My Blog

Category: Opinion

  • On International Women’s Day: How the Fair Work Commission Can Really Take On the Gender Pay Gap

    On International Women’s Day: How the Fair Work Commission Can Really Take On the Gender Pay Gap

    by Lisa Heap in The Conversation

    Lisa Heap

    Senior Researcher

    Share

    Originally published in The Conversation on March 8, 2024

    On occasion of International Women’s Day, the Centre for Future Work’s Senior Researcher Lisa Heap reviews the opportunities to use recent industrial relations reforms to more ambitiously address Australia’s gender pay gap.

    This International Women’s Day, it is time to call on Australia’s workplace umpire, the Fair Work Commission, to finally close the gender pay gap.

    Half a century after the commission’s predecessor granted women “equal pay for equal work” in a landmark case in 1969, the gap remains between 12% and 21%.

    Amendments to the Fair Work Act by the incoming Labor government in 2022 gave it new tools to close the gap by addressing the undervaluation of work in traditionally female-dominated occupations.

    If it uses these tools to their full potential, 2024 will be a landmark year in the genuine achievement of equal pay for equal work.

    What we’ve been doing hasn’t much worked

    Traditionally in Australia, addressing gender-based undervaluation has relied on two approaches.

    The first has been to argue the business case for gender equality – convincing employers they’ll be rewarded for “doing the right thing”.

    The second has been to bring equal pay cases to tribunals.

    Unfortunately, neither approach has been successful. In particular, pushing for equal remuneration through tribunals has been time-consuming and expensive.

    These tribunals, historically working on models of male full-time wage earners, have struggled to understand the undervaluation of work performed predominantly by women.

    The commission’s new tools

    The commission’s act has been rewritten to require it “to promote job security and gender equality.”
    It also has the power to make equal remuneration orders either on its own initiative or on application in order to bring about equal pay for work of equal or comparable value.

    A further new development is the establishment of expert panels to assist in gender-related cases. Advice from gender experts should assist in overcoming historical gender biases in commission decisions.

    Perhaps the most promising tool is the change to the commission’s modern awards objective, which requires it to eliminate gender-based undervaluation of work and provide workplace conditions that facilitate women’s full economic participation each time it reviews an award.

    Among other things, this requirement is likely to result in provisions that ensure part-time work is treated equally to full-time work and ensure a better balance between work and caring responsibilities.

    Amending awards is likely to be particularly important for women given that almost three in five of the workers on awards are women. Men are mainly on negotiated agreements.

    If the commission wanted to, it could hold a wide-ranging inquiry into the many factors that have contributed to gender-based undervaluation of women’s work.

    It could also review entire industries and occupations that are female-dominated, upgrading multiple awards at the same time. This would avoid lengthy and costly reviews of individual awards.

    What’s likely in 2024

    The Fair Work Commission’s resolve to make lasting change will be tested by several matters currently before it.

    The commission is due to issue its final decision in the case lodged by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, the Health Services Union, and the United Workers Union on the value of the work done by workers in aged care.

    An initial interim decision delivered in 2022 awarded some – but not all – of these workers a 15% increase, finding that work in feminised industries had been historically undervalued and the reason for that undervaluation is likely to be gender-based”.

    Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke backed the decision, saying it was merely the “first step”.

    Another application, for nurses and midwives outside of aged care, was lodged by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation in February this year.

    The commission has already started the process of grappling with gender-based undervaluation in modern awards, commissioning research that documents the segregation of women and men into different occupations and industries.

    Further research documenting the history of a select group of female-dominated modern awards and identifying the extent to which common elements indicate gender-based undervaluation, is due to be released in April.

    It will feed into the annual wage review due by the middle of the year.

    How to be bold

    Gender-based undervaluation of women’s work won’t be eradicated by incremental adjustments.

    Here are three bold steps the commission could take:

    • grant a minimum interim 12% increase (one estimate of Australia’s national gender pay gap) across the board for female-dominated awards in this year’s annual wage review
    • develop new systems for classifying work and ascribing work value, breaking with the previous standards built around skills and qualifications in male dominated occupations
    • better consider the uneven bargaining power in industries such as nursing where governments fund care work and try to restrain costs.

