GOVERNMENT intervening in markets is terrible – except all the times it isn’t.
Is that right, Anne Webster?
The Member for Mallee, in a column on Saturday, pushed back against an essay written by Treasurer Jim Chalmers outlining his vision for “values-based capitalism”.
First, some clarification is needed, because Dr Webster drastically misrepresented Dr Chalmers’ arguments.
Dr Webster summed up the essay as a call for “government control of the market”. Having read the essay, this is, at best, an extreme interpretation. That language isn’t used and the ideas mentioned don’t quite add up to that.
She raised reform to the “previously independent” Reserve Bank and Productivity Commission. While reform is in the essay, Dr Webster fails to explain how this would lead to them no longer being independent.
Then it was claimed “the government will direct industry super funds to serve the government’s interest”. Superannuation is mentioned a total of zero times in the essay.
None of this is to say fears of such interventions do or don’t hold merit, but it’s misleading for them to be presented as coming directly from Dr Chalmers.
Surely, an essay with almost 6000 words has enough material to rebut in its original form.
Yet Dr Webster felt the need to reach beyond those words and attack points that weren’t being made. It leads you to wonder whether she found the actual text all that controversial.
But let’s get to the fears being stoked in her response.
Apparently we should reject “government control of the market” and “a seismic shift away from free-market policy” and, were one in a mood to beat things up, “socialism”.
Yet in December, Dr Webster condemned a change to distribution priority areas, which she said would allow a medical graduate coming to Australia to choose between working in Ouyen and Frankston. She concluded “one can only imagine the metropolitan setting will be more enticing”.
Presumably that’s one situation we don’t want the free market, then.
In response to Dr Chalmers’ October budget, Dr Webster decried the decision to end the instant asset write-off and apprentice cash subsidies.
Presumably that’s a hands-off government approach we don’t like, then.
During last year’s election, Dr Webster spruiked how JobKeeper supported 5200 businesses in Mallee and 20,100 employees.
Presumably that’s a permissible seismic shift, then.
As recently as last month, Dr Webster was calling for telcos to open up mobile base stations to customers of rival firms.
Presumably that’s not about “control”, then.
Across the past two years, Dr Webster backed placing standards on banks so towns wouldn’t lose banking services, even remarking “not like they’re (not) making enough profit”.
Presumably that’s not worthy of a “socialism” accusation, then.
Or maybe – just maybe – Dr Webster believes in capitalism and free markets, but also believes there are roles for government to play.
Roles like protecting our “values” – such as access to health care, training, employment, communication and services.
Would it be so ridiculous to call her a card-carrying “values-based capitalist” too?
Dr Chalmers’ essay would probably disappoint those looking for a socialist manifesto.
But it does wrestle with how to approach that intersection of values and capitalism, something it appears Dr Webster and her colleagues also wrestle with.
Dr Chalmers’ solution wasn’t to rip up the market – in fact, he laments government “picking winners” – and instead was about changing how markets are designed.
He proposes tracking wellbeing with a similar vigour to tracking profit. He advocates a framework for markets to reward those who invest in businesses and organisations in the aged care, education and disability sectors.
That’s not to say this vision is correct, bogus or in between.
Some might readily see its merit when applied to big business, yet struggle to grasp what it all means for the small business owner on San Mateo Avenue or the blockie in Irymple.
Were the local member to approach the debate in good faith, questions like this could be raised.
Dr Webster could explain how her approach to implementing values at the expense of the free market differs from that of Dr Chalmers.
She could engage with the Treasurer putting investment into aged care – a pet issue of hers – on the agenda.
But to be part of the conversation, Mallee needs its representative to meet the conversation where it is, not opt for cheap ideology wars and political point scoring – all while ignoring her own record.
