"The failure to allow individual agreements at wages below the minima is a tacit admission of the trade union case that employers have greater bargaining power and can force wages (or other conditions) down. Yet the government itself argues that those employed on AWAs are better off than they were on awards."

Is it just me or does this seem to be a really silly argument. Of course those employed on AWA's are better off than they are on Awards, because AWA's MUST be set above awards. What are you trying to prove with this one?

Whilst not a fan of the union movement in general, I appreciate that there are those whose skills at bargaining and selling themselves (in a promotional sense) are greatly less than the general population. There are also those that are to a great degree locked into a job, because at the wages they are on they do not make enough to save to cover the costs of transferring jobs (whether it be going without pay for a few weeks, greater travel costs, relocations costs, new uniforms or whatever). I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones, who works in an industry with high demand for skilled employees, and who is quite happy to tell an employer where to get off if I dont get the conditions I want (within reason). Not everyone has that luxury. The author would do well to spend a few months living on the minimum wage before he recommended that it be cut from out IR system. Flawed though it may be, at the moment its better than nothing.

Des Moore. He never stops, does he. Des the main cause of poverty is not being without a job. Many workers (cleaners, security etc etc)have several jobs. They and there families are living in poverty. Des the main cause of poverty is not having any money.Therefore your bright idea of giving poor people less money (no doubt for more work)is as sickening as your good self. Des i and many other posters have repeatedly told you why the Govt is having trouble selling No Choices.
It is because they are clearly lying. The punters are awake. Bring on the election.

Argh. I can't help but feel the world would be a better place if Des Moore was made to work as a burger flipper at McDonalds for six months. Maybe then he'd be a bit less trusting in the future prospects of a world driven by corporate interests.

As it stands Des, Australia has a skills crisis. A shortage of workers. Lowering the minimum wage at a time when workers are needed would do what exactly, except make life even more difficult for unskilled single parents?

Des compares Australian minimum wages to the US and Spain. The US has the highest discrepancy between the rich and the poor in the entire world. Whilst Des seems keen on that kind of system, I'm less convinced that will lead to social stability.

Our other contender is Spain. Oh joy. Nevermind the plethora of economic woes.

Hedgehog is nearly right.

The public is astir, and the Election we had to Have looms large.

But you know, i reckon the 2 biggest problems the Governmet has re 'No Choices' is the Autocratic Council of Totalitarian Underdogs; and Auto-Fascists. The social omnipotence of the Autocratic Council does not go unnoticed by me; i wish we knew how many others know the truth there. This mob could stop the sun rising if they tried hard enough. They are in a position to anti-propogate the IR changes at whim. And while they make the opposition present fool-like campaigns in Parliament, in the real world they are 'working and asking and speaking and working' away at white-anting everything they dont stand for. So not only does the average bloke cop the wrangle at the 6 o,clock news, he also gets it at work and in the general social meileue of everyday Lefty-life. If average jo was allowed to exploit his intelligence better, not through a free market economy, but with it, setting himself up at his own pace, things might be different. But alas, work, work, work.

And then there is the Auto-Fascist. The self appointed so and so somewhere who doesnt want all this intellectualism abound. This person will ruin your day, deplete your energies and honourable intentions and seek to acheive such diverse responses from the universe such as 'carmic reflux', 'sexual desirability', 'supremo-intellectuala' and whatever else can be gleaned and enslaved from your presence.

I think that my freinds is the sum total of Australian work-place culture and the IR 'fight'! Its better known as 'Class warfare'. Wages dont come in to it for Mr Avrage, nor indeed for intellectual aspirants.

Federal parliamentarians receive an Annual Allowance; Ministers receive a Salary; Parliamentary Office-Holders receive a Salary; MPs receive an Electorate Allowance and are entitled to receive other Benefits including Travel, Retirement Travel and Superannuation benefits.

Background
A legislative and policy history of this topic can be found in Remuneration of Members of the Parliament of Australia Research Paper No 30 1999-2000 by Margaret Healy and Geoff Winter. Use this Research Paper for historical information only as the Appendices are now out-of-date. The paper will not be revised.

Administration
Executive responsibility
The responsible Ministers, with selected adminstered legislation, are:

The Hon John Howard MP, Prime Minister.
Governor-General Act 1974

Senator the Hon Nicholas Minchin, Minister for Finance and Administration.
Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952, Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990.

The Special Minister of State, The Hon Gary Nairn MP, has specific responsibility for administering some allowances and benefits under this legislation.

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.
Remuneration and Allowance Act 1990, Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973

The usual suspects are the ones who decide how much THEY get paid.

We need to listen to Des Moore.

Obviously as there are lots of unemployed people the potential employers are not willing to pay the costs of employing them.

There is plenty of work to be done - even though some of it is pretty menial - let an open wages market set the price without interference.

But, in our society everyone should be entitled to a reasonable income. That doesn't have to come from wages though. Let us say we decode tp guarantee every worker an income of $600 a week as a previous respondent suggests. Whatever doesn't come from a wage payment should come from a government transfer payment.

Those who choose to opt out of the workforce should get a "retirement"income, probably less than the $600 guaranteed to a worker, but enough to live on.

The "market"is real and can't be wished away by ideology. But a just society can supplement what the market offers.