My Blog

Tag: Economics

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

    The post On International Women’s Day: How the Fair Work Commission Can Really Take On the Gender Pay Gap appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Aged care reforms fall short on quality, safety

    The Centre for Future Work warns that reforms due to come into effect from July – including screening requirements to exclude unsuitable workers and a mandatory code of conduct – do not go far enough to ensure the quality and safety or recognise workers’ skills.

    Key findings:

    • The report, Professionalising the Aged Care Workforce, calls for the mandated, sector-wide professional registration and minimum aged care worker qualifications that require all workers to have at least a Certificate III
    • Costs would be minimal because two out of three personal care workers already have a Certificate III or higher qualification
    • Mandating minimum training requirements would lead to higher quality and safer care as well as better career paths for workers to help meet the growing and complex needs of an ageing Australia
    • Two of every three personal care workers already hold a Certificate III or higher qualification
    • Minimum aged care worker qualifications to Certificate III level and access to ongoing professional development were key recommendations of the 2021 Aged Care Royal Commission

    “This is about long-term sustainability for the aged care workforce,” said Dr Fiona Macdonald, Policy Director, The Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute.

    “Setting a minimum education standard for all aged care workers would lead to higher quality care. It would also allow for the recognition of the skills required to care for society’s most vulnerable.

    “Four out of five aged care workers are women and care work has long been undervalued and low paid. Fixing this is vital for people receiving care, workers and our communities.

    “Workers are facing new demands to comply with screening and obligations to meet standards under a new code of conduct. Yet, there is still no formal recognition of workers’ skills or system-wide requirements for accredited training.

    “While the government is moving to screen out unsuitable aged care workers, it is failing to give those working in or considering aged care meaningful professional development or options for career progression.

    “Mandatory and coordinated accreditation would allow workers to have their skills recognised, boost job satisfaction and make the industry more attractive as a long-term career.

    “The Aged Care Royal Commission has been crystal clear about the need for these reforms. It’s beyond time to deliver them.”

    The post Aged care reforms fall short on quality, safety appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • RBA rate rises are hurting workers most

    How RBA interest rate rises are falling hardest on working Australians.

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

    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.

    The post More loopholes to close on insecure work … and a new right to disconnect from work appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Right to Disconnect Essential as Devices Intrude Into Workers Lives

    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.

    The post “Right to Disconnect” Essential as Devices Intrude Into Workers’ Lives appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Fels Review Confirms Corporate Practices As Key Drivers of Inflation

    Key points:

    • The Australia Institute and its Centre for Future Work, which were among the first to identify the role of record-high corporate profits in driving the acceleration of inflation after the COVID lockdowns, made a major submission to the Fels inquiry and appeared before its public hearing in Melbourne in September 2023
    • A 2023 Centre for Future Work report showed that over two-thirds of excess economy-wide inflation (above the RBA’s 2.5% target) from end-2019 through the September quarter of 2022 was attributable to higher unit corporate profits.
    • Australia Institute reports documented that the rise in profits was strongest in industries with concentrated or strategic power in the broader economy: including mining and energy, manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade.

    “Prof Fels’ careful review confirms that price-setting strategies by corporations, including many obviously unfair and exploitative practices, have contributed significantly to the cost-of-living crisis afflicting Australian households,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist for the Australia Institute.

    “Since the current inflationary cycle began after COVID lockdowns, there has been too much attention on wages, labour costs, and consumer spending as the supposed drivers of higher prices. The RBA and other policy-makers have been too slow to acknowledge the role of profit and greed in pushing up prices.

    “This inquiry marshals abundant evidence from official statistical agencies, international economic organisations, think tanks and academic research to show that corporations have taken advantage of the pandemic and its aftermath to exploit consumers and drive up inflation.

    “Prof Fels’ report contributes to a more accurate understanding of what is causing the cost-of-living crisis, and a more balanced and fair strategy for solving it.”

    “Australian corporate profits have moderated in the last year, as supply chains were repaired and energy prices retreated. This has been crucial to the partial slowdown in inflation experienced in the same time.

    “But further reductions in prices for many essential goods and services are required to fully repair living standards, and Prof Fels’ recommendations for more exposure of excess prices and stronger competition measures to reduce them would help a lot.”

    The post Fels’ Review Confirms Corporate Practices As Key Drivers of Inflation appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

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

    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.

    The post We Cannot Truly Value ‘Care’ Until Workers Using Digital Labour Platforms Get Fair Pay and Conditions appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

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

    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.

