Scott Morrison’s 2017-18 Federal Budget: Some Good Measures Amidst the Typical Austerity

Admist the Usual Austerity there are some Welcome Surprises in this 2017 Morrison Federal Budget. Though the monopoly mass media is tending to overstate any perceived 'leftward shift' ; inappropriately using terms like 'Labor lite' , where in reality there are very significant assaults on the rights of students and job seekers.

by Dr Tristan Ewins, 10/5/2017

Many media commentators are responding to the 2107-18 Morrison Federal Budget by branding it as ‘Labor Lite’ or ‘worse’.  But how much of that actually stands up to scrutiny? 

Yes the Government is attempting to appear ‘fair’.   And many media figures are throwing around terms like “cash splash” which are commonly reserved to use against Labor governments.  There are pressures in the right-wing monopoly mass media for a ‘right-turn’ in response to any moderation of economic policy under Turnbull.   Bernardi’s ‘Australian Conservatives’ and the libertarian ‘Liberal Democrats’ stand to gain most from this.  But despite years of conditioning from the monopoly mass media Australians may resist these trends given the remnants of our ‘egalitarian spirit’.   The point of all this appears to be stigmatisation of social investments and expenditure ; ultimately leading to a US-style political culture.  Which in turn would support a US style class system based on the absolute destitution of many , and the blatant exploitation of a class of working poor. To the extent Turnbull and Morrison resist pressures for an ‘economic hard right turn’ then that is welcome.

Some Budget changes do appear at the least superficially ‘Labor-esque’.  Many of the billions in cuts and savings originally proposed in the nightmare 2014 Hockey Federal Budget are laid to rest permanently here. The increase to the Medicare Levy will be welcomed by many, and will help provide for the NDIS. (National Disability Insurance Scheme)  The Government claims a ‘$56 billion shortfall’ for the NDIS ; though most of that could have been made up for immediately by jettisoning the Government’s $50 billion in planned corporate tax cuts over 10 years.  (much more over time) $8.2 billion will be taken via the Medicare Levy increase over the first four years.  

A so-called ‘Google tax’ targeting corporate tax evasion is also expected to net more than $3 billion over four years.   (though it is quite insignificant compared with corporate tax  cuts elsewhere)

Further, the ‘big banks’ (including CBA, ANZ, Westpac, NAB) will be hit for $6 billion over 4 years ; apparently including an effective payment in return for the ‘government guarantee’ for the sector. (which began with Rudd’s response to the Global Financial Crisis)   In response there is the question : will the banks hit customers or will they hit shareholders?  If somehow larger shareholders could be targeted that would ensure the most equitable outcomes.  A payment by the big banks in return for an effective government insurance policy makes sense.  Without it ultimately there could be impositions on workers, citizens, tax-payers.  So on this front at least the Government is doing the right thing.  And if the Banks respond by upping fees and charges arguably the co-operative and mutualist sector could ‘step into the breach’.   Were the Commonwealth Bank still in public hands then assuming a ‘competitive charter’ it could have held the rest of the sector accountable , countering tendencies to pass costs onto consumers.  That’s also a good reason for Labor to consider restoring a public-sector bank – perhaps taking advantage of existing Australia-Post infrastructure.

Meanwhile, foreign home owners who leave properties vacant six months or more will be taxed – a measure apparently borrowed from the Andrews Labor State Government in Victoria.  As well as raising some revenue, this measure should also influence investor behaviour ; and effectively increase available housing supply ; with downwards pressure on housing and rental affordability. 

The ‘Gonski 2.0’ measures, meanwhile, are a significant improvement on past Liberal policy, and include needs-based funding.  David Gonski is due to present another report by the end of the year.  The Catholic sector appears to be in the firing line.   More broadly, Shorten points out that despite the gains, here, (including some cuts to some of the richest private schools) the proposals nonetheless still involve an overall $22 billion cut to the sector over ten years compared with the deals previously negotiated by Labor. 

Other constructive policies include significant tax breaks for ‘empty nesters’ to ‘downshift’ to smaller, lower-maintenance accommodation.  That could also increase effective housing supply.  The housing bubble will eventually deflate (or ‘burst’ disastrously). But government could step into the economic breach with public housing.  There is still the need to expand supply to meet underlying human need.  Planned Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax reforms from the Government are welcome, but do not go anywhere near far enough, saving just $1.6 billion over 4 years . Stronger action on Negative Gearing is necessary to lessen competition between first home buyers and investors , correcting the Housing Bubble over time.

