Refuting Rita Panahi on Melbourne's Homeless ; Opposing Small Government; Rejecting the Character Assassination of Duncan Storrar

above:  An Iranian refugee, Herald-Sun columnist Rita Panahi has little tolerance for Conservative Islam when it comes to the role of women ; But since being a Labor Party activist in the 1990s Panahi has now 'swung Right' , and seems to have little patience for the liberal rights of Melbourne's Homeless.

 

What Follows are a number of Letters – written by Tristan Ewins to the ‘Herald-Sun’ and ‘The Age’ around May 2016 ; This time the topic matter includes ‘The Cost of Small Government’, ‘the Character Assassination of Duncan Storrar’, and ‘attacks on the liberal rights of the Homeless made in the Herald-Sun by columnist, Rita Panahi’….  At the time of my posting these none of these letters had been published.   Sometimes I succeed, though, so I am trying to persevere. :-)

 

 

The following was a response to Herald-Sun columnist, Rita Panahi – who attacks some of Melbourne’s homeless for daring to make a political protest against their plight

 

Rita Panahi and Intolerance for the Homeless: What of liberal rights?

Rita Panahi’s attack on the Homeless (HS 18/5) is distressing.  She argues that the protest in the City Square has become “political” because protestors are standing in solidarity with others for a more permanent solution to homelessness rather than just accepting the short-term solutions offered to them personally.  Here, Panahi’s comparison with the “Occupy” movement also displays an intolerance for political activism and protest.  Too often amongst more-conservative commentators there is an almost-systemic promotion of intolerance with regard rights of protest and civil disobedience underscoring our liberal society. Panahi admits that amongst these people there are “physical and mental health issues”, but she does not consider in depth the nature of those afflictions, and how they affect peoples’ capacity to provide for themselves long-term.. Also there is the question of housing affordability, including rental-affordability for those in poverty– the consequence of the housing bubble.  Panahi observes the social programs offered by the Salvation Army, inferring the solution is for individuals to give generously to charity. But while charities do valuable work, nonetheless homelessness and other social problems require resources that only government can bring to the table. It is entirely legitimate to demonstrate in favour of that kind of solution.

 

 

The following two letters cover very similar terrain to each other.  Their non-publication (so-far) is suggestive that the Herald-Sun may not accommodate debate on the issue of ‘small government’ – as if ‘both sides’ should take it  as a ‘given’.  The comparison with the Nordics illustrates just HOW small ‘small government’ is in this country ; and the social and economic consequences…. The example of Nordic Health Care versus US Health Care speaks volumes: Hence I tried twice to get that information published in the Herald-Sun…  'The Age' had published that information in a different context earlier in 2016.

 

The cost of ‘Small Government’: Letter One’

Malcolm Turnbull warns Australians to watch out for “Labor’s big spend”. Yet tax, in Australia is approximately  25% of GDP compared with approximately 50 per cent in the Nordic countries.  The Nordics understand that you must INVEST resources to reap the rewards.  Neglect of services and infrastructure saves money short term – but harm the economy long term. Transport and communications infrastructure add to productivity, and there is the prospect of new industries arising from Labor’s world-class National Broadband Network. ‘Human Capital’ means more high-wage, high-skill jobs – but requires an investment in Education. An interventionist Industry Policy can get unemployment sustainably down well below 5% boosting tax revenue and growth - but also requires resources. -(The Swedes demonstrated a sustainable rate of unemployment around as low as 2% was possible for several decades during the 20^th Century)  Social consumption (via tax) can also provide better value and free-up wealth for private consumption elsewhere.  Nordic universal health care costs around 9% of their GDP, whereas the US system of (mainly-private) health insurance costs 18% of their GDP for only 40% coverage.  (from ‘Governomics’ by Lyons and McAuley) Finally we are a society, not merely an economy ‘in abstract’.  Health, Education, Aged Care, ABC and SBS, Roads, Rail, NBN – are ‘social goods’ which improve our security and quality of life.  These things are worth investing in if they make us happier and healthier.   If anything Labor’s policies are exceedingly-modest ; but still far-preferable to Conservative austerity.

