Freedom and Mutual Respect - Letters for October 2016

above:  The Herald-Sun commonly questions the right to protest , but doesn't question its own assumptions re: the availability of work , or the right to refuse exploitative employmentThe following are a series of progressive letters sent to 'The Age', 'The Herald Sun' and 'The Australian' during October 2016.  The clear majority were not published.  But I am hoping they spark debate here.  
Topics include:

'Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation'

'A congestion tax for Melbourne?' 

'In a similar vein:  Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure'

'Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom'

'Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege'

'Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration' 

'Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'

'Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed'

 

Dr Tristan Ewins

Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalisation

Jeremy Francis (3/10) observes the benefits of globalisation ; criticising the double standards of Conservatives . He compares free trade with the defence of “strong borders” ; limiting the free movement of people – punishing and indeed criminalising refugees. But globalisation is too complex and multi-faceted for progressives to simply be ‘for’ or ‘against’ it.  Cultural exchange and engagement is arguably a good thing ; enriching cultures and acting as a check on abuse of power by particular nation states.  But the ‘inverse side’ of globalisation is the ‘free movement of capital’ .  Agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are deployed to break down all barriers which would prevent the exploitation of every potential market by the transnational corporations.  This kind of ‘free movement of capital’ disciplines labour, compelling states to provide corporate welfare.  It also acts as a barrier to ‘natural public monopolies’ in diverse areas including water, energy, communications and so on.  Yet such natural public monopolies could drive efficiencies and fairness in the Australian (and other) economies.   The TPP might  also arguably prevent ‘market-distorting’ economic democracy policies such as state support for co-operative enterprise. (nb: that is a criticism of the TPP not an endorsement)  Again: Globalisation is just too complex to simply be ‘for’ or ‘against’ it.

A Congestion Tax for Melbourne?

Daniel Andrews and the Liberals as well have quickly ruled out any congestion tax. (in the state of Victoria in Australia) But there are things we should keep in mind. Taxes have been falling and becoming less progressive for some time.  The Conservatives especially wear that as ‘a badge of honour’.  Before the most recent ALP National Conference Labor also considered holding taxes down as non –negotiable.  But if we don’t provide infrastructure and services through progressive taxes (which tax target the wealthy more) – then we must pay in other ways.  A ‘congestion tax’ is not especially progressive ; but would at least promote the use of public transport , taking pressure from our roads.  Also experience has shown infrastructure privatisation (eg: of roads) can actually stymie possible competition – as governments guarantee profits – shutting down alternatives while consumers pay.  Privatised ‘cost structures’ also include dividends and corporate salaries.  As a matter of fact consumers get a much better deal paying for infrastructure in their capacity as taxpayers than they ever will as atomised consumers in a ‘market’ which involves nepotism and monopolism.  And progressively structured tax can ensure ‘a fair go’ for all.

 In a similar vein:  Immigration, Tax and Infrastructure

Tom Elliot (HS 7/10) takes aim at immigration to explain the failure of infrastructure and services to keep up with population. There is an element of truth that there are logistical limits to how swiftly migration can proceed without running into such problems.  But there’s another side to this.  Cumulative migration creates ‘economies of scale’ in areas like the public service and Defence.  That is: it becomes possible to finance these for a proportionately smaller amount of resources.  The most significant problem we have with infrastructure is that the tax take has been cut unsustainably by Liberal and Labor governments alike for over 30 years.  (though Labor might be beginning to realise things must change) This situation means ‘corporate and middle/upper class welfare’ which average workers and vulnerable pensioners are now expected to pay for. Limited resources and Ideological opposition to debt financing (even when interest rates are so low!) also means roads, communications infrastructure etc are privatised. Consumers end up forking out more for their services and infrastructure because they must pay for marketing, executive salaries, profits and dividends – that go with privatisation. Taxes need to rise – but they must rise fairly.  Increasing the GST is not the answer.


Refuting Double Standards on Tolerance while Promoting real Pluralism and Freedom

With regard to Rita Panahi’s recent Op-Ed in the Herald-Sun ‘Students who Refuse to Learn Tolerance’  (10/10/16) there are a number of observations to be made.  Personally I am sympathetic to some of the ideas of the radical Leftist democrat, Chantal Mouffe- who has argued that: 

“within the ‘we’ that constitutes the political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to be destroyed but an adversary whose existence is legitimate.”