Also there’s $10 billion for rail as part of a suite of infrastructure commitments. (though these are not as significant as some think when compared relative to infrastructure investment under a ‘traditional’ Labor Government)    

A once-off payment of $75 for singles, $125 for couples – to assist with energy costs – is very insignificant when you consider the rising cost of living.  The Liberals point to renewable energy as the alleged ‘culprit’ here ; but what of privatisation? 

Finally ;  Annual TV Licenses are scrapped in favour of a much lower ‘spectrum fee’ – which makes sense given the changing media landscape – which is hurting traditional media. Arguably the licenses aren’t worth as much anymore.  But diluting media ownership laws will still enable the likes of Murdoch to dominate traditional media.

The Down-Side

But there’s a very significant ‘down-side’ to this Budget as well ; including ‘traditionally Liberal’ attacks on vulnerable groups ; and treating tertiary students like ‘cash-cows’.

Higher Education stands to lose almost $3 billion a year – with students hit hardest.  The Turnbull Federal Liberal Government claims that its fee increases – and its reduction in the minimum repayment threshold to $42,000 a year (down from $55,000) “better reflects the lifetime benefits reaped by higher education graduates”.  But these measures will start ‘kicking in’ affecting people on approximately half the average wage.  Hence in places the measures really bear no relation to any alleged private financial benefits for students. The logic behind these measures also neglects entirely the gains by business and society at large from a more highly educated populace.   There is some progressivity as those with much higher incomes will repay at a significantly higher rate.  But this does not excuse or make up for a 7.5% average increase in tuition fees.  In response Labor needs to raise the threshold somewhere much closer to the average wage ; and higher over time ; while entrenching a progressive scale in the rate of repayments.   Exceptional groups such as the disabled should probably be forgiven their debts, here : or at least have them frozen. The inevitable effect of this will be to deter many poorer students from study, reducing the nation’s pool of ‘human capital’ over time, and impacting on ‘equal educational opportunity’.  It is dubious at best to consider educational investments a ‘bad debt’.

The 0.5 per cent increase in the Medicare Levy is supposed to reassure voters that Labor’s warnings on health are only a ‘scare campaign’.  But while the Levy is re-indexed the forsaken increases to Medicare’s coverage in recent years are not made up for.  Medicare might still be eroded by stealth ; and that is ‘de-facto privatisation’ in the sense of intermittently eroding the coverage of ‘socialised’ public health proportionately.  This was always what Labor alluded to , but for some reasons ‘the waters were always muddied’ in the mass media, with throw away lines like ‘Mediscare’.

Also , while the Medicare Levy is rising, the 2 per cent Deficit Levy is gone – directly benefiting the wealthy in the final balance. There are ‘traditionally Liberal’ distributive  outcomes, here, despite claims of the Budget being ‘Labor Lite’.   (that is, the Budget favours the wealthy) 

Payroll tax on foreign workers will also be replaced with a levy of $1500 to $5000 per employee raising $1.2 billion over four years “to improve Australian workers’ skills”.  To an extent this will take some of the wind from Labor’s sails on related issues. 

Other measures include punitive attacks on the rights of the  unemployed, with the threat of payment suspension for those who miss a job interview or refuse a job offer they don’t want.  And reversion to a ‘cashless welfare card’ for anyone found to have illegal drugs in their system.  5000 people will by thus tested – and effectively humiliated – in order to create a ‘Trojan Horse’ for the introduction of cashless welfare.   Already Australia has one of the most negligent and punitive unemployment benefit regimes in the advanced capitalist world.  But ‘cashless welfare’ will see Australia revert to Depression era ‘Susso’ style ‘payments’.  The ‘Susso’ basically provided threadbare material subsistence (rations and vouchers) for the long-term unemployed.



