Social Justice doesn't need to be 'put on hold' to Fight Inflation

 

above:  Albanese doesn't need to 'put social justice on hold' to fight inflation

In Australia the Labor Government is being warned not to spend too much for fear of exacerbating inflation.  At the same time workers are urged to moderate wage demands to avoid a ‘wage/price spiral’.  This is the ‘common sense’ of the day.  But at the same time the labour share of the economy has fallen by over 10 per cent of GDP since the 1970s.

Furthermore, income inequality is marked.  ACOSS observes that:

“People in the highest 20% income group receive 42% of all national income, which is more than the share of the lowest 60% combined. People in the lowest 20% receive only 6% of all household income, while the second lowest 20% receive 12%.”

Here, those in the lowest 20% bracket earn on average $753 a week. While those in the highest 10% bracket take $5230.

Meanwhile, in terms of wealth the bottom 20% average $36,000, while the top 10% average $4,754,000.

Amidst this the Federal Labor Government’s support for an increase of the minimum wage in line with inflation is welcome. But ‘the bigger picture’ is one of increasing inequality, and an increasingly lower share of the economy going towards the needs of working Australians.  At some point Labor needs to confront inequality ; and rectify these imbalances.  But rather than suppressing wages or implementing austerity, the ‘heat’ could be taken out of the economy by raising tax.  Temporary tax increases could target those on middle incomes, while permanent tax increases could target those on high incomes with the goal on funding social wage measures – like Medicare Dental.   Because of the need to moderate demand at this time, the ‘middle’ will be affected either by interest rates, or wage suppression, or tax.  Choosing ‘the tax lever’ achieves this while providing the means to fund infrastructure, welfare and social wage initiatives.   At the same time wages – especially at the lower end – could rise – with the aim of furthering distributive justice.  Overall wages should also rise where the wage share is lower ; and where rectification is necessary. Labor should make representations to Fair Work Australia to achieve this ; and to increase the share going to lower income earners overall. But in the immediate term demand would be moderated through higher tax.  Over the longer term such taxes on ‘the middle’ could be removed to promote an economic recovery. 

The question Labor needs to ask is: ‘can social and distributive justice be furthered while tackling inflation at the same time?’  In this context, pursuing the Stage Three tax cuts makes no sense economically, and from a social and distributive justice perspective.  They will see a flat 30 per cent tax rate for all incomes from $40,000 to $200,000.   This will see an increase in overall demand rather than have a dampening effect.  (though by then the inflation genie may be 'back in the bottle' so to speak)  It will also minimise progressive redistribution and entrench inequality.   It means proportionately those on lower incomes will pay more for the services and infrastructure functions of government, The Stage Three Tax Cats will also cost the Budget billions: almost $250 biillion over nine years.  This money could fund high speed rail, and Medicare Dental, while improving pensions, and winding back user pays in Higher Education.  It could also fund a massive investment in public housing, while improving the wages of Aged Care workers significantly. And probably much more besides.  Some would say such investment would act as a stimulus ; but again it depends on what temporary and permanent tax increases accompany said measures.  Importantly, if such spending kicked in a bit later down the track, the inflation crisis might be over ; and stimulus may in fact be appropriate once more.

The bottom line is that managing inflation does not have to mean social and distributive justice are put on hold. There is scope to improve welfare and social wage while dampening demand overall in the immediate term ; but also rectifying the imbalance between capital’s share of the economy and labour’s share of the economy.  When we have Labor Governments we need to make the most of such opportunities.  We need an Albanese Government that makes the most of the possibilities of government ; and makes long term structural reforms which further the goals of social and distributive justice.

Wage Justice can be Delivered While Also Containing Inflation

above: Anthony Albanese wants Wages to at least Keep Pace with Inflation

Dr Tristan Ewins

Anthony Albanese stands besieged for suggesting a minimum wage increase which keeps pace with inflation.  Specifically, that is 5.1%   This would raise full time wages by just $39.40 a week – less than a dollar an hour.  Businesses are claiming such a move would drive them to the wall and fuel inflation.  But since the 1970s labour’s share of the economy has fallen by over 10 per cent, from 58.4 per cent to 47.1 per cent: or $16,800 a year for the average worker.  Especially ; why is it that the Conservatives believe it is the job of the country’s lowest paid to pay the price for inflation when many businesses are experiencing spiralling profits?  If wages cannot even keep pace with inflation, at what point can the structural inequities in the country’s labour market be addressed?

