The government’s submission to the Fair Work Commission’s annual wage review symbolises everything that is sneaky, visionless and economically ignorant about this government. It also makes a mockery of the government’s recent pretence of focusing on women.
It was only last week that Scott Morrison reshuffled his cabinet — an act described by Australian of the Year Grace Tame (showing more political smarts than many press gallery journalists) as a “superficial distraction” — and claimed a Damascene conversion on the gender issues he had been hoping would go away since February.
Among the distractions was the appointment of Jane Hume — whose most recent brainstorm had been to make domestic violence victims raid their super — as minister for “Women’s Economic Security”.
But the government’s submission to this year’s wage review shows what it really thinks about women’s economic security: the less of it, the better.
Today’s media coverage has focused on the government’s gutless recommendation that it “urges the panel to take a cautious approach” — tantamount to saying don’t give anyone a pay rise, without risking the political damage of being seen to explicitly attack the low-paid.
It’s also exactly the same language that the government used four years ago when urging the commission to avoid pay rises. Back then, when Scott Morrison was treasurer, the government argued that low-income women shouldn’t get pay rises because many of them were in households with higher-earning partners. That is, low-income women didn’t need a pay rise because they had a male breadwinner.
As we noted at the time, the government’s arguments were profoundly flawed and ignored evidence from the Productivity Commission. Four years later, the “breadwinner” argument is now relegated to a subtle comment that 45.2% of low-income earners live in households in the higher five income deciles.
But the government still objects to low-paid women receiving a pay rise. It quotes the Fair Work Commission’s decision from the middle of the pandemic last year, which endorsed the claim of right-wing employer group ACCI, who argued to the FWC “there must be a tipping or critical point at which any uprating in minimum wages that seeks to take into account gender pay disparity, may risk adding to underemployment or reducing hours and jobs to the lower paid, which would disproportionately negatively impact women, and perversely serve to reduce incomes and opportunities”.
That is, don’t give low-paid women a pay rise of any significance because it’ll just mean fewer jobs for them — at least according to employer groups.
That’s despite the government having to acknowledge earlier in its submission that Australian evidence shows no significant employment impacts from wage rises — it relies on US data instead to argue there’s a link. Tellingly, the government doesn’t mention the most compelling Australian evidence of all: that cuts to penalty rates saw a decline in employment in retail and hospitality after they were inflicted by the Fair Work Commission in 2017.
The government’s opposition to wage rises, especially for the low-paid (who are far more likely to spend a pay rise than higher income earners) directly contradicts the repeated, indeed incessant, calls from the Reserve Bank for higher wages growth.
Again, it’s telling what is left out in the submission: the only mention of RBA governor Philip Lowe’s views on wages — he has said over and over that higher wages growth is central to both monetary policy and the broader economy — is a reference to him linking higher productivity to wages growth.
Of course, what’s missing from that citation is the fact that the RBA has recognised for a couple of years now that wages growth has now become “decoupled” from productivity growth — and not in a way favourable to workers. Also missing is another point made by the RBA, that, in the words of Lowe, “stronger investment will also boost our productivity and provide a firm basis for stronger growth in nominal and real wages” — understandably given the lack of a government plan to boost investment.
By enthusiastically endorsing employer groups’ insistence that workers receive little or no pay rise, the government is persisting in its long-running and highly successful war on wage growth. This has led to nearly a decade of wage stagnation for most workers and real wage cuts for many.
And it makes a mockery of the government’s pretensions to giving a damn about women’s economic security.
With every week that goes by, my loathing for these financially illiterate, morally repugnant, dim witted cretins builds, and that’s just the MSM scribes writing articles supporting this malfeasant pack of scum masquerading as a government!
Don’t hold back :-)) Well said.
Couldn’t agree more!
I can’t believe the Libs don’t see the major flaw in their plan to keep all the money in the wealthy part of town…and that is, if you keep starving the population of funds, how are we going to buy the stuff your mates who own the businesses make? they don’t seem to get that after the money’s circulated, most of it ends up back with them anyway! for supposedly great economic managers, they’re unbelievably thick.
