There’s a common argument loved by politicians that if they’re being attacked from left and right, they must be doing a good job.
Australians’ self-conception as a laid-back, not intensely political people promotes this view that there is something inherently “sensible” in sticking to the centre.
Closely related is the concept of “median voter theory” – that electoral success can most likely be found by doing what the average voter would do in your shoes – so candidates tend to converge on that centrist position.
One area where that convergence has had a disastrous impact on the lives of the most vulnerable is the rate of jobseeker, frozen in real terms for decades except for a small $50 a fortnight boost in early 2021.
While Labor MPs this week found their voice in calling for an increase, the message from the top was if the rate of jobseeker is miserable the answer is to get off it.
“It is tough to live on the jobseeker payment,” the treasurer, Jim Chalmers, said. “And that’s why we want to move as many people as we can off that payment and into good, secure, well-paid jobs.”
The problem with this logic is that the government’s own poverty experts on the economic inclusion advisory committee found that the level of the payment was itself a barrier to getting into a job.
Or, as the Australian Council of Trade Unions president, Michele O’Neil, put it this week, the $50 a day rate of jobseeker means not being able to to feed yourself and your children properly, or to afford secure housing, the mobile data to look for a job or transport to drive to interviews.
The government has announced cost-of-living measures on medicines and energy prices, seems set to expand eligibility for single-parent payments, and has hinted at some kind of investment in the long-term unemployed.
But if these are not accompanied by an increase in the jobseeker rate, the government is being guided by the political compass of what they think most people want (smaller deficits, ungenerous welfare) and not the moral compass of what is right for the unemployed, which also has better practical outcomes.
There’s a whiff of sensible centrism in the way the migration changes proposed this week were in part explained as measures that would reduce the permanent migration intake, which is capped and within government control.
Don’t get me wrong – the migration review was chock-a-block with sensible suggestions to triage skilled migrants into three streams, raise the pay floor for skilled visas, improve the integrity of international student visas, and improve the points system for permanent residency.
When the home affairs minister, Clare O’Neil, spoke at the National Press Club, the first instinct was to argue against the dichotomy of a big or small Australia.
O’Neil is right that “the size of this program depends a little bit on the circumstances of the moment” – zero during Covid border closures and “playing catch-up” to address labour shortages after borders reopened.
But in response to questions, O’Neil said “if we implemented all the things I have discussed, the consequence of that would be a smaller migration program for the country”.
O’Neil returned to the theme at the end, summarising that she is “not someone who advocates for a big Australia”.
This was designed to muffle the Coalition scare campaign of a “big Australia by stealth” as Dan Tehan puts it.
But if the changes are about composition, not size of the intake, and there’s no target or promise about net migration, which is uncapped, I’m not sure it’s wise to leave voters with the impression smaller is the goal, or at least on the cards.
On Friday the net migration figures were revised up from 650,000 in the next two years to 715,000. This is a demand-driven system working as it should, is still cumulatively less than projected pre-pandemic, and doesn’t contradict anything O’Neil said.
But it gave fodder for the Coalition scares, and shows the perils of accepting even implicitly that bigger is worse as a yardstick.
The two issues have a common thread: expectations set in opposition are now running headlong into the practicalities of governing.
Past advocacy on jobseeker comes back to haunt Anthony Albanese and Chalmers because they now have the power to increase it.
Under the former shadow minister Kristina Keneally Labor sought to weaponise the number of asylum seekers coming to Australia by plane but the problem persisted in government. The same may happen with the figure of 1.8m temporary workers.
It was refreshing to see national cabinet on Friday focusing on the need to build more housing and infrastructure to support population growth, promising “better planning for stronger growth”.
If businesses need workers, budget repair needs population growth and older Australians need carers, then is a bigger Australia so scary?
The opposition leader, Peter Dutton, didn’t think so when, after the jobs and skills summit in September, he complained that the increase in permanent migration to 195,000 was “too little, too late” and “a decision that should have been made 100 days ago when the government was elected”.
Rather than pander to what seems sensible but often is anything but – whether it’s treating the jobseeker payment as a punishment and teasing the possibility of a smaller migration program – the Albanese government has the opportunity to actually fix Australia’s problems.
Lifting substandard welfare, improving the migration system and proper planning for growth are policies that will help us actually live better – not just sound sensible.
