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.

 

 

QandA's Virtues and Vices - and the self-censoring of the Left

Above:  Tony Jones  is the most talented candidate for hosting QandA ; But he has appeared obviously uncomfortable in the wake of Conservative pressures to exclude Left-wing and other critical opinions

Despite the continual carping on by the Conservatives in this country – to the effect that the ABC harbours ‘an ‘obvious’ left-wing bias’ – I have come to fear that rather the opposite is becoming true.  Programs like ‘The Drum’ seem increasingly slanted towards having Conservative or right-libertarian viewpoints at the core of their programs.  Pluralism is certainly no bad thing. But the impression I get is that radical-Left viewpoints are often excluded.  (though I am relieved when I see figures like Australia Institute spokesperson Richard Denniss included on the ABC) 

The most recent example of the QandA broadcast from the “Festival of Dangerous Ideas” was perhaps an exception to the trend of silencing radical perspectives – and one that had host Tony Jones appearing very nervous and uncomfortable. Naomi Klein’s confident and powerful presentation of genuinely radical viewpoints – including opposition to the detention of refugees, and her arguments for Western responsibility in the face of the Syrian refugee crisis – certainly would not have pleased Abbott.  Nor would have her fluent, articulate and effective critique of capitalism.  Jones’ absence from recent QandA programs perhaps hammers home the point that ‘the show might go on without him’.  Though he is arguably still be most talented and competent candidate for the job.

‘QandA’ especially has been ‘under siege’ for years now; with the assault picking up substantially over recent months.  QandA has a long history of supporting pluralism in the sense of including left-of-centre viewpoints neglected in much of the monopoly mass media.  This is what Abbott cannot stand.  We have a Government which doesn’t really believe in democracy and pluralism at all.  It wants to shut-down and silence opposition wherever possible.  Not just the media, but for instance charities who dare to engage in political criticism as well.   And of course there is the age-old aim of ‘smashing’ the trade union movement and leaving all working people vulnerable to the whims and agendas of employers.  A country without an effective labour movement probably would not have identified the threat of ‘WorkChoices’ until it was too late.  WorkChoices is not 'buried and cremated'.  It has been locked away to be redeployed some day when peoples' memories have faded; and the labour movement has become too organisationally weak to mobilise public opinion effectively.

“At the same time decidedly Left-wing participants such have sometimes appeared quite uncomfortable.  (well, that is my strong impression)  And I would suggest that this is because such participants have been under pressure ‘not to come across as being overtly radical’ lest they ‘play into Abbott’s hands’.   For example I remember noticing how with Billy Bragg’s appearance there was very little in the way of discussing socialist politics.  I hold Billy Bragg in the highest regard and cannot understand why else he may have come to sidestep the question with his appearance at QandA.  Yet if we hold our tongues for fear of a Conservative fear-campaign we largely concede the field to our enemies.”

Yes QandA should be ‘balanced’.  In the sense that it should include Left, Centre-Left, Centrist, Conservative, liberal, and even libertarian viewpoints.  Even if the ideal of a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ (Habermas) is impossible to realise absolutely – that’s not to say we shouldn’t quest after that ideal.  But once we understand that Abbott’s agenda is not about ‘balance’ – but rather about SILENCING opposition – we should appreciate how futile it is to adopt a policy of appeasing him.

Furthermore on this theme: The ‘Zaky Mallah’ incident was blown grossly out of proportion.  It was run with as a weapon with which to bludgeon the program into compliance.  While his (Mallah’s) sympathies may not be ours, nonetheless the observation that anti-Islamic rhetoric was contributing to ‘radicalisation’ was not far off the mark.  The fear campaign  - a ‘moral panic’ that was whipped up in the aftermath of his comments - was ridiculous. 

We have a government who are basically pursuing the aim of transforming the ABC into a State propaganda mouthpiece.  No longer about facilitating a diverse and participatory public sphere, the government wants an ABC which proclaims the position of ‘Team Australia’ – so-called. 

Here dissidents are considered 'traitors'.  Pluralism is to be ‘stamped out’.  In reality the dissidents who defend rights and liberties against the reactionary push to stigmatise and delegitimise them  could be seen as the real ‘patriots’.  We see it in the mass media all the time now: consistently unfavourable coverage of protests, strikes etc.  And I don’t mean that the dissidents are ‘patriots in some jingoistic sense.’   But in the sense of defending that which perhaps is most worth celebrating and defending in this country.

Finally, the recent Tweet on QandA that subjected Abbott to vile innuendo did nothing for the cause of defending free and inclusive speech, as well as genuine pluralism – through the platform of the ABC.  We cannot ‘vacate  the field’ when it comes to values, legitimate interests and policy.   But we must not allow blatant ‘provocations’ that will probably just ‘blow up in our collective faces’.

Perhaps the Left would be stronger, here, were we less ambiguous when it comes to free speech.  The Conservatives talk about liberty when it comes to Andrew Bolt’s speech.   But they want to delegitimise industrial liberties as well as free assembly and civil disobedience -  with an eye to crushing the social forces they oppose themselves to.   Yet when George Brandis talks about ‘peoples’ right to be bigots’ – as anti-intuitive as this may be ; and as dangerous it is to ‘let that Genie out of the bottle’ – there are real questions about the boundaries of free speech.  The tighter we limit free speech the more likely it is that our enemies will apply those standards to us as well one day.  The Americans turned free speech into an absolute by making it a foundational element in their very Constitution ; and the associated ‘foundational myths’.  This can create a free-for all for bigots on the one hand.  But it can provide a shield for civil liberties and expression as well. 

Perhaps we need to be more reserved when it comes to limiting speech.  True hate speech and morally vile examples such as Holocaust denial – which one day could result in history repeating itself – are exceptions.  Let Andrew Bolt have his rights.  But remind him that we do not all have the platforms that he enjoys.  Remind him that genuine pluralism demands a more diverse array of viewpoints in the mass media.  Including the Murdoch Press.  Remind him that progressive viewpoints are systematically excluded in so much of the monopoly mass media – and especially the Murdoch Press which dominates the highly-influential tabloid market.  

For freedom of speech to be more meaningful it needs to be accompanied by OPPORTUNITY for speech.  That must mean a participatory public sphere.  But also it should mean reform of our educational curriculum with the aim of developing peoples critical faculties – including political literacy.  That is:  Not some one-sided indoctrination process; but rather encouraging people to be active and informed citizens ; empowered to make informed choices in keeping with their interests – but also their values.

Let’s defend a pluralist and critical agenda for QandA – serving as a platform for an inclusive participatory democracy.  But let’s not get in the habit of self-censoring ourselves in instances when there are important opinions of substance which deserve to be tested in the public sphere.