Refuting Rita Panahi on Melbourne's Homeless ; Opposing Small Government; Rejecting the Character Assassination of Duncan Storrar

above:  An Iranian refugee, Herald-Sun columnist Rita Panahi has little tolerance for Conservative Islam when it comes to the role of women ; But since being a Labor Party activist in the 1990s Panahi has now 'swung Right' , and seems to have little patience for the liberal rights of Melbourne's Homeless.

 

What Follows are a number of Letters – written by Tristan Ewins to the ‘Herald-Sun’ and ‘The Age’ around May 2016 ; This time the topic matter includes ‘The Cost of Small Government’, ‘the Character Assassination of Duncan Storrar’, and ‘attacks on the liberal rights of the Homeless made in the Herald-Sun by columnist, Rita Panahi’….  At the time of my posting these none of these letters had been published.   Sometimes I succeed, though, so I am trying to persevere. :-)

 

 

The following was a response to Herald-Sun columnist, Rita Panahi – who attacks some of Melbourne’s homeless for daring to make a political protest against their plight

 

Rita Panahi and Intolerance for the Homeless: What of liberal rights?

Rita Panahi’s attack on the Homeless (HS 18/5) is distressing.  She argues that the protest in the City Square has become “political” because protestors are standing in solidarity with others for a more permanent solution to homelessness rather than just accepting the short-term solutions offered to them personally.  Here, Panahi’s comparison with the “Occupy” movement also displays an intolerance for political activism and protest.  Too often amongst more-conservative commentators there is an almost-systemic promotion of intolerance with regard rights of protest and civil disobedience underscoring our liberal society. Panahi admits that amongst these people there are “physical and mental health issues”, but she does not consider in depth the nature of those afflictions, and how they affect peoples’ capacity to provide for themselves long-term.. Also there is the question of housing affordability, including rental-affordability for those in poverty– the consequence of the housing bubble.  Panahi observes the social programs offered by the Salvation Army, inferring the solution is for individuals to give generously to charity. But while charities do valuable work, nonetheless homelessness and other social problems require resources that only government can bring to the table. It is entirely legitimate to demonstrate in favour of that kind of solution.

 

 

The following two letters cover very similar terrain to each other.  Their non-publication (so-far) is suggestive that the Herald-Sun may not accommodate debate on the issue of ‘small government’ – as if ‘both sides’ should take it  as a ‘given’.  The comparison with the Nordics illustrates just HOW small ‘small government’ is in this country ; and the social and economic consequences…. The example of Nordic Health Care versus US Health Care speaks volumes: Hence I tried twice to get that information published in the Herald-Sun…  'The Age' had published that information in a different context earlier in 2016.

 

The cost of ‘Small Government’: Letter One’

Malcolm Turnbull warns Australians to watch out for “Labor’s big spend”. Yet tax, in Australia is approximately  25% of GDP compared with approximately 50 per cent in the Nordic countries.  The Nordics understand that you must INVEST resources to reap the rewards.  Neglect of services and infrastructure saves money short term – but harm the economy long term. Transport and communications infrastructure add to productivity, and there is the prospect of new industries arising from Labor’s world-class National Broadband Network. ‘Human Capital’ means more high-wage, high-skill jobs – but requires an investment in Education. An interventionist Industry Policy can get unemployment sustainably down well below 5% boosting tax revenue and growth - but also requires resources. -(The Swedes demonstrated a sustainable rate of unemployment around as low as 2% was possible for several decades during the 20^th Century)  Social consumption (via tax) can also provide better value and free-up wealth for private consumption elsewhere.  Nordic universal health care costs around 9% of their GDP, whereas the US system of (mainly-private) health insurance costs 18% of their GDP for only 40% coverage.  (from ‘Governomics’ by Lyons and McAuley) Finally we are a society, not merely an economy ‘in abstract’.  Health, Education, Aged Care, ABC and SBS, Roads, Rail, NBN – are ‘social goods’ which improve our security and quality of life.  These things are worth investing in if they make us happier and healthier.   If anything Labor’s policies are exceedingly-modest ; but still far-preferable to Conservative austerity.

