Labor's First Budget pitched as "Modest and Responsible' - But more Ambition needed

 above: Federal Treasurer, Jim Chalmers

Labor’s first Budget has been pitched as ‘modest and responsible’, with limited new spending ; and the intent of not fueling inflationary pressures. That said, there are some welcome measures.   $20 billion will be invested towards upgrading the electricity grid ; preparing for a low-emissions future. Promises on Aged Care will be fulfilled, with tougher regulation and an improvement in the wages and working conditions of Aged Care workers. Over $2 billion will go into Education ; with free TAFE, 20,000 university places for the disadvantaged, and money for more qualified teachers and better-resourced schools.  Money will be provided for ‘urgent care clinics’, and reducing the maximum co-payment for medicines from $42.50 to $30. Finally, there will be more support for parental leave and subsidised childcare ; with a plan to promote an increase in housing supply (and hence affordability), as well as an increase in Defence expenditure to over 2 per cent of GDP.  (Herald-Sun 26/10/22)  Though this housing plan appears over-dependent on private investment.

All that said, there are numerous problems as well. Jim Chalmers has flagged possible intervention into the energy market, with power prices set to rise by 40 to 50 per cent.  This will crush struggling individuals and families. Also, Labor is flagging its intention to go ahead with the Stage Three Tax Cuts which will deliver a  $9000 windfall for those earning $200,000 at a cost to the Budget of around $250 billion over 10 years.  Nothing has been projected in the way of energy subsidies, and the price for reining in inflation seems to be falling upon those least able to pay.  Wages are also flatlining, regardless of pre-election commitments to get wages moving.

So – what *should* Labor do?  Some would oppose improvements for those on low wages and welfare as fuelling inflation.   But those people should not be shouldering the burden.  Already the bulk of their income is going towards non-negotiable necessities ; and increases in power costs will challenge their capacity to make ends meet in the most basic sense.  There will be homelessness, skipped meals, and Winters and Summers without heating or cooling. A temporary increase in tax for those on middle and higher incomes could also have an anti-inflationary effect without impacting on the most disadvantaged.  Specifically, temporary tax increases for those on middle incomes could tighten demand significantly.  Without such tax increases, individuals and families will be left to shoulder the burden with higher interest rates, and hence higher home loan repayments.  Some of this will be passed  on to renters as well. The question is: What is the most efficient way of containing inflation? ; and how can this be achieved while lessening the burden on those least able to pay?   Also ; what other measures need to be taken to sustain an improvement in the social wage longer term?  Including the preservation of a truly needs-based National Disability Insurance Scheme. (NDIS) This may mean some other taxes need to increase progressively and permanently.

Over the longer term Labor needs a rethink on tax reform. Ideally the Stage Three tax cuts should be withdrawn completely.  There are so many priorities which demand funding.  But a compromise strategy could be to deliver the same amount of tax relief ; but skewed towards those on lower and  middle incomes.  Median taxable income is just under $50,000/year.  If tax credits are provided for those on low and middle incomes ; relief could be delivered without delivering an expensive windfall for those on higher incomes. By the time the tax cuts are projected to be phased in we will likely be struggling to recover from an inflation-induced slowdown ; or maybe even a recession.  At this point, it makes sense to support the vulnerable and low-paid – as they spend the highest proportion of their income on ‘getting  by’ compared with others.  That is ; they can be depended upon to spend their incomes.

Unemployment is also set to rise to 4.5% over 2023 to 2025.  This begs the question of whether Labor accepts arguments around a supposed Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. (NAIRU) Again ; recession and ‘spare capacity’ are not the only means of containing inflation.  Taxes can achieve this without depending on social misery and wasted human resources.

Also, record profits in the gas industry should be subjected to taxation ; as has occurred in Norway for instance. Those resources properly belong to all Australians ; and any windfall should be shared substantially with the Australian people. This could be redirected to energy consumers with subsidies – especially those on low incomes – while a legislated gas reserve could ensure Australian consumers don’t miss out because of exports and global demand.

