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)

Conservatives’ Budget puts the wealthy first. Services and Infrastructure to suffer in the End Analysis

above: Frydenberg and Morrison: desperately trying to win support with tax cuts ; 

hoping voters won't 'look to the small print'

Dr Tristan Ewins

Most of the Australian media is trumpeting the Morrison Governments' tax cuts for “low and middle income” Australians.   But does this stack up under analysis?  Ross Gittins at The Age dared to buck the trend and pointed out that this is overwhelmingly a Budget for higher income Australians.  He observes that the real cost of the tax cuts over ten years will skyrocket to “a staggering $302 billion”.   That will inevitably lead to austerity: with a potential hit to Health, Education, Aged Care, infrastructure and so on.  It will mean neglect and user pays ; and that will also hit genuine low to middle income Australians hardest. Those on $925 or less a week will receive nothing, while those on $3485 or more a week will receive $75/week.   These people (the wealthy) are less likely to spend, also, as compared with lower income Australians. That could also be bad for the economy.  (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 7) 

The biggest culprit, here, is the tax cut for the $45,000 to $200,000 bracket from 32.5% to 30%.  (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 2)  The fact of the matter here is that the tax scales have been unfairly flattened. There should be a stronger rate for those on higher incomes.

To further illustrate the point, the Herald-Sun observed that those individuals on $200,000/year will receive tax cuts amounting to over $11,000/year, while individuals on $30,000 will receive $255/year.  Meanwhile, hypothetically a dual income family with both partners on $200,000/year will receive over $23,000/year ; compared with $510/year for a dual income family with both partners on $30,000/year. (Herald-Sun, 3/4/19, p 2)

On the other hand, there’s $724 million for the elderly “over five years”.  (Herald-Sun 3/4/19, p 13)

It sounds like a lot. But it won’t go anywhere near addressing waiting lists for ‘at home’ services ; or improvements in residential services: such as subsidizing the sector to pay for aged care worker ratios and a registered nurse on-site 24/7.  There’s mandatory reporting for neglect leading to starvation. (which is common)  But that cannot be policed without extra aged care workers.  And aged care workers need better pay and conditions as an incentive to remain in the sector.  There’s also a need to emphasize ‘quality of life’ for those at home or in care – with programs to keep people socially and mentally engaged.  Something more than being sat in common rooms all day in front of a television. 

There’s a projected surplus of $7.1 billion over the next financial year.  (‘The Age’, 3/4/19, p 2)   At least $1 billion of this could have been redirected into Aged Care – where it is desperately needed.

Ian Yates of the Council of the Ageing argued that:  "Up to 125,000 older Australians are waiting up to two years for home care, [leaving] many dying while they wait”.

The blunt fact of the matter is that the Coalition is trying to buy votes with tax cuts: but the consequence will inevitably mean a hit to the social wage and welfare state ; and probably more privatised infrastructure.

While Labor does not oppose all tax cuts per se, Chris Bowen rebuked the Government, arguing the emphasis should have been on those on “less than $40,000.”

That said, there are some sensible measures: such as $3 billion of investments in “suburban rail station car parks” in an attempt to bust urban traffic congestion.   As well as an emphasis on transport infrastructure in outer suburban Victoria. (‘The Age’, 3/4/19)

There’s also money supporting apprenticeships and supporting scholarships to rural universities, and close on half a billion for pre-school education.  Hundreds of millions on mental health and Medicare sound significant: but they’re staggered over several years ; disguising a reality of neglect: which will become clearer as the shrinking revenue base leads to austerity.

The bottom line is that there are a host of priorities demanding our attention: but we end up with neglect in order to conform to small government Ideology ; and to prioritise the higher income Liberal core base.   

There’s a need to ‘fix Medicare’ and further expand into dental.  An extra billion a year could easily go into providing more mental health capacity and cutting hospital waiting lists.  As already observed: there’s a drastic need for more resources in Aged Care.  Again: nothing short of several billions would ‘make a scratch’ on these problems.  

A $75/week increase to Newstart is very much overdue:  such that people are left homeless, or without the resources to effectively search for work in the first place. 

Pensioners could do with a minimum $25/week boost (fully indexed) – which means a great deal for someone living in poverty. Disability Pensioners could also do with more flexibility in supplementing their income with casual work.  Students could also do with more financial support. Taking on part time work can provide experience ; but it can also make it impossible to keep up with studies. That’s bad for students ; but also for the government which is contributing to the investment in the event that people end up ‘dropping out’.

