Shadow Minister

Err.... it's not a competition !

My thesis is simply this:

In the absence of better (more granular) data it appears that this is the best ANYONE can do. (Simple, empirical fact really!)

See here (para 3.9):
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/d1bc8901d3721108ca2572c1002449cf!OpenDocument

and here (para 2.34):
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/1c15cf9774a872dbca2572c100244aa4!OpenDocument

So, I submit to you....how would you KNOW that “the number of people on a few hrs/wk (<10) that want to work full time is statistically irrelevant” if you cannot separate those who work "a few" hours per week, from those who work 50+ hours per week? (Statistics 101).

I do not dispute that someone who works "a few" hours a week isn't employed, they clearly are (a priori), and probably satisfyingly so.

However, I do contest that the inclusion of this category for political purposes, in order to claim the economic "full employment" status is a politicians' sleight-of-hand trick. In doing so I would also submit that this makes the employment estimated almost useless as a measure.