Menzies, Liberalism and Social Justice

It is sometimes said that we Liberals pay too little tribute to our historic figures. There is some truth in this. The exception is Sir Robert Menzies.

Alongside Menzies’ philosophical commitments to enterprise and initiative, to the incentive to prosper and create, was a commitment to social justice. A commitment embracing a better distribution of wealth, and giving people protection against misfortune, a protection consistent with their independence and dignity as democratic citizens. He saw government as playing a central role in achieving these ends.

Today, social justice is not a phrase on the lips of every Liberal. A recent work by the Menzies Research Centre is a case in point. The Menzies Research Centre is "a national policy research institution dedicated to the liberal philosophy of Australia’s longest serving Prime Minister." Its first publication is a book called "Social Justice: Fraud or Fair Go".

Many of the essays undertake a critique of the idea of social justice, affording scant attention to the fact that social justice was a key part of Menzies’ philosophy. The Director of the Centre describes social justice as a "propaganda tool" which does not "pay any attention to human nature". Others see it as coercive, antithetical to individual justice and corruptive of the welfare ethos.

Menzies saw social justice as an issue of rights rather than charity. "The purpose of all measures of social security," he said, " is not only to provide citizens with some reasonable protection against misfortune but also to reconcile that provision with their proud independence and dignity as democratic citizens. The time has gone when social justice should even appear to take the form of social charity."

Menzies was committed to an active and progressive role for government as the servant of the people, not its master. Government, he said, has "great functions to perform which are far beyond the scope of private enterprise".

Menzies commitment to social justice was not mere rhetoric. In 1939 when the Lyons Government failed to proceed with the National Insurance Act providing extended social welfare benefits, Menzies resigned from the Cabinet.

As Prime Minister, Menzies translated his commitment to social justice into innovative policy achievements that have shaped the character of both this nation and the Liberal Party for decades.

He oversaw the rapid introduction of child endowment for the first child, free pharmaceutical and medical benefits for pensioners, and a national health scheme.

Menzies recognised the importance of education as a means of promoting citizenship, personal development and social mobility, as well as the national economy. Under his leadership, the government inspired and supported an unprecedented expansion of education in areas that had traditionally been the preserve of state governments. New universities were established, as was a generous Commonwealth scholarship scheme, placing tertiary education within reach of those who could not otherwise have afforded it.

Over the past thirty years the notion of social justice has come under intense and systematic attack from various quarters, among them social libertarians, economic liberals and social conservatives. The dimensions of this attack are many.

The first dimension, sees social justice as a Trojan Horse. These critics argue that social justice is designed to disguise with attractive, acceptable language, the new socialist objective of equalising individual incomes and possessions.

It is absurd to suggest that the idea of social justice espoused by Robert Menzies might be an invitation to socialism by stealth.

Menzies was under no illusion that socialism was a potent force because it offered solutions to so many issues of popular concern – the horrors of child labour, the denial of the rights of employees and suppression of trade unions, extremes of wealth and poverty. For democracy to survive the challenge of socialism and of fascism, it had to demonstrate that it could deal with these issues, and the vehicle for doing so was social justice.

For Menzies, there was no conflict between vigorous opposition to state control of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and advocating an active role for government in the economy, in welfare and education. He believed that poverty should be attacked and that vast differences in wealth were corrosive to the nation. But he was no leveller. He believed that people should be rewarded differently in accordance with their skills, their achievements, their enterprise and initiative, and because of their frugality and foresightedness. He also believed that all people were entitled to a decent life.

The second attack on social justice rests on the claim that it interferes with the operation of the free market, which is ultimately the guarantor and deliverer of productivity, choice and freedom. There is no disputing the effectiveness of the marketplace. The market allows individuals to make choices they believe to be in their best interest. It is the engine of creativity and responsiveness on the part of producers, and it is essential to human liberty.

The pro-market purists however do not just laud the achievements of the market economy and its effectiveness. Their fundamental commitment is to reducing the role of government to little more than providing public goods, a subsistence safety net and law enforcement.

The fact however is that a society is more than the outputs of market exchanges flowing from the interactions of individuals. Our society and its constituent individuals do demand other things of their governments, a sense of collective purpose and vision, the provision of effective health and education systems, addressing disadvantage, and expanding opportunity. A liberal commitment to social justice complements and underpins a free market economy.

The third dimension of the attack on social justice is that it leads to a social welfare system which results in rorting, undermines personal responsibility, erodes the incentive to work, and impedes the operation of the market.

Rorting is a term with many nuances in the Australian language. One aspect is widespread fraud. And yet the evidence is that the incidence of fraud by welfare recipients is extremely low.

Australia has some of the most advanced and effective welfare fraud detection capacities in the world, including data matching between Centrelink and the Tax Office. Last month, the Government released a report on social security compliance for the 1998-99 financial year. The report followed 2.7 million entitlement reviews of welfare recipients.

Out of more than 6 million welfare recipients there were 3,011 convictions for welfare fraud. Approximately .05 percent of recipients fraudulently obtained benefits. There are currently more individuals in Australia who win first and second division Tattslotto each year than there are individuals engaged in welfare fraud.

Another form of rorting the system is presented as people failing to take up available job opportunities. According to the ABS there are 80,000 jobs available. According to the ANZ job advertisement survey there have been a maximum of 30,000 unfilled positions at any one time, a substantial percentage of which are for highly skilled positions for which there is a shortage of the appropriately skilled personnel. Whichever figure one takes there are abundantly more jobless than there are job vacancies.

Another basis for criticism of social justice is the perception that Australian social security benefits are so generous and readily available as to represent a disincentive to work. This also does not stand up to scrutiny.

The OECD has concluded that "the level of generosity of unemployment benefits in Australia remains below the OECD average, particularly with regard to shorter duration unemployment."

Regarding the impact of social security benefits on employment and the economy as a whole, the OECD comments : "Comprehensive means-testing of social security benefits in Australia has constrained expenditure on them to levels far below those in most other countries. This has enabled Australia to combine a comprehensive social safety net with low tax wedges on labour income and hence, an ‘employment-friendly’ taxation environment."

Australian liberalism is a broad church. Within that church are two fundamental arches. Under one arch rests the market, free enterprise, opportunity and incentive. Under the other rests stability, security, social justice and equity. The mortar that binds those two arches is the State.

Menzies saw a free market society enriched by a commitment to its imperative obligations to the weak, the sick, and the unfortunate. To ensure that to every good citizen the state owes not only a chance in life, but also a self-respecting life. Not as charity. But as a fundamental right.

They are the foundations upon which the modern Liberal Party was built. They are the foundations that will endure.