The cost of ‘Small Government’: Letter Two’

The Herald-Sun (21/5/16) observes that “record high” taxation will soon be necessary without big spending cuts.  But Australian taxes are already extremely low (24.2% of GDP) compared with Denmark and Sweden. (at around 50%)  We would need to raise tax by approximately $400 billion to match!  Also, the economies of European and Nordic countries don’t seem at all worse off – despite Conservative warnings only ‘small government’ delivers prosperity. Higher taxes can mean better industry policies and better education opportunities – with the growth and prosperity which follows. Without so-called ‘bigger government’ we have regressive charges for higher education, the neglect of state schooling, and the destruction of public health (Medicare). Also, private consumption can offer bad value for money compared with ‘collective consumption’ via tax. The Nordics spend around 9% of their GDP on universal public health care, compared with the US whose private system soaks up 18% of their GDP for only 40% coverage.   So low-taxes are a ‘false economy’ leaving  Australians worse-off. And Labor’s proposed reforms (eg: $7 billion saved from Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax) are very modest when put in the global context.  (editor pls note: The stats on health care come from “Governomics” by Lyons and McAuley)

The following was in response to attempts to demonise Duncan Storrar in the Murdoch Press:  A low income worker with a family – Storrar pointed out on QandA how Scott Morrison’s election Budget provided very little for those on low incomes: 

Character Assassination to Stigmatise the Working Poor

Much of the mass media sees fit to dig up the past of Duncan Storrar apparently with the aim of discrediting arguments that have arisen around him about distributive justice in this country. But Duncan’s history in no way detracts from the needs of his family, or the needs of others on low incomes.  That includes millions of working people: in aged care, child care, hospitality, cleaning, retail, cab driving and more.  Some on around $40,000/year ; some on much less.  These are the people who suffer most from the GST – which is a flat (regressive) tax on consumption. They are the people who have suffered most from the user pays which followed privatizations.  They are the people who would suffer most from cuts in penalty rates. Indeed: in some ways the exploitation of the working poor props up the material living standards of others: and that is not fair.  Fairness demands a restructuring of the tax mix.. It requires a stronger welfare state,  social wage, and stronger labour market regulation.  The average wage in Australia is around $60,000/year: and even that is distorted by the weight of those on very high incomes.  Why is it that calls for fairness for workers and pensioners are branded ‘class warfare’ but measures which hurt the poor and vulnerable do not attract the same label?

The following was written in response to an ideological attack on the Left  published in the Letters section of the Herald-Sun around April-May

Response on ‘The Left’ re: Herald Sun

Anthony Gilchrist attacks ‘The Left’ on a number of fronts, and in a way which warrants a response.  Firstly, it is true that there is a double standard from many when it comes to the treatment of Christianity and Islam. As a Left-Wing Christian this disturbs me greatly. On the other hand our accepting and pluralistic culture has if anything provided a shield against Terrorism - ameliorating the alienation that can lead to Terrorist acts. Meanwhile with regard Indigenous Australia, closing the gap on Education and Life Expectancy remain legitimate objectives ; and a Treaty might provide the kind of reconciliation that enables us to ‘move forward together’ as a nation.  Gilchrist condemns multiculturalism ; but while there are crime problems in some migrant communities is it the ‘Christian’ thing to do to turn refugees away?  (Many of whom are Christians themselves, fleeing war and persecution)  Meanwhile, of course we should never forget or disrespect the sacrifice of the ANZACs.  But neither should we be uncritical with regard this nation’s participation in wars.  60,000 Australians died in World War One – many others horribly maimed and mentally scarred.  Only resistance from within the labour movement prevented the death of many thousands more.  That war was an Imperialist bloodbath more so than ‘a fight for freedom and democracy’.  Some people on the Left have drifted away from engagement, preferring to silence their ideological enemies. But calling the Left ‘un-Australian’ is just a way in itself of silencing critical opinions.

