challenge winter 2015

47th National Conference

economy, stupid

It’s therevenue

8TH

National

Edition

WINTER 2015

2 | Challenge | WINTER 2015

Osmond Chiu

IN THISISSUE

THE SCALE OF SCIENCE SLASHED >> 6-7

CHALLENGE NATIONAL CONFERENCE GUIDE >> 10-19

CHALLENGE SUPPORTS EQUALITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, AND A LABOR PARTY WHICH IS DEMOCRATIC. WE BELIEVE THESE ARE IDEAS WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

CHALLENGE IS A PUBLICATION OF THE LEFT OF THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY. WE HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED SINCE OCTOBER 1976 IN NSW, ARGUING FOR THESE VALUES.

CHALLENGE PROVIDES A FORUM FOR DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OF IDEAS CRITICAL TO THE FUTURE OF THE LABOUR MOVEMENT. WE RELY ON YOUR SUPPORT TO KEEP PUBLISHING, SO YOUR SUBSCRIPTION IS VALUABLE TO US. YOU CAN SUBSCRIBE ONLINE OR ON THE BACK PAGE.

CHECK OUT CHALLENGE ONLINE AT CHALLENGEMAGAZINE.COM.AU

AUTHORISED BY JOHN GRAHAM, CHALLENGE MAGAZINE, PO BOX 21252, WORLD SQUARE NSW 2002.

CONFERENCE DATES

editorial

BUTLER ON SOCIAL DEMOCRACY >> 22-25

LABOR MUST GRASP THIS OPPORTUNITY TO INSPIRELABOR’S 2015 NATIONAL CONFERENCE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT IN A GENERATION. OUR PARTY IS AT A CRITICAL JUNCTURE. THE 47TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE MUST SET THE PATH BOTH ON POLICY AND ON INTERNAL REFORM.

After many false starts, real Party reform is now within reach. Now is the time to guarantee rank-and-file members a direct vote for not just the leader but also for delegates to National Conference and Senate candidates. Just as essential is the continuation of our equal partnership with the union movement, the largest social movement in Australia. This opportunity to inspire must not be squandered.

One critical Conference debate will focus on the need for Labor to build a credible economic agenda. As Tom Skladzien argues, that does not mean slashing spending driven by a ‘surplus fetish’ or the imposition of arbitrary tax-to-GDP ratios. Instead we must ask: how

can government best pay for the services Australians need and expect?

A progressive fiscal policy for Labor must address the revenue question. This is an absolute prerequisite to realising the society and public services we want to deliver. Jo Schofield rightly points out: if we accept an ever-shrinking tax base, progressives will end up squabbling over the ever-decreasing pool of revenue.

So how can Labor fund the programs that Australians need? Richard Denniss outlines four progressive revenue-raising measures.

Labor cannot lock itself into a low-revenue future and nor allow itself to be cast as a pale imitation of the Coalition. As Nadine Flood points out, the ALP must advocate a positive case for the role of government as an essential enabler of future jobs and prosperity.

Conference will feature several other key policy debates that will shape Labor’s approach in government. Asylum seekers, marriage equality, a fairer tax system that tackles corporate tax avoidance, housing affordability and tackling climate change are all high on the Left’s agenda.

Conference will also debate Labor’s core objective. It is a debate that seems to have been mainly conducted in the conservative press. While the case for change has not yet been made, we should always have the confidence to debate Labor’s purpose. In that spirit, we are publishing two competing views on the socialist objective.

The British election proved that even incompetent and hated governments can triumph on the back of cynical fear campaigns. Being the least worst option will not lift Labor to government. Neal Lawson offers two lessons from the UK election.

Labor must grasp the vital opportunity offered by the 2015 National Conference. Facing a federal election, we must demonstrate our evolution as a modern, democratic movement with a positive policy vision for the future. OSMOND CHIU, DEPUTY EDITOR

WE MUST DEMONSTRATE OUR EVOLUTION AS A MODERN, DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT WITH A POSITIVE POLICY VISION.

National 24 - 26 July 2015ACT 22 August 2015TAS 22 - 23 August 2015WA 29 - 30 August 2015QLD 29 - 30 August 2015NSW 3 - 4 October 2015

Challenge | WINTER 2015 | 3

JO-ANNE SCHOFIELD IS NATIONAL SECRETARY OF UNITED VOICE.

by Jo-anne Schofield

‘TAXATION IS THE PRICE OF A CIVILISED SOCIETY. IT BUYS US SERVICES: IT GIVES US HEALTH, EDUCATION, LOW COST HOUSING AND SECURITY.

WHEN BIG BUSINESSES DON’T PAY THE TAX THEY OWE TO THE GOVERNMENT, WE ALL SUFFER.’

ANTHONY CARLSON, HOSPITALITY WORKER & UNITED VOICE MEMBER

POLICY CHALLENGE: TAX AND REVENUE

TIME FOR BIG BUSINESS TO PAY ITS FAIR SHARE

LAST SEPTEMBER UNITED VOICE WITH THE TAX JUSTICE NETWORK RELEASED A REPORT THAT HIGHLIGHTED RAMPANT TAX DODGING AMONG ASX 200 COMPANIES.

In contrast to tax avoiding companies, United Voice members work long hours, often on low rates of pay, and contribute their fair share in taxes. Yet they have been feeling the impact as state and federal Liberal governments make significant cuts to public services across the country.

United Voice started looking into corporate tax avoidance after conversations with our members about the most important issues they face today.

Through our Real Voices project, we asked 26,000 members about the biggest issues in their lives and their ideas for change. Time and time again our members said they were worried about cuts to essential public services like health, education and pensions.

The results from our research into corporate tax practices are staggering. Australia has a corporate tax rate of 30 percent but most ASX 200 companies paid much less tax – nearly one-third had an average effective tax rate of 10 percent or less.

Corporations use a number of means to minimise their tax obligations, including by setting up subsidiaries in secrecy jurisdictions – 57 percent of the ASX 200 disclosed such subsidiaries.

United Voice members are not alone in thinking this is not good enough. Our report sparked a much needed debate about the future viability of our tax base. And we’ve attracted support from some unusual quarters – including billionaire retailer Gerry Harvey and Wesfarmers managing director Richard Goyder.

Federal Labor has also taken the issue up in earnest.

A Senate Committee, chaired by NSW Senator Sam Dastyari, is investigating the issue of corporate tax minimisation and avoidance.

The tax aggressive behaviour of some large companies and high-net worth individuals should be of considerable concern for government and civil society alike.

The need for Australia to reduce its debt and balance the budget is repeatedly cited to justify cuts to services that have a disproportionate impact on low and middle income Australians. Yet the ensuing debate has not devoted sufficient attention to the issue of revenue-raising.

When we accept the austerity narrative of the conservative side of politics, we end up squabbling over an ever-decreasing pool of public revenue.

Our report has been particularly valuable in kick-starting a conversation across the union movement and within the Labor Party about how to make our tax system fairer and our revenue base more sustainable.

This touches on the kind of society, services and support we want for all Australians and how we raise the revenue required to pay for this in an equitable way.

When corporations and wealthy individuals aggressively minimise their tax obligations, we all bear the consequences of reduced services, outdated infrastructure and increasing inequality.

United Voice members, like other Australians, do their share of the heavy lifting – we think it’s time for the big end of town to do theirs too.

POLI

CY C

HA

LLENGE: TAX & R

EVEN

UE

Pages 3 - 9


TOM SKLADZIEN IS NATIONAL ECONOMICS ADVISER AT THE AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS’ UNION. TO SEE AN ECONOMIC STATEMENT ENDORSED BY THE AMWU, CFMEU, FSU, NSW LABOR LEFT AND OTHERS: WWW.CHALLENGEMAGAZINE.COM.AU

by Tom Skladzien

FOR TOO LONG THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD THE MAIN ECONOMIC JOB OF GOVERNMENT IS TO ‘DELIVER A BUDGET SURPLUS’. IT’S AS IF A BUDGET SURPLUS WILL SOLVE ALL OUR ECONOMIC CHALLENGES. THIS IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH.

The elevation of a budget surplus to the pinnacle of government’s economic goals represents a ‘surplus fetish’. Not in the sense that everything is necessarily sacrificed on the altar of a surplus, but in the sense that the achievement of a surplus forms the core of a government’s economic narrative. Such a narrative misunderstands what a surplus is, what the role of government should be and what good economic management is. Yet it persists. The Right side of politics is its main proponent, but the ALP is not immune.

This persistence of a ‘surplus fetish’ narrative is understandable. Keenly propagated by some in the media, it provides a simple yardstick of success or failure by which governments can be praised or damned.

For politicians on the Right it diminishes the real economic and social role of government, while providing cover for a broader agenda of dismantling welfare and social justice systems.

It is also a narrative easily

accepted by many ordinary Australians without the time or inclination to educate themselves on the finer points of economics. Slogans like ‘the government must live within its means just like households do’ send an easily understood and intuitive public message.

But the ‘surplus fetish’ narrative is complete nonsense.

The government is not like a household for many reasons, not least because a government can effectively decide its income (tax). A good government’s objective is not to enrich itself; it is to promote the wellbeing of all citizens.

The achievement of a budget surplus does not necessarily demonstrate good policy. A government constantly striving for a budget surplus is like a doctor who prescribes antibiotics regardless of the disease. Sure, sometimes it is the right medicine, but any prescription that ignores the diagnosis is not good medicine. Likewise, striving for a budget surplus irrespective of economic context is not good economic management.

Fiscal prudence means maintaining solvency and the confidence of capital markets. It means maintaining control of public debt by keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio relatively stable and manageable. It does not mean eliminating public debt, cutting the size of government or achieving

a budget surplus in a given time frame. Nor does it mean sticking below a particular tax-to-GDP ratio, as was the policy of the last ALP government.

Genuine good economic management will deliver surpluses, but only when the economy is performing above trend. A surplus should be the result of the combination of a strong economy and prudent fiscal settings. It is an outcome of good management coupled with a broad-based economic boom, not a goal to be aimed for on an arbitrary timeframe.

