Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: No more slow-motion trainwrecks |  |
|
Ever watched a slow-motion trainwreck? Well, of course you have. You've seen Morrison's ham-fisted attempts to justify his $50 billion handout to big overseas investors. You've seem Trumble's multi-week climate and energy policy disaster.
But today, Trumble's government abandoned the slow motion trainwreck tactic and replaced it with a better one: the very fast trainwreck.
Pioneering this new tactic was Employment Minister Cash.
First, she put out an official statement that claimed people who earn $17.70 an hour are "often found in high-income households". Then she goes on radio to 'explain' it - carefully selecting a rusted-on Liberal supporter named Neil Mitchell as her foil. (You may have heard of him.)
Are you ready for the trainwreck? Herre we go.
| Quote: | MITCHELL: What's this line mean, quote "low income workers are often found in high income households". What does that mean?
CASH: Again, often what it is is that they will have another partner that has a high income but and they are part of the contribution to that household's income.
MITCHELL: And what percentage of the low income workers are in that position?
CASH: Well as I said there's only about 200,000 workers that are actually paid at the minimum wage and that is why when you actually look at where the majority of workers lie, the vast majority of people are paid under awards and they actually receive more.
MITCHELL: I understand that, but what percentage of the 200,000 as you say in your submission found in high income households?
CASH: Well, it's not so much what percentage…
MITCHELL: Well of course it is!
CASH: No no no, because you've actually got to look at the minimum wage review in to…to you can't just literally pick and choose one sentence. So when you look at all of the information that the Government has provided to the minimum wage submission, and again it doesn't matter who is in power, it's contemporary economic information.
MITCHELL: Well you tell me. What does it mean "are often found in high-income households"? How many of the 200,000 people struggling along on $17.70 an hour are coming from high-income households, how relevant is the minimum wage in that case?
CASH: Oh look, can I tell you, the minimum wage is absolutely relevant and no one denies that.
MITCHELL: Minister, you don't have a figure here, do you?
CASH: No, no, no…what is…it's not that we don't have a figure Neil…
MITCHELL: You do have a figure? Give it to me!
CASH: It's very much that you need to look at the minimum wage review as a whole, okay?
MITCHELL: You've put this argument that - I agree you're putting other arguments as well - but you've put this argument that many of the people on the lowest wage are actually coming from wealthier households. How many of them?
CASH: OK, OK.
MITCHELL: That's a simple point, how many, what percentage?
CASH: No, OK, I don't have the figure, OK, but it's not as simple as that, as I said, you pick and choose a particular line from the submission and then what you then lose is the totality of what the submission
MITCHELL: But Minister, please, please, I understand that, I think we all understand that. The point is, in political terms this line from your department, this line from the Government about low-paid workers being found in high-income households is poison. The electorate will look at that and say 'You elite lot'. I mean, how many of the middle-aged women going and cleaning toilets in hotels today are going home to a rich sugar daddy?
CASH: No, no, no, please…
MITCHELL: That is what you're saying here.
CASH: No, no, I really… No, no, no. I do take issue with that because that is not…
MITCHELL: Quote, "are often found in high income households".
CASH: But again, what you would do, you are taking one sentence and you are distorting the fact.
MITCHELL: Alright, I give up.
|
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
