God will guide fair pay
Ian Harper is the head of the new fair pay commission (which is amazing seeing as we don’t even have legislation on this yet). Anyway, he apparently is guided by God as to how this will work:
“I’ll be praying for wisdom … praying for courage and praying above all that God’s will is being done through this, not mine,” the committed Anglican said.
“I’m a Christian. I believe in God and I believe that God’s will is important to be done in the world. It means I hold very dear to the values of fairness, justice, honesty, integrity in the process that I’ll use to be making a decision with my fellow commissioners.”
Now admittedly he was talking to a meeting of the Australian Christian Lobby, which is concerning in itself if you ask me. The article goes on to say that he believes minimum wages have been “historically high”, that God wants low inflation and good economic growth and that he would be against slavery. Sounds just peachy really.
October 30th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Golly gee, a christian who is guided by God!
Next thing is he might actually believe the bible is the word of God and act on it.
Terrible.
I can well imagine you would find Ian Harper to to the ACL concerning.
Bomber talked to them as well!
October 30th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
I’m going to make a prediction about all this.
I might be wrong, but it’s fun to stick your neck out.
My tip is that Harper is going to take a similar attitude to pay settings as the salaries and allowances tribunals that set the pay rates for judges and politicians.
I think the business community and the Howard Government are working on the assumption that Harper is going to grant pay rises for workers, equal to or less than the pissy little increases awarded by the Industrial Relations Commission in the National Wage Cases.
I’m not so sure that’s the case.
My first church experience was St. Jude’s Carlton, where Harper attends.
The church has had a very strong focus on what’s known as its ‘estates congregation’…a ministry to the people who live in those ugly high rise towers opposite the church on Lygon Street.
St. Jude’s is sandwiched between the estates housing on one side, Melbourne University on the other, and the cafe and kebab strip down the street.
Sohe disparity between rich and poor is blindingly obvious there.
While I wouldn’t regard St. Jude’s as a ’social justice’ church, it does have warm sympathies in that area, just because of who lives nearby.
And I am confident, if Harper makes a poor determination…there would be a few people at St. Jude’s who will have no hesitation in letting him know about it
Harper is about to find out what it’s like to be a ‘church celebrity’.
October 30th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Is it possible that God will tell him that theres something fundamentally wrong - perhaps sinful, in becoming an integral and active participant in a cynical exercise in smashing unions, and accepting appointments to bodies that the Parliament has not yet authorised.
And where is the Australian Christian Lobby coming from;know its headed up by a brigadier, so no surprise that Bomber was there and that his first comments following the meeting were to go even harder on shutting everyone up as the next step in fighting terrorism.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:15 pm
I have actually had the priveledge of working with Ian Harper at the Melbourne Business School. Well “work with” is a little strong. In my minimal association with him so far I have found him to be quite an incredible person.
Keen intellect, incredible speaker, and does appear to have a strong social conscience.
I think his role in this position is going to be incredibly interesting to say the least.
October 31st, 2005 at 3:02 pm
correct Carl,
I said similar things about him at LP when they were criticising him.
He was one of the very bright things in the RBA before going to Melbourne.
I am not surprided at him going to St Judes given Peter Adam was there for sometime.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Okay let me say something that probably wasn’t clear from my initial post. I don’t have any objection to the fact that people of faith are guided in their decisions. However, I think that suggesting that God’s will is going to be done through a particular commission or decision is taking it a bit far.
As Alan pointed out, we might have reason to suggest that the IR changes are not really a part of God’s long term plan. Or similarly that God is really more interested in rendering unto Caesar.
So I have no problem with paragraph 2 of the quote above. He went on to say in the article that he didn’t really know any minimum wage earners but he would be putting himself in touch with them. Which I think is a heap better than the John Howardesque response of “i don’t need to know these people to govern them.
October 31st, 2005 at 4:21 pm
You can blame Peter Adam for what I believe the gospel is Homer.
I’m surprised to see a Pharisee like yourself invoking the name of the great PA.
November 1st, 2005 at 7:47 am
A real problem with Harper’s position is that when faith is privatised and personalised then there is no need to wrestle with, in Harpers case,the moral and ethical question,for example, of accepting a position which Parliament has not yet sanctioned.Another great example of this kind of distorted faith, is the position of Roger Corbett, Woolworths CEO (Christian businessman,committee member of Christian organisations,speaker at prayer breakfasts etc).Given the option of investing $380 million in extending Big W he invests “in the much more lucrative business - liquor and gambling” (Fin Review 31/10).
