Letter from The Cape Episode 15 September 29, 2023 Hello, and welcome to another episode in my Letter from The Cape podcast series. I am coming to you from Kyoto, Japan where I am working for several months at Kyoto University. I will dedicate a separate podcast to discuss the work I am doing with other researchers here and why it matters for the future. But its referendum time in Australia and a chance for voters to deal with the wrongs of the past and provide a permanent mechanism for our first nation peoples to articulate views on matters that affect them directly. Obviously, I urge a Yes vote but that is all I will say about that here. On August 19, 1944, the then federal Labor government proposed a constitutional change with its 'Post-War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights' Bill, which sought 14 extra powers to be bestowed on the federal government for a finite period of five years. The so-called '14 powers' referendum was motivated by the Commonwealth's desire to take control of 14 areas that under the existing constitution lay in the legal domain of the States. Some of the responsibilities the Commonwealth sought were in the areas of national health; employment and unemployment; the ability to legislate for Indigenous Australians; control of corporations and monopolies; uniformity of railway gauges, national infrastructure and more. All part of its grand vision to repair the nation after the disruptions of the War, particularly given the need to reintegrate the military forces back into civilian life. Crucially, the Government sought the capacity to ensure it could provide as many jobs as were required to achieve full employment. It recognised that much of the large public employment capacity lay in the domain of the states. The conservatives opposed the referendum - citing all sorts of fictional disasters that would befall a nation if it embraced what it claimed was an authoritarian socialist power grab. 45.99 per cent overall voted Yes but only two states voted a majority Yes. So the Referendum was lost as they usually are when there is a bipartisan divide. I used to muse as to what Australia would look like now had the government won that referendum. Certainly, indigenous matters, the subject of the current referendum would have been in better shape than they are now. You can be sure that when the conservatives oppose a referendum it is because there are powerful corporate or wealth interests in the background who think they will lose something if the proposal passes. In the current case, it is even hard to see who can possibly lose - except the racists who live in a fog of paranoia and hate. But I digress. To overcome the loss of the Referendum, the Federal government realised it would have to seek cooperation with the states and local authorities and back it with funding to ensure it could follow through on its post-War reconstruction plans. Despite facing the constutional labyrinth which gave the states many of the 'big spending' responsibilities but little of the financial clought to fulfill those responsibilities, the Federal government accepted its alone could guarantee full employment and it also accepted that it was obligated to intervene when required, to ensure that guarantee was realised. Hence, in 1945, the Australian government released its 'White Paper on Full Employment', which defined its mission in the newly established peacetime following the destruction of World War 2. The opening line read: "Full employment is a fundamental aim of the Commonwealth Government. The Government believes that the people of Australia will demand and are entitled to expect full employment". It also noted that: "governments should accept the responsibility for stimulating spending on goods and services to the extent necessary to sustain full employment. To prevent the waste of resources which results from employment is the first and greatest step to higher living standards." It went on to articulate how the Commonwealth would use its expenditure powers to achieve its goal recognising that 'The amount of employment available at any time depends on the volume of production being undertaken', which, in turn, was driven by total spending in the economy of which the government could always ensure was adequate to provide work for all. It showed that mass unemployment is always a political issue given the federal government can always provide enough jobs either directly or via private sector stimulus. For the next 3 decades Australia enjoyed very low unemployment, and, the growth in material prosperity that followed for most Australians. Fast track to today. This week, the Australian government released its latest 'White Paper on Full Employment' and it is not at all like the earlier version. There is no acceptance by government that it alone can guarantee jobs for all through its spending. The narrative is now that microeconomic reforms are required so that the private sector will increase employment. The unemployed are blamed for having poor skills or being unemployable by profit-seeking corporations and thus the government seeks to invoke pernicious activity tests and procedures coupled with below-poverty line income support, to engender a sense of desperation and jeopardy among the unemployed. The unemployed are, of course, the victims of misguided government policy. The federal Labor government of 1945 knew full well that it could ensure jobs for all. The federal Labor government of 2023 has forgotten that, and is, instead, intent on pandering to conservative interests that seek to use unemployment as a means of wage suppression to boost private profits. The rich and powerful gain from this shift in awareness, the unemployed are left behind. I much prefer the 1945 vision of a nation. That collective vision has sadly been lost in the 2023 White Paper on Full Employment. The 2023 Referendum is also about the national vision and I hope we don't let that slip also. I will be back again next time. Until then, see you later.