    The changes to the Fair Work Act that allow multi-employer bargaining are a start, but unlikely alone to correct the undervaluation of women’s work.

    In female-dominated industries where collective bargaining is non-existent or ineffective, the commission should step in and further increase wages.

    The Fair Work Commission has been given the tools. This should be the year it applies them.


    You might also like

  • The gas industry is laughing at us as they make more money but not more tax

    The gas industry is laughing at us as they make more money but not more tax

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on February 29, 2024

    Despite soaring production and revenues the gas industry is not paying more tax

    Australia produces more than six times the amount of gas needed to supply our manufacturing industry, power stations and homes. But more than 80% either heads overseas as LNG exports or is used to convert natural gas into LNG:

    We export much more gas than we used to. In the 2000s we exported around 14m tonnes of LNG a year. Now, due to the opening of the Gladstone LNG terminal, we send 83mt overseas – the second most of any nation.

    But more production and more revenue has not led to more tax, even though the petroleum resources rent tax (PRRT) is in place to supposedly raise revenue from windfall profits such as those generated by the gas industry after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    When Australia exported 15.4mt of LNG in 2008-09, the government raised $2.2bn in PRRT. In 2022-23, exports had increased 437% to 83mt but PRRT revenue was up just 7% to $2.4bn.

    Did gas suddenly become unprofitable?

    No, the problem is that the PRRT is open to manipulation that enables companies to use costs to reduce their PRRT liability such that it appears they are never making “super profits”.

    In last year’s budget, the government finally proposed limiting the deductions to the PRRT in any year to 90% of LNG project revenues. Alas that proposal also had a punchline. The government announced the changes would raise an extra $2.4bn in PRRT over the next four years. That was roughly a 30% increase in tax.

    Thirty per cent!

    You would think the gas industry would launch the mother of all campaigns against it. But no. They loved it.

    The day it was announced the gas industry peak body recommended bipartisan support as the changes “would see more revenue collected earlier”. The key word was “earlier”. It won’t raise more tax; it just moves some tax from later to earlier.

    But it won’t even do that.

    In December’s midyear economic and fiscal outlook, the government announced it was revising down its estimate of how much PRRT would be raised over the next four years.

    How much did it reduce its estimate by?

    You guessed it: $2.4bn.

    We need to change the way the PRRT operates, we need to tax our gas more and we need to do it now.


    You might also like

    Australia’s Gas Use On The Slide

    by Ketan Joshi

    The Federal Government has released a new report that includes projections of how much gas Australia is set to use over the coming decades. There is no ambiguity in its message: Australia reached peak gas years ago, and it’s all downhill from here:

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • More loopholes to close on insecure work … and a new right to disconnect from work

    More loopholes to close on insecure work … and a new right to disconnect from work

    by Fiona Macdonald

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Share

    Late yesterday the final part 2 of the government’s Closing Loopholes industrial relations bill was passed by the Senate.

    This means Australia’s employment laws will be further amended to tackle the problems of insecurity and low pay, with the changes targeting casual employment and gig platform work arrangements. The package also includes a new right for employees to disconnect from work outside their paid work time.

    A new definition of casual employment will be included in the Fair Work Act, making it harder for employers to classify their employees as casual when, in reality, the employees are required to work regular hours for a continuing and indefinite period. The legislation also establishes a new pathway for casual employees to seek permanent status.

    The casual employment changes should go some way to stopping and reversing the growth of so-called ‘permanent casual’ arrangements, which have become widespread. Workers in these arrangements are actually in permanent jobs while they are given casual employment status.

    Casual employment means lower pay, little or no job security and no right to paid leave. Lack of employment security in casual employment creates all sorts of other insecurities for workers, such as limiting access to finance, secure housing and childcare. According to government estimates, there are over 850,000 casual employees who could be eligible to seek permanency under the legislation.

    Gig worker or ‘employee-like’ reforms in the Closing Loopholes package aim to address low pay and poor working conditions experienced by workers on digital platforms who are engaged as independent contractors, are low-paid and/or have very limited bargaining power, such as delivery riders and rideshare drivers. The Fair Work Commission will now be able to make orders for minimum standards for these digital platform workers.

