Social Justice for the Aged, the vulnerable and Low Income Australians

 

 

above: Federal Minister for Ageing, Mark Butler has had some victories for Aged Australians - But there's a lot that's left to be done!!!

 

In the following article ALP Socialist Left Activist Tristan Ewins argues in favour of reform in the interests of vulnerable and Aged Australians - including tax breaks and national aged care insurance. We need ALP activists to take up these causes and make them a reality before the September election! Mark Butler seems to be interested - But are others in the Cabinet and Caucus listening?

Firstly: Tax Breaks for Vulnerable Australians wanting to ‘shift down’ to a cheaper home

In the Herald-Sun today (June 2^{nd 2013}) Federal Minister for Ageing Mark Butler was on record coming out in support of removing Stamp Duty tax from the sale of the estates of pensioners. The tax is seen as a disincentive to ‘shift down’ to smaller and more manageable properties –and the suggestion of an initiative in this direction is similar to what we have argued for at ‘Left Focus’ and ‘ALP Socialist Left Forum’. This makes good sense for pensioners who can no longer manage a (relatively) large property, including properties with large gardens.

In response the Victorian Conservative government is claiming that this kind of program already exists in the form of a Stamp Duty waiver when shifting to properties up to $330,000 value, and with concessions for properties up to $750,000 value. This may be true, but the Federal Labor government would be right to see these measures as insufficient for pensioners: with Stamp Duty still comprising a major disincentive to “shift down” to a more manageable property. Quite simply there are few decent properties – even small properties – under $330,000 market value these days. And pensioners may not want to move out to the outer urban fringe in order to benefit from such programs.

Also importantly: such schemes could be of interest to low income families as well, and also low income divorced singles who would benefit from ‘shifting downwards’. For those and others of limited wealth and on low incomes for whom a property may be all they have, the option to ‘shift downwards’ to a smaller property could make a great difference in accessing funds from the sale of their residences. It could also potentially make a great difference to disabled Australians for whom the only source of income is the disability pension. Though to avoid the dual outcome of gentrification of some suburbs, and infrastructure and service poverty in ‘low income ghettos’ - such a policy needs to be combined with active intervention to overcome infrastructure and service deficits in affected suburbs.

So at ‘Left Focus’ and ‘ALP Socialist Left Forum’ we are saying ‘Yes’ to the removal of Stamp Duty Tax for aged and disability pensioners, as well as low income Australians and lower income divorcees for whom relocation could make a great deal of difference for their quality of life. Though so the policy cannot be abused we are suggesting it can only apply to specific individuals once in every ten years – with the exception of house sales upon entering care. We are saying ‘Yes’ to Federal compensation of State governments so such a policy can be implemented nation-wide – and for Labor to adopt this as an innovative and equitable policy with the election drawing nearer. Further, we are arguing that this be paid for by restructuring the tax mix rather than through austerity. And we are hoping some people in the Federal and State governments are listening!

Again: Aged Care Insurance

A brief postscript, though!

We are also saying ‘Yes’ to National Aged Care Insurance as a priority comparable to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. But we are opposing regressive user pays charges for aged care services and accommodation.

We are saying ‘Yes’ to further improvements for the pay, conditions and career paths of Aged Care workers – As well as improvements to the quality of service enjoyed by all aged residents in care – whether high or low intensity care. This means good quality food; privacy with personal rooms if so desired; better carer and nurse to patient ratios; facilitated social interaction and intellectual stimulation; and access to IT for those so interested; as well as access to change of scenery including gardens. It means gentle exercise for those capable; and prompt access to dental care if necessary. It also means compassionate care for dementia sufferers, and a big public investment for dementia and Alzheimers’ research. Finally it means support for Carers’ whose intervention could make the difference in preventing premature resort to high intensity care.