It is true that higher wages may have some impact on inflation.  There are areas where increased costs will at least in part be passed on to consumers. But this is a false economy based on the exploitation of the poorest workers.  It suggests a policy of drifting towards a US style labour market where there is a large class of working poor who can barely keep their heads above water.  Fear of falling into the working poor disciplines the so-called ‘middle class’.  And threat of homelessness and destitution disciplines the working poor themselves. This is the trajectory the Conservatives would take us down.

But arguably in the name of fairness there must be a ‘structural correction’ for low-paid workers at some time or another.  This may have a small, temporary impact on inflation ; but it is necessary if the most exploited are to survive in dignity and make ends meet.  The prosperity of high and middle income earners cannot be based upon the exploitation of a class of working poor.

Also there are other ways of dealing with inflation.  Raising taxation (for those who can afford it) could take the heat out of the economy without depending on the working poor to pay the price.  This is a better, fairer way of dealing with inflation.  But some inflation is inevitable on account of international factors ; and we should share the burden of dealing with this across society and economy.

At the end of the day an even larger correction is justified. That is: to restore labour’s share of the economy, and the grow the social wage and welfare state to support all Australians.  This is necessary as some problems are best faced collectively ; and also the labour market will never deliver full distributive justice to all workers. All workers deserve support ; including those who find it hard to organise ; or who face structural constraints to wage increases. Because of the way the Australian economy is now structured all this is no easy task.  The process could begin with claims for collective capital share in lieu of greatly increased wage levels.  This is a process that could be led by unions ; who could target areas that are not overly susceptible to capital flight.  Also low-paid workers could be assisted by a recission of secondary boycott bans where secondary boycotts are taken by well-organised workers in support of workers with little bargaining power ; and where such action can be shown to be being taken in good faith.

Albanese has promised action on wages.  But even committing to matching inflation does not compensate for falling wages over the course of the last decade and more.  Though Labor’s housing policy – which involves the government taking up to 40 per cent equity in families’ houses – will put home ownership within reach for many who may otherwise have felt the situation hopeless.   As interest rates increase the price of properties will probably fall – a ‘double edged sword’ that – while perhaps necessary – will leave many Australians looking poorer on paper.

One area where Albanese has been unequivocal has been his support for a 25 per cent rise in the wages of Aged Care workers.  This is one of many areas requiring a ‘structural correction’ ; both to deliver wage justice ; and also to improve care, and retain workers in the industry.  Given the taxing and skilled nature of the work there should be a minimum wage of at least $30/hour here. This is more than the existing claim.

In the final analysis the economy makes so much wealth ; and the question is one of distribution, as well as higher productivity ; and industry policy encouraging high wage industries. Increasing the size of the cake is good – but does not solve all problems. At some point we need to confront the question of who gets what share of the cake ; and this will require redistribution. Sometimes it’s possible to have ‘win-win’ – but not always.  We cannot become a US style economy where workers are disciplined by fear of destitution ; and where the living standards of a so-called ‘middle-class’ depend on the exploitation of the working poor.

Albanese needs to ‘Step up to the Plate’ and not avoid debate on Aged Care, Health and Welfare Reform

 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Labor Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has come under fire from the Conservative Coalition Government for suggesting on the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ program that extra funding may be made available for Aged Care, Health, and perhaps welfare reform. This in a context where billions of subsidies have been provided to businesses due to Covid, and yet many businesses who managed to remain profitable regardless of Covid have simply kept these subsidies provided for them in the form of pure profit.  While the Federal Government ruthlessly pursues welfare recipients over any debts incurred (and even some that have turned out to be unreal), corporations enjoy public money without accountability.

The simple fact is that public spending commitments in social services and infrastructure are not necessarily ‘irresponsible’ or ‘wasteful’.  Often Government needs to invest in the health and happiness of the people to ensure the best outcomes.  What needs to be understood is that social spending is a form of ‘collective consumption’ where we gain a better deal in areas like health by purchasing crucial services more efficiently and collectively as taxpayers, rather than being isolated and fleeced as private consumers.  Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are important examples of collective consumption.

Albanese has spoken of the “habitual buck passing” of the Morrison Government on Aged Care.  Failure to attract new workers into the field with fair wages and conditions, and respect for workers ; and failure to ensure necessary staffing levels including the presence of Registered Nurses – remain sore points even after the Conservatives’ response to the Aged Care Royal Commission.  The training, wages and conditions of Personal Care workers who help many elderly remain in the community are also in need of further funding ; and packages must be available to all with the need upon demand ; and without cruel waiting queues.

