What follows is a
discussion of the policy positions of the candidates for the Australian Labor
Party parliamentary leader – as we approach the deadline for the casting of
ballots, with around a week to go…
Unfortunately Albanese and Shorten did not respond to our questions; but
I am hoping the following commentary is somehow useful to ALP members and
others interested in the debates and the process that is going on…
Tristan Ewins
In the first
televised leader aspirants debate Albanese talked about “big ideas” and big
infrastructure projects. Judging from
Albanese’s past statements, this could mean anything from preparing for fast
rail to finishing the National Broadband Network.
Both
Albanese and Shorten made reference to the rights of aged care workers – the
improvement of their conditions being crucial in holding on to skilled staff in
an important and highly demanding sector.
Albanese also talked of addressing the quality of life of residents in
Aged Care, and Shorten suggested “new instruments” to fund aged care services. But because both candidates were light on
detail we do not know what form funding would take. Talk of additional superannuation levies is a
worry because depending on its implementation it could have regressive
distributive effects compared with some kind of progressive levy. With
approximately a week to go for members to vote both candidates need to provide
more detail on the policy leadership they would provide here – if voters want
to make an informed commitment.
Bill Shorten
drew liberally on the role he played in implementing the NDIS/Disability Care –
but would he – or Albanese – support comprehensive and progressively-funded National
Aged Care Insurance?
Shorten
talked of increased support for victims of domestic violence; of real equal pay
for women; of flexible childcare. And in
addition to pursuing 40% affirmative action for women ALP candidates, he went
further – suggesting quotas for queer and indigenous candidates. Though there is
the argument that were quotas provided for every important demographic how
would this affect the internal democratic process?
Albanese
responded that:
In addition
we could well argue: What room would be left for election of candidates by rank
and file members based on their policy commitments more so than their identity?
Were quotas implemented, for instance, what about representation of the poor
and the economically under-privileged?
One option would be not to focus purely on the parliament, but on civil society
– providing financial support for social movements as part of a strategy to
empower the disenfranchised, and promote pluralism and active citizenship for a
healthy democracy.
Another
option could be an emphasis in self-government for the disenfranchised –
including indigenous Australians – at a variety of levels. Parliament is not
the be all and end all.
There were questions directed to the candidates about
engaging young people, also, and Shorten spoke again and again about standing
up for the “powerless”. But neither
candidate drew the conclusion that education for active and informed
citizenship, including political literacy – should be part of this process. Shorten also needed to be more specific about
the policy ramifications of such a stand.
What about reforming Newstart?
What about restoring pension rights to Sole Parents, and restoring pension
coverage for the disabled?
And again: What about National Aged Care Insurance – funded progressively
– and ensuring the necessary minimum staff quotas, monitoring a variety of
health and quality of life indicators, ensuring more vigorous accountability when
it comes to providing quality food, social interaction and so on? What about pleasant surrounds; all the
necessary heating and cooling; all the necessary medical/dental care; changes
of scenery; and access to Information Technology and books for those who are
interested? And what about greater
financial and other support for Carers – to assist the aged in staying home as
long as they wish to and are capable of?
But also incorporating robust social interaction programs – greatly
ameliorating one of the greatest challenges the Aged can face – chronic loneliness?
Both candidates were short on detail when it came to Aged
Care policy.
From the
QandA Debate
At the QandA debate on the Labor leadership Shorten started
by accepted that tax reform is part of the picture when it comes to funding
crucial programs. He used the NDIS (or
Disability Care) as an example where the electorate will support tax reform
where the social gains are clear. Though
he didn’t use the term ‘social insurance’, he made an effective defence of the ‘social
insurance model’, arguing that every individual might be affected by
disability, either directly, or as a consequence of having an unfortunate family
member. Interestingly, while he argued against
adopting the mantle of the “class warriors of the past” he did support a role
for redistribution. It is a shame for a
Social Democratic party to deny class struggle – as arguably class struggle is
key for democracy, pluralism and the self-organisation of workers – but supporting
the principles of social insurance and distributive justice is a ‘step forward’
from the usual hopeless equivocation in the face of Conservative rhetoric on
so-called class-warfare. (for the
Conservatives it’s only ‘class warfare’ when we fight back…)
Defending progressively redistributive taxation, welfare
services and social welfare payments is crucial to Labor’s mission. And we need more detail on what – if anything
specifically – the candidates would like to see done on this front in
government. Will either candidate break free
of the ‘small government framework’ which inhibits real growth in the welfare
state and social wage? (and which
determines a constant policy of ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ on welfare and
services)
Shorten referred to dental care, for instance: But
comprehensive public dental would cost billions. We need to ‘get the job done’ on socialised
health, for instance: but we also need to be clear where the money is coming
from. Abbott could face this challenge
himself when it comes to implementing the NDIS.
The candidates spoke of ‘aspiration’: but often this is used
as a rationale to abandon distributive justice; or to suppose the pursuit of educational
equal opportunity is enough – when there are aged care workers, child care and
hospitality workers, cleaners – all working hard for little gain, and not enough
respect.
Regardless of the ‘aspirational’ Ideology both candidates
paid lip service to, many people will not break out of poverty, or will spend
their lives in important, dignified working class jobs. These people also need recognition, respect
and distributive and social justice.
One dyed-in-the-wool Liberal voter asked the candidates at
QandA ‘what they would do to win his vote’.
He suggested ‘small government’ as one of the issues that motivated him
most. But Labor cannot be ‘everything to everyone’. An ageing population and a growing population
means the size of government MUST increase if we are to maintain
infrastructure, services and quality of life for all. And indeed, programs like Disability Care
demonstrate how we must increase the scope of social expenditure to provide all
citizens with dignity, happiness and security.
Both candidates should be open to expanding recurrent tax-funded social expenditure
by perhaps 1.5% of GDP in their first term: or by around $22 billion in a $1.6
trillion economy in today’s terms. Depending on circumstances an even larger
commitment may also be desirable. We
need to ‘seize the nettle’ to implement the maximum reform program we can
sustain; but also to be aware of ‘the art of the possible’.
On the
infrastructure front, in the QandA debate Albanese indicated an
encouraging willingness to “borrow to build”.
Clearly Albanese has grasped that the gains in terms of productivity and
quality of life from big infrastructure investments (like the NBN, or
potentially fast rail) outweigh the ‘down-side’ of needing to service and
gradually repay debt. Spending on
infrastructure is a productive INVESTMENT for our long term infrastructure
needs. Albanese is probably especially
passionate about this as a consequence of his years as a Minister for
infrastructure…
Importantly, Shorten suggested drawing upon superannuation
funds to build infrastructure – with guarantees for the funds. The problem with this, though, is that it is in
some ways similar to a traditional ‘Public Private Partnership’. And as with many PPPs, despite the rhetoric
the people still shoulder the risk. What
is more, public finance is still by far the most efficient mechanism. Public infrastructure projects also don’t
need to deliver a profit to shareholders!
While calls to mobilise superannuation in this way gives the impression of
‘innovative thinking’ – and would benefit union-managed funds - public finance
is still the cheapest way of building infrastructure because of the credit rating
of governments ; and is still in the public interest because of this.
Party
Reform
Both Albanese and Shorten appeared uncertain about the
position developed under Rudd – that it would take a full 75% of Caucus to
replace an elected Prime Minister. Perhaps there should be some room to move,
here: though reverting to 50% would effectively nullify the reforms with which we’re
concerned here – the contribution of the rank and file in electing the leader.
On the down-side, Shorten appeared to be seriously
considering US Style Primaries in order to mobilise and include Labor’s
electoral base. While this is a noble
principle, the apparent mechanism is a worry because of the potential to
entrench the power of wealthy fundraisers with ‘big money’; and also divert
Labor’s human and financial resources more than is desirable or sustainable.
But more promisingly on this front – according
to the Sydney Morning Herald Shorten has argued that:
Building Labor into a genuine mass party again – and renewing
Labor by attracting younger members - is a seriously challenge if Labor is to
survive in the coming decades.
BUT MOST
IMPORTANTLY: Albanese has come out
unequivocally in favour of direct election of ALP National Conference
delegates; and much broader involvement of the rank and file in policy
development. This could be THE ground-breaking
reform which will deliver meaningful power back to the ALP’s rank and file: and
in so doing not only further democracy – but also revivify Labor’s previously
flagging membership. This is this issue
which so far has me tending towards supporting Albanese. I am still waiting for Shorten to match Albanese
on this front. And I am waiting for both
candidates to say something of greater substance on responding to Aged Care
needs. For instance, Albanese mentioned
the ageing population as a crucial challenge.
But we need specifics on ‘Disability
Care’ style National Aged Care Insurance.
Final
Observations
The debate on the Labor leadership has not been anywhere near
as vigorous and wide-ranging as this ALP member had hoped for. Despite some encouraging rhetoric on the role
of progressive taxation and the principle of social insurance, neither candidate
has been willing to promote ‘signature policies’ in the extension of the social
wage and welfare state in areas such as Aged Care. Neither candidate has overtly drawn the
conclusion that ‘small government has to go’: not only to respond to an ageing
and growing population – but to extend the rights of all Australians –
including the unemployed, students and the disabled – but also including all
workers.
There is also the question whether or not either leader would
remain true to their previous rhetoric once in the leadership position. Would Shorten actually back progressive
taxation and social insurance extension in the leadership? Or would he succumb to pressure from the
Right faction for an ‘electorally safer’ option of continued small government –
despite the fact small government CANNOT deliver to the disadvantaged and
vulnerable he aspires to stand up for?
Would either candidate seek an expansion of the social wage
absolutely and relatively: or would they both continue the usual policy of ‘robbing
Peter to pay Paul’ on social services and welfare?
Again: For this ALP member the current ‘deciding factor’ is
Albanese’s support for democratic internal party reform: specifically direct
election of National Conference delegates, and much broader – and deeper –
involvement of the rank and file in policy development. In addition to this we
also need to support an expansion of the size of Conference – and while I am
uncertain of the candidates’ positions and that specifically – Albanese’s
position on the aforementioned and related issues is impressive for me as a
grassroots activist.
Albanese was also encouraging by arguing in Melbourne for “the
next NBN” and “the next ‘Disability Care Australia’; Yet why was he not more
specific? Aged Care is the obvious
contender for our attentions over the coming term in Opposition – and to
promote a positive agenda for the next Federal election. Indeed - by applying
pressure we may even make progress under the Abbott government – If we recall
that Abbott gave bipartisan support for the NDIS – quite possibly “to
neutralise it as an issue”. “Getting policy done” is what matters most!
Albanese also talked in Melbourne about addressing “the
urgent necessities of today” and what families were talking about around their
own dinner tables. This is part of the
picture, certainly – Though sometimes Labor needs to lead debate as well – and put
issues ‘on the agenda’ that otherwise would never receive a hearing.
But addressing the cost-of-living pressures faced by poor and
working class families will require redistributive measures through welfare and
the social wage. Ideally it would also
involve a rejection of inappropriate privatisations which add to those
pressures. Equal opportunity in
education requires that we not ‘drop the ball’ on the quality of state
secondary education. And we should also
be required to see ‘equal opportunity’ beyond the frame of ‘life chances in the
labour market’. We need to prepare our
young people to be active and informed participants in a democracy; and to
develop their capacities to appreciate culture, express themselves and lead
fulfilling lives.
Shorten says again and again that he wants to stand for the
disadvantaged and the powerless. In
addition he needs to stand for the average worker! Shorten’s rhetoric is nonetheless encouraging. Though he needs to be more specific on social
wage, welfare and social insurance POLICY aspirations if he wants to appeal to
potentially-swinging, progressively-inclined ALP rank and file members. Concrete commitments by Shorten on this front
– real absolute and relative social wage, social insurance and welfare expansion
–could swing many members. As could a
clearer stand on the front of internal democratic Party organisational reform. Such perspectives would have this member
considering Shorten again. And despite the media rhetoric – sometimes Labor
does need to talk about itself. That is,
in the sense of putting in place the internal participatory mechanisms that
will see us develop the best policy positions we can put to the Australian
people. And which will grow Labor as a
movement, and lay down deeper roots in workplaces and communities.
This is the first chance ALP members have had to contribute to
the direct election of the ALP Leader.
Let’s hope it’s the first of many important internal reforms that
remobilises our movement by empowering the Party’s greatest asset – its Party
activists.
nb: To see the questions we had sent to Albanese and Shorten earlier pls see the following URL: Unfortunately we did not receive a reply; But I hope readers will find the above consideration of both candidates useful in determining their vote!
See: http://leftfocus.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/candidate-questions-for-alp-leadership.html
Posts
