Abbott a threat both to fairness and prosperity

Areas of the media are to blame for focusing on this drama of leaks from within the government, and even the intervention of Mark Latham, when in the public interest they should have been focusing on substantive policy debate (across the spectrum, and including the Greens).

The “bigger picture” - what’s really at stake?

But there are broader concerns at stake in this election, and neither the government nor the Opposition seem to be planning ahead more than maybe a term or two. Labor’s commitment to the National Broadband Network, school infrastructure and increased employer superannuation contributions are very notable exceptions. (Although the problem of a two-tiered aged pension remains with regards to superannuation - as always). And as we will see, Labor’s policies are more sustainable in a social sense over the long term.

To begin, there are structural fiscal challenges associated with the ageing of Australia’s population, and what this means for health, aged care and welfare, with flow-on effects elsewhere, including transport infrastructure and education.

At the outset, therefore, it is important to note Abbott’s commitment to cutting the tax base beyond what is sustainable, including effective cuts in overall company tax beyond what has been promised by Labor, and the scrapping of the Mining Resource Rental Tax that rightly gives taxpayers a share of the benefits from the exploitation of minerals and other resources that belong to all of us. As a consequence, increases in employer superannuation contributions would also be dropped under an Abbott government.

Further, Abbott’s parental leave plan promises to direct what sparse budget funds remain away from where they are needed most - welfare, health, education - in a move that would effectively see those on lower incomes subsidising those on higher incomes. Specifically, the program would “cost more than $8 billion during its first two years”, and a mother on an income as high as $75,000 would receive six months leave at full pay.

Australia needs progressive tax reform, with the aim being to support an expanded social wage to ensure certain “baseline” needs are met for all of us. This must encompass health (including aged care), welfare, education and other areas such as communications and information, social housing, social recreation facilities and transport.

Without reform, as the proportion of our population outside the taxable labour market increases, shortfalls in social services will become increasingly critical. Here also a “two-tiered” and polarised system comprising the market and a residual public social wage would deepen: what John Kenneth Galbraith encapsulated with the term “private affluence, public squalor”.

The crisis is further compounded by a rising cost of living: especially in areas such as water and energy - where the public is now paying the price for privatisation. And with higher property prices, the impact of interest rates when they rise is magnified - a legacy of the Howard-era housing bubble - with home ownership now out of reach for many.

To put none too fine a point on it, without progressive tax reform there just won’t be enough public money.

So public hospital waiting lists will worsen; dental care will remain inaccessible for many; and there won’t be enough money to include crucial medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Public education will continue to be chronically under-resourced as compared to privileged private establishments. Insufficient public funds will undermine even the meagre liberal principle of “equal opportunity”, disadvantaging less-privileged citizens, and failing to provide for the demands of an ever-evolving economy.

And again, whatever short-term commitments Abbott makes on mental health, a dwindling pool of public funds under the Liberals would translate into savage austerity elsewhere. An example of this is Abbott’s dumping of plans for “Super Clinics” which would take pressure from desperately over-stretched public hospitals. Or else mental health commitments will themselves be fudged over the longer term.

Other consequences could include insufficient public funds for infrastructure such as roads and public transport.