The reality also is that Aged Care reform needs to go beyond the bare essentials to address broader quality of life issues ; so that in the future Aged Australians with have access to social engagement ; and where those in residential care will enjoy privacy, access to information technology, access to gardens and pleasant surrounds.  They must not just be locked in their rooms or sat down in front of TVs in common rooms all day.  Our vulnerable elderly need social engagement.  Everything from discussing their lives to enjoying games, listening to music, or discussing the issues of the day.  Dementia training is also essential to ensure the best quality of life to those affected ; and those around them.  Quality of food also needs to be monitored closely ; and without meeting staff quota targets, Aged Care workers will remain rushed in the business of helping to dress and shower residents daily ; or may not be able to respond in a timely manner to situations such as where sheets are soiled.  The consequences of under-resourcing have been trauma and suffering for vulnerable aged Australians. 

Yes this will cost billions on top of those limited initiatives already announced.  But most of us will grow elderly and frail one day ; and even if ourselves we do not experience this, surely we will have family who are affected by a neglected Aged Care sector.  Rather than backing down, Albanese needs to ‘step up to the plate’ and confidently put the case for progressive collective consumption of Aged Care ; and a much better deal for both ‘consumers’ and for workers in the broader Health sector.

There will also be a significant backlog in waiting lists for supposedly ‘elective’ hospital procedures thanks to the pressure Covid has placed the health system under.  This was already a crisis ; but has been significantly magnified with Covid.  Medicare needs to be extended into dental, optical and prosthetics ; but the broader health system needs to be expanded to ensure timely care, breadth of coverage and quality of care.

Australian of the Year, tennis star Dylan Alcott has also highlighted the high unemployment levels (over 50 per cent) for disabled Australians.  The focus here was mainly on those with physical disability ; but exclusion from the labour market also applies to those with psycho-social disabilities.  Exclusion is a vicious circle which needs to be broken.  Sometimes it goes on for years. Often it is permanent.  Government needs to intervene directly to provide opportunity for all ; and employment needs to be made more viable by lessening means tests for Pensioners in the workforce.  Also there need to be viable career paths, and not merely ‘dead end jobs’.

Importantly, Labor needs to pitch to ‘average’ workers as well.  Labor needs to pitch to the majority to enjoy electoral success ; and provision for equity groups alone will not win government.  Delivering wage gains and improving the bargaining position of average workers in the labour market is important here.  As is a restructuring of the broader tax system: delivering distributive justice outcomes not only for the most vulnerable, but also the majority of workers.  Further ; improvement of the Aged Pension could act as a ‘bridge’ which enhances the case for reform of other pensions. Labor needs to build a ‘bloc’ based on solidarity and mutual recognition rather than allowing the Coalition to ‘Divide and Rule’ – which so often has been the case.

So come on Albo, ‘step up to the plate’.  A ‘small target’ can take us so far ; but as the campaign progresses voters will want a clearer sense of what Labor is going to do.  Labor will need to have answers.  And it must not ‘back itself into a corner’ where it cannot deliver significantly to its constituents.  Early signs suggest some hope.

Rejecting the Cashless Welfare Card a Good Start for Labor ; but further cultural change necessary

 

                             above: Class Struggle has Always been Essential to Social Progress

Dr Tristan Ewins

 

It is now approaching a decade since Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest was approached by then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, to advise on the creation of a ‘cashless welfare card’.   While Forrest intended for all income to be ‘quarantined’ for use only in approved areas (like groceries), the Indue card which has emerged in trials set a floor of 80% of income to be with-held, and available for ‘approved purposes’. Aimed largely at indigenous peoples, and the welfare-dependent more broadly, the ‘Indue’ card follows after the failed ‘Basics card’ of 2007 - which attempted something similar as part of a government ‘Intervention’ into indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.  The newer ‘Indue’ cashless welfare card applies to the welfare-dependent more generally in the communities in which it is being trialled.  All those affected find themselves in the position of being restricted in what they can spend their money on, including on food and second hand goods. While a relatively small proportion are affected by gambling addiction or alcoholism, the ‘card’ is a source of humiliation and control over the welfare-dependent more generally.   Indue, which includes Conservative Coalition party luminaries as shareholders, stands to make a packet from the humiliation and micro-management of the every-day life of already-disadvantaged Australians.

Instead of humiliating marginalised Australians government ought instead be seeking to empower them, perhaps including through the mechanism of a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI).  Arguments against a GMI include the suggestion it may displace some existing pensions. (some of which are less threadbare than others)  But if a ‘no disadvantage’ test were applied this need not be a problem.  ‘Mutual obligation’ provisions have always been worrisome; as in practice they became a source of effective labour conscription.  This might also increase competition for jobs at the ‘lower end’ of the labour market ; and in the process reduce the bargaining power of those workers. 

