Tag Archives: Curtin and Chifley

Australian Politics

Time for a re-build

2 Comments

John Curtin is best remembered as a war-time Prime Minister. He is routinely described as Australia’s greatest prime minister. His policy 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 he had long wanted to transform life for Australians. He had seen the real and lasting 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 the revenue.

The removal of the states’ individual rights to levy their own income taxes was to be compensated, by the Commonwealth ‘picking up’ their liability for social programs. This was the ‘great bargain’ he made.

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, the treasurer at the time, 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 as prime mininster by Chifley, who carried on their joint project.

Their aim was nothing less than 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 a great proportion of the population, and it is driven by a political class who, especially in recent times, look after only 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 – a sad fact of life.

The “teal wave” of the 2022 election has shown a new, invigorated voting bloc, and it will play merry hell with political orthodoxy. Educated women have decided that they are not “soccer mums” or “doctors’ wives” any longer, if they ever were. They have asserted their right to be heard, and I suspect politics will be changed forever.

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

Watch as Anthony Albanese moves, probably slowly, to incorporate many more woman and family friendly policies. Now is the time, when the blokes of the Liberal Party are bereft of numbers, and importantly, their macho confidence.

Where to from here?

In the Age of Coronavirus, food insecurity, the Ukraine War and the seemingly inevitable devastation even limited climate warming will cause, we need the utmost in inclusive government, and a government released from the ideological shackles of the neo-liberal movement.

Scott Morrison was a man tied to his party, by his own strange, anti-science ideologies, and his limitless ambition. He could have formed a National Government in order to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic, but in his blinkered and political way he excluded the Opposition.

So we never had any sort of national anything. Instead we had premiers of states saving their people, while the Federal Liberals worked to pry the gates open. We had economics before people, and look at where that has landed us.

Instead of subsidising fossil fuel companies, and handing out money to billionaires, and private schools which don’t need it, try employing people. Try luring car manufacturers back to Australia, and electrify everything, including the cars we make.

Stop picking fights with China. Anyone with an elementary education is aware that China has had a short, but vexed relationship with the West. The Opium Wars, invasions, the unequal treaties imposed by Western nations, the theft of Hong Kong; all these are like burrs under China’s saddle, and pesky states like Australia would do better than try to rile them, in pursuit of political gain. Morrison sucking up to Trump was the reason behind our current difficulties.

Stop throwing cash at multinational consultancies, and pay aged care staff and health care workers enough to live on. Stop our brightest and best scientists from leaving our barbarian land, and embrace the arts and the universities again. Build lots of housing. It is not clever to strangle supply, because all you do is drive up demand, and prices.

That is probably enough to begin with. But if you look around you, people look happier, and it has been less than a week since we delivered ourselves from Morrison’s rule.

Let us give Albanese the opportunity to be a real leader. He could really lean into the task of re-building the country, from the ground up, after the laying waste of the economy, and our society, caused by the pandemic, and the LNP vandals.

It just takes character, and a commitment to Australia’s real needs. That is why we call it the Commonwealth of Australia. Could this be his moment? We will see.

Australian Politics

Australia could do with another John Curtin

Leave a comment

John Curtin is best remembered as a war-time Prime Minister. He is routinely described as Australia’s greatest Prime Minister. His policy 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 he 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 Chifley, who carried on the commitment. The aim was nothing less than 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 a great proportion of the population, and it is driven by a political class who look after only 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-a sad fact of life.

The Liberal Party has been infiltrated by many IPA-type neoliberals, whose political mantra can be simplified to a “survival of the fittest” trope. The Labor Party, although not yet as badly infested with IPA ideas, is slightly less crass, paying lip service to an egalitarian ethic, 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 2. We need to accept that we need massive stimulation, and we need to spend our way out of the coming economic disruption. We need Australians to be protected from hardship, because it is the corrective thing to do, but also because the people demand it.

Scott Morrison is a man shackled to his party, by his own ideology, and his limitless ambition. He could form a National Government, which included at least the Opposition Leader, and he could 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 lean into the task of re-building the country, from the ground up, after the laying waste of the economy, caused by the pandemic.

It just takes character, and a commitment to Australia’s real needs. That is why we call it the Commonwealth of Australia. Could this be his moment? Let’s see.

Australian Politics, History essays

Why we need a welfare state in Australia

7 Comments

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 only 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.