Australia raises minimum wages by 3.5% as inflation eases
SYDNEY : Australia's independent wage-setting body on Tuesday raised the national minimum wage by 3.5% effective July 1, a real wage increase for about 2.6 million workers on the lowest pay as inflationary pressures ease in the economy.
The minimum rate will rise to A$24.94 (US$16.19) per hour, resulting in an extra A$1,670 in a year for full-time employees, according to the Fair Work Commission's (FWC) annual review.
Headline consumer price inflation held at 2.4% in the first quarter, comfortably within the Reserve Bank of Australia's target band of 2% to 3% and having come down from the 7.8% peak in late 2022.
FWC President Adam Hatcher said the decision could help many workers to recoup the loss of their real income over the last few years due to high living costs.
'If this opportunity is not taken in this annual wage review, a loss in the real value of wages which has occurred will become permanently embedded … and a reduction of living standards for the lowest paid in the community will thereby be entrenched,' Hatcher said.
Last year, the FWC increased minimum wages by 3.75% but that was largely in line with inflation.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) described the wage increase as 'a great outcome' for employees on minimum wages, who it said suffered the most when inflation soared after the Covid-19 pandemic.
'Our lowest-paid workers are getting ahead again,' ACTU secretary Sally McManus told reporters.
The Reserve Bank of Australia cut interest rates to a two-year low last month as cooling inflation at home offered scope to counter rising global trade risks, and left the door open to further easing in the months ahead.
At the same time, the labour market has remained surprisingly resilient, with the jobless rate hovering at 4.1% for over a year now. Employment gains have been driven by a surge in public sector jobs, with still tepid wage growth suggesting few risks of a damaging wage-price spiral.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
8 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Aussie court says women can sue Qatar Airways over strip-search ordeal
Today's ruling paves the way for the women to sue Qatar Airways. (EPA Images pic) SYDNEY : A group of Australian women strip-searched after boarding a Qatar Airways flight in Doha won a court victory today that paves the way for them to sue the airline. In an incident that sparked international outrage, Qatari authorities pulled women off 10 planes in Doha in 2020 and forced them to take invasive gynaecological exams. Authorities were hunting for the mother of a newborn found abandoned in an airport bathroom. Five Australian women caught up in the ordeal lodged legal action against Qatar Airways, claiming they were assaulted and falsely imprisoned. Australia's federal court last year ruled they could not directly sue the airline. But that decision was reversed today on appeal, with three federal court judges stating the case should be heard at trial. Australia's government cited the incident as a reason to block Qatar Airways from operating more flights into the country. Qatar's then prime minister, Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz Al Thani, at the time offered his 'sincerest apologies for what some female travellers went through'.
Free Malaysia Today
9 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Australia relaxes curbs on US beef imports that angered Trump
Australia has shipped between 150,000 tonnes and 400,000 tonnes of beef to the US every year since 1990. (EPA Images pic) CANBERRA : Australia will ease restrictions on beef imports from the US, the country's agriculture ministry said today, potentially smoothing trade talks with US President Donald Trump, who had attacked its rules. 'Still, the decision, which US agriculture secretary Brooke Rollins called a win for Trump, is unlikely to significantly boost US shipments because beef prices are much lower in Australia,' analysts said. Australia agriculture minister Julie Collins said in a statement that a 'rigorous science and risk-based assessment' had concluded that US measures to monitor and control the movement of cattle meant biosecurity risks were being effectively managed. The government 'will never compromise on biosecurity', she said, adding: 'Australia stands for open and fair trade – our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this'. Canberra has restricted US beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the US has been allowed into Australia since 2019. However, few suppliers were able to prove their animals had been only in the US, because cattle frequently moved between the US, Canada and Mexico without being adequately tracked. The US has been improving its ability to monitor animals' movements to limit the spread of avian influenza and the New World screwworm, a parasite that eats cattle alive. 'Recognising those improvements, Australia will now also accept beef sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and legally imported and slaughtered in the US,' the agriculture ministry said. 'Australian firms will be able to apply for import permits from July 28,' it added. Almost double 'Gone are the days of putting American farmers on the sidelines,' US agriculture secretary Rollins said in a statement crediting Trump with opening Australia's market. 'It's absurd that non-scientific trade barriers prevented our beef from being sold to consumers in Australia for the last 20 years,' she said. News of Australia changing its policy was first reported by the Australian Financial Review. The report said Australia will use the easing of rules to argue its case for the US to wind back 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium and Trump's threat to impose a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Collins said the decision was a purely scientific one. Trump in April singled out the beef trade disparity with Australia after Australia's beef exports to the US last year, reaching A$4 billion (US$2.64 billion) amid a slump in US beef production. Australia's biosecurity regimen aims to keep its cattle disease-free and help it preserve access to lucrative markets such as Japan and South Korea. Industry body Cattle Australia and the shadow agriculture minister said there should be an independent review of the decision before it goes into effect. 