A good alternative could be the establishment of a ‘Social Bill of Rights’ ; which would include rights to nutrition, adequate and dignified shelter, power, comprehensive health care, communications-related empowerment (eg: internet access), transport, education and social inclusion. A ‘Guaranteed Minimum Income’ could then be deployed alongside pensions and other programs intended to make this vision reality.

In the 18^th and 19^th Centuries the unemployed were driven into ‘Poor Houses’ where they were exploited, humiliated and robbed of their dignity.  There is a long history of ‘blaming the poor’ for their own disadvantage.  Centuries later some of the same assumptions remain in play beneath the surface.  Labor is arguing it will end the long Conservative experiment with the ‘cashless welfare card’.   The Coalition has so far not mustered the political courage (or political capital) to implement the program more broadly.  But as with ‘WorkChoices’ ; the old agendas continue to ‘fester’ behind the scenes.   The debate needs to be brought into the glare of public scrutiny and buried decisively.

Labor’s opposition to the Indue card is welcome.  But Labor needs a broader, stronger vision, including reform of welfare, minimum wages and labour market regulation, industrial rights, and embedded social human rights.  Its retreat on the tax debate has regrettably narrowed its options.   But a program for change could re-emerge through a determined reform of the social wage and welfare state ; which branched in various directions – including a Universal Aged Care Insurance Scheme, as well as improvement of pensions, with rescission of punitive mechanisms.  And a bold commitment to build a million new public housing units – as suggested by the Greens.  Labor really ought to be coming up with these kind of ideas on its own initiative.

There is a minimum standard of living which must apply to all citizens.  This idea of a ‘floor’ beneath which none are allowed to fall is reminiscent of the more progressive variations of the ‘Third Way’ which emerged in the 1990s.  But to mobilise as broad a base as possible, and provide distributive justice for all a more robust Social Democratic or Democratic Socialist agenda than Blairism is necessary.

It seems Social Democratic Parties have been on the defensive and on the back foot for decades. And indeed they have been.  For some the logic of retreat has been internalised.  We need to re-establish a notion of what comprises ‘progress’.  That means fairer distribution, industrial rights,  social rights, and the re-establishment of a robust mixed economy to help make this vision reality.  The Indue ‘cashless welfare card’ is the current ‘Conservative frontier’ ; where it attempts to reshape public ‘common sense’ on the further rescission of the welfare state, and the re-establishment of a ‘Poor House’ mentality ; which ‘gives the whip hand’ to employers through poverty, compulsion and labour conscription. 

Labor needs to go back to ‘first principles’ and work out the consequences of that.  Which is that being a ‘broad church’, Labor needs to be united behind ‘baseline’ social democratic and democratic socialist values and agendas.  Containing inequality and ending poverty ought be non-negotiable ; as should the proposal that this must be pursued through industrial rights, labour market regulation, a mixed economy, progressive taxation system, expanded social wages and welfare state provisions, and intervention into the capitalist system. (ultimately to end exploitation ; but also to ameliorate the impact of its crises upon workers and the vulnerable in the meantime)

The cashless welfare card needs to be defeated and exposed for the punitive mentality it embodies.  But we need a progressive movement which is willing to ‘go onto the front foot as well’.  A movement which has an idea what ‘progress’ entails, and which rejects a logic of endless retreat ; ameliorated only by the ascendance of ‘social liberal’ agendas as applied to gender, sexuality, and so on.  And in the context of the marginalisation of social conservatism, and its replacement by an ideology of neo-liberal cosmopolitanism. 

A ‘change of direction’ involves accepting class struggle as a progressive phenomenon ; an ‘engine of social progress’.  Only when that logic becomes entrenched does progress become undeniable. And while Hawke’s vision of “Reconciliation” appealed to many ; bosses soon became tired of ‘co-determination’ with unions once they had extracted crucial concessions.  And once organised labour lost its bargaining position. 

‘Reformists’ and Revolutionaries were once agreed on the progressive nature of class struggle.  Within Labor factions and amongst others we need, also, to combine behind such a shared notion. Bringing together Labor members behind the idea of a progressive class struggle is crucial ; an idea that we are all broadly in the same fight.  Reinforced by daily experience everywhere from Party branches to unions, and from student politics to the social movements.   There is a fight for the heart and soul of the ALP, and the heart and soul of Australia. There is no place for a punitive cashless welfare card in a progressive Australia.  May solidarity in the name of renewed class struggle relegate it to history.

