Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

On the eve of election 2007, here's an very interesting speech by Family First's Senator Steve Fielding. I've argued here and in my update to Not Happy, John! that FF and the Greens should give their Senate preferences to each other before either of the major parties to help ensure minor parties have the balance of power, thus letting alternative vvoices have a say in the public debate. In truth, both parties have similar policies in many areas. There is much common ground, so why hamper their cause by preferencing either Labor or the Coaltion befote each other?

Speech to The Sydney Institute, Wednesday, 10 October 2007

THE CLASH OF ECONOMIC LIBERALISM AND SOCIAL CONSERVATISM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Australian politics is dominated by the ideology of market economics. Both the major parties embrace market fundamentalism at the expense of Australian families. Sadly, the point that is not widely understood by the political class is that economic liberalism is incompatible with social conservatism.There is a clash in the values that underpin each.

The major parties are at pains to reconcile their professed family values with their free-market mantra but fail, because the two cannot be reconciled. Put simply, the free-market mantra of choice, competition and consumerism is in conflict with family and community. That is what I would like to talk to you about this evening.

Market values versus family values

May I stress at the outset that Family First supports free enterprise, not unfettered free markets.In our market-driven world we are constantly told that we are individuals and that we have choices. We are told that we make rational decisions in our own interests.

This philosophy overlooks the fact that we are also emotional human beings - members of families and communities – and very much influenced by our relationships with others. The number one question parents ask themselves when making decisions is: “What’s best for the kids? What’s best for our family?”

So why isn’t the same thought process applied to the decision making of our elected political representatives across the country?

It is fascinating to Family First that so many of the major public policy debates in this country over the last two years, such as Work Choices, Telstra and Trade Practices laws, have been seen as economic issues and debated as such when, in actual fact, they are family issues.

The market focus completely overshadows the family focus which is why, so often, we end up with bad decisions, like Work Choices and like Telstra.

The mindset and language of the major parties which have swallowed the free market mantra is completely out of step with the attitudes and language of Australian families. Family First strongly believes that economic policies should be reframed as family policies and seen in that light; so the focus is on what’s best for the family and what’s best for children, not what’s best for the market and employers.

It is only when we ditch the lip-service paid to family values and begin to genuinely consider the needs of families, that we will produce good decisions that actually put families first.

Telstra, Work Choices and Trade Practices

When Family First delivered its speech in Parliament opposing the full sale of Telstra, on the grounds that telecommunications is an essential service for families and not one that should be totally controlled by the market, we received an email from a Liberal backbencher, now a Minister, which referred to it as "a great fighting socialist speech".

This illustrates how the Telstra debate was – not only black and white, but ignorant. There was no understanding of the complexities of the issue; the clash of values between economic liberalism or the market on the one hand, and social conservatism or family on the other.

We have seen the struggle between the market and the family in the heated debate over industrial relations laws. Under the anti-family Work Choices legislation, workers on
agreements or contracts are no longer guaranteed overtime and meal breaks, nor compensation for working on public holidays.

Traditionally, industrial relations has been seen as a subset of economic policy; along with wages, inflation, participation rates and so on. But IR actually represents the intersection of
economic policy and social policy.

The 8-hour day has always been a social policy. Overtime and penalty rates were introduced to achieve the eight-hour day. They were not introduced to reward workers for working longer or anti-family hours. Rather, they were intended to discourage employers from employing workers for more than eight hours a day.

From a family point of view, discouraging anti-family hours is surely a positive, which is why Family First called for an inquiry to examine the effectiveness of penalty rates and how such instruments might be adjusted to suit the needs of families and small businesses today.

Family First voted against Work Choices and, from day one, warned the Government that it was going too far, yet the Government arrogantly dismissed the concerns of the Australian community and betrayed its so-called battlers. Sadly, it appears to Family First that Labor’s approach is little different.

I was startled to learn that a Rudd Labor government would also allow any worker to give up conditions such as overtime, penalty rates for working public holidays, weekends and anti-
family hours, along with meal breaks and rest breaks, for more money.

Ladies and Gentlemen, public holidays and penalty rates are about family time, not about money. And they were never intended to be traded away for dollars.

Sadly, neither of the major parties seems to understand this, as they both equate time with money. Family First’s concern is family values and, as I have said, family values are about time, not money.

All the political parties talk about ‘family-friendly’ policies but they are really market-friendly. And so, too often, is big business.

Consider the managing partner of a leading national law firm who said of his employees “You don’t have a right to any free time.” Or the workplace relations manager of the Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry, who believes that, “It’s important individuals have their life in a reasonable balance so they are focused on the job.”

Take Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon, who says his workers should be grateful to have jobs and declares profits more important than staff. “I sometimes get criticised for this, but I have always seen shareholders as our most important stakeholders. I know some CEOs say look after your customers, look after your employees, and the returns for shareholders will follow. I do the exact opposite.”

