Quote of the Week

 

“A new paper from the Australia Institute shows 93% of the benefits of economic growth between 2009 and 2019 went to the top 10%, while the bottom 90% received just 7%. The paper shows the share of economic growth going to the top 10% over that period was far higher in Australia than in other developed countries, including the US and Canada.”

[Political reporter Amy Remeikis, writing in The Guardian, 11 April 2023]

Australian Federal Election 2022: National Minimum Wage and the Gig Economy

 

Attempting to add a little context to the mention of wages during the current federal election campaign.......

According to the Fair Work Ombudsman:

The National Minimum Wage applies to employees not covered by an award or registered agreement. This is the minimum pay rate provided by the Fair Work Act 2009 and is reviewed each year.

As of 1 July 2021 the National Minimum Wage is $20.33 per hour or $772.60 per week.

Employees covered by an award or registered agreement are entitled to the minimum pay rates, including penalty rates and allowances in their award or agreement. These pay rates may be higher than the National Minimum Wage.

The National Minimum Wage is varied for Apprentice and Trainee pay rates, Junior pay rates and Employees with disability pay rates.

The National Minimum Wage is set by the Fair Work Commission. The federal government of the day appoints Fair Work presidents, vice-presidents, deputy presidents and commissioners, of whom there are generally 42 in number. Since December 2018 it has been the Morrison Government making appointments to the Commission and allegations have persisted that it is now an employer dominated agency.

In June 2021 the National Minimum Wage increase represented a rise in remuneration of 2.5% before tax – rising from $19.24 to $20.84 an hour. That increase was a lordly 49 cents per hour worked.

At that time the Australian Attorney-General’s Department estimated that around 180,200 Australian employees (or 1.7% of the paid workforce) were being paid the national minimum wage rate. Though I rather suspect that that figure may have been years out of date when it was presented to the Commission.

Now during its annual wage reviews, the Fair Work Commission receives a number of submissions from government, industry groups, unions and other interested parties.

During the Fair Work Commission Annual Wage Review 2021 the  Morrison Government submitted its position on any change to the National Minimum Wage, which took 102 pages to say low or moderate increases are better than larger increases – if increases have to happen at all. Along with a somewhat novel argument from an ordinary citizen’s perspective, that there was no urgent need for a rise in the minimum wage because government supports low income households in other ways and it expects future minimum wage rate increases to be eaten away by government taxes.

This was the same basic approach taken previously by the Morrison Government during the Annual Wage Review 2020 and Annual Wage Review 2019. To which had been added in both those submissions, the argument that previous minimum wages allowed workers sufficient purchasing power. I note that it was in this period that the National Minimum Wage rose by 56 cents an hour in 2019 and by 35 cents an hour in 2020.

The next annual review of the national wage will announce its decision in the months after the 21 May federal general election – sometime in June-July 2022.

I think North Coast Voices readers would be safe in assuming that if re-elected the Morrison Government will be submitting arguments which resist decent National Minimum Wage increases for the next four financial years.

The last quarterly Cost Price Index was issued in December 2021 and showed a 3.5% overall increase - primarily driven by rises in the cost of transport, housing, household goods & services and health. While 2022 sees reports of sharply rising costs ahead of the first quarter Cost Price Index due to be released on 27 April.

There is another issue concerning the National Minimum Wage. It appears that workers in what is known as the “gig economy”, ie., individuals providing services to consumers for a fee via digital platforms or marketplaces, are outside the protection of the National Minimum Wage.

According to the Fair Work Ombudsman; Individuals working in the gig economy often perform work as independent contractors. This means they may have a commercial relationship with the company that hosts the digital platform or the consumers who receive their services.

This month, April 2022, the NSW Legislative Council Select Committee On The Impact Of Technological And Other Change On The Future Of Work And Workers In New South Wales released its first report titled The gig economy.

The report stated in part:

Food delivery workers and rideshare drivers typify the on-demand workforce. These workers' legal status under Commonwealth legislation as 'independent contractors' as opposed to 'employees' means they have few workplace entitlements. While the committee has noted the positive impact of on-demand work on the New South Wales economy, and some benefits that can flow for workers from flexible arrangements, our primary focus has been on the many significant disadvantages attached: the absence of guaranteed minimum wages and working hours, and of paid leave provisions; poor safety standards; and the lack of a fair dispute system in the event of workplace injury.