November 1st, 2005 at 8:28 am
alan, his jod is to decide on minimum wages are.
His choices are twofold:
1) reduce them over time ie a fall in real terms which would boost employment however without family tax credits this would involve some suffering
2) boost minimum wages and reduce employment
He needs the wisdom of soloman but not his wives!
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:35 pm
Good to see Homer that the $50 million and the 1000 pages of legislation ans explanatory notes was not wasted!
In fact Harper had only one choice - what is the ethical and moral and political issue in accepting a position that the Australian Parliament and people had not seen not accepted and not debated or prayerfully considered.
A privatised faith allows Oxford Falls, Hillsong,Sydney anglicans,St Vinnies and the Salvation Army to blather on about the poor and the working poor but never in the past half century to make any attempt to stand in solidarity with them before the annual wages case.
A privatised faith ensures that clergy and too many Christians bludge on a system whereby union members struggle for justice - wages,leave,super,health and safety etc and Christians sweep in and pick up the benefitsall for free.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:34 am
alan,
you don’t have to support a mimimum wage to have compassion for the poor.
If it is a choice between a higher wage or more people employed than the choice becomes problematic.
I think it would be better to have greter training for those people so they can climb the ladder.
This happens here and in the USA.
November 5th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Couldnt agree more Homer re training.
But its currently a disaster.
This week the Govt announced that employers will now be able to bring young people in to do apprenticeships/training because there is a skilled shortage.Last week in Qld it was announced 1500 apprentices have to wait up to 2 years to commence their training!!!
2 weeks ago the SA govt announced that it was hoping to bring 300 nurses from overseas;each year each state announces that there are hundreds of young people cannot do nursing because there are traing places.
Last year the fed govt closed down Aust national training strategy.
Wont find the church debating these issues with the same ferocity as sex!!
November 6th, 2005 at 3:51 pm
to a certain extent Alan it is easier to debate sexual issues because they are clearly black and white.
some of the issues with regard to IR are problematic.
I think Harps will need to give biblical reasons to his brothers and sisters for his decisions.
November 7th, 2005 at 11:34 am
Does that mean that churches should only debate and struggle with issues that are “black and white”.Churches are now one of the major employers in Australia and one hopes,I guess in vain,if you’re right,that they would spend as much time talking about the gospel values in the workplace as they do about sex.
November 7th, 2005 at 11:56 am
sorry Alan,
I wasn’t trying to say that.
I believe denominations have been speaking out on issues when they arise.
The war in Iraq showed this clearly. almost all were against it.
In terms of IR it is very hard to see the ‘right’ and wrong’ clearly.
Peter Jensen made a very clear statement against part of it, but not all of it ,which certainly hit the public’s heart.
He did it by puting biblical issues into easy to understand english.
I guess one of my concerns is that most times I see a person from a denomination quoted ( usually Uniting) they get their bible wrong or merely talk secular badly.
November 7th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
“you don’t have to support a mimimum wage to have compassion for the poor.
If it is a choice between a higher wage or more people employed than the choice becomes problematic.”
That is such bollocks Homer - I don’t even know where to begin.
For a start, the whole concept of a “minimum wage” is based on the notion that there’s a minimum necessary to survive!
Further, it’s an awful lot complicated than you make it sound. How about minimum wage = money to buy stuff = more jobs because more people can buy stuff. No minimum wage = people struggle to buy food let alone anything else = minimal consumption.
Further, I’m gonna laugh at any comparison with the US, or any suggestion that the US might actually provide some kind of model (that we should aspire to) as far as IR goes! We’re infinitely higher on the Human Development Index than the US is, and I’d like to remain there!
November 7th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Bec,
I am sorry to tell you if you desire a higher minmum wage then you will have less jobs for the very people you desire to help.
It is a problem that most ‘christian’ welfare agencies do not understand. Iam certainly glad Harps does.
Let me tell you from perssonal experience a job is the best welfare you can get.
The evidence is that people rise above from that level after some time.
November 7th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Homer, I just told you that I don’t agree that higher wages necessarily mean less jobs. Economics is a lot more complicated than that!
Let me put it differently - one of the reasons businesses fail because customers don’t buy stuff. If people have money to buy stuff, businesses survive. If people buy more stuff, more employees are required to satisfy that demand.
Now, I’m not suggesting that it’s as simple as that either - what I’m trying to suggest is that the equation isn’t as simple as higher wages = less jobs!!
November 7th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
quite a lot of economic studies say differently Bec.