I would truely like to hear from this government a credible explanation as to why they continue to oppose any pay rise for the low payed against the best economic advice.The Public asks why?
They oppose any pay rise for the everyone other than the rich for the same reason they do all they can to immiserate and torment anyone trying to claim any government benefit. They enjoy it, it makes them feel good and they genuinely believe that those who are rich are rich by personal merit (even if they only inherited wealth) and everyone else lacks both merit and moral worth. It has nothing to do with economic theory. There’s a piece on how this works in The Atlantic, 4th April, under the heading Research Proves It: There’s No Such Thing as Noblesse Oblige
Thinking back to my early education involving ‘economics’, the debate about ‘guns and/or butter’ did come up more than once. In the current situation in Australia, if the poorest people cannot afford ‘butter’, the alternative is very unpleasant. Josh F should know this but given his devotion to Thatcher (there is no such thing as ‘society’) I believe our country is in for a turbulent time. We cannot afford corruption AND incompetence.
I saw the flaw in “economics” as a pseudoscience as a 14yr introduced to the false paradigm of guns or butter.
It is so wrong, in so many different ways, that nothing built with its bits is worth 2 bib.
…nor “…worth 2 bob.”
Until you realise that It goes against the alt-right conservative employer-class ethos, when the working classes have access to the readies that make their lot a little less uncomfortable – and, thus, less dependent on their betters; especially for work, at rates at their betters’ discretion.
The constant cry from the Right “we can’t get workers” is never coupled with phrase “for what we are prepared to pay!”
Nevermind that most of those maaates don’t make anything, qv Gerry Harvey who keeps the (metaphorical) looms spinning in the middle of the Middle Kindom.
The rest are miners and othersin the extractive industries such as big agriculture – cotton FFS! – and arid land meat on the hoof, 90% exported.
Thanks – it’s doing my head it that most articles are blaring the gov’ts BS again without adding any of the overwhelming evidence that freezing (min) wage hurts the economy.
It’s well beyond time that the conservatives are labelled worst economic managers in history.
Never mind their non-existent morality, or notions of a fair and just society, these are the fools that profess to be better economic managers.
Even economic rationalists are now seeing that no dough represents no flow, (despite their support for “starve the poor”.)
But it must be true, that they’re “the best economic managers”? …. That’s in all the papers, on TV and radio ……?
And that’s what the electorate (is said to) believe.
By whom one might ask, cui bono?
They sure are, and it’s something I’ve been saying for years. It baffles me that people still believe the Libs have any credibility on managing the country’s books when we’re so clearly going backwards at an alarming rate. I sincerely hope that if enough of us keep repeating the Libs are hopeless – and why – and only interested in lining their own pockets and those of their rich mates, it might just start to penetrate. Preferably before we’re all obliged to vote again.
Yet more examples of Morrison’s sales patter.
Words are cheap – and if we’ve learned anything about our Scotty FM, over these past few years, it is that he’s definitely cheap.
Not really, he’s extremely expensive as one of the most highly paid PMs in the OECD – just in dollar terms, never mind his true worth.
However, the cost to the Common Weal, the soul/heart of the Nation is beyond calculation.
Like the Rodent, the damage done thus far – and yet to be wrought due to ideological obsession & blithering incompetence – will afflict us for years to come.
The commonest of common men destroyed the ethos of a fair go in this country – and it was not as if we’d not had a foretaste as the Razor’s Treasurer – and the incumbent is dragging the tattered remnants through the mud and muck of his paltry vision.
A pig in a poke. It doesn’t matter how you look at it, we’re not getting our money’s worth from him. He’s not paid what he’s worth – he’s paid way weigh whey over that.
If Scummo worked for free he would still be far too costly to the common weal.
Well, they are at it again. The MSM, are, preparing to do over Australia yet again. Why do the voters fall for the lies and propaganda every time.?
Stupidity, ignorance, apathy.
Not to mention greed & vainglory, with a side order of sloth & gluttony.
They don’t care, and/or they don’t understand how thoroughly they’re being screwed. Also ignorance on how government works – and is supposed to work. ie for the benefit of us all, not just the wealthy few.