There seems little doubt that Families Minister Jenny Macklin’s office attempted to “fix up” her extraordinary faux pas last Tuesday – her claim that yes, she could live on the daily income of $35 received by people on Newstart.
Macklin has properly endured some opprobrium for what is plainly an attempt to edit her comments out of the official written record. She probably regretted her response as soon as she uttered it, and the temptation to “clean up” unintended utterances in the transcript is always there. Journalists must be vigilant to such attempts, and no doubt they are aided by the political opponents of the person in question.
The real story here, however, is the policy that Macklin was selling during Tuesday’s press conference, and how it relates to core Labor values.
The competence equation
When it was announced last year that single parents would be taken off the parenting payment and placed on the dole, which not only leaves them $100 worse off every week but also forces them to apply for at least 10 jobs every fortnight, there was widespread acknowledgement that the measure was part of a suite of “tough” fiscal decisions that needed to be made so that the budget could be returned to surplus.
Now Wayne Swan has withdrawn his previously iron-clad promise to run a budget surplus in the current financial year, there seemed little stopping Macklin from delaying or reversing her decision about parenting payments – especially when almost everyone else, from ACOSS to the Business Council and even Parliament itself – is strongly opposed to it.
But there was always going to be one reason in particular that would drive the government to press on with its cost-cutting measure. The government is determined to be seen as being led by competent economic managers, and competency has been determined in this respect as the ability to run a budget surplus.
The pursuit of economic folly
Very early on in her prime ministership, Julia Gillard took up her predecessor John Howard’s crude formulation of competent economic management, and committed her government to achieving surplus by 2012-13.
This was always economic folly: a budget surplus is what a government should aim for in economic boom times so that it can keep inflation under control while the private sector bubbles along creating jobs and wealth. But in recessions, downturns or periods of sluggish growth, deficits are preferable so that governments can inject some otherwise-absent cash into the system.
It’s true that the Liberal Party has not furthered the cause of economic literacy. Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have been happy to trade on the cart-before-the-horse idea that “surplus equals good economic manager”. But that’s hardly surprising: the Liberal Party is in opposition, and it propounds a belief in small government.
More surprising – and disappointing – is Labor’s initial commitment to a surplus in order to prove its economic credentials, and the fact that it chose to reduce payments to single parents in order to achieve it.
The death of the welfare state
The 20th century idea of the welfare sate says the state should raise enough taxes to ensure the quality of any individual’s health care or education does not depend on their income, wealth or social standing. Traditionally, Labor fought for and defended this idea as a pillar of the social democratic society it sought to build through its reforms. For a time, the Liberal Party under Robert Menzies also defended a limited welfare state.
But for the past 30 years, both parties have been gradually dismantling the structures of the welfare state. John Howard won the battle of minds inside the Liberal Party during the 1980s, and it’s now standard fare for its agents to mount arguments, however spurious, against borrowing money to fund infrastructure and social spending in downturns.
Unfortunately for Labor, and for the country, the ALP also took up these ideas during the 1980s, to the point that it is no longer able to argue with the Liberal Party’s emphasis on budget surpluses. Representatives of the ALP can no longer articulate a social democratic defence of the welfare state.
There were plenty of line items the budget a social democratic government could have attacked if it wanted to save money, such as subsidies to oil and gas companies. That Labor chose single, stay-at-home parents reflects its unwillingness to defend the welfare state, which is widely acknowledged as one of the most important social democratic institutions in history.
A party without a philosophy
Macklin’s attempt to rationalise the policy last week – she claimed it was simply to ensure that all parenting payment recipients were assessed according to the same rules – reflected the worst kind of bureaucratic thinking, devoid of any fundamental political philosophy.
Her office’s attempt to “fix up” the minister’s comments for the record does little to displace the damaging perception that the Labor Party seems unsure as to the grounds for its own existence, beyond winning and retaining power.
One week on, it seems the government will eventually be forced into at least raising the meagre unemployment benefit from an appalling $245 per week.
That figure probably won’t rise by much. Meanwhile, the government suffers more damage from another backflip that could have been avoided if it was more philosophically certain of what it is trying to achieve.
Suzy Gneist
logged in via Facebook
Can only agree with this short analysis. Neo-liberal agendas have expelled social justice from politics. We are in dire need of new social ethics and representation and new (sustainable) economic models. This crisis is happening in many western democratic countries at present and I am encouraged to see not-so-well-off groups speak up for their rights (youth, indigenous,...) more and more. I for one am interested to hear what ideas these groups bring with them since the 'old guard' has seemingly lost touch with the present and future.
