Why we need a welfare state in Australia

Welfare state, a concept of government in which the state … plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. Read more here https://www.britannica.com/topic/welfare-state

An ancient idea

The welfare state as an idea has been around for thousands of years. The Romans, as an example, developed an ad hoc system for providing grain to the people when there were shortages. By the 2nd century CE it had been formalised, to include bread and other essentials, as the population became too great to be fed from local sources. The state imported the food, through the use of hundreds of ships, mainly from North Africa. They then distributed it. The program was never an afterthought. With a large and feisty population, it was considered essential to the maintenance of civic peace, and it lasted until at least the fall of the Western Empire.

In modern times

The modern version of the welfare state is generally attributed to an unlikely leader – Otto von Bismarck. In the 1880s, as the political leader of the relatively new German Empire, he passed social welfare legislation, which he described as “practical Christianity”. His programs included old-age pensions, accident insurance and employee health insurance. Many were borrowed directly from the Prussian model. Bismarck himself was from Prussia, where they had proved popular, and had underpinned a strong and cohesive society.

He was not motivated by a soft heart however, but by political opportunism. He saw that by providing social programs he could achieve several aims. He would counteract the rising appeal of the Social Democrat Party, he could make staying in Germany more attractive to those considering leaving for America, and he would vie for the allegiance of German Catholics, who were torn by divided loyalties, between Germany and the Vatican.

Other European countries followed his lead. The times were changing; Victorian England’s rapidly developing middle classes were appalled by the social inequality around them. As wealth expanded throughout North America the Progressive Era was spawned. Many in the developing Western democracies realised that private philanthropy and religiously inspired charity was ill-equipped to deal with the scope of the problem, of a newly created industrial working class.

The 1880s have gained a reputation for a change in attitude, wherein poverty was re-discovered, and individualism was finished. Poverty was identified as more of a social evil than a failure of character. The poor had been blamed for their own misery, but some early social researchers discovered that poverty was not caused by a lack of moral fibre, or even degeneracy, but more by the stranglehold of the upper classes on opportunity. Old age and sickness were especially dreaded by the poor, because they were seen as being particularly merciless, inevitably miserable, and impossible to mitigate. They were by then either too sick, or too old, to work.

Self-help had been seen as an essential element of living a life of some dignity, but it was finally accepted that governments were the only mechanism for lifting the people out of their grinding poverty. These attitudes were again driven by the middle class, who were discovering the power of their vote, and politicians were aware that sooner or later the poor would themselves obtain that right (to vote).

Legislation for pensions and social insurance began to be passed, in most of the industrialising countries. America was shocked by the problems associated with industrialisation, urbanisation, immigration and political corruption, and responded with social activism and reforming zeal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

World War I, The Great Depression, and World War II have been identified as important events, which expedited expansions of the welfare state(s). That was the defining nature of the rise of the Welfare State. It was managed differently, according to local circumstances, in many countries. There were also a multitude of reasons for its emergence and growth as a political and economic choice.

Labour aligned, or social democratic governments were more likely to institute versions of the Welfare State, due to a belief in progressive ideals. These included equality, the removal of poverty, and a general commitment to humanitarian values.

But it was also seen as a way to build national cohesion, and to promote social and civic harmony, where it might not otherwise exist. A surprising footnote from the Fascist era is the reliance of both Hitler and Mussolini, on generous social payments to their citizens. They were consciously buying industrial peace, and forging national cohesion.

Australia’s introduction to the Welfare State

While John Curtin is best remembered as a war-time Prime Minister, his work, alongside that of his Treasurer, Ben Chifley, was crucial in establishing a Welfare State on Australian lines, designed for Australian conditions. Curtin was influenced by the economic theories of Keynes, and had long wanted to transform life for Australians.

He had seen the damage caused by the Great Depression of the 1930s, and took the opportunity offered by wartime conditions to transform the nation. In 1942 he imposed uniform taxation on the states, which changed the financial relationship between the two levels of government forever. It also allowed him to increase revenue. The removal of the states’ right to levy their own income taxes was to be compensated by the Commonwealth ‘picking up’ their liability for social programs.

With a uniform income tax he was then in a position to expand his vision of a socially activist Commonwealth Government. The states, especially New South Wales and Victoria, had been adding elements of a social safety net since the beginning of the century. He and Chifley, between them, completed it. Early examples were the Widow’s Pension Act, and the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act.

By the end of that same year (1942) he had set up a Department of Postwar Reconstruction, which laid the groundwork for establishing a Commonwealth Housing Commission, the postwar Rural Reconstruction Commission, the Secondary Industries Commission and the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme. Many of these programs were designed to assist in re-building Australia, after the war ended.

