For the second time in a month the Andrews government this week unfurled a big social reform to be funded by a levy on business.
And for the second time in a month, it provoked outrage from the usual quarters, including the state opposition, the federal government and industry groups.
But whereas February’s attempt to introduce a developer levy to pay for social housing was quashed within 10 days, the electoral politics of paid sick leave for casuals will be very different.
In announcing the $246m two-year trial of paid sick leave, the premier, Daniel Andrews, said the pandemic had exposed the “completely and utterly toxic” nature of insecure work. Some casuals were forced to choose between going to work while infected with Covid, he said, putting their colleagues at risk; or feeding their families, given they couldn’t afford to call in sick.
The trial will mean about 150,000 eligible casual and contract workers will receive up to five days a year of sick or carer’s pay each year at the national minimum wage, or about $772.60 a week. More than 2,000 people have already signed up, with 600 of them approved for the scheme so far.
But like clockwork, industry groups released statements criticising the proposal, the federal industrial relations minister, Michaelia Cash, described it as a “tax on jobs and a handbrake on our economy”, and the state opposition indicated it could scrap the trial if elected in November.
Much of the criticism centred upon Andrews’ comments made in an interview with Guardian Australia, during which he confirmed that while the government was paying for the trial, any ongoing scheme would be funded by an industry levy.
“It’s not a matter of, ‘can business afford to support this?’ It’s a question of, ‘can all of us afford not to do this’,” he said.
Andrews was unapologetic about targeting taxes at specific groups in order to fund his reform agenda. This is despite his government, just days before the interview, was forced to dump another levy that would’ve slugged developers to fund new social housing.
While Andrews will tell you the backdown had nothing to do with backlash from industry, the proposal had many within Labor’s ranks panicked.
It would’ve ultimately meant first-home buyers in outer suburbs (read: Labor voters) would’ve had to pay more for their property. It handed the opposition a golden opportunity to target the government in its heartland over housing affordability. They had already begun calling it a “housing tax”.
The sick leave trial, however, has the support of the unions and a huge cohort of Labor voters.
“It speaks to the young inner-urban professional, it speaks to the young person that is working in hospitality as they study to get another job, the mum who works casual shifts, or the migrants in the outer suburbs who have only ever known casual employment or temporary contract work,” said Kosmos Samaras, a former Labor campaign strategist turned pollster.
“The electoral politics of it is quite profound.”
Samaras said research conducted by his firm RedBridge before the pandemic had found casual workers were a growing constituency. In 2019, there were more than 650,000 casual workers in Victoria. In 2021 it dipped to about 600,000.
“It’s a real generational divide. For anyone under the age of 50, they at some time in their life have worked in a casual job and even if they have moved on, they are empathetic to those workers,” he said.
There is also a generational divide when it comes to support for Andrews.
The latest Roy Morgan poll, conducted in November 2021, showed approval of Andrews’ handling of his job is heavily correlated to age. A large majority of young Victorians aged under 35 (72%) approve of his handling of the job, compared with only 28% who disapprove.
This approval declines progressively with age: 62.5% of those aged 35-49 and 61% of those aged 50-64 approve of Andrews’ handling of the job, while this drops to only 55% of people aged 65 and older.
A Newspoll conducted that same month showed women aged under 34 were most likely to approve of his pandemic performance while men 65 and older were most likely to disapprove.
Andrews knows that in order to hold on to as many seats as possible at the next election, he needs to keep young people on side. While the social housing levy is scrapped, his government will need to do more to address housing affordability.
Much has also been made of Andrews’ comments that the “great Australian dream” of owning a home is less important to younger generations. He said some young people he knows would prefer to rent in a location that suits their lifestyle rather than buy in an area they can afford, so long as they have secure terms.
This may be true for some. But for others, home ownership is not less important, rather, it’s unattainable.
