Minister does not answer after being asked repeatedly to explain government claim about workers on the minimum wage

This article is more than 3 years old

This article is more than 3 years old

Michaelia Cash has struggled to explain the government’s claim the minimum wage rise should be restrained because low-paid Australians “are often found in high-income households”.

On 3AW on Thursday, broadcaster Neil Mitchell repeatedly asked the employment minister how many of the 200,000 workers on the minimum wage lived in high-income households, which she failed to answer after at least 10 attempts.

It comes as the Turnbull government faces pressure on two fronts over workers’ pay, as Labor has gathered broad crossbench support for a bill to block penalty rate cuts and criticised the government’s submission asking the Fair Work Commission to take a “cautious approach” on the minimum wage.

During question time, Malcolm Turnbull defended the submission as “responsible” and cited similar submissions from the previous Labor government that low-income earners did not necessarily live in low-income households.

Xenophon backflip on penalty rates means bill to stop cuts will pass Senate Read more

The Turnbull government submission argued that increases in the minimum wage are not an efficient way to address poor living standards and the needs of the low-paid.

“Low-paid employees are often found in high-income households,” it said. “The tax-transfer system also provides considerable support to low-income households.”

The submission states that nearly half of low-paid workers live in households in the top 50% of total household income, because of the higher earnings of their partner.

In question time Turnbull quoted Labor’s 2012 submission that “around half of all low-paid workers live in the top six household income deciles”.



“And, of course, from 2013, the panel should also consider the fact that all low-paid workers do not necessarily live in low-income households.”

Treasurer Scott Morrison noted that Bill Shorten was employment minister when that submission was made.

Earlier on 3AW Cash was asked to justify the claim that “often” the low-paid are in high-income households, and twice said the government was just providing economic information to the Fair Work Commission.

When Mitchell asked: “So how many of those 200,000 people have got fat, rich parents at home?”, Cash replied: “Oh well, it’s not necessarily fat rich parents, and I’d never say that.”

After a third question, she explained the low-paid sometimes lived with a person receiving a high income.



Mitchell produced the figure of 200,000 who were dependent on the minimum wage, which Cash seized on as “exactly right”.



Asked what proportion of those 200,000 were in high-income households, Cash said “it’s not so much what percentage” that was important, to which Mitchell retorted “of course it is”.

Mitchell then repeatedly challenged the employment minister to quantify either how many or what proportion were low-paid workers in high-income households.

Sundays aren't that special, right? Not according to the Fair Work Commission | Greg Jericho Read more

Cash said “it’s not as simple as that” and accused him of taking one aspect of the submission out of context.

Mitchell claimed the submission amounted to arguing that “middle-aged women going and cleaning toilets in hotels ... are going home to a rich sugar daddy”.

Cash replied: “No, no, no. I do take issue with that because that is not … but again ... you are taking one sentence and you are distorting the fact.”

The employment minister said minimum-wage decisions had to take account of “the economy as a whole” and the government is “absolutely” committed to “a fair go for everyone”.

At a press conference Labor deputy leader and shadow minister for women, Tanya Plibersek, said the submission was “extraordinary” and she was appalled by it.

“The idea that if you live in a household with a high income, your wage consequently should fall or not grow is medieval – it is going back to the days when whole families were indentured to the one lord.”

Shadow employment minister, Brendan O’Connor, said Cash “may not have remembered [the submission], it’s more likely she didn’t read it”. He called on the FWC to disregard it.

O’Connor said sluggish minimum wage rises would undermine other workers’ conditions because they would have less leverage to ask for higher pay rises in enterprise agreements.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has argued for a $45 a-week increase in the minimum wage.

The Australian Industry Group has called for a “modest” increase of 1.5%, or about $10.10 per week. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has labelled the ACTU claim “irresponsible”, arguing it would add to unemployment.

The Fair Work Commission will hold hearings on the minimum wage in April and May, for a decision on the pay increase by early June to apply from 1 July.

On 3AW Cash was asked if she can work with new ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, who used her speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday to double down on comments justifying disregarding unjust anti-strike laws.

“I can work with the diverse Senate crossbench, so I am prepared to work with anyone. What I won’t stand for is anyone who continually makes statement that are wrong,” she replied.

Cash accuses McManus of incorrectly stating the law on right of entry by suggesting unionists would have to give 24 hours’ notice to investigate a safety complaint, and points out that no advance notice is required when they suspect a work health and safety breach.