In short, the cyclist who delivers our Friday night takeaway receives next to none of the conditions long considered fair and decent across Australia. The job itself also puts workers in very real danger of injury, abuse and harassment. Late 2020 was marked by the deaths of no less than five food delivery riders, all while this inquiry was underway. These deaths, and the high potential for further tragedy, underscore the need for immediate action by the NSW Government.

From extensive evidence over eight hearings to date, the committee has concluded that current laws perpetuate the overwhelming power imbalance between lone 'contractors' and multinational platform companies, rather than mitigating it. Correspondingly, we have made four key findings: that New South Wales is falling behind other states and comparable nations in developing laws that establish decent working conditions in the gig economy; that the failure to provide gig workers with a minimum wage, paid leave and other basic workplace entitlements is increasing inequality in New South Wales; that gig workers currently lack the power to interact and negotiate with on-demand platforms as equals in New South Wales; and that the failure to provide gig workers with access to a low-cost independent tribunal empowered to hear and decide disputes is leading to injustice in New South Wales.

This was Leader of the Opposition & MP for Grayndler Anthony Albanese on Twitter, 26 February 2021, concerning the "gig economy":

Every Australian worker deserves the safety net of the Australian minimum wage. That’s the whole point. It’s the bare minimum. The reality is that workers in the gig economy aren’t getting a fair deal. We've got people earning $10 an hour with no sick leave and no security. We can do better. That’s why a Labor Government I lead will extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to create minimum standards for gig economy workers – such as super, collective bargaining, and unfair dismissal protections. Labor is on your side.

While this was Australian Attorney-General & Minister for Industrial Relations Senator Michaelia Cash on behalf of the Morrison Government, Canberra Times, 1 June 2021:

Industrial Relations Minister Michaelia Cash said she was wary of reforms that could stifle innovation, limit flexible work and raise prices in the gig economy.

Scott Morrison on the subject of the gig economy workforce, The Australian 13 April 2022, p.12:

Mr Morrison says it [size of the gig economy workforce] has changed little in 20 years.

Top 10 Wealthy Federal Electorate and Bottom 10 Electorates - a very brief glimpse at the Australian experience of inequality

 

TOP 10 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORATES RANKED BY ORDER OF WEALTH IN 2020*

Wentworth (NSW) – Liberal – Dave Sharna since 2019 (general election) – No 1 electorate

Warringah (NSW) – Independent – Zali Steggall since 2019 (general election) – No 2 electorate

Bradfield (NSW) – Liberal – Paul Fletcher since 2009 (by-election) – No 3 electorate

North Sydney (NSW) – Liberal – Trent Zimmerman since 2015 (by-election) – No 4 electorate

Mackellar (NSW) – Liberal – Jason Falinski since 2016 (general election) – No 5

Cook (NSW) – Liberal – Scott Morrison since 2007 (general election) – No 6

Goldstein (Vic) – Liberal – Tim Wilson since 2016 (general election) – No 7

Higgins (Vic) – Liberal – Katie Allen since 2019 (general election) – No 8

Curtin (WA) – Liberal – Celia Hammond since 2019 (general election) – No 9

Kooyong (Vic) – Liberal – Josh Frydenberg since 2019 (general election) – No 10.

Four Liberal electorates in this group contain sitting members in the office of Prime Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts and, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction.

Within this group of wealthy electorates only est. 6.48% of all households were living below the poverty line. 

It should come as no surprise that in 10 electorates with the lowest wealth rankings:

5 were Labor electorates – Spence (SA), Brand (WA), Burt (WA), Blair (Qld), Chifley (NSW); and

5 were LNP/Nationals electorates – Herbert (Qld), Flynn (Qld), Forde (Qld), Longman (Qld), Capricornia (Qld).

Across these five Labor electorates est.13.38% of all households were living below the poverty line**, while across the other five LNP/Nationals electorates est.12.18% of all households were living below the poverty line.