Lorraine Muller
PhD - eternal student
What makes me angry is that Julia Gillard had the gall to use the misogyny speech pointing the finger rightly at Tony Abbott, while imposing cuts on single parents, most of whom are women, and their children. Rather than closing off middle/upper class welfare, like the private health rebate, Gillard and gang would rather kick those who are doing it tough - and make the lives of their children even tougher.
When Rudd was PM, Gillard also objected to the raising of the single pension, most of whom are women.
Kevin Rudd did warn us that a Gillard govt would take a lurch to the right. He wasn't wrong.
Gillard sits on the far right of politics.
I agree that we need renewed social ethics but alas, both the Libs and Labor are in a race to the extreme right.
It was so good to hear Rudd take a stand on the dole payments and that many back benchers agree.
Michael Swifte
writer
Well put. It seems this government have been spooked by Joe Hockey's poisonous 'age of entitlement' dog whistle.
Good social welfare is a core Labor value and is meant to be a foil against the excesses of capitalism.
It is sad that the dole bludger meme has become so potent that politicians and the party room cannot summon the gumption to stand for the disadvantaged.
Lyn Gain
Social science lecturer
What can you expect from the woman who retained the most pernicious income quarantining aspects of the NT Intervention.
Comment removed by moderator.
Peter Ormonde
Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
Farmer
This has deep roots. Was a hot issue when I was a kiddie in policy peddling in the 80's ... aaaah yes.... those were the days ... ahem ....
And it is a difficult decision for Jenny Macklin to swallow let alone sell I'd reckon. Not being her confident considered self at all.
Some pressure from the surplus fetish/pledge/oath. But also philosophical in origins - the targeting of scarce welfare dollars to those most in need. It's a proddy thing - bound up with notions of the "deserving" poor…
Read moreScott Wallace
Technical Analyst
I agree Pete. Maybe you could propose some tax reform to raise revenue to provide free childcare for working parents, and you probably should go back to peddling policy.
I heard that the Japanese government provides free childcare for parents who work, but unemployment benefits are very difficult to get. I'm not sure how their system works, I only heard it from a friend who used to live there. Their unemployment rate is just above 4% at the moment even though their economy is still in recession, comparing to Australia which is afraid of inflation when unemployment rate falls below 5%.
Good to see you again. Take care.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
The thing that astonishes me is that politicians seems quite happy to denigrate the least advantaged of our society while at the same time throwing billions of dollars towards those most able to support themselves, be it middle/upper/corporate welfare in the form of Baby Bonus, FTB a&b, Private Health Rebate, Negative Gearing, Subsidies etc.
The benefit to society by providing stability for the least advantaged are not immediate, the benefit comes when the progeny of these people, having been provided a stable environment in which to grow up, enter into the mainstream.
Desperate people, who had desperate parents are more likely to engage in antisocial and destructive activities.
If i had a spare ham sandwich and Starvin Marvin on one side and Eric Cartman on the other, i'd give it to Marvin every time, but maybe thats just the way my Mum raised me, to have a conscience and to have compassion for those less fortunate.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
I would think the ALP completely disconnected from the rest of the country.
The party membership is now tiny in number, and most of the senior membership seems to be made up of layers and solicitors, with little connection to anyone.
The reduction in single parenting payments does not address the social problem of how to reduce the number of single parents in the first place.
Solving that problem is probably too political or beyond the capabilities of the ALP, particularly when de facto relationships are the number one cause of single parenting, and our illustrious Prime Minister lives in a de facto relationship with her current boyfriend in a taxpayer funded house.
Suzy Gneist
logged in via Facebook
Dale, are you suggesting that single parents should be forced to marry or stay in dysfunctional marriages in the first place to reduce their number? A marriage certificate provides no protection from or guarantee to avoid single parenthood - to discriminate on the basis of prejudice or blame doesn't provide a solution. Relying on patriarchal, conservative values to bring about an imaginary past cannot work when today's people no longer hold these values and the entire environment has changed.
I see a society's support of single parents as support of their children - Australia's future - and provides a chance for them to contribute. Australia is one of the richest countries on earth today - if we can't afford to look after our disadvantaged, I wonder who can.
Robert McDougall
Small Business Owner
i don't think either the ALP of LNP have the ability to solve this one and poking the prime minister about her personal relationship is irrelevent.
People become single parents for a range of reasons, which is their own business. The reality is that there are children involved and they deserve every opportunity to have a stable home environment in which to grow. Poverty begets Poverty and extreme poverty begets social disruption.