    This ‘employee-like’ reforms extend the scope of Australia’s Fair Work Act to provide protections and rights to vulnerable workers, who are not employees. This should prove to be an effective response to the challenges facing vulnerable ‘gig workers as argued by the Centre for Future Work’s David Peetz has argued in a recent Centre for Future Work report on self-employment.

    Closing Loopholes also includes a ‘right to disconnect’ from work, an initiative of the Greens, included to get the minor party’s support for the bill. In future, employees will have a right to refuse to respond to contact from their employers outside their scheduled hours if the contact is unreasonable.

    Go Home on Time Day research conducted in 2022 by the Centre for Future Work found that 8 out of every 10 workers supported a right to disconnect. This level of support is not surprising, given the amount of unpaid overtime workers are doing. In 2023, the Centre for Future Work reported employees are, on average, working 5.8 hours a week — total of 280 hours, or 7 weeks, a year of unpaid overtime per employee.

    The new right to disconnect is a practical solution for many employees that should also assist to shift cultures in workplaces where reliance on unpaid overtime has become the norm.

    Some employer groups are arguing the Closing Loopholes legislation ‘goes too far’. To the contrary, if there is a weakness in the legislation, it is that it does not always account for power imbalances in the relationship between employees and employers. And this may limit the effectiveness of the some of the new provisions.

    As a result of amendments put forward by independent David Pocock and the two Jacqui Lambie Network senators in response to employers’ concerns, a number of the bill’s provisions will be weaker in the final legislation than they were in the government’s original bill.

    The amended bill passed by the Senate yesterday provides greater scope for employers to refuse casual employees’ requests for permanent status. The proposed prohibition on employers unreasonably contacting employees out of work hours has been removed. In the amended bill the prohibition is now on employers punishing employees who refuse to monitor and respond to unreasonable contact.

    The Closing Loopholes part 2 reforms are welcome changes that will limit some of the damage and disadvantage caused by insecure work and the encroachment of (unpaid) work into life outside work.


    You might also like

  • “Right to Disconnect” Essential as Devices Intrude Into Workers’ Lives

    “Right to Disconnect” Essential as Devices Intrude Into Workers’ Lives

    Young woman using cell phone to send text message on social network at night. Closeup of hands with computer laptop in background

    Share

    Australia’s Parliament is set to pass a new set of reforms to the Fair Work Act and other labour laws, that would enshrine certain protections for workers against being contacted or ordered to perform work outside of normal working hours. This “Right to Disconnect” is an important step in limiting the steady encroachment of work demands into leisure, family, and recreation time. In the most recent edition of our Centre’s annual Go Home on Time Day survey, the average Australian worker performed 280 hours of unpaid time per year — and that time is worth a staggering $130 billion in annual lost incomes. The ubiquitous use of digital devices (from email to texts to WhatsApp) is facilitating this expansion of time theft.

    Dr Chris F. Wright is Associate Professor in the Discipline of Work and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney, and also a member of the Centre for Future Work’s Advisory Committee. He has prepared this excellent summary (originally published in The Conversation) about the benefits of a right to disconnect. Please also see our 2022 report, Call Me Maybe (Not!), by Eliza Littleton and Lily Raynes, on examples of enshrining the right from other countries, and survey evidence showing Australians’ strong support for the idea.

    Smartphones Mean We’re Always Available to our Bosses. ‘Right to Disconnect’ Laws are a Necessary Fix

    by Dr Chris F. Wright

    Australian workers are set to have the right to disconnect from their workplaces once they clock off for the day.

    This will “empower workers to ignore work calls and emails after hours [from their employers], where those demands are unreasonable”, according to Greens Senator Barbara Pocock who has been driving the change.

    Last week, the Senate committee reviewing the “Closing Loopholes” amendments to the Fair Work Act recommended introducing a right to disconnect to support “the development of clear expectations about contact and availability in workplaces”. On Wednesday, the Albanese government indicated it supported the amendment.

    Why a right to disconnect is needed

    Last year, the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care drew attention to “availability creep” where employees are increasingly expected to complete work outside of work hours.

    Smartphones have made it easier for managers to contact workers any time. The shift to remote working during the COVID pandemic caused the boundaries between work and personal life to disintegrate further.