Mouffe justifies this on the basis that pluralism (a genuine variety of viewpoints) is necessary for democracy to function effectively.  And that we ought respect each other as human beings. 

How refreshing this is in light of the brutality that passes for modern politics. (which are often ‘the politics of personal destruction’)

Democracy demands informed choice. The problem, though, is that much of the monopoly mass media in this country does not promote ‘a level playing field of ideas’ , or ‘tolerance’ of perspectives that diverge from dominant right-wing narratives.  Concentration of ownership doesn’t help.  If we are to argue for a stronger (and inclusive) pluralism in our universities – we must apply the same principles to the broader ‘public sphere’.

(nb: though the narrative of 'left elites in universities' is dubious anyway - when you consider the hegemony of neo-liberal perspectives in Economics faculties for example ; and attacks on the Humanities and Social Sciences)

References – see: http://pavilionmagazine.org/chantal-mouffe-agonistic-democracy-and-radical-politics/

 

 

above: 'body shaming', and body image expectations increasingly affect both women and men....

 

 

Engaging with Feminism on the Complexity of Intersectionality and Privilege 

‘The Australian’ (14/10) reports school curricula content which emphasises ‘male privilege’ with a tone of apparent concern.  But promoting a debate on different forms of privilege in our society ought not be a worry if only the curricula is rigorous and inclusive of critical perspectives.  For instance, the most advanced forms of what is referred to as ‘intersectionality’ theory emphasise the influence of class, gender, sexuality, body image, age, ‘race’,  disability, ethnicity, religion – where individuals experience disadvantage or privilege to different degrees on the basis of individual and particular circumstances.  So a ‘white male’ who comes from a background of socio-economic disadvantage – who does not comprise the ‘ideal’ male body type promoted in popular culture ; who does not enjoy the opportunity for higher education – may be less privileged than a woman who is educated, economically comfortable, and attractive according to popular standards.  But definitely, there is a long history of male dominance of the public sphere and  sport ; devaluation of ‘feminised’ professions ; exploitation of women in the home ; and so on.  (which needs to be challenged) We need ‘critical/active’ curricula which encourage ‘political literacy’ ; informed and active citizenship ; on the basis of a robust, far-reaching and inclusive pluralism.

 Gender, Sexuality and Mutual Respect and Consideration

The Herald-Sun reports that women are “victims of sexual attention” (16/10/16). A couple of points are important, here, though.  Firstly, ‘objectification’ increasingly affects men, also.  And men are also increasingly victims of unrealistic physical expectations around body image.  Secondly, we need to be careful we don’t portray male sexuality as ‘essentially bad’.  It is natural for people to feel and express attraction for each other. The question is ‘where to draw the line’ so as to be considerate and respectful as well.  And that cuts across gender lines.   It includes how women and men approach each other when they are sexually interested.  It also includes how we reject a person’s advances if we are not interested.  (ie: kindly and respectfully if possible)   There are also power relations based on physical expectations and body image which cut across gender lines. The question ought be: “how would I like to be treated were I in the other person’s shoes?”

 Refuting the Herald-Sun Again on 'Welfare Shaming'

The Herald-Sun (16/10/16)  reports that welfare-dependency figures are “shocking”.  But Disability pensioners, Carers and the Unemployed should not be ‘shamed’.  Carers save the public hundreds of millions of dollars by providing care and support for pittance that otherwise would cost the state a fortune. If we do not value their work just because it is not part of the ‘market sector’ then that itself says something  disturbing about our priorities.  Meanwhile those with a mental illness – who are commonly looked upon as ‘not-really-disabled’ can expect a reduced life-expectancy of 16 years – or 25 years for those with Schizophrenia. Who would ‘choose’ to be in that position?  Finally, research shows there are roughly five job-seekers for every position.  Were the government serious it would develop an industry policy to create real long term jobs – matched to peoples skills. (as some Nordic countries have tried)  Instead it tolerates an unemployment rate of around 6 per cent (much more if you include those who have given up the search) , and also ‘massive under-employment’ for people looking for full-time, secure work.  Because ‘Ideologically’ it cannot bring itself to support ‘economic intervention’.