Conclusions

Claims to the effect this Budget is ‘Labor Lite’ do not really stand up in the longer view historically when you consider pre-1980s relativities on the Economy ; and more recently with the ‘relative economic centrism’ of former Liberal leaders like John Hewson. The reality is ‘convergence’ on right-wing, economically Liberal policies ; though Shorten has begun to ‘break away’ to something more recognisably ‘left of centre’. Ironically,  the “Abbott Purists” will likely claim the austerity has not gone far enough. Though they may be upset by the attacks on Catholic education.  But it is THEY who have abandoned ‘traditional Catholic Centrism’ on welfare, labour and the economy.  (a tradition which interestingly had parallels with other ‘Christian Democratic’ parties in Europe)

This government is restrained by its own inflexible “small government no matter what” Ideology.  (spending is set at no more than 26 per cent of GDP ; well below the OECD average)  This drives various ‘cuts to the bone’ (as Gillard would have put it) , because it leaves no other option than harsh austerity.  Ultimately, Scott Morrison will have to make a choice: real people or Economically Liberal ‘small government’ Ideology.

Terry McCrann of the Herald-Sun calls the Budget ‘a disgrace’ for not sufficiently addressing government debt.  And Jeff Whalley (also of the Herald-Sun) argues that government debt amounts to “$375 billion” or “$15300 for each man, woman and child” .   But while government spending can have a positive ‘multiplier effect’ on economic activity,  austerity also has a negative multiplier effect ; dragging the broader economy down in sympathy.  

Also we must remember  that private household debt is the much bigger problem, and is connected with falling real wages.  (Why the cuts in Penalty Rates, therefore, we might ask! ; which will lead to lower tax revenue also)  And reducing investment in PUBLIC owned infrastructure presents its own associated problems of passing inferior cost-structures on the broader economy. Indeed, investments in some services (eg: Education) and infrastructure add to productivity – and the public sector (natural public monopolies) can often do the job more efficiently.  So Morrison’s ‘good debt’ and ‘bad debt’ has some substance. (a pity in the past they did not apply those principles to Labor governments!)

In conclusion ;  The Herald-Sun reports with an air of alarm that taxes will be up $23 billion over four years ; and spending up $15.7 billion over four years.   Indeed, Commentators are complaining that income tax is becoming more significant proportionately.  Though really, this need not be a problem if total income tax is progressively restructured, and also the rest of the taxation mix.   Also keep in mind the economy is worth approximately $1.6 trillion.  So in reality spending is up by less than a quarter of one per cent of GDP.  The revenue gap has at least been appreciably narrowed.

In some ways this Budget is better than we might have expected from the Liberals after the horror Hockey ‘Lifters and Leaners’ Budget from 2014. But a lot of that Ideology is still there.  And the cuts are still significant ; with the introduction of ‘cashless welfare’ setting a precedent for the further future humiliation of job-seekers.  And shutting many lower-income Australians out from Higher Education.  An Opposition with strong, traditional Labor policies on distributive justice can still ‘outflank’ a Liberal Government which cannot help but govern primarily in the interests of its core constituency: the unambiguously well-off.

Budget 2013: An Analysis of Labor's Budget, and of Abbott's reply

 

above: Treasurer Wayne Swan has delivered a Budget that could have been worse; but also could have been better. 

In the following article Tristan Ewins examines the pros and cons of Labor's 2013 Federal Budget. Labor's timidity in key areas of reform (eg: superannuation concessions) is confusing given its willingness to withdraw benefits from some low and middle income demographics.  But there are some very good policies here as well - even though Gonski has been 'watered down'. Nonetheless, there are clear divisons between Labor and the Conservatives; and hopefully these will be cast into greate relief as the election draws nearer.

Tristan Ewins

The 2013 Federal Budget was neither what it could have been, nor what it should have been.  Labor faced an unenviable task with a $60 billion revenue shortfall over four years- linked with the high dollar, declining terms of trade – and wavering business profits as a consequence.   This impacted on Company Tax receipts especially. Reduced revenues from the mining and carbon taxes certainly didn’t help either; though Labor was too timid or too pragmatic to restructure and revivify either. 

Labor had options – which we will discuss later – to bypass austerity entirely while actually better containing the deficit. But they chose not to go down that path for fear of ‘getting on the wrong side’ of vested interests.  On the good side, Labor did decide to limit austerity.  Cuts have not been so severe as to lead to a European style scenario of negative growth and mass unemployment.  For this (parts of) ‘the business community’ are happy: as increased consumption power is in their interests (or at least for those focusing on domestic consumer markets), even though business tends to oppose social welfare as a rule.   (in order to ‘make room’ for further tax cuts that add to their bottom line)  The overall dimensions of this Budget include cuts of $6 billion over four years and increased revenue of $29 billion of the same period.

