A Letter to the Prime-Minister Elect, Malcolm Turnbull

Above:  Australia's new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.  Will we see a shift in the Liberal Party towards small 'l' liberalism?  This is a letter to the new PM, expressing the hopes, I believe, of many progressives.

 

 Tristan Ewins

Dear Malcolm Turnbull: Prime Minister in-waiting;

The Abbott Prime Ministership is over.  Gone now perhaps are the scepticism about climate change; the bullying of the ABC; the broken promises and blatant breaches of mandate.  The night the change in Prime Ministership was announced the ABC coverage suggested that you and Julie Bishop would bring a ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ perspective to the Government. 

Certainly under Liberal governments across the country there has been cause to fear the withdrawal of civil liberties.  In Victoria freedom of assembly was compromised.  Now, though, can we hope that a Turnbull Liberal Government will recommit to civil liberties; and maybe even industrial liberties – as a genuine, philosophically-liberal outlook would demand?

Pluralism is also core to a robust democracy.  Tony Abbott attacked the independence of the ABC; and the independence and/or existence of various human rights commissioners. And he attacked the independence of charities who took positions contrary to his agenda.  Hopefully this ends now.  But further: what about a reformed National Curriculum that fosters political literacy and active citizenship?  Not ‘one sided indoctrination’ – but exposure to the whole gamut of political opinion ; preparing students to make informed choices as active citizens?

Hopefully under your leadership the Liberals will now remain within their mandate.  No cuts to education, no changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS. 

But some of us will be hoping for more as well. The austerity of the 2014 Budget was obviously  ‘a bridge too far’.  Yet austerity needs to be questioned more broadly as well.  We already have ‘small government’ in this country by OECD standards.  We don’t need to venture further down that path.  We don’t need to bludgeon the poor and vulnerable any further.   Neither do we need to venture further down the path of privatising infrastructure.  A non-Ideological view would be open to a mixed economy – letting the public sector do what it does best.  Though of course as a liberal you want the private sector to do what it does best as well.

What is more we don’t need to dilute the progressive nature of our overall tax mix further. Towards the end of his Prime Ministership John Howard made it clear he believed in the principle of progressive taxation.  Mr Turnbull: there is a chance now ‘to break the consensus’ of ‘broadening the base’ in a regressive way.  And if balancing the Budget is a priority, withdrawing superannuation concessions for the most privileged needs to be considered first before hitting vulnerable or average Australians. There is an opportunity to genuinely occupy the centre-ground with a position of small ‘l’ liberalism. 

On climate change I understand you are committed against an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) or a Carbon Tax as a condition of many of your colleagues’ support.  But what about much more robust ‘direct action’?  What about ‘direct action’ in the form of a multi-billion dollar investment in renewables research and renewables infrastructure?  This can be done without a breach of mandate, and without a breach of trust with your colleagues.

Malcolm; On the rights of refugees, Australia can do more.  We can do more for Syrian and Iraqi refugees especially: whose plight has arisen partly as a consequence of earlier interventions which we contributed towards.  The wars in Iraq destabilised the region; they weakened Iraq, leaving it with a sectarian Shia government; and this emboldened the Iranians with their nuclear program. This was the background to the Syrian civil war. Sectarian government in Iraq was also a contributing factor to the Sunni ISIL movement – which was fuelled by Sunni resentment.

Now minorities and oppressed groups are suffering in a region torn apart by war, with maybe over 300,000 dead.  We can do more and we should do more. And we can use our diplomatic leverage with the United States and other countries in the Pacific region to do more as well.  On QandA American folk-singer and progressive activist, Joan Baez pointed out that if the United States accepted refugees on the same proportionate scale as Germany that this would mean support for some 3 million humanitarian migrants.  For Australia’s part we can also radically increase foreign aid – such as to assist Syria’s neighbours to provide for literally millions of refugees.

Finally, here: I don’t often find myself agreeing with Conservative commentator, Rowan Dean.  And I have a history of supporting non-discrimination in Australia’s humanitarian migration program.  But maybe the argument that Christians in these war-torn countries don’t have many places to turn within their region deserves to be considered with an open mind.  I’m not saying Rowan Dean is right.  I am saying his claims deserve to be assessed critically, rigorously and honestly.

Malcolm: I hope this doesn’t cause you to discount all that I have to say – but certainly I consider myself as being on the left-wing side of the political spectrum. So for instance I would believe in a more extensive public sector than you would as an economic liberal. Yet listening to John Hewson speaking regularly on QandA it is evident that the Liberal Party has made a quantum leap to the Right over the past few decades.  Amidst this, Hewson’s politics have remained steady. For progressives, the hope will be that a revivification of the Liberals ‘Wets’ faction will see a shift of the relative centre towards something more compassionate, generous and just. As well as an outlook which is more tolerant of pluralism, debate and dissent.  Egalitarianism was long part of this country’s culture, and of our identity.  Let’s celebrate that; and let’s not emulate the American ‘Tea Party’ movement with its extreme social Darwinist Ideology.  Instead let’s see some policies aimed at our most vulnerable Australians: those who experience the most intense human suffering.  Get the National Disability Insurance Scheme done. But what about a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme as well? 

With many others no doubt, I am hoping with your ascent to the ‘top job’ we can look forward to a new tri-partisan consensus around human dignity and human rights; and around compassion and respect for the rights of the poor and vulnerable.  Please do not crush that hope.

(nb: the author is still Labor to his bootstraps ; but consensus in areas of progressive public policy should be what we're hoping for as well - a shift in the relative centre)

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.

Write to Left Labor MPs and Demand a Much Better Deal on Refugees

 

In this article ALP Socialist Left member, Tristan Ewins calls on other Labor members to write to Left MPs and their local Labor MPs to demand a better deal on refugees - with a much larger increase in the humanitarian intake, and sustained aid for PNG - to make it the kind of economically developed country that refugees would WANT to live in.

Tristan Ewins

Kevin Rudd’s decision on refugee boat arrivals has many people on the Australian Left as well as human rights and civil liberties advocates angry.

Rudd, Tony Burke (Immigration Minister) and Mark Dreyfus (Attorney General) produced a joint media release from which the following are some selected excerpts:

“As of today asylum seekers who come here by boat without a visa will never be settled in Australia.

Under the new arrangement signed with Papua New Guinea today – the Regional Settlement Arrangement – unauthorised arrivals will be sent to Papua New Guinea for assessment and if found to be a refugee will be settled there….

Our country has had enough of people smugglers exploiting asylum seekers and seeing them drown on the high seas.

We are sick of watching our servicemen and women risking their lives in rescues in dangerous conditions on the high seas...

Our governments will expand existing facilities on Manus Island, as well as establishing further facilities in Papua New Guinea…

There is no cap on the number of people who can be transferred to Papua New Guinea…

We are a compassionate nation and we will continue to deliver a strong humanitarian program. 

If the measure announced today and the international meeting on the Convention that has been flagged lead to a significant change in the number of people arriving by boat, then the government stands ready to consider progressively increasing our humanitarian intake towards 27 000 as recommended by the Houston Panel…

Access to our humanitarian program must be through the international organisations which resettle people around the world, not through criminal operators who have pushed people onto unseaworthy vessels with tragic consequences….”

See: http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/tb/2013/tb205550.htm

(an interesting aside is that it looks like people arriving by boat WITH visas are excluded from the policy…)

In this author’s opinion Rudd and the ALP ‘inner circle’ have decided on this course because ALP private polling must be showing that a decisive marginal seat/swinging voter demographic would switch their votes on this issue.  As far as the ALP leadership are concerned they need to 'neutralise' this issue, along with the carbon tax - for similar reasons. Without addressing these issues in such a way as to win over those swinging, marginal seat voters Abbott would stand a much better chance of victory. 

Personally, I want the polling to be made public so that at least we all know what's driving the decision - and so we know where we have to focus our efforts to turn the situation around.

Rudd’s decision on refugee boat arrivals “will stuff the people smugglers' model.”

It  may even save lives.  

Nonetheless I am uncomfortable with any decision to deny confirmed refugees asylum.

We know that a potentially decisive electoral demographic -whether through fear or prejudice – have hardened their attitude towards these human beings. But Abbott was the first to capitalise upon a perceived  ‘Labor point of vulnerability’; and for years he has hounded an increasingly desperate Labor government towards increasingly ‘hard-line’ positions.  We can be certain, at least, that Abbott’s main concern in outlining these issues has NOT been simply to save lives…

The election could turn on the basis of Rudd’s decision. The Greens may increase their vote significantly from the broad progressive community and liberal Left who will be appalled that it has come to this.  It could help the Greens maintain the balance of power in the Senate; and quite likely now hold on to Melbourne. Katter might also hold his seat...Another hung parliament is possible. And then there is the basis for progressive compromises again... Strategically that's a matter of fact. Therefore Labor needs to position itself in a way which leaves open prospects for future (electorally sustainable) compromises.

Rudd’s decision will understandably meet resistance from the Left within and outside of the ALP.  But we should also be seeking to extract the best compromises we can given the alternative of an open Labor split precipitating an Abbott government.  

So far Rudd has done this independently of the Caucus; He will know there's opposition within the Party- and that in itself is a ‘point of vulnerability’ (For Rudd) that the Labor Left could highlight over the coming week without an open split ‘paving the way’ for an Abbott victory...

 

For all reading this: On the Left we need to be emailing Left members of Cabinet, applying the pressure between now and including Monday July 22^nd.  I have been informed that there is a special meeting of the parliamentary caucus Monday July 22^nd.   So for instance, we should be writing to: Kim Carr, Albanese, Macklin, Plibersek, Wong, Butler, Griffin. – and press them to pursue this issue with Rudd at the meeting, and over the next week or so...  Writing to Doug Cameron also makes sense given his senior position in the Left and his past role as ‘the conscience of the Party’.   We need to do this NOW if we hope to influence the parliamentary caucus.

 

A complete turnaround won't happen - that would finish Rudd and with it Labor...  It would certainly mean victory to Abbott given the context.

 

But Rudd WILL be wanting to prevent open opposition on the Left dividing the party coming up to the election.... Hence he's already mentioned increasing the humanitarian intake by 7,000.

 

If the real issue is stopping drownings then why not accept more refugees through the official humanitarian intake - equal to what likely would have occurred anyway?

 

My position therefore is thus: The Left should demand that PM Rudd consent to an increase in the humanitarian intake by 25,000; and recommit again to a (quicker) doubling of the Foreign Aid budget to 0.50 of GDP; directing that new money to PNG. We mightn’t get this exactly – but at the least we need a strong compromise. The figure of a 7,000 increase in the humanitarian intake simply isn’t anywhere near enough.

 

Some readers may think my position too moderate. (in conversation a Greens member argued we should lift our intake to 100,000)  Others may think it too radical.  But if we are to secure a good compromise we should be writing to our local members and Left MPs before the caucus meeting on this Monday.

 

At the very least we need to secure a compromise involving a big increase in our humanitarian intake and a massive aid commitment to PNG - not only to provide health and education - but to modernise PNG's infrastructure comprehensively. And to encourage modern industry and jobs there.

If Australia and Labor are to send any confirmed refugees to Papua New Guinea at the very least we need to commit to making PNG a place where people would WANT to live; with refugees enjoying a full regime of citizenship rights.

The Left needs to act decisively and together on Monday Jully 22^nd and the remainder of this week to secure the best compromise we can – Because that is the way of securing the best possible outcome for refugees, and for our impoverished neighbour of 7 million people, Papua New Guinea.