Conservative Misconceptions on Tax , The Aftermath of 'Senate Reform', and More

 

above:  Greens leader Richard Di Natale argues reforms to the Senate will make Parliamentary elections more democratic ; But is he mistaken?  Could the Liberals soon control the Senate in their own right?  

 

This week I'm publishing six more letters looking at important issues in Australian and international politics...  These were originally sent to The Age, the Herald-Sun and The Australian ; Mostly they were unpublished.

 

Also this week we 're considering:  

• 'mental health and life-expectancy',
• 'Conservative misconceptions on Tax', 
• 'Superannuation reforms 'not a new Tax''
• 'Integration and Assimilation not the same thing!' and
• 'Was Bernie Sanders wrong on Clinton?'....

Dr Tristan Ewins

A Bigger Threat to those with a Mental Illness than Suicide – Close the Gap Now…

“Neil Cole (Reducing the Suicide Rate 9/3) raises the connection between Schizophrenia and suicide ; and by inference that we should tackle this just as seriously as we do the road toll for instance.  Yet one issue that none of the major parties are dealing with is that of reduced life expectancy for people with mental illness, and especially those with schizophrenia.  Here looking at suicide is only just ‘scratching the surface’.  For those so afflicted  (approximately 300,000 Australians with schizophrenia)  there is a reduced life expectancy of 25 years.   What is required is a ‘close the gap’ program similar to that pursued for indigenous peoples.  Not only to reduce suicide rates, but to promote fitness, health, good eating and the like, and also to further ameliorate poverty, provide flexible work, reduce social isolation etc.  ‘The Age’ has briefly considered this issue last year, but what is needed is an ongoing media campaign  demanding this be put this on all the major parties’ policy radar ahead of the coming election.  Some corners of the media could also do to stop treating Disability Pensioners like criminals.”

Conservatives misguided on Tax

The Herald-Sun (9/3) alludes to the corporate sector urging Turnbull to ‘be bold on tax’ and make sweeping cuts to the Company Tax rate.  Superannuation Concessions are mentioned, and indeed according to Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute those concessions (mainly for the wealthy) will soon cost taxpayers as much as $50 billion a year!  But are Company Tax cuts better for the rest of us, and do they really improve the economy?   Company Tax cuts mean that business is increasingly excused from contributing to paying for the services and infrastructure it benefits from. (eg: education,  communications, transport)  So either those services and infrastructure are neglected (hurting the economy) or the rest of us are called upon to ‘pick up the tab’.  This is what some people are calling ‘corporate welfare’.  It amounts to a ‘race to the bottom’ and effective ‘corporate blackmail’.  But ironically an economy with low corporate tax rates may end up being a LESS attractive destination for investment exactly because of the neglect of infrastructure, services and human capital.

Reforming Superannuation Concessions is not ‘A new Tax’

Mark Kenny (14/3) argues that voters are “sticking with the Coalition’ because of “Labor’s plans to lift taxes on superannuation and investment properties.”  This statement is profoundly misleading.  Labor is not bringing in new taxes, here, or even raising any existing taxes. Instead Labor is proposing that a series of concessions and subsidies be wound back.   Subsidies and concessions overwhelmingly favouring  the well-off.   Indeed these could be credibly interpreted as areas of government expenditure.   So a simple ‘reframing’ of the question could radically alter the terms of the debate.  Superannuation Concessions and Negative Gearing provisions could be seen as rorts for the well-off which cost average and low income tax payers.  Indeed Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute has estimated that superannuation concessions alone will soon cost taxpayers over $50 billion a year.  The sheer scope of the cost to the public purse is phenomenal.  It’s enough on its own to pay for an entire National Broadband Network (NBN) every year!  Incidentally Labor’s proposed  measures on superannuation concessions are at best modest.   If anything Labor needs a stronger policy. But they will be ‘spooked’ by the way ‘The Age’ and other publications are approaching this issue.

Integration and Assimilation not the Same Thing!

Frank Basile (HS Letters, 19/3) argues that ‘integration is the only way’ and that we should adopt a policy of “assimilation”.  But Integration and Assimilation are not the same thing.   Assimilation demands that people abandon their own culture to adopt the host culture.  That is, that they give up their cultural distinctiveness.  But Integration has a different aim.  Integration aims to establish enough ‘shared ground’ to facilitate interaction, communication,  intermingling and inclusion.  That might also include a commitment to liberty, democracy and social fairness.  In this way Integration aspires to achieve social harmony.   But under Integration this ‘shared ground’ does NOT mean immigrants must abandon their cultural identity and distinctiveness.  Integration is the way of bringing distinct cultures into relation with each other on the basis of ‘common ground’. In such a way cultures overlap and interpenetrate rather than 'one cancelling the other out’.  Integration is well and fine but let’s be clear what it really means.

What Senate Reform Possibly Means

(19/3/16)  The Greens have combined with the Liberals to implement Senate Reforms  which will probably wipe out the so-called  ‘micro parties’.  Here we speak not only of the ‘Sex Party’ and so-called ‘Liberal Democrats’ but also of the Carers’ Alliance and the Women’s Electoral Lobby.    In short voters will no longer be able to vote  for a Party ticket with the preferences being distributed according to those parties’ wishes.  The Greens will argue that takes the power away from the parties, and puts that power in the hands of  voters. .On the one hand it may do away with the questionable scenario of micro-party candidates being elected on automatically distributed preferences with only a tiny primary vote of their own.   On the other hand it might do away with the prospects of micro-parties  frustrating the Coalition’s social and economic agendas.   Joe Hockey’s brutal Budget would have passed without opposition in the Senate.  Anthony Albanese has rightly asserted that a system of ‘quotas’ – ie: imposing a minimum primary vote necessary for election - could also have rectified the system without the same ramifications.  Another option would be for the preference directions of all candidates be made public ahead of any election.   We can only hope these reforms do not deliver the Coalition absolute power through control of both Houses of Parliament.

Was Bernie Sanders Wrong on Clinton?

 

A letter sent to ‘The Age’ a while back)    Some people are criticising Bernie Sanders for not allowing Hillary Clinton to interrupt and speak over him. Who was in the right? Is 'what's good for the goose good for the gander', or do different rules apply to women and men? Generally speaking on the broad left we should not talk over or interrupt one another. We should have enough mutual respect or consideration to let arguments take their course, and allow people to arrive at their judgements. And in the past men's voices were always dominant - and that had to be corrected. But if a woman can interrupt or speak over a man, but a man cannot interrupt or speak over a woman (or even try and reassert himself as Sanders did when he was interrupted) - is it fair? And could this incident really hurt Sanders' campaign? And would that be fair also?