Government does not go far enough on Aged Care reform, while Labor is too-light on the Details

 

above:  Aged Care residents need  more to do than to be sat in front of a television all day

Dr Tristan Ewins

The recent Budget announcements are a mixed bag for Aged Care.  They represent a step in the right direction ; but much is still left to be done.  Specifically the Budget outlines an extra $17.7 billion over five years in new funding ; but with an upwards trajectory.  This is intended to provide an additional 80,000 home care packages over two years, while increasing the Basic Daily Fee by $10 a day. This will provide for things such as better food.   And average staffing levels will increase, with 200 minutes of personal attention allowed for, with 40 minutes of this with a registered nurse.   By comparison,  the Royal Commission concluded that residents require at least 215 minutes of personalised care a day.  (including 44 minutes with a Registered Nurse)  And while the Budget initiatives will see an increase in the numbers of  Aged Care workers attaining a Certificate III qualification, they have stopped short of mandating this as a minimum standard.   

The Conversation concludes that while the changes, including a new Aged Care act in 2023, are significant, they stop short of the ‘needs based’ model demanded by the Royal Commission.   We still need minimum staffing ratios.  Mandated personal time with staff needs to go further.  To attract and keep the best workers we need significantly better wages and conditions for all staff.  A landmark improvement in wages of at least 20 per cent, and end casualisation for those who prefer part time or full time work.  This is also a matter of fairness in relation to the demanding nature of the work.  We require more workers with a Certificate IV minimum.  We need as many workers as possible with a Certificate IV, and none with less than a Certificate III. What’s more we want better standards without falling back on user pays to provide for this.  In Paul Keating’s words, we don’t want people to have to ‘eat their house’ and die broke.   This also requires an improvement in the Aged Pension, with an easing of means tests. And we need to provide for a waiting list of around 100,000 for at home care. We also need stringent regulation to ensure new funding goes entirely towards staff, infrastructure and services, and not profit margins.   

There’s also the problem of Aged Care homes being ‘warehouses for old people’. People are just sat down in a common room in front of a television all day.  Tied funding needs to be provided for facilitated interaction ; outings for those interested and capable ; visits, gardens and access to a variety of books and information technology ; as well as interesting and engaging activities.  Once everything is accounted for we’re looking at something more like a minimum of $10 billion new funding every year indexed to account for rising costs and inflation.  This is necessary just to make up for the money withdrawn from the system in the form of ‘efficiency dividends’ over the past 20 years.   The public sector also needs to take more responsibility, with more public investment in aged care facilities.  For profit aged care does not have the interests of residents at heart, and even not-for-profits can be prone to diverting funds for expansion.

But by comparison Labor has made little in the way of monetary commitments in its Budget Reply.  Nonetheless it’s true, Albanese has hinted at ratios.  He argued that :  “a Labor Government will deliver that care by ensuring that every dollar spent in aged care goes to employing a guaranteed minimum level of nurses, assistants and carers and to daily needs like decent food – rather than into the pockets of the more unscrupulous providers.”   This includes a registered nurse on site 24/7.  And a commitment to levels of personalised care recommendation by the Royal Commission. He backs the Royal Commission findings ; though he does not commit in areas where there was disagreement ; such as funding.  Albanese also mentions issues like the wages and conditions of staff, which the Liberals did not even touch upon.   The bottom line is that while Labor is saying some good things, it needs to commit on funding.  And that funding mechanism should be as progressive as possible.  For a start, tax cuts for the well-off need to be stopped or reversed.  It needs to provide at least twice the monetary commitment made by the Conservative Government in Aged Care ; or at least an additional $10 billion a year.  And that funding needs to kick in as a matter of urgency, as soon as possible.

Albanese is also highlighting Labor’s ambitious child care policy, as well as its high tech industry policy, an emphasis on wages, and a big commitment to social housing  - with 20,000 new social housing dwellings,  including 4,000 places for women and families escaping domestic violence.  There is no explanation how wages will be driven upwards however, or why social housing is thought preferable to public housing.  After all, public housing would ultimately be more affordable for recipients. If the Fair Work Commission will not lift Aged Care workers’ wages significantly enough Labor needs to intervene more directly.  And the NDIS needs support so recipients are not adversely affected by cost-cutting.

As the Federal election approaches, the issue of revenue and funding will become unavoidable.  A ‘small target’ will not suffice when people are demanding details. An Aged Care Levy could be progressively structured, and would probably be relatively popular if linked directly with Aged Care funding.   The Coalition has been driven by the findings of the Aged Care Royal Commission to go further than it is probably comfortable with.  But Labor needs to go further still if it is to address the findings of that Commission, and clearly distinguish a superior policy from that of the Coalition.