Not that long ago Labor figures were speaking of approaching the coming election on the theme of ‘Social Insurance’. This still makes sense! But since Abbott has attempted to neutralise the issue with bipartisan support for disability insurance, Aged Care Insurance as outlined here could reignite that debate. And if Abbott attempts to neutralise this issue by adopting a similar policy – then that is a progressive victory as well!

At ‘Left Focus’ and “ALP Socialist Left Forum’ we have argued that Tony Abbott is betraying his Democratic Labor Party heritage by taking a hard line against social welfare, and policies which punish the poor and vulnerable. ‘Compassionate conservatism’ which has a heart for social welfare may not be our ideal – but it is better than contemporary neo-liberal Neo-Conservatism – which ‘has no heart’. If by some quirk of fate there are Conservatives reading this post, we urge them to consider the positions of the post-war German Christian Democrats and their support for social welfare and a ‘social market’. We are saying this well aware that the other aspect of the DLP was its regrettable role in a split which kept the ALP out of power for decades; and which took an anti-liberal authoritarian line in favour of literally banning the Communist Party of Australia; and opposing militant unionism. But perhaps were Labor to adopt Aged Care Insurance– Abbott might also rediscover his conscience and assert himself publicly and in the Liberal Party Room ahead of the election – in favour of the policy.

And again: win or lose the election – by initiating the policy and potentially securing bipartisan support Labor would have achieved a vital progressive victory.

Labor's 'last best chance' to prevent a 'downwards spiral' of austerity

 

above:  As Finance Minister Penny Wong is well-placed to attempt to 'head off' any strategy of unnecessary austerity for Labor's May Federal Budget.  Penny, Please stand up for what it right!

 

Tristan Ewins

Dear Readers: I wrote the following after the government’s announcement that it was cutting back higher education funding in order to pay for a much-reduced version of the Gonski education reforms in the May Budget:

As to what is determining Labor’s behaviour – I think there was an element of cynical opportunism when it came to Sole Parents.  (playing on peoples’ prejudices – but ultimately causing more self-harm in the process – by losing credibility with parts of its base… )

But on Gonski I think it’s a bit more complex.  I think – as a friend of mine said a short way back – that Labor is ‘curling up into a ball’ in the face of attacks from powerful vested interests.  Hence the collapse on superannuation concessions – ie: tax shelters for the rich; on the Minerals Resource Rent Tax; and now the retreat on Gonski. 

It seems they would rather compromise their core ‘signature’ policies then take on the powerful and wealthy vested interests…  And what they don’t seem to grasp is that this does not win respect over the long term.  It only makes our adversaries more confident, brazen and aggressive in their attacks on what remains of the welfare state, the tax-transfer system, the social wage….  IN short – If we never fight -  It means we almost completely lose control of the discourse over the long term.  We all but completely lose control over the definition of the prevailing ‘common sense’ on everything from tax to industrial relations, and social expenditures, infrastructure and welfare…  The Conservatives get their way no matter which party governs….  Failure to defend social justice, progressive taxation, the principle of redistribution  - will mean the self-liquidation of Australian social democracy unless someone else steps into the breach.  And the Greens could not achieve that on their own either.

But that said there IS progress for state education if Labor’s policies go through….  The means of paying for it are regressive; But it is still a more progressive overall outcome than what we already had…  Students – including students from low income backgrounds – will have to repay ‘start-up scholarships’.  This is bad.  Though it is mainly students from higher income backgrounds that will lose out from the decision to prevent them paying their HECS fees up-front.  And at least repayment will be deferred.   (the obvious question now being where the repayment threshold is set) 

Regardless, though, it is a Positive-Sum Affair for disadvantaged students taken overall  – many of whom would never enjoy the opportunity of tertiary study were it not for this re-ordering of priorities.  Hence additional resources for indigenous, disabled, non-English speaking and poor-literacy students – and the ‘Lion’s Share’ going to state schools.