Into the future Labor should be seeking to reduce poverty and inequality by boosting the social wage and driving reform of the labour market ; especially for the working poor.  An important improvement in the social wage would be implementation of Medicare Dental.  Earlier in its first term Labor delivered an increase in the minimum wage.  But others on low wages also need urgent assistance.  This is especially the case in feminised industries like early childhood education. Again, any inflationary impact could be countered with strategic and temporary increases in tax.  While impacting ‘the economic middle’ would be regrettable ; the plight of those on low incomes is more urgent ; and Labor needs to prioritise.  

While Labor needs to deliver on promises to improve the Cost of Living, including energy affordability, it also needs to be looking to boost the wage share of the economy. To some extent this should be delivered as a matter of distributive justice ; and not only in return for improved productivity.  In 2018, Jim Stanford explained how the wage share of the economy had fallen from 58.4 per cent in 1975 to 47.1 per cent in 2018. That translated to over $16,000 a year on average per worker ; and $210 billion per year in total.  Not only does Labor need to agitate for improved Awards at the lower end. It also needs to improve workers’ bargaining power more broadly ; and this must include support for pattern bargaining.  Even Secondary Boycott should be legalised in circumstances where the ‘industrially strong’ support the ‘industrially weak’ ‘in good faith’.

Importantly, though, the wage share is lagging in areas like mining ; where regardless of this wages are significantly higher than average.  Profits are that high.  In this case the social wage needs to be factored in ; and again a windfall profits tax ; and a longer-term super-profits tax – could help.   Welfare also needs to be reformed to respond comprehensively to the Cost-of-Living crisis ; including all pensions and unemployment benefits.

Finally, the required strategic expansion of social and affordable housing demands a greater public investment.  While Labor is correct to promote an increase in housing supply in geographic areas of job growth, it also needs to ‘put its money where its mouth is’.

Labor has come to government at an especially difficult time.  But there is a need to deliver on its mandate ; especially for those most in need.  Inflation can be contained without hitting the most vulnerable overall ; and this needs to be Labor’s priority during its first term.

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.

Labor in Government provides Opportunities that Should not be Wasted

 

In the run-up to the Federal Election many progressives tried to justify Labor’s small target strategy by arguing that Labor would get things done once in government. But that too much detail beforehand would confuse and overwhelm people.  Now the day has come.  Labor has enjoyed a strong victory. And it’s time to deliver.

The Greens have argued for Medicare Dental ; but Labor could make the policy its own while winning broad and ongoing Greens support for the remainder of the term.  The squeeze on the cost of Gas also demands subsidies in favour of those on low incomes and welfare.  While an increase in the supply of public housing could improve housing affordability. Pressure on the NDIS should be lifted with additional funding ; as should pressure on our hospitals.  Waiting lists have exploded with Covid ; and action is urgently required. Accessibility and affordability in Higher Education should also be addressed with lower fees and an increase in repayment schedules clearly above the average wage.  Tied grants should be provided to the states to fund an increase in teacher numbers ; while a National Curriculum should be designed which promotes active, informed and critical citizenship.   This includes understanding of political processes and opportunities for public sphere participation ; as well as sophisticated ideological literacy. Finally, promises on Aged Care should be implemented. Albanese has promised an increase in care personal attention hours for residents ; but to implement this we need Aged Care Worker Ratios. Winning Government is not the end of the journey ; it is only the beginning.

We also need a sense of scale when talking about funding for reform.  There is often a sense of panic and alarm when talking about policies which go into the billions.   How often do we hear that ‘we cannot throw money at problems’ or that funding policies is dismissed as a ‘cash splash’.  (and hence ‘irresponsible’)  But let’s be clear ; the economy is valued at some $1.7 Trillion a year. That’s ONE THOUSAND AND SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION.  Fear to pursue truly ambitious policy leads to stagnation.  And failure to commit money translates as a failure to commit resources.  Viewed thus, any public policy agenda will fail without sufficient resourcing.  Labor needs to be thinking about what is reasonable in terms of short to long term plans to expand the social wage and welfare state, as well as other programs to provide infrastructure and skill development, and to improve public broadcasting.  We need to develop popular understanding of concepts such as ‘collective consumption’ ; and how the social wage can provide better value for money for workers, consumers, tax-payers.  $17 billion is one per cent of GDP. And over several terms of Government it is a reasonable objective to aim to broaden the social wage and welfare state by 5 per cent of GDP.  

 

This is not an arbitrary figure, but an estimate of what is necessary for ambitious reform.  Again, this could fund public housing, education and health, aged care, welfare and unemployment insurance reform, infrastructure (including renewable energy, rail transport and fiber to the home National Broadband Netowork (NBN) ), and programs to secure guaranteed job placement and experience for the disabled.  Disability Pensions should be reformed also, to increase the scope to supplement income with part-time or casual work, and to take away perverse incentives to avoid intimate relationships.  (eg: measures which radically reduce pension payments to individuals in relationships and marriages)   Further ; local government should be supported so that suburbs who suffer from undeveloped social infrastructure like parks and gardens, sporting and fitness infrastructure, libraries and so on – are able to deliver better quality of life to working class families.

 

Meanwhile ; over the long term there should be plans to resocialise energy and water.  And to reintroduce public-owned competitors in markets like financial services and insurance: to counter collusion and support consumers by providing competition from government business enterprises on a not-for-profit footing.

 

Finally, the labour market demands structural reform to prevent the entrenchment of a class of working poor Australians. This may have a once-off inflationary effect ; but redistribution one way or another is necessary to deliver wage justice.   We need to address the distribution of the economic pie between capital and labour ; but also between labourers themselves as well.  Other innovative policies could include financial support and financial counselling for people planning on developing co-operative enterprise. (on either a large or small scale)  If increases in minimum wages will not eventuate without direct intervention, then there should be direct intervention.  This should be undertaken where the current framework of Fair Work Australia fails to deliver.  Allowing secondary boycotts 'in good faith' could also enable the industrially strong to assist the 'industrially weak' in achieving better outcomes for historically low-paid workers.

 

It's not good enough to put ambitious reforms off until a second term. Policies like Medicare took years to become entrenched ; to the point where any effective frontal assault against basic socialised medicine became impossible.  Here, also, once-introduced and accepted as part of the ‘socialised medicine landscape’, Medicare Dental would be very difficult to dismantle. The establishment of  a Labor Government provides the opportunity to introduce life-changing reforms. It is an opportunity that should not be wasted.

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)

For a Budget both Sustainable and Fair

Above:  Wayne Swan is under political pressure to produce a surplus for May 8th. But to re-engage with voters Labor needs to do a lot more; delivering truly meaningful and substantial social programs that appeal both to Labor's working class and liberal middle class electoral bases. This needs to be provided for through a progressive tax restructure including reform of superannuation tax concessions, dividend imputation and consideration of further 'super profits' taxes where appropriate.

By Tristan Ewins

As the May 8^th 2012 Federal Budget approaches top Labor policy-makers will be nervous. While there is enormous political pressure to deliver a surplus only very substantial progressive new initiatives hold the prospect of re-engaging with Labor's traditional working class and liberal middle class support bases. 'Treading water' on policy simply will not do at this point. So many voters are 'disengaged' after years now of systemic smears and disinformation in the media. Very substantial new programs are the only chance, now, of breaking through: at the very least saving the Senate, and leaving behind a reform legacy that Abbott will not be able to uproot.

But what specific programs could Labor embrace in order to re-engage with voters; perhaps even to win in 2013?

Immediately there are a number of options which spring to mind:

• Medicare Dental
• Gonski recommendations on education
• Further funding to improve the quality and equity of Aged Care; with a long-term official policy of establishing universal Aged Care Social Insurance
• Robust Cost of Living initiatives for disadvantaged and working class Australians, including pensioners and Newstart recipients
• Substantial investment in public housing to assist those low income families and individuals experiencing housing stress; with the additional benefit of increasing housing supply, driving down rent costs
• Targeted tax-driven cross-subsidies for sectors struggling under the weight of the 'two speed economy'; to include tourism, education and manufacturing;
• Fast rail and other infrastructure projects (eg: infrastructure for emerging suburbs) expedited along the East Coast, with the additional benefit of stimulus in states which are economically struggling.

It is difficult to estimate how much would be necessary in way of funding for industry cross-subsidies. Although a fast-rail line along the Australian East Coast – costing $100 billion - could "dramatically cut emissions" and provide great convenience for travellers, and those utilising rail freight.