It’s also true that State Governments are running out of assets to privatise. For a long time this was treated like some ‘magic pudding’ to fund newer infrastructure. ‘Asset Recycling’.  But that cannot go on forever.  And there are associated costs.  For instance the privatisation of the Port of Melbourne will see greater cost structures ‘flowing through’ all through the economy.   This (lack of funds for infrastructure) can only be rectified with higher taxes overall (preferably progressive) ; or through regressive user pays which hurts citizens more in the end than higher taxes.  Still: state governments’ tax options are limited ; and those privatisations should never have happened in the first place.

Many of Labor’s projected tax reforms are very welcome.  Negative gearing cuts which exclude new properties will lead to more home construction and more jobs.  It could also end with better housing affordability. Meanwhile ; cracking down on concessions for excess dividend imputation credits will overwhelmingly hit the wealthy. It is not ‘a new tax’ ; but rather Labor is closing a costly loophole ; one which could soon cost as much as  “$11.4 billion over the forward estimates from 2018-19, and removing it could improve the budget bottom line by $59 billion over the medium term.”    Bowen argues that: “More than 92 per cent of taxpayers do not receive a cash refund for excess imputation credits, and won’t be affected at all by this change.”

He concludes that:

Under Labor’s plan:

o No one will pay a single cent more tax
o No one will lose a single cent from their super contributions
o No one will lose a single cent from their pension
o No one will lose a single cent from their share dividends.

Labor’s recalibration of the tax system will benefit a lot of Australian families, citizens and workers.  Its press for ‘a living wage’ could also make a huge difference for the working poor: though we have to hope that Shorten will heed the ACTU’s call  for a “10.7% increase – or $72.80 per week.”  Which is what is really necessary.  

But at the end of the day refusing to consider raising other taxes limits Labor’s room to move.

To fix Aged Care, Health, Infrastructure, Welfare, Education: a very significant amount of money is needed.   Australia’s GDP is now in the vicinity of  $1.7 Trillion/year. Even a modest 1 per cent increase – aimed largely at those on upper incomes – would mean $17 billion/year to invest in services, infrastructure and social security.  This should be the bare minimum for a Labor Government aspiring to improve the social wage and welfare state ; and provide infrastructure. (from fixing NBN, to paying for roads and public transport to bust congestion) 

Over the long term (several terms of government) Labor should be aiming to raise the tax rate by 5 per cent of GDP ; or $85 billion a year in the context of a $1.7 billion economy. (that will have to be adjusted for growth, inflation etc also)   The wealthy should pay their fair share. And corporate tax evasion needs vigorous, tough action. But ‘ordinary taxpayers’ benefit from ‘collective consumption’ and ‘social insurance’ as well. Labor just needs to be brave and articulate, ‘cutting through to the electorate’.  Labor’s come a long way ; but there’s also a long way to go.

As for the Coalition Government: Labor needs to hammer home the line that this is not a Budget for low to middle income earners.  It disproportionately assists the wealthy ; and those on lower incomes will pay through the austerity and inevitable user pays that follows in its wake.

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

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

by Dr Tristan Ewins, 10/5/2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Down-Side

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

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

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

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

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

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



Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turnbull by the Narrowest Margin - And Why a Return to Abbott and Conservatism is not the Answer for the Liberals

Much has been made of the so-called Labor 'Medi-scare' Campaign.  But reflection suggests Turnbull has only himself to blame for pandering to the 'big 'C' Conservative' wing of his Party - with the profound disillusionment from liberal-minded voters who were originally so encouraged by the departure of Abbott.  For the same reason 'a return to Abbott' is not the answer for the Liberals. In the end the Liberals did not 'tack to the Centre' after all.  And if the Liberal Party swings Right chasing after the votes of the Hansonites that will only provoke further disillusionment from the 'liberal relative Centre' voter demographic.

  

Dr Tristan Ewins

 

With the cliff-hanger/apparent-Liberal victory in the 2016 Australian Federal Election there have been calls from Conservative quarters for the removal of Malcolm Turnbull.  The argument goes something along the lines that because Turnbull abandoned the Liberal base he was punished accordingly.  And that a more decisive Liberal victory would have been possible under Tony Abbott.

Certainly the cross-benches will likely be volatile.  The Government could expect to be put into difficult positions on gambling regulation (Xenophon), law reform and legal euthanasia (Hinch), protectionism (Katter), and totally-unworkable policy objectives based on xenophobia. (Hanson)   Cathy McGowan will probably tend towards to the liberal Centre.  Lambie can be unpredictable – but also in some ways progressive on the economy. (take her support for a financial transactions tax)  She also opposes Same Sex Marriage. 

