Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senators Lambie and Cameron, move:

That the Instrument as contained in the Specification of Income Threshold and Annual Earnings 2015 and made under the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, be disallowed [F2015L00569].

Fifteen sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.

I rise today to speak in support of this motion to disallow the instrument as contained in the Specification of Income Threshold and Annual Earnings 2015 and made under the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994. This disallowance would have the effect of disallowing this motion, which would lower the market salary rate assessment exemption for 457 visas to $180,000. The purpose of the temporary work skilled subclass 457 visa program is to allow employers to fill short- to medium-term skill shortages by recruiting qualified workers from outside of Australia when they cannot find same-skilled workers locally.

I understand that midway through 2012 the relevant department identified that the subclass 457 program was growing at a record rate and that a significant component of this growth was in industries and in geographical regions that did not appear to be experiencing skill shortages. And while many employers were using the subclass 457 visa program appropriately, there is a big concern that certain employers in some industries are sourcing their skilled labour needs outside of Australia without first checking the availability of labour locally. While this is not unlawful, these actions completely are not in line with the principles of the subclass 457 program. As a result, there are a number of improvements to the subclass 457 program that were introduced on 1 July 2013, which was supported by the Australian Greens. These improvements were designed to ensure that the intent of the subclass 457 program was respected by users of that program.

The reforms were designed to improve the integrity of the program without adversely impacting on businesses that are using the program to fill genuine skill shortages. One of these important reforms that was introduced in 2013 was the raising of the market salary rate assessment exemption to $250,000. This ensures that most 457 visa employment is subject to a wage assessment to ensure that workers are not being paid below the going market rate for the job they are applying for. However, the government now, via regulation, is seeking to lower that threshold and therefore remove whole classes of possible 457 visa employment from proper market salary assessment. Some forms of employment—in the shipping industry, for example—will no longer be subject to proper regulation. This change will affect not only people working in the Australian resources industry but many people working as marine engineers, marine officers and masters and in many other key jobs. It will affect over 20 enterprise agreements currently in place that maintain conditions and safety for Australian workers. The Australian Greens think that the regulation of the 457 visa program needs to be tightened, not weakened.

It is absolutely clear on the evidence that is currently being heard by the inquiry into the temporary migration visa system that many things are going on that are undesirable. Recent media reports have shown major problems, abuse and exploitation, which are harming overseas workers and are undermining local workers' wages and conditions.

So, given this context, we believe there is no justification whatsoever for removing whole classes of employment from current levels of scrutiny. We want to disallow the minister's decision to lower the thresholds for market salary rate assessment.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the disallowance motion, because I support Australians working in Australian jobs. I rise to support the disallowance motion because, unlike the Liberals and Nationals in this place, I want to protect every Australian worker's job. By supporting this disallowance motion, senators have a choice to send a clear message to the Liberals and Nationals in this place, that we will not put up with their sneaky and sly attack on the wages and conditions of Australians.

The intent of the change to the regulations, introduced by Assistant Minister Cash, is to reduce the current income threshold under the Migration Act, from $250,000 to $180,000. This will make it easier for employers to hire overseas workers rather than Australian professionals. The regulation effectively provides a ceiling above which compliance with many of the significant requirements of the migration regulations is waived. The threshold, when initially introduced in 2008, was set at $180,000. Then, in 2013, it was raised to $250,000. Above this level of income, sponsors of visa applicants are not required to comply with the conditions which otherwise apply to visa applicants.

The threshold is currently $250,000 and the new regulation takes the threshold down by $70,000. $250,000 is a high income but, if Australia has the people with the necessary qualifications and experience, why should such high-paying jobs not go to Australians? Why should high-paying jobs in Australia be exempt from the standard obligation that if there are Australians able to do the work then they should get the work? And if there are qualified Australians ready to do the work, then why should the parliament allow these jobs to be allocated to foreign workers rather than those qualified, hardworking Australians?