In short – this policy could also be crucial in stemming the drift of students to private schools to the point of ‘critical mass’ – where otherwise the state sector would become permanently second-class and residual.  The policy inflicts an injustice on tertiary students –but will provide opportunities for many who otherwise would never have a hope of a tertiary education; or even of making the most of Year 12.

The policy involves about half the resources that Labor originally promised, also.  Much is expected of the States given their finances.  The States should not be obstructionist – or blur the issues.  But while they are low on cash themselves – the logic of events could lead to user-pays infrastructure inflicted on us by the State Governments.  The states should promote the cause of federal tax reform to make all this unnecessary  – but it seems they are only interested in increasing the GST and removing exemptions for food  – as today’s conservatives  seem to ‘believe in principle’ in flat taxation that hits the poor hard.   Apparently this Ideology is not “class warfare” but anything else even mildly progressive is...

All this also begs the question what is going to happen to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).  Tony Abbott says he supports it.  But Of course he will have no problem ‘neutralising’  the issue by paying for the program with savage austerity against the apparently ‘undeserving’ poor – for example the unemployed; and possibly against mentally ill recipients of Newstart deemed able to do ‘some’ work.  Where Labor would get the money from is anyone’s guess.  But with a price-tag in the vicinity of $15 billion/year to implement the policy I am afraid we are going to ‘squib’ the issue again by only half implementing the policy; and projecting full implementation into a distant future that may never come.

Labor would be more credible if they stood up on these signature policies even if it means abandoning the idea we can have a ‘Positive Sum Affair’ FOR EVERYONE.  Again this is the myth cultivated with the whole ‘social justice equals class warfare’ discourse. ( ie: that ‘the state should get out of the picture’)   This is sold as a liberal principle and ironically it exploits past Australian egalitarian traditions and self-image.  But in fact this discourse rests firmly on the interests of the wealthy; who seek to divide us all against each other on the basis of an economically Liberal Ideology, ‘downwards envy’ and other prejudices.

THAT outcome (ie: squibbing on NDIS) is what we need to agitate and mobilise against as the 2013 May Federal Budget approaches.  Without an assertive, confident and progressive Labor the task will become all the more difficult for the government, and  Labor will not be able to inspire activists, trade unionists, environmentalists into the kind of on-the-ground campaigning which alone can counter Abbott’s advantage of uncritical and biased monopoly mass media coverage . It could actually be a more difficult task, in fact, than had they stood up to the vested interests in the first place.

Finally: now that we have ‘squibbed’ on the issue of superannuation concessions even centre-left commentators like Tim Colebatch are arguing that significant austerity cannot be avoided.  But let’s be clear: Compared to other OECD countries we have small government in Australia.   By some estimates removing ‘middle class welfare’ could save a few  billion; but this pales in significance to the money that could be saved by winding back superannuation concessions for the top 5%-10% income demographic, and by reducing dividend imputation – just for a start.  Instead  of conceding the logic and the agenda of austerity rather Labor and the Left need to go on to the front foot and move towards an extension of social welfare for the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable….  Aged Care is perhaps the most vital area where action is necessary – when one considers the regressive nature of existing user-pays mechanisms – and the sheer extremity of the human suffering by these amongst our most vulnerable citizens….

Tony Abbott apparently has a Democratic Labor Party background if you trace it back far enough…  And while the DLP and the NCC did untold damage to the ALP during the years of the split, you would at least expect from them a  ‘Catholic social welfare’ outlook with a measure of compassion for the poor.  Some have commented that towards the end of his life B.A Santamaria realised that in facilitating the neo-liberal hegemony the DLP did more damage to its cause then had ever been inflicted on them by the Left.   And now Abbott himself promises to be the bearer of previously unheard of austerity.    