The Greens will quite possibly enter into negotiations with the Nick Xenophon Team to link their agendas in the context of balance of power in the Senate. The hope is that they will oppose austerity and regressive re-casting of the tax mix – leaving fair tax reform as the only remaining option for budget repair.  (though some are saying the Conservatives may respond with a new election)  But the Greens have failed to pick up new Lower House seats from Labor.   In the Lower House Wilkie can be depended upon to be critical, consistent and progressive – as past experience shows.

 

Already there are arguments to the effect that a hung parliament threatens Australia’s AAA Credit Rating.  The arguments can be summed up in that the various sectional interests will get in the way of ‘hard headed action on budget cuts’.  Though again: few are considering the genuinely-existing alternative of budget repair without austerity – on the basis of progressive tax reform.   Budget cuts also threaten the infrastructure and services the economy craves: resulting in something of a ‘false-economy’.  If possible Labor needs to link-up with Xenophon and the Greens in the Senate to progress the agenda of budget repair without austerity. 

Those Liberals who aren’t braying for Turnbull’s blood are indignant about the so-called ‘Medi-scare’ from Labor.   Yet the reality is that the fear out there in the electorate goes back to the 2014 Hockey Budget ; with its various Medicare co-payments, and other ‘cuts to the bone’.  Labor’s efforts here were nowhere near as objectionable, say, compared with the Howard-Era Liberal government’s ‘children overboard’ panic,  or more recent talk of a ‘war on business’; and so on.  In fact Labor’s interpretation of Medicare privatisation is entirely reasonable if realised as opposition to the winding back of socialised medicine in this country. That the Federal Police are being deployed apparently as a Liberal political asset is perhaps a threat to our democracy.

Turnbull’s alleged ‘Centrism’ is not the cause of the ‘political-near-death’ of the Federal Liberal Government. Turnbull had extensively compromised in order to keep the big ‘C’ Conservatives within the so-called ‘big house’ that is the Liberal Party.  He compromised on same sex marriage ; and on climate change and refugees.  He made billions in inhumane and profoundly regressive cuts in areas like Aged Care.  As opposed to the line being drummed up by Andrew Bolt and other arch-Conservatives : if anything it was sheer disappointment from the ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ demographic in the broader electorate that resulted in the hung parliament. 

Talk now of a ‘new Conservative movement’ – and hints from Bernadi of a ‘new Conservative Party’ illustrate a bitterness within the Liberal Party that goes back to the palace-coup against Abbott.  Regardless of this –any new Conservative movement will need to navigate the contradictions between Liberalism and Conservatism.  For self-espoused Christians heartless LNP policies on defunding an Aged Care sector already characterised by regressive user-pays mechanisms - need to be rejected utterly. Hence ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ have cause to oppose ‘Austrian School-style small government’ and its human consequences.  While small ‘l’ liberals have cause to fear regressive Conservative encroachments on civil and even industrial liberties.  Perhaps the Liberals could even learn from the example of the post-war (1950s) German Christian Democrats and their aim of 'a social market economy'.

By tearing themselves apart the various LNP Liberals and Conservatives may well prove themselves unready for government.  But would a Liberal Party freed from its right-wing once again embody the spirit, say, of Don Chipp; of the later Fraser ; or even the critical disposition embodied by internal critics such as former Liberal leader John Hewson?  Would it become a ‘small ‘l’ liberal party?  Could the Liberal ‘Wet’ faction re-emerge somehow from oblivion?  Or would the LNP  still adhere to ‘large ‘L’ economic Liberalism – leaving dominant narratives of austerity, privatisation and laissez faire untouched?   Turnbull’s capitulation to the ‘big ‘C’ Conservative’ right-wing of his Party during the campaign suggests the latter scenario is more likely.  As they do tend to embrace 'big 'L' economic Liberalism as opposed to 'small 'l' liberalism'.

 

There was talk under Turnbull of the Liberals ‘shifting to the Centre’.  But remember that the Centre is always relative ; and what matters most is the substance which prevails beneath the relative labels.  Moves amongst parts of Australia’s ‘liberal establishment’ (eg: in Fairfax) suggests all-too-ready a willingness to ‘settle’ with the Liberalism of Turnbull ; even when much of it proved to be compromised and hollow.

The real problem with the Turnbull campaign was its shallowness.  That is, the shallowness of mantras of ‘jobs and growth’, and the incredibility of the notion $50 billion in Company Tax cuts  (and even more over time) would ‘trickle-down’ to benefit everyone.  And this at the same time as the government proclaimed a ‘Budget Emergency’.  This was not small ‘l’ liberalism. It was the spirit of Reagan and Thatcher.