Of course, under the labour-market-testing rules, if there are no Australians available then the visa may be granted to a foreign worker. But if there are Australians available, why should they not get the work in the first place? The change to the regulations would mean that any employee from overseas who is paid over $180,000 would have the labour-market-testing waived. Australians would be able to be replaced by foreign workers virtually automatically. Here is the government's catch 22. Treasurer Hockey says to Australians who want to buy a house, 'Go out and get a good, secure, well-paid job.' However, Assistant Minister Cash says, 'The well-paid jobs are exempt from the migration regulations.' The jobs are effectively reserved for foreigners. Go figure.

One area where this has the potential to have adverse consequences for Australians is in the offshore oil and gas industry. On a large proportion of the vessels which operate in that sector, the rates of pay for chief engineers and masters are now above $180,000. Therefore, if the regulation is allowed to stand, those workers could be replaced by foreign personnel on visas, who will not be subject to the normal conditions such as labour-market-testing. The Constitution does not give the Australian parliament the power to set rates of pay for workers. For over 20 years enterprise bargaining has been a process whereby rates of pay have been settled. But in a sly, backdoor way the government is seeking to put a ceiling on rates of pay that can be negotiated under enterprise bargaining. According to Assistant Minister Cash, if you negotiate pay outcomes above $180,000 per annum, then foreign workers can be brought into Australia to replace you. Labour-market-testing does not need to be carried out. The employer can use foreign labour to replace Australian workers. The income earned by these workers is then lost to the Australian economy and the impact of the economists' multiplier effect is lost to the Australian economy.

In closing, I again urge senators to support the disallowance motion because they will be voting to protect Australian workers' jobs. I, again, remind senators that by supporting this disallowance motion they can send a very clear message to the Liberals and the Nationals in this place, who have betrayed Australian workers at every opportunity, including those in the oil and gas industry, by making it easier to replace them with overseas workers. We will not put up with the sneaky, sly and politically motivated attack by the Liberals and Nationals on the wages and conditions of hardworking Australians.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise in support of this disallowance motion and indicate my support for the contributions that have been made by Senator Lambie and Senator Rice. In supporting this disallowance motion, a number of issues need to be made clear.

This disallowance motion was brought to bear on Australian workers without any debate, any discussion or any validity by this parliament. It was simply made by the stroke of a pen, by Senator Cash. It meant that decent-paid workers in the mining, gas and coal industries ended up being in fear of their jobs and being replaced by workers on 457 visas, who must be paid at the applicable market rate. The market rate depends on the occupation and location of the employee, and evidence must be provided by the employer as to what the market rate is for the occupation. Until this instrument was made on 17 April 2015, if a sponsor of a 457 visa holder wanted to employ a visa holder at a salary under $250,000, the employer carried an onus to establish that the salary proposed to be paid was at the market rate. As I have indicated, Minister Cash—with no justification and no explanation—has reduced that threshold to $180,000. There is now a yawning gap of $70,000 through which employers can pass in order to sponsor 457 visa holders in occupations and locations where the market rate is somewhere between $180,000 and $250,000, without the need to provide evidence of market rates.

These are highly skilled and highly paid employees earning more than $180,000 but less than $250,000 in occupations such as marine engineers, mining engineers, medical and allied health professionals, and they all now find themselves in danger of being replaced by 457 visa workers who are paid less than the market rate. In a media release issued on 18 March 2015, this change was welcomed by the Australian Mines and Metals Association, which said:

Lowering the market salary comparison threshold from $250k to $180k reflects AMMA's advice that this should be viewed as a safeguard for lower income jobs only.

This is another example of the Abbott government doing the bidding of sectional interests. Who are these sectional interests? These sectional interests are BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore, and Peabody—the American multinational mining company. These are the companies that are represented on the board of directors of the Minerals Council of Australia. These very same minerals executives do not put up a proposition that they should have their salaries reduced. In fact, Sam Walsh, the managing director of Rio Tinto, is one of the highest paid executives in this country, with an annual salary of $9.7 million. A couple of years ago the chief executive of BHP was on $7.5 million a year, and this is from a position where, about 20 years ago, the salaries of a BHP executive were six to seven times the average salary in the country. It is now up to 200 times the average salary. These are some of the richest executives in the country, some of the best paid executives in the country, and they are trying to reduce costs for their companies by reducing the salaries of highly paid but highly skilled Australian workers. I do not accept for one minute that signing off in the middle of the night on a regulation that takes away protections, even for some of our highly skilled workers, is what we should be about in this country.