References:  http://theconversation.com/when-job-seekers-outnumber-jobs-5-to-1-punitive-policy-is-harmful-28839

https://www.laborherald.com.au/health/more-action-fewer-words-needed-on-mental-health/

http://evatt.org.au/papers/northern-lights.html

 

Refuting the Herald-Sun Again: Misleading Characterisations on the Unemployed

The Herald-Sun (19/10/16)  proclaims on its front page:“70% of arrested meth users supported by your taxes” and also: “Dole Blown on Ice.”  While the apparent connection between Ice addiction and crime is alarming, the headline was irresponsible for several reasons.   Firstly, for those who don’t read the article thoroughly there may be the utterly false assumption that most Newstart recipients are ice addicts. In fact there is no proof of anything like this.  .Secondly: ice addicts need help overcoming their addiction. Yes there must be compulsory rehabilitation programs. But a purely punitive approach could lead to a downward spiral of desperation and crime.  It seems more than an accident that the headline coincides  with the Liberal Government’s attempt to wind back benefits such as Newstart, the Disability Support Pension, the Carers’ Allowance, and so on.  To ‘make room’ in the Budget to accommodate corporate tax cuts.  And hence to demonise and vilify these people.

Defending the Left on so-called Political Correctness

 

 

Shutting down debate can create a cultural pressure cooker, something which critics of Australian universities dismiss with their glib references to ‘left wing political correctness’, writes Dr Tristan Ewins.

It has become commonplace for conservative commentators to make the accusation that our universities are enthralled to ‘left wing political correctness’ and ‘Marxism’.  But the narrative of political correctness itself can be deployed to shut down debate; such as in right-wing circles where there was once the common dismissal of the Left as promoting a mentality of ‘save the gay whales’. In other words, there existed an insensitive mentality which dismissed the rights and experiences of those of non-heterosexual orientation as nothing but political correctness.

On the Right particularly, there has also developed a narrative around so-called Left elites who enforce political correctness, and who are out of touch with mainstream Australia. Some Left narratives are far from the thinking of mainstream Australia on some issues, although one must not forget that at times in this country’s history, racism, sexism, and contempt towards other minorities was considered mainstream. The shift in this country’s view of minorities and women has occurred only as a consequence of the leadership provided by the Left and Centre-Left.

Specifically, the off-hand dismissal of narratives around the ‘invasion’ of this country can also be seen as reinforcing insensitivity towards indigenous people, and consolidating the kinds of perspectives that reinforced the narrative of terra nullius: the narrative that the continent we live on was unoccupied (or more specifically ‘there was no sovereign state’ before colonisation), legitimising settlement.

On the other hand, the injustices experienced by Indigenous Australia need to be resolved through a process of recognition, reconciliation and compensation. There has to be a point at which the nation moves on together. But this is not really possible, though, without a Treaty process.

“There is demand for critical thinkers.”

Red-baiting and promoting misunderstanding and confusion around Marxism is another common tactic deployed by conservative forces. It is true that an array of repressive regimes identified as Marxist throughout the 20^th century. But it is also true that prior to the rise of Leninism and Stalinism, Marxists were the strongest advocates of free, universal and equal suffrage. (Throughout the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, much of Europe used a weighted suffrage system which granted voting power overwhelmingly on the basis of wealth, entrenching the control of the nobility and bourgeoisie despite an exploding working class vote for the social democratic parties.) Some of the strongest critics of Stalinism and Leninism were other (democratic) Marxists.

Many democratic Marxist narratives retain force, and do not rest on any totalitarian world-view. At the core of Marxism is the desire for a society based on the distributive principle “from each according to ability, to each according to need”, as well as the aim of empowering every individual to reach their full potential through immersion in the breadth and depth of human culture: from music, literature and art, to sport, philosophy, economics etc. This is a side of Marxism rarely acknowledged by its critics.