Critique of Labor and The Greens on ‘Policy Compromise’

 above: Labor and the Greens can work together; But need to be conscious of each others' electoral imperatives ; Carbon Tax was good policy ; but a 'political death warrant' for Labor

 

 

Dr Tristan Ewins


Recently the Australian Greens negotiated a compromise with the Liberal Federal Government in Australia on the question of pursuing tax evasion by “Australia’s wealthiest private companies”. ‘The Age’ reported that as part of the compromise “Up to 300 of Australia's wealthiest private companies will be forced to disclose their annual tax bill for the first time.” But that the legislation also will “shield up to 600 more companies that would have been brought under new transparency requirements.”

Labor has branded the deal “a sellout”. They had pressed for all companies with revenues of over $100 million to be affected by the reform – whereas the Greens negotiated a compromise with a threshold of of $200 million. Labor argued a compromise was not necessary – on the assumption the Government itself would have been forced to compromise before the end of the sitting of Parliament.

(Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-deal-with-scott-morrison-on-tax-shield-sparks-labor-fury-20151203-gle9ft.html#ixzz3taKrNOA9
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook )



Also considered recently in discussion has been the decision by the Greens several months ago to agree to another compromise - tightening means tests on Aged Pensions in order to save $2.4 billion over four years.

By contrast Labor was arguing for reform of Superannuation Concessions delivering windfall gains to some of the very most wealthy: though arguably Labor wasn’t considering a broad enough base (including the upper middle class) in order to bring in serious revenue without need for unfair austerity elsewhere.

To summarise: Shorten’s plan foreshadowed savings of $14 billion OVER TEN YEARS. But the Government is facing a deficit ballooning to over $40 billion a year ; and root and branch reform of tax is what is necessary – not only to get the deficit under control, but to pave the way for a reforming Federal Labor Government which actually improves the social wage, social insurance and social welfare by tens of billions in the context of a $1.6 trillion economy.

Again by contrast: The deal agreed to by the Greens with the Liberals had 170,000 of the most financially disadvantaged Pensioners standing to gain $30/week as of 2017; But approximately 330,000 (relatively better-off) Pensioners would see cuts through tougher means tests ; and more than double that into the future.

(See: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pension-assets-test-deal-with-greens-secures-coalitions-changes-20150616-ghplxg.html )  

The following are some excerpts regarding my thoughts: not only on this specific compromise, but on the ALP working with the Greens generally.


SL in relation to the Greens ; Is it right for the SL to Criticise ALP Policy?


At the ‘ALP Socialist Left Forum’ Group we’ve had plenty of debate on the place for criticisms of the ALP. Should criticism be considered ‘treason’ of some kind? Should we work for co-operation with the Greens – or should we fight them tooth and nail on account of the threat to several of our most talented Left MPs ; and the likelihood of declining Socialist Left influence in Caucus and Cabinet?


Nonetheless: Labor often gets it wrong on policy. For instance, we often pursue symbolic policies for appearances sake which are far from the ‘root and branch’ reform needed to serve the interests of our constituents. Shorten’s Superannuation Concession reforms are very modest , and at this rate Labor will be pressed to pursue extensive austerity if we regain government. Perhaps regressive policies such as more attacks on vulnerable groups such as Sole Parents. Or an increase in the Age of Retirement. And yet Labor’s Platform leaves the way open potentially for an expansion of progressive tax and social expenditure. Labor still has options for a genuinely progressive mandate.

If as the most significant Left formation in the country (The broad ALP Socialist Left) we do not criticise our own party's policies when our leaders get it badly wrong - then who will step into that space? There are a number of possibilities. Either groups like the Greens will step into that space ; or because of our silence the Left more broadly will be demobilised. This would especially be a threat if the Greens’ tending towards compromise marked ‘a move to the Centre’ which again would leave a space in the Left of the Australian political milieu. A new challenger on the Left of Australian politics could take a long time to re-emerge therefore ; just as it has taken decades for the Greens to establish themselves properly. This would simply assist the broad Australian Right in consolidating their hegemony.


 Don't get me wrong:... I'm all for staying and fighting within the Party. But when the Party leadership gets it badly wrong its up to us whether we vacate that (public) Left space and/or demobilise the Left - or whether we choose our battles - and publicly dissent at times – in the context of important debates – such as a much more robust winding back of superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class. We must do this because there is the alternative of Left demobilisation. And before we know it even our own people don't know what we're supposed to be fighting for anymore... (take privatisation, tax reform, social wage and welfare expansion and reform, industrial rights and liberties etc)


Insofar as criticism is constructive we shouldn’t just tolerate criticism of Labor policy - indeed it must be encouraged.

Nonetheless, the trend towards Labor and Greens just trashing each other always seems to involve a degree of 'spin' and is not necessarily 100% honest. What we need is honest, reciprocal criticism.


 There's also the urgent question: What will WE (ie: Labor) do on Company Tax? Here we really need ALP and Greens to team up and vote down Company Tax cuts - because that is Corporate Welfare. That is business avoiding paying their share for the services and infrastructure they benefit from! So instead ordinary citizens, workers, taxpayers - are left to pick up the tab – directly or indirectly. (whether with an increased GST, or austerity elsewhere) Where does Shorten line up on this? (seriously) There are many billions at stake.


More on Greens Compromises


Regarding Greens’ compromises it must be observed: It’s the old dilemma over whether to compromise and get something 'right here right now' - or whether to hold back - in the hope of discrediting the Conservatives - and getting something much better with the next change of government. Labor has faced these dilemmas itself at times.


 For instance, the Carbon Tax was the best policy - but was politically impossible after Gillard’s commitment "There will be no Carbon Tax in a Government I lead". The Greens should have recognised this. There were other options. Like billions in annual direct public investment in renewables research and infrastructure. In a convoluted kind of way the Greens’ insistence on the Carbon Tax could even have been considered an instance of opportunism in its own right. The Greens got their policy – and it granted them prestige with their constituencies. But arguably it sealed the fate of the Labor Government. This is not to say the Greens shouldn’t press their leverage to get robust policy compromises from Labor. And arguably Julia Gillard should never have backed Labor into that corner in the first place. But direct investment in renewables research and public infrastructure would not have involved a blatant, high-profile broken promise. Of note: Labor must not back itself into a corner on ‘small government’ now either!