It seems to me that this government is prepared to attack workers who seek to collectively bargain and enjoy decent wages and conditions, and they seek to do that at the bidding of organisations like the Minerals Council of Australia. When you look at that board of directors of the Minerals Council of Australia and you look at the debate we recently had about tax shifting, about shifting profits offshore to minimise the tax in Australia, these are some of the biggest culprits in this area. Yet we have this government, at the bidding of the Minerals Council and the chief executives and the directors of some of the biggest mining corporations in the country, setting about to reduce the minimum rate for skilled workers in the industry. Many people who are listening would say, '$250,000 is a massive salary' and, for most ordinary workers, that is correct. But these are workers who are amongst the most highly skilled workers in the country. These are workers who are doing jobs that maintain the capacity of our minerals industry and our gas industry to continue to operate and to export. These are not workers who are without qualifications. These are workers who are highly qualified. These are workers who take years to get the qualifications and experience that they have to do the jobs that they undertake. They are entitled to get a fair share of the profits that the minerals industry and the gas industry in this country make; they are entitled to that. And they are workers who add to the skill base of this country. We should not be relying on 457 workers from anywhere in the world to do these key jobs that keep our industries going in this country.

I am not sure why this proposition was brought forward, other than one sure thing. If the Minerals Council says to the coalition, and certainly to the Liberal Party, 'Jump!' the response is, 'How high? How high should we jump?' That is the response we got when they said, 'Cut back on this standard for skilled workers; allow us to get that $70,000 gap so that we can bring in workers on 457 visas.' These are workers who might be more complacent in terms of their approach to industrial relations, who might be more subordinate to the employer, who do not want to collectively bargain, who will come in here on a visa system that will give the employer complete control over that individual. That is the argument, basically, from the mining industry. This is an industry that has been making massive profits over the last few years, where the executives have gouged their profits, their wages, out of the industry and now they want to push down the wages of some of the most skilled workers in the country.

I just think the Abbott government dislikes workers earning decent money. They certainly dislike Australian seafarers making a decent quid. The income threshold reduction that they put in, without any debate, without any discussion in this parliament, is another example of how workers would be treated under this government if there were not the check and balance of the Senate in place. That check and balance should be exercised by senators today, because we should not accept for one minute that the Minerals Council should dictate to the government of this country and cut back the wages of workers in this country.

Tub masters working out of Bowen earn $183,000; out of Brisbane, it is $193,000; out of Kwinana, it is $184,000; and out of Newcastle, it is $198,000. I have seen tug masters bringing ships into Newcastle harbour when the conditions have been pretty awful. This is a job that not only demands skill; this is a job that also demands a lot of courage. It demands skill, courage and ability. There are not too many people who could do that job. It is not like being a fitter, which is what I was, when you could do your training; you could get people to do that work. These people are really highly skilled, really specialist, in what they do. And it is the case in terms of not only their skills but also their courage. The chief engineers are the people who keep these vessels going right around the country. They earn about $188,000. These pay rates reflect the skills of these workers.

I have to say to any senator who is listening in: if we simply allow the Minerals Council, BHP, Rio Tinto, Glencore and Peabody to dictate when 457 workers come into this country then we are allowing something that is unacceptable and that will bring this country to its knees in terms of its capacity to have the skills here to do the jobs that are so important to this country. So, I say that it should not be about the Mineral Councils and these individual mining companies making significant donations to the Liberal Party and then telling them what they want them to do in order to get their way with the workers of this country and get more so-called flexibility into the 457 system. This should be about decency. This should be about an understanding of the skills of these workers. This should be about an understanding that these workers are integral to a vast industry in this country. Even though their salaries are high, they should not be undermined by workers coming in on 457 visas.