It is not only Labor that needs to search its conscience when it comes to the treatment of the vulnerable, including Sole Parent families.  Abbott could have used his leadership of the Liberal Party to lead it down the path of ‘compassionate conservatism’ after the fashion of the immediate-post-war German Christian Democrats.  Instead the disabled and the unemployed stand to suffer, and one can only speculate where else the axe may fall when it comes to further austerity in the Ideological pursuit of ever-smaller government.   The American-style rhetoric against practically any and all social investment is incessant – with no regard for the human consequences when the time comes to put this rhetoric into action…   The rights of the Aged don’t seem to be ‘factoring in’ with either of the major parties, and nor do we hear much from the Greens on that issue as well.

For both Abbott and Labor – Search your consciences when it comes to austerity and the rhetoric of  small government.  Neo-liberalism is not the proper ideology of Labor and social democracy, and nor is it the proper Ideology for compassionate Conservatism with a Christian ‘social welfare’ outlook.

For Labor’s part it is not too late for a mix of tax reform and reprioritisation of expenditure that avoids austerity against the vulnerable.   There is the potential mix of MRRT reform, reduction of dividend imputation, and winding back of ‘middle class welfare’ – that combined could bring in maybe $15 billion a year.  Reform of superannuation concessions has been ruled out for this year – but must factor into our plans for the future.

We have a choice.  Only a progressive ALP can inspire and mobilise its core base and potentially sympathetic social movements.  The May Budget is perhaps our last best chance to achieve this.

For details re: Labor’s Tertiary Education cutbacks see:  http://www.afr.com/p/national/education/extra_bn_for_schools_under_gonski_tFWyWqxCXfag4O1BvsOkMJ

'Battlelines' - what’s Tony Abbott really about?

 

above: an image of Tony Abbott

 

Tristan Ewins searches for the 'real Tony Abbott' interrogating the arguments and values presented in the Australian Conservative Opposition Leader's 'manifesto', "Battlelines" from a progressive perspective. 

AND ALSO: 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

For those interested in understanding the political thinking behind the politically-resurgent Tony Abbott, they could do worse than to read about the “Abbott agenda” as proclaimed by the man himself in his manifesto, Battlelines.

Abbott begins by proclaiming himself “the pragmatist”. “Ideology”, after all, has become something of a dirty word in western democracies - associated with such “evils” as socialism: compared with which neo-liberal practice is “objectively” sound economic management (please note the irony).

By contrast Abbott portrays his “pragmatism” as a fluidity of policy responses to political and economic contingency: but for which conservative values remain fixed. And in this context - Abbott sees conservatism in the sense of respect for Western traditions and institutions as both wise and practical.

For Abbott “Ideologues want to impose their values on others” while “pragmatists want to solve … problems as long as the cure is not worse than the disease” (p.xi).

While this is a clever piece of rhetorical posturing, critical minds might point to the dominance of neo-liberal ideology in Australia and world-wide without care for the real world consequences.

Interestingly, Abbott raises the opposition between compassionate conservatism and the kind of ruthless neo-liberalism that cares nothing for the social consequences of austerity (pp.xii-xiii). Here the author juxtaposes the “[single-minded] cutting [of] public expenditure … striving to deliver smaller government” to “compassionate conservatism, stressing solidarity with those who are doing it tough” (pp.xii-xiii). By this reckoning the “social fabric … has to be respected and preserved”, while individuals should enjoy such circumstances that they are “empowered, as far as reasonably possible, to live the life that he or she thinks best” (p.xii).

Abbott’s proclaimed support for those doing it tough might be traced to the influence of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) early on in his life. While the DLP helped shut Labor out of government for decades, and to this day retains a socially-illiberal outlook, its Catholic origins were such that there remained a measure of compassion for workers, and for the poor (p.10).

Regardless of whether this stance is a political ploy, or whether it echoes Abbott’s true sentiment, Abbott is captive to the Liberal political machine. The Opposition has tried to undermine the stimulus without regard that this would compromise the recovery from the global financial crisis. They have fear-mongered about tax and trade unions. Ruthless neo-liberalism remains the dominant current within the parties of the Australian Right - and should the Coalition be elected later this year, it is very likely that this would be reflected in policy.