The two NSW Northern Rivers federal electorates ranked 25th (Richmond –  Labor since 2004) and 112th (Page – Nationals since 2013 general election) for average wealth per capita. With Richmond having 14% of all households living below the poverty line and Page having 16.4% of households.

NOTE: 

* Order of wealth is calculated by average per capita wealth in an electorate as set out in Roy Morgan Wealth Report, 1 May 2020.

** RMIT ABC Fact Check, "Federal electorates ranked by percentage of households below the poverty line", 24 October 2019.

In 2020, for a brief moment in the long life of the federal Liberal-Nationals Coalition it decided to halve poverty in Australia and reduce income inequality. Then the Coalition remembered its real purpose was to keep 18th Century notions of class structure alive & well in Australia and promptly tore that 'brief moment' to shreds

ACOSS & UNSW,  Covid, inequality and poverty in 2020 & 2021: How poverty and inequality were reduced in the COVID recession and increased during the recovery

Medianet Release

02 Mar 2022 12:01 AM AEST - New ACOSS and UNSW Sydney Report shows how poverty and inequality were dramatically reduced in 2020, but have increased ever since

A new report from the ACOSS/UNSW Sydney Poverty and Inequality Partnership shows that during the first ‘Alpha’ wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Australia halved poverty and significantly reduced income inequality, thanks to a raft of Commonwealth Government crisis support payments introduced to help people survive the first lockdown.

It also highlights that over the course of 2021, and throughout the spread of the ‘Delta’ variant, the Federal Government rapidly reversed this extraordinary progress by cutting financial aid and denying it to most people on the lowest incomes.

The latest report from ACOSS and UNSW, Covid, inequality and poverty in 2020 & 2021: How poverty and inequality were reduced in the COVID recession and increased during the recovery examines how people at different income levels fared during those two phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

During the first ‘Alpha’ wave of the pandemic, the Coronavirus Supplement and JobKeeper support payments played a crucial role in reducing both income inequality and poverty during the deepest recession in 90 years. Despite an effective unemployment rate of 17% at the time, many people on the lowest incomes could afford to pay their rent and household bills and feed themselves properly for the first time in years. 

When lockdowns eased in late 2020, the Government was quick to wind back financial supports. By April 2021 both the Coronavirus Supplement and JobKeeper payments were gone, leaving a yawning gap in pandemic income supports for about a million people still unemployed, when Delta struck later that year.

80% of people on the lowest income support payment were excluded from the COVID Disaster Payment, introduced in September 2021. Subsequently the number of people in poverty rose by around 20% and a bias in jobs growth towards high paid jobs and a rapid rise in investment incomes lifted income inequality.

A few weeks after lockdowns ended, those still out of paid work lost their COVID Disaster Payment and joined the l.7 million people already struggling to get by on the $45 a day unemployment Jobseeker payment. Financial stress came roaring back as did increased reliance on emergency relief.

ACOSS CEO Dr. Cassandra Goldie said: 

“The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that poverty and inequality are not an inevitable state of being. They grow because government policies allow them to, and in many cases, directly increase them. 

‘’The income supports introduced during the first COVID wave reduced poverty by half and greatly reduced inequality of incomes. We also showed that good social policy, tackling poverty, is good economics. By targeting income support to those with the least, the vital help was rapidly spent on essentials, helping to keep others in jobs.

“We now know what governments are capable of when they set their minds to it. Instead of taking the opportunity to end poverty in Australia and build our resilience to cope with future crises, the Government reversed the gains made during the first year of the pandemic and failed to adequately plan to mitigate the ongoing health risks. 

“Australia’s income support system should sustain people in tough times and help them find suitable employment. At just $45 a day, the unemployment JobSeeker Payment is not up to the task and the Government acknowledged this by almost doubling it. People out of paid work, or without the paid working hours they need, should not have to spend every waking moment worrying about how they will feed themselves and pay the rent.

“Whoever wins the next election will know exactly what levers they need to pull if they wish to end Australian poverty and support jobs. But will they?

