Cats are funny. Cats are smart. Cats are wise.
How is this for a proposal. There must be a lawyer out there who might have a view.
For those not arithmetically inclined, that is a difference of $444 per week (an unfortunate number).
What the minimum wage basically means is that it is illegal for someone to work/employ someone at a rate of remuneration of less than $719 per week.
But what if there was a worker who was prepared to work for $650 per week and an employer prepared to pay that amount? Well sorry. That is against the law and someone will go to jail.
Another way to look at this is that the Commonwealth Government is preventing someone earning income between $275 per week and $719 per week. Now given section 51 xxxi of the Australian constitution says:
the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws
Is the Commonwealth “confiscating” people’s productivity, labour and intellectual property without just compensation? Could this mean that the Commonwealth unemployment benefit must be the same as the Commonwealth minimum wage so as not to fall foul of the Constitutions?
Clearly, if this was the case, either the unemployment benefit must increase significantly or the national minimum wage must drop – both unlikely scenarios.
The only way that such rate differentials could hold would be for the national minimum wage to disappear to be replaced by a state minimum wage. Perhaps a step in the reversion of industrial relations policy back to the states and away from the Commonwealth.
This could allow the states to compete for labour such that low cost of living states (eg SA) could attract labour from high cost of living states (eg NSW or VIC). You know like the constitution originally envisaged competition between the states.
Is this realistic? Can it be done? Is Dennis Denuto accepting briefs?