above: While Menzies was far from without fault, on many issues today's Liberal Party would be unrecognizable for him. 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Much is said about the clash between the liberal and Conservative wings of the Liberal Party of Australia. Usually leading figures will speak of a ‘broad church’ which includes a diverse membership. But the truth is that the Liberals continue to drift ever deeper into the hard Right. Liberals will stand up for religious liberties (which there may be some kind of argument for) ; but John Stuart Mill would turn in his grave if he was aware of Liberal policies on trade unions, charities, and attempts to shut down grassroots mass organisations such as GetUp!

The Encyclopedia Britannica identifies various rights as central to Classical Liberalism. Freedom of association, assembly and speech amongst them. Also: “freedom from fear of reprisal”, and of arbitrary arrest and punishment. It also identifies free industrial organisation of workers as a necessary counter-balance in the marketplace.

Interestingly, iconic British liberal John Stuart Mill was even in some ways sympathetic with the socialist social experiments of Robert Owen in the 19th Century. (see: ‘On Socialism’, J.S.Mill, Prometheus Books, New York, 1976)

And while free markets are crucial to classical liberalism, various liberals are divided on the balance between public and private. All liberals would oppose a ‘command economy’, and would demand a central space for ‘personal determination of needs structures via markets’. For some liberals, however, Hayek and Rand are seen as occupying ‘the extreme end of the spectrum’ ; but those theorists’ ideas are exactly those promoted by the Institute of Public Affairs - which has a powerful role influencing Liberal Party policy. Before the 1970s, Hayek and Rand were ‘on the fringes’ in most Liberal and Conservative parties. Fanatical commitment to the progressive and open-ended dismantling the welfare state, social wage, social insurance and public sector would have once have been ‘out of place’ in ‘the Party of Menzies’. Now those ideas are in ‘the mainstream’. And for Conservatives, adherence to economic neo-liberalism has eclipsed ‘compassionate conservative’ tendencies.

By contrast with the original liberals, today’s Liberal Party of Australia is committed to the total dismantling of the power of organised labour. Its ‘Ensuring integrity’ Bill has several aims. Firstly, the bill (if passed) will take non-protected industrial action as being ‘criminal in nature’ ; and union leaders could thus be charged and imprisoned ; and unions themselves deregistered and ‘dismantled’. It will enable government to “sack” union officials convicted of criminal offenses: which includes ‘industrial’ offenses such as unprotected industrial action, and entering workplaces to organise or inspect working conditions without notice. Also: even ‘protected’ rights to industrial action will be able to be withdrawn if an ‘interested party’ argues it affects their interests. The legislation will establish in many ways arbitrary punitive powers for government against workers and union officials. While freedom to withdraw labour is a liberal right ; so too is freedom of association.

The Liberal Party is also now endeavouring to have mass-based progressive lobby group ‘GetUp!’ considered a branch of the ALP and the Greens ; and hence to restrict its rights to campaign in the lead up to elections, and on election day. With a membership base of over a million Australians ‘GetUp!’ is obviously much broader than the ALP or Greens, and has organisational independence. But these days the Liberal Party is simply interested in shutting down all opposition in a display of crude power politics. This is the opposite of liberalism ; even if defined narrowly as ‘classical liberalism’. True, the Liberals abrogated liberalism when they attempted to ban the Communist Party under Menzies as well.  ('Doc' Evatt's defense of the liberal rights of Communists was an important victory for Labor at the time)   But the Communists never had over a million members: mums, dads, students, retirees. People who want a political voice: but many of whom are not ready to join a Party.

Another example of Liberals abrogating liberal principles regards their treatment of charities and other organisations who must fear their tax-deductibility status being withdrawn if they criticise the government. ‘Political’ speech is seen as compromising the work of charities by the Liberal-National Coalition ; but in fact this is just another rejection of real free speech: sacrificed on the altar of brute power politics. Despite a decision by the High Court upholding the right of civic organisations like charities to engage in political advocacy, the Liberals and Nationals are still looking for ways to shut-down resistance. Arguments have been made to ‘withdraw support’ for organisations ‘out of step’ with majority opinion. (whatever that is)

The other side of this involves calls on the Left to tax churches ; which may include lay organisations at the grassroots level. While the Liberal Party has largely abandoned liberalism in practice, the Left could do worse than to integrate liberal and socialist principles.

Finally we must consider the treatment of refugees and the unemployed by callous governments of the Australian Right-Wing. Open-ended incarceration with the effect of breaking the spirit and the will to live of those affected has no place in any account of liberal human rights.

Meanwhile, ‘Work for the Dole’ comprises a form of labour conscription, and we must consider the real power relationships underlying these arrangements – as opposed to the fantasies of Hayek and Rand who only see ‘individuals freely entering into voluntary economic relationships’. Sophisticated liberals deal with ‘the world as it is’ and not merely as it is supposed to be in the theories of the economic hard right. In reality, both major parties are supportive of a policy of a “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”. (ie: unemployment of approximately 5% with the point of containing inflation and wage pressures) The point of this is exactly to restrict workers’ bargaining power at a time when the unemployed are vilified, wages are stagnant, and there is restricted consumer demand in the broader economy. (in turn impacting on growth)

In times past liberals would be capable of recognising the real-world imbalances of power in economic relationships: and hence support rights for trade unions, and a decent welfare safety net without punitive, unfair and unrealistic mutual obligation provisions.