    According to a 2022 report by the Centre for Future Work, 71% of workers surveyed had worked outside their scheduled work hours often due to overwork or pressure from managers.

    This led to increased tiredness, stress or anxiety for about one-third of workers surveyed, disrupted relationships and personal lives for more than one-quarter, and lower job motivation and satisfaction for around one-fifth.

    Parliamentary inquiries have highlighted the negative consequences of working outside scheduled hours for mental and physical health, productivity and turnover.

    Availability creep has led to significant unpaid overtime which “takes workers away from a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”.

    The impacts are especially acute for certain groups of workers. Those on insecure contracts lack the power to resist availability creep. Those with unpaid care responsibilities are likely to experience intensified work/life balance.

    “Roster justice”

    The right to disconnect provides a solution to these challenges. The Senate select committee on work and care found such a right can provide workers with “roster justice” by giving more certainty over their working hours.

    Many countries in Europe, Asia, North America and South America have already established laws or regulations limiting employers contacting workers outside work hours.

    At least 56 enterprise agreements currently operating in Australia provide a right to disconnect. This includes agreements covering teachers, police officers and various banks and financial institutions.

    Industrial Relations Minister Tony Burke has indicated the right to disconnect legislation will provide employers with “reasonable grounds” to contact their employees outside work hours. This might include calling employees to see if they can fill a shift.

    If enterprise agreements with existing right to disconnect clauses are an indication, the Fair Work Commission will probably be asked to determine what contact outside of work hours is deemed “reasonable”. This approach seems sensible given the long tradition of the commission being asked to rule on what’s “reasonable” in other areas of employment law.

    If an employer “unreasonably” expects employees to perform unpaid work outside of normal hours the commission may be empowered to impose a “stop order” — and potentially fines — to prevent the employer from contacting employees outside hours according to Tony Burke.

    Unions including those representing teachers and police officers support a right to disconnect. According to the Police Federation of Australia:

    Not only do the police see that trauma, deal with the families’ trauma, deal with their colleagues’ trauma, have to investigate, have to go to court, and get media attention but they also have to go home and deal with their families […] The right to disconnect gives those officers that little bit of breathing space.

    Employment law experts and human resource specialists also believe there is a strong case for such a right given the negative impacts of availability creep on worker well being.

    Employer associations are less supportive. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) told a recent Senate inquiry a right to disconnect would be “a blunt instrument which will do more harm than good, including for employees”. They claim employers will be less accommodating of employee requests for flexible work arrangements during normal work hours if contact outside these hours is no longer allowed.

    A banana republic?

    According to ACCI chief executive Andrew McKellar, a right to disconnect would be “the final step in Australia becoming a banana republic”.

    But it must be remembered that workers effectively had the right to disconnect before the smartphone. Such a protection needs to be explicit now technology has eroded the once-firm boundaries between work and home.

    As the nature of work and employer practices change, it’s essential for employment regulations to respond accordingly. Having a right to disconnect to protect workers from employers encroaching upon their free-time is a necessary response.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • We Cannot Truly Value ‘Care’ Until Workers Using Digital Labour Platforms Get Fair Pay and Conditions

    We Cannot Truly Value ‘Care’ Until Workers Using Digital Labour Platforms Get Fair Pay and Conditions

    by Fiona Macdonald in Women’s Agenda

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Share

    Originally published in Women’s Agenda on January 23, 2024

    Unless minimum employment standards for care and support workers using digital labour platforms are guaranteed, decades of slow progress towards proper recognition of care work and equal pay for women could be undone.

    Australia risks returning to the days when the value of a female care worker’s effort and their working conditions were largely determined in private, informal relationships out of sight and out of the scope of regulation that protects most other workers.

    For most of the 20th Century, women workers providing care and assistance to people in private residences were explicitly excluded from the industrial relations system that ensured rights and standards, including minimum wages and employment conditions, for 90 per cent of Australian workers.

    Homecare and other social and community services workers were only recognised as workers at the end of the century, after long and enormously difficult struggles by women and their unions.

    Finally, in the 1990s, for the first time, care and support workers gained regulated minimum standards of pay and conditions. Previously, as unregulated workers, they had extremely low pay rates and some of the worst working conditions in Australia.