 

QandA's Virtues and Vices - and the self-censoring of the Left

 

 

Above:  Tony Jones  is the most talented candidate for hosting QandA ; But he has appeared obviously uncomfortable in the wake of Conservative pressures to exclude Left-wing and other critical opinions

 

Despite the continual carping on by the Conservatives in this country – to the effect that the ABC harbours ‘an ‘obvious’ left-wing bias’ – I have come to fear that rather the opposite is becoming true.  Programs like ‘The Drum’ seem increasingly slanted towards having Conservative or right-libertarian viewpoints at the core of their programs.  Pluralism is certainly no bad thing. But the impression I get is that radical-Left viewpoints are often excluded.  (though I am relieved when I see figures like Australia Institute spokesperson Richard Denniss included on the ABC) 

The most recent example of the QandA broadcast from the “Festival of Dangerous Ideas” was perhaps an exception to the trend of silencing radical perspectives – and one that had host Tony Jones appearing very nervous and uncomfortable. Naomi Klein’s confident and powerful presentation of genuinely radical viewpoints – including opposition to the detention of refugees, and her arguments for Western responsibility in the face of the Syrian refugee crisis – certainly would not have pleased Abbott.  Nor would have her fluent, articulate and effective critique of capitalism.  Jones’ absence from recent QandA programs perhaps hammers home the point that ‘the show might go on without him’.  Though he is arguably still be most talented and competent candidate for the job.

‘QandA’ especially has been ‘under siege’ for years now; with the assault picking up substantially over recent months.  QandA has a long history of supporting pluralism in the sense of including left-of-centre viewpoints neglected in much of the monopoly mass media.  This is what Abbott cannot stand.  We have a Government which doesn’t really believe in democracy and pluralism at all.  It wants to shut-down and silence opposition where-ever possible.  Not just the media, but for instance charities who dare to engage in political criticism as well.   And of course the age-old aim of ‘smashing’ the trade union movement and leaving all working people vulnerable to the whims and agendas of employers.  A country without an effective labour movement probably would not have identified the threat of ‘WorkChoices’ until it was too late.  WorkChoices is not 'buried and cremated'.  It has been locked away to be redeployed some day when peoples' memories have faded; and the labour movement has become too organisationally weak to mobilise public opinion effectively.

At the same time decidedly Left-wing participants have sometimes appeared quite uncomfortable.  (well, that is my strong impression)  And I would suggest that this is because such participants have been under pressure ‘not to come across as being overtly radical’ lest they ‘play into Abbott’s hands’.   For example I remember noticing how with Billy Bragg’s appearance there was very little in the way of discussing socialist politics.  I hold Billy Bragg in the highest regard and cannot understand why else he may have come to sidestep the question with his appearance at QandA.  Yet if we hold our tongues for fear of a Conservative fear-campaign we largely concede the field to our enemies.” 
Yes QandA should be ‘balanced’.  In the sense that it should include Left, Centre-Left, Centrist, Conservative, liberal, and even libertarian viewpoints.  Even if the ideal of a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ (Habermas) is impossible to realise perfectly – that’s not to say we shouldn’t quest after that ideal.  But once we understand that Abbott’s agenda is not about ‘balance’ – but rather about SILENCING opposition – we should appreciate how futile it is to adopt a policy of appeasing him.

Furthermore on this theme: The ‘Zaky Mallah’ incident was blown grossly out of proportion.  It was run with as a weapon with which to bludgeon the program into compliance.  While his (Mallah’s) sympathies may not be ours, nonetheless the observation that anti-Islamic rhetoric was contributing to ‘radicalisation’ was not far off the mark.  The fear campaign  - a ‘moral panic’ that was whipped up in the aftermath of his comments - was ridiculous. 

We have a government who are basically pursuing the aim of transforming the ABC into a State propaganda mouthpiece.  No longer about facilitating a diverse and participatory public sphere, the government wants an ABC which proclaims the position of ‘Team Australia’ – so-called. 

Here dissidents are considered traitors – and considered guilty of some ‘treason’.  Pluralism is to be ‘stamped out’.  In reality the dissidents who defend rights and liberties against the reactionary push to stigmatise and delegitimise them  could be seen as the real ‘patriots’.  We see it in the mass media all the time now: consistently unfavourable coverage of protests, strikes etc.  And I don’t mean that the dissidents are ‘patriots in some jingoistic sense.’   But in the sense of defending that which perhaps is most worth celebrating and defending in this country.

Finally, the recent Tweet on QandA that subjected Abbott to vile innuendo did nothing for the cause of defending free and inclusive speech, as well as genuine pluralism – through the platform of the ABC.  We cannot ‘vacate  the field’ when it comes to values, legitimate interests and policy.   But we must not allow blatant ‘provocations’ that will probably just ‘blow up in our collective faces’.

Perhaps the Left would be stronger, here, were we less ambiguous when it comes to free speech.  The Conservatives talk about liberty when it comes to Andrew Bolt’s speech.   But they want to delegitimise industrial liberties as well as free assembly and civil disobedience -  with an eye to crushing the social forces they oppose themselves to.   Yet when George Brandis talks about ‘peoples’ right to be bigots’ – as anti-intuitive as this may be ; and as dangerous it is to ‘let that Genie out of the bottle’ – there are real questions about the boundaries of free speech.  The tighter we limit free speech the more likely it is that our enemies will apply those standards to us as well one day.  The Americans turned free speech into an absolute by making it a foundational element in their very Constitution ; and the associated ‘foundational myths’.  This can create a free-for all for bigots on the one hand.  But it can provide a shield for civil liberties and expression as well. 

Perhaps we need to be more reserved when it comes to limiting speech.  True hate speech and morally vile examples such as Holocaust denial – which one day could result in history repeating itself – are exceptions.  Let Andrew Bolt have his rights.  But remind him that we do not all have the platforms that he enjoys.  Remind him that genuine pluralism demands a more diverse array of viewpoints in the mass media.  Including the Murdoch Press.  Remind him that progressive viewpoints are systematically excluded in so much of the monopoly mass media – and especially the Murdoch Press which dominates the highly-influential tabloid market.  

For freedom of speech to be more meaningful it needs to be accompanied by OPPORTUNITY for speech.  That must mean a participatory public sphere.  But also it should mean reform of our educational curriculum with the aim of developing peoples critical faculties – including political literacy.  That is:  Not some one-sided indoctrination process; but rather encouraging people to be active and informed citizens ; empowered to make informed choices in keeping with the interests – but also their values.

Let’s defend a pluralist and critical agenda for QandA – serving as a platform for an inclusive participatory democracy.  But let’s not get in the habit of self-censoring ourselves in instances when there are important opinions of substance which deserve to be tested in the public sphere.

Right-Populist monopoly media attempts to ‘deprive carbon debate of oxygen'

above: Cate Blanchett in the recent advertisement backing action on climate change

In this article Tristan Ewins reflects upon the Australian carbon tax debate as transpired recently on the ABC television program 'QandA'.  (Questions and Answers)  He considers issues such as compensation, welfare reform, and 'trivialisation' in Australian politics. The treatment of Cate Blanchett for participating in a related commercial is a case in point.

nb: 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, 2nd June 2011

In a recent episode of  ‘QandA” (Questions and Answers) the debate over the Australian Labor government’s proposed carbon tax continued in the same manner as it has for quite some time now.  In particular, the representative on QANDA for the conservative parties,  Liberal Senator George Brandis, repeated the usual line citing cost-of-living pressures and job destruction as the essential reasons the tax ought be rejected. While Labor MP Kate Lundy repeated again and again that low and middle income groups would be fully compensated (the point of the tax being not to raise revenue - but to create ‘market signals’ and so change patterns of consumption and investment)   Brandis calculatedly avoided engaging in his response – as to give any recognition here would ‘give the debate oxygen’ and reveal the ‘convenient fictions’ propagated by the conservative parties in attempting to build up pressure for an early election.

Brandis ignored the issue of what would have happened to the Australian economy without Labor’s stimulus; and the extent to which the most recent budget deficit was exacerbated by natural disasters beyond the control of any political party.  He also continued with the same ‘line’ that ‘Labor is addicted to debt’, ‘cannot handle money’ etc: not because it is true, but rather because Liberal focus groups must be reporting that these kind of truisms ‘resonate’ with the public. But if this is so it is only because these kind of ideas have been reinforced again and again over decades by the right-populist monopoly media.  The same focus groups must be telling Abbott that opportunist ‘lowest common denominator’ politics – especially in the case of vilification of refugees - are eroding Labor’s support base; ‘backing Labor into a corner’.  The human suffering of refugees is little consequence for many on the Right: ‘Anything goes’ for Abbott, and for ‘fear campaign shock troops’ like Scott Morrison in pursuit of personal ambition.

