it is fundamental to the equity of the taxation treatment of compulsory superannuation savings.

Repealing the LISC will impose a tax burden of up to $500 on the lowest paid on our community, and this will impact 50 per cent of the female workforce. Those earning under $37,000, if the LISC is repealed, will be the only Australians who will receive no tax benefit from compulsorily contributing to their superannuation. Those earning higher incomes will receive a tax break of up to 30c in the dollar. It is simply not equitable for our system to treat the low paid and the high paid so differently for making compulsory contributions to their super. The male and female workers who will be impacted by the repeal of the LISC span all age categories, with up to half of those who will be impacted and who will qualify for the LISC being over 41 years of age.

There is community support for the LISC, as Women in Super discovered. We have consulted, and we have received support from community groups, from business leaders and from public think tanks. However, I would say that there has not been a true public debate about repeal of the LISC. The issue has not been in the public arena, and I think reality will only hit for many low-income earners when they receive, on their superannuation statements, rebates relating to the most recent financial year and then understand that those rebates will not be there in the future if the LISC is repealed....   

Mr Davidson (Australian Council of Social Service):...With regard to the low-income super contribution: the contribution is a small step towards a fairer super system. The present system penalises those on the lowest incomes, the majority of whom are women, for saving and gives those on high incomes twice the subsidy paid to middle-income earners. So the tax system for super contributions is upside-down. Ideally, the Henry report reforms would be implemented whereby the flat 15 per cent tax on employer contributions is replaced by taxation at marginal rates offset by a rebate. Still, the contribution is a good start. It means the tax break for people earning less than $37,000 a year is increased from minus 15 per cent to zero. That is not fantastic, but it is a good start, and we think it should be retained....  

Rather unsurprisingly, in a Senate inquiry dominated by Coalition members, its report tabled on 2 December 2013 weakly recommended:

Recommendation 1

2.114         The committee recommends that the government revisit certain measures in the Bill, in particular incentives in superannuation for low income earners and taxation issues affecting small business, once the Budget returns to strong surplus.

Recommendation 2

2.115         The committee recommends that the government consider revisiting the question of incentives in superannuation for low income earners as part of its tax review.

Recommendation 3

2.116         The committee recommends that the Bill be passed.

There appears to be little hope that a Prime Minister who came from an affluent family, who has a more than comfortable lifestyle and, a generous superannuation pay out on retirement (in excess of  $371,000 per annum with additional retirement benefits), is going to revisit his proposed superannuation measures for low income earners.

Low-income workers and women in particular will rue the day that Tony Abbott took hold of the reins of government.

Workers earning over $37,000 annually will have to nervously live in hope that Abbott will honour his undertaking to only defer their scheduled superannuation increase by two years.

Abbott will move against workers' rights after the federal election if he wins government?

ABC News 29 August 2013:

The Liberal candidate for Gilmore Ann Sudmalis has told an election forum she can't respond to a question about workplace policy until after the September election.

When quizzed, Ms Sudmalis reacted angrily and wouldn't say whether a Coalition government would re-introduce the controversial 'Work Choices' legislation.

Ms Sudmalis likened the question to fiction and archaeology.

"We are actually not talking about a Stephen King fiction here, we're not digging up bones," she said.

"Any workplace relations legislation is on the table after the election not before, so sorry I can't answer your question.

"It is exactly as it is right now right through to the election and it will be reviewed after the election and that has been made perfectly clear to everybody."….

* Photograph found at Google Images

Federal Labor MP Janelle Saffin on the subject of her state counterparts

Letter to the Editor in The Daily Examiner 14 July 2012:

I write to express my feelings of shock and dismay at the loss of jobs and other impacts caused by the New South Wales Government's downsizing of the Grafton Jail.

At the picket line on Ramornie Day, I was both inspired by the strength of the community's support for the workers, their families, the families of inmates and for Grafton and Clarence Valley, and saddened as I knew the trucks were in transit to take remaining inmates away, the final act in axing local jobs.

The NSW Government and the National Party representatives, including, and I hate to say this, the local State Member, got everything wrong - the downsizing, the immediacy of it, refusing to talk to locals directly, and no plans put in place for the workers, their families, and the city.

On site at the picket I met with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, who were there protesting the jobs going and deeply worried for inmates, up to 70% of them Indigenous, being moved to Kempsey, Cessnock or other faraway jails.

Despite what we know from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, which recommended inmates have regular contact with family members, there were no transition plans in place either.

There are many cruel impacts caused by this callous treatment; teachers who are offered a redundancy but then told they cannot go into teaching elsewhere for 12 months under some State Government rules. These rules could have been relaxed for them.

When the South Grafton Abattoir closed late last year, a State Government Rapid Response was deployed. Why couldn't there be a similar response for the jail?

We were told it cannot apply to the public sector, but this public service closure, is ripping the guts out of Grafton. Again, these can be fixed by political decisions.

Like all locals, the question we are asking is how much more can the Clarence Valley take?
Grafton is a great city and the Clarence Valley is stocked with solid and stoic people, who will rebuild and pick up the pieces, but this betrayal is hard to accept.

I know Grafton Chamber of Commerce president Jeremy Challacombe said we should not be political, and I understand where he is coming from, but I am political and proudly call myself a politician, and one who speaks up for us locals.

That is my job, nothing more, nothing less. This is political and it was a political decision of the NSW Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell and his Deputy, National Party Leader Andrew Stoner, to downsize Grafton Jail.

It could have easily been a political decision to not downgrade the jail to a remand centre, and at least, do what the local community kept calling for, 'to push the pause button'.

Where to from here? We must work together to ensure we attract whatever support we can to Grafton and the Clarence Valley, so that all can continue to not only survive but flourish.

We need to take advantage of all opportunities and openings, and go for them. This is what I shall be doing with the local community.

Janelle Saffin MP
Federal Member for Page

Is your local council using Brothel Busters?

Brothel Busters, known formally as Lyonswood Investigations and Forensic Group, advertised a vacancy for an investigator in MyCareer (see below) this week. While the job description makes for interesting (and somewhat mind-boggling) reading, it's the introductory part of the advertisement that caused this reader to wonder about which local councils use this mob's "services". And, for those that do, how do they go about detailing their expenses in their financial statements?

Source: MyCareer, 21/1/12