Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendment (22) to (24) and (7) on sheet 5729.

(22)  Clause 332, page 288 (line 8), omit paragraph (1)(c).

(23) Clause 332, page 288 (lines 20 to 26), omit subclause (3).

(24) Clause 333, page 289 (lines 8 to 10), omit the clause, substitute:

333 High income threshold

        (1)    The high income threshold is $150,000, indexed in accordance with subsection (2).

        (2)    The regulations must prescribe a method for the annual indexation of the high income threshold by reference to the increase in the full-time adult average weekly ordinary time earnings for all persons in Australia, as published by the Australian Statistician.

(7)    Clause 47, page 61 (lines 23 to 27), omit subclause (2).

I also indicate that the Greens will oppose clauses 328 to 333 in the following terms:

(21)  Division 3, clauses 328 to 333, page 285 (line 2) to page 289 (line 10), to be opposed.

For us these are very important matters. I appreciate the lateness of the hour so I will seek to expedite the debate as much as possible, which is why I will talk to these amendments together. The amendments all relate to the guarantee of annual earnings and high-income thresholds. I realise that we dealt with this issue earlier in the evening. For amendments (7) and (21) the Greens oppose the exclusion from award coverage of high-income employees through the guarantee of annual earnings provisions. Awards contain important protections that are not just related to salary, and we do not believe that awards should be undermined in this way. As the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, said in their submission:

All employees, regardless of the level of their income, require the protection afforded by properly negotiated awards.

In terms of amendments (22) and (23) in the alternative, we do not believe the non-monetary benefits should be part of the calculation in determining whether a person’s salary reaches the high-income threshold. Obviously these are alternative proposals to (7) and (21) because we do not believe that high-income thresholds should be in the legislation. As I was saying, we do not believe the non-monetary benefits should be part of the calculation in determining whether a person’s salary reaches the high-income threshold, given guarantees of annual earnings can be a condition of work. This strengthens the ability of employers to demand particular calculations of non-monetary benefits, which can be extremely difficult to calculate.

In terms of amendment (24), we also believe that the high-income threshold in the legislation at the amount indicated by the government—that is, $100,000—is too low. We suggest that if it is to be in legislation it should be a threshold of $150,000 and that it should be indexed to AWOTE. We do note the government amended the legislation to provide that the threshold cannot be reduced, and that is important. As you know, we supported that amendment. Once again I commend the amendments to the chamber and appreciate that now we will be moving the different amendments separately.