    Fast forward thirty years to 2024. The care and support workforce is still highly feminised. It is large and it is growing 3 times faster than other sectors in the Australian economy. Most care and support jobs are still relatively low-paid and insecure.

    Today, however, the need for fair pay, better quality jobs, and career paths for care and support workers has the attention of government and other policy makers. In the wake of the pandemic there is greater appreciation of how the quality of these jobs impacts on the quality of care and support for the aged and people with disability.

    And it is very clear that, if we are to successfully tackle Australia’s gender pay gap and women’s economic inequality, we must ensure better pay and career pathways for care and support workers.

    But now, digital or ‘gig’ labour platforms are undermining the slow progress that has been made towards proper recognition and valuing of care work. This is because most platforms, through which aged care and disability support workers connect with people requiring care and support, insist that workers are independent contractors.

    Platforms compete in the NDIS and aged care markets by using independent contractors to provide cheaper services, while other service providers directly employ workers. Platforms profit from avoiding the costs of employment, including superannuation, training and supervision. Platform workers have no minimum employment standards.

    Digital platform care and support workers have a lot in common with previous care and domestic workers who, for most of the 20th Century, were invisible and isolated, and struggled to have their labour recognised as work.

    Platform workers are without any rights to minimum rates of pay, working time standards, superannuation or other benefits and protections they would have as employees. They mostly perform their labour without peer support, organisational supervision and training, and they are cut off from opportunities for development and promotion.

    Opponents of employment standards for platform care and support workers don’t see it like this. They argue standards are not needed as workers are “entrepreneurs” who set their own rates, earn more than employees, enjoy the flexibility of working when and where they want, and are doing this work as a “side hustle” on top of more substantial jobs.

    None of this is true of the majority of care and support workers on platforms. Most (70 per cent) believe they are employees of the platform, even though they’re not. Even the platforms’ own data shows that workers from groups likely to be vulnerable to exploitation – migrants and younger workers – are over-represented on platforms. Many workers are paid below the relevant award minimum pay rate.

    It makes little sense to refer to jobs as side hustles when 4 out of 5 home and community-based care and support jobs (on and off platforms) are part-time, often short-hours jobs.

    Just because jobs are part-time, or a worker holds multiple jobs, doesn’t mean fair pay and working conditions don’t matter.

    For decades, women had to put up with undervalued work while employers, economists and public policy makers argued women worked in care jobs for love rather than money, and their earnings were not essential income. Present-day arguments opposing minimum standards are a little different, however, they would achieve the same end, perpetuating undervaluation and gender inequality.


    You might also like

  • Closing Loopholes: Important repairs to the industrial relations system, no more, no less

    Closing Loopholes: Important repairs to the industrial relations system, no more, no less

    by Fiona Macdonald in The New Daily

    Fiona Macdonald

    Acting Director, Centre for Future Work

    Share

    Originally published in The New Daily on December 17, 2023

    Labour hire workers can no longer be paid less than employees doing the same job in their workplaces as a result of industrial reforms passed by Parliament.

    However, other important reforms to close loopholes in employment laws and stop exploitation of workers and avoidance of standards won’t be voted on in Parliament until next year.

    This leaves gig platform workers and road transport contractors waiting to get much-needed minimum pay and conditions standards.

    On the final sitting day of Parliament for 2023, the government’s amended Closing Loopholes bill was passed.

    With a Senate Inquiry into the bill due to report in February it was a surprise to many that some of the reforms were legislated, especially the so-called same-job, same-pay labour hire reforms that had been strongly contested by employers.

    This reform targets gaps in laws that have allowed some large and profitable corporations, including BHP and Qantas, to use labour hire to engage workers on rates that undercut those agreed in enterprise agreements.

    A Senate Inquiry heard evidence that, as a result of employers using labour hire this way, workers were being paid up to tens of thousands of dollars less than employees doing the same work in the same workplace.

    As with the government’s 2022 Secure Jobs, Better Pay bargaining reforms, opposition by some employers to this latest reform has been intense, involving an expensive and unnecessary scare campaign.

    The mining employers’ advocacy body, the Minerals Council, was reported to be spending up to $24 million to fight the labour hire changes and, on the day of the bill’s passing, issued a statement greatly exaggerating the nature and extent of the reform by declaring it to be a ‘‘dramatic rewriting of workplace law’’.

    To get the IR changes through the Senate the government needed to secure the support of key independents and, as a result of this, some parts of the Closing Loopholes bill were set aside to be considered by Parliament in February.

    The parts of the bill set aside until next year include minimum standards for digital platform and road transport workers and changes that make it easier for casual employees who want to become permanent.

    Getting the platform and road transport industry changes in place will be critical for improving working lives and ensuring fair pay and conditions for tens of thousands of low-paid and vulnerable workers who are currently without most rights to minimum standards at work, due to their classification as contractors.

    The reticence of independent senators Jacqui Lambie and David Pocock to pass the platform and road transport industry reforms is perhaps not surprising, given the strong and powerful lobby groups and companies such as Uber, who insist all platform workers are entrepreneurs and small business people not in need of protections, despite the numbers of young, inexperienced, migrant and vulnerable workers in these arrangements.

    Platforms say the costs to consumers will increase exponentially. Small business groups argue reforms are all too complicated and may have far-reaching unintended consequences.

    Labour law experts disagree. It is to be hoped that the extra time for consideration of the proposed changes gives the independents an opportunity to go with the evidence.

    With the support of the Greens and the independent senators some other important Closing Loopholes reforms were in the legislation passed.

    These include new laws to make wage theft a criminal offence, reforms to better protect some workers’ redundancy entitlements and changes to enhance work health and safety.

    Industrial manslaughter will now be a criminal offence, protections for workers experiencing family and domestic violence will be strengthened, and first responders/emergency workers with PTSD will have improved access to support.

    Making superannuation theft a crime is a welcome outcome of the government’s negotiations with the Greens.

    There can be little doubt of the need to act on intentional non-payment of superannuation, with the Australian Taxation Office recently reporting that Australian workers are owed more than $2 billion in unpaid superannuation.

    Superannuation theft not only affects workers’ retirement incomes but can see death and disability insurances cancelled.

    The government has also agreed to consider an amendment to provide workers with a right to disconnect from work outside work hours.

    Despite the protestations of some employer groups there is not much that can be called radical in the Closing Loopholes reform package.

    For the most part, the reforms passed this year and the ones still on the table are exactly what the government says they are – improvements to plug gaps and close loopholes that have allowed some workers to miss out on basic protections, standards and benefits that most other workers enjoy and most employers are happy to provide.


    You might also like

  • The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse

    The Stage 3 tax cuts will make our bad tax system worse

    by Jim Stanford in The Conversation

    Jim Stanford

    Share

    Originally published in The Conversation on December 11, 2023

    Australia has one of the weakest tax systems for redistribution among industrial nations, and as Dr Jim Stanford writes, the Stage 3 tax cuts will make it worse.

    One of the chief purposes of government payments and taxes is to redistribute income, which is why tax rates are higher on taxpayers with higher incomes and payments tend to get directed to people on lower incomes.

    Australia’s tax rates range from a low of zero cents in the dollar to a high of 45 cents, and payments including JobSeeker, the age pension, and child benefits which are limited to recipients whose income is below certain thresholds.

    In this way, every nation’s tax and transfer system cuts inequality, some more than others.

    Which is why I was surprised when I used the latest Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data to calculate how much.

    The OECD measures inequality using what’s known as a gini coefficient. This is a number on a scale between zero and 1 where zero represents complete equality (everyone receives the same income) and 1 represents complete inequality (one person has all the income).

    The higher the number, the higher the higher the inequality.

    Australia is far from the most equal of OECD nations – it is 21st out of the 37 countries for which the OECD collects data, but what really interested me is what Australia’s tax and transfer system does to equalise things.

    And the answer is: surprisingly little compared to other OECD countries.

    Australia’s system does little to temper inequality

    The graph below displays the number of points by which each country’s tax and transfer system reduces its gini coefficient. The ranking indicates the extent to which the system equalises incomes.

    The OECD country whose system most strongly redistributes incomes is Finland, whose tax and transfer rules cut its gini coefficient by 0.25 points.

    The country with the weakest redistribution of incomes is Mexico which only cuts inequality by 0.02 points.

    Australia is the 8th weakest, cutting inequality by only 0.12 points.

