The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Did Harper’s Christianity influence his wage decision?
|
Announcing the decision by the Fair Pay Commission, that deliciously Orwellianly-named institution, Emeritus Professor Ian Harper (Emeritus? He looks about 37) impressed upon people his desire to soften the blows of the recession against the poor, claiming that his overriding concern was to prevent further cutbacks in hours, which would be caused by the $21 rise requested by the ACTU — or even a lousy fifty per cent of it. Harper got something of a bad wrap when he was appointed, critics suggesting that his specific field was financial services, his labour market research and expertise virtually nil, and his whole approach informed by his evangelical Christian faith, instantly detectable in the god-botherers’ uniform — real hair that manages to look more fake than a fibreglass wig. Sydney Uni political economist Evan Jones (who has a more interesting than usual googleblog*), argued that the Christian stuff was central to Harper’s appointment — even conservative labour market specialists could not be relied upon to deliver the parsimony that Howard wanted, what with their knowledge of how complex labour market inputs actually are. What was needed was someone with an adamantine sense of what was right — i.e. that really there shouldn’t be minimum wage rates at all, save as a political fig leaf for WorkChoices. As m’esteemed colleague Keane notes, even Harper failed to deliver the simple conservative deathblow Howard wanted — another example, as with Donald McDonald at the ABC and Greg Melleuish and others at the History Curriculum commission of the rodent being disappointed by people who decided to take their role seriously, rather than act as political handmaidens. But has the long death march through the institutions finally borne some fruit? Is Harper really turning off the tap because of overwhelming evidence that a minimum wage rise would affect hours and employment levels? Or because his Christianity shapes his idea of how recovery should proceed? Does he have a moral objection to spending our way out of recession, even if that can be shown to work? As Mark Bahnisch pointed out earlier, there is ample evidence from the US that minimum wage rises may be neutral or even positive with regard to hours and employment, for the simple reason that in a recession the poor are pushed so far down on the bones of their arse that they literally have no disposable cash. The process — in poor communities — is deflationary, because spending goes down and the bloke who ran the corner store dips below a level at which it’s worth opening up, and the woman who does dog grooming can’t run a van anymore. The ten bucks a week a part-time minimum wage worker gets may be all the difference. Indeed in the fast-food industry this is called “round the front” money — the observation being that minimum wage kids who get a rise aren’t going to put it into stocks and bonds, or even sensible groceries — they’ll probably buy a super-size meal from a different fast food chain than the one they work at, on the way home. There are arguments the other way, of course, but given the inconclusive nature of the findings wouldn’t it have been, well, fairer to err on the side of slinging the minimum-waged another 50 cents an hour? That’s where Harper’s cosmology may come in. Most instructive is his paper a few years back for the Christian National Heritage Association (?) called the “Christian Foundations of Economic Development in Australia”. The paper’s treatment of Australia’s economic history is by turns sweetly naive, batty and pernicious, with a strong role for literal Providence in shaping the nation — God wanted this lump of rock to be a Christian outpost. The important bit comes at the end:
Eventually implode? That sort of language, coming from the likes of Clive Hamilton, usually gets you a guernsey in The Oz’s Cut and Paste sheltered workshop. But this is the good austerity — the one you impose on the powerless. The trouble for a Christian capitalist in the 21st century is that it’s no longer possible to run an economy on protestant abstemious lines — if we stop buying flat screen TVs for 15 minutes we’re all fucked. Thus injunctions, from Dubya, Rudd etc, to go out an shop, in response to any national emergency. Harper lives that contradiction as does the whole of the Christian right – by not acknowledging it. But has this view shaped his determination that one consequence of this recession might be the creation of a moral poor, once again reminded of first things by the simple fact that they can’t afford the stuff they want to buy — the “empty materialism” of Harper’s elitist moralising? And has he used his last go as FPC commissioner to insert that? And how does he do that with his hair? *Googleblog — a life story made up from by googling someone, including everything and working out how their life fits together. Thus Evan Jones’s interest in nationalist radical economics has clearly been spurred by his decades of writing poetry in a mythical and questing mode at Melbourne University, and both clearly influenced the screenplay he wrote for the recently rereleased classic Wake In Fright — though the role of his Jamaican heritage is yet to be explained. |
|
|
11 Comments
When politics and religion lie together they both get up feeling dirty. I suppose we can eat cake while waiting for the pie in the sky when we die. I hope his fences are built high.
So after twenty five years of trickle down economy the minimum wagers are to foot the bill for ceos(bailed out by banks), speculators(Mr Groves friends are rich) and plain inadequate businesspeople.
My mother used to say “he thinks the world owes him a living” I think too many of todays leaders think that profits are the norm not the result of good conditions and hard work and most of all luck.