This opposition between “compassionate conservatism” and what I call “ruthless neo-liberalism” is one that Abbott attempts to dispel later on, but for those of us interested in interrogating the contradictions of the Australian Right, the issue demands greater attention.

We will return to this theme later.

Abbott attempts to mould an image of conservative and liberal impulses as interlocked and complementary. He emphasises this again and again.

But there are other conflicts at work also. Even within the broad gamut of liberalism, there is division between social liberalism (concerned with social justice) and economic neo-liberalism (utterly indifferent to it).

For Abbott there is the practical imperative to reconcile competing currents in the parties of the Australian Right to present the kind of “united front” needed to win the confidence of voters. And there is also the need for Abbott to pitch his message broadly, to maximise his support base.

For his own part, Abbott does not show respect or recognition for many of the marginalised and the oppressed. He speaks of his experience in student politics: mocking his then-rivals on the Left as being typified by an outlook of “Land Rights for Gay Whales” (p.12).

There remains within Abbott a sense of injustice - perhaps even outrage - at the marginalisation of Conservative forces within the broader student political sphere at that time. As he writes: “the student paper wouldn’t print conservative arguments” (p.13).

Fast forwards to today and the Conservative parties in government passed legislation (so-called “Voluntary Student Unionism”) which hindered student self-organisation, and especially the position of the Left. This also had the added impact of draining the lifeblood of student culture from campuses all over the country.

Here, it must also be emphasised that the position of the Left has itself been broader than the “identity politics” held up to ridicule by Abbott. Student poverty and the imposition of increasingly onerous fees have for decades been flashpoints of concern for the student movement.

Perhaps student culture and organisations should have been more inclusive. But the extreme outcome of voluntary student unionism which, in effect, shut down student organisations was never a legitimate answer.

Abbott attacks unions often in Battlelines raising that same “bogey” which has figured in conservative fear-mongering in Australia since time immemorial.  But workers need self-organisation to have the industrial strength to bargain effectively and maintain wages, conditions and rights. Weakened unions, combined with deregulated labour markets means exploitation and a poor deal for workers.

WorkChoices took away unfair dismissal provisions; took away the “no disadvantage test” in enterprise bargaining; removed the right of workers to withdraw their labour except under the strictest of circumstances; and outlawed “pattern bargaining”. Removal of the right to pattern bargaining in itself promised a race to the bottom in wages and conditions for Australian workers.

It says something of the real underlying sources of economic and political power in Australia that much of the WorkChoices agenda has been maintained by Rudd Labor- despite broad opposition among the public. The legitimate electoral power of ordinary Australians has not been able to stand against the economic power of an aggressive employer lobby.

The only hope ordinary Australians have of reversing the long-term trend is to organise independently. But the critical point, especially with a Federal election looming later this year, is that Abbott cannot be trusted on industrial relations.

Labor is torn between its union base, and the pressure applied by employers, but the Conservatives and neo-liberals still want to crush the union movement, and will not be nearly as inhibited. Should the Conservatives get their way, ultimately there would be no labour movement to resist their agenda into the future.

Conservative disdain for the rights of workers in Australia dovetails with a broader scepticism about social and distributive justice. Abbott makes the usual noises about “soaking the rich” only being able to be taken so far (p.80). And for Abbott spending cuts were justified in order to “allow lower taxes” and “give more incentive to people who could create wealth” (p.81).

But the truth is that under the Howard government - in which Abbott was a key Minister - the tax mix became increasingly regressive. There was the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Massive superannuation concessions were provided which mainly benefitted the wealthy, and there was regressive restructure of income tax; with the tax free threshold remaining fixed. These policies impacted against those on lower incomes.