What Reforms must Labor and the Greens pursue now as the 2016 Federal Election approaches?

Instead of just positioning against each other with the hope of gaining an electoral advantage over largely ‘cosmetic’ policies, again Labor and the Greens should be projecting root and branch reform in any Labor Government where the Greens hold decisive sway over the cross-benches


 More specifically: Labor and the Greens need to move together to secure a minimum $35/week increase in all full pensions INDEXED upon Labor taking government.
This must include Newstart and Student Allowance. Although I've been arguing for this for years already and $35/week isn't as much as it used to be. Full indexation is crucial, and perhaps now the figure should be somewhat higher. (eg: $40/week


Also in an exchange at the ALP Socialist Left Forum Facebook Group I accepted the need for subsidies to help the elderly invest in air conditioning and heating. Increasing the Aged Pension should be part of that. Existing pensions and payments make insufficient consideration of contingencies which vulnerable Australians may be faced with. From a visit to the dentist to having to replace a washing machine – such everyday challenges can leave our most vulnerable destitute.

Some would call the Greens' compromises through 2015 opportunism. Labor would attract that claim from the Greens themselves if it was Labor who had made the compromises. The Greens are trying to shake off their reputation as a ‘protest party’ – which never has to compromise. Labor argues the Greens are about appearances re: policy protest – but are not about outcomes.



But there is the argument that some of the compromi...ses the Greens have pursued have helped the most vulnerable. Though in a way which has hardly been fair to some people who would not fairly qualify as 'rich'.

There are two sides to this. What matters is that if we get a Labor Government - and if the Greens hold the cross-benches - there will be no more need for 'compromise with the Liberals'. And in that case we should see the whole policy schema recalibrated in a way which is truly fair - and doesn't involve 'compromises' whereby one constituency (not really 'privileged' by any reasonable measure) is played off against another (truly, genuinely disadvantaged). Better to target the top 15 per cent income and wealth demographics for redistributive measures aimed at improving the lot of those on low and middle incomes ; workers and vulnerable welfare recipients.


Target 'the top 15 per cent' as it is a narrow enough constituency for redistribution to be fair ; narrow enough to be electorally viable ; and broad enough to bring in serious revenue for serious reforms...
 

The problem right now is that most in the Parliamentary Labor Party will oppose taxing the sole residence of the elderly - fair enough - but they may not support other progressive measures (as listed) necessary to repairing the welfare state, social insurance and social wage.

Ideally we should pursue a more progressive tax mix which does not necessitate the elderly being forced to sell their home towards the end of their lives when familiarity can be so important. We should hit superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class. We should restructure the income tax mix radically. We should consolidate Company Tax and begin to gradually wind back D...ividend Imputation - which most advanced economies manage to do without. (worth over $20 billion now) Perhaps we should tax the banks. And perhaps we should tax the largest inheritances ; and introduce a Tobin Tax on financial transactions. Finally we should definitely raise the Medicare Levy - and progressively restructure it into more progressive tiers.

With this we can bring in tens of billions. We can introduce National Aged Care Social Insurance ; we can implement Medicare Dental, Physio and Optical and cut waiting lists. We can fully implement NDIS. We can implement Gonski and transform HECS into a genuinely progressive tax. We can invest billions into social and public housing, as well as infrastructure of all kinds – increasing housing supply , making housing affordable , providing transport and services to new suburbs. We can revivify Legal Aid, and we can provide Federal Funding for Local Government - to make Local Government less dependent on relatively regressive levies/council rates. And we can reform welfare, support payments and pensions and lift the most vulnerable out of poverty. Finally, we can invest in the ABC and SBS. That's what we should do ; and it doesn't necessitate driving the elderly from their homes - even if their homes are valuable. And especially if their residence is their major asset - and they are not wealthy aside from this by any reasonable measure.


In conclusion – Labor needs to settle on policies of depth and substance. Because while ‘cosmetic’ policies may win over some voters – that is not our ‘reason for being’. Labor should not be driven by the quest for government purely for its own sake: outside the context of winning deep, meaningful reforms. Before Thatcherism and the decades-long retreat of the Left there was reference to the notion of “The Forward March of Labour’. We need to reconceive of our reform trajectory. Of what comprises our ‘forward march’ on policies which reform social wage, social insurance, welfare, personal and collective liberties, the extension of democracy – and more.

And we need to establish our reform trajectory quickly and soon if we are to have the time and the opportunity to sell such a package to voters ahead of the Federal Election in 2016.

Superannuation and Dividend Imputation the Key for Delivering in the May Budget

above:  Gonski is crucial for moving closer towards educational equal opportunity

If Labor wants to win in September it needs bold new initiatives – without ‘robbing Peter to Pay Paul’.  Reforming superannuation concessions and dividend imputation may provide Labor with the ‘warchest’ it needs to ‘break through;’ to disengaged voters.   Labor also needs to deliver in the immediate term as well – as voters may be sceptical of commitments only for the ‘distant future’.

 Tristan Ewins,  March 2013

As the May Federal Budget approaches and Liberal state governments increasingly move to sabotage the Federal Government’s Gonski proposals purely for political purposes – it seems increasingly likely that if Gonski is to succeed the Federal Government must ‘pick up the entire tab’.  The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will also involve a heavy cost, and Labor simply cannot deliver without progressive reform on the revenue side.   More unpopular austerity – as in the case of Sole Parents – which saw disgust and cynicism amongst parts of the electorate – is not a viable option. And in any case it simply should not be part of the Labor ethos –‘to take from Peter to pay Paul’ – seeking to spin these matters to create only an illusion of overall progress.

Mark Kenny, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald explains how resort to superannuation investment has become a prime means of tax avoidance for high income groups.. Hence:

“High-income earners simply have greater scope to save and thus evade the 46.5 per cent marginal tax rate on income by sending it into super. The result is that what is saved on the aged pension budget through self-funded retirement winds up being less than what the superannuation policy costs in tax revenue foregone.”

(Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/for-richer-or-poorer-class-warfare-opens-on-a-new-front-20130208-2e3jp.html#ixzz2MMN0j7MX)

Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute has been one of the most determined critics of the existing system of superannuation concessions. In August last year he put the argument that while those concessions cost the public $30 billion in late 2012, they will cost $45 billion as early as 2015.  This is well in excess of the entire Aged Pension budget – which was only $25 billion in 2012.  And in 2012 $10 billion of these superannuation concessions were going only to the top 5 per cent income demographic.    Denniss has argued:  “We estimate, for high income earners, up to 60 per cent of their lump sum is actually the contribution of the taxpayer.”    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3568235.htm

The ACTU, meanwhile, has urged the Government to target the top 10 per cent income demographic.  And were superannuation concessions revoked for that top 10 per cent group, at an estimate it could bring in over $15 billion -  enough for the government to fund Gonski and the NDIS without having to depend upon the Conservative states.  (nb: though NDIS will cost more over the years as the full program is phased in)   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/wealthy-in-wayne-swans-sights-on-superannuation/story-fn59nsif-1226572182403

Yet even as Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party condemn Labor for considering revoking concessions for some of the most privileged, they are committed to withdrawing superannuation tax breaks for low paid workers. Bill Shorten has pointed out that the restoration of a 15 per cent tax rate on these Australian workers will affect 3.7 million people, including 2.1 million women.  It could cost these workers $500 a year: which is not inconsiderable for those on low incomes.  This is blatant hypocrisy from Abbott.

See:http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2013/002.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Year=&DocType

So what should Labor do?  Gonski and NDIS are potentially landmark reforms which appeal strongly to Labor’s base. Withdrawing superannuation concessions from the top 10% income demographic would make these policies affordable regardless of the Liberal states’ spoiler tactics.  And withdrawing Labor’s unjust policies on Sole Parent payments could moderate the backlash from this callous and self-destructive decision.

But arguably Labor needs a more robust electoral war chest in order to ‘break through’ to a cynical electorate which has already ‘turned off’ in parts of the country. 

Another area of potential reform is Dividend Imputation  - which the Henry Tax Review considered axing a few years ago.  Dividend Imputation seeks to eliminate so-called “double taxation” of investments by providing credits on dividends.  This is fine for small investors – but should the wealthy be receiving a massive tax break as a consequence?   Especially when the Company Tax rate has been cut again and again for decades. 

Writing for ‘The Age’ Nicholas Gruen pointed out late in 2012 that the Dividend Imputation system costs the government in excess of $20 billion a year!  That being the case he went so far as to suggest getting rid of the entire system; demonstrating that the benefits of the system in spurring additional investment are minimal anyway. A spare $20 billion annually – on top of rescission of superannuation concessions for the wealthy – invested in health, education, aged care, welfare, infrastructure, and foreign aid – could work wonders!  It could also help Labor balance the budget over the course of the economic cycle without further callous austerity.  (indeed, quite the opposite!)  http://www.smh.com.au/business/dividend-imputation--20bn-for-the-taking-20120917-262h2.html

Even were the dividend imputation rate only incrementally reduced, an initial reversion to a 75 per cent imputation credit could bring in over another $5 billion; and a 50 per cent rate – argued for in the early 1990s by economist, John Quiggin, could bring in over an additional $10 billion.  

Finally,  the Greens have argued for lifting the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) rate to 40 per cent, eliminating loopholes and removing “generous accelerate depreciation provisions.”   This, they argued, could raise $26 billion our four years.   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/greens-disappointed-with-mrrt-result/story-fn3dxiwe-1226573649144

‘Doing the math’ this would translate into an additional $6.5 billion a year on average.  

Nonetheless it is quite possible that Labor has ‘done a deal’ with the miners. If so it is a fundamental matter of democracy that this ought be made known to the public. The alternative is the kind of ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ referred to by political scientist, Robert Michels – whereby political and economic elites determine agreements ‘behind the scenes’ – cutting ordinary citizens out of the equation.  (the anathema of democracy) Yet at the same time trust is an extremely valuable thing in politics – and even if Labor has made the wrong call on any deal, it would be understandable were they to remain true to that commitment. 

The Greens are thinking of ‘holding Labor over a barrel’ over the MRRT. And ideally the tax does need to revert to its original form as intended by the Henry Tax Review.  But if this is politically impossible the Greens must co-operate with a Labor Government that makes big progressive social initiatives possible through thorough-going reform of superannuation concessions and dividend imputation.

To put all this in perspective the Australian economy today is valued at approximately $1.4 Trillion. The Gonski package – crucial for the very viability of our state school system into the future – and to the opportunities of hundreds of thousands of students - will cost about $6.5 billion a year to implement.  And the NDIS – crucial to some of our most vulnerable Australians and their families - is assumed to being going to cost at least $15 billion a year when ‘fully operational’ in 2018.  (but only phased in gradually)

See: http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2012/11/campaign-rejects-ndis-cost-%E2%80%98scaremongering%E2%80%99#

But what else can Labor do to ‘break through’ ahead of September; with the May Budget perhaps being its last opportunity to bed down such major initiatives?

For a long time this author has argued for reform of Aged Care.  It is an issue that effects many of us. Even the younger among us will have family who may need care in the future.

The unnecessary acuteness of suffering experienced by many aged Australians is a matter of national shame.

For those needing low-intensity care there must be high quality, affordable options available.  The  2012-13 Aged Care Reforms proclaimed the end of  'Living Longer. Living Better.'  This must include those with low care needs as well as those needing high level care.

Residents in high intensity care need privacy – they need their own rooms if they so desire.  They need heating and air-conditioning, dental care, facilitated interaction, quality food, and ‘changes of scenery’ - perhaps including access to gardens.  In the future some of those who remain alert and in need of mental stimulation could do with access to information technology.   There are also problems with staff to patient ratios, including a need for more registered nurses.

More generally there is a need for more robust career paths for aged care workers; with better training being complemented with better wages and conditions.  This will also improve the quality of care experienced by aged residents.

For those older Australians wanting to stay at home – and well enough to do so –  there is a also need for regular interaction to ward away the loneliness from which so many suffer. And Families and Carers also need additional support in order to make home care viable.  Staying at home is only an option for many with significant support, and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association has long argued support services here are under-funded.