    The post Closing Loopholes: Important repairs to the industrial relations system, no more, no less appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • New Report Reveals Changing Face and Future of Self-Employment

    The Centre for Future Work’s Carmichael Centre study shows that self-employment is both shrinking and becoming more precarious.

    Over the past decade, there were 112,000 fewer employers, 35,000 more part-time solo self-employed, and 91,000 fewer full-time solo self-employed than there would have been if their shares of total employment had remained unchanged.

    “Contrary to some predictions, self-employment has not taken over the world – but the nature of what self-employment means has changed,” said David Peetz, research fellow and author of Self Employment Myths & Realities.

    “Self-employment is in decline, not just in Australia but overseas.

    “The only thing that’s growing in the self-employment area is part-time, solo self-employment. A lot of that is ‘gig’ work. It’s insecure, the pay is poor, it’s sometimes even dangerous.

    “The nature of what self-employment means has changed. For someone wanting to be their own boss, it’s a lot harder these days to get a small business into markets. Big firms aren’t keen to let them in. They’re a lot happier to just hire a contractor to do short gigs for them.

    “There’s a lot of barriers to start-ups, but there’s no barriers to how many delivery drivers rely on three different apps to make ends meet.

    “This has left many self-employed workers exposed to poorly regulated or non-existent workplace standards.”

    The report shows standards and protections can be set for gig workers. This can be done in ways that these workers actually want, without getting in the way of the genuine innovators among the self-employed.

    “The second tranche of the government’s Closing Loopholes Bill puts a floor on gig work standards and is vital to protect livelihoods and the economy,” Professor Peetz said.

    “Workers want the flexibility that comes with self-employment, but they also want and deserve to be protected.

    “The protections in the government’s Closing Loopholes Bill, returning to parliament next year, strike the right balance between protecting the right to choose self-employment and stamping out exploitation of vulnerable workers.”

    The post New Report Reveals Changing Face and Future of Self-Employment appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.

  • Special Issue of Journal Marks Halfway Point of First Albanese Government

    The Journal of Australian Political Economy, a peer-reviewed journal based at the University of Sydney, has today published a special issue evaluating the record of the Albanese government during the first half of its term in office.

    The special issue features 19 articles reviewing various aspects of the government’s legislative and policy agenda since its election in May 2022. Topics covered include economic and monetary policy, labour issues, energy and climate, foreign policy (including the AUKUS treaty), and the Voice referendum.

    The special issue was edited by Professor Emeritus Frank Stilwell of the University of Sydney’s Department of Political Economy.

    All articles included are available open-access here.

    “The midpoint of the current federal Labor government’s term of office is a good time to take stock and assess its performance,” said Professor Stilwell.

    “The mixture of the government’s accomplishments, and its continuing policy and political challenges, show the tensions as well as the possibilities when the Labor party is at the helm of the ship of state.”

    “One topic that continues to bedevil the government is its plan to move ahead with Stage 3 tax cuts, despite criticisms that they will widen income inequality in Australia and add to inflationary pressures,” said David Richardson, Senior Researcher at the Australia Institute and co-author of the special issue’s review of tax policies.

    “The Stage 3 cuts are massively regressive, and the government should instead focus its tax reform efforts on developing a fairer system for taxing capital gains.

    “Since the ratio of wealth to income is predicted to double in the next 40 years, Australia urgently needs to ensure the owners of wealth make a fair contribution to the costs of a decent society,” Richardson concluded.

    “The government deserves positive grades for measures taken to strengthen collective bargaining and boost wage growth,” said Jim Stanford, Director of the Centre for Future Work and a co-author of the special issue’s article on labour policy.

    “While more labour reforms are needed, the government has made significant strides toward a better balance between workers and employers, and revitalising long-stagnant wage growth,” Stanford added.

    Five of the articles in the special issue reflect contributions from staff and associates of the Australia Institute, including:

    • Labour Policy: co-authored by five staff members of the Institute’s Centre for Future Work.
    • Tax Policy: co-authored by Prof Stilwell and David Richardson, Senior Researcher at the Australia Institute.
    • Care Policy: authored by Dr Fiona Macdonald, Policy Director for the Centre for Future Work.
    • Energy Policy: co-authored by Dr Matthew Ryan, Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Australia Institute, and Prof Stuart Rosewarne of the University of Sydney.
    • Monetary Policy: authored by Dr Mike Beggs of the University of Sydney, and Associate of the Centre for Future Work.

    The post Special Issue of Journal Marks Halfway Point of First Albanese Government appeared first on The Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work.