Ms CORCORAN (4:43 PM) —Before question time intervened, I was making the point that, at the same time as the Workplace Relations Amendment (Protecting the Low Paid) Bill 2003 is before the parliament, we have a number of highly paid executives getting some seriously large redundancy payouts. There seems to be some sort of conflict which the government is not prepared to do anything about, but it is quite happy to have a go at those on low incomes.

This bill is just another attempt by this government to hit those who cannot always look after themselves. We already have the example of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme bill, which is an attempt to cover up embarrassing budget problems by demanding a big increase in pharmaceuticals, which of course is a regressive payment because it affects those on low incomes far more than it affects anybody else. We also see problems with bulk-billing and access to doctors, which is another burden that falls heaviest on the low-income earner. Despite what was said in question time today, this already is a problem and does hit low-income families.

If passed, this bill will adversely affect many low-paid workers whilst others in the community will be handsomely rewarded for basically failing in their jobs. It has been pointed out to me that those workers targeted by this bill would have to work for some 1,500 years to earn the sort of money some redundant executives are receiving. On behalf of all the low-income earners in my electorate of Isaacs, I support the amendment moved here today and I most strenuously oppose the bill.