Albanese: Take a Stand on Tax for our Supporters' Sakes

above:  Anthony Albanese must take a stand for Labor Constituents, opposing effectively flatter and lower tax which would end up with austerity and inequality down the track...

A letter to Anthony Albanese:

Albo! : Don't pass phases 2 and 3 of the Tory Tax Plan

Abbott blocked good policy ; Now Labor has a right to block sweeping tax cuts that will indirectly hurt millions of its constituents. And many will be very disillusioned or angry if you let phases 2 and 3 pass.

The Government's plans include the following for phases two and three:  (from Treasury)

"For 2022–23 and 2023–24, the top threshold of
the 19% tax bracket will increase from $37,000 to $41,000
the 32.5% bracket will increase from $90,000 to $120,000.

For 2024–25 income year onwards, the top threshold of the 32.5% tax bracket will increase from $120,000 to $200,000."

This represents an effective 'flattening' of the tax scales ; with higher income individuals on effectively lower rates of tax.

It will also cost the Budget $160 billion over 10 years. This when we're likely heading for a recession. It will fuel austerity.  Especially if the government prioritises the surplus even in time of economic downturn.

Finally: remember that the median wage in Australia is only approx $53,000/year. The Conservatives talk about people on $120,000/year as if they're 'battlers'. If we don't stand up and fight only the Conservatives will eventually win with their long term agenda of a flat income tax.

They also want to legislate ahead for the next term of government which is totally unreasonable.

The Conservatives claim a mandate. Yet they won through a fear campaign based on lies ; Clive Palmer's Money ; and preferences from Palmer and One Nation.  And in Opposition under Abbott they never respected Labor’s mandate.

Labor needs to restructure income tax for fairness ; and index the lower brackets to avoid a vicious cycle of bracket creep and regressive tax cuts which flatten the scales.  This must be a priority for Labor upon re-election.

We don't need to capitulate on progressive policy. Labor needs a strategy to nullify the fear and disinformation campaigns.  Capitulation is not a strategy.

Raise progressive taxes by somewhere in the vicinity of 1% to 1.5% of GDP upon retaking government. Exclude lower and middle income earners from higher taxes. Be thorough in this. Point out the moderate scale of the reform ; and explain where the money is going. (eg: Aged Care Social Insurance, Medicare Dental)  If Labor must tax a broader base then consider the Medicare Levy as well. It’s the closest thing in this country to “a popular tax” because of the clear connection with medical services, and the universal coverage most Australians value.

The Coalition is fond of arguing about "great big new  taxes" - even where there are no new taxes; Labor HAS to fight them on this.  Again: Insist on a figure in the vicinity of 1% to 1.5% of GDP in the first term of a new Labor Government.  Point to our low tax rates in Australia compared with the OECD average.    (approx. 27% of GDP compared with approx. 34% of GDP)  Australian tax overall is approximately seven percentage points lower in Australia compared with the OECD average.  That’s a difference of approximately $119 billion Australian dollars a year.

If we give in we get an Americanisation of the discourse which gradually flattens tax scales, and makes meaningful social democratic reform on social wage, social insurance, public infrastructure and welfare impossible.

Take a stand, Albo.  That’s what ordinary Labor members and voters want and expect from you.

Dr Tristan Ewins  (Labor member of over 25 years)

Responses to the ALP Leadership Election Result

above: The winner of the Opposition Leader election - Bill Shorten

With a 'mixed mandate' from the ALP's first experiment with a rank and file component in electing the parliamentary leader, Bill Shorten needs to move straight away to implement the reforms he promised to 'Local Labor', Race Mathews and others - in order to keep the Party unified and with high morale - as we rebuild and aim to retake government in three years.

Tristan Ewins


With Albanese getting about 60% of the membership vote there's a 'mixed mandate' here. Importantly, I read that the Right was enforcing 'pairing' to ensure their members were voting for Shorten in the caucus. That said, I don't know why some members of the parliamentary Left decided to vote for Shorten. Hopefully the full story will come out in the coming days and we’ll have a fuller appreciation of how this process has panned out….

But we agreed to this process, and this is what we've got to work with. 50% of the vote for the rank and file is still a step forward. Especially if we get more far-reaching reforms as part of the deal over the coming months......

Another matter is that with Albanese recording such a strong vote amongst the members he deserves recognition. There's the option of the Deputy Leadership. Though Shorten has already committed there to Plibersek - and Plibersek is certainly incredibly talented - and could have had a go at the leadership herself if she'd been inclined to do so. Perhaps whoever misses out should receive a shadow ministry of their choice? Though that's complicated by the fact Bowen did a good job as Treasurer.