It wasn’t political and social liberalism that ‘did Turnbull in’ with a ‘near-political-death experience’.   It was laissez faire : with the LNP apparently having learned nothing from the overwhelming public rejection of the attempted hard-line Hockey Austerity Budget of 2014.


(Postscript: A friend in the Labor Party cautioned me that an open split in the Liberal Party could have bad ramifications long term. He argued that at least the LNP is not radically nationalist and openly accepting of racist Ideology. And who knows what might fill any vacuum? Though I still think LNP members need to reflect seriously upon two policy fronts : The incompatibility of heartless neo-liberalism and attacks upon the vulnerable with the 'compassionate conservatism' some Christians would like to profess ; and the infringements upon civil liberties arising from 'Big 'C' Conservatism' in this country. We need the Liberal Party (and hence the whole relative political milieu in Australia) transformed as a consequence of pressures on both these fronts.)

Our next post will consider the dilemmas facing Labor following the election outcome.

From Aged Care to Austerity ; Issues of Concern to Progressives as the Federal Budget Approaches

above:  Scott Morrison will likely bring down an Austerity Federal Budget in May ; But he is taking a harder line on Superannuation Concessions than Labor.  Labor needs to 'up the Ante' on Superannuation Concessions to maintain as much credibility as it can on Distributive Justice.

Dear readers; 

The following letters have been written over the past month ; Most have not been published (except here).  But I hope that here (at my blogs) they will promote reflection and debate.   This time we’re looking at the following:

·        Superannuation Concessions

·        liberal rights and the trashing of Cori Bernadi’s Office

·        Labor and Negative Gearing

·        Life Expectancy for the Mentally Ill

·        Aged Care

·        The Threat of Austerity in the Upcoming Morrison Federal Budget.

Dr Tristan Ewins

 

Labor needs to up the ante on Superannuation Concessions

Turnbull’s tougher stance on Superannuation Concessions raises the prospect of it ‘outflanking’ Labor on one front pertaining to distributive justice.  The tax concessions threshold stands to be cut back from incomes of under $300,000/year to those under $180,000/year – compared with Labor’s current target of  under $250,000/year.  (‘The Age’, 20/4)  Malcolm Turnbull has wasted much of the ‘small l liberal kudos’ and political capital he had won after deposing Tony Abbott.  To win the Federal Election, Bill Shorten and Labor cannot afford for him to ‘claw it back’.  As a minimum Shorten must now match Turnbull’s policy.  Even better: he must outbid Turnbull on distributive justice ; and the related theme of Budget repair without Austerity. Indeed Labor should welcome the opportunity for a degree of bipartisanship on an issue where its ‘distributive justice instincts’ were already demanding a stronger policy. Richard Denniss of The Australia Institute has projected that Superannuation Concessions will soon cost taxpayers  $50 billion every year : mainly in the form of an effective subsidy for the unambiguously well-off.  (paid by the rest of us)   A responsible policy would aim to cut this expense by half as a minimum; targeting the well-off specifically; and done as soon as is humanly possible.

 

Andrew Bolt was wrong on liberal rights re: trashing of Cori Bernadi’s Office

Andrew Bolt  (Herald-Sun, 21/3) condemns “leftists” and “socialists” for the trashing of Liberal MP Cory Bernadi’s office.  And indeed the tactics of those people were questionable at best.  In a picket line there is a clear physical objective – which can interfere with the profits of a private business – and thus deliver leverage to workers over wages and conditions.  Similarly boycotts of the goods of a country or a specific company can achieve leverage in a comparable way.   But the protestors against Bernadi achieved no leverage over government policy through their actions.  And while Andrew Bolt often agitates for free speech, he appears to have nothing to say about Mike Baird’s repressive anti-protest laws.   The problem with mistaken protest strategies can be that they play into the hands of the illiberal forces (ironically in the Liberal Party) who are now threatening our civil liberties.  A truly liberal and democratic society not only supports free speech – but also defends the right to protest, and even the right to engage in civil disobedience. Those rights are now under threat – and whereas Bernadi abhors ‘Leftist totalitarians’ the real threat to our rights comes from within his own party.