'There is simply too much at stake,' said Will Evans, Cattle Australia's CEO. 'The highest level of caution must be exercised to protect Australia's beef industry,' Evans said. US beef shipments to Australia restarted last year after a hiatus. However, exports remained tiny. Last year's shipment of 269 tonnes of beef to Australia was the most for any year, beating out the 263 tonnes sent in 1995, Australian customs data show. Australia has shipped between around 150,000 tonnes and 400,000 tonnes of beef every year to the US since 1990, with US fast-food chains prizing Australian product for its lower fat content and competitive prices. 'Cattle prices in the US are almost always higher than in Australia and are currently double Australian levels,' said Matt Dalgleish, a meat and livestock analyst at consultants Episode 3. 'This is not going to displace Australian beef in the Australian market,' he said.
Malay Mail
10 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Why no legal action in Batu Puteh's case? — Hafiz Hassan
JULY 24 — All decisions made by the Public Prosecutor (PP) aka Attorney General (AG) on whether to prosecute or not to prosecute should promote consistency in decision making. This is where a prosecution policy would be useful. The policy should outline the relevant factors and considerations which should be taken into account when prosecutors exercise their discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence. The policy should also serve to inform the public and lawyers of the principles which guide the decisions made by the prosecutors. In Australia, the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth provides a two-stage test that must be satisfied before a prosecution is commenced. First, there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute the case. Second, it must be evident from the facts of the case, and all the surrounding circumstances, that the prosecution would be in the public interest. In December 2024, a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) recommended a criminal investigation against Dr Mahathir under Section 415(b) and Section 418 of the Penal Code. — Picture from X/ahmadmaslan In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a case the prosecutors must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of the elements of the offence and a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. The existence of a prima facie case is not sufficient. In making this decision, the prosecutors must evaluate how strong the case is likely to be when presented in court. They must take into account matters such as the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses, their likely effect on the arbiter of fact, and the admissibility of any alleged confession or other evidence. The prosecutors should also have regard to any lines of defence open to the alleged offender and any other factors that could affect the likelihood or otherwise of a conviction. The possibility that any evidence might be excluded by a court should be taken into account and, if that evidence is crucial to the case, this may substantially affect the decision whether or not to institute or proceed with a prosecution. The prosecutors must look beneath the surface of the evidence in a matter, particularly in borderline cases. Having been satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation or continuation of a prosecution, the prosecutors must then consider whether the public interest requires a prosecution to be pursued. In this regard, the prosecutors must consider all of the provable facts and all of the surrounding circumstances. The public interest factors to be considered inevitably vary from case to case, but the following may be considered: whether the offence is serious or trivial; any mitigating or aggravating circumstances; the youth, age, intelligence, physical health, mental health or special vulnerability of the alleged offender, witness or victim; the alleged offender's antecedents and background; the passage of time since the alleged offence; the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution; the prevalence of the alleged offence and the need for general and personal deterrence; the attitude of the victim; the need to give effect to regulatory or punitive imperatives; and the likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt. The above are not the only factors, but generally the more serious the alleged offence is, the more likely it will be that the public interest will require that a prosecution be pursued. The decision to prosecute must be made impartially and must not be influenced by any inappropriate reference to race, religion, sex, national origin or political association. The decision to prosecute must not also be influenced by any political advantage or disadvantage to the government. If age is just a factor and not the only factor to prosecute a case, why the decision not to pursue legal action against former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad over Malaysia's withdrawal of its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh? In December 2024, a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) recommended a criminal investigation against Dr Mahathir under Section 415(b) and Section 418 of the Penal Code. Dr Mahathir said then that he was prepared to face any investigation and emphasised his integrity during his time as prime minister. Let there be an investigation. It is not even a prosecution, not yet. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