Finally, criticisms around employability miss the mark. The humanities and social sciences have long been condemned by those who opposed a critical society: a society which subjects itself to criticism, and does not take Ideological assumptions for granted. For some people, however, there is a technocratic outlook for which nothing matters except the technical demands of the labour market, and the imperative of maximising GDP. That said, there is demand for critical thinkers who can conduct research and criticism, and can express themselves fluently. Sometimes narratives around employability are more about shutting down criticism and pluralism in our democracy.

“It’s time we rejected right-wing narratives.”

To conclude, it is only fair to concede that sometimes parts of the Left do not tolerate internal dissent around their orthodoxies. And the relationship between parts of the Left and the principle of free-speech has become inconsistent and unclear. Pluralism generally means you engage with your political and intellectual rivals rather than just shutting them down. Shutting down debate can create a cultural pressure cooker, which over the long term builds up resentment. Though for instance when faced with a real and present danger of fascism that may warrant a rethink.

Also modern identity politics often revolves around a series of identities – around gender, sexuality, race etc – which are sometimes promoted in a kind of arbitrary hierarchy rather than through an integrated analysis. At the same time, also, parts (not all) of today’s Left have largely abandoned their traditional narratives around economic justice, economic democracy and equality, effectively distancing themselves from the working class and the working poor.

The problem is not so much with the critique of socially-constructed identity so much as it is with the method of an arbitrary hierarchy, and the abandonment of older Left narratives on the struggle for equality, and on the failings of capitalism. Here, though, the commonly-deployed term cultural Marxism is absurd for anyone who has an understanding. It was economics which was at the core of the old Marxist orthodoxy.

It’s time we rejected right-wing narratives around so-called political correctness. Ironically these very narratives shut down debate. They promote exactly the same kind of distortion and intolerance that so-called Left elites are accused of engaging in by the conservative Right.

Observations in the Wake of the Rudd Restoration

above: Julia Gillard

A Retrospective on the  Gillard Leadership - and Last Chance Policy Fixes for Rudd Labor

i)                    Much to be treasured from the Gillard Leadership: and Rudd’s motives more complex than recognised by some Feminist critics

Recently I read an article claiming that the core issue behind Julia Gillard’s loss of the Labor leadership was a ‘boy’s club mentality’; that is put simply: patriarchy re-asserting itself…  (See:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148541/The-boys-club-always-wins-in-politics-Julia-Gillard-is-the-latest-victim.html )

I think, though, that things are more complex than the author of that article acknowledges. I agree that Rudd took advantage of the ‘blue tie factor’ in response to the Gillard speech. Responding to male resentment following Gillard’s recent speech on the threat to women’s participation in public life, it was a clever ploy – underscoring impressions Gillard was being divisive, and appealing to a mass male demographic which felt threatened by Gillard’s stand.  I agree this was a form of destabilization – and even if effective, it was the [ethically] wrong ‘symbolic tactic’. And I agree there have been men – powerful right-wing men – who have subjected Gillard to constant mockery in order to weaken her authority and credibility – and sometimes in the most debased and sexist form.   And that sexism still comprises a problem in parts of the broader electorate as well.

But this was also personal vindication for Rudd in a way that goes way beyond gender… If Rudd had been ‘done in’ by another man his bitterness was have been just as palpable. Arguably, there was also bitterness in the 'Rudd camp' because it appears Rudd as PM was removed at the behest of Australia’s powerful mining industry – after he had attempted to introduce a Mining Super Profits Tax to spread the benefits of our mining boom… As I’ve said before – both ‘camps’ in Labor tried to set a precedent.  Each side attempted a ‘political scorched earth’ strategy against the other – and that only escalated the division and crisis. That an accommodation and reconciliation was not achieved earlier led us to this point – with the caucus elevating Rudd as their ‘only hope’ due to his consistent ascendancy in the polls.

Importantly – the monopoly mass media in this country (largely controlled by Rinehart, Murdoch etc) exploited the internal conflict to destabilise the ALP.  But now that Rudd has returned he is enjoying a ‘honeymoon’ courtesy of previous ‘oxygen’ he was provided by that very media establishment… But will the media continue to ‘give Labor a fair go’ now?  Some are talking of Rudd reforming the compromise mining tax we ended up with – But what chance of this with Rinehart dominating the traditionally (and still relatively) liberal Fairfax media assets?

