There is an old saying, attributed to former NSW Labor Premier and firebrand Jack Lang, that a politician should always back the horse called self-interest, as it will be the only one really trying. This quote is often used to portray politics as an activity that is ultimately driven by cynicism, but it can also be seen as a simple reminder of one of the more powerful components of human nature.
It is something worth keeping in mind for those of us who are often derided and dismissed as ‘bleeding hearts’ when we call for greater compassion towards those who are less well off. I don’t suggest we should ignore or dismiss the value or validity of compassion, but when you’re trying to convince others of the benefits of a particular course of action (particularly when it comes to spending money), it doesn’t hurt to also look for reasons why such action might be in their interests.
I was reminded of this when I saw this report released by Reconciliation Australia, which makes the case that it is in the self-interest of all Australians to close the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, saying it “would deliver sizeable economic benefits and increase living standards for all Australians.”
The analysis done by Access Economics quantifies the economy-wide advantages from improving the quality of life of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians over the next 20 years, and estimates that:
•GDP in 2029 would be 1% higher than otherwise (equivalent to around $10 billion today)
•Government revenue up by $4.6 billion
•Government expenditure down by $3.7 billion.Access Economics concludes there is a “clear economic justification for government action to reduce Indigenous disadvantage”, based on a reduction in the burden of disease and an improvement in the ability of Indigenous Australians to contribute to and share economic prosperity.
This is the sort of analysis which needs to be done far more often in regards to addressing social needs. It demonstrates that measures that look like a sizeable short-term cost can produce significant long-term gains. Equally importantly, it shows there is a significant cost to the community in the long-term if we fail to spend (or invest) the money in the short-term.
Of course the money needs to be spent effectively to deliver the community and individual benefit, which is easier said than done. As is noted in this report in The Australian, it is critical to success for “indigenous people to be involved “front and centre” in the design and implementation of programs – a weakness in the Northern Territory intervention.” Decisions around expenditure and investment need to be made on the basis of what will work, rather than ideology and politics – something which looks to be finally starting to happen in regards to the Northern Territory.
Leaving arguments over the intervention aside, the core point remains; it is a false economy for governments not to address entrenched social disadvantage or barriers to equal participation on the grounds that it is too expensive.
The same point can be made in regards to areas such as early childhood education, or child protection, or fulfilling the potential of our multicultural society. The cost of doing nothing is greater in the long term than the cost of acting to address barriers to equality of access and opportunity or preventing social and individual alienation.
2 Comments
It’s a sad indictment on previous governments both state and federal, that the plight of indigenous people is so horrendous. After all, there’s only 500,000 indigenous people and 20 1/2 million non-indigenous. The only logical answer is obscene neglect!This is a rich country, and what adds insult to injury is the fact, that in the states with the largest reserves of natural resources, (QLD, WA and NT)are where poorest housing, education and health exist. It’s painfully obvious, that the taxes gained from the resources boom has not reached those who usually have lost the most to mining companies. Aboriginal people suffer from illnesses and diseases that were eradicated from the country years ago-like rheumatic fever which stems from poor housing and sanitation. This disease, with permanent damage to children’s hearts was rife in squalid conditions in Sydney & Melbourne. It was eradicated after WW2 when poor/overcrowded housing and sanitation were addressed. Indigenous people, particularly in areas like the Kimberly have inadequate housing. At certain times of the year, the numbers living in a 2 roomed house can be between 5-20 or more-people sleep in shifts?How can children be at school(if one exists) if the day time is their time to sleep?People having no access to
medical treatment except for every 4-6 weeks; specialist help is a plane trip away, and children are often left in a strange city hospital, without a parent or family
friend. A recent report (after 7 years of investigation) found that aboriginal housing is in a terrible state. Houses are built ‘on the cheap’ with inadequate materials and design, and blatant gaps are evident eg. a light fitting in the middle of a room, a light switch on the door frame, but no wiring between the two? Inadequate space and facilities for food preparation, eating, privacy, washing facilities etc. These gross inadequacies are the norm in too many incidents. This would not be tolerated in Sydney or Brisbane or? How can you raise children and protect them, have a ‘normal’ family life if the living conditions are like this? IT’s appalling, and I feel ashamed each time I see these ‘dwellings’ on TV – it’s a disgrace. The infant mortality rate in indigenous communities is 3 times higher than the rest of the country. We have the money, and the Rudd Govt has stressed that it intends to reverse this shame and misery – I hope they’re serious! I also find it repugnant, that in areas of health, education and housing is deemed a right and responsibility of govt’s, while indigenous people are made to feel, that they shoud be SO grateful for even meagre consideration, and phrases like “mutual responsibility” are trotted out. This would raise the ire of shock jocks and printed media if a child on the North Shore had to feel ‘grateful’ for medical treatment or a school they could attend, and rightly so? There’d be a public outcry if children in Sydney and Melbourne (or any other state)presented to health professionals with Rheumatic Fever, now we know how to prevent it – why aren’t we outraged that aboriginal kids die too early, and suffer for life due to poor living conditions. I cringe with rage each time I hear economists and politicians laud THE SURPLUS! Any thinking person knows, that a huge surplus means only one thing – too many people in the community are having to pay for it with their health/their future/their lives?
It seems logical that long term benefit may come as a result of short term costs and effort. However, it is the effort that is lacking from the government. They appear only interested in short term goals (mainly voter related) and as a consequence there are no long term changes. Until Aboriginal people’s votes are significant at election time I unfortunately can’t see this changing.