Economists have known this for a long time. In September 2014, 63 leading economists penned an open letter on the government’s misguided budget priorities. In it, people as distinguished as Bernie Fraser, John Quiggin, Craig Emerson, Frank Stilwell and Tim Harcourt stated:

‘The goal of fiscal policy is not simply to eliminate the deficit as quickly as possible, nor is it to generate surpluses (government is not, after all, a “profit-making business”).’

The domination of the ‘surplus fetish’ narrative and the current government’s use of it to justify their attack on our social wage and the public sector has prompted growing calls for an alternative. One example is a call for an alternative progressive economic agenda by a coalition of unions,

WHY THE SURPLUS FETISH IS NOT GOOD ECONOMICS



WE NEED TO CHALLENGE AND WIN AN ECONOMIC DEBATE ABOUT THE REAL GOALS AND CONSTRAINTS OF FISCAL POLICY.

THE ‘SURPLUS FETISH’ IS WRONG AND DAMAGING. IT SELLS AUSTRALIANS SHORT.

civil society groups and others, focusing on a set of principles including: ‘A budget surplus is not the measure of good policy, which should aim to fulfil the government’s role in a solvent way’.

A surplus can be a projection or a forecast but it should never be a political promise. No Treasurer knows the future. No Treasurer should promise results that depend more on factors out of their control than on factors within it. The ALP should never say ‘we are good economic managers because we promise to deliver a surplus’ or even ‘because we did deliver a surplus’.

Rather, we should say ‘we are good economic managers because Australians are employed in good jobs, the economy is growing, society is progressing and the government’s books are in good order’.

This is not to say that governments should be profligate or that deficits do not matter. We do need to make tough decisions to pay for the things that government must do. We cannot ignore inefficiency, inequity and waste in spending, when it occurs. A rejection of a ‘surplus fetish’ is not a rejection of sound fiscal policy. Indeed, it is a necessary step to achieving sound fiscal policy.

Australia does face significant fiscal challenges, especially over the longer term as the population ages. But these challenges do not justify the dismantling of our

social wage or the abandonment of our values. Rather than serve as an excuse for going backwards as the LNP would like, they should serve as an impetus to improve the equity of that social contract, especially when it comes to our tax system.

The long march of progress is the story of the expansion not the erosion of our social contract. Needs-based school funding, disability insurance, the NBN, a sovereign shipbuilding capacity, novel forms of innovation and industry promotion; these are just some of the priorities identified by the ALP that need to be funded. To these we should add others that are yet to gain as much support as they deserve; initiatives like universal dental care, a stronger social safety net and the proper resourcing of government agencies.

The fundamental question for any ALP Treasurer should not be: how can we get to a surplus as quickly and painlessly as possible? It should be: how can we best pay for the role of government that our values and the Australian people require? The size of government and the size of tax revenues must be set to meet the role of government we believe Australia needs, rather than the role of government being predetermined by notions of what the size of government or tax

revenues should be.Whether it is

s u p e r a n n u a t i o n tax, Capital Gains

Tax, negative gearing, cracking down on tax

avoidance or other measures; there are plenty of opportunities to both increase taxation revenue and reduce the systemic drivers of inequality that are rampant in our tax system. As well as being unjust and an affront to Labor values, these inequities grow inequality and the resulting heavy economic and social cost. Tackling them is good economics, good social policy and morally necessary. It should not be bad politics.

To remain true to our values, we need to define and implement a policy platform that reflects these values and is supported by a sound fiscal strategy, including politically difficult revenue reforms. But more than this we need to explain why the ‘surplus fetish’ narrative that is so pervasive is wrong and damaging, and how it sells Australians and their hopes short.

Australians want and deserve a government that invests in their future and grows the social and economic drivers of their wellbeing. To achieve that, we need to challenge and win an economic debate about the real goals and constraints of fiscal policy.

The Labor Left is ready and willing for that debate. It is time the rest of the ALP stepped up too.

POLI

CY C

HA

LLENGE: TAX & R

EVEN

UE

Pages 3 - 9


by Nadine Flood

TONY ABBOTT IS IN THE HOPELESSLY COMPROMISED POSITION OF LEADING A GOVERNMENT THAT FIRMLY BELIEVES GOVERNMENTS CANNOT ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ANYTHING USEFUL.

This dark contradiction is apparent in many areas but particularly in the Government’s disdainful approach to public sector science.

The Abbott Government’s first Budget cut CSIRO funding by $111 million and directly cost 489 jobs. This figure has now risen to around 1,100 jobs – one in five scientists gone. While Australia slashes science spending, developed and emerging economies invest heavily in science.

For more than a year the Government refused to even have a science minister, a move which highlights their disregard for fact and evidence, their lack of concern about climate change, their shoddy approach to public policy and their vacuous culture war.

The cuts to CSIRO are a serious threat to Australia’s communities, prosperity and security.

With the mining boom largely behind us, our economic future depends on science, innovation and education. With genuine investment in public science and technology, we could drive productivity and jobs in new

fields. We know that advanced sciences already contribute $145 billion a year to the economy, or roughly 11 percent of GDP.

We know too that decarbonising the economy will require a massive investment in public expertise and infrastructure (which our ‘Infrastructure Prime Minister’ is busily dismantling as we speak).

This ransacking of our national brains trust is the epitome of short-term gain for long-term pain.

And science cuts are just the start. Health, education, social security, climate change, the environment, public policy, international development – there is virtually no part of Australia’s social democratic settlement that the Abbott Government has left intact. Cutting 17,000 public sector jobs suggests a government intent on austerity at the expense of achievement.

The Coalition’s culture war against science illustrates a deeper problem – the Government’s impoverished conception of the state.

Its Commission of Audit, comically subtitled ‘Towards Responsible Government’, was created supposedly as an ‘independent body to review and report on the performance, functions and roles of the C o m m o n w e a l t h government’ – but it was explicitly directed to assume that small government is better, and its Commissioners d u t i f u l l y found a long list of things to cut.

In a nutshell, the Coalition treats government as a problem.

The Abbott Government believes that government involvement in people’s lives undermines independence and encourages people to be a drain on the public purse. A strong role for government is an impediment to the market – which, according to this Government, should rightly be at the centre of everything.

If you cannot win that argument, framing the national economic conversation as a ‘budget emergency’ requiring the remedy of austerity is a handy add-on. Now the budget emergency has vanished, but the lazy and shallow austerity politics continue.

Highly effective in opposition, Abbott in power offers little, and (apart from scaring people witless on national security and the defense of so-called ‘traditional’ marriage) he doesn’t really want to.

Abbott’s lack of a positive agenda on science in particular – and the proper role of government in general – is a great opportunity for Labor, if we are bold enough to recognise it.

People are concerned about jobs and their economic future.

Our opponents argue the best way to address these concerns is to simply move government out

ANTI-SCIENCE ABBOTT HAS UNDERCUT OUR FUTURE


NADINE FLOOD IS NATIONAL SECRETARY OF THE COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC SECTOR UNION.

THE CUTS TO CSIRO ARE A SERIOUS THREAT TO AUSTRALIA’S COMMUNITIES, PROSPERITY AND SECURITY.


of the way by cutting back

and let the market resolve

it. Conservatives are fond of saying that

if enough people want something the market will deliver it.

They argue that if the Government guts the CSIRO and vacates the scientific field the private sector will fill the gap. But we know that there are limits to what you can achieve with private sector collaboration and market solutions.

Advances in innovation and technology drive economic growth and government-funded basic research is foundational to that outcome. Public science can take a longer-term perspective than investors who need a short-term return. Publicly-funded scientists can think more broadly than those working in the private sector. As a result, they produce surprising answers to questions we didn’t even know we needed to ask.

This is not just a theoretical argument about the role of government. There is a growing public appetite for governments to help citizens navigate a rapidly changing world with growing economic insecurity.

Most Australians, according to a range of polls, say that there is plenty they want government to do. Governments must mitigate inequality and support people, jobs, skills and public services. Government must defend the democratic framework that allows markets to be balanced against other forms of social organisation.

Investing now in science, education and innovation is just one example of what governments must do to position Australia to meet future challenges. But because this work costs money, we must abandon the Liberals’ obsession with budget cost cutting. It’s time to give more serious thought to revenue.

The choice Labor faces is clear.

We can accept the conservative small government frame and be happy to tinker around the edges, while the market lets rip.

Or we can articulate a positive argument that government is an essential actor in enabling the jobs and prosperity of the future. Investing in innovation, education and science would be one good place to start.

THE SCALE OF SCIENCE SLASHEDCSIRO – 1 in 5 jobs gone. No further research into Alzheimer’s disease or colorectal cancer. Cuts to climate, marine and atmospheric research and many other programs.

Bureau of Meteorology – frequency of atmospheric data collection for weather observations halved.

Department of Agriculture – 700 jobs (1 in 10) gone. Cuts to biosecurity, research into sustainable fisheries and safeguarding the export of our animal products.

Department of Industry and Science – climate change policy capacity hollowed, energy efficiency programs and opportunities for Australian industry abolished.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science – less research and regulation on the impacts of coastal development on the Great Barrier Reef.

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation – ageing nuclear science infrastructure and equipment not being replaced.

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand – substantial cuts to research into food composition and ensuring the security of our food.

Australian Antarctic Division – Southern Ocean and Antarctic research vessels underutilised due to funding cuts.

Geoscience Australia – 20 percent reduction in the collection of geophysical datasets. Loss of expertise in the regulation of offshore petroleum resources.

Murray Darling Basin Authority – cuts to monitoring and improvement of water quality and addressing salinity.

Australian Bureau of Statistics – multiple discontinued collections of data and publications, including the valuable Measures of Australia’s Progress publication.

POLI

CY C

HA

LLENGE: TAX & R

EVEN

UE

Pages 3 - 9


RICHARD DENNISS IS CHIEF ECONOMIST AT THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE.

by Richard Denniss

If you only listened to the Coalition you would think that Australia’s budget deficit was caused entirely by out of control spending. But a closer look at the budget papers shows this is not the case. The most recent budget papers wiped out $90 billion in expected revenue over the next four years. It is not spending that is rapidly rising but revenue that is rapidly falling.

Revenue is falling because the economy is slowing. Tax revenue is falling and spending on social security is rising. The slowing economy has also revealed the structural hole in the budget created by Peter Costello’s huge income tax cuts during the boom years. This makes it very difficult for the budget to generate income.