Albanese overwhelmingly won the rank and file vote on the basis of unequivocal support for direct election to Conference and other reforms. Shorten supported reform too - giving personal guarantees to Race Mathews which were then communicated to the membership and to ‘Local Labor’.

Perhaps Albanese could also be given the job of heading a Committee to oversee democratic Party organisational reform between now and the next Conference. And maybe Conference could be brought forward so that whatever policy positions we adopt - we have plenty of time to campaign on difficult issues which nonetheless are a matter of principle. (for example: increasing Newstart in the face of Conservative attacks)

On the plus side Shorten will make a very articulate leader; But he has to overcome the 'Bill the Knife' tag; He needs to break through against those perceptions early on to stop it from undermining his position.

If we get direct election for National Conference the victory for Party democracy will still be great. (so long as the Parliamentary Party then accepts the policy parameters set by Conference)

At Facebook Glenn L. McGrath reports that: "Bill won by 4 MP votes, 55/86 = 63.95, it would need to have be 51/86 = 59.3% for Albo to have won." So if the Left had held it really would have been down to the wire. I'm trying to confirm whether there were three Left supporters of Shorten or more.

In any case – again, it is done now; Bill will be an articulate leader;  Bill Shorten has tried to overcome the ‘Bill the Knife’ tag  today; And I hope he succeeds - for him and for the Party. On the night Shorten supported Rudd he looked like a ghost. I'm certain it was a very difficult decision which weighed heavily on him.

 

Of great importance:  With such a close vote the pressure needs to be on to implement further internal democratic reform quickly - starting immediately; With such a strong rank and file vote for Albanese Shorten needs to move quickly on democratic reform to keep the party unified at this point and into the future.

A Committee made up of members genuinely committed to democratic reform ahead of the next National Conference – and with a brief to achieve this - would be a the best thing;  So long as it isn’t distorted into a mechanism for ‘burying’ reform rather than implementing it ASAP.

 

If Albanese is at the helm of such a committee here’s hoping that won’t happen that way…
 

PLS Debate!!!

nb: 'Christian Kunde' at Facebook writes:  1 caucus vote = 350 member votes. Albo lost by 700 votes/2 caucus votes. If 3 from the Left voted Shorten, that would have easily been enough"

I'm still trying to work out just how close it really was...

ALP Leadership Update: Candidates Commit to Organisational Reform

 

Just to let readers know we have been made aware of statements by Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten – both claiming they will work to implement organisational reform if elected as Labor Leader.  This was in response to the "Local Labor" Survey of Candidates.  (There is a joinable group at Facebook for 'Local Labor'; and Readers may be interested in joining the 'ALP Socialist Left Forum' group there as well - if they haven't already)

Nb: In the two posts immediately preceding this one I published a series of policy questions which unfortunately have not been answered. 

I also wrote an analysis of the commitments made by Shorten and Albanese. 

which can be found here:

 http://alpsocialistleft.blogspot.com/2013/10/what-are-strengths-and-weaknesses-of.html

But there is new information in this post!

The following is a summary of many of the commitments both Albanese and Shorten made in recent Statements:

Albanese

·        Albanese specifically indicates he will implement the recommendations of the 2010 Carr/Faulkner/Bracks Review.

 

·        He argues he will maintain the direct election component for parliamentary leader.

·        He indicates he will “give members a direct vote in electing ALP National Conference delegates”.   (A crucial commitment for this ALP member)

 

·        He says he will provide grassroots members with  “training, resources and support”;

 

·        He supports further trials “of community preselections”.   (I’m not so sure of this one for reasons I’ve given in the earlier article)

·        He  indicates he will bring National Conference forward to 2014 to discuss these organisational issues, and policy issues as well.

Shorten

I sent some questions to Shorten on these and other issues and didn’t receive a reply(and not from Albanese either!!) ; but upon having found a statement by Shorten I believed it important to let readers know what his stated positions were.

·        Shorten argues he will “act on the reform commitments made at [the] last National Conference; and will maintain the direct election component for ALP Parliamentary Leader

 

·        He argues he will ; work for “a bigger ALP”, with “discounted rates” for pensioners, the unemployed, students and union members; and with “training” with regard the party’s “history, structures, principles and processes”  Also he claims he would  create a “supporters” category – a “low cost option” that would aim to turn Labor into a larger mass party.