And what about a Telstra executive who was quoted as saying: “We run an absolute dictatorship and that’s what’s going to drive this transformation and deliver results…If you can’t get the people to go there and you try once and you try twice…then you just shoot ‘em and get them out of the way.”

Unlike the anti-business Greens, Family First does not want to turn back the clock, but Family First does want changes.

This election will focus on the showdown between John Howard and Kevin Rudd. But there is another battle looming – the contest for the balance of power in the Senate between Family First and the Greens.

No government should have absolute control of both houses of Parliament, but equally, Australia cannot afford to have the anti-family and anti-business Greens holding the balance of
power, as they will hold the government to ransom and dictate their extreme agenda. This is why Australian voters need to be serious about the Senate.

Let me stress, Family First will work with whichever party forms government to improve legislation and get the best outcome for families and small business.

On industrial relations, Family First will seek guarantees on penalty rates, public holidays, working hours and redundancy entitlements for all workers. As we said on day one: no
Australian worker should be forced to bargain for extra pay for working at 2 am or on Christmas Day.

But what Family First will also do is consider the needs of small business and how any changes will affect them, because the challenge is to strike the right balance between the needs of workers and small businesses.

Trade Practices

May I now turn to the area of trade practices law, which has been a real focus for Family First in our quest to ensure decent protection for small business, most of which are family businesses.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the interests of big business and small business are not always the same. In fact, they are often totally at odds with each other. And the policy drivers for this Government are clearly big business.

But when push comes to shove and a conflict emerges between the two, the Labor Party doesn't appear to be much better.

In September last year both the major parties supported the repeal of petrol marketing legislation, which meant even greater market dominance by the major players. Both the Coalition and Labor did over small business to keep sweet with the top end of town.

Labor actually had the opportunity to sink the Bill, but didn’t!
The fact that both the major parties sided with the top end of town is a warning to small business that it cannot rely on either the Coalition or Labor to look after their interests.

The future of independent service stations is now under a cloud. They play a vital role in keeping petrol prices as low as possible for families. To have real competition, the market needs strong competition, which is why Family First has been strongly campaigning for changes to the Trade Practices Act to ensure adequate regulation.

Shop trading hours

It is useful to escape from the hothouse of Canberra and examine the views of everyday Australians in relation to these issues.

Take the issue of deregulating shop trading hours. The mantra is that if people want to shop at 3am you ought to let them. It is interesting however, that on the one occasion there was a vote, when people actually had to choose between being able to shop when they wanted and the impact on family businesses, they went for the family businesses.

In February 2005, 60 per cent of voters in Western Australia said no to late night trading during the week, and no to Sunday trading. The majority of people in the West knew that deregulating trading hours would not only punish small, family businesses, but damage family life by intruding into precious family time.

It is no surprise that large retailers like Harvey Norman were among the retail giants lobbying for change, which would have seen independents squeezed out of the market in their quest for greater market dominance. And it is no coincidence that, while Coles and Woolworths control a thumping 80 percent of the grocery market Australia-wide, that figure drops to 62 per cent in Western Australia.

Western Australia’s peak business group has recently relaunched its battle to free up trading hours yet farmers have warned it would only intensify the dominance of Coles and Woolworths and restrict the market power of primary producers.

Relationships Report

A recent report by Relationships Forum Australia sheds more light on the attitudes of everyday Australians. It refers to a study last year that revealed 77 per cent of surveyed Australians agreed with the statement: “A government’s prime objective should be achieving the greatest happiness of the people, not the greatest wealth.”

And when asked, “What is the most important thing for your happiness?” almost 60 per cent cited their partner or spouse and family. A further eight per cent named community and friends.

The report also examined the connection between working hours and family breakdown, and is disturbing reading. It concludes that Australia’s economic prosperity has come at a price. In fact, it says that Australia is now the only  high-income country in the world that combines long average working hours, a strong tendency for weeknight and weekend work and a relatively large proportion of the population in casual jobs.

The harsh reality, it says, is relationship breakdown and dysfunction; which leads to health problems, strained family relationships, parenting marked by anger and ineffectiveness and reduced child wellbeing.

I suppose it should not come as a surprise then that, in one study, only one quarter of respondents said that life in Australia was getting better.

Childcare

May I now turn to another important public policy issue, that of childcare, to highlight again how the pro-market policies of both the major parties are out of sync with the values of everyday families.

Family First supports parents being in the paid workforce but also recognises the value of parents looking after their children, especially when they are young. Many parents want to be able to care for their children full-time when they are very young.

Earlier this year both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader spoke at a conference at the National Press Club. It is interesting that, when the Prime Minister spoke about subsidies for employers to provide childcare at their workplaces, he got no reaction.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd spoke about Labor's policy to mandate 15 hours of preschool for every four year old – and Mr Rudd got no reaction. But when the Prime Minister spoke about his support for full-time parenting, there were cheers and loud applause.

Ladies and gentlemen, full-time parenting is a cultural issue, not an economic issue. And there is widespread support for that sentiment.

It is disappointing that both the major parties have adopted pro-market policies focussed on commercial childcare centres. Yet how many people in Penrith can afford childcare centres, to be able to qualify for subsidies?

I was interested to read on Monday former long-time senior Labor adviser Michael Cooney advising Kevin Rudd to make “a big education announcement linking childcare and early childhood development to the economy’s needs for skilled workers in the future”.

Talk about a clash of values. So childcare is now about training up Australia’s two and three year-old’s to take their rightful place as productive soldiers in the skilled economy of the future?

Why don’t the major parties accept that families might prefer in-home care for their young children, from grandparents or friends, and support that?

It reminds me how often our Treasurer trumpets the fact that the focus of the Government’s childcare policy is to get mothers back into the paid workforce. The key question is not ‘How can we get more mothers back into the paid workforce?’ but ‘What is best for our kids?’

Currently, parents who pay for ABC Learning Centres and the like, can receive up to $4000 every year in tax rebates. Yet families who want grandma to look after their child get nothing.

Instead of mandating pro-market childcare options, why not allow parents to choose alternative childcare arrangements and receive the same subsidy? This is an important issue because, if you ask the question, is family policy turning around fertility, the research shows that family policies do work.

A recent Australian Institute of Family Studies report revealed Australia is sixth among developed nations in terms of public funding for families, which has contributed to keeping our fertility rate above the average for these countries. And Australia is almost certain to rank even higher today because policies introduced since 2003, such as the baby bonus, were introduced after the international comparison was done by the OECD.

AIFS director and report co-author Matthew Gray was quoted in The Australian earlier this month as saying: “The fertility rate … is affected by financial incentives, but also I think there is a message to parents that runs alongside the actual policy that says their government believes having children is important.”

The AIFS research also shows that, overwhelmingly, Australians want children. In fact, less than 10 per cent of childless men and women said they did not want children. But about one in four women still in their reproductive years will never have children, which is a real tragedy.

This research reinforces the effectiveness of the types of policies Family First is promoting. One such policy is a new $4000 childcare payment to be paid to ALL Australian families with children under five. Families would get $4000 every year until their children turn five – so parents themselves can choose the childcare they want for their kids. Family First also wants a $10,000 Bumper Baby Bonus paid to families which have a third or subsequent child.

Australia’s fertility rate has been below replacement level for more than 30 years and this is a serious issue for our future given our rapidly ageing population. So many families would like more children, but decide against it for financial reasons. They deserve special help and a $10,000 payment would encourage many to consider having another child.

Today, it is virtually impossible for families to live on one income and making ends meet will be a huge election issue. Family First believes it is the Government's job to provide an environment that reassures young people that they have community and employer support to marry and have children.

Clash of values

As I have said, for both sides of politics, the assumption is that they can be both economic liberals and social conservatives. People like the late Christopher Lasch did not accept that. The former Professor of History at Rochester University in the United States understood the importance of “the family business, the family farm, the family wage.”

Lasch believed the heart of conservatism lay in: ‘Lower middle class culture, (which) now as in the past, is organised around the family, church and neighbourhood. It values the community’s continuity more highly than individual advancement, solidarity more highly than social mobility. Conventional ideals of success play a less important part in lower middle class life than the maintenance of existing ways. Parents want their children to get ahead, but they also want them to be good: to respect their elders, resist the temptation to lie and cheat, willingly shoulder the responsibilities that fall to their lot and bear adversity with fortitude. The desire to preserve their way of life…takes precedence over the desire to climb the social ladder.’

I suspect many of us would readily identify with these values. Yet I wonder how many of us have ever thought that the economic orthodoxy which dominates this country undermines these very values.

To again quote Professor Lasch: "If conservatism is understood to imply a respect for limits, it is clearly incompatible with modern capitalism or with the liberal ideology of unlimited economic growth…'

And again: ‘(t)he more closely capitalism came to be identified with immediate gratification… the more relentlessly it tore away the moral foundations of family life.’

The challenge for Family First is to pursue ideas which, in Lasch’s words, ‘reject both the market and the welfare state in pursuit of a third way…(T)hese positions belong to neither the left nor the right, and for that very reason they seem to many people to hold out the best hope of breaking the deadlock of current debate.’

Conclusion

Ladies and Gentlemen, the pressure on family life in Australia today is enormous. Australia is ranked the second worst country among industrialised nations for 50-plus working hours a week, working regular weekends and temporary employment.

Working long hours is good for the market. Working on weekends is good for the market and having temporary work also suits the market.

But none of this suits the family, which is why family life is under threat.

Often it seems we live in a country where few values matter except those of the market, which is dangerous and disturbing.

That is why Family First has such an important role to play, because Family First is Australia’s only family party and because Family First understands the clash between economic liberalism and social conservatism.

For Family First, the issue is simple. The market must always serve the family. The family must always come first.