LaborNET

  Ask Neale

  Tool of the Week

Interview

The Big Bribe

Interview with Peter Lewis

ACTU president Sharan Burrow emerges from the Federal Budget lock-up to ask where is the Howard Government's vision for the future?

	Sharan Burrow

What is the ACTU's reaction to this week's Federal Budget?

The Howard Government squandered the surplus and abandoned working families. Working families are paying three times over.

First of all they are paying for the increased cost of the GST. The Budget Papers clearly show that the effect of any compensation has been wiped out in just one year. Then they will pay for rising unemployment, which is now tipped to exceed 7% on ABS stats. We know these stats are inaccurate in determining the real levels of unemployment, so it could be as high as 12 or 13%. And thirdly they will pay because the surplus was squandered with no significant investment in essential services, like public education and public health. The small amount of investment in training is so inadequate that we will see some 40,000 young people missing out on a place in TAFE this year. For working families this is an appalling picture in itself.

However in addition you have a look at the discrimination that the Howard Government has now put in place in what is left of the the progressive income taxation system. By catering to the needs of self-funded retirees alone this government has created a situation where systemic taxation discrimination is now entrenched. A couple on $32,000 a week - average weekly earnings, pre-retirement - will pay almost $100 more tax than a couple who are self-funded retirees. This is even harder to take when working families see their parents, who are on age pensions, get no equivalent support - just a token, one-off, $300 - in the face of the promised $1,000. The Government appears to have catered to its own constituency and totally denied the struggle faced by working families and all pensioners and welfare recipients as a result of the GST.

But we do have an ageing population. What would a government that was serious about looking after the interests of older people be doing at this point in the cycle?

First of all you would hope that any Government would recognise that pensioners need a level of income that will enable them to survive with dignity. Any concessions for self-funded retirees should be matched for pensioners and other groups in society with equal or greater needs.

The question is not whether older people should be catered for. Of course they should, but the insult to pensioners is just unbelievable. Likewise the neglect of of low paid workers. If couples earning up to $80,000 a year as self-funded retirees can get a public health card and telephone rental subsidy, with tax concessions of, on average $60 per week, up to $58,000 a year yet the same government would only support a pay rise $10 before tax for low paid working people in the Living Wage Case, then you have got to ask why would working families vote for a Howard Government?

What would you have done differently if you were handing down the Budget this week?

I am not the Treasurer unfortunately but first of all you would want to put some sort of integrated plan in place for Australia's future. If this was the Budget that Howard was going to take to the election, there should have been a number of signals in it about his future plans. What you have actually got, is a mishmash of bits and pieces where he has tried to pacify those groups in his own constituency that he feels he has offended.

Unions would expect a number of just priorities in any fair budget. One, that the Budget acknowledge the pain that has been caused by the GST, and that there be some significant relief in regard to working families. We would want a serious approach to job creation in the face of rising unemployment and serious investment of growth funds into TAFE and training to address the skills deficit. Equally a sustainable approach to regional and rural development would go beyond the tokenism in this budget.

After five years of damage and privatisation this Budget should provide re-investment in essential services including public education - from early childhood to universities - public health, child care, public transport and public housing.

One thing that stands out about this Budget is that it is really about giving payments to different classes of individuals. What does that say about the sort of government we have?

It says that you have got a government that is prepared to break down traditional foundations of Australian social responsibility, like the progressive taxation system. You have got a government who now is going to build systemic inequities into a progressive taxation system in order to favour one group of people. You have a government that is not simply looking at benefits for those most in need, but is looking at how you actually use positive discrimination for classes of people judged to be more worthy than others. That is not the kind of egalitarian base on which Australians would want to see their taxation system working.

I think that the Howard Government can certainly be challenged about their approach to social and income policies on the basis of discrimination. Justice should decree that a Government starts with people most in need and works from this point as the Budget can afford.

Macro economic policy seems to be fairly out of fashion these days. Does the ACTU have a position? Would they like to see a stronger central economic policy being promoted by a federal government?

