The crisis of confidence in the public health system, however, is not so easily addressed, and many on lower incomes might feel compelled to take out private health insurance for fear of their well being; perhaps even their very lives. Here, means testing of the Private Health Insurance Rebate would prove a more popular measure than its immediate and outright abolition.
A Federal Government commitment of $24 billion or more over four years would be guaranteed of making significant and lasting inroads into the waiting lists crisis, supplying vital funding and infrastructure: perhaps even providing affordable dental care for all.
Rather than “tinkering around the edges” with piecemeal and incremental change, such “root and branch” reform would imprint itself deeply in the public’s consciousness: beyond the immediate reach of conservative sabotage.
Advertisement
Additional funding for such reform could be drawn from a variety of sources. Already, Labor Finance Shadow Minister, Lindsay Tanner, has outlined $3 billion in possible savings. This is nowhere near enough in itself, but it can be seen as a starting point.
A less adventuresome approach to foreign affairs might also justify significant cuts in defence expenditure.
The budget surplus could also well be halved to somewhere in the vicinity of $5 billion, while the proposed emissions trading scheme could also be tinkered with so as to raise $5 billion a year: one means of raising revenue without technically raising tax.
Altogether, it could be reasonably estimated that over $15 billion in additional revenue and savings might be allowed for without increasing tax as a proportion of GDP. Allowing for a 1 per cent increase in the tax base as a proportion of GDP, this could rise beyond $25 billion.
There are many other policy areas which demand immediate attention.
There is a regrettable lack of in depth research into the extent of crises in Australia’s health, education, aged care and welfare systems, not to mention the glaring omission of detailed research into poverty and social inequality. A new “Social Modeling, Inequality and Poverty Commission”, though, could undertake desperately needed research into poverty, wealth distribution and concentration, including access to public services and social infrastructure.
Advertisement
Labor’s proposal for a fibre-optic broadband network is also deserving of scrutiny. As the proposal stands, it appears to be a recipe for a private part-monopoly. In many instances there are still firm arguments for natural public monopoly in areas of essential infrastructure: communication, roads, water, power. Attempts to promote competition in telecommunications infrastructure, for instance, has only seen a radical increase in the cost structures of the industry for very limited public gain. And in other areas of private oligopoly such as energy, limited competition has only led to frustration and confusion from consumers who would rather take the provision of essential services for granted.
It is not too late for Rudd to commit to a fully public fibre-optic broadband network: funded along with other essential infrastructure projects by diverting capital from the Future Fund. Investment in public education infrastructure is one area in dire need of attention. Such moves are anything but fiscally irresponsible: comprising as they do an investment in overall productivity and growth, as well as in the skills base of the nation.
Briefly, the housing affordability crisis demands a greater investment than the $500 million earmarked by Kevin Rudd for Labor’s Housing Affordability Fund.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
10 posts so far.