A minimum additional annual $5 billion devoted to Aged Care would be a start (though certainly not the ‘final word’) in working towards these ends; while also beginning a phase-out of user pays mechanisms that hit average and working class families. Working class and middle income Australians should not be forced to sell their family homes (using the equity in the home - even incrementally,) with an effective regressive ‘flat tax’ in order to secure care for their loved ones.  All the more so while there are massive tax breaks for quite wealthy Australians that go into the tens of billions

The NDIS will care for some of our most vulnerable – but not all of them.  Care for the Aged is just as crucial.

In order to ‘break through’ to cynical Australians who have ‘switched off’ from Labor, the government needs big initiatives that capture the public’s imagination. The government needs to mobilise the welfare sector, labour movement and other social movements behind it with a raft of measures unprecedented in our time.  Yet another dilemma is how to find ways of actually delivering to the public between now and September in such a way as to avoid cynicism about ‘distant’ promises. 

By withdrawing superannuation concessions for the wealthy and reducing dividend imputation Federal Labor can amass a very substantial war chest.

One thing is clear.  Without substantial reforms bringing in the revenue for the coming May Federal Budget Labor will be left with very limited options.  ‘Business as usual’ will not win Labor the election.

The Policy of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association can be found via the URL below;  They generally lead the way in campaigning for the rights of aged Australians, including those in need of care:

http://www.cpsa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=82

Media Diversification and the Question of ‘Neo-Racism’

above:  The meaning of the Hijab is largely a matter of personal perspective

In this latest article, Tristan Ewins examines further the arguments around media diversity and the Media Inquiry in Australia. But what is more, he engages with recent arguments made at ‘The Drum’ to the effect that there is a ‘new form of racism’: ‘neo-racism’.   Ewins disagrees with the Greens’ position on media reform – but we would definitely welcome sincere and respectful debate on all these issues here at the blog!!

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

Tristan Ewins

21/9/2011

Aurelien Mondon makes some interesting points  in his recent article over at ABC’s ‘The Drum’ from 19^th September 2011.  

In this article we will be considering the issues of ‘free speech’ and ‘neo-racism’ – both developed in Mondon’s piece..

To begin with a couple of select quotes, Mondon writes:

“What is interesting in today's so-called battle for freedom of speech is that it does not come from minorities who are oppressed. It comes from white (mostly male) 'radical' conservatives. The question is: why has the conservative right so suddenly decided to defend freedom of speech?” 

And then with a heavy tone of irony:

“Of course, these writers and politicians would tell us, as Howard did, that it is because the left has imposed a political censorship and stifled debate. Indeed, everybody knows that the 70 per cent of the Australian media owned by Rupert Murdoch [Ed: in fact 70% of print media] has been unashamedly left-wing over the past decades, leaving little space to debate without an outright socialist bias.”

For the whole of Mondon’s article see here:  

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2906420.html?WT.mc_id=newsmail

Mondon is ‘spot on the money’ when he identifies the hypocrisy of so many on the Right – of effectively opposing media diversification, and so in effect opposing practical and meaningful pluralism – on the basis of ‘freedom of speech’. 

Both Fairfax and NewsCorp are provoking unwarranted fear when it comes to the issue of censorship.  Overwhelmingly – from Labor – there is talk of diversification and stemming undue concentration of ownership. 

There is also talk of protecting personal privacy.

But while some from the Greens had considered more thorough-going regulation of content, even including licensing for newspapers, Labor’s response has been far more cautious, and Labor is not likely to bow to Greens pressure on this issue.  See:  http://greens.org.au/content/greens-move-inquiry-media-ownership-and-regulation-australia

 Indeed – it is difficult to understand how some of the proposals put forward by the Greens ‘gained traction’ within that party in the first place.  (Yes the Murdoch press has been conducting a blatant campaign against the Greens; but surely opposition to censorship is a ‘fundamental’…)  Given the party’s location on the relative Left, the threat censorship has historically posed to the Left itself, and the possibility therefore of setting a dangerous precedent, one would have expected a more cautious approach on the part of the Greens as well.

But as we have considered at ‘Left Focus’ before, freedom of speech is a complex issue.  In the context of a public sphere dominated by private wealth; where ‘cultural gate-keepers’ determine the bounds, terms and tenor of debate – ‘positive’ freedom of speech is limited.  By this we mean the capacity of diverse and otherwise marginal voices to be included authentically in the mainstream.

Indeed, in Australia the public sphere is increasingly manipulated, insincere and exclusive .  The dominance of the monopolists and their billions in the Australian mass media makes this increasingly so.  And where public-owned media has in the past helped provide a counter-balance (eg: in the case of the ABC) conservatives have responded by enforcing their own notion of ‘balance’ - which in fact has undone the tendency towards meaningful and effective pluralism.

‘Freedom of speech’ as a ‘positive and enabling liberty’ ought to mean inclusive and participatory pluralism in the public sphere.  Only the worst of extremes should be marginalised – for instance, Holocaust denial and race hatred.  For some liberals, the Habermasian principle of the ‘Perfect Speech situation’ may serve as a guide.  (although conflicting values and interests cannot necessarily be resolved by rational exchange) 

Where wealth inhibits this, it is the duty of governments to intervene: not to censor – but to provide the means and support for the development of that inclusive, diverse and participatory public sphere.  (including but not limited to online)

Tokenism or half-measures here are not sufficient.  We need an inclusive and participatory mainstream: and robust public support for diversification towards this end.  Ample public funds need be provided such that inclusive, democratic and participatory media challenge the existing mainstream meaningfully, comprehensively and deeply.

 And again without censorship, principles of honourable journalism ought to be promoted.  Publications which maintain the pretence of presenting opinions, events and policy authentically and inclusively ought attract robust and high-profile public criticism where they fail to live up to their own self-proclaimed standards. 

 These issues need to be considered in depth in the coming media review; and Labor would be well-advised to implement a robust policy - not just half-measures.

Returning to the Aurelien Mondon article, however: Toward the end of his commentary Mondon develops a concept which he calls ‘neo-racism’.  This in of itself is a separate issue: but one no less worthy of criticism. 