 

·        He argues he will provide flexible options for involvement (eg: internet) for people who have trouble regularly attending branch meetings

 

·        He also argues he will involve members in policy development

 

·        Like Albanese he would continue the “community pre-selection trials” (which I personally fear would divert our resources and lead to the scenario where the ‘big fundraisers’ would dominate.)

nb:  I hope this update is useful to ALP members who have yet to vote!  Importantly it seems to me that while Shorten is making some very constructive commitments to mobilising and involving the grassroots (and Albanese likewise), I could not find an explicit commitment to Direct Election for National Conference from him. (ie: Shorten)  If I am mistaken I would appreciate being corrected - because I want to get accurate and comprehensive information out to members!  But we really need a direct statement from Shorten in order to confirm his position on this issue.

Tristan Ewins


UPDATE; DICUSSION AT 'LOCAL LABOR':
 
posted here 7/10 1:07pm

At the "Local Labor" Facebook Group Stuart J Whitman has posted the following:
 
"FINDING COMMON GROUND
Yesterday, BILL SHORTEN gave his commitment to support direct elections of delegates to National Conference. This had not been spelled out in his original response to the Local Labor ALP Reform Survey. Now I wonder if we can get ANTHONY ALBANESE to address gaps in his response and commit to establishing an Implementation Committee to ensure the reforms are achieved in the coming year, and to open the way to further review of standards of integrity and conduct in the application of rules and Party office holders carrying out their responsibilities?  Then we have a Win-Win for reform."

But Don Alma McAllister responds:  
 
"I'm confused here. Albo's response seems to be unequivocal support of the 2010 National Review document (31 recommendations excluding the withheld sections.) But Shorten is saying "I will:
• act on the reform commitments made at our last National Conference;
• encourage our state branches to align their commitments and rules with these changes; and ..etc etc “which seems to be offering support only for the remnant bits cherry-picked out of the document by his faction at the 2011 Nat. Conf."


Yet Race Mathews has written at 'Local Labor':

Memorable day – in fact the day for which I’ve been waiting ever since writing my first party reform paper, back in 1965. Full house attendance at the ALP leadership contestants debate in the Trades Hall Council Chamber. Heard great contributions from Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten to frequently passionate applause. Proud to belong to a party that can produce prospective leaders of so outstanding a quality. Realised halfway through Bill’s speech that he and Albo now on the same page in support of direct election of conference delegates. Couldn’t catch Chair Jane Garrett’s eye for a question, but confirmation in brief conversation with Bill and aide Steve Michaelson following the meeting. So grateful to have been present after all these years at the true dawning of the party’s democratisation. Or as Bill has it, not just a party but a movement. Music to my ears. Tears in my eyes.


New Update:Race Mathews of 'Local Labor' and the Australian Fabians has said that Shorten and Albanese are "on the same page" on Conference Direct Election.  But in light of this I'm not certain what to make of Don Alma McAllister's contribution.  Race wrote to me this afternoon that Shorten had indicated to him personally that he would support some form of direct election - But he did give specifics on implementation, including what model.

SO the offer still stands  - for a clear statement from both candidates on the issue of direct National Conference delegate election - and what specific form they would have this take.

LATEST UPDATE:  9/10/13

The following has come through from the Sydney Morning Herald; It reports Shorten is NOT prioritising Rank and File Direct Election of ALP National Conference delegates.

But Race Mathews insists Shorten had given him a personal guarantee. He's trying to clear things up today; I will post again here if we get a clarification - some kind of direct clarification from Shorten.

QUOTE: "Mr Shorten said he wanted to make it easier to join the party, commenting that it was ''crazy in the 21st century that it's difficult to join the Labor Party online''. He also said he wanted to involve more people in preselections.

''I believe that we do need to open the party up, that we do need to make it easier to participate in and we do need to give people more say,'' Mr Shorten said.

But a spokeswoman for Mr Shorten's campaign later contacted Fairfax Media to clarify that while Mr Shorten supported the recommendations of the Bracks, Carr and Faulkner review ''in principle'', allowing members to elect conference delegates was not one of his priorities. His focus was on growing and diversifying the party membership, the spokeswoman said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/labor-leadership-candidate-bill-shorten-commits-to-extending-party-reforms-20131008-2v507.html

FINAL UPDATE

I guess we're not going to get a direct and public confirmation from Bill Shorten on ALP National Conference Direct Election and we'll have to deal with that; Given what one of his staffers said, it may well just be as they put it "it is not a priority". Such that he felt no urgent need to clear that up with a direct, public and personal statement. A lot of people will already have voted for Bill Shorten on the understanding he WILL introduce direct election to Conference. It will be incredibly demoralising and divisive if Bill doesn't try and push it through after this - try and get the Party and the factions behind him on the reform apparently he has promised privately to Race Mathews.... I hope Race Mathews and other people are right! But why else would Shorten not make a public statement?