Thought-nanny Henderson spins Fair Pay decision

Following the Fair Pay Commission’s decision on Thursday to increase the minimum wage by $27 per week, thought-nanny Gerard Henderson was quizzed by Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National’s Breakfast program the following morning. His take on the decision seems to describe some kind of union of minds between the nominally independent FPC and the Howard Government.

It was always in the government’s interest to have an increase in lower pay. It was in their political interest. It was in the interest of the Fair Pay Commission to do it, lest they seem to be a dupe of the government. If you have a look at the interests of [FPC chairman] Professor Ian Harper and his colleagues, and John Howard and his colleagues, the outcome of yesterday is hardly surprising.

Is Matron Henderson saying that the FPC’s decision was a political one? Presenter Fran Kelly teased out that aspect a little:

Kelly: So do you think, then, just on that – not wanting to be seen to be a dupe of the government – that this was not just economically motivated on the part of the Fair Pay Commission?

Henderson: Well, the Fair Pay Commission has a reason to enhance its own status. I mean, all organisations do. But I think the essential point is, this is a good decision. At times when it’s hard to get employers [sic], you’re not going to encourage people to come into the workforce if their wages are far too low. So this is economically a very sensible decision. If the economic situation changes, then the rulings of the Fair Pay Commission can change. In the current climate, this is an economically very sensible decision, and a politically wise decision.

Interestingly, the imperative “to enhance its own status” is not included in the FPC’s published criteria for setting the minimum wage:

In setting the minimum wage, the Australian Fair Pay Commission must have regard to:

• The capacity for the unemployed and low paid to obtain and remain in employment;
• Employment and competitiveness across the economy;
• Providing a safety net for the low paid; and
• Providing minimum wages for junior employees, and employees to whom training arrangements apply and employees with a disabilities to ensure those employees are competitive in the labour market.

It’s difficult, given the man’s native ideological caginess, to actually nail down what Henderson is really driving at from his remarks on the Breakfast program. Perhaps, after deconstructing Henderson’s remarks, they might simply equate to the less spin-ridden statement made later in the program by Ian McPhedran (News Ltd) on Kelly’s Friday Panel:

I think that decision is very interesting – and I’m not adopting a cynical view here – but, I mean, it’s a large lump of money and very good for the low paid, and it comes a year out from an election. An election that, if John Howard wins, one wonders what the Fair Pay Commission’s performance will be after that.

This was a theme that was echoed somewhat by fellow panelist Paul Bongiorno (Network 10):

I’d say it’s terrific politics for the government, but it’s questionable, maybe, economics.

Perhaps Matron Henderson will finesse or clarify his thoughts on all this in his regular column in the Sydney Morning Herald this coming Tuesday – if he can spare some time from nannying the ABC’s editorial policy.