Negative Gearing Changes Just the First Step in Restoring the Australian Dream

Labor MP Andrew Leigh  (21/3)  rightly argued that increasing supply is the key to making housing affordable for more Australians.   Labor’s anti-Negative Gearing policies should encourage a shift to building new properties – hence helping to facilitate that crucial objective. But if we really want to increase supply we need to look at many billions invested in non-clustered public and social housing.  To provide for those people thus enabled to enter the housing market we also need to invest in the amenities and infrastructure provided in emerging suburbs.  Young families need transport and communications infrastructure, hospitals and schools, parks and gardens – to achieve the living standards they need and deserve.   But this is only possible via a significant public investment .   That goes against the grain of the Turnbull Government’s emphasis on cutting expenditure – which sabotages the Commonwealth’s revenue base - and hence its ability to provide for these things.  Company Tax cuts (read: corporate welfare)  are the last thing this country needs to provide for skills, infrastructure, social capital – all necessary for a successful economy and society.

 

Neglect of the Mentally Ill “A kind of Creeping euthanasia”; a Response to ‘The Age’

Catherine Armitage of ‘The Age’(‘A kind of creeping euthanasia’, 11/4/16)   is to be commended on her article exposing the rate at which mentally-ill Australians are dying well before their time.  That is, that the mentally ill (almost half a million Australians with a serious mental illness)  are on average dying 30 per cent earlier than other Australians – not just because of suicide, but mainly because of preventable physical illness.  That is, 9000 Australians dying as a consequence every year. This far outstrips the road toll and suicide rate combined several times over.  With the Federal Election now looming it is to be hoped that this will develop into an ongoing campaign in the Australian media, including in ‘The Age’: a campaign which will not relent until there are comprehensive and 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. 

 

Responding to Morrison:  Austerity not the Answer!

Apparently Scott Morrison is under pressure to cut spending in the upcoming Federal Budget rather than raise taxes. (Herald-Sun, 17/4, ‘p 11)  What some people don’t understand, though, it that there is no ‘magic pudding’, and that cuts to health, education, infrastructure and welfare will have enormous ramifications.  Without increasing progressive taxation – which takes more from the rich than the poor – then there are two possible consequences.  Either the quality of services and infrastructure: like broadband, roads, health, education, aged care  – will suffer.  Or there will be privatisation and/or user pays.  There will be more $100,000 degrees.  State schools will suffer – as will our skilled workforce and economy.  And Australia will continue to lag behind in the quality of its broadband.  The problem with this is that ‘collective consumption’ through taxes can actually give voters a ‘better deal’ in their capacity as tax payers than as isolated private  consumers. Medicare demonstrates this.   But the Liberals have an Ideological fixation on ‘ever smaller government’ which defies practicality and common sense.  Supposed Christians like Abbott and Bernadi also ignore an older tradition of Christian Democracy which had no issue with a mixed economy and a ‘fair welfare state’.

We need a strong response on Aged Care ; This needs to be made a top issue in the impending Federal Election

Sarah Russell (The Age, ‘We’re ignoring the needs of our ageing population’, 17/4) draws attention to the under-funding of Aged Care : quality of training, staff pay,  conditions, morale, and numbers of staff on premises.  The result is poor service regarding turning in beds, assistance with eating, dressing and showering.  But the problems with Aged Care and Rights go deeper.  Those in residential care often simply don’t have anything to do but stare at TV and walls all day.  Similarly those ‘ageing in place’ (at home) can be lonely, socially isolated, and bereft of meaning in life. Hence appallingly high levels of suicide amongst the aged. (especially men)  A common response is for policy makers to throw their hands in the air at ‘the ageing of our population’.  But the current  Aged Care budget  is $17 billion out of a $1.6 Billion economy – or approximately one per cent.  An indexed annual $5 billion/year boost could make a big difference: providing programs for social engagement, purpose, entertainment and mental stimulation, moving away from ‘user pays’, increasing pensions, and providing skilled staff numbers which are desperately needed. – We need an ongoing campaign to make this a top priority in the upcoming Federal election.

 

 

Abbott Government in Crisis as the End of Year approaches

above:  Hockey 'softening us up' for savage austerity next year;  Massive job losses follow in the auto-industry because of Liberals' Ideological agenda....

 

Tristan Ewins

As the year draws to an end the new Abbott Conservative government is in something of a crisis, perhaps ameliorated only by the favourable treatment it continues to receive in the Murdoch press.  The forced backflip on Christopher Pyne’s planned dumping of the ‘Gonski-derived’ education reforms suggested a government which was breaching its trust with the public even at this early stage.  That the Conservatives maintain the fiction that education standards are purely about teacher quality, and has nothing to do with resources – is simply a smokescreen for a class-driven agenda.   This is also evident in the Coalition’s decision to cut superannuation subsidies for low-income workers – and to shift those resources instead towards superannuation concessions for the wealthy.