Low taxes and small government do not necessarily mean a “bigger economic pie”. All workers create wealth regardless of incentives in the form of tax cuts. In reality, it is possible to gear the economy to something approximating full capacity without gross exploitation, a gutted public sector, or ever lower and more regressive taxes.

In the coming Federal election Labor could do worse than to challenge the Liberals on the issue of distributive justice, engaging with Henry Tax Review recommendations, and restructuring the tax mix in favour of most Australians - especially for the most vulnerable.

Abbott himself is incredulous that families on combined annual incomes of $150,000 are considered “rich”, and thus opposes means-testing benefits such as the Private Health Insurance rebate (p.94).

But most families are not receiving incomes in this vicinity. To provide for the educational, welfare, infrastructure and health-related needs of ordinary Australians - and especially the most vulnerable - restructuring and targeting the social expenditure mix could be vital. And for deep and meaningful progress, tax reform would need to target a broad enough cross-section to fund the necessary social expenditure programs.

In his “manifesto” Abbott concedes that Australia’s conservatives were wrong to oppose Medicare. As long as bulk billing is not “absolute” or “total”, there remain, as he says, “price signals in the system” (p.143). But government subsidies make most general health services affordable for all. Basically “collective consumption” via Medicare works better and is fairer than the free-for-all of US-style health care system.

In the same spirit, Abbott needs to be open minded about social wage expansion. Provision of “universal dental care through Medicare”, which Abbott identifies as having cost $4 billion if it was implemented in 2007, should receive bipartisan support (p.144).

While Abbott identifies such a program as being very expensive, a practical Opposition Leader would not obsess about small government (p.144). The Australian economy, after all, is valued at well over $1 trillion. Rather, they would realise that collective consumption provides better value for taxpayers and consumers, and provides access on the basis of genuine need for people who would otherwise be excluded.

Should Abbott genuinely prefer to adopt a “compassionate conservative” persona - as opposed to one of “ruthless neo-liberalism” - he could do worse than engage with these issues, and break the taboo against progressive tax and social expenditure reform.

Drawing to the conclusion of this critique, it must be conceded that there are many dimensions of the “Abbott manifesto” that I have not covered. But I will try and make some observations prior to closing.

In Battlelines Abbott continues to support positions which could be at best described as controversial for the Australian public.

He tries to justify Australian participation in the Second Gulf War despite questions surrounding its legality, and the false pretences (for example, “weapons of mass destruction”). And he does not acknowledge the terrible and enduring human cost.

He supports increasing the retirement age to 70 without recognising the difficulties this would mean for manual workers, or for older Australians to re-skill. This is also aside from the “human dimension” in this context. Even if taxes must rise to support an ageing population, after a lifetime at work older Australians should have the freedom to develop their human potential. Possibilities include study, civic activism, engagement in creative arts, and quality time with family.

He supports “punitive welfare”, especially “work for the dole”, appealing to “dark and judgmental” tendencies in the electorate. This is without addressing the failure of student payments and job search allowances to provide even for the bare necessities. And when students work part-time to support themselves the distraction could compromise their study.

He lauds the centrality of civil society as opposed to the state, yet he provides no account of the Howard government’s bullying of charities, threatening to revoke their tax-free status should they criticise government policy.

For those desperately ill who cannot afford potentially life-saving medication not included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), he refers to their pleas as “political blackmail” (p.5). What price a person’s life?

Truly practical politics would balance collectivist and individualist impulses and currents; and would balance and mediate between civil society and state.

By contrast, it is neo-liberal ideology which blinds the Conservatives - and to a lesser extent Labor - to the benefits of a democratic and mixed economy; a strong social wage and progressive tax system; and robust protections for the rights of workers.

But again, and in conclusion: should Tony Abbott fully embrace the “compassionate conservative” persona over that of “ruthless neo-liberalism”, this could precipitate a “political sea change” of benefit to workers, and also for those most vulnerable.

THAT would be a worthwhile legacy.

Battlelines by Tony Abbott, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2009.

and again: 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