While I understand that this opinion piece is aimed as a bit of a wish list and whine, I can't help but note a couple of things:

1) The opinions expressed here are of a time and place that doesn't exist anymore. For example, changing the tax system as suggested here will have a single effect" those who will be hit with higher and higher tax burdens will leave to other countries, especially if they view their higher tax burden as subsidising others, and the revenue will go to another economy. This is the reality of a globalised world. It's what I would do, and what I will do should this policy become a reality.

The downstream effect of the tax policy expressed in the article simply won't happen, so the policy is flawed. The further downstream effect is diminishing any ability to attract and retain "the cream of the crop", so unless the unstated desire behind this policy is even greater levels of mediocrity, this policy is a very bad idea.

2) Policies based on "need" make the words of Ayn Rand ring in my ears. Whether you agree with her views and philosophies is irrelevent - "need", if it compromises property rights (as typically happens under socialist regimes) will lead to a single outcome in the modern world: removal (to other countries etc) of the property, be it intellectual, physical or otherwise. The only way to combat that is to restrict the removal, and that opens a can of worms which is too unpleasant to consider.

3) Anyone who realistically views any country as classless is kidding themselves. This requires that people are essentially equal in capability, intellect and all other arenas. Obviously, this is untrue and as a result, people will never be equal. Egalitarianism, while nice in concept, is unrealistic in any sort of free world.

The reality is that the world has changed. These socialist views, while perhaps more applicable in bygone eras, won't work today unless the whole world goes for it. And there are plenty of us who won't wear it.

why is it that self-styled 'lefties' have never caught on that all the lower class needs is an effective and accessible power of citizen initiated referendum?

actually they did catch on. until 1968, the labor party had something along those lines in their policy. then they removed cir, presumably because party careerists realized that an electorate with cir didn't need to feed party hacks.

the labor party learned from the catholic clergy: no salvation save through submission.

BN, you say higher taxes would lead to skilled labour leaving the country...In Britain taxes were raised under Blair to pay for anti-poverty programs. In Sweden, Denmark, Finland...substantial welfare states exist-provided by very progressive taxation systems. No 'outflow' of skilled labour there or in Britain. Canada also has much higher taxes than Australia: again - no 'outflow' of skilled labour. Reform of tax and welfare has occurred in these countries without having to be global and simultaneous.

I think there are many reasons people choose to live in Australia - and low taxes is not the only reason.For most it is not a reason at all. There's the quality of infrastructure and services, the liberal settlement that provides freedoms and stability, the sense that this is 'home' - and that one does not pack up and leave just to escape tax.

Also, the tax reform I suggest - 1%-2% of GDP in an economy of almost $1 trillion - is very modest. I propose gradual reform, and any program of tax reform can be fine-tuned depending on peoples' response.

re: 'need' and 'property rights'. I don't believe in the Marxist vision of socialism whereby all productive forces are centralised by the state. I think there is a role for a competitive&democratic private sector. But I want to promote co-operative enterprise and works councils in the private sector, and popular ownership through wage earner funds. In this vision all contradictions are not removed - the working class effectively exploits itself. But socialism today is about responding to an evolving capitalist system, and peoples changed needs.

I think access to education, aged care, welfare, health, communications, power&water, transport infrastructure - are all 'needs'-and providing for them need not entail elimination of property rights. (again, see Sweden&Denmark)

The need for liberty is also important, but liberty is compromised when the state supports the centralisation of economic&cultural power in the hands of a minority. But concerning liberty: a true liberal would support the right to withdraw labour and collectively bargain based on individual choice.

I've wondered about this for years, about how any self respecting leftie would support the ALP, except as the lesser of two evils.
In the '80's Hawke/Keating adopted the Howard/Libs agenda for the economy and attempted to include the working class 'in' as owners of capital via Super and share ownership through encouraging ownership of privatised government activities. Union leaders were emasculated by appointment to boards, and some were given their own funds to manage.
Rudd today is about as 'left' as Howard was 11 years ago. No room here for an unreconstructed Socialist, and hardly a voice raised in protest.
I would have thought the (thankfully failed) private equity scam re Qantas would have had old style lefties on the streets protesting. Such blatant capitalism deserved the loudest condemnation from Labor, but I heard none.
It was, as far as I am aware, Nifty Nev who first discovered the hollow logs that were the working capital of govt. utilities and stole those monies to buy re-election. The repercussions of his stupidity are still being felt today. All govts. champion user pays and pays again; and modern management, govt style, provides services that factor in bottlenecks and peakhours, not just on the roads but in health and education too. Labor are just as guilty as the Libs., if not more so.
So I sympathise with Tristan and his socialist mates, betrayed by the ALP, by the Dems. and left with the mad Greens to represent their interests. A vote for the Libs. is just that, a vote for the Libs. A vote for Labor is a vote for the other Libs.

Well, I definetly think that if you want some sort of Marxist/Socialist renewal of the Labor Party then you should look to have your agenda pursued outside of the Labor Party - Just like the PDS did in Germany. Then you won't have to use your time criticising the ALP and its policies constantly and can instead use it to try and get your new party to realise your agenda - Which in my view would be a more productive use of your time. The fact is the ALP is not a Marxist/socialist party, and that is completely fine for moderates like me (who have lived in Marxist countries and know that they don't work, unlike many Marxists/socialists in Australia who read a few books by Marx and think it would all work out perfectly) and who believe that the policy debate has moved beyond free market vs planned economies and other such false contests. In my view, I see the future of the Labor Party as a moderate, centrist party - Based on modern social democracy such as that promoted by Demos, Policy Network (both in the UK), Progressive Policy Institute (in the US) and other such think tanks.

Tristian,

Sweden was probably not a good example to give (see this http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=7880173)particularly as:

"history shows Sweden's economy to have flourished when it has been more liberal and low-tax—and to have gone off the rails when higher taxes and more regulation have been imposed"

Sweden has problems with job numbers and encouraging people back to work if they lose their jobs. And the state of play for small and start up business is atrocious, and so you do indeed get the disncentives that I mentioned before.

Equally, the rent caps in Montreal and other parts of Canada have very negative impacts on rental accomodation redevelopment and improvements.

I can go on, but the point is that the socialist model has worked against the public good in these countries, and others. Again, nice in concept, but terrible when implemented.

You say "liberty is compromised when the state supports the centralisation of economic & cultural power in the hands of a minority", but the reverse is also true - power too broadly held is a disencentive as the returns for initiative and working hard are diminished. I'll grant that a balance is needed, but we should be geared towards initiative, rather than not. As the old saying goes:

If you're not moving forward, you're going backwards.