More recently, General Motors Holden has made clear its intention to leave the country.  The result will be a loss of economies of scale in the components industry, with the probable consequence that what remains of the auto industry will also cease to be viable.  There is a possible ‘multiplier effect’  here: with job losses in components and small businesses (combined with core auto-industry job losses) adding up to approximately 50,000 jobs gone  (a conservative estimate ), and maybe as many as 90,000.   In this context, government investment of $150 million a year seems reasonable compared with the cost of losing the industry. 

Abbott and Hockey have made themselves clear that they (supposedly) oppose ‘corporate welfare’. But the meaning of ‘corporate welfare’ is up for interpretation.  Arguably cuts in corporate taxation, as well as wage restraint, and ‘user pays’ mechanisms for students all amount to a subsidy for corporations with regard the infrastructure, labour and services they benefit from.   But there is little objection from the Abbott government with regard this trajectory.

By comparison the ‘corporate welfare’ Abbott refers to has been characterised by Labor shadow-minister Kim Carr as an ‘investment’.  Perhaps the truth with regard the auto-industry was somewhere in the middle.   There was an effective subsidy – but the government and the people received much more in return than what they lost.  Again: because of a positive economic multiplier effect flowing on to communities, businesses, government, citizens – from relatively high wage manufacturing jobs, and the strategically important capacities involved.  

Abbott will try and shift the blame to Labor now.  Already we are hearing about Labor’s ‘reckless spending’ as a trigger for savage cuts.  But it is Abbott and Hockey who have chased the auto-industry out of town; and they must take responsibility for the falling employment and the falling revenue which follows.   

All that said: it is not as if they didn’t have options.  The floating dollar could have been temporarily suspended – and maybe pegged at 75 cents US – to bolster struggling industries – also including tourism for instance. But this was ruled out for frankly ideological reasons.  And there are plenty of revenue options to plug the structural deficit without savage cuts.  Hockey’s admonition that ‘no jobs were ever created by raising taxes’ is ridiculous.  Contrary to neo-liberal ‘common sense’ public sector jobs in health, education, welfare, public works/infrastructure – ARE ‘real jobs’.  And for instance funding cuts to Centre-Link will result in waiting periods for clients of over one hour for advice and service.   Probably the ‘welfare bogey’ will receive special attention now – as the government seeks to vilify the most poor and vulnerable in order to pay for its ‘big ticket’ policies like Parental Leave, and Corporate tax cuts.

It’s also interesting how amidst all this the Conservatives are considering raising the GST.  Perhaps they realise that things cannot go on as they are – because of a huge infrastructure deficit – that will hurt business and not only workers and consumers.  And yet they have an Ideological opposition to progressive taxation.  Again: for all their talk of Labor and ‘class warfare’, it is the Conservatives who have the class agenda.

Meanwhile Qantas is also on the brink.  Qantas is important not only because it is ‘iconic’, but for the practical reason of having reserve air lift capacity. 

Unfortunately the ideological climate is not supportive of nationalisation.    But arguably the Holden brand could be re-acquired, and workers convinced to take a partial stake in a revivified Holden by degrees (paid for through a wage-restraint deal), re-orientating towards the production of smaller, cheaper, energy efficient vehicles.  The result would be a joint co-operative/public enterprise.   With the support of the federal government, theoretically at least Holden could play a trail-blazing role in developing energy efficient, environmentally friendly transport.  But we have an Abbott government, and frankly even under Shorten Labor such a scenario would likely remain ‘purely theoretical’.

But there are also other reasons behind the Abbott Conservative government’s attempts to ‘soften us up’ for savage cuts next year.   To begin with the Howard era tax cuts had locked in a structural deficit; and the situation has been made even worse by the current government’s decision to slash the mining tax, and to significantly cut back Company Tax.  Then there are instances of ‘middle class’ and even ‘upper middle class’ welfare; with the elimination of private health insurance means tests for upper income earners for instance. Also notable, here, is Abbott’s plans for Parental Leave on full pay for the wealthy; potentially paid for through cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Finally – both Labor and the Liberals refuse to touch superannuation concessions for the wealthy – whose removal (for the top 5% alone!) would rein in at least $10 billion (Richard Denniss’s figure). And depending on the scope of measures (eg: perhaps removing concessions from the top 15%) taken – perhaps even $20 billion.  (a rough estimate)

Also interesting amidst all this is a shift in the media (especially the Herald-Sun) and the rhetoric of the Napthine Conservative government in Victoria – to ‘get tough’ on East-West link protestors and ‘make them pay’.   There is a real danger, here, of a gradual reversion to the kind of draconian laws that were common many years ago under the government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland.  If governments escalate civil conflicts by violently repressing relatively peaceful civil and low intensity disobedience actions – eg: pickets, sit-ins etc – then  Australia’s relatively liberal political culture could be sacrificed, leading to a culture of fear and intolerance – cultivated by the monopoly mass media.   For the Conservatives especially – there is a choice between liberal conservatism – or outright reaction.  Politically liberal conservatives especially should be raising concerns about this escalation of intolerance and repression.