The boom years temporarily brought in more revenue and this temporary boom time tax bonanza was spent on permanent tax cuts. About $170 billion was given away in tax cuts between 2005 and 2012. When the economy slowed the boom time revenue vanished and the budget was no longer able to generate as much revenue. This is why both sides of politics have so much trouble reducing the budget deficit.

Since the structural deficit was created by cutting revenue it should be fixed by increasing revenue. Since over 60 percent of the boom time tax cuts went to high income households, the extra revenue required should also come from high income households.

Raising more revenue does not have to mean higher tax rates. The current progressive income tax system in Australia is leaking like a sieve. High income households are using tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. Plugging these loopholes would raise billions of dollars.

The Australia Institute recently put forward four changes that would close loopholes and raise almost $20 billion with 86 percent coming from high income households. These changes are:• focus super tax concessions to

take pressure off the age pension• limit negative gearing to new

housing• scrap the Capital Gains Tax

(CGT) discount• introduce a Buffet Rule to stop

massive tax deductions from high income households.

SUPER TAX CONCESSIONSThe superannuation system was

designed to make people more reliant on themselves in retirement. Super tax concessions help people accumulate more in their super accounts by allowing them to pay less tax on money going in and less tax on investment earnings.

The problem is that 60 percent or almost $18 billion per year goes to high income earners who are unlikely to claim an age pension. So most money taxpayers give to help grow super balances does not reduce pressure on the pension.

The superannuation system was designed to help people have a comfortable retirement but

even the industry recognises that it is being used more and more for tax and estate planning.

The solution is to focus super tax concessions on taking pressure off the age pension. The Australia Institute released a paper before the Federal Budget that suggested that super tax rates should rise with income in the same way as income tax rates.

The paper proposed lower tax rates for the 60 percent of low and middle income households who are likely to be on the age pension in retirement. It also raised tax rates for those that are unlikely to be on the age pension in retirement. Very high income households would pay their full marginal rate.

While 60 percent of households would pay less super tax, the changes would still raise almost $10 billion per year because of the size of the super tax concession going to high income earners.

The changes also give taxpayers better value for money. Reducing people’s reliance on the age pension will save the budget even more. At the same time it closes a loophole being exploited by some high income individuals to avoid tax rather than to save for retirement.

4 FAIR WAYS TO BOOST REVENUE

-$26 -$26 -$28 -$70 -$60 -$27 $52$494

$1,775

$7,531

-$1,000

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

$mill

ion

<-Lower income Income deciles Higher income ->

-$26 -$26 -$28 -$70 -$60 -$27 $52$494

$1,775

$7,531

-$1,000

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

$mill

ion

<-Lower income Income deciles Higher income ->

Figure 1 - Income distribution of super tax concession changes


POLI

CY C

HA

LLENGE: TAX & R

EVEN

UE

Pages 3 - 9


NEGATIVE GEARING AND THE CGT DISCOUNT

Negative gearing and the Capital Gains Tax discount add fuel to housing price increases by giving investors generous tax incentives and encouraging speculative behaviour. The result is that low and middle income households are increasingly locked out of the market.

Changes to negative gearing and scrapping the CGT discount are designed to slow house price increases, improve affordability, reduce speculation in the residential market and raise billions of dollars of revenue.

The rate of investment in residential property has expanded dramatically. Loans for investment properties have increased from 16 percent of finance 23 years ago to 40 percent today. Armed with generous tax breaks, property investors are forcing up property prices.

Financial experts including the Murray financial inquiry are increasingly concerned that negative gearing and the CGT discount make property markets more speculative and less stable. Treasury Secretary John Fraser recently warned that Sydney and parts of Melbourne are in a housing bubble and the RBA Governor Glenn Stevens described house price rises in Sydney as ‘crazy’.

While negative gearing has been talked about a lot in recent months it is the way negative gearing interacts with the CGT discount that is causing the explosion in investors. Negative gearing means the taxpayer picks up some of the loss made on the property but it is only a good investment if the capital gain is greater than the rental loss when the property is sold.

In 1999 Peter Costello introduced the CGT discount which meant that only half of any capital gains were taxed. This made residential property investment much more profitable and as Figure 2 shows the size of the rental losses (and hence the amount of negative gearing deductions) grew rapidly.

The CGT discount means that if a property rises in value then the rental return is less important as the capital gain is more lucrative. A focus on capital

gain at the expense of return is speculative investment.

In a normal investment market if the return on the asset falls because the price of the asset rises, this signals to investors that it could be overvalued. But an interest in capital gain makes rising prices a signal to enter the market because future capital gain is likely.

David Murray, the former head of the Commonwealth Bank, wrote in his report on the financial system that negative gearing and the Capital Gains Tax discount were encouraging speculative behaviour.

The solution is scrapping the CGT discount and limiting negative gearing to only new investment properties. This will raise $7.4 billion a year mainly from high income households. It will also make housing more affordable.

BUFFETT RULEThe Buffett Rule is named after

billionaire American investor Warren Buffett. He noted that he paid a lower average rate of tax than his secretary and thought this was unfair. The idea of a Buffett Rule is that very high

income earners should pay a minimum average tax rate.

Very high income earners have an ability to structure their income and tax affairs to maximise their deductions. In 2012-13 55 people who earned more than $1 million claimed so many deductions that they paid no tax. While the 55 did not pay tax they did on average pay $770,000 for tax advice. Five of the 55 also claimed an Australian Government allowance and five claimed a pension. The Buffett rule makes deductions after a certain point worthless.

The Buffett Rule sets a minimum average tax rate for very high income earners based on their total income not their taxable income. A minimum average tax rate of 35 per cent applied to the top 1 percent, those earning more than $300,000, would raise $2.5 billion per year.

OVERALL IMPACTCombining these four policies

would raise $19.5 billion dollars a year, fix distortions in the system and raise revenue in a progressive way. Unlike the current Government’s strategy of making low income households pay to decrease the deficit, 86 percent of the income raised would come from the top 20 percent of households. By comparison only 4 percent would come from the bottom half of households.

While the roots of the deficit can be found in the profligate spending and tax cuts of Peter Costello, the solution does not have to see cuts to health, education and the social safety net. The revenue can come from the beneficiaries of all that mining boom largesse.

COMBINING THESE FOUR POLICIES WOULD RAISE $19.5 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, FIX DISTORTIONS IN THE SYSTEM AND RAISE REVENUE IN A PROGRESSIVE WAY.

0.265

0.27

0.275

0.28

0.285

0.29

0.295

0.3

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

Rent

min

us d

educ

�ons

(inc

inte

rest

) $ m

illio

n

Introduc�on ofthe CGT discount

26.5%

27%

27.5%

28%

28.5%

29%

29.5%

30%

-10,000

-8,000

-6,000

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

Rent

min

us d

educ

�ons

(inc

inte

rest

) $ m

illio

n

Introduc�on ofthe CGT discount

Figure 2 - Net rental income


1. A FAIRER TAX SYSTEM

Labor in government must reform fiscal policy to ensure sufficient revenue is available to fund a bold Labor agenda. Tax and superannuation concessions which unfairly favour large corporations and the wealthy must be reviewed, including the use of private companies and family trusts. Negative gearing and the Capital Gains Tax discount should be revamped to improve housing affordability.

2. DEFEND THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Australians deserve and expect high quality public services including health, education and a comprehensive social security system. Essential public services and an efficient public sector must not be sacrificed to a ‘surplus fetish’. Instead progressive fiscal policy must ensure big businesses and high net worth individuals pay their fair share to fund the services we need.

3. BALANCED TRADE AGREEMENTS

The benefits of international trade agreements must be carefully balanced against the long-term interests of Australian workers and consumers. Agreements such as

the China Free Trade Agreement should provide for labour market testing and meet Australian skills standards. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement should not be concluded without public scrutiny and should not allow foreign corporations to sue Australian governments.

4. NO PRIVATISATION IN EDUCATION & HEALTH

High quality healthcare and education are fundamental rights for all Australians. These services must be fully maintained in the public sector, operating in the public interest. Our public health or education systems should not be privatised as a cost-cutting or ideological exercise. Public hospitals and public schools must be off-limits to the pursuit of profit.

5. WE STAND FOR SECURE PERMANENT JOBS

As unemployment spirals under the Coalition, Labor must be the Party of jobs. The creation and maintenance of secure permanent employment should be a national priority. Labor must also act to stem the flow of jobs offshore. Now is the time for domestic violence leave to be included in the National Employment Standards.

TOP 10 HOT

CONFERENCE ISSUES

DELEGATES TO THE 47TH LABOR NATIONAL

CONFERENCE GATHER IN MELBOURNE ON

24-26 JULY. HERE ARE 10 HOT ISSUES

ON THE LEFT AGENDA.


ABOUT LABOR NATIONAL CONFERENCEHeld every 3 years.

Includes 400 delegates

There are 397 voting delegates, plus the ALP National President and 2 Vice Presidents (non-voting)

The other delegates come from:

Federal Labor 4 leadership group Federal Caucus 6 members State and Territory 8 Labor leaders NSW 108Victoria 86Queensland 72Western Australia 42South Australia 34Tasmania 22NT 6ACT 6Young Labor 3

If not elected delegates, State Secretaries of Labor Branches are non-voting delegates.

Delegates can be chosen via State Conference ballots, statewide ballots of all ALP members, and local ALP member elections.

6. DOUBLE HUMANITARIAN REFUGEE INTAKE

Australia needs a humane refugee policy consistent with our international obligations. In its first term, a Labor federal government should more than double the annual humanitarian refugee intake. This would see the annual intake rise from the current 13,750 to above 27,500. The Left opposes asylum seeker boat turnbacks on two grounds: they are unsafe for refugees and damage Australia’s relationship with Indonesia.

7. ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Bold action on climate change is necessary to save our planet for future generations, but it must be accompanied by community support and an economic transition plan. The Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) has won the support of more than 300 Labor Branches for action on emissions reduction and renewable energy. The CFMEU has also campaigned strongly to build a community consensus for action.

8. SUPPORT FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY

The Left at the 2011 ALP National Conference supported a binding policy position on marriage

equality. Today senior Left leaders are the clearest, most effective advocates for marriage equality. The 2015 National Conference needs to send a strong signal on this issue, while the Coalition continues to refuse to act.