“Our response to COVID-19 showed we can end poverty. And when we do, it’s good for all of us. We need candidates, in the lead up to this federal election, to commit to lifting the rate of Jobseeker to at least $69 a day, so that people have the confidence of knowing that they can cover the basics while they are retraining and looking for paid work. Together with investing in social housing, these are the two big levers that could change the face of Australia for good and for the good of us all.

Scientia Professor Carla Treloar, Director of the Social Policy Research (SPRC) and the Centre for Social Research in Health (CSRH) at UNSW, said:

“This research shows that the COVID support payments changed lives. The Government’s decision to take away the Coronavirus supplement and JobKeeper without an adequate substitute, and later on to exclude people on the lowest income-support payments from the COVID disaster payment and prematurely end that payment, locked more people into poverty.

‘’Despite remarkable early progress in reducing poverty and income inequality during the COVID recession, they are both likely to be higher now than before the pandemic. That’s the legacy of the policy response to the COVID pandemic.”

Key Findings

2020: Alpha wave of COVID and recession:

• Between March and December 2020, the average incomes of the lowest 20% income group rose by 8% ($56pw). Those in the next 20% saw their incomes rise by 11% ($144pw). In contrast the average incomes of the highest 20% fell by 4% ($230pw).

• Between 2019 and the middle of 2020, the percentage of people in poverty fell from 11.8% to 9.9% despite the recession. It would have been twice as high (22.7%) without the COVID income supports. 

• Among people in households on the JobSeeker Payment, poverty fell by four-fifths, from 76% in 2019 to 15% in June 2020. Among sole parent families (both adults and children) poverty was reduced by almost half, from 34% to 19%. 

• The income support safety net for those on the lowest incomes was buoyed by the $275pw Coronavirus Supplement, 70% of which went to the lowest 40% households by income.

• The JobKeeper wage subsidy of up to $750pw helped sustain the incomes of middle income-earners at risk of losing wages during lockdowns, as 70% of those payments went to the middle 60% of households by income.

2021: Economic recovery and Delta wave of COVID

• In January 2021 the Coronavirus Supplement was cut to $75pw in January 2021, poverty rose to 14%, well above pre-recession levels. The income of a single adult on JobSeeker Payment fell to approximately 15% below the poverty line. 

• By April 2021 when the supplement was removed completely, and despite an ongoing increase of $25pw to the lowest income support payments, the new rate of JobSeeker payment fell to approximately 30% below the poverty line and a third of recipients reported increasing difficulty trying to make ends meet.

• By September 2021, COVID-19 Disaster Payments were introduced in response to lockdowns during the Delta wave of the pandemic. This was only paid to people who directly lost paid working hours in a lockdown, and was quickly withdrawn when a lockdown ended.

• Over 80% of people on the lowest income support payments were denied the COVID Disaster Payment, despite the ongoing impact of the pandemic on their employment prospects. 

• The Jobseeker Payment was just $391pw and Youth Allowance was just $331pw, well below the poverty line at that time. Around 1.7 million people (around 25% more than before the pandemic in September 2019) relied on these and other income supports set well below poverty levels.

• At the same time, many people on high incomes saw their incomes surge. From August 2020 to August 2021 the number of high-paying jobs rose 251,000 compared to growth in low-paid jobs of 76,000. Investment incomes surged through 2020-21, comprising one quarter of all household income growth in that year. Around two thirds of investment income goes to the highest 20% of households by income.

Read the full report at: https://bit.ly/3LWJtJn

Find out more about the poverty and inequality partnership at http://povertyandinequality.acoss.org.au

All those wonderful women who marched and those who support them in Australia 2021

 

On 15 March 2015 women and girls marched in villages, towns and citiesspread across Australia from coast to coast.

They marched demanding that gender-based violence against women and children stop.

A demand which insists that the federal government listen, act and lead a long overdue change in institutional attitudes which either turn a blind eye to or openly condone sexual assault, sexual harassment, domestic violence, the double burden for many women of gender based discrimination coupled with racial discrimination and, a shameful murder rate which sees women murdered by their current partners or former partners at the rate of one woman every nine days [House of Representatives, Hansard, p.62].

Here are just some of the images from that 14 to 15 March which were 

tweeted by marchers as they happened.....