First we will summarise Labor’s cuts in more detail.   

Decreases in Medicare coverage will hurt some on low incomes and represent a step in the wrong direction.  And while changes to superannuation will reduce concessions for the richest of all and bring in $800 million over four years – this is not anywhere near what was necessary – or what was possible if the government had targeted a broader base of genuinely wealthy Australians.

Higher Education cuts are in the vicinity of $2.3 billion.  The worrisome truth, here,  is that having locked itself in to a policy of small government and low taxes the Government  decided to reprioritise rather than provide new money in order to fund something anything like what the Gonski review had recommended.  The result of was the sacrifice of university scholarships valued at $2000 – which were transformed into ‘loans’, as well as the rescission of options to repay HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme) upfront at a 10 per cent discount.  The latter will mainly affect reasonably secure families – as for the disadvantaged upfront payment could be unmanageable in any case.  But the $900 million ‘efficiency dividend’ will put pressure on the wages of academics and other education professionals, while perhaps resulting in more course closures.  There are already predictions that Sydney University will be required to slash $44-$55 million, while Wollongong University has predicted $14 million in cuts and foreshadowed further staff reductions.

Not just middle class welfare, but middle income welfare (as Tim Colebatch argues) is set to go.  This is classic Labor policy –at least since the Hawke years: making do with less through extensive and narrow targeting of welfare.  But some of the cuts are regressive.   Here it is interesting that Labor has chosen to crack down on welfare  for those on average incomes, but shied away from reducing superannuation concessions for the top 5% or 10% income demographic – which alone could have taken care of the deficit – bringing in between $10 billion and $20 billion.

So Labor has not quarantined ‘middle income Australia’ from its cuts.  But by some analyses  middle income is not the same as middle class.  Surely more reforms aimed at recouping revenue from the top 10% income demographic would have been fairer – though the reality is that we need a broad enough tax base to bring in the necessary revenue to maintain health, education, welfare, infrastructure etc.

Family Tax Benefit A – intended to assist in child rearing - has been also targeted.  The Costello-erea ‘baby bonus’ has been wound back.  Low income groups who would have benefited from carbon tax compensation will also find that some of that compensation – in the form of tax cuts – has been withdrawn.  (a more regressive decision) This is disappointing because regardless of the fact of a falling carbon price with moves to a ‘market carbon trading system’, progressive changes to the tax mix would have been of great benefit to workers and the poor in any case.  

Notably the policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers – supported by both the major parties – has itself resulted in a blowout of over $3 billion.  But so long as Abbott plays the fear card on refugees Labor can be expected to emulate Coalition policy in order to neutralise or minimise any political benefit.

Now for a range of other policy initiatives – some of them quite welcome.  Although many of them have not been taken far enough.

An increase to the amount of money that those deemed unemployed can earn in casual labour before their benefits are effected has risen by about $20 a week. This is a good initiative: but not going far enough; and not lifting the unemployed out of dire poverty.  (which in principle is supported not only by welfare organisations, but even by elements of the business community.)  A $50/week increase in Newstart remains an urgent priority.

There have also been boosts for cancer research and treatment, and a scheme to assist seniors to ‘downsize’ their home  - moving into smaller and more “manageable’ residences is very welcome.   This is welcome; but further progressive action could involve the removal of taxes such as stamp duty  from low-income  Australians also wanting to move in to cheaper accommodation.  Stamp duty is a state tax; but the states could be encouraged to implement such a policy in return for compensation from the Commonwealth.   

Labor is promising public money for transport infrastructure – but probably much of this will be in the form of Public Private Partnerships.  It is likely, therefore, that some new projects will take the form of toll roads and the like.  This is likely to have  a regressive distributive effect.

Though hopefully  the decision to invest $4.6 million in “an institute for ageing” could lead to more robust and fair aged care policies into the future.

And importantly – Labor is recouping $4.2 billion over four years by closing business tax loopholes – certainly a more welcome initiative than further austerity.

But Labor’s big policies remain disability insurance and the so-called Gonski reforms.