9. PRACTICAL ACTION FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE

Labor’s Middle East policy is undergoing a historic shift that has attracted international attention. The Left has supported groundbreaking resolutions passed at the 2014 NSW and Queensland Labor State Conferences. The Left recognises that Middle East peace is only possible with the establishment of a Palestinian state. Australian governments should take practical steps to support a two-state solution, including consulting with like-minded governments.

10. INTEGRITY REFORM FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCING

Major reform of federal campaign financing is urgently needed in the light of recent revelations of mafia influence and evidence heard by the NSW ICAC regarding corrupt donations. The Left supports a more transparent donations regime with stronger disclosure requirements. Increased public funding must also be considered as an effective measure to divorce donations from influence.

CHALLENGE GUIDE TO 2015 ALP NATIONAL CONFERENCE




LABOR’S 2011 NATIONAL CONFERENCE ATTEMPTS AT REFORM WERE THE HEIGHT OF FARCE.

That Conference session should have had subtitles, given many of the 397 voting delegates had little idea of the resolution they were voting on.

Few of the many speakers had much idea either.

When the dust settled it was clear that the key measures proposed in the Carr Bracks Faulkner Review had been sidestepped, sidelined or ignored.

Despite the inaction of that conference, Labor has taken steps to reform.

Trials of community preselections and the introduction

of the membership vote for parliamentary leaders are two measures that have proceeded despite the lack of national leadership on these issues at the 2011 Conference.

A DIRECTLY ELECTED NATIONAL CONFERENCE

The number one thing this North Korea style conference session left unfulfilled was action to introduce directly elected National Conference delegates.

The 2011 Conference passed a resolution supporting direct election, establishing a committee to report within 12 months. Predictably nothing happened.

In the absence of national leadership both NSW and

Tasmania moved to change the way their delegates were elected.

This Conference now needs to act.

The good news is that there is agreement that Labor’s Conference should act on this issue. Two issues however will prove difficult to settle: ensuring a minimum number of delegates to be directly elected, and establishing the method by which they are elected.

The Left proposals to this conference rest on two principles: an equal partnership between affiliated unions and the party membership, and ensuring that membership elections are conducted with the broadest franchise possible.

The Left will call for 50 percent of each state delegation to be directly elected, and for each of these elections to happen in an all member ballot. The proposal from the Right has no guarantee of a number of delegates to be elected, and no guarantees about how the election will happen.

Without agreement on these key details, this measure will see a small number of directly elected delegates returning to a future National Conference, with the delegates from NSW elected by a small handful of members due to its highly collegiate structure.

DIRECTLY ELECTED SENATORSThe other key area for direct

election is preselection for the Australian Senate. This became a priority after Labor in 2013 won only one Senator in two States.

Bill Shorten in his Wheeler Centre speech on reform said: ‘Friends, we need to change our Senate pre-selection process’.

Relying on the principles of an equal partnership and a broad

WE MUST CHANGE TO WIN

by John Graham

JOHN GRAHAM IS ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE NSW ALP.

THE NUMBER ONE THING THIS NORTH KOREA STYLE CONFERENCE SESSION LEFT UNFULFILLED WAS ACTION TO INTRODUCE DIRECTLY ELECTED NATIONAL CONFERENCE DELEGATES.

Continued on page 14

TIME FOR PARTY REFORM

THE DOUBTERS ARE WRONG: WHY NATIONAL CONFERENCE SHOULD GO ANNUAL

IN THE BRITISH LABOUR TRADITION, THEIR ANNUAL NATIONAL CONFERENCE ANCHORS THE POLITICAL YEAR AND PROVIDES AN ANNUAL PLATFORM FOR THEIR LEADER TO SIGNAL BROAD DIRECTIONS.

THERE IS ONLY ONE THING MORE UNPOPULAR THAN MARK LATHAM AT THIS YEAR’S CONFERENCE, AND THAT IS THE PROPOSAL TO MAKE LABOR’S NATIONAL CONFERENCE AN ANNUAL EVENT.

State Branches hate it. Members of Parliament hate it. Party officials hate it. The leadership is doubly opposed to the idea since they might not have the numbers at the Conference. The Left and Right factions oppose it. The only question that remains is whether it might draw the attention of the handful of independent delegates to this Conference.

However if Labor is serious about winning and holding federal government more often, it is one of a number of steps we need to take to strengthen the Party’s national organisation.

Under the bonnet, Labor remains a heavily federalised party. We have held government at the federal level for just 38 years of the 115 years of the Federation. Labor’s record at state level is better, and this is no coincidence.

Labor’s federal Party structure sees money and political power concentrated at a state level.

That’s bad news for progressives looking to see the back of Tony Abbott.

It’s why when it comes to mounting a field campaign Labor’s National Secretariat has to beg, borrow and steal organisers from the broader labour movement.

It’s why with Conference meeting only every three years, the attention of the broader labour movement turns too infrequently to national matters.

It’s why we lack a continuous dialogue, outside of the ranks of the parliamentarians about our goals and aspirations. It is a culture that subtly prioritises winning government at a state, not a national level.Whitlam, along with other leaders, recognised this imbalance and acted to strengthen Labor’s Federal, now National, Conference. That is a large part of the story of the transition from a 36-person conference to the 397 voting delegates who meet in Melbourne in July.Whitlam argued at the time ‘…we remain state-dominated, state oriented and state financed…’.A view that is still true today.In the British Labour tradition, their annual National Conference anchors the political year and provides an annual platform for their leader to signal broad directions. There are other things we can do: support national Party officials to stay in the job long term, strengthen Labor’s national field team, allow members to join the Party centrally, build a national membership list, better resource Labor’s National Policy Forum and allow national union affiliation.However an annual Conference is a good place to start. This unpopular measure should be a part of a plan to win and hold federal government more often in Labor’s future.Mark Latham would surely support that.




The current economic debate in Australia is dominated by the Coalition’s mantra of ‘debt and deficit’ and ‘Labor’s budget mess’. We think it’s time to change that conversation. Please join our panel of provocative, straight-shooting experts to explore:

y How can Labor talk economics in a winning progressive frame?

y What practical measures should we take to fund the Labor program?

y How do we promote our progressive revenue agenda to the community?

ALP Fringe

Let’s talk about revenueAnat Shenker-Osorio

A US-based communications expert, researcher and political pundit whose work challenges the way organisations talk about the issues that matter. She is the author of Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense About the Economy.

Dr Richard Denniss

Chief Economist of The Australia Institute. He has led national policy debates on critical issues such as climate change policy, the mining boom and now tax and revenue reform. He is the co-author of Affluenza.

Michael Tull

Assistant National Secretary of the Community & Public Sector Union. For the past 20 years Michael has been campaigning to defend and improve workers’ rights, jobs and public services. He will chair the panel.

Saturday 25 July11.30am-12.30pmMelbourne Convention Centre, Room 205General Access

For more information contact Susie Byers: [email protected] | 0408 813983

Authorised by Nadine Flood | CPSU National Secretary | www.cpsu.org.au

membership franchise, the Left’s proposals for a new Senate preselection method call for a combination of all members and unions voting in equal measure – as is already the case in Queensland.

There is no Right proposal to change the Senate preselection system.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BLUEPRINTLabor’s parliamentary

representation of women across the country is now double that of the Coalition’s. This Conference represents a chance to strengthen that advantage.

The three key issues that have been raised are: increasing the target for the proportion of women in parliament to 50 percent, strengthening enforcement of the rules and driving more change through Labor’s Party structures.

The comprehensive report of the Affirmative Action Working Group of the National Executive

has laid out a blueprint for action in this area.

NSW BRANCH FOCUSAny discussion on reform

inevitably turns to Labor’s NSW Branch.

This National Conference will consider measures that call for all member ballots to be used in NSW to select State Conference delegations, with the application of proportional representation and affirmative action, and the end of winner takes all balloting. Every other Branch has long adopted these approaches, often at the urging or direct intervention of the national Party.

There are also calls to ensure that full time officials have access to all lists of members and officials such as Branch secretaries, so as to fulfil their fiduciary duties, and to ensure that General Returning Officers are selected by a consensus not a majority.

POLITICS IS CHANGINGIn Labor’s history, reforming

the Party hasn’t always been a precondition to winning government.

At this moment in our history though, change is necessary because politics itself is changing.

The communication revolution we are living through has dramatically increased the expectations of political party members and supporters as to how interactive and responsive their political parties will be.

Labor’s sister parties around the world are debating and adapting to this challenge. They are examining new ways to communicate and engage their members, and they are reaching out beyond their members to invite their supporters into their processes.

This conference represents Australian Labor’s chance to start to embrace those changes.

Continued from page 12


DELEGATE PROFILE

The current economic debate in Australia is dominated by the Coalition’s mantra of ‘debt and deficit’ and ‘Labor’s budget mess’. We think it’s time to change that conversation. Please join our panel of provocative, straight-shooting experts to explore:

y How can Labor talk economics in a winning progressive frame?

y What practical measures should we take to fund the Labor program?

y How do we promote our progressive revenue agenda to the community?

ALP Fringe

Let’s talk about revenueAnat Shenker-Osorio

A US-based communications expert, researcher and political pundit whose work challenges the way organisations talk about the issues that matter. She is the author of Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense About the Economy.

Dr Richard Denniss

Chief Economist of The Australia Institute. He has led national policy debates on critical issues such as climate change policy, the mining boom and now tax and revenue reform. He is the co-author of Affluenza.

Michael Tull

Assistant National Secretary of the Community & Public Sector Union. For the past 20 years Michael has been campaigning to defend and improve workers’ rights, jobs and public services. He will chair the panel.

Saturday 25 July11.30am-12.30pmMelbourne Convention Centre, Room 205General Access

For more information contact Susie Byers: [email protected] | 0408 813983

Authorised by Nadine Flood | CPSU National Secretary | www.cpsu.org.au

A SELF-EMPLOYED EARTHMOVER FROM ‘TIGER COUNTRY’ IS ONE OF FOUR NSW CONFERENCE DELEGATES DIRECTLY ELECTED BY LOCAL PARTY MEMBERS.