#march4justice thread in Melbourne.

This is a list of names of all the women in Australia killed from gendered violence since 2008. 👇 pic.twitter.com/CgcJcqsB8t

— Antoun Issa (@antissa) March 15, 2021

Some of the supporters showing solidarity.....

Thousands of #March4Justice protesters can be heard cheering as Labor MPs led by @AlboMP walk out of Parliament House to join the rally @TheNewDailyAu pic.twitter.com/5FV1FcCHbw

— Samantha Dick (@samanthadick00) March 15, 2021

This moment requires leadership. We’re not getting it from this Prime Minister.

My response to the PM in Parliament. #March4Justice pic.twitter.com/4NG9aC4W3o

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) March 15, 2021

Thank you Andrew Wilkie @WilkieMP who stood yesterday in Parliament in Solidarity with #WomensMarch4Justice @womensmarchaus @womensmarch pic.twitter.com/aqWMmmodOV

— 🎗Bel🎗 (@gypsybels) March 16, 2021

Shout out to @TonyHWindsor for attending the #March4Justice Armidale today! pic.twitter.com/bQ1mkY79FE

— Kate Mackley (@TheMackley) March 15, 2021

Look who turned up at #March4Justice in Sydney @TwoPaddocks pic.twitter.com/KdANXraWdF

— Saffron Howden (@saffronhowden) March 15, 2021

Having a super normal one back on the old work commute. But the women are coming because enough is enough and tomorrow we #March4Justice! pic.twitter.com/ouFE4tGcjQ

— Anika Wells MP (@AnikaWells) March 14, 2021

BACKGROUND

Just one of the reports that Scott Morrison and his government have not acted on since he became prime minister in August 2018.

Australian Human Rights Commission, Respect@Work: Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report (2020), 5 March 2020:

1 Introduction

1.1 Executive Summary

(a) The National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces

Workplace sexual harassment is prevalent and pervasive: it occurs in every industry, in every location and at every level, in Australian workplaces. Australians, across the country, are suffering the financial, social, emotional, physical and psychological harm associated with sexual harassment. This is particularly so for women.

This behaviour also represents a very real financial impost to the economy through lost productivity, staff turnover and other associated impacts.

In June 2018, against the backdrop of the momentum of the #MeToo movement and recognition of the prevalence of, and immense harm caused by sexual harassment in Australian, and global, workplaces, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, and the then Minister for Women, the Hon Kelly O’Dwyer, announced the National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces (Inquiry).

As Australia’s national human rights institution, the Australian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) was tasked with undertaking this Inquiry. The Commission has an established record of undertaking initiatives aimed at addressing sexual harassment and promoting gender equality.

In the Terms of Reference, the Commission’s task was to review and report on workplace sexual harassment and make recommendations in relation to:

    • its prevalence, nature and reporting in Australian workplaces

    • the role of technology

    • its drivers, including risk factors for particular population groups or in  different workplace settings

    • the current legal framework

    • existing measures to address it and examples of good practice

    • its impacts on individuals and businesses, including its economic impact.

This report outlines the Commission’s findings and recommendations. The full list of recommendations is set out at the end of this Executive Summary.

The purpose of this Inquiry is to improve how Australian workplaces prevent and respond to sexual harassment, including through an examination of the systemic issues set out in its Terms of Reference.

The Commission established a Reference Group to provide advice and guidance for the Inquiry. It included members from across government, business groups, unions, academia and the legal and community sector (see Section 1.4(b) for a list of members). The Commission acknowledges and thanks Reference Group members for their valuable assistance with engaging stakeholders and providing frank and robust advice and guidance on the Inquiry.

The Commission received 460 submissions from government agencies, business groups, community bodies and, above all, victims. From September 2018 to February 2019, the Commission conducted 60 consultations as part of the Inquiry, with more than 600 individuals participating in all capital cities and some regional locations across Australia. It also held three roundtables and numerous meetings with key stakeholders.

This report is a reflection of the contributions of many individuals and organisations and the Commission is grateful to those who took the time to attend a consultation, write a submission or assist the Inquiry.

There is an urgency and demand for change across all corners of society.