Such infrastructure initiatives could be financed via the issuing of government bonds, which could spread debt repayments over decades, with competitive annual repayment rates.

Development of infrastructure in new suburbs is also crucial on practical, environmental and equity grounds: and could create jobs along the economically languishing South-East Coast. Urban design, including public transport, parklands and other social facilities are crucial for the quality of lives of those young families who have been driven by the Howard housing bubble and population growth onto the 'urban fringe'.

And while Cost-of-Living subsidies should aim to deliver a minimum of an additional 1 per cent of Male Average Weekly Earnings (approximately $600/year for individual adults) to assist mainstream working class and disadvantaged families with energy, water, mortgages and rent, this author does not have access to modelling to determine the cost.

Yet 'Cost of Living' is THE issue 'out there' with Australian families, including those working class and disadvantaged families it is Labor's duty to protect and assist. A big initiative, here: as significant or more significant than already suggested – could be THE crucial factor in re-engaging with Australian voters.

Labor also stands to gain, here, by linking Carbon Tax relief with broader Cost-of-Living Relief. In such a way Labor needs to develop a package in which all disadvantaged and mainstream working class Australians are significantly better off. By linking these issues Labor has a chance of changing public perceptions of the Carbon Tax, while addressing genuine Cost of Living stresses for those in need.

And tax cuts would be quickly forgotten, so Cost of Living Relief will be better addressed through a dedicated supplement, to be paid twice-yearly.

Public construction of new energy and water infrastructure could also have savings flowing on to consumers because of the lower cost of public borrowing.

Nonetheless, despite our lack of access to modelling in some areas it can be stated that were the government to reform taxation so as to bring in around an additional 1.5 per cent of GDP in taxation (approximately $22 billion out of a $1.5 trillion economy), this would provide substantial scope for the social welfare and industry assistance packages hinted at here, while also providing for the politically-desirable surplus.

Potential fund-raising mechanisms could include a move to either 75% or 50% Dividend Imputation (saving between $5 billion and $10 billion/year); eliminating superannuation concessions for the wealthy (saving approximately $10 billion/year); restructuring of income tax, reversion to the original Resource Super Profits Tax template, consideration of other 'super profits' taxes where appropriate, and reneging on projected Company Tax cuts.

There is even the prospect of emulating Abbott in terms ofa 1% increase in Company Tax for large enterprises, ploughing the proceeds into Aged Care. Given his own position on Paid Parental Leave and his eagerness to appeal to aged Australia Abbott would be hard-pressed to oppose such an initiative. It is worth noting that Company Tax in Australia is 30% as compared with 35% in some areas of the United States – so there is 'room to move'.

For now, though, it is also worth observing those initiatives for which we do have costings.

Implementing the Gonski recommendations for education could ultimately cost an estimated $5 billion/year. Although the Gonski report itself suggests the Federal Government would only have to pay for 30% of the Education initiative ($1.5 billion) – with $3.5 billion shouldered by the States.

Detractors have attempted to conceal their own vested interests with calls of 'class warfare', but the reality is that 'class warfare' has been waged not against the wealthy, but against poor and mainstream working class Australia with the neglect of public education and health care, and increasing dependence on levies for essential school infrastructure which are 'voluntary' in name only. The appeal of Gonski is in its emphasis on all students, including those most struggling – with a further emphasis on improving state school funding, but without withdrawing existing funding from the private sector. Implementation of Gonski would mean improved infrastructure, smaller classes, more teachers and more subject choice for all schools.

Meanwhile projected public dental initiatives have variously been estimated to (ultimately) involve costs running into the billions annually. Apart from crucial equity and human interest ramifications of universal public dental care, preventative public dental care could save the economy billions over the long term. Though according to the proposal put to Labor by the Greens the first phase of new public dental programs– focusing on the needs of children and low-income groups - need only cost the government $400 million for the upcoming financial year, and as much as "$8.4bn to $14.4bn across four years, depending on the options chosen".

The final expenditure priority we will consider, here, is Aged Care.

The Federal Government's standing Aged Care policy provides a real funding boost of only $577 million over 5 years.

Much more is needed,yet nonetheless by shifting its priorities and implementing means tests an improvement in service will be experienced by many.