Governments have to maintain their hands on the levers of economic development. This government has in fact shown that they are prepared to spend to intervene where economic sectors like the building industry are in difficulty. I saw a headline that said "A spending budget that Whitlam would be envious of". Well, in fact Gough Whitlam would never have spent the budget money in such a discriminatory fashion, but nevertheless you have got to have governments who accept that you do have to spend in certain sectors to make sure the economy remains stable.

The pity is that this government has not gone far enough. There is no policy for industry development, and no plan for sustainable infrastructure. There is a heritage fund with no parameters, no directions, no targets such that the environmental movement is very concerned. The infrastructure lobby is scratching their heads when they see contracts for one of the few projects like the Darwin to Adelaide Railway go offshore. The manufacturing sector are in despair that the bulk of the R&D money is on lay-by and won't be paid until the third and fourth year out.

The unions and the ACTU will always promote intervention in the economy to the extent that industry sectors and therefore jobs are viable. Unfortunately there is no coherent plan to give you a confidence that this government can manage such a fundamental role.

Just on a slight tangent: Peter Botsman and Mark Latham put out a book last week called The Enabling State which basically runs the line that rather than putting more money into building government structures, the government should be putting money into community based development schemes. What is your position on that sort of re-orientation?

I haven't read Peter Botsman's and Mark Latham's book. If you are asking do we invest in community development, the answer is yes. If you are asking does government walk away from being responsible for the plight of workers within our communities, the answer is no.

Fundamental social security provisions, public services and indeed, economic policy more broadly are all central responsibilities for government. Australian people want to know that the role of government is taken seriously once again. They want to see government regulate where it is in people's interests. This has been demonstrated overwhelmingly by community anger at the crisis in areas like airline safety, the supply and pricing volatility in essential untilies such as electricity, gas and water and the financial sector as portrayed by the HIH collapse. They want to know that telecommunication services are available, that postal services won't be deregulated such that they cannot be guaranteed to communities across the country.

The roles are fundamental for governments and the Australian people are saying that they want greater focus on these areas. If the question is, should people have more say about where money is spent well, that is something we would always support, provided that it is a collective voice and not about the dominance of individuals.

Finally, Labor is handing down their speech in reply tonight on the Budget. What would be the one thing they could do that would send you the message that they are on the right track?

Labor has to talk about people. What John Howard's Budget didn't do, except for select groups is look at the needs of Australian people, and say: What is it that is our prime responsibility?

We want to see that Labor does something about their responsibility for jobs. That they say something about their responsibility for essential public services, like public education, public health, training, welfare and all those services that give people life opportunities. And of course we want to see that Labor remains committed to rolling back the GST; to relieving working families of the burden of the GST where it is possible in the context of the Budget.

We would urge Kim Beazley to put people first; to balance the needs of people and the economy rather than putting the economy first and ignoring the needs of working families.

  Vist the ACTU

  View entire issue - print all of the articles!

  Issue 97 contents

»	Spotlight on HIH�s WorkCover Link
»	Construction Industry Faces Safety Crisis
»	Statewide Strike Off But Della on Notice
»	David and Goliath Battle at IBM
»	Natasha�s Democrats Face Senate IR Test
»	Howard Abandons Working Families
»	City Councils Recognise Birth � Now for the Bush
»	BHP Forced to Back Off Kembla AWAs
»	Impulse Bores Workers Into Submission
»	Coach Drivers Win Permanency
»	Boss Pockets Compo Payment
»	Union Wins Battle in AWA War
»	Publicans Want to Reduce Bar Pay
»	Abbott Agrees to Ban Asbestos
»	Union Acts to Save Leichhardt Refuge
»	Trade Union Choir Turns Ten
»	Activists' Notebook

»	The Soapbox
»	The Locker Room
»	Trades Hall
»	Tool Shed

»	Thanks from Indonesia
»	Hester Spot On
»	Fuelling Voter Anger
»	May Day - The Debate Continues
»	Not a Chaser Fan

Notice Board
- Check out the latest events

Latest Issue

View entire latest issue
- print all of the articles!

Previous Issues

Subject index

Search all issues

© 1999-2000 Labor Council of NSW

LaborNET is a resource for the labour movement provided by the Labor Council of NSW

[ Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Credits ]

LaborNET is proudly created, designed and programmed by Social Change Online for the Labor Council of NSW