The 2015 National Conference will be Steve Ackerman’s first, but after 10 years active Labor membership he feels more than ready to participate.

The former candidate for the state seat of Hornsby says Party reform is the most pressing issue.

‘The ballot for our national leader won by Bill Shorten re-energised and re-engaged so many Labor members and supporters,’ he said. ‘Giving members an equal say is the best way to build the Party.’

Since the leadership ballot, in Steve’s view, there has been ‘a lot of talk but little action’ on Party reform.

‘I want to see a genuine breakthrough at National Conference towards a member-

driven Party. That will lay the foundation for better policy development and for the community engagement we need to achieve electoral success.’

For the first time in NSW, each of 48 Federal Electorate Councils has elected one delegate to National Conference.

In four electorates – Sydney, Grayndler, Warringah and Steve’s own Berowra – financial Party members chose their delegate via postal ballot.

Tasmania has gone further, with 50 percent of conference delegates directly elected by a member postal ballot.

These processes have delivered fresh energetic activists like Steve Ackerman keen to enter the debate.

‘In 2005 I returned to Australia after helping construct golf courses in the US,’ said Steve. ‘I decided then it was not enough to complain about issues at dinner

parties. So I put my money where my mouth is and signed up as a Labor member.’

Steve closely follows Party discussion – including on climate change, asylum seekers and more recently the Socialist Objective.

‘What I’m most looking forward to is the opportunity to meet other Labor people from around Australia. I try to keep an open mind. I think everyone is aware we are close to a federal election and we need a strong, positive Conference.’

Steve hails from the northern suburbs of Sydney, dubbed ‘tiger country’ because of the area’s entrenched support for conservative candidates.

‘We have urban, rural and semi-rural districts, a lot like other seats which Labor is able to win elsewhere. I think Party reform can help Labor compete and one day triumph in areas like Berowra.’

FIRST-TIME DELEGATE STEVE BACKS REFORM



MY SENSE OF PRIDE AT BEING RECENTLY ELECTED TO THE NSW PARLIAMENT IS HEIGHTENED BY THE FACT THAT I ENTER AUSTRALIA’S OLDEST PARLIAMENT AS ONE OF MANY LABOR WOMEN PROUDLY REPRESENTING OUR PARTY, ITS VALUES, AND OUR COMMUNITY.

Over decades, NSW Labor has fostered, mentored, supported and mandated women to be part of Labor’s parliamentary team. And in 2015 we’ve got a fantastic story to tell about the results of that work. Of our 15 new State MPs, 10 are women.

It is particularly striking when compared to the position of women in the Liberal and National parties, who remain woefully under-represented on the Government benches. Then there is the international embarrassment of having only two women in the federal Coalition cabinet.

It has been hard work getting more Labor women into Parliament but now we can see fantastic female faces taking it to the grey-beard brigade. And there is real diversity in these faces – NSW Labor has older women, young mothers, lesbian women, Indigenous women, women caring for relatives with disabilities and women from across the corporate and community sectors.

But I’m realistic about the challenges NSW Labor still faces in empowering women to participate in the leadership of our Party. I see far too many talented women structurally and culturally excluded from our campaign management and Party administration – this is one of the final glass ceilings we still have to smash.

Like most federal and state campaigns I’ve been involved in, the 2015 campaign saw men dominate campaign strategy

meetings. Preparation for key campaign events and decisions involved very few women. Those in attendance were occasionally explicitly invited for a ‘female perspective’.

Women like Deputy Leader Linda Burney and Labor Assistant Secretary Kaila Murnain were heavily involved in the campaign leadership, but they were seriously outnumbered.

None of this was caused by active decisions of the campaign leadership or the leader’s office. In my experience, the men in these leadership positions are some of the most supportive of women.

The fact is there were simply not many women in a position to play a leadership role. Too many women have been turned off from the Party administration and campaign leadership over too many years. It’s time we put the same effort into supporting women to be part of our campaign leadership as we do into ensuring they are part of our parliamentary team.

This task has some urgency around it as we approach the federal election. In NSW Labor

we have one female Party officer. No woman has ever run a major faction in this State. There are no female Party officers in the national office. Running campaigns on issues that matter to women is difficult if your entire campaign reference group is male.

The good news in all this? There were so many women involved at the local campaign level during the March NSW election. Clearly women have an interest in this part of politics. They need more support and mentoring.

Our leadership should actively promote careers ‘behind the scenes’ as a valuable contribution for women to make. The blokes themselves need to acknowledge that the blokey decision-making culture has to change. Interested women need to be mentored by women who’ve navigated these rough waters before. They need meaningful parental leave and family-friendly work arrangements.

It’s the long, tough slog of cultural change. None of it is easy, but we’ve done it before – I’m a product of that in our parliament. I know we can do it in our Party too.

THE NEXT GLASS CEILING: WOMEN BEHIND THE SCENES

by Jo Haylen

JO HAYLEN WAS ELECTED MP FOR SUMMER HILL AT THE MARCH 2015 NSW ELECTION.

Sydney Inner West Labor women leaders from left: Jodi McKay, Jo Haylen, Penny Sharpe, Verity Firth.


WOMEN AND THE ALP

AT EVERY LEVEL OF POLITICAL ACTIVISM, THERE IS A SHORTFALL OF WOMEN.

At the highest level, the election to federal or state parliaments, women hold only 30 percent of seats. The numbers get worse when you look at women holding ministries, party leadership positions or daring to have a seat at the COAG table.

Increasing women’s participation in the ALP must start at the grassroots. Branch meetings, campaigns and preselections are critical paths to put women’s issues at the centre of the debate, rather than having them slide toward the periphery.

But with only one-third of ACT Labor’s members being women (and a similar situation in other Branches), we have work to do.

The ACT is undertaking specific outreach to women. Women-specific recruitment events, women-specific campaign training working with EMILY’s List, and various degrees of mentoring have gone some way to addressing the involvement of women who are already interested in becoming active in the ALP.

It is also important to identify women who show an interest in progressive politics, whether through social media or through other networks, and encourage them to get active in Labor.

We will not increase female representation in parliamentary

Labor caucuses without increasing the numbers of women members across the Party.

At the next ACT general election, the Assembly increases from 17 members to 25. There is no reason women should not win at least half of those new seats.

Fitting a party created in the 19th century into the 21st century is not an easy prospect. In the ALP, we’re not just competing with the ALP of old for members. We are also competing with the other demands of daily life – who can spend an hour or two at a branch meeting when you’re already squeezing in some combination of work, family, friends, sport and study?

It is also sometimes difficult to see the value in joining a party when you can interact directly with your local representatives through social media, when you can debate and discuss ideas with friends over Facebook, or when you are already on top of the political news thanks to a combination of traditional media and the internet.

The traditional issues of political parties not appealing to women are compounded by a lack of time and perceived lack of relevance.

It gets worse when a woman shows up to a branch meeting only to find it full of old men and ambitious young men.

The ALP can lead the way on engaging its membership by using technology to offer members

more modern, dynamic and real-time engagement.

For example, we could we take branch meetings into a more virtual space. Policy discussions could happen over email. Video blogs could be a way for members to put forward their views without leaving their homes. Meeting times could be more flexible to work around school and work hours.

Members’ volunteer work – either with community organisations or with Party events like conference, shopping centre stalls and fundraisers – could all count toward eligibility for voting in party ballots.

These options would all encourage more women to become involved in the Australian Labor Party.

None of these options would require a full-scale revolution of party processes. Rather, new and old ways of operating could run alongside each other.

Labor must constantly review and reform the way it operates if we are to remain relevant to our current members and recruit new members, young members and women members.

Women must be involved in politics to ensure that the voice of Australian women is represented effectively in our democracy.

We have a long way to go before we reach true equality in women’s participation both at the elected and membership level – but we can change this. True equality would benefit Labor.

GRASSROOTS STRATEGIES FOR ENGAGING WOMEN

by Katy Gallagher and Louise Crossman

KATY GALLAGHER IS A SENATOR FOR THE ACT. LOUISE CROSSMAN IS PRESIDENT OF ACT LABOR.

ACT Labor’s Powerful Women in Politics breakfast.


by Adam Clarke

OUR PARTY’S OBJECTIVE TELLS US ABOUT THE ENDURING VALUES OF OUR MOVEMENT.

‘The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the Objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.’

Not exactly modern language, but it represents something powerful and important.

This is the great ideal from which our movement draws its common purpose.

Our Party was established to pursue a radical cause: to transfer power and opportunity from the privileged to the masses, to enhance equity and spread social cooperation. The pursuit of this radical Objective has always meant that we face stiff opposition from the entrenched forces of the status quo.

But that does not mean we should shirk the challenge of pursuing the great cause of our movement.

Our Socialist Objective means that we are sensible enough to recognise that blindly pursuing ‘competition’ and ‘free-market’ solutions to our problems will not create the better society we all desire. We recognise the deficiencies of the private sector and champion the great things that we can achieve collectively through the public sector.

We believe in using taxation to drive a more equal distribution of wealth. We support regulation of our financial system, true competition and real fairness in the operation of markets.

Our Objective means that we believe every citizen should

have equal access to the best, comprehensive, free, publicly funded health and education services from cradle to grave.

We recognise the fundamental role of the state in managing the economic cycle to support full employment.

We know that when private economic demand falls the state must step in to boost aggregate demand, and when the good times return the state can step back and consolidate its fiscal position.

The practical incarnation of the great Objective of socialism has changed through the decades but we cannot afford to abandon it.

It is at the core of who we are. It binds us in eternal solidarity with our brothers and sisters in the labour movement around the world.

It’s what keeps us from being just another party of the centre that stands for very little. It’s what makes us a party of ‘labour’ committed to democracy grounded foremost in the workplace. To be a unionist is to be a socialist. The two are inseparable.

In the 21st century we must be the party of social progress and economic equity. The party that fights discrimination and advances the cause of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed.

In a world where the gap between the rich and the poor

grows every day, holding firm to our core economic understanding is more important than ever; that opportunity is spread not just through growth but must include redistribution.

It is not only the right thing to do but it will prove electorally popular - if only we championed our own values. We are socialists. And we should be proud of that.

However some elements of our Party seek to dismantle and replace our Objective with a blasé mission statement that could be adopted and supported by any organisation, centrist political party or corporation.

If we are to rewrite our Party’s fundamental purpose, it must be a collaborative process that involves our entire membership including the trade union movement. It must be something we can all own, not a back of the envelope thought bubble from a couple of blokes in Sydney.

The 2014 Tasmanian Labor Conference unanimously supported a resolution to retain the ‘Socialist Objective as the great ideal from which our movement draws its common purpose’.

We must never support the removal of ‘socialism’ from our Objective. Socialism is everything and anything we have ever stood for. It defines our bold and urgent mission as a force for radical social and economic change.

THE SOCIALIST OBJECTIVE IS THE CORE OF WHO WE ARE

SOCIALISM DEFINES OUR BOLD AND URGENT MISSION AS A FORCE FOR RADICAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE.

ADAM CLARKE IS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL POLICY FORUM FROM THE TASMANIAN LEFT.

v47th National Conference


by Luke Foley

WE MUST THINK CAREFULLY AND DELIBERATELY ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE LABOR IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

We live in a time of unparalleled connectivity and extraordinary social and economic change. Labor must face the challenges and grasp the opportunities of this age.

Labor should undertake an open-minded debate about its central purpose, including modernisation of the Party’s official Objective.

The ALP’s National Constitution includes the Socialist Objective

that was first adopted at the 1921 ALP Federal Conference.

But this eruption of socialist fervor was immediately tempered by the adoption of the Blackburn Declaration, which stated that the Party did not seek to abolish private ownership of the instruments of production where utilised by the owner in a socially useful manner and without exploitation.

The 1955 Federal Conference incorporated the Blackburn Declaration into the Party’s Objective. The 1957 Conference added ‘democratic’ to the Objective. The 1981 National Conference added a long statement to explain how the Objective of socialisation is to be applied in practice.

The major weakness of the Objective is that it confuses means

and ends. Socialisation is a means, not an end. The Party’s central Objective should be concerned with what we are seeking to achieve, not how we get there.

Labor does not exist to promote state ownership, but to ensure that the state advances the interests of all people.

In its current form, the Socialist Objective is both confused and confusing. Its defenders argue that it does not really mean what most readers assume it does – namely support for the nationalisation of industry. That is hardly a compelling case for its retention.

The central Objective of the

Party, as stated in its National Constitution, is never used by the Party’s leaders, representatives or members to win votes for Labor or to recruit people to our cause. Why can’t the Labor Party adopt an Objective that its true believers actually believe in?

The Wran-Hawke review following the 2001 Federal Election recommended that: ‘The party should develop a statement that conveys modern Labor’s Objectives and aspirations in a form that can be concisely and clearly communicated’.

I understand that many Party members retain a sentimental attachment to the Socialist Objective. But this is less a fervour for state ownership and more an affinity with the generations who

built and sustained one of the world’s few genuine labour parties.

I propose that the traditional language of the Socialist Objective form part of the ALP’s statement of origins. The ‘Origins’ statement draws on several strands of thought that motivated the creation of a distinctly Australian Labor Party. National Conference should incorporate the Socialist Objective in the statement of the Labor Party’s origins, then turn its mind to a new Objective. I will propose that the Party adopt the following:

‘The Australian Labor Party has as its Objective the achievement of a just and equitable society where every person has the opportunity to realise their potential.

‘We believe in an active role for government, and the operation of competitive markets, in order to create opportunities for all Australians, so that every person will have the freedom to pursue their well-being, in co-operation with their fellow citizens, free from exploitation and discrimination.’

This proposed new Objective for the Australian Labor Party in no way departs from traditional Labor values.

State ownership is not the end. The end is a just, equitable society. That is what we work towards.

We seek the trust of the people to govern, and unlike our opponents, we believe in government as a force for the common good. The Labor Party believes in an essential public sector and an enterprising private sector, operating side by side.

Labor needs a clear statement of its modern purpose and values. I believe that our Party, with courage and conviction, must renew its central purpose.

The forum for this debate is ALP National Conference. We once held conferences where big ideas were expressed with passionate intensity. We were that Party once. We must be that Party again.

WE MUST RENEW OUR CENTRAL PURPOSE

WHY CAN’T THE LABOR PARTY ADOPT AN OBJECTIVE ITS TRUE BELIEVERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN?

LUKE FOLEY IS NSW OPPOSITION LEADER. THIS IS A HEAVILY EDITED EXTRACT FROM HIS WRAN LECTURE ON 7 JULY, 2015.

DEBATE: THE SOCIALIST OBJECTIVE

v


COVER STORYCAMPAIGNS

by Luke Hilakari

‘THERE ARE SOME WHO WANTED THIS ELECTION TO BE ALL ABOUT UNIONS AND WORKERS. AND THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.’

On 29 November 2014 the new Premier-elect Daniel Andrews, to his credit, wasted no time in acknowledging the work of union members in helping bring down the first one-term Victorian government since 1955.

If there’s one key takeaway from the We Are Union campaign, it is the tremendous political power of union members. Real workers, having authentic conversations with their communities, proved unbeatable for the conservatives. A panicked Tony Abbott is now doing everything he can to prohibit union members campaigning at the federal election.

In May Special Minister of State Michael Ronaldson initiated an inquiry into rules around the distribution of how to vote cards, campaigning by groups ‘other than political parties’ at polling places, and allegations of conduct by campaigners at polling places ‘likely to mislead or intimidate electors’.

No prizes for guessing what that’s all about.

The Abbott Government is running scared at the thought of a We Are Union style campaign being rolled out nationwide because they understand what progressives have been slow to acknowledge – conservatives just cannot compete in an election about working people’s issues.

Our greatest strength is our people. It’s true of the union movement, it’s true of the Labor Party.

Getting rid of an anti-worker government last year was of course a priority for Victorian Trades Hall, but it was just one part of our broader campaign to build a standing army of union campaigners, who can go out

into the community and share the concerns of regular working people with a wider audience.

Trades Hall has recruited more than 3,000 volunteers to help spread the We Are Union message through phone banks, door knocking and public events. That work now continues independently of the election cycle.

This outstanding crowd of volunteers allowed us to make 123,000 phone calls and visit 93,000 homes in 2014. We are working toward even greater rates of direct voter contact ahead of the next federal election.

The Productivity Commission is due to hand in its report into Australia’s workplace relations framework in November. When Tony Abbott responds to its recommendations, we’ll be ready.

But, the sheer volume of interactions is only one half of the equation. What made the We Are Union campaign so effective was that the conversations we had with the public were grounded in the everyday experiences of life under a Liberal government.

Every year, Roy Morgan releases its Image of Professions Survey, which ranks workers from 30 professions for honesty and ethics. This year, Federal MPs come in at an abysmal 25, just ahead of stockbrokers. By contrast, the nurses who were verballed by Liberal volunteers on polling booths are considered the most honest and ethical workers in the country.

That’s why – when teachers, nurses, paramedics, fire fighters and others went out and shared their concerns about the anti-worker policies of the former Napthine Government – people listened, believed us, and then took action.

There are important lessons in this for the Labor Party.

When the federal election campaign arrives later this year or next year, we will be faced with an advertising market more fragmented than ever, a news cycle moving faster than ever, and a level of trust in our politicians that is lower than ever before.

Realistically, the next election cannot be won or lost by 226 Labor candidates around the country. The campaign can and should be owned by tens of thousands of Labor members and volunteers, out there in their communities, sharing their stories and making a positive case for the election of a Labor government.

But Tony Abbott’s defeat will also belong to the greater portion of our movement – the union members who are not Labor members. Their independent voice rings clearly and authentically for political change.

That voice did not go silent after the state election, and it won’t be silent after the federal election. Whoever forms

government , the fight for our rights at work n e v e r ends.

OUR GREATEST STRENGTH IS OUR PEOPLE. IT’S TRUE OF THE UNION MOVEMENT, IT’S TRUE OF THE LABOR PARTY.

REAL VOICES OF REAL WORKERS REALLY WORK

LUKE HILAKARI IS SECRETARY OF VICTORIAN TRADES HALL COUNCIL.


COVER STORYCIVIL LIBERTIES

by Declan O’Byrne

This year the Australian government introduced mandatory metadata retention for all Australians.

The laws force Australian phone and internet providers to store users’ data for two years. Security agencies will be free to probe stored data without a warrant or oversight. This affects the guilty and innocent indiscriminately. It is mass surveillance of us all.

Fortunately there are ways to circumvent this invasion of our right to privacy.

Metadata is data about data – and is often more telling than the data itself. It includes email addresses, phone numbers, names and IP addresses of all participants as well as the time, date and length of your communication. Your location is recorded from your phone and computer.

Do not underestimate what is revealed by the aggregated metadata of how, where, when and with who you communicate.

Metadata will be stored at an estimated cost of $300 million a year – creating a tax that Australians will pay to spy on ourselves. We will never be told if, when or why security agencies access our stored metadata.

The universal collection of metadata is a gross breach of civil liberties. It sets up the Australian people to be victims of abuse by rogue agents and subverts the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Data retention is a

dangerous precedent that erodes fundamental freedoms.

In 2006 the European Union introduced data retention laws very similar to ours. But in April 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union struck those laws out.

‘By requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data,’ the Court ruled.

There is no evidence on the effectiveness or need for a data retention bill. No evidence that it will reduce crime or make us safer.

In Germany, data retention was found to be unconstitutional. A 2011 study found ‘no impact on either the effectiveness of criminal investigations or the crime rate’.

In 2013 British representatives admitted before the Court of Justice of the European Union that there was ‘no scientific data to underpin the claimed need for

data retention’. In the same year the US Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board found that ‘there is little evidence that the metadata program has made the United States safer’.

So how can you avoid mass surveillance? There are numerous lawful avenues, many of which are free. Services such as VPNs (virtual private networks) and TOR (The Onion Router) are two leading options.

VPNs are cheap subscription services that connect users to remote networks outside of Australia, delivering anonymity and avoiding data retention. But not all VPNs are equal, so do your research.

TOR is a free service that conceals a user’s location and internet usage. The software is easily downloaded with a quick online search.

Then there are services – such as Wickr, Signal and Redphone – that provide encrypted phone calls and messaging without storing metadata.