November 7th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Yup, and quite a lot of economic studies would agree with me, Homer.
Just like quite a lot of economic studies said cancellation of Third World debt was stupid…but there were plenty that said it was a good idea, and as public support for cancellation swelled, political leaders changed their minds.
November 7th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
Bec,
If you do not think the price of labour is linked to the amont of people empployed I suggest you write a submission to the new Fair wages commision suggesting a 100% increase in minimum wages saying it will have no effect.
By the way the last time I looked there was only ONE study saying mimimm wages had no impact.
It was a much disputed study in North America.
November 7th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
One again Homer, you just go for a ridiculous comment. Of course doubling the minimum wage will have an effect. But will cutting wages, and making people easier to sack, really promote economic growth? I suggest not at all….and I know that there are NO economists in Oz saying that cutting wages will produce job or economic growth.
You also have the broader social problem of undermeployment in the USA, which is pretty ordinary. The problem is so much bigger than your attemptedly pithy one liners and stupid remarks.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
ahh Luke, by the way the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission apparently do not believe what you believe about Mary as it is a sticking point, funny about that.
Luke then you have done no reading on the subject.most believe it would lead to greater emloyment.
I certainly do although I would introduce family tax credits which would keep family income steady but allow mimimum wages to fall without any adverse poverty effects.
Actually in the USA people climb up the ladder reasonably quickly. although the proportion of poor remain steady it is compased of different people.
Can I advise you if you are going to criticise the IR laws criticise them on productivity grounds and on what will affect the family.
November 8th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Homer, you have really excelled this time. What kind of comment is that? (first line in your comment immediately above)
Homer, how about you back up your assertions? You could start with the one about people in the US climbing up the ladder. Alternatively, you could start by looking here: http://hdr.undp.org/, and comparing the US with Australia.
November 8th, 2005 at 9:56 am
Bec,
a little thing between Luke and myself.
Luke is incorrect when he says underemployment is much worse in the USA. I believe he was trying to say that there are a lot more working poor.
Thus the reason for family income tax credits otherwise if you reduce minmum wages you will get more wroking poor.
The US has a reasonable stable proportion of the population which are working poor however it is completely changing as these people move up the ladder.
In Australia a fair proportion remain unemployed.
November 8th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Homer, I think when Bec asked you to back up your assertions, she was looking for more than for you to simply repeat your assertion.
Why do you think people move up the “ladder” quickly in the USA?
November 9th, 2005 at 7:40 am
people in the USA and here usually get some in-house training and that with work experience allows them to start climbing.
It also involves more education on the part of the person.
I said previously that there is only one study that attempts to say there is no link between wages and employment.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Homer, can you perhaps elaborate?
Ie. studies, examples. Who has ‘climbed’? How?
I know a lot of people in Australia who left school to work in supermarkets and McDonalds, believing that these offered opportunities to eventually go into management etc. I don’t have any studies to back this up, but it seems pretty uncommon to ‘climb’ very far, from what I’ve seen. Most of the people that end up in management etc are those that stuck it out at school, went to uni etc.
Why on earth would you want us to be like the US? You make it sound as if it’s better to have low unemployment and high numbers of working poor, rather than slightly higher unemployment. Why is that better? It seems completely illogical to me? If people are working, they should be able to live off it - and many in the US simply cannot live off what they are earning. You can have both parents working full time and they’re still struggling to FEED their kids, let alone send them to school, pay for their medical bills etc.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:10 am
Bec, you are not reading what I am writing.
in the US unskilled people start on a lowpaying job where they are part of the working poor.
By in-house training and their own self-education they get higher paying jobs over time.
however the proportion of people in the workforce who are working poor roughly stays the same.
you can get over this by having family income tax credits.
at present Australia makes the choice of having higher unemployment by having a much higher mimumum wage.
One has a choice. If you support high mimimum wages you will have higher unemployment.
If you keep mimumum wages constant over time they will fall.
If you introduce faamily income tax credits their incomes will not fall.
you get the best of both worlds, more jobs and less unemployment BUT it costs.
governments here don’t like it because of that.
I co-wrote a paper for the Sydney anglican social issues committee on this subject. The other author works in a high level in NSW cabinet office.
It is still relevant now.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:59 am
Homer I’m not entirely sure that that is the whole situation. The US also suffers from an ingrained educational inequity, and those who do not have access to tertiary education do not rise out of the minimum wage bracket.
The existence of housing projects such as Cabrini Green testify to the fact that many people, particularly from ethnic minoroties, do not ever break the poverty cycle, despite being employed.