It’s NOT Fair: An Election Social Policy Assessment

Discussions about the social issues that have always seemed to be an important part of politics have dropped off the agenda during this election, writes Eva Cox

I have spent some time over the past couple of weeks working out why this election has made me so uncomfortable. Maybe because of my long term interest in things political, this election has seemed to be seriously lacking in its coverage of issues that had been part of previous agendas. Where were the discussions about the social issues that had always seemed to be an important part of politics, particularly when Labor was in office? What happened to objectives like social justice and a more egalitarian society?

Has the long period of neoliberal dominance of government policies drowned out socially oriented initiatives? The free market and self interest were expected to solve resource allocations and needs by shifting risks to individuals. More recently these approaches were oddly combined with neoconservative social controls over those who failed to respond appropriately to market forces. The welfare state was drowned in bureaucratic controls and enforcement. Programs like Welfare to Work and Income Management created scapegoats of those who failed the economic tests.

The question was, therefore, would our first Labor government in over a decade put some emphasis on social policy to remedy some of the injustices and return social equity to the political agenda. There were some signs in 2007 when Rudd attacked the idea of neoliberalism but the policies remained market oriented on one hand, and paternalistic on the other. Would this change when Labor was running for re-election? Would questions of equity and fairness return as part of a Labor agenda?

I don’t ask all this in the nostalgic hope of a return to a seventies-type agenda, but rather on the basis of recent research on the consequences of inequalities and lack of agency for social well being. The recent Marmot and Wilkinson research findings on social determinants of health and well being show the ill effects of inequality and lack of control over one’s life. Together with neurobiological findings on the emotional basis of fairness, the research suggests that policy makers need to recognise the importance of equitable distributions of resources for cohesive functional societies.

Yet this election campaign shows up major social policy sins of both omission and commission. There has been a singular lack of equity discussions as the two major parties compete over who can offer the tougher, nastier policies.

I have been compiling a social-policy-on-offer tally with three categories. Firstly, fear-mongering, scapegoating and demonising: 15 negative items. Secondly, missing possible items of needed social policy changes: 38 items. And thirdly, included actual commitments in the social area which were evaluated on whether these contributed to or reduced social trust and well being. (See the details on Crikey.)  I stopped when I got to 88 items overall because that was long enough to make my point about lack of positive policies.

The negatively scored examples of hatemongering came from both sides — see asylum seekers and pressure on the unemployed, but more from the Coalition. The missing items included cultural, Indigenous and poor people’s needs, but the identified actual socially oriented policies did not necessarily offer positive changes. The results of my total tally as of last week? The Coalition scored negative 10.5 and ALP scored a bare plus 4. Out of a possible positive score of 50 plus, neither side does well — but on these indicators, the Coalition would actually push Australia into being less fair.

More Than Luck is a collection of ideas for citizens who want real change edited by Mark Davis and CPD Executive Director Miriam Lyons. A to-do list for politicians looking to base public policies on the kind of future Australians really want, More Than Luck shows what’s needed to share this country’s good luck amongst all Australians – now and in the future. Click here to find out more. Like what you’ve read? Donate to help make good ideas matter.

Blog Comments

Thank you Eva for verbalizing the frustrations that I think a majority of us are feeling about this election but may not necessarily be aware of. Apart from the total lack of substance in policy coming from both parties and the fact that the policies that are being discussed lack any meaning to our future wellbeing, in all it’s forms, there is also another issue that I am concerned about. That issue is the future hope for women in leadership roles should Julia Gillard fail in her attempt to become a “legitimate” Prime Minister. My fear is that if Julia fails it will send the message that future women candidates for any leading position in our society should be overlooked. This election in all it’s mediocrity is a litmus test that will show whether our society is truly ready for a female leader. Because of this I seriously hope that Julia Gillard is successful because if she isn’t the result will set female equality back years if not decades.
Connie Campbell

I saw Eva Cox on a TV interview recently.

I was extremely disappointed in her performance and her talking over the top of the economist who was talking about what else we could do with some of the $43 Billion for the National broadband.

While I think Tony Abbots broadband solution is a grossly inadequate hodge podge, a debate on whether the last $10 billion of the NBN is really worth having and how many extra people get coverage and what the alternatives could be for that money seems like a very worthwhile discussion. This is not to ignore her point about ongoing costs being high for some of the expenditures the economist talked about like hospital beds. While I think Labor had good policy settings for the stimulus under difficult circumstances, their administration policies and implementation left a lot to be desired and the appointment of someone to head the NBN without international search and without a detailed cost benefit analysis is definitely causing me concerns about the waste that will be involved.

I turned the show off because of her constant talking over the top and determination to prevent discussion of this issue.

[…] come. She was drowned in a sea of me-too crap and the many omissions of equity policies I outlined here. So, no one should dare ascribe any losses to failures of feminism, because this is a classic […]

Leave a Comment