Mr BURKE - 2005-08-17
The federal government is planning to remove the power to set minimum wages from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Can the minister advise of the effect this proposal will have on Territory workers?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I did touch upon this issue in my previous answer. Yes, it is true that the federal government intends to take away a lot of powers from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The commission has served Australia well, I believe, for well over 100 years in setting minimum rates of pay and safeguarding the rights of workers, but also providing a system that brings certainty to employers as well.
The federal government has said: ‘We are going to take these powers away from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and we are going to give it to a thing called the Fair Pay Commission’. That is probably Orwellian-speak for something else. The AIRC recently provided a $17 per week pay rise to workers, and it has provided a safety net for the lower paid.
The range of occupations in the private sector that rely on …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe this is an abuse of the process of Question Time. We are in the centre of this debate at the moment - before lunch and, I presume, after Question Time. This is an exact repeat of what we have heard. I have no problem with the minister dealing with this issue, but why are we repeating it and wasting time in Question Time? I believe it is an abuse of the process, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a vital issue for Australia and the Northern Territory. I am sorry that the member for Nelson is not interested in it, but this is a vital …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I am listening to the point of order that is with the minister at the moment. Resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: I am responding to a question from the member for Brennan on a very important issue. It is not a verbatim repeat of anything that I have said earlier here today …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I believe there is no point of order. Minister, continue with your answer.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The people in these occupations I am about to name are people who would be very interested in this issue, because they are the ones who are covered under the AIRC for safety net adjustments: shop assistants, hairdressers, security officers, cleaners, aged care workers, child-care workers, truck drivers, clerks, disability service workers, gardeners, hospitality workers and laundry workers. Some of these are people are amongst the lowest paid in our community, and rely on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for wage parity and justice …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to Standing Order 68 and Standing Order 129. I will read to you Standing Order 68, ‘Anticipation of Subject’.
This issue that the minister is currently speaking about is afoot. What he is doing is anticipating the debate. That is the standing order.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the point of Question Time is for this House to be informed, and for ministers to answer questions in relation to portfolios they have responsibility for and carriage of. This is a current issue before the Australian and Northern Territory community. My colleague, the minister for industrial relations and employment, has just come from a ministerial council where this issue was debated …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HENDERSON: I am surprised that members on the other side of parliament do not want to hear his answer to these very important questions, in particular because this debate is being broadcast around the Northern Territory. I am sure listeners to this Question Time around the Northern Territory also want to hear the minister’s answer.
Madam SPEAKER: The Clerk advises me that the anticipation rule has been interpreted very liberally by previous Speakers, particularly in Question Time, so there is no point of order. Minister, continue.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I know it is causing some disquiet opposite, and that is indicative of the importance of this issue; however, I will wrap up.
In short, I believe the federal government wants to take away powers from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. In Western Australia, we have seen where, for workers under AWAs under the Court government, the minimum wage was $50 per week less than the rest of Australia. Therefore, the evidence is there in terms of AWAs. This is nothing more than an attack by the federal government on workers’ wages and their entitlements and, as a government, we will certainly oppose that.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I did touch upon this issue in my previous answer. Yes, it is true that the federal government intends to take away a lot of powers from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The commission has served Australia well, I believe, for well over 100 years in setting minimum rates of pay and safeguarding the rights of workers, but also providing a system that brings certainty to employers as well.
The federal government has said: ‘We are going to take these powers away from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and we are going to give it to a thing called the Fair Pay Commission’. That is probably Orwellian-speak for something else. The AIRC recently provided a $17 per week pay rise to workers, and it has provided a safety net for the lower paid.
The range of occupations in the private sector that rely on …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I believe this is an abuse of the process of Question Time. We are in the centre of this debate at the moment - before lunch and, I presume, after Question Time. This is an exact repeat of what we have heard. I have no problem with the minister dealing with this issue, but why are we repeating it and wasting time in Question Time? I believe it is an abuse of the process, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a vital issue for Australia and the Northern Territory. I am sorry that the member for Nelson is not interested in it, but this is a vital …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I am listening to the point of order that is with the minister at the moment. Resume your seat.
Dr BURNS: I am responding to a question from the member for Brennan on a very important issue. It is not a verbatim repeat of anything that I have said earlier here today …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: I believe there is no point of order. Minister, continue with your answer.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The people in these occupations I am about to name are people who would be very interested in this issue, because they are the ones who are covered under the AIRC for safety net adjustments: shop assistants, hairdressers, security officers, cleaners, aged care workers, child-care workers, truck drivers, clerks, disability service workers, gardeners, hospitality workers and laundry workers. Some of these are people are amongst the lowest paid in our community, and rely on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for wage parity and justice …
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I draw your attention to Standing Order 68 and Standing Order 129. I will read to you Standing Order 68, ‘Anticipation of Subject’.
- No member shall anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper: provided that in determining whether a discussion is or is not in order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by the Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the Assembly within a reasonable time.
This issue that the minister is currently speaking about is afoot. What he is doing is anticipating the debate. That is the standing order.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek advice.
Mr HENDERSON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the point of Question Time is for this House to be informed, and for ministers to answer questions in relation to portfolios they have responsibility for and carriage of. This is a current issue before the Australian and Northern Territory community. My colleague, the minister for industrial relations and employment, has just come from a ministerial council where this issue was debated …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HENDERSON: I am surprised that members on the other side of parliament do not want to hear his answer to these very important questions, in particular because this debate is being broadcast around the Northern Territory. I am sure listeners to this Question Time around the Northern Territory also want to hear the minister’s answer.
Madam SPEAKER: The Clerk advises me that the anticipation rule has been interpreted very liberally by previous Speakers, particularly in Question Time, so there is no point of order. Minister, continue.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, I know it is causing some disquiet opposite, and that is indicative of the importance of this issue; however, I will wrap up.
In short, I believe the federal government wants to take away powers from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. In Western Australia, we have seen where, for workers under AWAs under the Court government, the minimum wage was $50 per week less than the rest of Australia. Therefore, the evidence is there in terms of AWAs. This is nothing more than an attack by the federal government on workers’ wages and their entitlements and, as a government, we will certainly oppose that.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016