Specifically, Mondon argues:

“As opposed to crude biological racism, widely discarded after the Second World War and whose use remains political suicide, neo-racism is a lot harder to outright condemn, yet it is no less damaging to society, democracy and ... freedom of speech. Neo-racism does not rely on biological superiority or inferiority, or even any form of hierarchy. Instead, it states the incompatibility of cultures and the necessity to keep such cultures apart. Cultures are equal in their inability to cohabitate; therefore the neo-racist can even appear tolerant. Of course, the use of neo-racism, like the use of common racism, is always to the benefit of the powerful.”  http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2906420.html?WT.mc_id=newsmail

Even in France today individual liberty is increasingly pressured by an assertive secularism.  Properly, the rights of both secularists and faith communities ought to be protected in the context of liberal and democratic pluralism. Attempts to ‘ban the hijab’, for instance, themselves set a dangerous precedent – and abrogate the liberal rights of minorities.  Some secularists may think of the hijab as a by-product of women’s oppression. But in a society where women are empowered to choose - not just legally but culturally - surely the right is that of the woman to decide for herself.

The same principle ought to apply to both socially conservative and liberal faith communities – which on the principle of voluntary and free association determine their own internal rules and doctrines.

But are all cultures compatible in all contexts and on any scale?; And should the contention they are not attract the tremendous stigma involved with the charge of ‘racism’? 

Liberal democratic pluralism infers acceptance of difference: and of the right of individuals to move freely between voluntary associations.  But has political liberalism the potential to become so open as to leave exposed its own roots? 

 Even in socialist Yugoslavia – where the principles of internationalism were openly and sincerely proclaimed for decades– ultimately there proceeded a degeneration into nationalist chauvinism, brutality, and the settling of historical vendettas.  Even with the passage of decades conciliation had not been achieved.  A more robust truth and reconciliation process over those decades may have been able to prevent this: but now we will never know.  The point is that we ought not deny and be closed-minded about the risks.

Like socialist internationalism, liberal democratic pluralism is not incapable of being eroded or even uprooted.  As socialists learned during the 1980s, history should not be seen inevitably as a ‘Forward March’.  Political ideologies are also cultures; and that includes the nationalist-chauvinist political cultures of the far-right, including the religious far-right.  Political Ideologies – including nationalist, ‘ethno-nationalist’  and religious varieties – as cultures – are not universally compatible: and to point to this is not to engage in racism.  In fact – to ignore these forces could be to court disaster.

And on a brief partial-tangent: integrationism should not be considered to be the same as assimilation either. Every society needs a social contract including minimum assumptions regarding human rights and the rights and duties of citizenship. (including personal liberty and at least a minimum of social solidarity) And this cannot work if not invigorated by communication and exchange made possible by common language and social engagement.

 But yes: Mondon is correct to infer that these debates will be exploited by the powerful. During the 1980s the West supported the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan for geo-strategic purposes: ostensibly against tyranny.  But today the West is again involved with a war in Afghanistan for geo-strategic purposes – legitimised by some as being for the sake of the rights of women.

And by the same token unfair and warped cultural prejudice can be deployed cynically to justify policies of colonialism and imperialism.  Perhaps this is the reality Mondon is alluding to; but nonetheless it does not follow that all cultures are compatible in all contexts.

 Let us maintain the principles of liberal democratic pluralism, including a meaningfully participatory, inclusive and authentic public sphere.  But let us also be aware of the dangers. Liberal pluralism (and tolerant/harmonious multiculturalism) is not necessarily eternal and unassailable. The future depends upon the political and cultural choices we make now.

Tristan Ewins

This author has also considered issues of culture and nationalism in-depth before

So also see: 

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2009/02/multiculturalism-and-false-lure-of.html

http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2010/01/australia-day-2010-celebration-and.html

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4944

Last look at Labor and Greens Policies before the Victorian election

above: Does Victorian Labor Premier John Brumby have what it takes to win government for the first time in his own right?

The following article in an analysis of a number of Australian Labor Party and Greens policies which may be crucial to the outcome of the 2010 Victorian State Election; and the kind of legislative agenda that is enacted thereafter.  Crucial issues include social housing, aged care, and renewable energy. Feedback and opinions from readers are welcomed.  And if anyone representing the Australian Greens can provide more information re: modelling for the funding of proposed programs that would genuinely be welcome too!

AND BEFORE YOU CONTINUE!!: If you enjoy this article 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


by Tristan Ewins


Greens policies for the Victorian State Election

On November 14th the ‘Sunday Age’ carried a feature regarding Greens policies for the coming Victorian State election. On the plus side these policies addressed issues that have been long-neglected – including by Labor. On the downside, Michael Bachelard doubted the affordability of the entire range of policies taken together.

As the Victorian State election approaches, this week we consider Greens and Labor policy in more detail.

In his article in the ‘Sunday Age’ Bachelard listed the following as Greens policies:


• subsidise low-income earners to pay increased power bills

• Increase health funding

• Reduce hospital waiting lists

• Build birth centres everywhere that needs one

• Increase mental health funding

• Fund mental health workers in schools, police stations, prisons

• Aged care for everyone who needs it

• $1 billion a year more for public education

• Free preschool

• Better pay for teachers

• No TAFE or school fees

• More for social housing

• $13 billion for more public transport

• Peak-hour trains and trams to arrive every 10 minutes

• Boost to legal aid funding, providing ‘justice for all’


Bachelard noted that few of these policies had actually been costed. Further, these policies are forwarded in the context of promises to actually cut tax in some areas: “with less gambling revenue, stamp duty and payroll tax”…

But on the other hand: “Taxes on carbon dioxide and electricity transmission would go up, though low income people would be protected from higher energy prices…”

Bachelard explains that the Greens are also assuming a national carbon tax (presumably implemented by the Federal Labor government) with significant funds “[flowing] back to the state”. ‘Wriggle room’ is also assumed in the context of a $43 billion state budget.

The critical question is how these strategies balance out on the budget bottom line if implemented. And with a swathe of new initiatives “holding the line” is not good enough. What would be needed is new revenue. And while Victoria can afford new debt so long as those debts are serviceable, dependence on debt-financing cannot go on forever.

There isn’t scope here for me to consider all the Greens policies listed by Bachelard, but we will look at a selection.

Firstly let’s consider Greens policy on public housing. According to Bachelard this Greens policy would involve a shift “towards social housing, including the construction of 29,000 more ‘affordable’ properties by 2014.” In the Bachelard article “professor of urban studies…Terry Burke” describes this ambition as “financially impossible to achieve”, with a price tag of “over $6 billion” (presumably for Victoria alone), putting “impossible” pressures “on the Commonwealth.”