The cost of ‘Small Government’: Letter Two’

The Herald-Sun (21/5/16) observes that “record high” taxation will soon be necessary without big spending cuts.  But Australian taxes are already extremely low (24.2% of GDP) compared with Denmark and Sweden. (at around 50%)  We would need to raise tax by approximately $400 billion to match!  Also, the economies of European and Nordic countries don’t seem at all worse off – despite Conservative warnings only ‘small government’ delivers prosperity. Higher taxes can mean better industry policies and better education opportunities – with the growth and prosperity which follows. Without so-called ‘bigger government’ we have regressive charges for higher education, the neglect of state schooling, and the destruction of public health (Medicare). Also, private consumption can offer bad value for money compared with ‘collective consumption’ via tax. The Nordics spend around 9% of their GDP on universal public health care, compared with the US whose private system soaks up 18% of their GDP for only 40% coverage.   So low-taxes are a ‘false economy’ leaving  Australians worse-off. And Labor’s proposed reforms (eg: $7 billion saved from Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax) are very modest when put in the global context.  (editor pls note: The stats on health care come from “Governomics” by Lyons and McAuley)

The following was in response to attempts to demonise Duncan Storrar in the Murdoch Press:  A low income worker with a family – Storrar pointed out on QandA how Scott Morrison’s election Budget provided very little for those on low incomes: 

Character Assassination to Stigmatise the Working Poor

Much of the mass media sees fit to dig up the past of Duncan Storrar apparently with the aim of discrediting arguments that have arisen around him about distributive justice in this country. But Duncan’s history in no way detracts from the needs of his family, or the needs of others on low incomes.  That includes millions of working people: in aged care, child care, hospitality, cleaning, retail, cab driving and more.  Some on around $40,000/year ; some on much less.  These are the people who suffer most from the GST – which is a flat (regressive) tax on consumption. They are the people who have suffered most from the user pays which followed privatizations.  They are the people who would suffer most from cuts in penalty rates. Indeed: in some ways the exploitation of the working poor props up the material living standards of others: and that is not fair.  Fairness demands a restructuring of the tax mix.. It requires a stronger welfare state,  social wage, and stronger labour market regulation.  The average wage in Australia is around $60,000/year: and even that is distorted by the weight of those on very high incomes.  Why is it that calls for fairness for workers and pensioners are branded ‘class warfare’ but measures which hurt the poor and vulnerable do not attract the same label?

The following was written in response to an ideological attack on the Left  published in the Letters section of the Herald-Sun around April-May

Response on ‘The Left’ re: Herald Sun

Anthony Gilchrist attacks ‘The Left’ on a number of fronts, and in a way which warrants a response.  Firstly, it is true that there is a double standard from many when it comes to the treatment of Christianity and Islam. As a Left-Wing Christian this disturbs me greatly. On the other hand our accepting and pluralistic culture has if anything provided a shield against Terrorism - ameliorating the alienation that can lead to Terrorist acts. Meanwhile with regard Indigenous Australia, closing the gap on Education and Life Expectancy remain legitimate objectives ; and a Treaty might provide the kind of reconciliation that enables us to ‘move forward together’ as a nation.  Gilchrist condemns multiculturalism ; but while there are crime problems in some migrant communities is it the ‘Christian’ thing to do to turn refugees away?  (Many of whom are Christians themselves, fleeing war and persecution)  Meanwhile, of course we should never forget or disrespect the sacrifice of the ANZACs.  But neither should we be uncritical with regard this nation’s participation in wars.  60,000 Australians died in World War One – many others horribly maimed and mentally scarred.  Only resistance from within the labour movement prevented the death of many thousands more.  That war was an Imperialist bloodbath more so than ‘a fight for freedom and democracy’.  Some people on the Left have drifted away from engagement, preferring to silence their ideological enemies. But calling the Left ‘un-Australian’ is just a way in itself of silencing critical opinions.