Australia is also being closely watched internationally. This is Australia’s moment to be a global leader on this important and topical issue.

Report recommendations begin on Page 40 at https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/ahrc_wsh_report_2020.pdf

Speaking Up, Australia, 15 March 2021

 

@CognitiveTX

A perspective on society and the COVID-19 pandemic

This is a Twitter thread created by Janette Francis, a Walkley-award winning journalist, TV Presenter and podcaster.

Jan’s Twitter account was created in 2009.

The debate on the best responses to the COVID-19 pandemic is global and one cold-blooded aspect of this debate is currently found in British, American and Australian mainstream media articles and on social media - save the investments and assests of the well-off because old people and the chronically ill are going to die anyway.

This is Jan's contribution to this debate.

Jan Fran @Jan__Fran, 21 April 2020:

I keep hearing folks describe this pandemic as a kind of trade-off between public health and the economy. This trade-off is often framed around loss of life. 1

It usually goes something like this: if we ease the lockdown we’ll see people die from the virus. If we prolong the lockdown we’ll see people die from the consequences of possible economic collapse (i.e suicide, depression, poverty, ill health, violence). 2

We are led to believe that attempts to limit one set of deaths, will increase the other, that one group of people will have to sacrifice for the other. But whose lives are more important? 3

Do we sacrifice the sick now to save the healthy later; the old to save the young; the poor to save everyone else? We are led to believe that this is our dilemma and it is an impossible one. 4

Hey, here’s a fun thing to think about: guess how much money Jeff Bezos made today? 5

Jeff Bezos made 17,000 dollars. But he didn’t make it in one day. He made it in ONE SECOND. Every single second Amazon is reaping 17 thousand dollars worth of sales (this is AUD BTW) & this is happening SPECIFICALLY during this pandemic as more people seek deliverable supplies. 6

Jeff Bezos is now worth 216 BILLION dollars and good on Jeff Bezos, I say! I mean, the man is clearly providing a service that people need and reaping the rewards. That is #inspo, amirite?! Please speak at my conference, Jeff. 7

Thing is, there's a wee bit more to the world we live in. 8

We live in a world where, in the middle of a pandemic, one man makes 17 thousand dollars A SECOND and another is buried in a mass grave because his family can’t afford a funeral. 9

It’s a world where the homeless sleep in socially-distant quadrants in a hotel car park, while above them thousand-dollar-a-night rooms sit empty. It’s a world where folks are protesting their right to get sick in a country they can not afford to seek treatment in. 10

One thing this pandemic has done is exacerbated the gross inequalities we always knew existed. It has exposed them, brought them to the surface as the bodies of the poor and the desolate continue to be stacked beneath the ground. 11

The framing of this pandemic as ‘lives lost now V lives lost later’ is really just us tryna work out which sections of our society are more productive, more useful. Which sections are going to best replicate the system that was in place before all this Covid/lockdown malarky. 12

I mean, we all wanna get back to how it was ASAP, right? Now that we think about it we were having a great time. The system was working. But for who? 13

Not for the man whose body now sits in a mass grave on Hart Island NY, it wasn’t. Not for the homeless sleeping in their car park quadrants, it wasn’t. Not for the nearly 40 million Americans living below the poverty line, it wasn’t. This is the system we will replicate. 14

It is right to talk about sacrifice in this dark and uncertain time. I guess we all have to make sacrifices at some point so if not now, when? If not me, who? Before you answer that, know this … 15

Twenty-six individuals own as much wealth as HALF the world’s population - Lemme say that again: TWENTY SIX people (two. six) own the same amount of wealth as 3.8 BILLION PEOPLE. 16

That’s worth remembering the next time some legend waxes lyrical about why you might need to sacrifice yer nan for the sake of the economy. Maybe those 26 people should sacrifice the spoils they’ve reaped from a system that now needs saving from itself. 17

We do indeed have a dilemma but it might not be an impossible one. Maybe we actually don’t need to ask those who have the least to sacrifice the most, maybe it’s the other way around. Maybe that’s the trade-off? 18

Anyway, thanks for letting me share my thoughts on this website twitter dot com. 19/19