Could we have a more egalitarian society?

Other survey evidence indicates that public concern about inequality has increased over time. Comparing the responses from the 2003 AuSSA to earlier surveys of attitudes to income inequality shows that opposition to substantial income inequality in Australia seems to have become more widespread.

The evidence indicates a significant increase between 1994 and 2003 in the number of respondents who thought that income differences were too large. The wording of the survey questions in 2003 was a little different from that in earlier surveys, which inhibits a strong conclusion on this issue. However, it seems plausible to posit that the experience of economic inequalities over the last decade is reflected in growing disquiet about the outcome.

The latest AuSSA shows a slight decrease since 2003 in the number of people who think that income inequality is too large, but future surveys will reveal whether this marks a change in direction or just a temporary dip in the trend towards greater concern.

So can we realistically anticipate stronger support for policies to reduce economic inequalities?

There is some evidence that a process of change is already steadily under way. Clive Hamilton’s investigations into the growing discontent with affluenza and the incidence of downshifting, for example, lend some support to this view.

Phil Raskall, another veteran analyst of economic inequalities in Australian society, argues that there is growing interest in change, with many Australians sharing a concern that “far too much emphasis is being put on improving the economy and too little on creating a better society”.

Even Michael Keating - one of the five economists whose proposal for a lower minimum wage and tax credits got a lot of media attention a few years ago - has come out strongly advocating higher taxes to deal with inequality and provide “the public expenditure necessary to sustain our civilised society”.

While the opinion polls indicate a widespread preference for increased social spending, and even a willingness to pay the taxes necessary to fund it, politicians continue to prioritise tax cuts and to shy away from redistributive policies. This was particularly evident during the 2004 federal election campaign, in which both the Labor and Liberal Parties emphasised the Australian public’s tax burden, and vied with each other with their promises of tax cuts to “reward hard work”.

As federal treasurer for over a decade, Peter Costello has been particularly focused on emphasising tax cuts rather than more progressive redistribution: the Labor Party faces the challenge now to offer a clearly differentiated alternative.

In summary, there is an evident tension between widespread public disquiet about the extent of economic inequality and the reluctance of our political leaders to embrace policies that could generate more egalitarian outcomes.

While there are significant attitudinal barriers to the redress of economic inequality in Australia, they are not shared by a significant proportion of the population. The more basic problem lies in the way Australian attitudes are interpreted or represented at the political level. Changing that requires a social and political movement with a different vision for Australian society and the political will among the nation’s leadership to embrace these concerns.

Policies for a more egalitarian society need to be part of a broader program of economic, social and environmental management. This means creating growth and more equitable distribution of employment opportunities through appropriate fiscal, monetary, industry and trade policies. It also means ensuring an adequately financed program of government expenditures on public housing, social security, health and education. These are the preconditions for greater equality of access to economic opportunities. A genuinely progressive tax system is needed to generate the necessary revenues. Environmental and energy polices that ensure the sustainability of the natural environment are also necessary, combating the tendency for environmental goods to become accessible only to those with the ability to pay.