 

 

Analysing the Morrison Federal Election Budget, and Considering the Shorten Labor response

above:  Treasurer, Scott Morrison's pitch on 'Jobs and Growth' is more of a Slogan than a 'Plan' or a reality

Some are interpreting the Morrison Federal Budget as 'modest' and 'non-controversial' ; A closer look reveals that much of the Hockey austerity agenda remains

Tristan Ewins

The first (and possibly last) Scott Morrison Federal Budget is being widely misinterpreted as modest and non-controversial – playing to the theme of ‘living within our means’.  Effectively token personal income tax cuts for those on high incomes are suggestive of Liberal Party priorities in the context where other income tax-payers experience no relief. 

Further; increases in tax on tobacco may seem like a ‘safe bet’; but neither side of politics appears concerned at the distributive ramifications. 

In the ‘big picture’, though, there are still big cutbacks implicit in this Budget that may escape voters’ eyes at a casual glance.  Cuts in Medicare and Higher Education will undeniably lead to an intensification of user pays and privatisation over the course of a re-elected Turnbull LNP Government.   The LNP is hoping to evade scrutiny by adopting some distributively-fair policies.  But a thorough analysis reveals a Budget which retains too-much from the disastrous 2015-16 Hockey austerity Budget.

And yet there are some aspects which are mildly encouraging.

Under the reforms foreshadowed by Treasurer, Scott Morrison, Wealthy superannuants would no longer be able to “draw tax-free earnings from balances over $1.6 million.”   The Government is also "planning to introduce a $500,000 lifetime cap on the amount of after-tax contributions a person can make, backdated to 2007."  Labor has criticised the “retrospective” nature of the policy, but the measure will still only bring in $2.9 billion over four years.   Meanwhile high income workers will also be hit with a lowering of the threshold at which the concessional rate of 30 per cent applies for payments into superannuation accounts.  That is: lowered from a $300,000/year  threshold currently to a threshold of $250,000.    Other superannuation measures will subsidise low-income workers, and support the ‘topping up’ of low-income spouse’s accounts by a partner.  Those measures are a move  in the right direction. 

But Sally Rose of ‘The Age’ also observes that without a crack-down on negative gearing these policies could simply drive more investors into property – contributing to an intensification of a housing bubble which already locks so many young families out of the market.

‘The Age’ also proclaims that Scott Morrison is ‘taking aim at the multinationals’, hiring 700 tax professionals to lead a crack-down on corporate tax-avoidance.   Tax avoiders will face significant penalties.  But the projected savings of $3.9 billion are highly optimistic at best, despite the projection that corporate tax evasion is costing over $30 billion a year.   

What is more, while the Coalition’s ‘Youth Jobs’ initiative is a significant improvement on existing Work for the Dole programs, nonetheless it amounts to another form of labour conscription and exploitation.  The good news is that the program links into the skills which may actually lead to work later down the track.  The unacceptable side of the equation is that young workers will be paid a pitiful $100/week extra for working a 25 hour week.  ‘The Age’ fears the policy may create “a conveniently revolving door for cheap labour.”   The question is whether or not the opportunity for skills development will ‘break the cycle of unemployment’, or whether competition will simply increase for a limited pool of jobs.  (where there is only one job for every five job-seekers) This raises the question of whether government needs to intervene more directly with an industry policy that links skills with additional new jobs over the long-term.

There will be some additional money for schools and hospitals – but significant pain as well.

Medicare rebates will be frozen at $37 for six years, driving  the erosion of the public health system, and heralding the introduction of steadily increasing co-payments. Prescription medicines will also increase in cost by $5 , and a user-charge will be added to Pathology services (eg: blood tests) adding up very substantially for those with chronic conditions for which medication and blood tests are non-negotiable.  