I dont want to attach too much of the Professors seeming arrogance to his religion as religion causes both good and bad reactions in its followers. I blame the follower not the religion. I hope the next time he eats a weeks worth of minimum wages at the flower drum he chokes on it.
The empty materialism of the poor, eh? God bless that.
Heathdon has a point. It is not the religion. It is the follower. It is how people who say they follow a religion, actually put it into practice (or don’t).
Some people who follow the very same religion as Mr Harper would interpret that religion as saying “go the extra mile for the poor”. And “redistribute income so that there is more equality in a community.”
For those interested in what the good book says, such a view could be found in various places:
- Paul’s comments: “Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that they might be equality. At the present time, your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality. As it is written, ‘He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.’” (II Corinthians 8:13-15).
- Or the Apostle John: “If anyone has material possessions and sees is brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (I John 3:17).
Of course the trouble with quoting the Christian scriptures, is that people of a different persuasion will find some other statement to quote, and use that to prop up their predetermined view. Despite that, in this case, there is an argument that says there are about 2000 references in the Bible that exhort us to care for those less well of that ourselves.
I read Ash Barker’s book “Make Poverty Personal” recently. Such a book would actually encourage Mr Harper to do more for those less well off.
If Mr Harper’s religion is behind his decision, I pity him and would disagree with his lack of application of that religion.
But my gut tells me that Harper’s decision is more to do with conservative economics and class, than with religion. We all know that most people who profess religion don’t really let it affect their daily life! Everything else that is drilled into us over a lifetime, directs us more. If we pretend that somehow our actions are controlled by our religious convictions, I would suggest we are seriously deluded! There just aren’t many Mother Theresa’s in the world.
Ta for this piece Guy.
I must admit, when I first saw the TV footage of Harper delivering his loaves and fishes spiel, I was instantly reminded of another professor. Namely David Flint.
I still can’t quite believe, that anyone could be so smug, self righteous and pompous at the same time.
The good professor would be perfectly at home in some darkly humorous Monty Python sketch.
But for pity’s sake, let’s not give him control of the punishment detail for the undeserving poor.
Go you good thing Guy,
The more people like you that ‘out’ superstitious pricks like him,the better we’ll all be.
Onward Atheist Soldiers..when are they going to realise there’s no-one up there and it’s a croc of crap.
That rat Howard, when will we ever be completely rid of him. His appointments are still influencing peoples lives and not for the betterment of them. Paddy summed that prized wanker Harper up perfectly,and the freak Feilding is sitting in the wings preparing to unleash his goodness upon us next month. Arghhhh is there no end to them?
Indeed! I’d like Harper and his ilk to answer a simple question. ‘If you live on much more than $14 per hour, how do you think others survive on less? ’ The god-botherers drive me nuts, as they arrogantly assume that those on the bottom on the pile get their essentials from some other quarter, or their so-called christian principles stop with the lowest paid? It’s time someone told them the truth - they have to pay rent and buy food like them. The recent tax cuts didn’t help anyone on $45,000 or less either. This is just ramming the truth home very painfully - again!
Has this guy, Harper, not heard of the Separation-of-powers? But then again we shouldn’t be surprised by the decision the Fair Pay Commission – rather Orwellian name- was a creature of the former Howard Liberal Government, designed to block wage increases for workers. Thank god it is being abolished and taken over by FairWork Australia, another Orwellian named institution. What is wrong with calling it the industrial Relations Court? Or something else along those lines?
Harpers rejection of a pay increase is de-flationary as it will remove spending power from workers, thus reducing the amount of money in the economy. It is a decision straight out of the text book on how to prolong an economic recession, and that decision is exactly what Governments should not do in the middle of a recession. Doesn’t Harper and all his other God-Bothers realise that Laisser-faire economics theory went out the window when the likes of Lehman Brothers and other like them went bust. The Government should immediately empower the new commission Fair Work Australia, to re-examine the decision so as workers can enjoy a slight increase in their wages and standard of living.
Euan
I think this has less to do with their religious beliefs then with the fact that the members of the “Fair Pay” Commission are shortly to be out of their jobs and wish to curry favour with potential future employers.
Fair work fair pay, this is not all ways like it in this day and age some poor suckers,
hardly get anything, some are to scared to get out of their comfort zone, and try at something else.
Anyone recall ancient history when we had a ‘born-to-rule’ PM whose status greed gave us a constitutional crisis (aka civil coup) and the unoriginal (how typical of him) phrase “Life wasn’t meant to be easy” - nobody ever thought to ask sez who and for who?”
His only other contribution to history was a loathesome little meretricious mediocrity made Treasurer in his first term because few others of his side would take the humiliation that entailed.