The Australian Government’s data retention laws only capture metadata generated through domestic internet service providers. Services hosted overseas – including Gmail, Yahoo and Facebook Messenger – are not covered.

However Australia routinely shares intelligence with the US, UK, New Zealand and Canada through the Five Eyes alliance.

Forty-eight years after Lionel Murphy fought for civil liberties at an ALP National Conference, we must fight again.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OR NEED FOR A DATA RETENTION BILL. NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WILL REDUCE CRIME OR MAKE US SAFER.

STAND UP AGAINST MASS SURVEILLANCE

DECLAN O’BYRNE IS AN ENGINEERING SCIENCE STUDENT AND YOUNG LABOR MEMBER.

EVERY GENERATION HAS TO FIGHT OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE BATTLE FOR OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AND THIS GENERATION HAS TO DO THAT ALSO. WE AUSTRALIANS TEND TO THINK THAT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEYOND QUESTION. IN RECENT TIMES, ALMOST EVERY ONE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES HAS BEEN EITHER TRAMPLED ON, WHITTLED AWAY, CHALLENGED OR IGNORED IN AUSTRALIA.

- LIONEL MURPHY, ADDRESS TO ALP NATIONAL CONFERENCE, 1967.


THE ANNUAL BRUCE CHILDS LECTURE

I want to talk tonight about a vexed topic for those of us on the Left, one which in South Australia has accompanied many bottles of good shiraz and caused much worry for progressives; that is whether we’ve seen the end of the great Social Democratic Project. And I particularly want to address that topic from the perspective of two policy areas for which I’ve had portfolio responsibility over the past five years, namely ageing and climate change.

The frontline for the great Social Democratic Project has moved significantly over its 120 year history, but its core mission has always been the same: to break down structural inequality in our society, particularly inequality based on class, gender, race, religion, age or sexual preference. In Australia, there have been three great waves of social democratic reform, all of which profoundly changed society.

THREE WAVES OF SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC REFORM

The first wave washed over Australia around the time of Federation. It was based on the struggle for universal suffrage and basic rights at work, including the right to organise. Being a classic labour versus capital struggle, it

was essentially one based on class, particularly the class barriers between different groups of white men. But there was also – with the struggle for universal suffrage – a strong gender element. We also saw, in the Fisher Government, the beginning of strong social supports like the age pension. But the generations that achieved those significant improvements saw their living conditions largely dashed by two world wars and the Great Depression.

The end of World War II ushered in the second great wave of social democratic reform. Social democrats were committed to preventing a repeat of the deprivations of the Depression. They set about building a framework of strong social supports and putting in place systems that would more fairly distribute the increases in national wealth from the post-war economic booms.

In Britain and Western Europe, this process is generally described as the beginnings of the welfare state, but in Australia social democrats relied much more heavily on the wages system rather than a big increase in taxation and transfers. But whether in Britain, Australia or Western Europe, capital largely accommodated this wave of reform; if only through their fear of the other product

that was in the marketplace at the time: communism.

Social democrats, after enjoying the very significant rise in material prosperity through the post-war period, then moved to deal with other structural inequality.

They started to focus on race, on gender, and on sexual preference. The young Baby Boomers coming of age in the 1960s and 70s demanded a social dividend from the post-war economic boom, and clever politicians like Gough Whitlam, Don Dunstan and others harnessed that energy to drive the third great wave of social democratic reform.

Of course the fight against structural inequality is far from over. The condition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians on average remains appalling, the gender divide on a range of different indicators

by Mark Butler

NEWLY-ELECTED ALP NATIONAL PRESIDENT MARK BUTLER IS THE SHADOW MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATER AND MP FOR PORT ADELAIDE. THIS IS AN EDITED VERSION OF HIS SPEECH AT THE ANNUAL BRUCE CHILDS LECTURE IN SYDNEY ON 19 MAY, 2015.

THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS OF THE LABOR PARTY AND THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT WERE TOGETHER IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT FOR THESE REFORMS.

THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PROJECT IS LABOR’S CAUSE

Bruce Childs


remains far too wide, and the fight for marriage equality demonstrates that discrimination based on sexual preference is alive and well. But, broadly, it is fair to say that those three waves of social democratic reforms in Australia, and across western society, transformed the human condition.

And in Australia, we should proudly boast that it was a Labor project. It was the Labor Party and Australia’s trade union movement together in the driver’s seat for every one of those waves of social democratic reform. It wasn’t the Communist Party. It wasn’t the Socialist Party. It certainly wasn’t the Liberal Party and, I can tell you, it wasn’t the Australian Greens. It was driven by the social democrats in our labour movement.

ONLY SOCIAL DEMOCRATS CAN MANAGE TRANSITION

The second great objective of the Social Democratic Project, after the fight against structural inequality, is ensuring that major transitions or disruptions are managed appropriately; that pain is spread as broadly as possible and that opportunities from the new paradigm are enjoyed by everyone, not just the few. Keynes was not a social democrat, but his approach in the greatest disruption of them all, the Great

Depression, particularly his focus on full employment, remains important to social democrats today, as we saw in Rudd and Swan’s response to the Global Financial Crisis.

But the starkest example of this second challenge managed well is the contrast between the Hawke and Keating period here in Australia and the neoliberal approach pursued by Thatcher and Reagan. Our three countries were confronted with a major transition flowing from the end of the post-war economic boom, two significant global recessions within a decade and major industry restructuring that saw hundreds of thousands of workers, mainly blue-collar men, thrown out of work.

Thatcher and Reagan decided to smash the post-war detente that had existed between labour and capital in the Anglosphere countries, exemplified in Britain by the miners dispute and in the US by Reagan’s decision to sack all of that nation’s air traffic controllers. Widespread privatisation and a significant redistribution of wealth to the top end in those two nations substantially set back the Social Democratic Project.

In Australia, by contrast, there was a focus on education, skills and training, and particularly on school

retention to allow more young people to take advantage of the great Whitlam reforms in higher education. The Accords between the Labor Government and the trade union movement cemented the great post-war wages compact in Australia, and at the same time delivered working people a great social wage – Medicare, access to childcare, universal superannuation, just to name a few.

There was still widespread pain in the Australian economy, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of blue-collar jobs. But people were supported. Many were able to enjoy opportunities that came from the long period of economic expansion that has followed. Only Labor could have delivered those two outcomes.

The next 15 years present an even greater scale of transition and disruption to Australia. That transition is centred largely on two profound shifts: the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation and the need to transition one of the world’s most fossil fuel intensive economies to a clean energy future in the face of climate change.

AGEING POPULATION A TRIUMPH, NOT DISASTER

The ageing of the population is generally regarded by economists and commentators as a disaster. It’s going to bankrupt the budget, it’s going to strangle our economy,

ABOUT MARK BUTLERMark Butler is a former South Australian state secretary of the LHMU (now United Voice), a former Cabinet Minister in the Rudd/Gillard Governments and the Member for Port Adelaide. Mark is Labor’s spokesperson for the Environment, Climate Change and Water.

Mark is committed to a progressive and inclusive Labor Party. For many years, Mark has argued for rank-and-file members to be given more influence over important decisions in the ALP.

Mark’s had a lifelong affiliation with the Labor Party. He served on the National Executive for 15 years, was SA State President in 1997 and 1998 and has been Labor Member for Port Adelaide since 2007. He was recently elected National Labor President. Mark is also a huge fan of Port Adelaide football club.

Continued overleaf

it’s going to usher in a gerontocracy whereby older Australians use their weight of numbers to pursue their own self-interest at the expense of their grandchildren.

I think that’s all hogwash. I’m publishing a book in September where I cover that in detail. There is no doubt that the 65th birthday in 2011 of the oldest of the Baby Boomers kicked off a very substantial shift in Australia’s population profile. By the time the youngest Baby Boomers turn 65 in 2030, that age cohort of over 65s will have doubled from about three million in 2010 to almost six million. It will continue to grow.

I’m not a fan of the doomsday approach to this question. I’m a fan of the World Health Organisation’s perspective that the addition of 25 years to life expectancy is ‘one of humanity’s greatest triumphs’. It will bring a raft of challenges; but the greatest is to ensure that those additional years are good years in which older Australians are secure, healthy and valued by the community.

On all of those matters we need to do much more. Our Age Pension is the most modest in the OECD, yet it is under constant attack from the Tories and their

barrackers in the media. Our superannuation accounts are inadequate for too many older Australians. Half of the women in the Baby Boomer generation have superannuation accounts of less than $30,000. Half of the women in their early 60s have less than $16,000. Rates of outright home ownership among Baby Boomers are in steep decline, removing one of the most important pillars of retirement income security. And our attitudes to older age are dreadful. The generation that created modern society’s cult of youth is now feeling its pointy end.

This transition to a new normal in Australia where about 20 percent of the population is aged over 65 requires serious policy attention – to retirement incomes, to housing, to healthcare and other areas. Only Labor has the policy depth and the values system that can sustain the Social Democratic Project in the face of such a massive population shift.

That shift will be easier to manage here than most other countries, in large part because of far-sighted policy reforms that were put in place 25 years ago by Hawke and Keating. But we also have exceptional demographic and economic projections. By contrast, in almost all OECD nations outside the Anglosphere, the retirement of post-war Baby Boomers coincides with very low fertility rates, and/or very low immigration, to produce populations that are ageing very fast and shrinking.

Germany is clearing vast swathes of vacant housing to create open space to mask a shrinking population. Japan’s working age cohort has been shrinking for 20 years. In 2050, Japan will be as much as one-

third smaller than it is today. And in our other two largest export markets – South Korea and China – the working age cohorts will also decline as Baby Boomer retirement coincides with low fertility rates and largely non-existent immigration.

GRASP OPPORTUNITIES, MANAGE IMPACT OF CHANGE

Australia by contrast will likely grow to about 40 million by the 2050s which means an exceptional level of ongoing workforce and economic growth. But such growth is a mixed blessing as I come to the second area I want to talk about, climate change.

A growing population makes the task of reducing our carbon pollution levels harder. Take Spain. In 2000, Spain was about twice as big as Australia – 40 million people compared to our 20 million. By 2050, on some projections we may well be around the same size as Spain at about 40 million people.