It will be interesting to hear the reasoning behind the arguments put by Senator Cash when she makes a contribution to this debate, because at no stage have we heard any of the reasons why this government is simply doing the bidding of BHP, Rio Tinto, Peabody and the Minerals Council. I can only assume that the close, cosy relationship that the Liberal Party have with these big corporations, the funding that goes from these corporations to the Liberal Party at election time, is now being reciprocated by them delivering what the Minerals Council wants in relation to these 457 visas. What every worker in this country must now be worried about is that Senator Cash can have any employer organisation say: 'Bring down the market rate; bring 457 visas into the country,' and we see the Liberal Party delivering. It will mean that workers and skilled jobs around this country will end up facing international competition from workers on 457 visas who come into this country under the market rate. This is an issue of significant principle. This is an issue that is more important than the Liberal Party delivering for its mates in the minerals industry. This is about recognising the importance of the skills that these highly skilled workers bring and the need to ensure that we get paid decent market rates in this country.

The test is quite clear. The 457 visa system should not be used to undermine market rates in this country. The 457 visa system should not be used by the coalition and the Liberal Party in particular to pay back its mates for the funding that it gets during election campaigns. The test should be that a highly skilled, highly paid, courageous worker in this country, who is out in all sorts of seas, who is out in all sorts of conditions, gets a decent rate of pay. It should not only be the mining executives and the gas executives of the country who get the benefits of this industry; it should also be the highly skilled workers who keep this industry working, whether they are a fitter, a rigger, a boilermaker, a tug boat master or a chief engineer. They should all get a fair go, because this country has not been getting a fair go out of this industry. This industry has not been paying its fair share of tax. This industry has been under the radar for far too long in terms of its approach on wages and conditions, and we should not be allowing the Liberal Party to simply bow at the knee when the Minerals Council say, 'Lower the wages and conditions and the standards for 457 visa workers coming into this country.'

It will be interesting to see what happens with this China free-trade agreement, which we are told will be tabled next week. What will be the situation—to bring workers from China in here to operate in any industry across this country? These are massive political issues. These are huge issues about the skill base of this country. These are huge issues about ensuring that we have jobs for Australians. I thank both Senator Rice and Senator Lambie for bringing this to the Senate. This is an important decision that this Senate should make. We should stand up for the workers of Australia against the Minerals Council of Australia and the people in the Liberal Party who want to simply do their bidding. This is an important issue. The principle that applies here can apply in the rest of the economy across industries in this country. If the Senate allows the coalition to give in to the Minerals Council, they will be giving in to other industries when they try to cut the market rates for 457 visas around the country.

Brown paper bags in the front seats cars and massive support at election time should not be used to reduce the wages and conditions of workers in this country. It is an absolute outrage and the Senate should stand firm and stand up for the workers of this country against the Liberal Party, against the National Party and against their mates who fund their election campaigns.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say, based on what I have heard in relation to what is a very serious disallowance motion, it can be summed up by saying: never let the facts get in the way of a good rant in the Senate. If I can commence by dispelling a number of the statements that have been made as if they are fact, which, I can assure those people who are listening, they clearly are not.

Senator Cameron would have the Senate and Australians believe that it is only those who support the coalition who utilise the 457 visa program. If your assertion, Senator Cameron, is that 457 visa holders displace Australian workers, I am sure that, when the former Prime Minister of this country, Ms Julia Gillard, employed John McTernan as her communications director, you were standing there in Caucus saying, 'I demand to see the labour market testing that Ms Gillard undertook before she employed Mr McTernan. I demand to known whether or not Mr McTernan has displaced an Australian.' Because I am sure you are aware that the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order. The senator is misrepresenting what I put. If anyone should not have been in the country, it was Mr McTernan.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Misrepresentation is not a point of order. There is no point of order.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, Senator Cameron will be well aware that for almost two years former Prime Minister Gillard fought a query from the Office of the Information Commissioner for information on labour market testing in relation to Mr McTernan. I would also ask Senator Cameron: of those workers on 457 visas that the TWU and the MUA are employing, have you demanded to see the labour market testing that was undertaken in relation to those unions employing 457 workers, and are they displacing Australians? So it is not just those who support the coalition who utilise the 457 visa program. It is, quite frankly, businesses, industry and unions across the board that have a genuine need to access labour.