In response to these claims, though: doing nothing is not an option. And considering the scale of the problem – neither are ‘half-measures’.

The crisis of housing affordability is amongst the worst of the Howard government legacies. The housing bubble has left a lasting impression not only for home buyers, but in the rental market as well.
Partly because of speculation encouraged by the Howard Conservative government, and partly because of undersupply, housing prices have spiralled out-of-control over the past decade or so.

And unfortunately – even considering an investment by Rudd Labor in public housing – Labor governments have not done enough.

In March 2010 ‘The Age’ noted that: “House prices in Australia climbed 13.6 per cent in 2009 alone after a decade in which they posted increases of about 170 per cent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.” In the same article it was observed that Australia suffered a “current shortage of 200,000 homes and an annual shortfall of 60,000”, and that this “would balloon to 800,000 by 2020, if no reforms were undertaken.” http://www.theage.com.au/business/property/australia-faces-housing-affordability-time-bomb-developer-20100317-qdii.html

But assuming the level of investment suggested by the Greens was a ‘once in a generation strategic commitment’, replicated interstate and with the support of the Federal government, then it is reasonable to assume such a project would be worth the devotion of resources.

Notably, though: assuming maintenance of the relative effect on supply, lower but sustained levels of investment would need to continue thereafter over the long term – sufficiently as to keep pace with a growing population.

Even if a ‘once-off surge’ of investment reached the vicinity of $20 billion nationally, the crisis is genuinely such as to warrant it. Housing affordability must be a priority; and simply releasing new land at the urban fringe is not enough if government will not commit also to funding the necessary infrastructure.

Greens prioritisation of public transport is also admirable: but with a growing population and an inevitable degree of urban sprawl can new investment in roads be put off forever?

And it will be interesting to see the form power subsidies for those on low-incomes would take. One option could be to create ‘quotas’ for renewable versus dirty (but cheaper) energy. By allowing those on welfare and low incomes to draw fully from non-renewable sources, and by promoting ‘quotas’ of renewal energy use for others - an effective subsidy could come in to play. Perhaps further subsidies should be applied for those on welfare AND low incomes in the case of water as well.

In an area apparently not canvassed by either Labor or the Greens, it is also notable that cross-subsidies could be best applied in the context of a return to natural public monopoly in energy and water. Such conditions could also encourage better value for consumers generally.

Social-commentator Dick Nicholls, in a 2008 article noted how:

“In the corporatised New Zealand industry the wholesale price of electricity declined 17% in real terms between 1987 and 1997, but the retail price increased by 20%.” http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/39055

And in an Australia-specific example, Nicholls explains that:

“In South Australia, between 1994 and 2002, residential tariffs increased by 40%, with the state's regulator claiming that 20% of the total tariff was due to privatisation.” http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/39055

Even where efficiency gains have been delivered under private utility ownership, gains have been diverted to maximise profits and share value instead of flowing to consumers.

Re-socialisation of utilities under these circumstances makes sense: and there is a need amongst the major parties (including the Greens and Labor) to scrutinise and ultimately reject the neo-liberal ideology which rules out ‘natural public monopoly’ in order to maintain a ‘pure’ position on the theme of exclusively private markets.

So many of the policies canvassed by the Greens are crucial; but the final policy we’ll consider, here, is Aged Care.

I’ve already considered the Aged Care crisis at this blog elsewhere. Readers are welcome to consider earlier ‘Left Focus’ articles of mine at the following URLs:

See: http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2009/02/avoiding-austerity-caring-for-our-aged.html

And also: http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2009/02/another-look-at-aged-care-crisis-call.html

A ‘total package’ for Aged Care must include support for carers; mandatory heating and air-conditioning in all hostels and nursing homes, free dental care, as well as more staff and a better ‘staff mix’ – with more registered nurses, and better pay and conditions to attract these into the system.

Other ‘quality of life’ issues include privacy, and access to individual rooms; as well as: “access to the “simple pleasures”…[such as] parks [and] gardens. Access to television, music – and into the future access to information and communications technology (ICT) must be considered a basic right.

But the broad range of initiatives canvassed by the Greens would cost money – and lots of it.

Amidst all these issues, the bottom line is that crises involving an ageing population (with related health and welfare costs); and involving housing supply and insufficient urban fringe infrastructure – cannot be addressed without an increase in revenue. Increasing the retirement age is not fair, though – and the timid response to such proposals in Australia by the labour movement is mind-boggling.

A rising cost-of-living also demands welfare reform as well as further tax-rebates for those on low incomes. The best place to address this is at the Federal level, with progressive tax restructure, and vital grants flowing through to the states for provision of services.

If the Greens are serious about the reform agenda they propose they need to consider how these ambitions can be realised in the context of Federal and State government co-operation. To provide these kind of outcomes we need a progressively-structured increase in taxation nationally; rising for this term of the Federal Labor government in the vicinity of 1%-1.5% of GDP.

The Greens have the right kind of ambitions, and their policy writers look to have their hearts in the right place. But they need to be clear on how they are going to deliver. If any of their spokespeople are able and willing to elaborate on this, they are most welcome to do so via Comments at this blog.

Labor policies for the Victorian state election

Looking to the Victorian ALP website it appears that Brumby Labor is putting a lot of emphasis on Liberal costings, and the sustainability of their promise to slash Stamp Duty. The Labor line seems to be that Ballieu is making promises he simply cannot deliver; and that it is Labor who enjoy a 'proven history of fiscal discipline.'

In response on Stamp Duty, Labor is promising a targeted and focused (hence smaller) reduction of their own – tightly focused on newly-built first homes in regional Victoria. This is smart urban planning, also: as by focusing on the development of regional centres, pressure is lifted from the Melbourne housing market, while partly-containing urban sprawl. http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/news-events-media/news/baillieu-s-stamp-duty-hoax-will-break-the-budget/

Brumby Labor is also claiming to hold the ‘high ground’ on the environment; re-iterating their commitment to reduce emissions by 20% based on 2000 levels. As part of this commitment, Brumby Labor is emphasising their plans for a “staged closure” of the ‘dirty’ Hazelwood power plant. http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/news-events-media/news/baillieu-embraces-tony-abbott-s-climate-scepticism/

For the Greens these measures have not gone far enough; but the dilemma for voters is whether to ‘reward’ Labor in expectation this will encourage further action; or whether to apply greater pressure by supporting the Greens. There are issues of ‘electoral synergy’ between the ALP in Greens which I raised in the ‘Left Focus’ instalment immediate prior to this.

