Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the opportunity tonight to speak about social justice. It is a concept that is increasingly referred to throughout society and it makes people feel good. The words roll off the tongue very easily. It is a noble-sounding concept and they are pretty much buzzwords in the media, in business, in community and even in schools. But what does the term ‘social justice’ actually mean?

The description provided on Wikipedia, a common source for many people these days, begins by talking about human rights and equality. It does sound pretty good. Certainly, who in this place would not agree with supporting human rights and equality? After all, they are among the core underpinnings of a liberal democratic nation. Reading on, however, we can see what the basic tenets of social justice are and this is where disturbing undertones begin to emerge. Social justice incorporates a commitment to greater economic egalitarianism, which is a concept that requires equal economic outcomes for all members of society, regardless of their input. It is no wonder that economic egalitarianism is therefore also the basic principle of socialism and communism, because regardless of whether you work for 10 or 100 hours a week, you get the same reward. How is economic egalitarianism to be achieved? Progressive taxation is part of it. That means the more you earn the more you pay.

It is convenient for the supporters of economic egalitarianism, such as the extreme Left parties like the Greens, to refer to big salaried corporate CEOs, but it also applies to all those constituents of mine who work in the mines. They earn more because they work long hours and take on the extra and arduous work that comes with working in the mining sector. Under the tenets of social justice, the returns for their work will be increasingly taken away from them by progressive taxation. Another part of economic egalitarianism is income redistribution. I fear, however, that the proponents of the economic egalitarianism found in the concept of social justice have the intention to use income redistribution as the ultimate leveller to achieve their egalitarian goals, and this extends to the view that it is not the right of anyone to do much better in society than anyone else.

The fundamental belief of economic egalitarianism and social justice is therefore that the individual has no right to property, wealth or assets more than any other person and through the social justice tenets of progressive taxation, income redistribution and even property redistribution, the ability of the individual to prosper and to benefit from harder work and greater effort is withdrawn. The only problem is that socialism and communism have failed everywhere. There are no success stories, no shining examples. In every place it has been attempted, the experiment has simply produced a litany of human misery. It failed, as socialism has always failed. Once you remove incentives for the individual to innovate and extend themselves then stagnation follows. No-one sees the point in trying their best; instead, accepting the dogma that society is responsible for providing for the individual. Economic egalitarianism therefore leads to an entrenched welfare dependency and an economy that will stall and then go backwards.

Therefore when we look at ‘social justice’ as a concept, we must understand that it goes beyond the lofty idealism of human rights and equality. Its core is all about socialism and bringing the innovators and the ambitious back to the level of the many. Social justice assigns blame for society’s problems to those who are making money, as though one person’s success is the direct cause of another person’s failings. This is wrong. Its most vocal proponents may insist social justice is all about equality of opportunity, but that is wrong because it does not seek to lift up and encourage those not achieving their potential but merely to drag down those at the top by taking away their ability to prosper and their will to achieve their best. Therefore, I am critical of those who use the phrase for socialist intent or with reckless indifference to its elements.

To help all people to realise their potential, what is actually required is to create the will in the individual to achieve their best, and education is the best means to achieve that ambition. My view therefore is that the concept of ‘social justice’ and the closely related socialism actually hurts and does not help those it seeks to assist. I would encourage those who claim to be committed to social justice to look more closely at the tenets of what they propose and be more careful in the use of the term. It is easy to jump on a bandwagon, but all of us have an obligation to fully understand the concept before we proclaim ourselves to be a supporter, because all that glitters is not gold.