In relation to the statistics that Senator Rice raised, again, I would like to confirm for the Senate that under the former Labor government, the 457 visa program expanded rapidly. The figures are as follows: from approximately 68,400 primary visa holders in June 2010 to over 110,000 primary visa holders when Labor were removed from office in September of 2013. What is so disappointing about this growth under the former government is that this growth occurred in occupations not known to be in widespread shortage and, further, this rapid increase occurred during a period when growth in the Australian economy was slowing. Again, I assume that Senator Cameron was there in caucus saying, 'Under my government, there has been a huge blow-out in the 457 visa program. It has gone from 68,400 to in excess of 110,000, and, worse than that, the growth in it is in areas in which it is proven there is no widespread shortage.'

Since the coalition government was elected to office, there has been no growth in the 457 visa program. In fact, the numbers in the 457 visa program have fallen to 104,780 as at the end of May 2015. So they went from 68,400 to 110,000 under Labor—but apparently that is okay, even when those coming in are coming into occupations where there is no actual shortage. But when the program under this government does exactly what it should do and responds to the labour market, and it falls to 104,780, apparently we are still mismanaging the program. I will merely allow the facts to stand and speak for themselves.

In terms of the instrument that I signed on 17 April this year, Senator Cameron said, 'I'll be interested to hear the reasons behind this decision.' Senator Cameron, I will be delighted to enlighten the Senate—and those people who are listening in to this debate—as to the reasons why this government made that decision. The decision was made following an extensive independent review of the 457 visa program. Let us be very clear: we are talking about a high-income threshold here. The independent panel recommended amending the high-income threshold of annual earnings amount back to $180,000 so as to reduce the unnecessary burden on businesses employing highly paid workers.

Let us talk about the history of this threshold. Senator Cameron, in 2008 your government commissioned the Deegan review. The Deegan review looked into the 457 visa program. The Deegan review came up with a number of recommendations. I have the Deegan review recommendations in front of me. One of the recommendations was as follows:

It is recommended that market rates of pay should be paid to all temporary visa holders with salaries less than $100 000 per year …

Senator Cameron—through you, Mr Deputy President—your government did not take the advice of the person that it appointed to investigate the 457 system; that recommendation was to set market rates at $100,000. Instead, former minister Chris Evans set it at—lo and behold—$180,000. That is also the figure that stood under Minister Bowen and, I understand, Minister Burke. Labor's Minister Evans set it at $180,000. It was subsequently reset by Minister Bowen and, I understand, Minister Burke. It was only when, at the behest of the unions, Minister O'Connor became the relevant immigration minister that—with absolutely no explanation at all—this was rushed through the Senate on the last day of sitting. Senator Cameron, you refer to the stroke of a pen; well, I can assure you that that was exactly what happened under your government. This was rushed through the Senate on the last day of sitting, and that is when the increase went to $250,000.

I go back to the fundamental difference between this side and those on the other side, who make a whole lot of assertions but not one of those assertions is backed up by a fact. The former Labor government, as I said, commissioned the Deegan review into the 457 program. The Deegan review made a number of recommendations. One of those recommendations was in relation to a market rate. That market rate was $100,000. The government did not accept its own expert panel or expert inquiry's recommendation. It gave no justification as to why it did not accept that recommendation. Instead, Minister Evans set the income threshold at $180,000. It was not just Minister Evans; it was also Minister Bowen. It was not until the dying days of the former government that—quite literally with the stroke of a pen—Minister O'Connor amended it to $250,000.

The review that this government commissioned involved consultation extensively across Australia with stakeholders. It included 140 face-to-face meetings and a review of 180 written submissions from industry and union representatives. In terms of the recommendation that the independent review—based on the extensive consultation that it undertook—made in relation to the issue of the income threshold, the independent panel said as follows:

… in relation to the specific issue of threshold, no substantial evidence was provided to the panel that supported the need for the market rates exemption threshold to be as high as $250 000. If there are specific occupations and/or regions where the market rates of Australian workers would be undermined by 457 visa holders being paid $180 000 or more, then evidence of these concerns can be taken to the proposed new ministerial advisory council which would have the authority to make recommendations to address this situation for that occupation.

So this government accepted the recommendations of its independent review, which said that there was no evidence under former Minister O'Connor, who, with his stroke of the pen, increased it to $250,000, and that it should be taken back to $180,000, consistent with what it was under the former Labor government, former minister Chris Evans, former minister Chris Bowen and, I understand, former minister Tony Burke.

