The scene was a primary school fete in a country town in Victoria. Many came but little was chosen. By the end of the day much produce was left over.
In that recessed state nothing should go to waste. But it was about to. The very recession which made waste such a crime was making it more likely; few could afford to buy. So the organisers held the home-made cakes and scones aloft and let the go for a song: 50 cents or less.
It must have broken the hearts of the mums and dads who had sweated over the stove to make cakes to raise money for their kids’ school.
These are awful times in Victoria. And after the change of government, people seem to think they will get worse, not better. They had high hopes on the change of government, but these have been quickly dashed. The effect of Jeff Kennett on John Hewson’s march to the Lodge should not be under-estimated. He has done it a grave disservice.
In four days of various family functions and general nattering among Victorians, the feeling runs high against Kennett. And most of these people, I suspect, voted for him.
Let’s take Barry. Barry has long since put his Monash Uni days of radicalism behind him. He now runs his own timber business on the outskirts of Melbourne and employs six people. He is neither angry or bitter at Kennett’s policies. He accepted that tough measures were needed, that Victoria needed a catharsis. Someone had to pay for Labor’s years of mismanagement and over-spending. And that someone was the people of Victoria.
What gets up Barry’s nose is that Kennett has made his changes retrospective. Kennett has since relented on the retrospectivity on workers’ compensation, but the changes to long-service leave and the leave loading apply to existing accrued leave.
Barry relies on his employees as much as they rely on him. He is the embodiment of John Howard’s co-operative small business ethic. So he has decided to pay his employees’ existing entitlements and will continue the leave loading till December.
But he knows some “”bastard employers” who will not, including a competitor. “”One lass (from the competitor) went on leave on Friday without the loading,” he said.
Teachers, at private and public schools, are incensed. Christina has four children and teaches at a private school. She can cop the extra $100 rates as the price to get the state back on its feet. But she objects to having existing rights chopped away. Marianne, who teaches at a public school, argued that if someone took their long-service leave two weeks ago they would have got more than if they took it today. People who have saved up leave have been treated unequally and therefore unfairly.
Bill, a public servant, pointed out that none of this had been made clear at the election. He finds Kennett’s idea of employers taking the names of those who go on strike as odious.
Its totalitarian nature is obvious because it instils an inescapable climate of fear: fear from union reprisal if you don’t go on strike and fear from employer reprisal if you do.
Molly will put up with the $100 rate rise, though she says it is unfair, not on her, but on those with kids or on pensions or low incomes. She thought it unfair to have a flat fee. Grant called it a poll tax, referring to Margaret Thatcher’s regressive local-government tax.
The interesting thing was the number of people who normally stay clear of political discussion willing to jump in. It was almost like 1975. Everyone had an opinion and wanted to express it.
In summary, the objection to Kennett’s measures are not the standard ones, or those that can be expressed in cliches. They are not objected to as “”too much too soon”, or because of “”lack of consultation”, or because they appear as “”policy on the run”.
They are more fundamental than that. His changes are seen as breaking Australian standards of fair play. Taking away existing entitlements is especially odious. By existing entitlements, I mean accrued leave and the loading on it. Changing the rate of accrual of long-service leave in the future and axing the loading on leave accrued in the future is seen a necessary pain, but taking away a third of out-standing long-service leave the loading on leave that has already accrued (and as Barry points out has been budgeted for) is seen as an outrage.
Kennett went beyond his mandate. In that there is a sense of betrayal. The people of Victoria accepted they needed strong action and gave Kennett a mandate to be tough and to force a sacrifice, but to do it with some fairness _ not to give his own ministers a pay rise while chopping away at accrued leave and raising rates on battling families.
Kennett has introduced an Australian activities, liking taking names and dobbing in.
It does not matter how many went on strike yesterday, (tue10nov) the damage has been done. People who put their faith in Jeff Kennett to fix Victoria have lost that faith.
The danger for Dr Hewson is obvious. The people who trusted Kennett with their vote to be tough but fair got a government seen to be vicious and unfair. Worse, they have found Kennett to say one thing before the election and do a different thing after it. And they feel John Hewson, rightly or wrongly, is capable of doing the same thing. So no matter what Dr Hewson and John Howard say in the next five months ordinary Victorians may have some difficulty believing that they will sing the same tune after the election.
This is shame because the Federal election should be fought on Federal issues and Federal politicians should not be compared to their state counterparts whom experience has shown to be below par on both sides.
Usually, state and federal matters are seen separately, but from what I heard in Victoria, that may not be the case over the next six months.
Victorians may think it unfair, John Hewson will secretly agree.
John Howard’s job is now very much more difficult, on two fronts. First, because Kennett changed tack after the election, Howard is less likely to be believed. Second, it will be much harder to explain his policy. Howard’s is not a Kennett-style policy; he will not legislate changes, but let employers and employees work them out. But try telling that to a Victorian on a federal award whose brother, sister, dad or daughter on a state award has been chopped. These are the semi-rational, anecdotal factors that end up deciding close elections.
My sample may not be a large one, but its smallness was made up by its intensity of feeling.
As an insulated Canberran, I am indebted to Dr Hewson for his advice to go and listen to ordinary Australians in the “”real” Australia. The experience was singularly instructive. I hope he listens to his own advice.