Posted: May 11, 2005

Shuddering in shame!

In last night's dismal Budget Speech we witnessed the Treasurer continually using two separate concepts as if they were interchangeable. In doing so he clearly was trying to blur the fact that there was not a job in sight in his Budget. It was his 10th Budget and he hopes it will be his last. I hope so too but for different reasons. The other problem is that the Opposition response has been so dismal that the state of macroeconomics in the public policy arena is very bleak. But back to my story. Early on in his speech the Treasurer said:

We should now aim for an economy where every Australian who wants work can find it. At a time when more Australians are participating in work than ever before we want to spread that participation further. We want to encourage more people to join the workforce. Tonight I announce the largest ever programme designed to assist those on welfare move out of welfare and into work.

I agree full employment means that everyone who wants to work at the current wage structure can find work. There are qualitative nuances, such as, complete matching of skills to jobs and such, but the quantum of jobs and hours of work is the first necessary condition.

So then read the second paragraph - first it is about 'participation' then it is blurred into 'work' Well the unemployed are already participating and the fact that the unemployment rate has been above 5 per cent for 30 years or so indicates that participation is no guarantee of work. In fact, the figures on the long-term unemployed and average duration (over 50 weeks and much worse in regional Australia) show that the same persons are carrying the burden of erroneous macroeconomic policy that keeps them unemployed.

So while the Treasurer keeps blurring the 'participation' and 'work' terms, as have many of his colleagues throughout the day in the media (ad nauseum), no one should be fooled. They do not mean work - that is, having a job. They mean, participate - queue up and compete among each other for the scarce number of jobs their policies maintain.

Later in the speech, the Treasurer said:

People who are unable to find work deserve support from the taxes paid by those who are working. But those who are working deserve to know that others capable of work are at least looking for work in return for their income support. If more people are able to move from welfare to work then this will help them with higher incomes and better participation in mainstream economic life. It will also reduce the obligation on other taxpayers whose taxes pay for the welfare support.

First, the taxpayers do not support government spending. The Government is not financially constrained and can spend whenever it wants irrespective of the 'tax take'. But in fooling us into believing our 'hard earned' dollars are supporting others it allows the Government to demonise the disadvantaged workers who are without jobs because the Government is taxing too much or spending too little (that is, not net spending enough).

Second, you will note the intent is for the unemployed to be showing intent to look for work. Then, in the next sentence, as if there is no difference in meaning, the Treasurer slips into the myth that the policy changes they announced are about moving people into work - to help them get higher incomes - and to help them enjoy more inclusion. In fact, the policy initiative (and I did not really want to use the word initiative because it usually means progression!) aims squarely to herd the unemployed and DSP recipients and sole parents around in the same circus tent - get them all in the same tent and humiliate them and reduce their self esteem and motivation to zero - tell them they have to work because the taxpayers demand it but then all along know that it is not possible under Government macroeconomic policy and the resulting employment growth for them all to find work.

Let me be absolutely clear. I support higher rates of participation. I support inclusive measures to allow the disabled to realise whatever employment potential they have and aspire to. I support single parents being able to find work-family balance to allow them to improve their own self esteem and skills yet maintain essential family unit attachment. All of the above. But I only support policies that promote higher rates of participation if there are enough jobs to match the labour force that is implied by this increased activity. Otherwise, it is a cruel hoax and a sign of a harsh, mean-spirited government.

But now we have started deporting our own citizens and we feel secure in the fact that young children spend their first many years behind bars in detention prisons and we continue to support public policy that imprisons the mentally ill without proper care ... anything seems to be acceptable. However, the logic of all this has missed me. I just shudder in shame!

Blog entry posted by bill