If you want to poke at someone i suggest you poke whomever introduced the baby bonus. Great formula there, pay everyone to have extra kids, then strip away the ability to support those kids in an appropriate manner.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Suzy Gneist
De facto relationships are the bigest cause of single parenting, followed by divorce.
By having a de facto relationship, the Prime Minister is encouraging other women to do the same, which will lead to more single parents.
Then the ALP reduces payments to single parents.
All rather cruel to single parents and the children involved, but the situation shows how messed up, disconnected and useless the ALP has become.
It is not a voice for the worker or anyone else.
Looking at the photo of Jenny Macklin on her $6,000 per week income, she appears like a feminist version of an overweight Hitler, and no one could find any inspiration from someone in the ALP.
Suzy Gneist
logged in via Facebook
So, if everyone adopted your values in relation to marriage vows, you believe the problem would be solved? The distinction between relationship status is really irrelevant when the actual cause for single parenthood is a breakdown in the relationship (divorce, separation), or severance (death).
In your logic, the previous, married, PM modelled your values - yet did that have any actual impact on marriage or de-facto rates?
Apart from that, I do agree that the ALP is far divorced from its traditional base - I doubt anyone in parliament comes from a disadvantaged or 'labour' background any more and compassion has become scarce - mainly because it now has a cost attached.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Suzy Gneist
Australia actually has one of the highest rates of marriage in the world, and one of the highest rates of divorce also. I wouldn’t rely on anyone in social science currently in Australia to find the reasons for this, but a shiftless society with no real culture of its own, and a pervasive lack of commitment would be definite possibilities.
Our illustrious Prime Minister would lead the pack regards lack of commitment and being shifty, and, with others such as Jenny Macklin, they seem…
Read moreMichael Swifte
writer
What is not getting mentioned in any of the media around this issue is the ineffectiveness of Job Service Providers (JSP) with whom a Newstart recipient is obliged to engage. My experience of late is that they are profoundly ineffectual.
While I continue to pursue employment related to my training, experience, and career aspirations I have supplied my JSP with separate resumes for each of the low skilled positions in which I have worked while trying to build my career (dishwasher, delivery driver…
Read moreRobert McDougall
Small Business Owner
the JSP gets a bonus payment when you get employment. They will ask you for the details, if they havent helped you get it, i'd suggest not telling them :)
I remember the old CES, where they actually did find you work and provide assistance. They would even call you up and say "i've found you a job, the interview is ... etc. etc.)
I suppose its another examply of government weaseling out of the very things it was meant to do, perhaps to achieve a "surplus" lol
Julie McNeill
I read and write
Snap Michael - similar experience and the barriers increase as you get older, health problems etc
Lorraine Muller
PhD - eternal student
Looking at today's picture of Gillard, Macklin and Roxon talking about the Royal Commission into child abuse, I am appalled at the irony.
Here are 3 of the countries leaders, all women, and they are content to make life more difficult for single parents and their children, and ignore the dire poverty of the dole.
Mind you the Libs are also in on it, but they have a reputation for being mean and tricky.
Emily Kate
Student
As a single mother myself I have to agree with this article. However, I am disappointed that the changes to the JET childcare policy continue to be ignored when the both sets of changes coupled together are set to wreak havoc of single parents and their children. I myself struggled to find employment for almost 2 years, I was registered with a centerlink job agency for that period of time as well, they could never get me so much as an interview. Which is why I have returned to study in the hopes…
Read moreKevin Brown
Retired Administration Officer
The Government’s policy that sole parents should be expected to seek work when their youngest child turns eight is considered reasonable and has a high level of public support as well as bi-partisan political support. Surely encouraging personal responsibility, work ethic and self-help in welfare recipients is philisophically sound? Also, as PM Gillard has said it has been utterly unfair that sole parents who qualified before 2006 continued to receive Parenting Payment after their youngest child…
Read moreMichael Swifte
writer
"Surely encouraging personal responsibility, work ethic and self-help in welfare recipients is philisophically sound?"
Sure. But the only means they are using is the reduction of benefits while support for developing jobseeking skills ie Job Service Providers is an ineffectual joke.
Lorraine Muller
PhD - eternal student
I am sure that if your mother was able to get help she would have been very appreciative. Seeings as you are a retired Army officer, I assume that your mother was a sole parent before any payment was available - unless she was a widow then she would have received a social security payment. Her life would have been tough, particularly if she didn't own her own home.
Just because your dear mother struggled to raise her children, on a wage that was probably less than a male doing the same job, it…
Read more