The ‘Herald-Sun’ projects “$1.2 billon” in aged care cuts.  ‘Pain management’ for residents in Aged Care will be cut-back on account of what is described as an “unsustainable” growth in expenses.  (What price the amelioration of an elderly person's suffering?)  A crack-down on ‘false claims’ by Aged Care facilities is anticipated to bring in almost $500 million ; but there is no recognition of the fact little can be done about quality of life and oppressively unfair user-pays without a very significant injection of new funds.   By ‘quality of life’ I refer to a host of problems – from underpayment and under-staffing which impact on basic questions such as when residents are turned in their beds to avoid bedsores, or whether aged care workers can be certain residents are actually eating, or whether or not there is poor morale and a revolving door for skilled staff..  It also refers to the lack of things for residents to do ; of the terrible boredom, the lack of meaning, the lack of pleasant surrounds, and the lack of privacy.  Finally it includes the need for a registered nurse on the premises 24/7 in the case of an emergency.

University fee-deregulation has been dumped for the time being ; but big cuts remain in place – still begging the question of how the sector will cope.  Likely options include further reductions in HECS (Higher Education Contribution Scheme) repayment thresholds to well below Average Weekly Earnings. (AWE)  Liberal arguments, here, that government and students need to spread the cost of degrees ’50/50’ deserve to be treated with healthy scepticism. Not only does business benefit from the skills acquired by students ; but also the most equitable way of spreading the burden is through a progressively structured tax system.  If repayments are to be geared to the actual financial benefit gained, then there is no better way to go. On the other hand, higher repayment rates for those on over $100,000/year could have a ‘progressive aspect’, and should not be considered in the same light as reductions in repayment thresholds and increases in repayment rates elsewhere.

Arguably students will be hit hard with debt in order to pay for big Corporate Tax Cuts. True to its mantra of ‘small government’, essentially the government is arguing it will ‘do more with less’. IN reality, though, this adds up to ‘no new programs without cuts elsewhere’. Linking the National Disability Insurance Scheme to welfare-cuts, there will be cutbacks in pensions for new recipients amounting to $15/fortnight, and a push to reassess the pension eligibility of some 90,000 Disability Pensioners. For those already living in poverty this can impact with malnutrition, or exposure to the elements as the costs of heating and cooling become unsustainable.

The Government anticipates an economic transformation ‘beyond the mining boom’, yet while it is subsidising Defence jobs in the construction of subs and other hardware (inefficiently creating 3,600 jobs at a cost of about $50 billion), the death of Australia’s auto industry undeniably occurred under the Liberal Party’s watch, with perhaps 50,000 jobs lost directly and indirectly.  

The goal of raising Defence expenditure to 2 per cent of GDP  by 2020-21 remains : but if the Liberals want bipartisanship with Labor, here, they must ensure this is not at the expense of other important programs.  If bi-partisanship is ‘in the nation’s interest’ the Liberals must disregard Ideological qualms and accept a small increase in ‘the size of government’ to lock in Defence commitments.  And Australia’s military assets should always be reserved for the actual defence of Australia and its allies, and not in adventures and wars of aggression overseas.  (as with the Gulf War of Bush, Blair and Howard)

More generally the Budget is light on infrastructure construction.  Hence the need to make tough decisions to ‘increase the size of government’ or make further painful and damaging cuts is ‘postponed’.  Given infrastructure demands in transport, communications, energy and so on, it is a situation which cannot be sustained over the longer term.  

‘The Age’ reports that Shorten Labor has responded with “$71 billion Budget Savings” of its own. This includes opposition to Turnbull’s tax cuts for corporations which will see the Company Tax rate reduced from 30% to 25% over ten years.   Some analysts are anticipating an utterly unsustainable cost to the Budget of over $50 billion over ten years should this Turnbull policy be adopted.  This should not be surprising given the Liberals’ track record of tax cuts for the wealthy and upper middle class  (unsustainable because in the context of the mining boom) –  and ultimately funded by austerity elsewhere, impacting upon those on middle and lower incomes, as well as those mired in poverty.

Here,. The Turnbull mantra of ‘Jobs and Growth’ has no substance.  While low Company Tax rates may attract some investors, the other side of this decision could be neglect of services and infrastructure necessary to sustain economic activity.That might mean less ‘jobs and growth’ and not more.  And while a small proportion of the cuts will flow through to workers, most of the tax cuts will simply be pocketed by business.  Under this scenario, If essential infrastructure and services are not to be neglected the only alternatives include privatisation and user pays, or for taxpayers to ‘pick up the tab’ elsewhere. 

None of those options are desirable or fair.  But this scenario also raises other problems such as reduced workers’ consumption power, and the inferior cost structures involved in the private finance and operation of profit-geared services and infrastructure. The Liberal obsession with ‘small- government’ with ‘no exceptions’ betrays an impractical posture where good sense is sacrificed for Ideology.

 In light of what it once called a ‘debt and deficit disaster’ the Liberals’ projected Company Tax cuts are being dismissed as fiscally irresponsible by Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen. 

Somewhat disappointingly, though, Shorten has argued Labor will oppose the Liberals’ $1.6 million cap’ on superannuation savings which attract the concessionary tax rate.  Again: The argument is that the policy would have ‘retrospective’ elements, and hence is opposed ‘on principle’.  Some corners of the media are speculating that the idea may be to ‘wedge’ the Liberals on their own core constituencies.  (ie: the wealthy and upper middle class)    Nonetheless Labor’s own policy seeks to remove superannuation concessions from retirees already living on superannuation-streamed incomes of $75,000/year and over.   Labor expects this will impact upon 60,000 superannuation account holders with accounts valued at over $1.5 million.   But Labor is also reducing the threshold for the ‘high income super charge’ (HISC) from $300,000 to $250,000, affecting  110,000 people, and diluting their concessional tax rate on their contributions by a flat 15%. (ie: a 15% concession down from 30 per cent)

In April 2016 Shorten and Chris Bowen had argued that this, and measures on corporate tax evasion would save $20 billion over a decade.    Again: that is in the context of superannuation tax concessions soon costing as much as $50 billion EVERY YEAR, and Corporate Tax evasion costing over $30 billion EVERY YEAR . (according to Labor Senator, Sam Dastyari)

It is clear now that no-one is willing to truly ‘get serious’ on the reform of superannuation concessions and tax.  On Superannuation Concessions alone Labor needs to target a ‘broader base’ ; hitting the upper middle class as well.  While the upper middle class may not be as privileged as the ‘top 1 per cent’, nonetheless it is not fair for the remainder of society, including low and middle income workers, to subsidise their lifestyles.  A better policy here could free tens of billions for investment elsewhere in services, infrastructure, and welfare.

But despite this there remain very-encouraging Labor policies as well ; which will still see Labor outstripping the Liberals on distributive justice and the public interest. 

The Gonski education reforms will be implemented, as will the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and the construction of the National Broadband Network with superior Fibre-to-the-Home technology.

Exploitation of students (and taxpayers) by dodgy private vocational education outfits will be cracked-down upon with an $8000/cap per student, and a re-emphasis on TAFE.   This is estimated as saving $6 billion over a decade. 

Shorten Labor’s reforms limiting access to Negative Gearing to new investments, as well as restricting Capital Gains Tax concessions could save over $7 billion a year.  And a Deficit Levy on high income earners will be made permanent, saving $16 billion over a decade.   The Negative Gearing policy especially should lead to more-affordable housing and more new housing.  So while there is ‘room to improve’, this is a step in the right direction. 

BY leading the debate Shorten has forced Turnbull and Morrison to adopt some ‘Labor-esque’ Budgetary policies.  To the extent to which Labor is setting the tone for the election this has to be welcomed.  

On the other hand while Labor is condemning the far-from equitable cuts that Morrison has projected elsewhere in the Budget, Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen also points to the maintenance of “higher taxes” under the LNP than any time during which Labor was in Government. 

This can partly be traced to priorities.  For example the $50 billion Defence contract to build 12 new subs ; and the decision to raise overall Defence expenditure to 2% of GDP.   But at the same time: eventually Labor needs to confront the fact that it cannot afford its social agenda without raising tax significantly on those who can really afford it. 

As considered earlier, Aged Care requires many billions new expenditure annually to wind back regressive user pays structures, and improve the quality of care and infrastructure. 