IN the final analysis, though, Gillard deserves credit for pursuing education reform, implementing disability insurance, promoting a better deal for low paid workers (mainly women) in the community services sector and elsewhere, and improving diplomatic relations with China. Though there were bad policies too: Sole Parent Pensions reduced; Disability Pension eligibility narrowed etc… Recognition of all this is part of the answer for future healing in the ALP – for the same reason that the former Labor leaderships’ past attempts to ‘airbrush’ the Rudd governmentt’s prior achievements only escalated and deepened the internal conflict… And in any case Gillard DESERVES recognition for her policy achievements under the most difficult circumstances of minority government…

Here’s hoping Labor now has a chance of fending off the prospect of an Abbott Liberal Government – which could be the most right-wing government we have had in decades should it come to pass…

ii)                  Conclusions: Possible Election-Winning Rudd ‘Policy Fixes’ as the ‘Day of Reckoning’ Draws Nearer

above:  Will Rudd take the Opportunity for Bold Reforms that take the Fight to Abbott?

Superannuation Concessions Reform to pay for ETS reversions: and Tax Breaks to pay for wage cuts flowing from Superannuation Increases

To go early? Or go later and maybe reconvene parliament?

I believe it would just be good for Rudd to "get some reforms under his belt" before the election if possible; including restructuring the tax and spending mix in such a way as to pre-empt Abbott... (For example: if we remove superannuation concessions from the wealthy and the upper middle class to pay for winding back the carbon tax to an ETS...)  If we don't do this and Abbott wins - he can use fiscal pressures as a rationale to wind back social expenditure and welfare. So if possible we should get the reforms in place while taking away the Abbott excuse/rationale for austerity. Getting 'reforms under his belt' could also give Rudd more credibility - a concrete indicator of the direction he intends to take Labor should he win the election.

Not to mention we should have an interest in distributive justice for low and middle income Australia regardless of pragmatics. In 2012 Dr Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute argued that removing superannuation concessions from the top 5% would save over $10 billion.   (See: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3568235.htm )

Meanwhile, today that figure would be significantly higher: and targeting the top 10% demographic would presumably bring in much more.  

So not only could this money pay for an early reversion to an ETS. (which is a very regrettable political imperative)  The removal of subsidies/concessions for the wealthy and upper middle class could pay for an expansion of the Clean Energy Fund. And it could also pay for improved welfare - and make room for tax cuts for low income groups to overcome the effect of the increase to 12% superannuation contributions for these already-struggling families.   

To clarify on superannuation: veteran Fairfax journalist Ken Davidson made the point in 2010 that those on low incomes cannot afford to lose disposable income.  And he has pointed out that the extra employer contributions will largely be ‘swallowed up’ as bosses hold back on wage increases.  (see: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/super-rise-no-blessing-for-workers-20100516-v6az.html )

Davidson is right that today the superannuation industry comprises a private pension system – where risk is privatised – and within a highly inegalitarian framework.  While the Aged Pension was once a great leveler – in the future retirement income will be greatly stratified and effectively discriminate against women, and low income, part-time and casual workers.  The Aged Pension itself faces potential future marginalisation as a second-class, residual system. 

And as Davidson notes there is growing pressure for governments to privatise their remaining assets by selling them to the superannuation funds.   This is presented as saving governments from the need to invest in future infrastructure. But what would the ultimate consequence be?

There remain potential problems, here, even where those funds are union-controlled.  There is the potential that they may increasingly comprise ‘corporate interests’ – which pursue their own particular interest rather than the general interest. 

As the important socialist thinker Eduard Bernstein pointed out as far back as the 1890s - as the “mistress of a whole branch of production” even unions theoretically have the potential to  become “a monopolist productive association…antagonistic to socialism and democracy…”  Here,  “Associations against the community are as little socialism as the oligarchic government of the state.” (Bernstein; pp 114-119, pp 138-141)    Of course there is a difference between Bernstein’s example here, and that of Australian unions – but the theme of general versus particular interest is the same. (the answer, of course, is natural public monopolies where appropriate)

Referring to the Superannuation Industry, Ken Davidson wrote for the Sydney Morning Herald in 2012:

“Specifically, the superannuation industry has its eye on existing water, road, rail and port assets, which are largely monopolies with assured income streams. To reveal what is at stake, assume that, as state monopolies, these assets earn 5 per cent on capital for the government and would be expected to earn 10 per cent on capital for private investors… This means that the assets worth $100 billion on the government's books, would only be worth $50 billion to the private operators if the prices for the services remained the same. The government might get $100 billion for the assets if it allowed the new owners to double prices for the services.” (Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/its-about-time-super-funds-stepped-up-20120729-235y4.html#ixzz2YFLdAnnr )


It is too late to substantially alter Labor’s 12% superannuation promise, and too difficult to sell Davidson’s complex message to the electorate on the eve of the election. Especially when Labor has been selling this policy unequivocally for so long, and many of our supporters are convinced it is ‘free money’.

But the government has options in creating a more egalitarian system.

Again this should involve cutting superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class – which could bring in well over $10 billion. (I have no modeling beyond Richard Denniss’s figures ** – but extrapolating from that a minimum of $15 billion seems credible for 2014) And using some of those proceeds, in addition to paying for an early reversion to an Emissions Trading Scheme, and an increased Clean Energy fund - it must also mean further restructuring of the tax mix. Further, it should also involve easing of means tests for some partial self-funded retirees. And what is more, this could involve another real increase in the Aged Pension, and improvements in social wage benefits for pensioners of all kinds. This should include improved cost-of-living subsidies (energy, water), and free or discounted access to the NBN and public transport. Finally, here, the funds released by superannuation concession reform could be ploughed into infrastructure and completely bypass pressures for privatisation.

Concluding, though, the most industrially strong unions could attempt to hold onto their share (ie: the labour share) of the economic pie – even in the context of increasing superannuation contributions from employers - but also in the hope that this could occur in the context of a squeeze on profits, rather than a squeeze on consumers. Whether or not this happens also depends on how profitable and how competitive the economic sectors in question are. Competitve sectors with lower profit margins would have little room to move.

The election is far from over; and neither are Labor’s policy options exhausted even at this late point in the electoral cycle. Let us hope Rudd Labor governs and reforms in the interest of justice and equity for most of what remains of 2013 – and that the consequence is another reforming Labor government.

References:

Allison Pearson from ‘The Telegraph”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10148541/The-boys-club-always-wins-in-politics-Julia-Gillard-is-the-latest-victim.html

Bernstein, Eduard  “Evolutionary Socialism”, Shocken Books, NewYork, 1961

Ken Davidson at ‘The Age’ and the SMH::

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/super-rise-no-blessing-for-workers-20100516-v6az.html )

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/its-about-time-super-funds-stepped-up-20120729-235y4.html#ixzz2YFLdAnnr )

** Denniss argues removing superannuation concessions from the top 5% income demographic alone could bring in $10 billion in 2012; For my purposes I am assuming the top 10% should be targeted in the reforms I am suggesting.

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

The mining tax could have paid for the ASU community sector wage claim

In this week's contribution labour movement activist Sarah Howe considers the claim by the ASU (Australian Services Union) for fair pay in the community services sector.  The sector involves mainly women workers, and the union is arguing underpayment is effectively discrimination.   Many are pointing to the potential cost of implementing equal pay, but Howe argues that if the 'Resource Super Profits Tax' (RSPT) had been implemented in its original form - money would not have been a problem.

By Sarah Howe, March 9th 2011

As the media has widely reported, the Australian Services Union is currently running a test case through Fair Work Australia seeking pay rises of between 14 and 50 per cent for about 200,000 mostly women workers in the social and community services sector.

The union wage claim is well deserved-with the media and submissions to Fair Work Australia pointing out that professional front line workers such as non-profit housing support workers are often receiving as little as $18 for extremely qualified and stressful jobs. The importance of the community sector to the health of Australian society and economy can’t be emphasized enough.

The ASU campaign for equal pay for community sector workers (and the growing significance of the sector to the economy) should be seen in the context of the move by Australian government to adopt the UK Blair government model of implementing more engaged, ‘joined up’ and networked approaches to governance and policy-making in recent years- particularly in relation to social policy. This trend has led to planning and service delivery increasingly being devolved to the so called ‘third sector’ (or the community sector). This sector is made up of organizations that are not-for-profit and non-government in diverse industry sectors and is increasingly doing the work traditionally done by government departments and authorities.