So our per capita task in carbon pollution reduction, between 2000 and 2050, will be twice that of Spain. On the other hand, our rising incomes and our abundant capital better position us to finance the extraordinary transformation we must undertake in our energy and transport systems and our land sector.

A meaningful response to climate change has two core commitments. The first is to ensure that global warming reaches no more than two degrees beyond pre-industrial levels. The second is that all nations do their fair share to achieve that goal. Australia must face up to that responsibility. We are the heaviest polluters per head of population in the OECD. That is the challenge leading into the Paris Conference in December.

This will require a huge transformation in our energy system, the creation of much greater capacity in renewable energy and an extraordinary transformation in transport. In our land sector, we will start to sequester carbon dioxide rather than continue to release it in the net volumes that we have seen since white settlement.

This transition will bring enormous opportunities in employment, innovation and our

I’M A FAN OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION’S PERSPECTIVE THAT THE ADDITION OF 25 YEARS TO LIFE EXPECTANCY IS ‘ONE OF HUMANITY’S GREATEST TRIUMPHS’.

THE ANNUAL BRUCE CHILDS LECTURE



quality of life, but it will fall harder on regions that have traditionally based their prosperity on fossil fuels. I’m talking about areas like the Latrobe Valley in Victoria and the Hunter Valley and the Illawarra in NSW. I reflect back on the 1980s and how the Party and union movement managed that huge transition – I am convinced that only Labor, social democratic Labor, is able to ensure that that the impact is spread as broadly as possible, is managed as fairly as possible, and that those regions are able to readily access the opportunities that undoubtedly come with a clean energy future.

Labor’s emissions trading scheme will operate to share the responsibility of the transition, rather than focussing on particular regions or particular industries. The market-based ETS will deliver incentives for extraordinary innovation and employment opportunities. But a meaningful response to climate change is not a matter of choice.

It’s a matter of when we do it and how we manage it. We know the longer we delay real action, the steeper the climb will be. Only one part of Australia’s political system can drive this significant transformation in a manner consistent with our national values of fairness and opportunity: the labour movement.

OUR FUTURE IS THE THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PROJECT

Friends, the end of the Cold War made it fashionable to think that we had passed into a profoundly new phase of history where the struggles of the 20th century were settled or irrelevant. Academics like Fukuyama talked about the end of history. Tories across the world toasted the end of social democracy. And many of us on the progressive side of politics fretted and wondered ‘what next for the Left?’

But they were all wrong. Because while we still confront discrimination in our marriage

laws, the Social Democratic Project is not finished. While there is still rampant inequality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, there is much work to do. While there is such a vast gender gap and growing income inequality between classes, that project is not yet done. And when we confront the scale of transition and disruption as we move to a clean energy future, the Social Democratic Project remains just as important today as it was in the 20th century.

We know in our hearts and in our minds that an Australia that remains true to the values that we built up in the 20th century – fairness and opportunity for all – will not be sustained by the reactionaries that have taken over the Liberal Party or by the Greens Party pontificating from the cheap seats. The fortunes of Australia are inextricably tied to the success of the Social Democratic Project, and to the values and the cause of Labor.

5 FAST FACTS: ALP NATIONAL PRESIDENT ELECTIONSMark Butler is Labor’s member-elected National President. Here’s how it works.

1. When was direct member election for National President introduced?Direct member election for the National President was introduced at the 2002 Special Rules Conference. The first ballot was in 2003.

2. How many ballots have we had?Australian Labor has conducted 5 elections (but only 4 ballots as there was an agreed ticket in 2009).

3. How is the ballot conducted? Every ALP member is eligible to vote in the postal ballot conducted using proportional representation. The candidate with the highest total over quota is elected President, the second candidate to reach quota is elected Senior Vice-President and the third candidate to reach quota is elected Junior Vice-President. Those elected serve for 3 years.

4. How many members were eligible to vote in the 2015 ballot?53,930

5. How many members voted in the 2015 ballot?19,494


INTERNATIONAL

LESSONS FROM LONDON: CREATE SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE CHANGE

IN MAY UK LABOUR SUFFERED ITS SECOND CATACLYSMIC DEFEAT.

Once again it polled 30 percent but it is the nature of that 30 percent we should inspect. It was a 30 percent bereft of hope, meaning or any grasp of the future or the Party’s place in it. It was 30 percent for the least worst option – anything but the Tories – because the Tories were so incompetent and uncaring and out of touch. It was a 30 percent boosted by the collapse of the centrist Liberal Democrats from 23 percent in 2010 to 8 percent.

And yet Labour was still only 1 percent up on 2010. Five years of hard graft and even higher hopes gone as soon as the exit poll flashed up.

Labour now tries to pick itself up. It has jumped straight into a leadership contest – which already resembles which bit of the past do you most want to recreate – the Blair, Brown or Miliband era – as if any were sufficient. Like just about every social democratic party the world over, Labour finds itself going through the motions – a kind of undead zombie politics –

hoping that something, anything will turn up.

But what are the key lessons for Australian Labor that can be transported from the other side of the globe?

The first is get beyond retail politics. Labour in the UK offered baubles like energy price caps that were never seen as credible and were never viewed as part of a bigger story about what sort of country we wanted to create.

So have a narrative about the future of your country. In the UK Labour has always done well electorally when it contested the future – 1945 and a land fit for heroes, 1964 and the white heat of technology and even 1997 and the modernity of New Labour.

In an increasingly networked society, the Left can lay claim to a more egalitarian and democratic world because its possible to experience such a world as the technology unfolds. Yes it is contested by the big digital corporates – but we should own a future that is becoming more horizontal and talk about how the gains of productivity should be distributed.

The second lesson is to get back to movement building. Labour here ran an orthodox top down

campaign – centralised messages – even to the extent of literally carving vague pledges in stone. Miliband must have seen himself as some kind of Moses figure – politics done to the people. But if we live in a more connected and networked world. People are getting used to doing things for themselves – and many are enjoying it. So the job of Labour parties is not just to inhabit the state to pull levers for people.

We need to create the spaces and deploy the resources so that people can make change happen themselves. Then change can be come embedded culturally and politically.

In the UK new figures have just been released showing child poverty back to pre-New Labour levels. A decade of backroom transfers though tax credits and benefits tweaks has been undone – in part because Labour did it all by stealth. No constituency was ever built up to make the changes permanent. Even the people who benefited did not know why because no one told them.

One ex-Labour adviser recently recounted a conversation with Gordon Brown that went ‘we are in politics to help those at the bottom – but can never tell anyone because then we won’t get elected’.

And in the leadership election just taking place uber-Blairite ex-Minister Alan Milburn said that ‘no one knows what Labour stands for’. After 13 years of New Labour, and five years of Miliband’s ‘vote Labour and win a microwave’, that’s no surprise.

So the real lesson is – it’s both tough and complicated. There are no shortcuts. In or out of office the ALP must dig the cultural, moral and organisational roots in which a 21st century progressive politics can flourish. Good luck and let’s learn from and help each other. It’s the same struggle in the same cultural context.

By Neal Lawson

NEAL LAWSON IS CHAIR OF COMPASS WWW.COMPASSONLINE.ORG.UK


SHANNON FENTIMAN is a Minister in the Queensland Government whose portfolios include Communities, Child Safety, Women, Youth and

Multicultural Affairs. She’s also the proud Member for

Waterford.

1. TOP BOOKThe Museum of Innocence By Orhan Pamuk

I absolutely love to read novels. The legendary Turkish writer and Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk is a charming storyteller who captures the beauty of ordinary life in one of my favourites, The Museum of Innocence. I couldn’t put down the new Haruki Murakami, Colourless Tsukuri Tasaki and his Years of Pilgrimage. 4. TOP INTERNET

Jezebel

I am always on Jezebel which is a great feminist blog and The Atlantic for good coverage of world current affairs and politics.

3.TOP MAGAZINEDumbo Feather

There’s nothing better than reading insightful long form pieces about extraordinary people. It is also a great Aussie success story and I love how it feels. Gourmet Traveller is also a favourite for plane trips – I dream about the great meals and my next holiday.

2. TOP FILMLife is Beautiful (1997, Italy)

Life is Beautiful: an extraordinary poignant and harrowing story. I have never cried so hard after watching a movie! And I surprisingly loved the new Mad Max: Fury Road, a full-blown feminist blockbuster.

5. TOP MUSICJames Taylor

It’s way too hard to pick only a couple of favourite albums, but right now I’m listening to the new albums from James Taylor and Aussie band Oh Mercy.

Party PeopleWHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU WANT LABOR’S 2015 NATIONAL CONFERENCE TO ACHIEVE?

YES, I WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO CHALLENGE.

SUPPORTING SUBSCRIBER ($20/MONTH) PRINT SUBSCRIPTION ONLY ($40 PER ANNUM) CONCESSION SUBSCRIPTION ($10 PER ANNUM)

YOU CAN ALSO SUBSCRIBE NOW ONLINE AT www.challengemagazine.com.au

BIND ON MARRIAGE EQUALITYI’d like to achieve a binding vote on marriage equality. This isn’t a matter of conscience. It’s about standing up for fairness and equality which are at the core of what it means to be Labor.Cara Galves, WA

ENDORSE BINDING VOTEI want to see National Conference proudly sup-port social justice and endorse a binding vote on marriage equality. These are fundamental Labor values that we must put into action.Chris Wheeler, Victoria

YES TO MARRIAGE EQUALITYA binding vote for marriage equality. It is embarrassing that a country that claims its foundation in a ‘fair go for all’ does not allow two people to formalise their relationship in marriage.Sharon Carnes, Tasmania

LIFT UP THE POORI want to see National Conference plan not just to fight Tories, but to do it by lifting up all those most hurt by them; the poor and the powerless, be they born here or still on their way.Clancy Lumb, NSW

DEVELOP CITIES POLICYI want Labor to take a lead on cities policy. Over 80 percent of our population lives in cities and 85 percent of our economic output comes from cities, so this should be a priority for Labor.Suzanne Orr, ACT

BOOST INDIGENOUS MEMBERSNational Conference should promote policy to see more women in electable positions and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people represented more actively within the Party.Elise Wall, QLD

Please send cheque or money order payable to Challenge.

Send your completed form to Challenge, PO Box 21252, World Square, NSW 2002

or email [email protected]

challenge winter 2015

Documents