Debate on the proposed carbon tax had intensified as a consequence of a recent advertisement in favour of action on climate change – sponsored by progressive lobby association ‘GetUp!’, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU).  Australian actress Cate Blanchett in particular had ‘come under fire’ from conservative forces, including most of the right-populist monopoly media, for taking a stand on this issue.  Opposition leader Tony Abbott, George Brandis and others had accused her of being ‘out of touch’ with struggling Australian families trying to make ends meet as a consequence of her personal wealth.  And yet the conservatives and their media allies want to attack truly vulnerable pensioners, while pleading for upper-middle class welfare for those on $80,000/year and more…

 If anything the focus on Cate Blanchett as a personality detracted from the real debate over climate change.  This was no accident – but was a tactic of distraction intended to avoid engaging on the issues; to prevent the message of this campaign from ‘getting through.’  This ‘trivialisation’ of politics in Australia is a regular phenomena – and perhaps a deliberate one – having the effect of weakening our democracy.  Australian social commentator, Guy Rundle – also a participant in the ‘QandA’ episode - observed tellingly that the conservative response was ‘a beat-up’.

 Perhaps the greatest deception of all by the conservatives, here, is the underlying assumption that a carbon tax would see cost-of-living pressures passed on to the public: while an Emissions Trading Scheme or Abbott’s so-called ‘direct action’ would not. This is crucial as an ETS has in the past been supported by past Liberal Party leaders John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull. 

 In reality a market-driven ETS would see the price paid for carbon credits being passed on to the public in about the same dimensions as with a carbon tax. And Malcolm Turnbull has estimated the cost of Abbott’s ‘direct action’ approach could approach the vicinity of $18 billion a year were the government “buying offsets or otherwise directly paying for abatement”, and aiming for an 80 per cent reduction of emissions by 2050, as urged by scientists.  A much more modest target of a 5% overall cut in emissions by 2020 would cost $2.1 billion/year in today’s terms.

 These costs would of course be passed on to Australian families also – via the tax system. Only it would be ‘hidden’ in a wide range of other different taxes – rather than an overt and obvious carbon tax.

It should be noted, of course, that Ross Garnaut also argued in ‘The Age’ on 1^st June that a carbon tax at $26/tonne would rase $11.5 billion in the first year. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of this money would be returned to low and middle income families. Again – the point is not to raise revenue, but to change consumer and investor behaviour.  While the ultimate rate is probably more likely to be $20/tonne, once compensation is provided low and middle income groups will actually be better off.  Although over the longer term any kind of structural adjustment to deal with climate change will come at a cost (even if only as a ‘once off’) as it will necessitate investment in new technologies and infrastructure.  (including under Abbott’s ‘direct action’)

The point is that any kind of action on climate change will cost elements of the public directly or indirectly. By raising the spectre of ‘cost of living pressures’ while supporting ‘direct action’ Abbott is obfuscating this essential truth, and deceiving voters.

That said, there are some kinds of ‘direct action’ that make sense; and others that don’t.  At QandA Guy Rundle pointed out that Abbott’s program was one of ‘socialising’ the costs and losses of business – to be paid for by the public – while ‘privatising the profits’.  An example is Abbott’s preference to pay businesses directly for changed practices on climate change. This kind of ‘corporate welfare’ has become standard fare in recent decades.  And it also begs the question: where has the rationale for privatisation gone – supported by both Labor and the Liberals - where there is effectively no ‘risk'? (ie: when things go wrong ‘government picks up the pieces’)  The same could be said of Public Private Partnerships – also supported by ‘both sides’ of politics.

 But the right kind of direct investment in renewable energy could make a very significant difference, combined with other incentives. In particular new public initiatives in the power industry could be combined with a German-style program mandating compulsory purchase of energy from renewable sources fed into the national energy grid. In 2009 Germany enjoyed a share of over 16% of the power supply provided from renewable sources. 

 But in Australia the figure is only slightly over 5 per cent. 

Writing for Green Left Weekly, David Nichols also explained in 2008 how the costs of power privatisation in Australia have been passed on to the public.  He explains that “private capital has to earn a higher rate of return than public investment” and this means large enterprises with significant purchasing power can bargain for a better deal then, say, pensioners and others on low incomes.   He explains also how according to privatisation consultant KPMG, “the rate of return on publicly owned electricity generation capacity [was] 7.1% in Queensland and 10.6% in NSW, while corporate investors wouldn´t touch electricity generation until the rate was 15%.”  Finally Nichols contended  “private debt is more costly than public debt.”  The consequence of this is that public ownership could deliver a 30 per cent cut in costs as flowing from lower finance costs alone.”

As Guy Rundle effectively contested at QandA – privatisation is the ‘elephant in the room’ that the conservatives will not acknowledge when it comes to cost of living pressures.  But for that matter – neither will Labor – which had long since assimilated the privatisation ideology and effectively abandoned the mixed economy.

Perhaps now there is a need for introspective reflection within Labor on a cross factional basis – to reconsider the mixed economy, and concede  past mistakes. And even within the Liberal Party there could well be recognition that the mixed economy was undisputed under Menzies.

The final issue we will consider here will be the nature of carbon tax compensation. 

In ‘The Age’ on 1^st June 2011 Ross Garnaut was quoted as arguing for 55% of carbon tax revenue to be passed on to tax-payers, rising to 64 per cent by 2021-22, with industry receiving 35 per cent, moving down to 20 per cent by 2021. (presumbly as industry adapted and modernised)  But ‘The Age’ also reported him as arguing that there should be “less compensation for pensioners and welfare recipients…because of [the] 2009 rise in benefits.” Effectively this would mean ‘no overcompensation for pensioners’.

 There are  a few issues here.

 Firstly overcompensation is essential for Labor in ‘selling’ the carbon tax.  This is as much the case for pensioners as for anyone else.  Pensioners vote!

 It is also key for social justice imperatives. Pretty much all pensioners struggle, and many disability pensioners and carers in particular don’t have many options in improving their financial circumstances.

Writing in February 2011, Peter Martin noted that :

“Working households faced extra costs of 4.5 per cent in the year to December, age pensioners 3.1 per cent and welfare recipients 4.5 per cent. The CPI grew 2.7 per cent.”

He also noted how the Bureau of Statistics had argued:

“Age pensioners spend a relatively high proportion of their income on utility bills and fruit and vegetables, both of which shot up in price in the year to December.But while aged pensioners had their payments adapting to  “either the CPI [or] the pensioner living-cost index or male total average earnings (whichever is most favourable),  Newstart Allowance is only adjusted to only “what is…the lowest of these.” 

This means that even in the face of onerous active labour market policies and ‘work for the dole’ programs, Newstart has been eroding greatly relative to other pensions for a long time. 

Carbon tax overcompensation is a great opportunity to finally provide for the basic cost-of-living pressures faced by all pensioners, and especially by Newstart recipients.  Most Newstart recipients ought receive overcompensation of $50/week. And those working two days a week under the government’s new ‘work for the dole’ provisions could receive overcompensation of at least $100/week.  (for progressives this would be ‘making the most of a bad situation’)

Other full-pensioners (disability, carers, aged pensioners), whose financial situation is not necessarily so dire as that of the unemployed, could receive overcompensation starting at $25/week. Single Parents also deserve a significant extension of benefits.

And all such increases should be fully indexed on top of existing formulae.

Although improvement for Disability and Carers pensions – and associated services- could also be achieved via a National Disability Insurance Scheme; which would have Labor seen as ‘moving onto the policy front foot’. Perhaps providing such reform for Disability Pensioners and Carers separately would enable proportionately greater carbon tax-related compensation for other low to middle income groups, making the carbon tax ‘easier to sell’. But on social justice grounds Gillard Labor would still have to provide for Disability pensioners and Carers separately via a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) well before the end of the current term. Labor needs a positive message to re-engage with voters, and a NDIS could be crucial here.

The Greens and Independents especially need to make the most of their leverage over Labor to promote this reasonable and achieveable social justice agenda.

Here’s hoping that conservative forces fail in their strategy of attempting to ‘deprive the climate and carbon tax debate of oxygen’; manipulating voters through distraction and focus on trivalities. The issues are just too important to be engaging in these kind of cynical games.