100th issue congratulations

Heartfelt congratulations to all on a job well done and a really great achievement. My most grateful thanks and appreciation for your confirmed kindness and generosity in sending me this most interesting informative and valuable publication; this courtesy is much valued. Kind regards and best wishes for continued success to all, and keep up the good work.

– K Liston

Clarifying WorkChoices

What a refreshing article on WorkChoices! (Issue 101, 4 April 2006) The Government’s haste in bringing in the biggest change in employment relations history has left many an employer, or rather HR professional, scratching their heads. It seems the only way to find out information is through constant probing and researching. Award rationalisation, I found out after looking at the DEWR website, has been extended till the end of April. Moreover, the vague wording of much of the legislation and standard are an enormous task, and as a HR professional in a SME, I just do not have the time to read through the riveting 700-odd pages of legislation, plus the regulations.

Seeking assistance from the OEA and employer associations has been testing, as nobody seems to know the answer. Given the massive penalties in place for non-compliance, particularly in relation to AWA’s $33,000, fear of reprisal is paramount. This, in conjunction with management pressure to introduce changes, has made the introduction of WorkChoices challenging indeed. However, after attending a symposium held by the Association for Payroll Specialists in conjunction with Workplace Law, a number of the changes were made clear and, more importantly, practical advice was provided on how to go about introducing them. One of the changes that I’m sure many HR professionals and others will get a kick out of is CEOs and general managers now having to keep hours of work. Does a four-hour ‘networking lunch’ count?

– Leona Lobo, human resources, Chippendale Printing Company

CEO take on HR confirmed

It seems the consumers of the service offered by HR departments support my views (Issue 95, 13 December 2005) more than the views of those “practitioners” who were so quick to get stuck into me and explain what a wonderful job they were doing. They might think they’re keeping their organisations afloat, but their customers – the CEOs – beg to differ! I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.

– Harry Houston, general manager, Form-Rite Australia

Getting the tax facts right

At lunchtime today, I was catching up on my journals and read your editorial in issue 97 (7 February 2006), “Sure, they can earn great pay here. But when half of it goes to the taxman …” Not sure where you got your figures from, Craig, but it certainly wasn’t the ATO. At $63,000, an Australian taxpayer pays about $14,760 or less than 24 per cent in tax and at $95,000, one is liable for about $28,200 in tax, which is less than 30 per cent.

Currently it is only taxable income above $95,000, which attracts a tax rate of 47 cents, but as of 1 July 2006, this threshhold will increase to $125,000. Of course, these figures exclude the Medicare Levy but they also assume that our hypothetical taxpayer has no deductions.

You have drawn comparisons with Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore. I know nothing about property prices in Dubai but have some awareness of the other two cities. Suffice to say that what is available for rent at, say, $2,000 per month in Australia is vastly superior to the other places. Then there’s the availability and cost of comparable schooling and health services.

There is no argument from me regarding talent shortages and retention challenges but I do take issue with your editorial licence regarding tax rates. You may care to correct this in a later edition.

– Andrew Marjason, senior associate, The Consultancy Bureau