'Tax cuts, for instance, are routinely embraced with abandon by both major parties regardless of any platform, and regardless of the consequences of austerity that follow.

To expand the overall tax base by approximately 1 per cent of GDP - or somewhere over $10 billion - following the next ALP National Conference could be seen as a modest and necessary measure in implementing vital and landmark health and welfare reform. This, we must remember, is in the broader context of an economy of well over $1 trillion. While this would move beyond Labor’s mandate, the demands of health and welfare reform are crucial and immediate.'

Typical Labor to think it is ok to move beyond any mandate and raise taxes, increase spending and have the cheek to criticise the Coalition for promising and giving tax cuts...

but wait there's more

';While bracket creep could be eliminated for those on lower incomes by indexing the bottom two tax scales, the process could be left in the case of those on higher incomes, with the revenue thus gained flowing through into progressive tax cuts. Proceeds from bracket creep, eliminating negative gearing and halving dividend imputation could thus be redirected...'

and

'...also underline the need to more thoroughly regulate the lower end of the labour market. Labor’s “simplified” award system could do with more “muscle”'

So while we're at it we'll also change what we promised on IR. But hang on we'll also meddle with our health insurance promises...

'... means testing of the Private Health Insurance Rebate would prove a more popular measure than its immediate and outright abolition.'

And I'll bet Kevvy, Swan and Gillard cheer on these proposals ... after the election ... because sure as hell they won't endorse these beforehand.


Give us a break.

Keith - I appreciate any concern you may have re: Labor's mandate.

Perhaps Labor will not want to increase that tax take by 1% of GDP.
Even with such an eminently modest measure you could be certain there would be a campaign of panic and fear.

My point still stands, though. The Liberals introduced much more radical measures in IR, and in undermining our tax base than could my proposal.

Anyone supporting the conservatives, here, and condemning my proposal - would seem a tad hypocritical.

Normally I would be inflexible about Labor and it's mandate - but the double standard frustrates me - no-one worries about having a mandate for undermining our tax base and for introducing austerity.

At the very least, though, Labor should make savings of over $15 billion; including Defence cuts, a less adventurist defence policy, means testing the private health insurance rebate, a reduced surplus (say another $5 billion in today's terms)... This, in itself, could be enough to pay for welfare and health.

I welcome anyone, though, to state the case against slashing hospital waiting lists and keeping welfare pegged to changes in the cost of living as well as Average Weekly Earnings.

Many people face dire poverty without welfare reform, and surely resolving the waiting lists crisis is point imporant than an exercise in blatant pork barrelling. It would cost less than Costello's $34 billion in electoral bribery.

Hi Tristan,

You made this statement :

"As the real election campaign gathers steam, it is up to voters to hold governments, politicians and parties accountable."

Couldn't agree more.

How?

Surely you are not suggesting an election achieves that as we all know promises are meaningless and none of today's government's hold to their promises. Save Bolivia. Their newest leader is and has done what he promised. Where else?

Democracy is not defined by being able to vote. It is being governed by the people for the people. Not the oligarchies we have today.

You use the word mandate.

This is a word any winner of an election uses to justify everything they do while in power. A classic example? Iraq? No mandate given but certainly taken. Mandates do not exist except through referenda.

To me there is only one way to make government's accountable. That is to change the loyalty of MP's from Party to electorate. I suggest an AWA arrangement with the MP. Sackable on infringement. Negotiated with the electorate. Yes it would be chaotic initially but what have we now?

Add to that a major change in how Ministers functions work and we have a shot. Currently Minister's protect, cover up and lie about any problem in their portfolio when their job is the opposite.

So I say change the role so the Minister is actually an external auditor. Their role would be to ensure the department does what it is supposed to. Being inside that organisation compromises them and destroys the aims and goals of that organisation as they are subject to an individual Minister's daily whims.

What say you Tristan?

geez, pegasus, is there a second democrat in oz? at last?

the society we should be aiming for is this:

ministers directly elected on the strength of their published plan and budget. open administration of public functions, so the electorate can see they are getting what they voted for. citizens to set the constitution, and control ministers, through referenda.

it's called democracy.

how to get there from here? form a citizen's action group whose purpose is to mobilize support for these principles, and withdraw electoral support from all parties, only supporting individuals who will pass enabling legislation.

this is real reform, but better called non-violent revolution, since for the first time in british society, the people rule.

is it going to happen?

no. can't have democracy without citizen-quality people. ozzies are house-trained, bred for sheepishness. they are terrified of responsibility, never having had any. no matter, we have philospher-kings for politicians here, they'll take care of us. lucky, huh.

Hello Tristan

You suggest Labor should support a supply-side remedy of more public housing, which would provide a "much-needed correction in the market"

Yet Wayne Swan and the rest are totally paranoid about giving people an escape from eroding high house prices by providing more affordable housing and they have said as much.

Deflation is what needs to happen - but AS IF the ALP is going to redistribute wealth from homeowners to those who can't afford to buy!! I totally sympathise with your position but Labor is not going to help.

It would be nice if we didn't treat housing as speculation with negative gearing.

What I have concluded today after seeing the most recent housing affordability figures (at an all time low) is that no one is going to fix the problem and perhaps the credit situation will get out of control eventually. I am not an economist but Steve Keen (Debtwatch website) is worth reading.

37,000 new public housing units would be nice, but not enough. Ordinary full-time workers are not eligible in NSW and Vic. That is, your garbos, nurses, retial workers, apprentices, anyone earning $410 GROSS a week so it’s of no use to them. Can’t we debt finance broaden out eligibility and reinvest the surplus? Ooh no, Labor housing ministers say, couldn’t possibly borrow against our billions of assets and ‘crowd out’ the private market.

Rent assistance is a waste of money. There is no brake on upward rents so landlords are inclined to increase rents if a tenant's capacity to pay goes up. We need not-for-profit rental housing, long term, community-owned.

Since the revolution seems long overdue, even some Scandi-style social democracy in the housing realm would be nice. But I don't think Rudd Labor/two-thirds of Australia whose 'wealth' is their bloated housing value want to do it. They'd prefer to see us renters captured and paying off their overblown mortgages forever, because we are their cash cows.

I agree that the problem in housing is largely is one of supply, and I agree that there would be resistance from investors...

But when you consider how much there is to gain for renters and first time home buyers, I think investing $8 billion in new housing stock should certainly be considered. It is easily affordable, and any debt could easily be financed.

Unfortunately, I don't know what Labor's private polling is showing them on this issue. But the situation is desperate. (so desperate, in fact, that I think our politicians are failing us terribly by not coming to a bipartisam conesensus on the issue)

Perhaps if Labor fails to raise the issue then the Greens should run with it: put some pressure on both major parties from the relative Left.

Also - I'm unimpressed by moves to increase supply only on the urbam fringes. Urban consolidation - with increased expenditure on public transport infrastructure - and much more medium density housing - seems the way to go.