And Mental Health spending needs to rise absolutely and proportionately with billions new funding as well.  There is a truly shameful National Emergency whereby the mentally ill are on average dying 16 years earlier than the general population, and those with Schizophrenia (maybe 300,000  Australians) are dying 25 years earlier than the general population average.   Catherine Armitage of ‘The Age’(‘A kind of creeping euthanasia’, 11/4/16)  has pointed out  that 9000 Australians with a serious mental illness are dying prematurely as a consequence of this situation every year. This far outstrips the road toll and suicide rate combined several times over.  Both Labor and the  Liberals need to support fully-funded government programs to ‘Close the Gap’ on life expectancy for the mentally ill, much as there are programs to ‘Close the Gap’ for Indigenous Australia. 

Again: The Liberal obsession with ‘small- government’ with ‘no exceptions’ betrays an impractical posture where good sense is sacrificed for Ideology.  Labor needs to decisively reject this Ideology and embrace reforms which reject ‘small government’, and instead promote social solidarity, collective consumption, social insurance, truly progressive taxation and so on.  The Nordics already demonstrate what is possible. But to be serious even a ‘gradualist’ posture by Labor – aiming to emulate the Nordics over the course of two or three decades -  should see social expenditure and investment rise by tens of billions under Shorten Labor. 

Labor is providing a clear choice in this election: on Gonski, tax reform, NBN and NDIS.  But we need to do better.   In Australia we should no longer ‘take small government for granted’.  With the end of the mining boom, we need to reform tax just to ‘stand still’ on social services, infrastructure and welfare.   Tax reform is ‘the price we pay for civilisation’.  And a progressive policy trajectory necessarily entails ongoing, serious and cumulative  reforms on this front.

Other sources:  

Herald-Sun:  4/5/16,  6/5/16,  7/5/16 , 9/5/16

The Age:  4/5/15 ;  6/5/16

Reform of Public Health can Ensure a Much Fairer Deal for Low Income Australians

Above: Australia's Health Care System is in Dire Need of Reform

By Tristan Ewins

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

Terry Barnes, a former former senior advisor to Prime Minister Tony Abbott has suggested a $6 dollar surcharge on bulkbilling via Medicare in order "to send a price signal". The suggestion is contained in a submission sent to the government's Commission of Audit, so may end-up becoming government policy.

The motive behind this proposal, apparently, is to save money through an 'efficiency dividend'; deterring only unnecessary bulk billing. However, welfare lobbyists are pointing to the regressive distributive outcomes of the policy; as well as the possibility that genuinely ill low income and welfare dependent Australians may not seek medical care when they need it. And also that the decision may place more strain on our hospitals. Of crucial note here: a great number of doctors already fail to bulk bill – and in that sense a 'price signal' already exists for many.

The Federal Government had already made some controversial decisions recently on the Health services front. The Conservatives' decision to remove means testing from the Private Health Insurance Rebate will also involve regressive distributive outcomes when it is ultimately implemented.  (according to Abbott, when the Budget is in surplus)  Dan Harrison of the Sydney Morning Herald has pointed out that abolishing the rebate entirely could save $3 billion. Though because the rebate is the 'Conservatives' baby' that outcome is unlikely so long as Abbott is in power.

On the other hand, the Conservatives like to retain the pretence of 'providing for the battlers'. And there are ways in which this could be provided for even should the government decide to adopt a surcharge and maintaining the rebate in some form.

Firstly, the means test on the Private Health Insurance Rebate needs to be restored. And the savings should be directed to a restructuring of the scheme. Savings here could be balanced between improvements in the Private Health Insurance Rebate for low income policy holders on the one hand, and improvements in the public health care system on the other.

Welfare dependent and low income Australians could then receive an 'amnesty' for rebate eligibility. That is: so long as they were low income or welfare-dependent they would not face spiralling private health insurance costs should they fail to take out private health insurance. The existing 'Lifetime Health Cover' policy – which imposes a cumulative loading building up with an additional "2 per cent per annum" for consumers over 30 who do not have private health insurance cover – effectively discriminates against the poor. Low income Australians effectively 'have a gun at their head' – and a choice to invest in private health insurance they cannot afford; or to take their chances with an increasingly neglected public system. It should be observed, also, that disadvantaged Australians could feel driven to take out the most minimal private health insurance policy just to avoid this cumulative loading, even though they receive only threadbare coverage in return.

