By Tony Smith
Keating's call — one might almost say "threat" — to business to invest some profits to prevent a wages push is yet another signal that he is bereft of foresight.
Throughout the '80s, Keating's economic "leadership" was of the bungy rather than yoyo variety, so sudden and extreme were his reactions. This latest public offering is a sure sign that he expects everyone else to have the same tunnel vision which enabled him to speak of recessions we had to have, and budgets which would bring home the bacon.
It is hypocritical in the extreme to adopt policies which for a decade maximised profits while a spurious "Accord" kept wages fixed, and then to turn around and demand that directors and shareholders behave like responsible, elected representatives of the masses. It is naive to imagine that those companies which have been content to reap dividends while unemployment grew will now turn around and contribute to an increased labour component of production costs.
Keating and company have created a milieu in which productivity is a non-negotiable aspect of business. Unfortunately, productivity is not the neutral incentive for enterprise agreements which the ideologues had hoped. It is a means of entrenching a definition of work practices which is oppressive to labour. Ten years of economic rationalism cannot easily be swept aside.
Keating's call is naive for another reason. The Accord, enterprise bargaining and general denigration of unions have left Australian labour in its most emaciated state since the critical days of the 1890s. It is highly doubtful whether a union movement which represents such a small proportion of divided and ruled workers could mount a wages push of an order to make business feel threatened.
Unemployment is now entrenched. It demands radical action, not piecemeal tokenism while hoping the market will cure itself. Until a government is prepared to display a determination to redistribute the spoils of the economy, there is little hope of change.
Throughout our history, the government sector has been vital in ensuring high employment levels. But maintaining public sector employment requires a government brave enough to maintain a progressive and high tax system. OECD comparisons demonstrate that in the Hawke-Keating years government moved in the opposite direction.
It is not clear to whom workers can now turn for leadership in the struggle to prevent the tugging of the forelock from becoming the Australian way of life. When the dust settles over Keating's apparent threat to business, it will be seen that this is merely his personal way of begging. Keating has delivered the economy to business on a platter. Obviously he expected some gratitude for his efforts. Naive, isn't he?
In a period of high unemployment, when the government shows little resolve to stand by those who are in work, few unionists show the determination which characterised them in the '70s. Many members are cynical about the roles being played by their leaders.
Progress through the ACTU is such an entitlement to parliamentary preselection that few leaders have sufficient resolve to stand up to ALP policy proposals. Life goes on quite comfortably in the industrial relations club.
The reasons behind Keating's call for investment are plain enough. At the last election he claimed that employment would be guaranteed by strong growth. We have some growth, but the benefits have not been distributed evenly.
So Keating's call is one of panic. In a mere mortal it could be interpreted as an admission of error — that he was wrong to say that growth would bring employment.
It is also one of desperation. Quite clearly, neither he nor his advisers have any idea what to do about unemployment. "One Nation" should have solved all that. Successive budgets should have solved all that. Now there is a rumour of redefining "long tern unemployed". That is understandable. Comparatively speaking, 12 months is like the twinkling of an eye next to the period most unemployed can expect to hunt for a job.