Meanwhile: with fear of violent crime spiralling, public transport safety has also become a major issue. In response to Liberal policies, Labor has committed to “returning staff to every station on the electrified metropolitan rail network” and “delivering a central CCTV control room that will make our trains safer for commuters.” Further Labor are promising to “fund 100 additional Transit Police for a total of 350 across the network.” http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/news-events-media/news/ted-baillieu-reneges-on-pso-train-station-policy/

And yet today’s ‘Sunday Age’ (21/11/2010) – on its front page - exposes the fear campaign around violent crime as being founded upon false and exaggerated claims. While Victoria’s overall crime rate has fallen by 29.9% since 2000-2001, Victorians are being confronted with a “law and order election”. The Liberals imagine they could be swept to office upon a wave of fear; and Labor has done little to question this trend – for fear of inviting a backlash in the face of what for many is ‘indisputable’ and ‘common sense’.

The role of the media for cultivating these perceptions also needs to be scrutinised.


What is also notable is the extensive record of Victorian Labor when it comes to support for Public Private Partnerships. (PPPs) Columnist for ‘The Age’, Ken Davidson, has long taken Labor to task on just this issue, accusing the government of ‘fleecing’ the public. In March 2010 Davidson observed that “[according the the government’s budget papers] there are now $10 billion worth of public-private partnerships on Victoria's books as liabilities.” (approximately $4 billion of this related to the Wonthaggi desalination plant) http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/lenders-fudges-facts-on-ppps-20100504-u71f.html

Davidson continued:

“On the assumption that the overall return to investors on these projects is a conservative 10 per cent, the cost to Victorians as taxpayers and water consumers will be of the order of $1 billion a year. Given that the government's AAA credit rating means it could borrow the same amount of money for an interest expense of $500 million… “Half a billion dollars could finance the interest expense on $10 billion - enough to transform Victoria's transport, education and health systems.” see: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/lenders-fudges-facts-on-ppps-20100504-u71f.html

Meanwhile -- Davidson’s proposed alternative

“involves piping water from north-west Tasmania that can supply the whole of Melbourne. This frees up 90 per cent of Melbourne's water from the Thomson and Upper Yarra dams.” http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/not-too-late-to-stop-the-disaster-that-is-our-desalination-plant-20101010-16dxd.html


The trend towards Public Private Partnerships – which originally gathered pace under the Kennett Liberal government – has rarely been subjected to proper scrunity. Public debt finance has always been cheaper (this is usually the case for governments, and especially given Victoria’s ‘AAA’ rating); and provision for private profit margins has always meant that the public pay comparatively more for PPPs over the long-term.

Arguments for ‘PPPs’ based on diverting ‘risk’ also seem empty in the face of contracts which bind Victorian taxpayers to pay billions for desal plant water even when there is no demand – and when there is an abundance of supply.

On the other hand, Victoria’s population is growing, and there will be expanded demand for water into the future.

Furthermore, with stress upon the Marray-Darling basin, some have argued that Tasmania may arise as the country’s new ‘food bowl’. These matters were discussed on the 7:30 Report in September 2010. (see: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s3024352.htm )

The consequence of this is that Tasmania may need its supply of water into the future.

But even assuming this, a fully-public desalination plant would have provided better value for tax-payers. And the project might also have been deferred until such a time that the need was more immediate and indisputable.

Finally, Brumby Labor is trying to claim the ‘high ground’ on social justice – pointing to its ‘Fairer Victoria’ initiative, and refuting claims that it ‘no longer stands for anything’. Specifically, Labor is pointing to investments of “$1 billion a year for the past five years under the Fairer Victoria package.” Professor David Adams describes this “co-ordinated and preventive” “umbrella of investment across vulnerable communities, childhood development, education opportunities, mental health and disability services” as positioning Victoria nationally ''just ahead of the game''. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victoria-state-of-the-fair-go-or-the-fob-off-20101023-16ynd.html

And yet while overall Victorian investment in public housing is seen by some as lagging, the Liberals are also portraying Labor’s homelessness policy (a $42 million package; see: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/brumby-to-spend-42m-helping-homeless-20100922-15myv.html ) as having ‘come too late’. There are around 20,000 homeless people in Victoria alone.

Conclusion

This article has only involved a small sample of Labor and Greens policies. There has not been sufficient scope to provide an exhaustive exposition. But hopefully the analysis here will have provided for some a deeper understanding of the issues at stake.

The ‘Sunday Age’ editorialised today (2/11/2010) under the heading “Labor? Liberal? What difference would it make?” Although drawing to this editorial’s conclusion there was at least the observation that – 'unlike in NSW' – “[Victorian] Labor offers a competent managerial government.”

Years of Public Private Partnerships, outright privatisations and policy convergence have left much of Labor’s core support-base deeply cynical.  Many have defected to the Greens. And even now some are speculating about future private toll-roads under Labor.

The Liberals would be no better. Their commitment to the neo-liberal ideology means there will be no scrutiny of ‘privatisation gone too far’. And their ‘tough on law and order’ policies represent crass and dangerous population at its worst.

What is more - Labor’s ‘Fairer Victoria’ programs – while needing to be expanded upon – could also imaginably be targeted by the Conservatives to pay for their $750 million in Stamp Duty cuts. (which are several times the scope of Labor’s proposal)  see: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/parties-fight-to-cut-stamp-duty/story-e6frf7kx-1225957471507

No-one seems to be talking about utility re-socialisation to restore natural public monopolies. Hopefully it’s not too late for Labor and the Greens to reconsider these issues into the future.

Again: The Greens are mostly making ‘all the right noises’ but have to come up with a workable model for funding. Conceivably this might involve co-operation with Labor at a Federal level to provide funds for water and energy subsidies, aged care, public housing and other priorities. Progressively-structured tax reform (ie: expansion) over the coming three years of the scope of 1.0%-1.5% of GDP could provide room for these initiatives.

It would also be refreshing were the Greens to take a high-profile position against infrastructure privatisation.

Despite the rivalry, Labor and the Greens actually need each other if progressive reform is to be achieved.

Here’s hoping Labor/Greens co-operation in the Victorian parliament ‘bears fruit’ with real, tangible and genuinely realisable change over the coming years.