While some Conservative figures like Barnaby Joyce are finally recognising the threadbare and punitive nature of ‘Newstart’ unemployment insurance in Australia, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is determined to keep existing policies as a wedge against Labor. While 'Robodebt' policies drive innocent people to desperation and suicide, the hope of decent bipartisanship has been cruelly crushed. An ugly sentiment against the welfare-dependent and job seekers has been whipped up in the monopoly mass media in Australia for decades. But the Liberals have all-too-readily seized upon the consequent public sentiment ; and have exploited it.

While progressives should always prefer a Labor Government to a Liberal Government in Australia, it is to be hoped that genuine liberals like John Hewson - who have not been ideologically captured by the Institute of Public Affairs – improve their fortunes in internal debates. While this author is opposed to Blairite ‘Third Ways’ it would nonetheless be a relief to have bipartisanship on issues of basic human liberty and decency. While the Liberals increasingly embrace Hayek and Rand on the economy, on social liberty they are effectively against libertarianism. (eg: on the rights of organised labour)

In Australia the nominal party of liberalism is anything but liberal. Even in the narrow sense of classical liberalism they fail to uphold core principles. Labor could reconceive of itself as a liberal Party ; and occupy that space abandoned by the Liberal Party. But for social democrats and democratic socialists that is not the answer if it means abrogating our own historic principles, and the rights and interests we defend. But a more libertarian position on liberal rights on the Australian Left would apply significant pressure to the parties of the Australian Right. To a some degree this is already happening. It is a trend that needs to be developed further.

Budget Cuts spell Disaster for the Vulnerable

above:   Expect this to become more common on Australia's streets with the implementation of the 2014-15 Abbott/Hockey/Cormann Austerity Budget.

 

Tristan Ewins

The Government of Tony Abbott has proposed a Budget that makes a mockery of his claim to ‘spread the burden’ of ‘reform’ fairly.   The Budget has also made a mockery of the government’s claim to ‘credibility’ regarding its mandate – and the extreme violation of that which is now going on before our eyes.   Massive cuts to health, education and welfare fly in the face of the Government’s pre-election commitments.

We will now go through some of the most alarming aspects of that Budget drawing on the observations from ‘The Age’ and the “Herald-Sun” .

Health:  The Abbott Government is imposing an additional $7 charge for each GP visit, and an extra $5 for those needing pathology services. (eg: blood tests)   For those with no option but to regularly visit the doctor, and have blood tests taken, this could add up to $120 extra a year.  An awful lot if you’ve just been forced onto Newstart, or had all support payments withdrawn!  

Indeed, in  ‘The Age’ Ross Gittins argues health austerity may lead the ‘poor sick’ to delay seeking help until their conditions become acute.  And for those who do not care about anything without a dollar sign attached to it – this could cost the Budget and the economy over the longer run.

The rationale of providing a disincentive for ‘spurious’ visits to the GP is also very doubtful given the already-widespread application of co-payments;  and it is open to question whether pathology services are used ‘spuriously’ in any case.   If the government had balanced these changes with increases to pensions and progressive reform of the tax mix the policy may have sidestepped its otherwise regressive and counter-productive consequences.  But the opposite is now the case.

Education:  In higher education university fees will be deregulated leading to a ‘two tiered’ system at best. ‘Elite’ universities will be free to charge whatever they like – with the very real possibility of $100,000 or even $200,000 degrees. This ‘user pays’ aspect will also be applied to make up for an average 20% cut in Federal Higher Education funding supporting the cost of degrees. 

Abbott and Pyne argue there will be scholarships; but the reality will be a quality of education  generally dependent on the depth of a students’ pockets – rather than merit.  (as a consequence of the prohibitive cost)   Arguably ‘equal opportunity’ should involve extra and widespread subsidies and quotas for students with disadvantaged backgrounds.  And an understanding of education as ‘a social good’ beyond labour market requirements.

Student Loan repayment thresholds will fall regressively and interest rates on loans will sit around about 6 per cent.   For someone whose life is disrupted by disability, for instance, (or perhaps parenthood) university debts could easily spiral out of control.  The Conservatives claim students must ‘contribute’ towards the cost of degrees.  But surely this occurs already through the tax system; and progressive tax is the best way to ensure students (and business) contribute proportionately to the financial benefit gained.

The ‘united ticket’ on Gonski is also to be dropped assuming the Coalition wins the next election and has the opportunity to do so.  (though to be honest even Labor was not fully implementing the Gonski recommendations)

Finally on Education the School Chaplains program will receive a boost of approximately $250 million over five years.  But the contempt for which this government holds the poor and vulnerable exposes the lie of their upholding ‘Christian values’.

Local Government: $1 billion over four years withdrawn – probably leading to an increase in Rates or user pays – or otherwise a degradation of services

Aged Pension and Retirement:   The age of retirement will rise gradually to 70 by 2035; and Pension means tests will be frozen for three years – making it difficult even for part-self-funded retirees with limited means.   Arguably we are now living in conditions of great  ‘material abundance’ compared with many decades ago.  Aside from the systemic imperative of endlessly expanding markets under capitalism, abundance means arguments to ‘work us into the ground’ are not practically or morally defendable.

Other Welfare:   This is where the Abbott/Hockey/Cormann austerity really begins to bite against some of the most vulnerable of all.   Despite offensively deceitful  rhetoric of ‘spreading the burden’ the vulnerable will be driven into the most spiritually crushing poverty; and ACOSS has argued this will lead to a possible sharp rise in homelessness given the withdrawal of ‘the social safety net’.

The measures include:  

·         A six month waiting period for under 30s applying for Newstart; and then ‘Work for the Dole’ 

·         Very tough eligibility criteria for the Disability Support Pension;  particularly for those under 35

·         Unemployed under 26 forced on to the abysmally inadequate ‘Youth Allowance’

Sole Parents will also be affected by the withdrawal of Family Tax Benefit B, and deserve more robust compensatory support than Hockey’s offer of $750 per child  between the age of 6 and 12.  (see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-13/budget-2014-ftb-cuts-worth-billions-to-hit-families/5446896 )

Furthermore: the *formula* for determining pensions will be altered by the Coalition Government.  Pensions will be indexed to inflation rather than Average Male Weekly Earnings – with a gradual fall in payments ‘by attrition’.    John Collett at ‘The Age’ believes this could cost pensioners $100 a fortnight “in several years’ time”.

The consequence will be utterly desperate circumstances for the jobless; especially the young jobless.  And those without family to fall back upon will probably end up homeless.  (those forced to move away from the support of family to find work will be hit doubly hard) This is the ‘American model’ that the Conservatives seem to be aspiring to.   The creation of a desperate class of working poor – motivated by the very real fear of falling even further down the social ladder – into homelessness; and the destruction of all hope.  But for neo-liberals this desperate ‘reserve army of labour’ is ‘functional’ in weakening the bargaining power of workers.

 It is also becoming apparent that the Federal Coalition’s $300 million cut to pensioners’ concessions will apply to everything from water to energy. (so much for fighting ‘cost of living’ pressures) Some ofthe Victorian Conservatives are outwardly angry with Abbott, as $73-$75 million in cutbacks to pensioner concessions will flow on to Victorians specifically. This could be the beginning of an internal rift within the Conservative parties: whose ‘endgame’ could include driving (or for some others providing a pretext) for desperate state governments to lobby for an increase in the GST rate, or a broadening of the GST base.



Theoretically the GST can increase in the context of a more progressive tax and welfare mix to compensate the poor and vulnerable, and average workers. But the odds are more in favour of a regressive mix – with GST ‘reforms’ hurting low income earners and pensioners again who had already been hit hard. Arguably a more regressive mix for Hockey involves a swipe at ‘the undeserving poor’ – in favour of those ‘millionaire wealth creators’, and some ‘self-funded retirees’ whose very comfortable conditions of retirement are effectively subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of tens of billions in tax concessions every year.



Also importantly: with cuts in the Carbon Tax, Mining Tax and Company Tax overall revenue is still likely to fall. The question that follows is thus: Will the GST be promoted to overcome ‘the infrastructure deficit’ – or will infrastructure privatisation reach previously unheard of extremes; with the public being fleeced in the context of ‘user pays’, and the relatively unfavourable cost structures of private enterprise? Few in the Liberal Party (or even Labor) look set to accept the proposition that a mixed economy is better for capitalism, and better for workers and the disadvantaged at the same time. So this Budget is likely only ‘round one’ of a protracted assault upon Australia’s social wage and social insurance.

Conclusions

Those enjoying incomes of around half a million a year will have to pay $6400 extra in tax. But again in a morally abhorrent fashion the government is contending that this has seen a ‘spreading of the burden’.   While millionaires will barely notice the ‘mosquito bite’ that is the temporary, so –called ‘budget repair levy’ – the effect on the poor and vulnerable will be utterly crushing and permanent.

‘The Age’ argues that the Coalition is now set to withdraw $80 billion “from schools and hospitals over the next decade.

Hockey argues Australia is “a nation of lifters, not leaners”.  He has little appreciation of the fact some of us have no choice to lean lest we fall down.  He is willing to judge the vulnerable; but he is unwilling (and probably unable) ‘to walk in their shoes’.    Under such circumstances the civilised and compassionate thing to do is to provide support for those who have the need.   Altering the formula for calculating pensions as they are, the Conservatives instead exhibit contempt for these people.

The Liberal Government would likely want to play down the legitimacy of claims to disability pensions on the basis of mental illness, for instance – playing upon popular misperceptions in order to legitimise a callous agenda.  Liberal MP Andrew Robb could possibly set them straight on that were they willing to listen…  If he has it in his heart perhaps he should make some kind of statement against these attacks against disability pensioners.  (many of whom do not have relative material wealth to fall back on)

Finally ‘labour conscription’ applied to disability pensioners able to work 8 hours or more a week  comprises further cruel exploitation of the most vulnerable.   Better to provide positive incentives for flexible community work – with untaxed payments on top of the pension -  rather than ‘the big stick’.  Flexible opportunities are crucial as disability can inhibit a person’s ability for regular work.

Abbott’s radical abandonment of the welfare state comprises both a rejection of ‘Catholic social welfare Centrism’, and also of the very-conservative but welfare-minded tradition of the Democratic Labour Party from which Abbott originally emerged.  It flies in the face of Pope Francis’s warnings about the dangers of unbridled capitalism lacking of social conscience.

What remains to be seen now is how Labor will respond over the coming years. Will Shorten ultimately capitulate on welfare, social wage and social insurance in order to maintain ‘small government’; or will he follow the principled path instead of ‘short term opportunism’?

In the meantime progressive social movements need to coalesce and prepare for the fight of their lives.

 

Hard Copy Sources:  ‘The Age’ and the “Herald-Sun'; May 14th and 15th 

Rhetoric and Reality - Labor must stand up for Sole Parents

above: A photo of the author, Denise Allen

In this latest 'Left Focus' article former Labor MP Denise Allen takes the Federal Government to task for its Sole Parents decision - but applauds Julia Gillard's stand against Abbott.  Cuts in the Sole Parents Pension will mean much hardship for our most vulnerable families.

Left-leaning people interested in progressive debate are also welcome to take part in our 'Left Focus' Facebook group - where among other things we promote new  posts at the blog, and debate important social themes and issues of the day. See:  http://www.facebook.com/groups/58243419565/



by Denise Allen,  October 2012

Some days the Prime Minister and the Labor Party make you so damn proud you want to shout it from the rooftops.

Last week for example, when our strong and inspiring Prime Minister ripped Tony Abbott a new one and called him out for the sexist bully he is.

It was a day all Australians, regardless of whether you like or support the PM or not – a moment in political history – no one will forget in a hurry.

It makes so many of us Labor supporters proud when the Prime Minister announces new wide sweeping progressive reforms like the NDIS, Carbon Pricing, Aged Care reform and the Gonski Report. Progressive Labor Party reforms akin to the Whitlam Governments Medicare and University reforms.

But on that very same day last week, without very much fanfare, the Labor Party passed – with the help of the Coalition – a continuation of a Howard Governments policy to reduce the income of single parents. 

This Single Parent Pensions Bill is one of the most regressive policy platforms ever introduced by a Labor Government.

This bill, by reverting the Single Parent Payment to Newstart allowance once the youngest child turns 8, reduces the income support of a single parent by up to $100 per week, in some cases more.

That said – it is a slight improvement on the similar policy the Howard Government introduced in 2005 and effective July 1 2006 whereby Supporting Parent payments reduced to Newstart allowance when the youngest child turned 6!

It is designed to coerce single parents back into the workforce.

Now I fully understand that there are many single parents in our society who do not attempt in any way to seek work regardless of the age of their children. But these people – both women and men – are in the minority.

Some are relatively uneducated, have very poor social and employment skills and even if they did have reasonable skills, many live in rural areas where employment vacancies are almost non-existent.

On the other hand, there are many single parents living in the city where rents are exorbitant; transport costs; after-school care costs are an added financial burden.

Taking away up to $100 per week, reduces a single parent’s ability to seek work or re-training and to function as a healthy, happy parent.

The stress that is going to be added to their daily struggle is going to be enormous.

I believe there should be “carrot” not “sticks” to encourage single parents into the work force.

Encouragement should be given to single parents to gain skills by returning to school, through our TAFE system (although now the Bailleau/O’Farrell/Newman Governments have slashed funding to TAFE’s that is going to be so much harder as well) or to enroll in a University.

How a single parent will be able to afford to do that now their income will be reduced by up to $100 per week is questionable – (especially given the funding slashes to TAFE’s).

How will someone without a car manage?

How will someone without extended family support manage?

How will someone who already pays exorbitant rent manage?

What if they can’t get a job for months/years on end no matter how hard they try?

Were these questions even considered when this legislation was being considered?

Whose idea was this to crucify struggling single parents even further?

If the Government is so desperate to find an extra $700m per four years why then didn’t they have the courage to finally attack the rort that is negative gearing, a wealth creation system for wealthy people?

It is true that some people only understand money as a motivation to do anything.

But instead of taking money away from single parents that they use for their everyday living costs, why not offer incentives akin to the baby bonus?  If Governments can offer a baby bonus handout and provide extremely wealthy private schools with huge publicly funded handouts, why can’t they come up with a policy that is more “carrot” and less “stick”; where single parents are encouraged to succeed, not threatened and deprived of vital dollars with which to raise their children on a daily basis.

Those who will scream the loudest about “lazy single parents” are the very same people who will still put their hand out for every subsidy at every opportunity. I have never seen or heard of anyone saying “No thanks, I don’t need the baby bonus” or a wealthy private school say “No thanks, we don’t need taxpayers money to build new a rowing course or swimming pool”…. “let the Government keep it for other more worthy causes.”

I expect this sort of policy from Conservative Governments as it is par for the course for them but not from a Labor Government.

A very wise person once told me that “Governments, in the race to be the ‘best economic manager’ make decisions from a economic rationalist point of view, and in doing so loose all humanity and compassion.  Saying they are “good economic managers” is rhetoric Governments of both persuasions bang on about all the time. The real challenge in being a good economic manager is implementing socially responsible policy that is passionate and well managed.”

This is not socially responsible policy.

It is cruel, heartless, regressive policy that will put many single parents further under the poverty line.

I want to see policy that will assist and inspire single parents to aspire to better opportunities.

This does not do that.

I would expect it of Conservatives but not the ALP.

(As an aside – I am yet to hear Tony Abbott give a commitment in blood to wind back this policy. Seems as far as Mr. Abbott is concerned, it is an outrage to tax multi-billion dollar mining oligarchs and put a price on big polluters spewing filthy toxic waste into our atmosphere, but its ok to reduce the income of some of the poorest, most struggling people in our society.)

Denise Allen 

Political/Social Commentator

Political Strategist

Disability Advocate

Former Vic State MP for Benalla

http://denniallen.wordpress.com

Double Standards when its comes to talk of ‘Class War’

above: Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Increasingly - in the Murdoch press especially - there has been talk of 'class war' in response to even modest proposals for progressive economic redistribution.  But redistribution against the interests of the disadvantaged and ordinary struggling workers has been going on for decades; intensifying under Liberal governments.  In this article Tristan Ewins works to illustrate that point, showing such examples as the increasingly regressive tax mix, and falling minimum wages.  Ewins argues for Gillard Labor to be brave in pursuing distributive justice for the disadvantaged, and orindary struggling Australian workers.

Tristan Ewins

June 26th 2011

In a column appearing in both the Herald-Sun and The Daily Telegraph recently Miranda Devine has had another go at Julia Gillard and the carbon tax.

Condemning Gillard and the proposed tax, she characterises it as:

“Wealth redistribution, pure and simple. A year on, there’s no secret what Gillard stands for. It’s just no one can believe it.”   http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php 

And this isn’t the first time Miranda Devine has used such language either.

For instance in the Herald-Sun on May 12^th 2011 she beats up the spectre of “class war taxes” in response to Labor’s Budget. ( see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/federal-budget-2011/story-fn8melax-1226054252544   )

 In response:

Briefly, the main aim of the carbon tax is to create market signals to drive changes in investor and consumer behaviour: to do our part (as all nations must) in reducing emissions .

But that established: it is possible that modest distributive goals could be pursued as a by-product of overcompensation. And why not?

This brief article will consider inequality, redistribution and the double-standards at play with language of ‘class war’ which has been so common recently.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how attempts to tax the wealthy and relatively wealthy – to give a fair go for ordinary workers and the poor; or improve the wages and conditions of the most disadvantaged workers – is labelled “class war” in the right-populist monopoly media. And yet all these years that Australia has been drifting towards greater polarisation of wealth and income, and greater disadvantage for the poor: this has not aroused the same kind of ‘outrage’.

The wage share of the economy has been falling for decades; with an accompanying intensification of the rate of exploitation. 

Larvatus Prodeo reported this year that the wages share of national income was at its lowest level since 1964; slightly over 52%.  And to be fair the wage-share of the Australian economy had been contracting for decades under both Labor and Liberal governments; as the leadership of both parties accepted the notion that wages need be depressed to restore profitability.

See: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/01/06/labour-market-myth-busting/]  ;  And: http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/the-state-of-the-labour-market/

Yet if structural forces in the capitalist economic system were driving these changes; why then were workers not at least duly and properly compensated with collective capital share? 

 Even under Hawke in the 1980s, celebrated increases in the ‘social wage’ came in the form of tax cuts; and so necessarily led to a smaller pool of funds for welfare and services. A veritable ‘double-edged sword’.

But there is more. 

Under both Labor and Liberal governments – but especially under the Conservatives - the ‘tax mix’ has been restructured as to be less progressive. Income tax had been gradually ‘flattened’. Dividend imputation has reduced the proportionate tax burden of the wealthy; and the GST in taxing consumption has affected the poor disproportionately. Accompanying compensation for lower-income demographics, here, was largely neutralised by regressive restructuring of the tax and welfare mix elsewhere.

Meanwhile, concessions and incentives in superannuation for the relatively wealthy and the outright wealthy have come at the cost of potential social programs in health, education, aged care, infrastructure and welfare.  

Privatisation of retirement pensions may well lead in the future to the marginalisation of the public aged pension, with impoverishment for many women, and those disadvantaged whose labour market participation has been sporadic, or who have been trapped in ‘low-end’ jobs. 

It begs the question of whether the government should rather be pursuing a more progressive and democratic model of collective capital formation.

Furthermore for decades there has been increasing labour market deregulation, and an end to the old style of progressive cross subsidies for essential utilities as a consequence of privatisation – or of corporatisation in-anticipation of future privatisation.

Privatisation has also resulted in falling government revenues for vital social programs, and increased costs for everything from power and water, to the use of private toll roads.

‘User pays’ ends up having the same effect as regressive-flat taxation.  And demand for increased profit margins with privatisation have seen structural increases in the cost of basic necessities; while the added cost of borrowing for the private sector in order to modernise infrastructure has also been passed on to consumers.  And in these new markets – eg: for power – ‘small consumers’ are disadvantaged due to their limited purchasing power.

With regard to minimum wages, recently the ACTU has noted:

“While the average Australian income has jumped 21 per cent in real terms since 2000 and company profits have increased by 50% in the past five years alone, the real value of the minimum wage has increased just 7.1 per cent.” 

And also importantly during the Howard years:

“Average award wages dropped by around $30 a week and some award workers had their real wages cut by almost $100 a week.”

The ACTU has observed that falling minimum wages have affected over 1.4 million workers in recent years.  (See: http://www.actu.org.au/Issues/MinimumWagesCase.aspx )

And in addition to all this -  there are many workers – including on low incomes – who have faced reduced wages and/or conditions under the government’s ‘Award modernisation’ process – despite promises to the contrary.

Importantly: There are many who have no sympathy for the unemployed as a result of constant campaigns of vilification on the pretext that ‘dole-bludging’ is rife. And yet Australia has stringent active labour market policies, pursued under both Labor and Liberal governments, with provisions that could reasonably be described as ‘punitive’.

Under recent changes long-term unemployed will be compelled to work two days a week ‘for the dole’, and yet no corresponding increase in payments for these people has been announced.  http://thecourierpigeon.com.au/government-gets-tough-on-the-unemployed/851664/

The OECD has seen fit to criticise Newstart as woefully inadequate compared to unemployment pensions elsewhere.  Writing in late 2010 for ‘Inside Story’, Peter Whiteford reported how under Newstart “unemployed adults receive about $470 per fortnight”, and how  

“Since 1996 the level of Newstart for a single person has fallen from around 54 per cent to 45 per cent of the after-tax minimum wage.”  (despite the fact minimum wages themselves have fallen)

(see:  http://inside.org.au/why-unemployment-benefits-need-to-be-increased/ )

Finally, during the Howard years a number of programs sprung up that were lambasted as ‘middle class welfare’. Included, here, were Family Tax Benefits ‘A’ and ‘B’ – introduced to assist in the costs of child-rearing- and provided even to those on high incomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

There has been confusion, here, on the Left, with some arguing in favour of ‘universalism’.  But while many of us (this author included) support in-principle Swedish-style social-democratic universalism, the facts ‘on the ground’ in Australia are those of a relatively tight social wage and tax regime.  With a limited scope to expand progressive taxation, and hence expand welfare and social programs - a higher degree of targeting and means testing is necessary in the Australian context.    

Interestingly, though, Bernard Keane notes at ‘Crikey’ how Labor has failed to markedly reform the Family Tax Benefits regime.  He concludes how:

“In [Labor’s recent]…budget…[Family Tax Benefit payments are] forecast to cost $18 billion in 2011-12.”

And thus

“…FTBs are now Labor’s as much as they are Howard’s, which makes the “war on the middle class” rhetoric from News Limited and its journalists even more risible.” http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/12/why-labor-now-owns-middle-class-welfare/

All these years ‘redistribution’ has been going on.

Redistribution from low and middle income earners to the wealthy, and to the upper middle class. 

Redistribution from workers to the ‘corporate bottom line’ as a consequence of eroding real wage share, labour market deregulation, privatisation (including ‘Public Private Partnerships) and user pays. 

And more redistribution from workers to big corporations with effective ‘corporate welfare’, as corporations no longer contribute adequately or proportionately towards the costs of education and infrastructure from which they benefit.

 There has been impoverishment of pensioners – and especially the unemployed. (again I reiterate: despite stringent and indeed punitive active labour market policies)

 And there has been vilification of trade unions and stigmatisation/criminalisation of industrial action even where only used as a last resort.  This has resulted in a greatly reduced capacity for workers to fight back in the face of these changes.

So amidst all these changes over the past thirty years or so: how often have we heard terms like ‘class war’ thrown around in the mass media as a response?  

The answer: Not often. Not often at all. 

And yet if there is the prospect of  even a mild degree of redistribution in the context of overcompensation for the proposed carbon tax, the ‘class war bogey’ is brought out just as it always is when it comes to the interests of the privileged, and the relatively privileged. 

If those on lower and middle incomes are to receive a ‘fairer slice of the pie’ in terms of the tax mix, provision of social services, and welfare for those in need, it is only reasonable that those in the top 20% of incomes demographic pay their fair share one way or another.  If those on low to middle incomes are to enjoy a ‘fair go’ it can be no other way.

That said, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has recently announced that families on incomes above $150,000/year will miss out on carbon tax compensation. That’s roughly 10% of Australian families. (‘The Age’ 25/6/11)  

 Unfortunately – as far as redistribution via overcompensation goes, the kind of strategy it seems Gillard is suggesting would provide a far shallower pool of funds to work with than would be the case were the top 20% incomes demographic excluded. 

Perhaps given this context pensioners will miss out on overcompensation even under Labor; and those on low to middle incomes won’t receive the more robust degree of overcompensation they deserve.  This could prove a missed opportunity for Labor – in maximising the reconsolidation of its ‘class base’.  Although doubtless Gillard sees it as a strategic choice to keep more voters ‘on side’.

Nonetheless, perhaps it’s not too late for compromise. Perhaps if pressured by the Greens and Labor’s Left Prime Minister Gillard could strike an agreement to withhold compensation for the top 15% of households, to be redistributed to those genuinely ‘doing it tough’.  A higher carbon tax rate in this context could be another option - an alternative to lower compensation 'cut-off thresholds' - to increase the total pool of funds available for redistribution from the top 15% to those in genuine need.

Regardless of the very cautious and modest nature of Gillard’s proposal, doubtless it still will not please critics such as Miranda Devine, and other Murdoch writers.  Devine seems to have an aversion for the very concept of progressive redistribution – no matter how mild.  But as far as this author can tell she has barely considered the situation of those who have been left disadvantaged by decades of “neo-liberal reform”; and the very real process of redistribution which has occurred to the detriment of workers and the poor.   Indeed: After all these years of redistribution from low and middle income groups TO the wealthy and the upper middle class, the modest forms of progressive redistribution suggested here should simply be seen as a tentative move towards some kind of 'correction'.

Yes Labor is struggling in the polls. Elements of Labor’s core class support base have been drifting away gradually for a long time under the perception that Labor no longer represents their interests.   But the prospect of progressive redistribution to the advantage of the vast majority of Australians who are on low to middle incomes is what the conservatives are scared of.  They’re afraid of a Labor Party which takes action to re-consolidate its class base.

By contrast when the Conservatives speak of cutting taxes to reward ‘hard work’, they’re usually talking of ‘relief’ for those on higher incomes. The underlying assumption is that ‘the market is just’: that those on higher incomes deserve increased benefits for their effort.  The implication is that they work harder than others. 

 But in an Abbott ‘tax reform’ package, you can be certain that it is those on low incomes – including some very hard working people – who would miss out in outright terms compared with upper-middle class and wealthy taxpayers. 

We speak here of people on minimum wage and thereabouts: cleaners, child care workers, retail and hospitality workers, textiles workers, and many manufacturing workers.  These are the same people who would suffer from a winding back of the social wage, or the effective introduction of ‘flat taxes’ with user-pays mechanisms in the context of Public Private Partnerships.  And Abbott’s proposed tax cuts must draw from the Budget bottom-line somewhere.

Too many people have been disadvantaged and suffered injustice in recent decades. And it is a process which always accelerates under Conservative governments.

Increasingly, though, there are those who once felt they could depend on Labor to defend their rights and interests – who no longer believe this to be true.  This is even undermining Labor’s membership base; its mobilisation as a social movement.   

Now, though,  is Labor’s opportunity to re-establish its credentials as a party with values; a friend of the disadvantaged, and true to its class base.

Labor needs a policy ‘circuit breaker’ - NOW

In the following article Tristan Ewins argues that overcompensation is key to 'selling' the carbon tax' - and that welfare recipients should not be 'left behind'; But also that Labor needs a 'policy circuit breaker' NOW if it is to have any hope of re-election in 2013. A National Disability Insurance Scheme, and pay parity for community sector workers - could provide 'a way forward'.

nb also: If you find this article interesting PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Speaking to Melbourne’s ‘Herald Sun’ on June 18^th Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard seemed calm in the face of appalling poll results.    In an article titled: “Why I Rolled Kevin Rudd”, the Prime Minister seemed to hold out hope for a Labor victory in 2013.   (nb: we will assume PM Gillard did not anticipate the choice of title used by the Herald-Sun, with the usual loaded language and negative connotations)

Specifically, Phillip Hudson reported how Gillard:

“warned that poll numbers might not lift until after the tax begins in July next year and anxious voters "live it" and see the effect of the whole package and compensation on their daily life.”  http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/why-i-rolled-kevin-rudd-prime-minister-julia-gillard/story-fn7x8me2-1226077339474

What is most crucial at this point is for Labor to implement some kind of policy “circuit breaker”, to stop voters from ‘switching off’ before it is too late.  

On 18th June 2011  “popular support for the Federal Government [had] fallen to its lowest level in 39 years, with a…Nielsen poll putting approval for Labor at only 27 per cent.”   http://www.efarming.com.au/News/general/18/06/2011/80081/abbott-blames-policies-for-labor-slide.html

This was a devastating result for Labor.

Gillard cannot afford for everything to hinge upon reception to a carbon tax a whole year into the future. (ie: mid-2012)    Even if compensation (and overcompensation) does emerge as intended, voters may already have firmed in their judgements before then… 

 But a National Disability Insurance Scheme could provide the vital ‘policy circuit breaker’ needed so desperately by Labor.  We will return to this issue later.

The carbon tax is perhaps the most problematic issue for Labor, as fear has been whipped up so effectively by Abbott and by sections of the media.

There are also tensions between the Greens and Labor.

The Channel 7 website has published an article reporting a developing impasse between Labor and the Greens on the form any future carbon tax will take.   

Specifically, Jeremy Thompson reported that:

“It is understood the Greens are unhappy with the Government's preferred deal on industry compensation, including substantial assistance to coal miners.”  http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/9660562/carbon-tax-rift-emerges-between-labor-greens/

Here assistance to coal miners seems pointless.  Already low and middle income consumers – as well as trade-exposed industries - should be compensated for any increased flow on costs from coal-fired energy.  If coal-fired energy plants are directly compensated, however, then where are the ‘market signals’ driving a shift to renewables?  

The other question, here, is what rate the carbon tax will be set at.  Ross Garnaut has argued that a carbon tax at $26/tonne would raise $11.5 billion in its first year. http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-tax-to-raise-115b-in-year-one-garnaut-20110531-1fdvi.html?skin=text-only

This author has argued in the past that there will likely be a rate of $20/tonne: a position that seems to be popular with Labor.  But in the past the Greens have argued for a rate as high as $40/tonne.    

 Also notable (again as I’ve reflected elsewhere) is Garnaut’s argument that pensioners ought not be ‘overcompensated’ because of previous improvements to pensions.  Garnaut had also argued that compensation to be phased out only for incomes “well north” of $80,000/year. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/early-carbon-compensation-plan-under-garnaut-review/story-fn59niix-1226066805423

It’s important to note here that even before carbon tax implementation electricity prices have risen in Australia by about 30% in recent years, and already this has hit pensioners hard.  (see: http://theconversation.edu.au/increasing-electricity-prices-watts-the-culprit-1408 ) 

Melbourne University Researcher, Roger Darville blames this situation on the troika of renewable quotas, the need for new infrastructure, and increased demand.  But privatisation is the real ‘elephant in the room’ with increased finance costs and profit margins for the private sector, and reduced market power for small consumers.  (see: http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2011/06/right-populist-monopoly-media-attempts.html )  And in any case increased demand should not simply translate into higher charges pocketed by private companies in the form of profit.

Pensioners are already absorbing these and other costs (eg: water), and so should not be ‘left out of the equation’.

From this it’s possible to draw a number of conclusions.

Firstly, a higher carbon tax rate could provide more scope for overcompensation for pensioners, as well as low and middle income working families. 

As this author has argued elsewhere, Newstart recipients  are ‘doing it tough’ – to put it mildly.  Indeed, Newstart is currently only $474.90/fortnight, and has not kept up with a rising basic cost of living. (See: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart_rates.htm )

In light of existing punitive active labour market policies there are no decent or valid arguments not to reform Newstart.  And real increases to Austudy are also crucial to provide conditions where students can apply themselves fully to study, rather than risk failure or underperformance as a consequence of the pressures of part-time work. 

And here a ‘loans scheme’ is neither equitable nor fair.

 If reform is not implemented here in the context of carbon tax overcompensation, then it needs to be achieved separately; But progressive Labor figures on a cross-factional basis, and the Greens -  need to demand reform one way or another during the current term of Labor government.  Ultimately carbon tax overcompensation may prove the easiest path to reform regardless.

But to achieve robust overcompensation for low and middle income groups difficult decisions need to be made about ‘cut off’ thresholds. 

Based on previous modelling for a CPRS (carbon pollution reduction scheme – ie: via emissions trading), it has been argued that a carbon tax at $30/tonne would cost families $863.20/year. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/pms-carbon-tax-to-cost-households-1660-a-week-treasury-figures-show/story-fn6bqpju-1226032314762

 It’s difficult to extrapolate a figure for single income earners from this, but it would be reasonable to assume the costs could be easily absorbed by individuals on $80,000/year.  (as well, the rate is unlikely to be $30/tonne) Therefore, in order to maximise the scope for overcompensation for low-middle income groups – including pensioners and the vast majority of workers  (that is – the vast majority of voters as well) compensation could begin to be ‘phased out’ at around $70,000/year (or maybe somewhat higher), dissipating entirely at $80,000/year.  (ie: for those who could reasonably be described as occupying that range from 'upper middle class' to 'wealthy')

Robust overcompensation for low-middle income groups will be crucial if Labor is to retain government in 2013; but must be paid for somehow.  Therefore after reconsidering, the author believes that to provide the scope for such extensive overcompensation, a rate of at least $26/tonne – as preferred by Ross Garnaut – and with the ‘cut-off points’ suggested here - is preferable.  And of course the rate and cut-off thresholds would have to be properly indexed.

Finally, compensation might best be provided in the form of regular cash supplements (also indexed) – as otherwise tax cuts could be ‘taken for granted’ and forgotten.   With regular cash payments there would be a constant reminder of compensation provisions.

A ‘circuit-breaker’ for Labor

Labor has been taking ‘hit after hit’ in the polls and in popular media for a long time now.  There are many publications which will put a ‘negative spin’ on pretty much anything and everything Labor says and does.  The danger is that voters will ‘switch off’, virtually determining the government’s fate more than two years ahead of the next election.  The carbon tax may turn out well ultimately, but a year from now it may be ‘too late’ for the government. 

 The government needs a ‘circuit breaker’ and needs it now.   Labor needs to break the cycle of fearful speculation now - with an agenda of constructive and visionary reform with which to inspire and engage the electorate.  The National Broadband Network (NBN) helped Labor ‘across the line’ last time; but the government needs new initiatives, as well as substantial progress on the NBN.

 A National Disability Insurance Scheme has long been touted as an option by rising Labor parliamentarian Bill Shorten.  

According to the ‘Every Australian Counts’ website, a NDIS would:

• maximise employment opportunities for the disabled, with comprehensive support services and any necessary equipment

• provide similar support to assist in providing education opportunities

• “provide funding for home modifications and specialised equipment and support to ensure people are able to live as independently as possible in their own homes”

• provide support for family and carers

• provide “early intervention and support” for children with disabilities

(see:  http://everyaustraliancounts.com.au/changing_lives/for_families/ )

In addition to this a NDIS needs to provide substantial new funds (ie: several billions every year) via a Medicare Levy-like mechanism rather than just a restructuring of the funding mix.  New funds are necessary to increase Disability Support Pensions and Carers’ Pensions; extend support services and provision of necessary home infrastructure; and to bring more crucial medications under the umbrella of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

 Specifically as a consequence of a NDIS, in current terms carers and disability pensioners should also receive a rise in their pensions of at least $25/week; indexed on top of existing pension formulae.

A NDIS could also source additional funds for improvement of mental health services: an issue which is resonating strongly with the electorate.

While a NDIS could disrupt the cycle of fearful speculation about a carbon tax, it would also comprise a landmark reform – a genuine record of achievement for Gillard Labor.

Finally, the government could move onto the front foot regarding the ‘equal pay’ campaign being driven by the Australian Services Union – to provide effective pay parity for workers (mainly women) in the community services sector. 

Because it is mainly women who are employed in the sector, this issue has been raised as one of effective gender discrimination. But not-for-profit organisations providing aged care and other services (as well as in the public sector) will need support from the government in adapting to any improved regime of pay and conditions.  Hence for these – and other vital reforms – the government needs to aim during this term for a sustainable expansion of social expenditure in the vicinity of 1.5% of GDP; backed by progressive tax reform.

Generous superannuation concessions for the wealthy could also be wound back.

But until the carbon tax is implemented – with accompanying compensation and overcompensation – some degree of fearful speculation will continue. Labor needs to finalise its carbon tax package soon – to put fears to rest. 

But speeding up implementation could also be crucial; and Labor could do well to aim for the end of this year, rather than allowing damaging speculation to continue until mid-2012.  Again: by then it could be ‘too late’.

Debate welcome as always!