    Apart from Mexico, among OECD members only Chile, Costa Rica, Korea, Switzerland, Türkiye and Iceland do a worse job of redistributing incomes.

    What is really odd is that, before redistribution, Australia’s income distribution is pretty good compared to other OECD countries – the tenth best.

    It’s not that Australia’s systems don’t reduce inequality, it’s that other country’s systems do it more.

    Of the OECD members who do less than Australia, four are emerging economies: Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Türkiye. Like most developing countries, they have low taxes, weak social protections and poor tax-gathering systems.

    Indeed, in Chile and Mexico, taxes and transfers do almost nothing to moderate extreme inequality.

    The other three countries ranked below Australia – Iceland, Switzerland, and South Korea – boast unusually equal distributions of market incomes. Each is among the four most equal OECD countries by market income, and each is considerably more equal than Australia.

    Australia ‘less developed’ when it comes to redistribution

    This makes Australia’s weak redistribution system more typical of a low-income emerging economy than an advanced industrial democracy.

    Even Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand do a better job of redistributing income than Australia.

    This new data enhances concerns about the impact of planned Stage 3 tax cuts. By returning proportionately more to high earners than low earners these will further erode the redistributive impact of Australia’s tax system.

    It also highlights the consequences of Australia’s relatively weak payments programs, including JobSeeker which on one measure is the second-weakest in the OECD. It’s an understatement to say we’ve room for improvement.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time

    Higher exports prices improve the budget, but the Stage 3 tax cuts remain the wrong tax at the wrong time

    by Greg Jericho in The Guardian

    Greg Jericho

    Chief Economist

    Share

    Originally published in The Guardian on December 14, 2023

    As the Budget outlook improves, with most of the benefits of Stage 3 tax cuts going to those earing over $120,000, over 80% of workers will be short-changed

    Yesterday’s mid-year economic and fiscal outlook (MYEFO) provided some pleasing news for the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers. But higher revenue does not mean a stronger economy nor that households are better off.

    While the Treasurer was releasing the latest budget numbers the annual figures for median earnings were released by the Bureau of Statistics.

    These figures showed that the median weekly earnings in August this year were $1,300 – a rise of 4.2% from last year, which was less than the 5.4% increase in inflation.

    That weekly amount translates to $67,600 in annual earnings.

    People earning that amount will get just $565 from the Stage 3 tax cuts (0.8%) while someone on $200,000 – well in the top 10% of earners will get a 4.5% cut worth $9,075.

    The Treasurer told ABC 730 on Wednesday night that the government has not changed its position on Stage 3 and that “We think there is an important role for returning bracket creep where governments can afford to do that.”

    The problem is the Stage 3 cuts are mostly focused at rewarding those on high incomes, who are least affected by bracket creep.

    If the Government was truly worried about using the bonus revenue from higher export prices to assist low and middle-income earners it would care more about those on the median income of $66,700 than those in the top tax bracket and top 10% of income.


    You might also like

    Commonwealth Budget 2025-2026: Our analysis

    by Fiona Macdonald

    The Centre for Future Work’s research team has analysed the Commonwealth Government’s budget, focusing on key areas for workers, working lives, and labour markets. As expected with a Federal election looming, the budget is not a horror one of austerity. However, the 2025-2026 budget is characterised by the absence of any significant initiatives. There is

  • Paying for Collective Bargaining

    Paying for Collective Bargaining

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    Recent labour law reforms in Australia have focused attention on the crucial role played by collective bargaining in achieving higher wages, safer working conditions, and better job security.

    New provisions contained in both the Secure Jobs Better Pay (2022) and Closing Loopholes (2023) legislation will expand the scope for collective bargaining (including more opportunities for bargaining at a multi-employer level), make it harder for employers to evade collective bargaining, and empower union delegates to fulfil their responsibilities in workplaces to administer and enforce collective agreements.

    However, one important challenge for Australia’s collective bargaining system, that has not been addressed by these reforms, is how to pay for collective bargaining. The infrastructure of representation, bargaining, implementation and enforcement requires ongoing commitment of people and resources, from both the union and the employer sides of the relationship.

