above: Greens leader Richard Di Natale argues reforms to the Senate will make Parliamentary elections more democratic ; But is he mistaken? Could the Liberals soon control the Senate in their own right?
This week I'm publishing six more letters looking at important issues in Australian and international politics... These were originally sent to The Age, the Herald-Sun and The Australian ; Mostly they were unpublished.
Dr Tristan Ewins
Also this week we 're considering:
- 'mental health and life-expectancy',
- 'Conservative misconceptions on Tax',
- 'Superannuation reforms 'not a new Tax''
- 'Integration and Assimilation not the same thing!' and
- 'Was Bernie Sanders wrong on Clinton?'....
Dr Tristan Ewins
A Bigger Threat to those
with a Mental Illness than Suicide – Close the Gap Now…
“Neil Cole (Reducing the
Suicide Rate 9/3) raises the connection between Schizophrenia and suicide ; and
by inference that we should tackle this just as seriously as we do the road
toll for instance. Yet one issue that
none of the major parties are dealing with is that of reduced life expectancy
for people with mental illness, and especially those with schizophrenia. Here looking at suicide is only just
‘scratching the surface’. For those so
afflicted (approximately 300,000
Australians with schizophrenia) there is
a reduced life expectancy of 25 years.
What is required is a ‘close the gap’ program similar to that pursued
for indigenous peoples. Not only to
reduce suicide rates, but to promote fitness, health, good eating and the like,
and also to further ameliorate poverty, provide flexible work, reduce social
isolation etc. ‘The Age’ has briefly considered
this issue last year, but what is needed is an ongoing media campaign demanding this be put this on all the
major parties’ policy radar ahead of the coming election. Some corners of the media could also do to
stop treating Disability Pensioners like criminals.”
Conservatives misguided on
Tax
The Herald-Sun (9/3) alludes
to the corporate sector urging Turnbull to ‘be bold on tax’ and make sweeping
cuts to the Company Tax rate.
Superannuation Concessions are mentioned, and indeed according to Richard
Denniss of the Australia Institute those concessions (mainly for the wealthy)
will soon cost taxpayers as much as $50 billion a year! But are Company Tax cuts better for the rest
of us, and do they really improve the economy?
Company Tax cuts mean that business is increasingly excused from
contributing to paying for the services and infrastructure it benefits from.
(eg: education, communications,
transport) So either those services and
infrastructure are neglected (hurting the economy) or the rest of us are called
upon to ‘pick up the tab’. This is what
some people are calling ‘corporate welfare’.
It amounts to a ‘race to the bottom’ and effective ‘corporate blackmail’. But ironically an economy with low corporate
tax rates may end up being a LESS attractive destination for investment exactly
because of the neglect of infrastructure, services and human capital.
Reforming Superannuation
Concessions is not ‘A new Tax’
Mark Kenny (14/3) argues
that voters are “sticking with the Coalition’ because of “Labor’s plans to lift
taxes on superannuation and investment properties.” This statement is profoundly misleading. Labor is not bringing in new taxes, here, or
even raising any existing taxes. Instead Labor is proposing that a series of concessions
and subsidies be wound back. Subsidies and
concessions overwhelmingly favouring the
well-off. Indeed these could be credibly interpreted as
areas of government expenditure. So a
simple ‘reframing’ of the question could radically alter the terms of the
debate. Superannuation Concessions and
Negative Gearing provisions could be seen as rorts for the well-off which cost
average and low income tax payers.
Indeed Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute has estimated that
superannuation concessions alone will soon cost taxpayers over $50 billion a year. The sheer scope of the cost to the public
purse is phenomenal. It’s enough on its
own to pay for an entire National Broadband Network (NBN) every year! Incidentally Labor’s proposed measures on superannuation concessions are at
best modest. If anything Labor needs a stronger policy. But
they will be ‘spooked’ by the way ‘The Age’ and other publications are
approaching this issue.
Integration and
Assimilation not the Same Thing!
Frank Basile
(HS Letters, 19/3) argues that ‘integration is the only way’ and that we should
adopt a policy of “assimilation”. But
Integration and Assimilation are not the same thing. Assimilation demands that people abandon
their own culture to adopt the host culture.
That is, that they give up their cultural distinctiveness. But Integration has a different aim. Integration aims to establish enough ‘shared
ground’ to facilitate interaction, communication, intermingling and inclusion. That might also include a commitment to
liberty, democracy and social fairness.
In this way Integration aspires to achieve social harmony. But under Integration this ‘shared ground’
does NOT mean immigrants must abandon their cultural identity and
distinctiveness. Integration is the way
of bringing distinct cultures into relation with each other on the basis of
‘common ground’. In such a way cultures overlap and interpenetrate rather than
'one cancelling the other out’.
Integration is well and fine but let’s be clear what it really means.
What Senate Reform Possibly Means
(19/3/16) The Greens have combined with the Liberals to
implement Senate Reforms which will
probably wipe out the so-called ‘micro
parties’. Here we speak not only of the
‘Sex Party’ and so-called ‘Liberal Democrats’ but also of the Carers’ Alliance
and the Women’s Electoral Lobby. In
short voters will no longer be able to vote for a Party ticket with the preferences being
distributed according to those parties’ wishes.
The Greens will argue that takes the power away from the parties, and
puts that power in the hands of voters. On
the one hand it may do away with the questionable scenario of micro-party
candidates being elected on automatically distributed preferences with only a
tiny primary vote of their own. On the
other hand it might do away with the prospects of micro-parties frustrating the Coalition’s social and
economic agendas. Joe Hockey’s brutal Budget would have passed
without opposition in the Senate.
Anthony Albanese has rightly asserted that a system of ‘quotas’ – ie:
imposing a minimum primary vote necessary for election - could also have
rectified the system without the same ramifications. Another option would be for the preference
directions of all candidates be made public ahead of any election. We can
only hope these reforms do not deliver the Coalition absolute power through
control of both Houses of Parliament.
Was
Bernie Sanders Wrong on Clinton?
(A
letter sent to ‘The Age’ a while back)
Some people are criticising Bernie
Sanders for not allowing Hillary Clinton to interrupt and speak over him. Who
was in the right? Is 'what's good for the goose good for the gander', or do
different rules apply to women and men? Generally speaking on the broad left we
should not talk over or interrupt one another. We should have enough mutual
respect or consideration to let arguments take their course, and allow people
to arrive at their judgements. And in the past men's voices were always
dominant - and that had to be corrected. But if a woman can interrupt or speak
over a man, but a man cannot interrupt or speak over a woman (or even try and
reassert himself as Sanders did when he was interrupted) - is it fair? And
could this incident really hurt Sanders' campaign? And would that be fair also?