There’s been a lot of discussion sparked by the Productivity Commission report into Parental Leave about “middle class welfare”. Because the PC also made recommendations about the baby bonus, and therefore there have been predictable calls to share the dosh equally with non-working mothers, paid parental leave is being conceptualised as “welfare” rather than as a workplace entitlement. The Commission is quite explicit that the goal of the recommendations is to ensure that leave (which in itself as a concept only works if it’s related to work) is available for parents – primarily for working women. That’s why it will be paid by employers (who will later claim the amount back from the government) – to symbolise that it is an entitlement pertaining to employment rights and not a “hand out” or “welfare”. I think that needs to be recognised.
But perhaps some of the conceptual slippage (which is really important politically) is understandable. The policy has more than one aim – and one of its aims is to foster early childhood development, and the assumption here is that direct involvement of a parent or parents is crucial at the early stages of infancy. But, nevertheless, it is worth reinforcing the fact that insofar as non working mothers have made a choice not to work, that under the current policy design, 10 hours a week for a year would be enough to trigger the paid parental leave entitlement.
So, that’s that. But there are some ambivalences around all this, some of which I share. Writing today in The Australian, George Megalogenis launches an assault on “middle class welfare”, giving readers a history lesson about when family payments took off, and pointing out that in the age of Menzies they were small change. The implication seems to be explicitly that politicians are in the habit of tossing bribes around, and that virtuous self-reliance was the norm for 50s and 60s Australia. What this ignores, though, is that Menzies Land was surrounded by high tarriff walls and as a result of the Australian settlement, had a highly regulated wage system that was openly premised (from Higgins onwards) on the male wage as a breadwinner’s wage sufficient to support two adults and the then average number of children.
As Kim pointed out in a post here a month or so ago, reflecting on Betty Friedan’s legacy, the second wave of feminism and the movement for women’s workforce participation coincided with the increasing inability of a sole wage to sustain the level of consumer demand that sustained a consumption oriented “modern industrial economy”. Feminism, if you like, lent a hand to save capitalism. Megalogenis is right to point to remaining hurdles in the tax/welfare mix to participation in the labour market, but I want to trouble the logic that this should be the sole aim of policy.
Continue reading ‘Of welfare policy, work, entitlements and parental leave’
Well, as I 
We’reThey’re all neo-liberals now?The think tank culture is weird. Although there are certainly think tanks around that put some effort into commissioning and fostering quality research, the origin of the beast lay in the business of shaping and shifting public debate through the media and influencing pollies. There’s nothing wrong with that, as it were, provided that we understand that the research produced may not always be peer-reviewed (CPD, with whom I’m associated, does subject its policy papers to peer review) and in particular we understand not just the ideological commitments of individual think tanks but where their funding comes from. That’s why there are legitimate questions to be asked – including but not restricted to the propensity to push climate change denialism – about the reluctance of some organisations such as Gerard Henderson’s Sydney Institute to even admit that disclosure of funding sources is in the public interest.
Because one of the things think tanks do is provide a ready source of op/ed copy, so-called “public debate” can go down some quite odd paths. Most recently, in Australia, the bizarre theme about the Enlightenment (and apparently the “good” Scottish Enlightenment as opposed to the “bad” French Enlightenment) which was articulated to climate change denialism, and which also prompted some public weirdness from Craig Emerson. It’s noteworthy that just as the Rudd v. Hayek wars are really just proxies for a dispute about underlying policy orientations, that none of the gibberish that has come out of the new MSM meme of the month has anything much to do with scholarly study on the role of the actual Enlightenments in history or in philosophy. It’s not really a “battle of ideas” at all, just a convenient hook for some very tired positions to be hung on.
But everyone in this game – “progressive” or “liberal” or “conservative” – has a vested interest in pretending that what is being staged is some sort of “battle of ideas”. Hence we have Per Capita, a particularly neo-liberal bunch of progressives with strong connections to some of the Blairite Third Way orgs in London, holding a “Consilium”, whatever that may be, accepting most of the premises of the CIS’ Enlightenment-fest. And we get PC fellow Dennis Glover writing an op/ed for The Australian spruiking his mob’s definition of Kevin Rudd’s “reforming Centre”. The new ideas in question (and the PC’s website features slogans such as “Hard Decisions”, “Human Capital” and “Practical, Empirical, Fresh” demonstrating their desire to be the house intellectuals of the Rudd revolution) aren’t actually new. It’s all standard “social democracy = markets + human capital theory + communitarian welfare policy” Blairism. It’s just getting a run in Australia for the first time, and there’s no doubt that it is getting a run – with initiatives such as the marketisation of Victorian TAFE and Julia Gillard’s musings about vouchers being directly linked to this agenda. And the “truancy welfare quarantining” seems quite redolent of Blair’s first term – when backbenchers revolted over welfare cuts. And, as argued here recently, there’s evidence that this sort of thing misses the point in addressing the actual causes of poor school attendance.
Continue reading ‘
We’reThey’re all neo-liberals now?’