According to ‘The Age’ (May 15^th 2013)  - when fully implemented by 2019-20 disability insurance will have  a price-tag of about $22 billion – covering over 450,000 disabled Australians.   In order to provide funding there will be a 0.5% increase in the Medicare Levy – though arguably more robust action is necessary on the tax reform front to fund  the program over the long term.   These increases to the Medicare Levy are welcome, though further progressive tax mechanisms to provide funding would have been more welcome.

The government is set to provide 50% of the funding for the NDIS (renamed Disability Care Australia) – though when combined with the education reforms it is doubtful that the states can afford this without further federal grants – or further state-level ‘reforms’ – with user pays infrastructure, or increased state taxes.  Disability insurance is a massive and overdue reform – providing support, amenities and services to some of those who are in the most need.  But even the Liberal states had been arguing for tax reform in order to consolidate their fiscal position. (though of course they were Ideologically driven to demand a regressive increase in the scope and coverage of the GST, rather than fair reforms elsewhere in the tax mix)

The Gonski reforms have also been dramatically watered down.  Though nonetheless they remain substantial.  While originally the Gonski Review called for an increase in funding of $6 billion a year, the government is promising only $9.8 billion over six years.  Some money will be redirected from other schemes, and again there is the expectation that the states will ‘come to the party’.  When combined with projected State funding the Commonwealth expects total funding of $14.9 billion over six years – compared with the initial vision to expand education funding by more than twice that amount.  The changes to the funding mix are apparently more progressive, however, with loadings  targeting the inclusion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds –whether the consequence of poverty or disability.

The Abbott response

In response to the Labor Budget Abbott talked of a “Budget Crisis’ created by ‘Labor mismanagement.’  This might go down well with some people who don’t want to scratch far beneath the surface.  But the reality is that the high dollar has been central to the Budget’s deteriorating position.  And for Abbott’s part he shared the position of not intervening to lower the dollar in order to mitigate poor terms of trade, and the disaster for manufacturing.  Arguably intervention is warranted in exceptional circumstances.  And furthermore, Abbott’s opposition to a more robust mining tax deprived the government of the funds that may have been employed to effectively subsidise affected industries in manufacturing and tourism especially – keeping them viable until the end of the mining boom, and a drop in the dollar.  This was important to prevent skills and capacities being lost over the long term.

Abbott and the Conservatives have also been complaining about Labor’s ‘out of control spending’.   And they are talking about a ‘simpler’ tax system – which almost certainly translates into more regressive flat taxes –(eg: an expansion of the GST, and its extension to food) with a redistribution of wealth from the real ‘battlers’ to the affluent.  Here, the Australian Conservatives are taking a leaf out of the extreme US Tea Party’s book.   And for Abbott it is a betrayal of his Democratic Labor Party past.   While the DLP sabotaged Labor for years, and were not a friend of Labor,  they were not neo-liberals and believed in social welfare. But Abbott will say and do anything to get the ‘top job’.  The Americanisation of Australian politics is a real threat:  and the Liberals seem to see the US ‘ideal’ of harsh social stratification as something to aspire to and emulate.

Also, Abbott’s rhetoric proves to be hollow when subjected to scrutiny. As Tim Colebatch points out (The Age, May 15^th 2013) “Revenue this year is forecast to be 23 per cent of GDP, compared with the Howard Government’s post-GST average of25.4 per cent. And spending levels are pretty much identical.  And amazingly - in Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ Jessica Irvine was allowed to make the observation that Labor “inherited a structurally flabby Budget from the Howard Government, with too many cash handouts and unsustainable tax cuts.”   And:  “The Budget would be in surplus today if personal income tax rates had not been cut [under the Howard Government) eight years in a row.”  (Herald-Sun, May 15^th, 2013) 

Why is Costello’s record therefore not examined more rigorously?   On the Howard/Costello watch the housing bubble rendered home ownership an impossible dream for many.  The privatisation of Telstra left subsequent Labor governments in a position of having to ‘pick up the pieces’ and pay a high price for access to Telstra infrastructure for the NBN. The benefits of the mining boom were squandered with unnecessary middle class welfare and unsustainable tax cuts.