In 1944 he set up the Department of Immigration which was to be responsible for organising postwar immigration to Australia. These changes were the basis for the enormous growth of the Australian economy in the postwar years.

John Curtin was a believer and a doer. He was lucky to be succeeded in the Prime Mininstership by another committed to the dynamic re-construction of Australia, post-war. Curtin and Chifley both maintained that the key principle of a successful re-construction was full employment.

Robert Menzies was of a similar mind. He defeated Chifley in the election of 1949, and won seven elections in a row, on a platform which included full employment. In 1961, he was lucky to be re-elected, because the unemployment rate had ‘blown out’ to 2.1%. He won that election by just one seat.

The Welfare State in Australia is under constant threat, by both sides of parliament. This is counter to the wishes of the population, and is driven by a political class who look after themselves. They rely on the apathy of the people, who do not inspect governments closely, and who are disengaged from the political process. Politics and society are of no interest to most voters.

The Liberal Party has been infiltrated by many IPA-type neo-liberals, whose political mantra can be simplified to a “survival of the fittest” trope. The Labor Party, although not equally infested with IPA members, is slightly less crass, paying lip service to an egalitarian motif, while rubber-stamping much neo-liberal legislation. It leaves voters stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Where to from here?

In the Age of Coronavirus, with widespread economic devastation, we need action similar to that which re-constructed Australia in the period immediately after World War 11. We need to accept that we need massive stimulation, and we need to spend our way out of the coming Depression. We need Australians to be protected from hardship, because, hopefully, they will demand it.

Scott Morrison is a man shackled to his party, by his own ideology, and his heedless ambition. He needs to form a National Government, including at least the Opposition Leader, and to govern for the whole country, and all the people. You can see that he is torn between being a small-time political hack, and a real leader. He could really lead us out of this particular disaster. It just takes character, and a commitment to everyone’s welfare. That is why we call it the Commonwealth of Australia.

7 thoughts on “Why we need a welfare state in Australia

  1. Agree, as would most Australian citizens and residents but all would be stymied by imported US aggressive libertarian social and economic policies and sentiments that have infected the LNP, MPs, advisors, related academia and some members.

    As we have seen in the UK, US and Brazil, libertarian policies preclude dealing with black swan events, such as Covid-19, due to insufficient funding, purpose and preparedness of essential services and strategies.

    Superannuation or retirement income system is an analogy, i.e. by endeavouring to hollow out the superannuation system in the short term, it ignores the long term needs and potential impairment of the whole retirement income system in future (past the demographic sweet spot); simply to cut business costs (or responsibilities) and satisfy ideological sentiment…. including by those with gold plated retirement income for the future already.

    Like

  2. Andrew, I couldn’t agree more. They should be called out precisely because of their contempt for the people, and the potential for a return to poverty. They should actually be loaded into a crowded tumbril. Cheers Mark B

    Like

  3. In a fair and just civil society, welfare or charity should not be needed. Social security yes. We all contribute towards the wealth created. We have a right to expect a fair share. We contribute to social security according to our ability to pay through taxes.

    Like

    1. Sometimes people cannot contribute anything, so the welfare aspect looks after those who can’t afford insurance. I get the difference between welfare and social security, but sometimes we need to provide welfare. I might need to think further though.

      Like

  4. Yes, is is most tragic that Scotty has an opportunity to go down in history as the man who gave Australia back compassion and social security etc., but is so in debt to his hard right donors that he simply can’t. That’s how it appears anyhow. Albo could as well but both are in thrall to the aforementioned donors. It could be a lot worse at present. Imagine if Abbott was still PM, or Dutton. Sorry, not meant to be a whinge about hard right “gentlemen”.

    Unfortunately Scotty’s particular religious group isn’t big on social welfare. “If you are poor ‘tis because thou dost not have enough faith brother.” Which of course is where “If you have a go, you get a go” comes from.
    Having spent some years as a member of a fundamentalist church, I can testify that this is the most heartless, disgusting and cruel doctrines going. People lost in perpetual self-loathing because they don’t have enough faith! The bible tells these Christian folks that faith is a gift from god. Now, there’s a cat amongst the pigeons!
    Anyhow Mark, as you have stated, we in Australia are at a critical point. Rampant neo-liberal economics driven by unfettered/unregulated capitalism and greed has all but destroyed American society as you know. (Read “America, the Farewell Tour” by Chris Hedges).
    Our government has an opportunity to right a great wrong and govern for EVERYONE, or govern for the 3% who pay no tax and contribute NOTHING, let alone some gratitude, to our nation. They, like the Royal Family, believe they are born to rule and they live lives of privilege and luxury that “ordinary” folks can only dream about.
    Anyhow, another good essay Mark. Thanks again for your blog.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.