    In Australia at present, the workers’ side of this infrastructure is dependent on voluntary union dues contributed by individuals who choose to join a union in their industry. No collective system of union security or dues collection (such as closed or agency shop arrangements, dues preferences, or bargaining fees) are presently allowed under Australian law. Moreover, Australian law fully protects the ability of individual workers to ‘free ride’ on the benefits and protections negotiated by unions in their workplace: every provision of a collective agreement must be provided to all workers in a defined bargaining unit (whether they are members of the union that negotiated them or not). From a perspective of narrow self-interest, this system discourages union membership — and in turn starves the collective bargaining system of the resources it needs to be viable.

    In this article published in The Conversation, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford discusses the nature of this ‘free rider problem,’ and highlights how the treatment of this problem varies wildly between business and union applications. Legal contracts which enforce collective revenue solutions to free-rider problems are common and fully acceptable in many common applications: such as residential strata arrangements, the governance of joint stock corporations, and even government tax collections. Where unions are concerned, however, the law prevents workers from making and enforcing a collective decision to jointly fund the apparatus of collective bargaining, to the shared detriment of workers who consequently cannot exercise collective bargaining power to improve their employment relationship. The rhetoric of ‘individual choice’ is applied selectively to industrial relations; no owner of a strata unit, or shareholder in a corporation, has the ‘free choice’ to refuse to pay the normal costs and obligations associated with those arrangements.

    Australia’s restrictions on union security and collective dues arrangements are uniquely restrictive among industrial countries; they are similar to the rules in so-called ‘right-to-work’ states in the U.S., where union representation has fallen to the low single digits. Free riding has been an important factor in the long-term erosion of union density in Australia: most recent data indicates that just 12.5% of employees in Australia are presently union members. Workers with greater awareness of the importance of collective bargaining to their long-term prosperity will support their unions, even though they are legally entitled to all the benefits of a collective agreement whether they join or not. But the current laws discourage this act of collective solidarity, and collective bargaining has been eroding accordingly. At present just 15% of workers in Australia are covered by an active enterprise agreement (and less than 10% in the private sector). The erosion of collective bargaining has contributed to wage stagnation, growing inequality, and job insecurity.

    Dr Stanford’s Conversation article has been selected for inclusion in the new anthology, 2023: A Year of Consequence, published by Thames & Hudson, and edited by Justin Bergman (International Editor of The Conversation). The book contains several essays published by The Conversation in 2023 that are judged to have contributed most to public policy dialogue in Australia over the past year.

    Further information on the extent and consequences of free riding in Australian collective bargaining, and five different strategies for addressing this problem (based on the variety of policies implemented in other industrial countries where collective bargaining is better-resourced, and hence stronger and more effective), are provided in Dr Stanford’s recent scholarly article in Labour and Industry, titled “International approaches to solving the ‘free rider’ problem in industrial relations.” Click below to see the full article.


    Related documents



    Attachment

    Related research



    Submission to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023



    Full report



    Collective Bargaining and Wage Growth in Australia



    Full report

    You might also like

  • Solidarity Research for Union Renewal

    Solidarity Research for Union Renewal

    Share

    A Symposium of Researchers and Trade Unionists co-hosted by the Centre for Future Work and Unions WA.

    • Tuesday 30 January 2024
    • 5:30pm for 6pm start
    • UnionsWA, CSA Building, 445 Hay Street Perth

    To coincide with the Association of Industrial Relations Academics of Australia and New Zealand (AIRAANZ) holding its 2024 conference in Perth, the Centre for Future Work and Unions WA are pleased to present a unique and important event for union members, supporters, and activists.

    ‘Solidarity research for Union Renewal’ brings together cutting-edge researchers and unionists to share their knowledge and wisdom about renewing unions and building solidarity between all workers. Find out how:

    • Canadian Health Workers restored their jobs to the public sector
    • African unions have fought back against Multinationals
    • Australian unions are organising and advocating for migrant workers

    The evening will be chaired by Professor Emeritus David Peetz, the Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow at the Centre for Future Work – who will also be presenting his research on Developing Union Delegates

    This event is FREE, with refreshments, but we need you to register for a ticket here: https://www.unionswa.com.au/solidarity_research_for_union_renewal.

    And here is the full program of speakers and topics.

    See you in Perth!


    Related documents



    Attachment

    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages