above: Could Rudd 'break through' on ALP internal organisational reform?
In this two-part article, Tristan Ewins responds to critical perspectives on ALP internal organisational reform put forward in the 'Herald-Sun' and 'The Age'. In part-two he also argues again for a definitive policy agenda from Rudd in the run up to the Federal Election, including National Aged Care Insurance.
As Kevin Rudd settles in again as Australian Prime Minister there is ongoing speculation in the media with regards the election date, and the substance of Rudd’s proposed ALP internal organisational reforms.
The Herald
Sun holds that the latest possible day for the election would be October 19th, with
parliament likely reconvening in August. And as I’ve argued before, I believe this
option is to be preferred – as it provides Rudd with an opportunity to assert a
credible policy agenda of his own for the next term; and perhaps even ‘get some policy runs on the
board’ – helping him acquire a more distinct and ‘up-to-date’ political
profile. We will return to the matter
of policy soon; but first we will turn to Rudd’s proposed organisational
reforms.
Rudd’s ALP Organisational Reforms
Also of
concern is the response to Rudd’s projected organisational reforms in the
“Herald-Sun’ and ‘The Age’.
In the
‘Herald-Sun’, (10/7/13, pp 22-23) James Campbell tries to dismiss the reforms as
a “Labor Power Grab” and effectively argues that the so-called ‘faceless men’
should keep their power in order to prevent grassroots influence shifting Labor
policy to the Left! Not only does
Campbell make the outrageous assertion that grassroots members just “do as they
are told” by “The barons and their henchmen”.
He makes the blatantly contradictory argument that: “the candidates would
have to parrot their members’ opinions rather than attempting to appeal to the
broad mass of uncommitted and moderate voters.” Hence Campbell seems confused, making mutually
exclusive claims about who’s really in control. Though he makes a more insightful observation
that spending caps would be necessary for campaigns to stop costs from getting
out of hand.
Meanwhile in
‘The Age’ (10/7/13) David Day makes a more credible argument. Day apparently accepts Rudd’s proposal of a
vote for party leader based on 50% rank and file votes, and 50% of caucus. But
he points out that the requirement for 75% of the caucus to support any
party-room spill before any change in leadership between terms leaves
parliamentary Labor with very little room to move. So
perhaps a 60% or 65% requirement would be more appropriate, setting the bar
higher for leadership challenges – but not too much so. And such mechanisms would need to be deployed
with great reservation –due to the logistics of organising ballots. (and the destabilising effect of ballots too often)
The question
of a union component in electing the leader is a complex one, and it seems to
work in Britain. There are arguments
both for including the unions in this process, or instead emphasising the
empowerment of the rank and file- which could be necessary to boost critically
declining member levels.
Day also
makes the valid observation that a more ‘presidential style’ in elections and
politics is probably bad for Australian democracy: making politics more about
personalities than policy. (and in a way which really doesn’t fit the
Australian Constitution) Though
restoring the federal caucus’s role in electing the Cabinet is a check against
such reversion to a presidential style of politics.
There are a
number of observations that should arise from this discussion.
Firstly the
‘faceless men’ rhetoric is stale, and could just as easily be deployed to refer
to internal Liberal Party power-plays by Costello, Kroger, Kennett and the
like. Though the proposed reforms would
dilute greatly the power of union leaders – who are often relatively unknown by
the public – to influence leadership ballots.
Yet as things stand affiliated unions would still influence pre-selections
and the Party Platform.
This flows
in to broader debates about the proper role of unions in a party of labour – if
that is to be what Labor remains. (at least as one facet of a multi-faceted
party) One option would be to have direct election by the Labor members of
National Conference delegates and of parliamentary candidates. This would give local Conference delegate
elections much greater relevance and urgency – revitalising local branches –
who would have more immediate influence over the Platform. Though unions would also continue to contribute
with the election of 50% of the Conference delegates, and therefore 50% of the
National Executive – hopefully on the understanding that the Party Platform
would be respected, and only diverted from as a consequence of dire tactical
or strategic necessity. (and if the
reform could be secured - with the consent of at least 60% of the
National Executive)
Former NSW treasurer Michael Costa is effectively
arguing for union representation at Conference be brought down to less than 17
per cent – the rate of unionization in the broader workforce.
Arguably,
though, maintaining an organisational link with the unions is an important
means of anchoring Labor in the needs of labour, and preventing a populist
drift to the right on industrial rights.
Even were unions not included in the leadership ballot a renewed culture
of respecting the decisions of Conference could empower organised labour on
that front relative to today. Of course
there is the common argument that some union leaderships have abused the trust
of their members; and some have used unions as personal fiefdoms and
power-bases. And this author is uncertain of the balance of factional forces in
affiliated trade unions. But promoting a political outlook (rather than and
purely industrial outlook) is a good thing. And conceding the decline in the
collective organisation of workers, and their ability to exercise solidarity
through mutual association is not the answer.
Building ‘chains of equivalence’ amongst diverse social movements,
however, is part of the answer; and hence union control of certain
‘economic chokepoints’ could one day be central to defence of our rights and
liberties. A novel
option could be to broaden the ALP’s social base by allowing other genuinely
progressive environmental, civil rights and social welfare organisations to
affiliate.
