Senate debates

Tuesday, 18 March 2008

Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008

In Committee

1:51 pm

Photo of Andrew MurrayAndrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

My only other topic for the general question section concerns the federal minimum wage. Minister, the minimum wage is not just a current topic in the media; it was raised as an issue during the committee inquiry by a number of witnesses, including the very longstanding senior union official Joe de Bruyn of the shoppies union. He essentially raised—and other witnesses commented on this—the concern that a minimum wage might not cover all Australian employees. So I had a look at subdivision (g) of the relevant section of the act, which covers federal minimum wages. Minister, I will not be asking you to respond to a specific question—I am going to be asking you to take a question on notice—but I need to describe the issue to you so that you understand what concerns Joe de Bruyn and others have and that they need a response from the government.

The minimum wage in popular understanding covers every Australian, but it is actually described in our federal law under the federal minimum wage provision as an FMW, not as an NMW or national minimum wage. The minimum wage does not apply to a number of people, such as junior employees, employees with a disability, employees to whom a training arrangement applies or APCS piece rate employees unless the Fair Pay Commission grants them. It may also not apply to some employees who fall under state provisions.

So my obvious question was: should there be a default provision in the law—and the minister would understand what that means—so that, to the extent that any employee is not covered under either state or federal law with respect to a minimum wage, a minimum wage would apply? Minister, can you take these questions on notice. Could you get departmental advice as to whether there are any Australian employees to whom a minimum wage does not apply? If that is the case, does the government propose to review that matter when it is looking at the substantive bill later this year?

Comments

No comments