But providing an 'amnesty' with regards the 'Lifetime Health Cover' policy would also make fiscal sense in that further subsidies for low income groups would be likely to win more Australians over to private health insurance. (which after all was the stated purpose of the whole policy!) This is quite simply because high income earners can already afford private health insurance; but for low income groups a stronger rebate and an amnesty could be decisive. And for those low income Australians who had already passed the 'deadline' of their 30^th birthday – the lack of a full rebate as exists under the "Lifetime Health Cover" policy is already a clear deterrent against taking out private health insurance into the future.

Importantly, while older Australians already receive a higher rebate (40 per cent), the same cannot be said for other pensioners. So by the same logic, a more robust rebate for welfare dependent policy holders of 50 per cent could make private health insurance a more realistic prospect for many. Notably: Seniors' private health insurance from Medibank Private can cost in the vicinity of $2000 a year already. Before the rebate, that's about 10 per cent of a Single Aged Pension in one hit; and it's before we even begin to consider the impact of other cost-of-living pressures for low income Australians. (energy, water, communications, accommodation, transport) So to redress poverty and disadvantage, such measures must be combined with reform of pensions as well.

The mean-spirited provisions of the Aged Pension, Newstart, Disability and other payments ALSO already provide a deterrence preventing the poor and vulnerable from seeking medical care as needed. Therefore robust subsidies should be provided at a generous enough rate not only to address distributive injustice from austere pensions, but also negate the existing deterrence for low income Australians from seeking care as needed. New tax cuts for low income earners, and payments for the welfare-dependent could therefore be provided at a minimum rate of an extra $500 a year. Bulk-billing has already been progressively eroded for far too long. But such reforms could provide a 'way around' the dangers provided by that trend.

Of course there is the option of simply excluding pensioners from any surcharge which apparently is being considered; though should that policy be implemented it should also apply to ALL those considered to be on low incomes by any reasonable measure. The existing low income bracket (necessary to access the Low-Income Concession Card) applies to singles up to $500 a week, and couples up to $848 a week. This is also far too restrictive and mean-spirited. Arguably the bracket should be increased to thresholds of at least $650 a week for singles, and at least $1000 a week for couples – indexed to inflation or a cost-of-living index – whichever is the most generous. A mixture of restored means testing, and the exclusion of low income and welfare dependent Australians from any 'surcharge', would likely have a progressive impact.

It is conceivable that the measures suggested here (taken together) would not save $750 million over four years as anticipated by Terry Barnes with his specific proposals. Indeed – including robust pension and tax reform and an expansion of eligibility for 'low income' concessions - they could cost the budget bottom line – and need to be supported with other structural saves and progressive tax reform. Though it is important to observe that in 2012 Cassandra Goldie of ACOSS (the Australian Council of Social Service) argued that means tests for the Private Health Insurance Rebate and other associated measures could on their own save "$2.4 billion over three years".

The point would not necessarily be overall savings for the whole package of proposals here, but greater efficiencies and a fairer system– the benefit of which would be passed on to the disadvantaged, the poor and the vulnerable both through socialised health care and state subsidy for a means-tested Private Health Insurance Rebate. The 'price signal' suggested by Barnes could still apply to non-disadvantaged Australians, recouping some of the associated costs. Though special provisions could also apply to the chronically ill, with the surcharge being waived from such people entirely. Sending a 'price signal' to the chronically ill just wouldn't make sense as it is indisputable that such people need constant care and feedback.

Again: the Federal Government must account for distributive outcomes as a consequence of any policy. We do not need disadvantaged Australians to be deterred from seeking medical assistance when they are in need. And neither should we be imposing a surcharge whose structure and impact is similar to a regressive flat tax.

Finally there is the prospect of the privatisation of Medibank Private.