And in
response to James Campbell: Apart from
the contradictions in his argument, he is also assuming that the Labor rank and
file have no self-restraint, and no independence of thought. But in reality, even at the furthermost
organised reaches of the Labor Left there is an appreciation, these days, of
the need to develop electorally sustainable policies. (If anything, re-active (rather than
pro-active) electoralism has gone too
far, with insufficient emphasis on grassroots mobilisation, and on the
ability to carry a debate on the basis of mobilisation and quality of argument)
If Labor
moves to the Left – and I believe it should in a range of areas from fiscal
policy to welfare and a liberal, civics-oriented National Curriculum – it needs
to do so in such a way that carries the relative centre of debate and opinion
with it. Or failing that, to carry some
radical reforms through at the relative margins. (curriculum reform for instance) Rank and file members understand this. And given the vigorous promotion of a robust
culture of internal debate, new members would most likely understand this as
well.
Further:
were significant organisational reforms instituted there could be a massive
influx of (tens of thousands of) new members. The groundswell could overwhelm
the capacity of the factions to control assuming the Party wanted to promote
and accommodate independent grassroots activism and organisation. Independent candidates could arise for
Conference; as could new formations.
(perhaps with the re-emergence of a ‘Centre-Left’) But self-discipline would arise in the
context of an internal discourse on having to carry the relative electoral
centre and shift it in real terms towards greater social equality, and greater
personal and collective liberties over the long term.
Big Policy Options for Rudd
Above: Compassion, Social Responsibility and Distributive Justice needed on Aged Care
National Aged Care Insurance
An important
and central policy initiative could be National
Aged Care Insurance: again paid for either from superannuation concession
reform, reduction in the rate of Dividend Imputation to a rate of 75%,; and/or
extra tiers in the Medicare Levy.
As 2013
Australian of the Year and President of Alzheimer’s Australia, Ita Buttrose has
pointed out, the quality of residential aged care especially is a ‘running
sore’ for the country. This is especially the case with the treatment of
residents suffering from dementia – with over-medication and forcible restraint
employed far too liberally. And premature or unnecessary residential
accommodation is common in Australia compared with other nations, sometimes
leading to a swift mental and emotional decline.
See: http://www.australianageingagenda.com.au/2013/05/01/article/Buttrose-decries-aged-care-standards/POCQMOYTMC
But a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme could
ensure high quality aged care of
whatever kind is needed - whether residential,
low-intensity or at home. This care
would be provided on the basis of need, and not on the basis of user
pays.
As the
Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association argues (NSW):
“While there
are many practical problems associated with making equity release work as a
significant funding source for aged care, CPSA is fundamentally opposed to
forcing people who have no other significant assets to sell or reverse mortgage
their home to pay for residential or community aged care. Their home is all
they have got and it is something they have worked long and hard for. They need
to keep control of their home ownership for as long as they want or need to for
the sake of their dependant/s.” (see: http://www.cpsa.org.au/aged-care/aged-care-policy )
For those
needing residential care, the package I am suggesting would include further
improvements in wages, conditions and career paths for Aged Care workers and
nurses. And there could be mandated improvements
in staff-resident ratios; provision of
private rooms; new standards with regards regular outings, social visits and
other facilitated social interaction; provision of information and
communications technology; standards for the quality of food and to ensure that
food is actually eaten; incentives for nursing homes to provide garden space
for residents; provision of dental care for all with the need. Aged citizens in
residential care need much more to do than be sat in common rooms starting at walls,
or at the television all day.
And for
those wanting and able to remain at home; including with the support of
personal carers (often family), such a scheme could also increase the level of
support in similar ways.
Importantly:
The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association has also
observed that the National Disability Insurance Scheme cuts out at 65. Arguably this can only be justified if ‘the
slack is picked up’ (completely!) by
Aged Care Insurance – with no loss in quality of support or care. (and indeed there
must be improvement of care regarding the specific needs of aged disabled
Australians) National Aged Care Insurance can ensure support for these needs can
be ‘locked in’! See: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1619982/age-limit-is-discrimination/
Aged Care Insurance would resonate
strongly with many Australian voters. Like disability, problems of aged
care and support in the community is something that any Australian might have
to confront one day – whether for themselves or for their loved ones. Extra funding is already necessary to meet
the needs of some of our most vulnerable; and with an ageing population there
is a stark choice between fiscal pressure and neglect – or fiscal reform and
improved services for all in need. The
fear of relatively low income and working class families of being forced to
sell their only significant asset (their home) is also great and cannot be
understated. Much political kudos could
be gained by meaningfully addressing those fears.
Movement on ETS still Vital
Finally and
as I’ve also argued before – and as I emphasise again - Rudd would be wise to revert early to an
emissions trading scheme (ETS), while placating the Greens with extra resources
for the Clean Energy fund. This would free Labor from the impression of having
‘broken a promise’ on the carbon tax. (sadly, that is regardless of the real
substance and value of the policy, which I personally supported at the time; Perhaps
the backlash could have been contained with earlier implementation – but it is
too late now…) Such an early
reversion could be paid for with further superannuation concessions reform; and
with plenty of funds devoted to tax breaks and cost of living measures for low
income Australians. These would be specially targeted to neutralise the
anticipated response of bosses to increases in superannuation contributions.
(ie: holding back on wages) A legislated
increase in the minimum wage could also help, as could further Federal
Government subsidies for skilled low-income workers in areas like child care
and aged care.
These are
interesting times.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment