What would you say if you were Bill Shorten? Respected blogger Ad astra has some ideas that Bill would be wise to heed.
Last week Jon Faine interviewed Bill Shorten on Melbourne 774 radio. I wonder what Labor voters felt about that encounter. My guess is that they would have been disappointed; a feeling expressed by many talkback callers and text messengers.
Faine gave Shorten close to half an hour to state what Labor stood for, and what plans he had. He asked Shorten repeatedly how he would pay for them.
Bill hesitated, stumbled, repeated himself, and obfuscated over the revenue issues. It was not a confident or impressive performance.
Defeating an incompetent and untrustworthy government with a spent leader takes more than sitting back and waiting for the Abbott government to implode. Labor and its leader need to be out there offering a positive vision, plausible plans and cogent strategies to pay for those plans. Malcolm Turnbull is doing this piecemeal in his inimitable style; why can’t Bill Shorten?
While not being vain enough to pretend to have all the answers, this piece attempts to put together some ideas about how Labor and Shorten might proceed. “If I were Bill Shorten…’
It’s easy from the coziness of a comfortable chair, free from the pressure of a live interview, to be a smart aleck about what one would say, so I kept this front-of-mind while writing.
Shorten could learn something from Abbott, who seems to be able to learn his lines, albeit simple ones of just a few words, and repeat them endlessly. I’m not suggesting he become the mindless automaton Abbott has become. I’m simply saying to him: formulate your lines carefully and learn them so well that you can spontaneously give them out, with suitable variations, in response to the right stimulus.
If I were Bill Shorten, I’d structure responses in a commonsense sequence, beginning with a vision, then plans, and then how to fund them.
In this piece, I’ve interspersed (in bold) the sort of comments and interjections that radio interviewers seem unable to suppress. It’s almost 2500 words, but at the usual rate of speaking, 100 words per minute, the words could be said comfortably in half an hour. In places I’ve extrapolated from existing Labor policy; you’ll be able to detect where. I’ve used bolding liberally to denote oral emphasis.
So far, you’ve succeeded in being a small target Mr Shorten, but sooner or later you’ve got to tell us what you stand for, what you intend to offer, and how you’ll pay for it. So here’s your chance.
Thanks. I’m ready, but before getting down to the nitty-gritty, I’d like to talk about the sort of country I want to live in. Then I’ll talk about to how I intend to achieve my vision. Bear with me.
Frankly, I want to live in a country that’s fair, just, equitable and harmonious, one that gives everyone the opportunity to get a good education and to have a decent, rewarding job. Unemployment is far too high at 6.3%, and sadly youth unemployment is much higher. Jobs for all are central to my vision.
I want a country that values all its citizens and cares for the environment in which we live.
I want my country to have a productive, prosperous economy that seizes its opportunities and shoulders its responsibilities in the global economy.
I want fairness in the workplace, where workers and employers enjoy harmonious relationships, which we know results in higher productivity. The call for more ‘flexibility’ from business is simply code for poorer work conditions. Fairness to all must be at the centre of any change in industrial relations.
I want a society where all, the well off and the less well off, pull their weight, pay their taxes, and support those who need help.
I want to live in a country where good healthcare is accessible to all, and where the disabled, the aged and the infirm are properly cared for.
I want a tolerant, just, cohesive society where there’s religious and cultural freedom and where ethnic diversity is valued and preserved.
I want our unique Indigenous and multinational culture to be preserved, and the arts treasured.
I want to live in a country where science is valued, where research and development is fostered, where innovation is encouraged.
That’s the sort of country I want to live in. That’s the country most Australians want to live in.
OK, so how are you going to make that sort of Australia?
Let me tell you my plans.
First, we must have a strong economy. So I’ll be talking it up, boosting confidence among businesspeople and consumers. There’s been too much talking the economy down, and that’s become a self-filling prophesy. We’ve got a great future; let’s tell everyone.
Business needs encouragement to employ people and take on apprentices, so we’ll make it easier by providing subsidies that support business, industry and apprenticeships. We’ll boost TAFE and training courses, not take them away.
We know that industry and business needs infrastructure to function: roads, rail, and ports. We’ll make it easy for private and public sources to invest in them. We’ll have Infrastructure Australia guide us throughout.
We’ll encourage developing industries, such as the renewables industry, which has a very bright future as we reduce our use of fossil fuels. They must be given strong support and encouragement.
As our reliance on mining activity diminishes, we’ll put our weight behind the move to service industries, such as in finance, in communications, in health and in education, where there’s enormous potential. Small business employs 7 million workers. It’s the powerhouse that must drive this move to service provision.
In the Asian Century there are countless opportunities for Australian business and agriculture to supply the needs of the expanding middle class in countries in our region; needs that include food, consumer goods, communications, and services. We’ll help them to grasp those opportunities through trade delegations and by removing trade restrictions.
We’ll help the transition from car manufacturing to other forms, and assist those making the transition – workers and businesses alike. We won’t chop them off at the knees! South Australia must be involved in building our next submarine fleet.
But you haven’t told us how you’ll pay for all these grand intentions!
I’ll come to that. But let’s talk first about what we want, what our nation needs.
On the health front, we’ll throw our support behind primary care so that anyone can see a doctor when they need to. The AMA strongly supports the GP workforce because it’s the backbone of our health system. It does not want a GP tax that puts barriers in the way. Labor will never vote for a GP tax.
Labor wants quality education from pre-school right through to university. It will support schemes to make child care affordable; it will throw its weight behind the vast network of public schools; it will not support high university fees that put students into heavy debt.
You still haven’t told us how you’ll pay…
I’ll come to that…
What about our older folk? We want all our citizens to have a decent retirement. So we won’t be fiddling with the aged pension; we won’t be making people work longer when they’re not able. We’ll be shielding aged pensions from government interference; we’ll index pensions to wages annually so that pensioners get a fair go. We’ll steadily increase employer contributions to superannuation so that workers have enough to comfortably live on in retirement.
What about climate change? We’ll reintroduce penalties for those who pollute our atmosphere; we’ll reduce carbon dioxide emissions with ‘action plans’ that actually work, as we did in the past. We’ll scrap the useless Direct Action Plan that hasn’t even started yet, and won’t work if it ever does. We’ll stop erosion of the renewable energy target, the so-called RET, and encourage investment in renewables. The industry is being strangled by the current uncertainty about the RET. We’ll restore confidence.
So you’ll re-introduce a carbon tax?
We believe the climate scientists when they warn us that global warming is dangerous and threatening our way of life. We must protect our planet for the next generation. To not do so would be culpable ‘intergenerational theft’. We’ll do everything we can to reduce pollution, even in the face of yet another scare campaign.
Research and development will attract our vigorous support, so that Australia can stay at the forefront in health, in education, and in business and industry. It’s vital; without R&D we’ll fall behind our neighbours and the rest of the world.
Above all, we want to give our young people hope for the future. Their aspiration is for a satisfying and rewarding job. We’ll back them all the way.
Will you now PLEASE tell us how you intend to pay for all of these high-sounding ambitions!
Let’s start at the beginning! Australia has a revenue problem, not just a spending problem, as our opponents insist.
The government has foolishly forfeited a lot of revenue when they abolished the carbon and the mining taxes, so we must look elsewhere.
To begin with, we won’t avoid talking about taxes and levies – governments shouldn’t be scared to give our unfair tax system a big shake.
First, all should pay their fair share of taxes. We propose to stop multinational corporations evading tax through shifting profits overseas. The G20 forum has the same aim. We’ll clamp down on them, but we can’t expect strong tax compliance if the staff who collect tax are reduced, which is what this government has done. We’ll strengthen, not weaken the tax office, and relentlessly pursue tax evaders.
There’ve been many calls for the removal of superannuation and capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing, all of which favour the wealthy. We know the revenue lost through these perks is massive; for example, if super concessions were able to be removed, that alone might pay for our aged pension. We’ll review all of these. But it’s not as simple as some make out.
Superannuation rules have been in place for years and many have planned their retirement under these rules. We can’t rip them up overnight. So we’ll change them gradually, and give plenty of time for those depending on super in retirement to adjust.
Take negative gearing. There’s a connection between it and the housing industry. Because many have based their investments in housing on the current rules, we can’t make sudden changes. That wouldn’t be fair. But we’re determined to gradually reduce the generous concessions that now operate. We’ll move slowly and give time to adapt, so as to not damage investment and the housing industry.
The same applies to capital gains concessions. We’ll phase out these concessions slowly and give plenty of time for adjustment.
The key to all these changes, which must be made on the grounds of equity, is to make them slowly with adequate notice so that all can adjust gradually.
The eventual savings to the budget could be almost $80 billion, which is enough to fund pensions and much of the cost of healthcare and education.
Will you include the family home in any asset test for the pension?
We have no plan to do that. The family home is sacrosanct. But it does seem unfair that some people have a two million dollar home and as much in super, and can still get a part pension. We need to work out how to avoid that situation and bring some reasonableness back into the aged pension system.
Can we talk about GST? Everyone seems scared to talk about it. If one side dares to mention it, the other side pounces and starts a massive scare campaign. That’s immature and it’s detrimental to our economy! We must face up to what we should expect of the GST!
Some say the amount of the GST should be increased, perhaps up to 15%. Some say the scope of the GST should be extended to include food, healthcare and school costs.
The problem is that if the GST is increased on an article we all use, it costs the poorest and wealthiest exactly the same. For example, if the GST on fuel rises, the poor and wealthy pay just the same for every litre of fuel. We all need fuel. We all drive cars! So when the GST is reviewed to see how it might generate more revenue, we must make sure that we don’t make life harder for the less well off. It’s not beyond the wit of man to work out how to avoid this. We must ensure that the cost of the essentials for living don’t soar beyond the reach of the poorest among us.
Labor won’t back away from tackling these hard issues. A complete review of the tax system is needed. It won’t be easy, but we’ll do it, and we’ll make sure we end up with a fairer and more equitable system.
When it comes to funding health, which will cost more as our population ages, we’ll gradually increase the Medicare levy until it covers the costs of health and disability care. We’ll raise it slowly, year by year, so that everyone has time to get used to it.
We’re not keen on increasing income and company taxes; no one is! We wouldn’t want to increase the burden on families or inhibit investment and innovation. But we need to acknowledge that it’s been the tax cuts handed out when the nation had rivers of revenue flowing in that have got us into the situation we now face, a problem we must now fix. We ought not to put tax increases into the ‘too hard basket’. If we want the services we enjoy to continue, there may be no better alternative.
You haven’t once mentioned cutting expenditure! So will Labor go on another spending spree?
We realize that on the other side of the ledger is spending. Of course we won’t be going on a spending spree; we’ll be cutting expenditure wherever we can without reducing services. We did that in government, and made billions of dollars of savings. We’ll do it again.
Everyone knows that in the long term the budget must be brought back to surplus, but rushing at it is bound to result in unintended consequences, as we have seen so starkly with last year’s budget, where the least well off were unfairly targeted. We’ll move carefully to iron out the budget issues, and we certainly won’t ask the lowest income earners to do the heavy lifting.
You’ll have your work cut out selling that package!
Well, we’re up to it. We believe strongly that if the people want the government to provide them with infrastructure such as roads and public transport; if the people expect services such as quality healthcare and education, if they want to have a decent retirement, they’ll be willing to pay for these benefits one way or another. But governments must explain carefully what they’re offering, what it will cost, and how we can all fairly share the burden of paying for it. Governments must ensure the people really do understand. Vague, confused, weasel words are useless.
All we’re asking is for the people to give us the prospect of giving them what they want and what they need. We know what to do, and how to do it. All we want is the opportunity to get on with it.
Readers, what do you think? What would you say if you were Bill Shorten?
Ad astra is a retired medical academic, concerned that the alternative PM makes such a poor fist of outlining what Labor is offering. More about Ad astra here.
This article was first published on TPS Extra.