Another fact which has not been placed on the table is that integrity measures do still apply to those earning above $180,000. One example is the genuiness test which, again, the former Labor government brought in and which remains today. An employer is expected to demonstrate a genuine need for the particular employee. If they are not able to demonstrate that need, the particular departmental officer does not have to grant the visa.

Senator Cameron made a big song and dance about the fact that, apparently, the coalition government was acting on behalf of the mining industries in doing this. I think that I have put that to bed, because—based on an independent panel which undertook extensive consultation across Australia and made a number of recommendations, which we accepted—clearly, that is not the case.

I would put to the Senate and those listening to this disallowance debate that this particular disallowance motion has been moved at the behest of the union representing the industrial interests of maritime and power engineers seeking to shore-up their control over conditions in the sector and distort the market rate of pay in their favour. You appear to have a dispute between the MUA and the engineers union and this is the result of this dispute. Bear in mind that this is the same union that lobbied Minister O'Connor, in 2013, which resulted in—at the stroke of the pen—Minister O'Connor increasing the high-income threshold to $250,000 for no apparent reason other than the union's self-interests.

Although this disallowance moved for selective interests at the behest of certain unions, if it does go through it will impact on all employers across Australia. The instrument that is the subject of the disallowance does nothing to infringe on the conditions of some of those people who are the highest paid workers in Australia. They are highly employable. If any of the other speakers—particularly Senator Cameron—had ever gone out and worked in industry and business they would have understood that when an Australian is highly employable they are sought after by business and industry. Based on the facts of this particular disallowance motion, I would ask the Senate to not support the disallowance.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are no other senators seeking the call, Senator Rice, you do have the right of reply, if you wish to take up that opportunity.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do, thank you. I listened very closely to Minister Cash trying to explain this move to reduce the salaries of some of the most skilled—yes, highly paid—workers in Australia. So much of Minister Cash's response was an attack on unions, an attack on some of the most hard-working workers in Australia and an attack on the Labor Party. I am not interested in petty point-scoring between the government and the Labor Party. I am interested in supporting the interests of workers and unions. The pettiness is the not the interest I have at my heart; I am interested in supporting the interests of workers.

Minister Cash's justification for reducing this threshold from $250,000 to $180,000 was based on a so-called independent review that did consultation. I am sure that consultation showed there was a great diversity of opinion from the big end of town—the resource industries; the mining industries—and the unions working for the interests of their workers and supporting their conditions and salaries to make sure they have fair salaries for the work they do.

The only justification for this so-called independent panel and its recommendation is that they were not given any substantial evidence. The most substantial straight-forward evidence for why that threshold was increased from $180,000 to $250,000 is that the $250,000 ensured that the vast majority of workers would have their salaries subject to market testing. This would mean their salaries would have to be upheld and they would not have unfair competition from 457 visa holders.

The other telling point of Minister Cash's response was that the independent review of this 457 program said that having the market threshold at $250,000 was an unnecessary burden on businesses employing highly-paid workers. The government's unnecessary burden, what it often refers to as red tape—your unnecessary burden; your red tape—equates to what we see as sensible regulation, sensible controls, and sensible checks and balances to make sure that the rights of workers are maintained.

I did not hear any evidence to justify why the decision made in 2013 to increase this market threshold to $250,000 should now be reduced. In fact, if you are going to reduce it to $180,000 why stop there? Why not reduce it to $100,000 as the minister was proposing? Why not have less than that? Why not get rid of market testing altogether? The reason is that the market testing is an absolutely critical part of the 457 visa program and ensures workers are paid at the going market rate.

Keeping that market threshold at $250,000 is in the interests of workers. To reduce it to $180,000 is to inevitably reduce the salaries of these highly paid highly skilled workers. Yes, they are highly paid but they are not nearly as highly paid as the people who would benefit: the owners of those big residences, the big end of town, the resource-industry bosses and the mining industry. These bosses are being paid 10 times as much—if not more—as these highly skilled workers. The rationale for reducing it to $180,000 is not there. There is ample rationale to keep the market threshold at $250,000 and I commend the Senate to support this disallowance motion.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.