Certainly the Ideology of privatisation has never been more entrenched. And to be honest this is as much Labor's responsibility as it is that of the Conservatives. But without getting in a general debate about privatisation, there are two very likely or certain consequences of any Medibank Private privatisation that deserve attention.

Firstly Medibank Private is paying the government almost half a billion in the financial year up to October 2013. Though Fairfax has its net profit rate after tax at $233 million. This was following a shift on the part of Medibank Private from a 'not for profit' footing to a 'for profit footing' under the Prime Ministership of Kevin Rudd in 2009. Arguably this policy had the effect of undermining the mission of Medibank Private to provide very strong competition in the sector in order to drive the cost of private health insurance for consumers down.

But regardless of Rudd Labor's decision, to forsake Medibank Private's substantial dividends at a time when the government is arguing there is a 'budget emergency' does not make sense. Privatisation, here, will likely cost the Budget bottom line and lead to further austerity against the vulnerable later on.

Yet because of the central historic mission of Medibank Private in injecting a vital dose of competition into a sector which otherwise could be marked by greater collusion in the context of an oligopoly, there is a convincing case to restore Medibank Private to a 'not for profit' footing. Any foregone tax revenue should be made up elsewhere (the alternative is likely a poorer deal for consumers). Privatisation of Medibank Private would undoubtedly cost consumers over the long run 'on two fronts' – not only forsaking dividends, but 'shutting the door' on a return of the enterprise to a 'not for profit' footing.

And what is also notable is that currently a good portion of the Private Health Insurance Rebate is recouped when increasing numbers of health consumers choose Medibank Private for their health insurance policy.

This leaves the Federal Government with little more than an ideological agenda: an outlook which Abbott had disavowed in his book 'Battlelines' – where he claimed to be a 'practical' conservative."

Well: if Abbott meant it when he made those arguments then it is time to put rhetoric into practice.

And for Bill Shorten and Labor: stating that any Medibank Private privatisation will be reversed by an incoming Labor government could also provide a welcome and popular deterrent.

To conclude: others on the Left may be surprised or dismayed that I am arguing for reform of the Private Health Insurance Rebate which do not amount to its outright abolition. In principle certainly I am in favour of a massive injection of funds into socialised health care. I am in favour of a radical expansion and progressive restructuring of the Medicare Levy - with billions injected into dental, mental health, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - and all areas of need.

I am also genuinely afraid that the mooted $6 surcharge could be 'the thin end of the wedge' for a gradual erosion of public health, and the further entrenchment of a 'two tier health system'. Here arguments about the 'ageing population' need to be met head-on with counter-arguments pertaining to distributive justice: and with reference to the priorities of our welfare state and social wage. Certainly we have one of the most tightly targeted welfare states in the world; and further progressive reform of tax, elimination of 'corporate welfare', and appropriate targeting of some programs (eg: the Private Health Insurance Rebate again) – could save many billions. As Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute also infers constantly: 'welfare for the rich' in the form of superannuation concessions should be abolished – potentially saving tens of billions. This can be extrapolated from his claim that over $10 billion could be saved from removing the concessions from the top 5 per cent income demographic alone. So removing those concessions from the top 15 per cent, say, could go a very long way to neutralising the 'ageing population crisis', with the associated health costs. Do we really need 'welfare for the rich' in the form of superannuation concessions for millionaires? And what rationale is there when such a policy does nothing to further reduce the overall costs to the Budget when both Concessions and Pensions are taken into account ?

Progressive reforms in public health are more likely to occur under a Labor government. But so long as we endure under a Conservative government Labor and the Greens need to be open to compromises which could be of benefit to their core supporters amongst the poor, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. Apparently no decision has been made yet on the matter of the policies suggested by Terry Barnes. But should some kind of 'surcharge' be implemented the compromises I am suggesting here could matter a great deal for disadvantaged Australians in the meantime.

That is until the next Federal election – when it is to be hoped a renewed Labor government will make the most of a progressive mandate on distributive justice – radically and progressively expanding public health.

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).