Abbott has also attempted to rationalise his Parental Leave for the wealthy scheme by comparing it to annual leave.  There is a significant difference, however.  While many Australians only get 2 weeks annual leave, Abbott’s scheme will provide SIX MONTHS leave on FULL PAY for professionals earning $150,000/year.  True, Abbott is sourcing the funds from a levy on big business – But the money could be prioritised for areas of greater need.  The ultimate effect is a redistribution from more vulnerable groups to the wealthy – as Abbott’s largesse with Parental Leave will be mirrored by austerity elsewhere.

Other projected Abbott policies include more punitive welfare in the form of Work for the Dole, and the removal of the Newstart  (threadbare) ‘safety net’ entirely for under 30s.  A layer of desperately unemployed – a ’reserve army of labour’ – will undermine workers’ organisation and bargaining power.  And perhaps for the Conservatives that is the point!

We can also expect an inferior version of the National Broadband Network; as well as assaults on the rights of labour including organisational rights; cuts to welfare; and the rescission of superannuation co-contributions for low income workers. 

Abbott is still maintaining a 'small target' strategy; and most of the media is providing precious little scrutiny.  Should he attain government, the austerity could well extend further than even this author supposes!

Lessons for Labor

There are several areas in which Labor could have taken a proactive stance – minimising the deficit, preventing austerity and actually expanding the social wage.

A more rigorous mining tax could have brought in perhaps $6 billion. Reversion to 75% Dividend Imputation could have recouped perhaps another $6 billion – or perhaps $12 billion if reverting to 50% as once advocated by renowned Australian economist John Quiggin.  Restructuring income tax should also be an option; as should a tax on inheritances over $2 million.  Cutting superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class could have captured between $10 billion and $20 billion.  Talk of ‘taking pressure off public pensions’, here, is a furphy – as superannuation concessions alone are now costing more than the entire Aged Pension Budget.  Again: we have a policy redistributing money from ‘battlers’ to the wealthy.

Arguably Labor’s timidity was unnecessary.  The government is withdrawing payments from low to middle income groups – but somehow thinks it could not have raised further revenue from the top 5% to 10% income and wealth demographics.  Why back away from such reforms when they would target only a wealthy minority; and when they would provide the scope for massive expansion of Australia’s social wage and infrastructure – the benefits of which should be plain to voters?

Also importantly – Labor could have mimicked Abbott on one crucial point: his 1.5% levy on big business.  Abbott could hardly have complained given his own policy, and Labor could have directed the money into areas of much more acute human need – for instance, aged care.  It is still not too late to develop just such a policy and seek a mandate for it at the coming election.  Such a policy could well be very popular!

With perhaps over $30 billion from such initiatives-  that is, were they all implemented to the fullest extent – a surplus may even have been achieved for the coming year.  Though that would be a political objective; as in reality the precariousness of the world economy demands a more fiscally expansionist stance.   Gonski could have been implemented in full.  And comprehensive Aged Care insurance could have been rolled out on similar principles to Disability Care Australia.  Finally, resources could have been provided for the States – maintaining health funding; maintaining equity in provision of health services; providing further resources for public transport and other infrastructure without regressive user pays mechanisms or even privatisation of roads…

Policies of ‘small government’ will only lead to more Public Private Partnerships, and perhaps outright infrastructure privatisation for which consumers will pay the price. 

Instead, Labor should go to the election heralding further action on the social insurance front.  And while following through with its education and disability reforms, Labor must promise a multi-billion dollar annual investment (new money) for Aged Care services.

Indeed it is not too late for Labor to further re-emphasise social insurance as a central theme for the election.  If Abbott could be pressed to accept disability social insurance, the right kind of articulatory strategies by Labor could drive him to accept Aged Care insurance as well.  If Labor loses the election – but manages to dictate the policy agenda in such a manner – then even in electoral defeat it would comprise a kind of victory. The suffering of our aged citizens – especially those in high dependency care – is an obscenity to the extent it could be ameliorated – but is not – because of ‘other priorities’.   I have argued for such action in previous articles here – and for any who have not read this material yet I urge them to read the following:

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com.au/2009/02/another-look-at-aged-care-crisis-call.html

Again: There is relief that (in Julia Gillard’s words) Labor “has not cut to the bone”.  But the Budget is not all that is could have been, nor what it should have been.   Failing to extensively reform superannuation concessions was the key capitulation in the face of vested interests..  Hopefully, though, Labor will press the themes of tax reform , social insurance and social wage expansion further in the following months, and seek a mandate for progressive change.