Critique of Labor and the Greens on 'policy compromise'

Recently the Australian Greens negotiated a compromise with the Liberal Federal Government on the question of pursuing tax evasion by "Australia's wealthiest private companies". 'The Age' reported that as part of the compromise "Up to 300 of Australia's wealthiest private companies will be forced to disclose their annual tax bill for the first time."

Labor has branded the deal "a sellout". They had pressed for all companies with revenues of over $100 million to be affected by the reform, whereas the Greens negotiated a compromise with a threshold of $200 million. This meant "up to 600" more companies would be "shielded" from the reform. Labor had argued a compromise was not necessary, on the assumption the Government itself would have been forced to compromise before the end of the sitting of Parliament.

Several months ago the Greens agreed to another compromise: tightening means tests on Aged Pensions in order to save $2.4 billion over four years. By contrast Labor was arguing for reform of Superannuation Concessions delivering windfall gains to some of the most wealthy. Shorten's plan foreshadowed savings of $14 billion over ten years. But the existing Government is facing a deficit perhaps ballooning to over $40 billion a year, and root and branch reform of tax is what is necessary, not only to get the deficit under control, but to pave the way for a reforming Federal Labor Government which actually improves the social wage, social insurance and social welfare by tens of billions in the context of a $1.6 trillion economy.

Again by contrast the deal agreed to by the Greens with the Liberals had 170,000 of the most financially disadvantaged pensioners standing to gain $30/week as of 2017. But approximately 330,000 (relatively better-off) pensioners would see cuts through tougher means tests and more than double that into the future.

The ALP Socialist Left in relation to the Greens

Labor often gets it wrong on policy. Often Labor pursues symbolic policies for appearances sake which are far from the 'root and branch' reform needed to serve the interests of its constituents. Shorten's Superannuation Concession reforms are very modest, and as a consequence Labor will be pressed to pursue extensive austerity should they regain government if there is no change. Perhaps this will mean regressive policies like more attacks on vulnerable groups such as Sole Parents will be raised. Or perhaps an increase in the Age of Retirement will be pondered. And yet Labor's Platform leaves the way open potentially for an expansion of progressive tax and social expenditure. Labor still has options for a genuinely progressive mandate.

If as the most significant left formation in the country the broad ALP Socialist Left does not criticise its own party's policies - then who will step into that space?

There are a number of possibilities. Either groups like the Greens will step into that space; or because of the 'public silence' of the ALP Socialist Left, the Left more broadly will be demobilised. This would especially be a threat if the Greens' recent trending towards compromise marked 'a move to the Centre'. That would again leave a space on the relative Left of the Australian political milieu. A new challenger on the left of Australian politics could take a long time to re-emerge therefore ; just as it has taken decades for the Greens to establish themselves properly. And this would simply assist the broad Australian Right in consolidating their hegemony.

The strategy of leftists 'staying and fighting' within the Labor Party remains valid. But when the Party leadership gets it badly wrong it's up to leftists whether they vacate that (public) left space and/or demobilise the left - or whether they choose their battles - and publicly dissent where necessary. Making the case for stronger superannuation concessions reform is a crucial example which could neutralise the drive towards austerity. Public dissent in such instances is necessary because there is the alternative of Left demobilisation. And before we know it even some of the ALP Left's own people don't know what they're supposed to be fighting for anymore... (take privatisation, tax reform, social wage and welfare expansion and reform, industrial rights and liberties etc)

Insofar as criticism is constructive there shouldn't just tolerance of internal criticism of Labor policy. Instead it must be encouraged. Further, the trend towards Labor and Greens just trashing each other always seems to involve a degree of 'spin' and is not necessarily 100% honest. What we need instead is honest, well-intentioned, reciprocal criticism.

Between the Greens and the ALP Left there is a kind of 'double edged sword'. Should the ALP Socialist Left work for co-operation with the Greens – or should the ALP Socialist Left fight them tooth and nail on account of the threat to several of their most talented Left MPs ; and the likelihood of declining Socialist Left influence in Caucus and Cabinet? What must be kept in mind is that policy outcomes are what matters more than anything.

More on Greens compromises

Regarding recent policy compromise by the Greens it's worth observing the old dilemma over whether to compromise and get something 'right here right now' - or whether to hold back - in the hope of discrediting the Conservatives - and getting something much better with the next change of government. Labor has faced these dilemmas itself at times.

For instance, the Carbon Tax was good policy - but was politically impossible after Gillard's commitment "There will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead". The Greens should have recognised this. And there were other options. Like billions in annual direct public investment in renewables research and infrastructure. In a convoluted kind of way the Greens' insistence on the Carbon Tax could even have been considered an instance of opportunism in its own right.

The Greens got their policy – and it granted them prestige with their constituencies. But arguably it sealed the fate of the Labor Government. This is not to say the Greens shouldn't press their leverage to get robust policy compromises from Labor. And arguably Julia Gillard should never have backed Labor into that corner in the first place. But direct investment in renewables research and public infrastructure would not have involved a blatant, high-profile broken promise. Of note: Labor must not back itself into a corner on 'small government' now either!

What Reforms must Labor and the Greens pursue now as the 2016 federal election approaches?

Instead of just positioning against each other with the hope of gaining an electoral advantage over largely 'cosmetic' policies, again Labor and the Greens should be projecting root and branch reform in any Labor Government where the Greens hold sway over the cross-benches

Labor needs to settle on policies of depth and substance. Because while 'cosmetic' policies may win over some voters – that is not Labor's 'reason for being'. Furthermore – 'cosmetic' policies do not convince everyone, and as a consequence can reinforce cynicism and disengagement on the Left.

Labor should not be driven by the quest for government purely for its own sake. Before Thatcherism and the decades-long retreat of the Left there was reference to the notion of "The Forward March of Labour'. Labor needs to reconceive of its reform trajectory. Of what comprises its 'forward march' on policies which reform social wage, social insurance, welfare, personal and collective liberties, the extension of democracy – and more. Specifically Labor must position itself as a long term party of government: with the aim of gradually increasing public investment and expenditure by as much as $80 billion a year (in today's terms) over the course of ten years. That is: by 5 per cent of GDP. That would provide scope for reforms of Whitlamite proportions – albeit over a longer period.

Some would call the Greens' compromises through 2015 opportunism. Labor would attract that claim from the Greens themselves if it was Labor who had made the compromises. The Greens are trying to shake off their reputation as a 'protest party' – which never has to compromise. Labor argues that the Greens are about appearances re: policy protest – but are not about outcomes. But there is the counter-argument that some of the compromises the Greens have pursued have helped the most vulnerable. (though in a way which has arguably not been fair to some people who would not reasonably qualify as 'well-off')

What matters most now, though, is that if we get a Labor Government - and if the Greens hold the cross-benches - there will be no more need for 'compromise with the Liberals'. And in that case we should see the whole policy schema recalibrated in a way which is truly fair - and doesn't involve 'compromises' whereby one constituency (not really 'privileged' by any reasonable measure) is played off against another (truly, genuinely disadvantaged). Better to target the top 15 per cent income and wealth demographics for redistributive measures aimed at improving the lot of those on low and middle incomes ; workers and vulnerable welfare recipients.

The 'top 15 per cent' is a narrow enough (and well-off enough) demographic for redistribution to be fair. And it is also narrow enough for redistributive reforms to be electorally viable. Finally, it is broad enough to bring in serious revenue for serious reforms.

Labor needs to establish its reform trajectory quickly if it is to have the window of opportunity to sell such a package to voters ahead of the Federal Election in 2016.