In Victoria, the Bracks Governments core social policy document in 1995- A Fairer Victoria: Creating opportunity and addressing disadvantage - aimed to tackle poverty and disadvantage had a strong emphasis on ‘building stronger communities’(Victorian Government: 2005). The community building strategy in this policy often has given responsibility to the community sector to plan and implement social policy outcomes, for instance with urban renewal programs. This is certainly the case in the Carlton context, where I work overseeing an employment program assisting newly arrived refugees into jobs.

In practice today, the community sector now both plans place based social services as well as delivering services on the ground-sometimes with the help of Federal, State and Local Government grants. However, despite the responsibility given to the community sector, significant investment is now required.

The negative view of the Blair model argues that ‘local self help, volunteering and social entrepreneurship are no alternative to progressive state and national tax, income security, service delivery and labour market policies needed to create the conditions for broad and sustainable reductions in poverty, inequality and social exclusion’(quoted in Wiseman, J: 2006).

‘No amount of local community capacity building can substitute for long term investment in core public infrastructure of schools, hospitals, health centers, housing, transport, parks and meeting places that can provide the real foundations for resilient and healthy communities’ (Wiseman, J: 2006 ).

Social services are in high demand, but often woefully under-funded. In my work, I am currently establishing an occasional childcare service to support housing commission residents look for work in Carlton. Yesterday I inspected a similar service managed by a not for profit agency in Broadmeadows. The Broadmeadows service assists newly arrived migrants study English at a location close to their children.

The Manager of the service told me how difficult it was to run the childcare centre, off a low funding base - including paying the current award wages. As we walked to the childcare centre, she joked that they call it the Hawke building- it was paid for under the 1990’s Federal Government capital grants scheme. This scheme does not exist now. Many parents wish it did, as childcare shortages are legendary, and the Local Government and community sector are struggling to provide these vital social services to families in the community. These services are critical for women seeking to re-enter the workforce.

The Federal Government’s response to this investment shortfall is to continually reiterate its desire to ensure fiscal sustainability and return the budget to surplus. In relation to the ASU wage claim, the initial response by the Federal Government was to say that any additional wage costs would come at the expense of other government funded services (Commonwealth Government in The Australian: 2010).

However, in December 2010, the Federal Government at the instigation of the PM intervened to clarify that Fair Work Australia should not award or discount equal remuneration because of the potential impact on the Commonwealth - however despite this reassurance, not much detail was provided on how the wage claim or ongoing capital investment costs of the sector would be met in the future.

While the Federal Government clarification is a positive development for the wage claim, I agree with Kerryn Williams’s recent article in Green Left Weekly in arguing that mining company BHP Billiton’s $10.5 billion profit for the second half of 2010 ‘highlights the shameless greed of those making a fortune out of Australia’s valuable resources’ and underscores the loss for social policy associated with the enormous reduction in revenue associated with the watered down Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT). Recent Treasury estimates indicate that the MRRT will reduce the original RSPT’s 40% tax to just 30%, and will bring in well under half the revenue (Williams: 2011).

“The original tax was supposed to raise about $99 billion starting from the 2012-13 financial year until 2020-21. But it now looks like this figure will be only $38.5 billion. That’s $60.5 billion that could have been spent on health care, education or the shift to renewable energy” (Williams: 2011).

We could add to Williams list of social policy funding needs- the costs of urgently needed community infrastructure and labor costs (the wages bill from the ASU case estimated conservatively to be worth Victorian tax payers $200 million and at the most $1.7 billion over four years). In the absence of reform of the taxation system, the phased in strategy for labor cost increases will have to suffice.

AND FINALLY!!!:   If you enjoyed 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

References:

The Australian, ‘Government warns on women's pay rises’ November 19th, 2010

The Age, Equal pay case could cost Victoria $1.7bn, February 2, 2011

Wiseman, J. ‘Local Heroes: Learning from Recent Community Strengthening Initiatives in Victoria’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 65, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 95-107

Williams, K, Mining profits reveal true greed, Green Left Weekly, March 6th, 2011.