The politics of redistribution and envy

One of the most mystifying aspects of the fall-out from the Australian Labor Party’s massive 2004 Federal election loss has been the reiteration of the false proposition that Mark Latham conducted a “brilliant” campaign effort which only failed because the Australian people were enticed by a Liberal Party campaign “heavy on fear” on matters of economic management, and which pandered to “greedy self-interest” and “conspicuous consumption”.

Apparently the ALP offered the electorate a viable mix of economic and social policy to enable individuals and families to climb their own “ladder of opportunity”.

So, for Labor insiders and their allies, including trade unionists, media commentators, State Labor Governments, anti-war protestors, feminists, multiculturalists, refugee advocates, the arts community, welfare state defenders and the radical environmental lobby, the hand-wringing and expressions of hatred towards the Howard Government and the 2004 election victory is likely to continue unabated: especially since the Howard ascendancy has translated into an historic Senate majority.

As Labor pores over the entrails of its defeat, and seeks answers for its mediocre performance, it need look no further than a speech made by the Prime Minister to the National Press Club two days before the election. In that speech, John Howard said the philosophical divide between the two major parties was a fundamental determinant that would drive voter sentiment. He emphasised the Coalition’s commitment to a “golden thread” of choice running through the Liberal policies, compared to the “behavioural policeman” approach of the ALP, which rewarded preferred behaviours and punished alternative, and legitimate, actions.

The philosophical differences were particularly evident in the following areas.

Education

The release of a school’s “hit list” funding policy, comprising absolute and real funding cuts for a range of non-government schools. A key trend over the past decade has been the movement in student enrolments from government schools to Catholic and independent schools, where aspirational parents are increasingly prepared to pay substantial private school fees, taking second or third jobs if necessary, to ensure their children are provided with the best possible educational opportunities. However, the ALP’s schools policy proposed to reduce or freeze public funding to children in 178 non-government schools, which would have placed additional cost pressures on these schools, resulting in raised fees and more students in the government school system.

Health

The Howard Government has successfully taken the pressure off public hospitals by the introduction of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. However, support from the ALP came into question when Mark Latham and Julia Gillard announced the ALP would not support the Coalition’s election commitment to provide an additional private health rebate scheme for the over 65’s. Removal of the rebate would have had the long-term effect of forcing many private health insurance members back into an overcrowded and inefficient public hospital system. Furthermore, the Medicare Gold policy, which proposed publicly subsidised free hospital treatment in the private health sector for those people over 75 years of age, would have increased queues for other Australians in need of private hospital services. Health service delivery would be based on age and not medical need.

Family payments and child care benefits

The ALP’s failed tax and family benefits package, which proposed to abolish the Coalition’s Family Tax Benefit (Part B), would have effectively penalised stay-at-home mothers. Labor also planned to rescind the Coalition’s $600 per child per annum payment, as well as restricting access to a range of current family benefits. Families with children under the age of three, and who benefit from child care services, would have also endured restricted benefits under Labor, compared to the Coalition’s 30 per cent child care rebate.

Forestry

In an extraordinary concession to the minority Greens Party, and in an attempt to secure the “post-materialist” environment vote in mainland capital cities, Labor sought to reserve 250,000ha of Tasmanian old growth and regrowth forest on public land and up to 150,000ha on private property. This policy would have cost significant numbers of jobs in Tasmania, including employment for mature-age workers in the forestry sector and reduce economic security for thousands of families in that state.

Industrial relations

The implementation of the ALP’s industrial relations platform and policies, including abolition of individually negotiated Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), increasing Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) powers, greater complexity in awards, and restricting the use of casuals and independent contractors in the workforce, would have effectively led to the reintroduction of a “one-size-fits-all” model of workplace relations. This would favour the special interests of trade unions and dramatically reduce the prospects for increased productivity and wages for ordinary workers.

When critically assessing the likely effects of Labor’s economic and social policies it is difficult to reconcile these against Mark Latham’s “ladder of opportunity” rhetoric. A close examination of Labor philosophy and its 2004 election tactics reveals that the “ladder of opportunity” was only a hollow device designed to mask finer policy details grounded in the base politics of fostering envy towards the exercise of freedom of choice.

In other words, Labor aims to promote government involvement across the full spectrum of Australian economic and social life, and a levelling down of individual aspiration by promoting equality of outcomes, using the agency of government to forcibly seize resources from one group and redistribute to another.

In many ways, the ALP’s selective “ladder of opportunity” model, aimed to promote upward mobility for users of government services and various special interest groups on one hand, while kicking out the “rungs” from the ladder for those who aspire to improve their circumstances.

The post-election chorus of pro-Labor supporters, bemoaning the extent to which their traditional working-class supporters - with their increasing levels of homeownership, private sector school enrolments and private health insurance membership - have become “little capitalists” with “middle-class employer values”, powerfully illustrates Labor’s philosophical “divide-and-conquer” policies.

Forcing people to consume inefficient and poorly performing public services has become increasingly alien to the everyday interests of the mainstream Australian community. The electoral unsuitability of the ALP was further compounded by a continued lack of policy credibility in the areas of economic management, national security and border protection.

On October 9, 2004, the Australian people provided an overwhelming vote of confidence in the Liberal Party’s “ladder of opportunity”. The one which supports individual enterprise, initiative and equal opportunity by providing a judicious mix of funding (including the allocation of GST revenues to the states) for essential public services to those in genuine need, complemented by policies that support private choices made by individuals and families.

The modern Liberal Party has successfully reconciled economic liberalisation and social conservatism in public policy and understands the importance of building economic capacity to provide growth, incentives and jobs. These policies fund assistance programmes for those in need and assist in improving social conditions through the realisation of individual self-fulfilment.

By recognising the role, and limits, of government and markets, John Howard and the Federal Liberals have offered an electorally appealing suite of policies to promote opportunity, incentive and responsibility over welfarism and dependence on government for individuals and families alike.

The Federal Labor Party and the political left views the “ladder of opportunity” of upward economic and social mobility through the narrow lens of the distribution of income and wealth, which has to be made more equal through government tax, welfare and spending policies. However, in attempting to rectify perceived “social injustices”, the ALP released a suite of “sledge-hammer” policies, which proposed to punish the legitimate economic and social choices made by increasing numbers within the Australian electorate.

The engagement of people in the market economy has increased, through homeownership, small business formation, private health insurance membership, non-government school student enrolments, or a reduction in unemployment. Traditional social institutions and values, such as a belief in families providing the best environment to raise and nurture children, individual and community self-reliance and responsibility, have never been stronger.

As the ALP looks towards the next election, it may be well served to remember that engaging in a similar campaign of envy and redistribution in three years time, effectively kicking out the “rungs” from the “ladder of opportunity” of choice, will be done at its own electoral peril.