And yet there are objections to Victorian Labor’s strategy of paying for transport infrastructure through privatising the Port of Melbourne as well.   Years ago such plans would have provoked protest and hostility on the Labor Left.  Today there is barely a whimper.  As usual with privatisations of this kind the competition that flows in reality will be minimal – even assuming two major ports in to the future.  Consumers could also have to pay over the long term, and it would make more sense for Labor to borrow in order to fund its public works agenda.  Yet this is also ‘ideologically difficult’.

As the New Year approaches, though: at least amidst all this it is cause for hope. Hope that Abbott’s administration  could well turn out to be a one-term government.   To make that a reality, however, what we need now is a Federal Labor Opposition which stands up on tax reform , distributive justice, infrastructure and services, civil rights.
 

Tony Abbott playing "Robin Hood in Reverse"

Tony Abbott:  Is this what Australians Voted For?

Tristan Ewins

During the 2013 Federal Election Campaign the Liberal camp attempted to play down Labor suggestions of their ‘cutting to the bone’ on attaining government as ‘fear mongering’.  But now – with the Abbott government ‘settling in’ it is becoming clear that austerity will follow – even amidst the most gratuitous middle class and corporate welfare.  The Abbott government is playing at ‘Robin Hood in Reverse’ – as a number of observations demonstrate.

On November 6^th ‘The Age’ and the ‘Herald-Sun’ reported that the Abbott Coalition government was going ahead in its restoration of Superannuation tax concessions for those very few (16,000) who make over $100,000 a year from superannuation investments.   The cost of this largesse is no less that $300 million in public money – which will largely be made up from attacks on vulnerable Australians, and 3.6 million of the most lowly paid workers.  This includes removal of superannuation concessions for those low-paid workers.   The Liberals say this is necessary to pay for shelving the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. But they have prioritised tax concessions for the wealthy over tax concessions for the working poor. 

Other Liberal measures include the restoration of Private Health Insurance Rebates for those on high incomes – with the removal of Labor’s means test.  According to their own figures, restoring the Private Health Insurance rebate for wealthy Australians will cost the Liberal government over $3.8 billion. Even given the Liberals’ preferred framework of private health insurance rebates, an alternative could have been higher subsidies for those on lower incomes, and the removal of penalties for welfare dependent and low income Australians whose private health insurance lapses.  But again: the Liberals are in the business of taken from the poor and giving to the wealthy.

Further, the Liberals have not committed to the full implementation of the Gonski education reforms, with no commitment to the final two years of the program. (ie: when most of the funding was to be concentrated; hence depriving state schools of billions in funding)   Labor’s ‘schoolkids bonus’ – which delivered $820 per child a year for families - will also be cut.  The result is that the government must be seen as accepting (or promoting!) the trend towards a tiered education system: where an under-resourced state system is increasingly seen as the inferior option.  The ongoing leakage of students to the private system will only exacerbate this tendency – with its consequences for the life chances of opportunities of hundreds of thousands of disadvantaged students.  This will cost the country over the long run. 

Importantly, the government is also moving to save $4.5 billion by slashing our foreign aid budget – with a callous disregard for the most desperately vulnerable people on the planet.   In the same spirit the Liberals are poised to slash the country’s humanitarian refugee intake by 6,250 places a year to 13,750.

On the environmental front, the Coalition’s ‘Direct Action ‘ emissions reduction policy will ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’ – in the sense that money returned to taxpayers from dropping the Carbon Tax will be taken back by the government through other taxes to pay for the new policy.  Rebates for micro-renewables are to be cut; as well as billions in funding for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and for other renewables research.   Specifically the program – including investment in ‘soil carbon’ and ‘positive incentives’ (ie: subsidies - but with no guarantees!) for business is estimated by the government to be costing tax payers just under $2.9 billion. But independent research shows the program will need a minimum $4 billion extra to meet its (already modest) targets. 

Labor must pressure the government not only to adopt a cap on pollution via an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), but to pursue more genuine and robust ‘direct action’ – funded progressively. The abolition of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is short-sighted; and generous feed in tariffs for energy, and public investment in renewables research and infrastructure could make a real difference.  The Carbon Tax was good policy – producing results on emissions reduction.  But it has been rendered politically impossible given Gillard’s 2010 pre-election promises; and Abbott’s ruthless disinformation campaign.

