Labor needs to Develop Stronger Policies and Mobilise Early to Beat the Liberals Next Time

above:  ALP Shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen (a member of the NSW Right) has argued for "Equal Outcomes in Health" ; Let's see that principle fully acted upon in Labor policy approaching the next Federal Election.

In the wake of the federal election result there has been a good deal of introspection and analysis of the result: including analysis of Labor’s strengths and weaknesses.  But leading up to and after the election I was saddened to see some in the Party inferring Greens policies were ‘unaffordable’. Arguably that is not the right way to differentiate ourselves from the Greens party.  Rather Labor needs to consolidate its credentials as the party of the ‘Red Left’ in Australia ; with strong social justice policies which inspire our organisational and electoral bases.

Dr Tristan Ewins

It's upsetting when some of us in Labor complain about "unaffordable" "pie in the sky" Greens policies. The Greens' policies were more ambitious than Labor's policies, yes.  And perhaps were less credible as a consequence of their lacking access to quality costings.  But at the end of the day the difference between Labor and the Liberals is perhaps around one per cent of GDP annually.  (also add other policies not related to spending – like support for penalty rates)  And the 'unaffordable' Greens policies maybe add up to in the vicinity of one to two per cent of GDP/year more than ours at the most. (these are just rough estimates though I admit)

The problem with the Greens is not 'unaffordable' policies. That's 'Liberal-Speak'.  It’s rhetoric which can rationalize opportunism on austerity for instance.  It’s loaded-rhetoric which ‘locks in’ small government.

The real problem for the SL is that Greens gains are losses for the ALP Left within the PLP (Parliamentary Labor Party): affecting our policy influence as far as policy is determined by Cabinet.  (or the Shadow Cabinet as it is for the time being) And a common accusation is that sometimes the Greens distort facts on Labor Policy to achieve that.

But despite claims to the contrary, people who were insisting that we needed Greens preferences to win were proven right.  We cannot escape from the fact Labor and the Greens need each other.

So for the most part "big spending" promises are 'not the problem'. Promoting incremental extension of social insurance, social welfare and the social wage - should go without saying for Labor. We did not go far enough on tax reform and superannuation concessions reform. Yet nonetheless it was the most promising economic platform we've promoted in years. By this I mean it was the first election in years where we had not locked ourselves arbitrarily in to a policy of holding spending and tax down as a proportion of GDP.  

Probably  we retreated on policy in the face of bad responses in focus groups and polling. (take our retreat on Aged Care funding)  This suggests that while we began selling our message earlier than usual, we could have began even sooner. Because selling a message which challenges 'common sense' Ideological assumptions (as Gramsci may have put it) takes time and effort. (especially with a hostile media)   Our aspiration should be to raise social expenditure and investment by perhaps 2.5 per cent of GDP upon taking government after the next election.  (maybe more if you factor in cutting superannuation concessions)

If people want evidence of the need to begin campaigning early then look at the disinformation on Medicare privatisation in the media and from the Liberals. Privatisation was narrowly interpreted as ‘selling an asset off’. Labor’s message was therefore deemed a ‘scare’. Yet upon reflection Labor’s implicit definition of privatisation is legitimate. Medicare is a relatively modest scheme of socialized medicine by some international comparisons:  providing for the costs of a variety of consultative services and procedures publicly.  Nonetheless, Medicare (and the PBS – Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme)  contain national health costs radically compared with the overwhelming dependence on private health cover in the United States. The danger, though, is that we are nonetheless developing into a ‘two tiered’ health system in health as in education. With increasing degeneration into Galbraith’s ‘private affluence, public squalor’.   The more this progresses the more entrenched the situation becomes ; and the more divided the country grows on the basis of social class.

This - accompanied by growing out-of-pocket expenses - would be both inefficient and unfair: an expression of the principle of privatisation as opposed to socialisation. 

But Medicare must be extended as well as defended. Medicare does not currently include comprehensive dental , podiatry and physiotherapy , or medical aids like glasses, hearing aids or prostheses.  We need a reforming government which provides for this through the progressive reform and extension of the popular Medicare Levy without austerity elsewhere.

It’s also notable that we sold NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) well in the past. But we can't sustain an argument that improved social wages and social insurance can be provided without significant tax reform elsewhere. $7 billion from negative gearing and Capital Gains Tax concession reform was important. (adding up to 0.4% of GDP)  At least we were somewhat on the front foot. And Labor’s defensive stand against $50 billion in Company Tax cuts was crucial to its message ; and to a revolt in sections of the electorate against ‘corporate welfare’.

But I think we can and should do better. It requires planning and arguments put well in advance. It requires promoting a public debate which challenges peoples' assumptions about the desirability (or undesirability) of 'small government', low taxes, the importance of social investments, social insurance and so on.  It requires a party of activists – mobilized to a significant degree throughout the whole electoral cycle.

In short: we need an ALP with a vision reconceiving of a 'forward march of labour'. An idea of what 'progressive' actually means. That is 'how we want to progress things’. And that must mean an extension of social insurance and the social wage ; an emphasis on public infrastructure and services ; a more progressive tax system - and so on.  Which takes real resources-  Hence the emphasis on tax reform.

But both sides capitulated to short-term opportunism on superannuation concessions - which will be costing tens of billions to benefit the rich and the unambiguously well off.  With the new parliament it is to be hoped that the impending $50 billion bill for superannuation concessions will drive policy by necessity.  And Labor can use its position in the Senate to ensure these changes are fair for middle and lower income Australians.  Hopefully Xenophon can be convinced of this also. His votes will be crucial.   Also thankfully while Labor did not develop a strong enough policy, here, at least at the early leaders’ debate Shorten kept his options open on future reform.  Turnbull by comparison locked into ‘no further reforms’.  It will be interesting to see if he sticks to that.

The Liberals will accuse us of being 'big-spending'.  But that is rhetoric we need to refute vigorously. My personal ambition was to see Labor increase tax and related social expenditure by maybe 2.5% of GDP in its first term. (that that is considered 'radical' shows how far we've regressed in this country from anything like social democracy)  

But even increasing progressive tax and associated expenditure by 1.5% of GDP (or $24 billion/year out of a $1.6 trillion economy) in a first term Labor government would be meaningful. That should be ‘the policy floor’ – which we resort to only if necessary - and below which we compromise no further.

Crucially: there are vulnerable people who need our help sooner and not later. That includes the elderly, the ill, the disabled, the poverty-stricken, and the long term unemployed for a start. This requires tens of billions new spending to be meaningful.

With Shorten’s election campaign appearance on QandA, he was confronted by an aged pensioner who argued that an unforeseen contingency (eg: a broken washing machine) could send her broke.   In other words, that it may come down to a choice between paying bills, seeing the doctor, or feeding oneself. Shorten conceded there was ‘nothing he could do’.  Which probably translates as: ; ‘internal polling shows people don’t want higher taxes’ or that they ‘resent pensioners’, and hence Labor was ‘cutting some of the most vulnerable loose’.   We have to do better than this next time.    And the way we do that is through a solid campaign footing for a full three years between now and the next election.

But keep in mind that's in the context of a $1.6 TRILLION economy. We're talking about affordable reforms that the media and Conservatives will portray as 'radical' and 'irresponsible'. The Liberals especially don't want to compromise at all on their 'small government, neo-liberal, laissez faire' Ideology and agenda.  No matter what the cost to vulnerable  and disadvantaged Australians.

In fact we need to develop a public debate about how low social spending and how small the public sector are in this country - and why moving closer to the OECD averages - even if only gradually - would be a good thing.

I have argued to increase spending and taxes by roughly 2.5% in the past.  I don't think we can just transplant the entire Swedish model over two or even three terms. But I do think gradual progress is possible. And depending on unforeseeable circumstances perhaps it could be less gradual.  (history is interspersed with ‘watershed’ moments which had not been predicted)

Let's say we had a pool of $40 billion extra a year to work with out of a $1.6 trillion economy. (ie: 2.5 per cent of GDP) And then maybe cut superannuation concessions by around $15 to $20 billion to start as well. (out of approximately $50 billion)

With that we could do a great deal if not all of the following:   

·         Fully Implement the Gonski education reforms, and NDIS

·         reform and extend Medicare into dental, prostheses, optometry, physio, psychology, podiatry ; cut waiting lists ; stop the encroachments of increasing co-payments

·         increase investment in public and social housing

·          implement a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme

·         reform Mental Health with more proportionate resourcing of the sector and policies to tackle mental-health related early mortality – with perhaps 300,000 Australians suffering schizophrenia, for example,  dying 25 years earlier than the general population. ;

·         introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI)  as proposed by NSW Labor policy activist Luke Whitington, and begin eliminating poverty.

·         also fund various infrastructure projects publicly as opposed to creeping privatisation- with the consequence of passing efficiencies on to the broader economy.

·         top up local government with federal funding - redistributing resources to help local government in working class and disadvantaged areas to provide better quality services and infrastructure.

·         Pay for a reparations component of a Treaty with indigenous Australian peoples

 

·         Implement a trial 'co-operative incentive scheme' to support the development of co-operative enterprise in Australia  - supported by tax breaks, cheap credit, advice., and in some instances government co-investment

·         Reform welfare payments – Aged, Disability, Sole Parents; Student Allowance; Carers etc; increasing by $50/week plus inflation perhaps over two terms

 

·         Finally we could reform higher education and make the HECS system far more progressive. Raise the minimum repayment threshold for a start.   And implement Industry and Labour Market policies which bring us closer to full employment: with a big boost to the Budget bottom line.

What's important over the next year or so it that we adopt the posture necessary to promote the next wave of reforms in what they used to call ‘the forward march of labour'. ALSO even in the wake of our election loss we should still aim for a Company Tax rate of 30 per cent or higher and not back down from that. (ie: whether in government, or vetting legislation in the Senate)  Because it is both necessary and reasonable for the corporate sector to contribute to the services and infrastructure it benefits from. The alternative is neglect - or otherwise 'corporate welfare'. 

Sam Dastyari’s estimate that corporate tax evasion is costing $31 billion a year is also relevant here.  And you would think Labor needs a stronger policy than it took to the last election.  That is: Labor’s policy only aspired to claw back $2 billion of this over 4 years.

Labor desperately needs a sense of what its professed ‘forward march’ comprises ; and why that is desirable and right.  Let’s begin a debate sooner rather than later: moving Labor onto ‘the front foot’.  This means shifting straight away to a ‘permanent campaign mode’ based on ‘solid but partial mobilisation’ through the activism of our rank and file.  (full mobilisation throughout the entire electoral cycle could prove exhausting, however)  Also we need to implement an early release of ambitious policies which our activists and supporters could mobilise around.  We don’t want to be pressed again to retreat on crucial policies (for example Aged Care funding)  due to public fears re: the presumed need for a Budget surplus and low taxes – as occurred in the recent federal election campaign.

A non-binding ‘policy conference’ some time over the next year could also help mobilise the enthusiasm of Labor’s rank and file ; inspiring innovative policy development to drive Labor towards the next federal election.  Contrary to Bowen this Conference should not replace the binding ALP National Conference which determines Labor's Platform.

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.

 

 

Letters on the US Presidential Election and 'Small Government' in Australia

above: Left-wing US Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders

 

The following are another series of letters to The Age and to the Herald Sun ; addressing topics as diverse as the US Presidential election; to Richard Denniss on economic reform;  a response to Peter Costello on ‘small government’;  on the threat of ‘elder abuse’ by government;  and the case against austerity!  Unfortunately the clear majority were not published.

Dr Tristan Ewins

Richard Denniss on Economic Reform

Richard Denniss (‘The Age’, 15/2) makes a compelling argument regarding the real nature of the social choices we need to make, and the social priorities we need to set.  Are lower corporate and personal income tax rates, as well as other concessions and subsidies for the well-off really a greater priority than quality, accessible state education ; a fair welfare system which is sustainable for those depending on it; social insurance for the disabled and the aged ; and comprehensive public health which is truly responsive to human need?  Peter Martin (15/2) makes the point that the top 10% consider themselves ‘battlers’, whereas in fact they are amidst the truly wealthy and the upper middle class. We cannot afford social services, welfare, social insurance and public infrastructure without a genuinely progressive tax mix.  And we must not be scared to put the arguments for redistribution and higher social spending – without which the minimum human and social needs of a great many Australians would not be met.  This election the progressive parties should be aiming to increase social expenditure by at least 2.5% of GDP (or $40 billion in a $1.6 Trillion economy) rather than parrot conservative mantras on ‘cutting expenditure’.

Responding to Peter Costello on 'Small Government'

Peter Costello (Herald-Sun 16/2) argues  “spending, not tax, is our biggest problem”.   Yet Australia’s public spending is low by OECD comparisons. The problem is that ‘small government’ imposes a ‘false economy’.  Some social needs are non-negotiable.  Health, Education, Aged Care, pensions for the vulnerable and for those who have earned it through a lifetime of work.  Crucially: In these fields ‘collective consumption’ via tax actually gives us a better deal as taxpayers than we would receive as private consumers.  To illustrate – in their book “Governomics  - Can We Afford Small Government?’ Miriam Lyons and Ian McAuley argue that whereas ‘high taxing’ and ‘high spending’ Nordic countries “contain health costs to 9 per cent of GDP”, in the US the figure is 18% despite only 40% coverage.   Australia’s Medicare is somewhere in the middle: It is an effective universal coverage scheme – but neglect and under-funding leave us ahead of the US but behind the Nordics.  So even with progressive tax and higher social expenditure these policies can actually get costs down as a proportion of GDP, and in the process free up a greater portion of the economy for ‘negotiable’ needs (eg: entertainment, holidays) which improve our quality of life. 

Continuing the Argument against 'small government'

Conservatives are arguing Turnbull must “slash government spending”.  But where would that come from?  The unemployed live in such poverty it interferes with their ability to seek work. The Disabled already experience poverty through no fault of their own.  Student poverty forces mainly young people to seek out work that actually prevents them from getting the most out of their study.   The Aged are forced to sell their houses to access sub-standard Aged Care even when they are from a working-class background.  Waiting lists are spiralling out of control in public health ; and we have the threat of a permanently two-tiered Education system which disadvantages those unable to afford private schooling.  Mental health is neglected and many mentally-ill can expect to die 25 years younger on average.   There is insufficient public money for infrastructure and privatisation passes on added costs that hurt the broader economy.  Public housing could increase demand and make housing affordable for more families.  So in fact more public money is needed – not less.  AND the deficit must be brought under control as well.  Only PROGRESSIVE tax reform (not the GST) can tackle all these crises fairly.  Cutting savagely is not the answer.

Meanwhile on Elder Abuse by the Federal Government!:

Christine Long (‘the Age’ 24/2/16) provides an exposition on elder abuse, usually at the hands of relatives.  Yet the worst elder abuse and negligence comes as a consequence of the actions (and otherwise negligence) of the Federal Government.   Nursing homes lack staff to resident ratios, and what is more there is no provision for a registered nurse on the premises 24/7.  Indeed nursing homes are often akin to ‘warehouses for old people’. There is little or no mental stimulation or diversity in environment.  Lack of staff means residents do not always eat, and some are left in their own excrement for protracted periods for the same reason.  What is more, onerous user-pays mechanisms are forced upon working class families who may have struggled their entire lives to afford a home.  User pays aged care is akin to regressive tax – but much worse even than the GST.  For quality of life in old age other reforms are also necessary.  A significant increase in the Aged Pension.  Free public transport.  Taxi vouchers, and social gatherings to cater for all interests.  Programs to combat loneliness and the likelihood of suicide.  A National Aged Care Insurance Scheme would be a great place to start.

Responding on the US Presidential Campaign: Bernie Sanders' Prospects

 

Rita Panahi  (Herald-Sun, 15/2) decries US Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders as “An ageing socialist who wants to raise existing taxes and introduce a bunch of new ones.”   The unspoken assumptions, here, are that small government is un-contestable, and redistribution unthinkable.  The Herald-Sun (15/2) was also concerned that what are probably the top 10 per cent of families live ‘pay-check to pay-check’ on $200,000 a year and more to maintain their lifestyles.  But according to the ABS  the average pre-tax individual wage in November 2013 was $57,980. And many truly battled on close-to-minimum wage: cleaners, skilled child-care workers, aged care workers, retail, hospitality and tourism workers.  In 2015 the minimum full-time wage was barely $650/week.  So redistribution is fair for many reasons.   Arguably everyone should have minimum rights to social inclusion, shelter, nutrition, education, and health care.  Best provided through the social wage, social insurance and various social services which demand progressive tax as ‘the price we pay for civilization’.  But pay is also based on ‘demand and supply’ in the labour market, and some workers’ industrial strength. Those mechanisms do not guarantee fairness.  You don’t get fairness and human decency without redistribution including services, welfare, public infrastructure and progressive tax.

Meanwhile:

Julie Szego (‘The Age’ 25/2) infers that women supporting Bernie Sanders in the US Presidential Election is not the ‘feminist choice’.  Underlying this is the assumption that identity is privileged over broader outcomes and over ideology . But if Sanders succeeded in winning free universal health care women would stand to gain as women – exactly because women are otherwise disadvantaged financially due to the exploitation of feminised professions, and due to women’s interrupted working lives.  Secondly, if Sanders raised the minimum wage this also would help the most exploited women in those same feminised professions.  Whereas Hilary Clinton can be seen as supporting a ‘liberal feminist agenda’ Sanders agenda ought appeal to ‘socialist feminists’  concerned also with class, and with the inequalities even between women themselves.   In this context it would not be ‘a betrayal of feminism’ to support Sanders.  Modern progressive politics needs to be based on reciprocal solidarity between human beings against oppression, exploitation, subordination and domination.  Here gender does not ‘trump’ other issues any more than those issues (eg: class) ‘trump’ gender. The agenda is for us all ‘to see the struggle through to the end’ with nothing less than ‘full human liberation’ as the aim.

 

Andrews Labor Win in Victoria means Challenges and Opportunities for Change

 

 

above:   Daniel Andrews' convincing win for Victorian State Labor provides a window for change: hopefully a opportunity that he will make the most of

Tristan Ewins

Daniel Andrews is set to take office for Labor in Victoria with a resounding electoral endorsement.

But one crucial issue was neglected by everyone during the campaign. 

Arguably no state government in the country has secured the revenue necessary to sustain government provision of public infrastructure in everything from transport to public housing and education over the long term.

Interestingly, former Conservative Victorian Premier Denis Napthine himself had argued at one point for a higher GST.   This could deliver the necessary funds to the states generally. Though the measure would have hit low income groups hardest, and hence would have been unfair. 

Meanwhile so-called ‘Public Private Partnerships’ (and ‘full-blown’ privatisation as well) also inevitably involve regressive user-pays mechanisms; and arguably are less efficient means of finance.  ‘The Age’-columnist Ken Davidson has long made this argument to the chagrin of Labor and Liberal state governments alike.    This makes the cause of progressive tax reform all the more pressing.

Progressive tax reform is necessary to provide for working families who increasingly cannot afford a roof over their heads; or who endure insufficient transport infrastructure; or who may be the targets of future unfair  ‘user-pays’ mechanisms via toll-roads and the like.  We need to sustain more public spending, not less – to provide the roads, public transport, schools and public housing necessary to ensure no-one ‘gets left behind’; to gently deflate the housing bubble; and so services and infrastructure are funded sustainably and fairly.  Again: That MUST mean increasing progressively sourced revenue Federally and ‘locking in’ the provision of necessary funds on to the States.  The states desperately need certainty on this point.

During the Victorian State election campaign both sides committed to ‘no new taxes’.  Immediately, therefore, apparently Andrews ‘hands appear to be tied’ on the revenue front.  Although perhaps  the way may still be open to increase existing taxes.   The dilemma is achieving this progressively.  

But none of this is to say Andrews Labor cannot agitate loudly and clearly – along with the Weatherill South Australian State Labor Government – on a  ‘new front’: refuting Abbott’s Ideological commitment to a ‘small government’.

Incidentally the ‘small government mentality’ – with all its consequences – appears to be prevalent at a Federal Labor level as well.  A long-time member of the Victorian Socialist Left, it would be well for Andrews to publicly adopt the cause of proportionately increased, fairly structured and progressive social expenditure.

In the meantime Andrews Labor is committed to suite of policies including support for social and public housing – with regulations aimed at ensuring affordability for the aged and the disabled.  As well there is Andrews Labor’s commitment to removing dangerous level crossings;  and delivering enhanced fire services and reduced ambulance waiting times.  There is also Labor’s popular commitment to restoring funding for TAFE campuses; and establishing jobs, education and training as a ‘top priority’.  Finally the public voted for Labor on a platform of cancelling the expensive Public Private Partnership on ‘East-West Link’.

But limited Victorian State revenues remains the bugbear that may come back to haunt the new government.   Over the short-term Labor can afford to spend; and indeed needs to spend in order to deliver the Victorian jobs recovery it has promised.  But for this to be sustained over the long term something has to change federally.   And arguably failure to build crucial infrastructure would mean ‘bottlenecks’ which over the long term do much more damage to the economy than increased public debt.  Abbott must take responsibility, here, rather than follow through his political blackmail of withdrawing federal funds.

These arguments need to be addressed by Federal Labor also if Shorten is to deliver the full NDIS, as well as Gonski, and other potentially popular initiatives.  That should include a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme;  as well as Medicare dental, physio and optical; and for much more public and social housing to ‘gently deflate’ the housing bubble.  Also crucial are funds and programs ‘close the gap’ on life-expectancy,  and provide life opportunities for the mentally ill.  And finally we have to reiterate that federal tax reform is crucial if efficient public investment in state infrastructure (roads, public transport, schools, energy, public housing) is to be sustained over the long term.

It is also regrettable that Andrews Labor  has provided for its promise on level-crossings through privatisation of the Port of Melbourne.  Definitely it was smart politics; and the role of ‘smart politics’ in the Andrews Labor victory should not be understated.  But arguably inferior cost structures (including profit margins) will now flow on to the broader economy over the long term.  This is a ‘once-off’ shot to public revenue that once implemented cannot be reversed.  There is a comparison, here, with Abbott’s privatisation of Medibank Private.  Although that policy will have specific ramifications: creating a near-private monopoly in private health insurance, with the market-dominance of the newly-private player working against the interests of consumers.  Also hundreds of millions will be lost to the public in revenue every year.  

Finally, Andrews Labor has the opportunity to pursue other progressive reforms; not least of all developing a progressive agenda on secondary curriculum that takes on the Conservative education orthodoxy championed by the likes of Liberal stalwart Kevin Donnelly.   As against Donnelly’s professed narrow emphasis on numeracy and basic literacy there is a place in secondary curricula for the imparting of critical thinking and textual deconstruction.  That applies the English, the Social Science  and Humanities as well.  Education should not merely apply to ‘labour market requirements’, but also must promote the demands of active and critical citizenship, as well as political literacy, and cultural literacy, participation and inclusion.  Curricula should  aim to develop ‘well-rounded human beings’.  

There is no need for bias in such a curriculum, however.  The Liberal Party itself is struggling to survive organisationally as the young increasingly abandon political activism. Rather a ‘critical/active’ curriculum could promote an appreciation of interests and ideologies which was inclusive and balanced.  As against Donnelly’s fears, it need not preach moral and cultural relativism.   Such reform could be ‘streamlined’ through English, History, a new ‘Political Economy’ subject, and should attract support from all who are serious about of robust democracy. 

Under Joan Kirner curriculum reform was a top priority.  So too should it be under the Andrews Victorian Labor Government.