While $1.2 billion has been devoted to providing better salaries and conditions with the aim of retaining aged care staff, user-pays mechanisms will not include any forced sale of the family home. User pays charges will apply for many – both for residential and at-home care. But full pensioners will pay no fees.

There will be 40,000 new home care places (Up to 100,000), relieving the impact upon the Aged Care budget of expensive residential care, while providing many aged Australians with the preferred option of staying at home. Further initiatives include $269.4 m for dementia, $1 billion for Carers' Respite (over several years) and the removal of the low care/high care distinction - which in the past saw aged Australians diverted into high intensity care facilities prematurely in order to save money. The 'My Aged Care website' is another good initiative, and the government has wisely avoided a 'free market in Aged Care'. Many amongst the aged are vulnerable and on their own enjoy little consumer choice or market power. ('The Age', 21/4/2012)

Yet again the initiatives go nowhere near far enough.

The Combined Pensioners and Superannuant's Association New South Wales (CPSA – NSW) has long argued for a Aged Care 'social insurance' model. While CPSA NSW is encouraged by the government's emphasis on at-home care, however, those most in need do not always have the choice. Billions in new funding are necessary to improve the quality of residential care, and to give the aged the choice of high quality low-intensity care in a social environment. (eg: hostels) Staff to resident and nurse to resident ratios are also crucial that those needing high intensity care.

And even for those remaining at home more programs are necessary to keep aged Australians socially engaged, and happy.

The problem with Aged Care is that for many it remains a 'hidden issue'. Aged Australians are suffering – for lack of care; because of poverty; because of social disengagement; and because of the dehumanisation and loss of individual identity that often goes with high-care accomodation.

As an absolute minimum Labor needs to devote an additional $1 billion for Aged Care in the financial year 2012-13; and announce a progressively-structured Aged Care Social Insurance Scheme over the long term – similar to the agreed 'National Disability Insurance Scheme' (NDIS). (covering care, but not pension entitlements) Specifially this author challenges Government Minister Bill Shorten to champion this cause – no less worthy as it is – as he championed the cause of disability insurance.

'The Surplus'

There are sound political arguments for Labor's pursuit of a surplus in the year 2012-13. The level of economic debate in Australia is for the most part quite low. The perspective on the Federal Budget is akin to peoples' ideas on managing a family budget. Hence apparently 'The books must be balanced'. But failure to produce a surplus will result in opportunist media-grabs by the Opposition – which irresponsibly maintains popular mythologies on economic management in order to hold on to political advantage re: perceived competency.

Deeper arguments and realities do not always 'sink in'. Media speculation about the political imperative of a surplus is usually shallow and uncritical. Many voters do not seem to comprehend that investment in infrastructure can increase capacity, improving quality of life and increasing growth over the long term. And there are those who do not seem to see how stimulus is still warranted in many state economies as a consequence of the high dollar, and with falling confidence alongside the decline of tourism, education and manufacturing. Nor how lack of transport infrastructure in developing suburbs is a drag upon the broader economy – making investment there not only sustainable, but of positive benefit.

On the other hand Jessica Irving from the Sydney Morning Herald predicts that after already-projected cuts Swan will needto "raise taxes by $7 billion to achieve his surplus." And also that: "Tax increases on foreigners earning profits in Australia, say mining companies, would also have less of an impact on domestic demand, as would reduced spending on foreign-produced defence equipment."

Were the revenue proposals in this article adopted, alongside other measures suggested by Irving such as increased taxation of foreign profits in mining, that could still leave $15 billion for social programs, while the surplus was achieved.

But regardless of the perceived political imperative of a surplus for 2012-13 Labor still needs truly substantial policy initiatives if it is to re-engage with voters who have 'switched off' or 'turned away' after almost two years of sustained media onslaught. This can only be achieved with a commitment of resources which is truly substantial and appreciable in the 'big picture' of an economy valued at over $1.5 trillion.

Yet if Labor does produce such initiatives it might also manage to rally its own base, as well as the sympathetic social movements which could provide for social base for a real fight-back; and perhaps even a Labor victory in 2013.


Tristan Ewins is a freelance writer, qualified teacher and social commentator based in Melbourne, Australia. He is also a long-time member of the Socialist Left of the Australian Labor Party (ALP).