The government blames the carbon tax for cost-of-living pressure in energy – but like Labor and even the Greens - will not face up to the role of privatisation. (ie: duplicated administration and marketing costs, profit margins, higher cost for finance etc)

Meanwhile Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme aims to provide six months leave at full pay for some of the country’s richest women:  those on $150,000 a year.  Though amendments by the Greens could see a ceiling for women on $100,000/year – with the consequence of a $50,000 maximum payment over six months.   ‘The Australian’ argues that  “the new flagship paid parental leave scheme will cost $5.5 billion a year” – as opposed to $6.1 billion as originally intended.   A fairer cap on the scheme would be $35,000 – or six months full pay for working women up to $70,000/year. (close to the average wage)  Perhaps Labor should support such a policy.

Here, the Coalition’s levy on big business is welcome. But it could be far better spent:  on national aged care insurance for instance.  And it makes little sense in the context of larger Company Tax cuts (another 1.5%; costing about $5 billion ‘over the forward estimates’), further entrenching a culture of corporate welfare.  

While Abbott believes this will create some private sector jobs, it will undeniably cost public sector jobs. For instance, big Centrelink cuts will cut deep into the quality of customer service – with the return of ridiculous waiting periods of over an hour for clients seeking assistance.  How can Abbott ‘come down hard’ on poverty-stricken job-seekers at the same time as ‘taking the rug from under them’ in terms of support?

Interestingly also, Australian Company Tax is significantly below US levels, and the forsaken revenue from Company Tax cuts must be made up elsewhere – as otherwise services, welfare and infrastructure cannot be paid for.  Insofar as corporations benefit from services and infrastructure – the consequence is ‘corporate welfare’ – in the sense that ordinary taxpayers are subsidising corporations. That is – they are making up for corporations’ proper share of the tax burden.

At the same time Abbott is on the verge of withdrawing  government support for the car industry – with a projected $500 million in cuts.   Estimates hold that this move could see unemployment rise by 1.5%, costing the economy $21.5bn a year. And while car industry support may also be seen by some as another example of ‘corporate welfare’ itself, it is a special case – because of the multiplier effect with regards jobs, and the fact that core jobs are relatively high-wage compared with manufacturing elsewhere.  The skills and capacities are also of strategic value for the Australian nation. 

Meanwhile, the Liberals have signalled their intention to significantly increase Defence expenditure: at a time when they are claiming a ‘budget emergency’ as a rationale for wide-ranging austerity. And yet previously announced Gillard government subsidies for Aged Care workers will be withdrawn in an attempt to undercut unions: with the probable consequence that the sector will lose more skilled workers; and aged care residents will suffer the consequence.

Abbott has declared that:  "the carbon tax will go, but no-one's personal tax will increase and no-one's fortnightly pension or benefit will reduce.

It is beginning to look unlikely, however, that welfare will remain untouched.

There is a uncomfortable reality that both the Liberals and Labor were reluctant to talk about during the election campaign.  When fully implemented, Disability Care Australia will peak with a price-tag over $22 billion, with roughly half coming from the Federal Government.  What is more, an ageing population and a growing population must mean additional expenses when it comes to health, aged care, and infrastructure.

All this is by no means unmanageable or unfundable with an economy valued at over $1.6 Trillion. And certainly a regressive GST is not the only option. Removing superannuation concessions for the wealthiest 5% would bring in about $10 billion alone. But the looming crisis has consequences for an administration trying to ‘reduce the size of government’ as an Ideological imperative. Those consequences are especially dire in the context of a previously highly-targeted welfare state – under siege from middle class and corporate welfare.  It means some already tight welfare provisions stand to be narrowed even further – with the most vulnerable and disadvantaged of all paying the price.But as this author has argued elsewhere:

“Looking back to the 1950s it is interesting to note that the conservatives and ‘centrists’ of that time were often more ‘radical’ on the economy than today’s avowed social democrats: and even of some avowed members of the Socialist Left.”

 Specifically, a “social market” model was adopted by the German Christian Democrats in the 1950s”. This included providing for a mixed economy, social wage and welfare state. Not a ‘traditional socialist economy’ by any means. But at least the poor and vulnerable were not sacrificed for the sake of corporate and upper middle class interest, and/or ‘Ideological purity’. (Aarons, Routledge, 2009, pp 33-34)

The time has come for Abbott and other self-avowed Christians in the Coalition to search their consciences. The time has come to confront the fact that given the developing social and economic pressures, ‘small government’ at all costs is neither compassionate, rational or just.