Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Who do you trust?

By John Tomlinson - posted Thursday, 8 November 2007


Since February, there have however been some amazing continuities with previous Howard Government policies. Perhaps the detention of Dr Mohammed Haneef was the most alarming (Jumping at shadows, The treatment of Haneef is beyond belief). On the 24th October the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said he had told the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that he thought the case against Dr Haneef was weak. Presuming that Keelty’s statement is true, then it is even more disturbing that Kevin Andrews, the Immigration Minister, cancelled Dr Haneef’s work visa. Andrews has always claimed he had evidence from the Federal Police, which he could not disclose, justifying his decision to cancel the visa.

There was more than a hint of racism in Andrews’ handling of the Haneef matter, but Kevin Andrews did not rely on explicitly racist pronouncements. In early October, Andrews declared that the Howard Government was suspending further refugee applications from Africa, until June 2008, because people from the war torn parts of the African continent were finding it hard to assimilate into Australian society. Such claims were refuted by the Victorian Premier and Commissioner of Police (Govt under fire over 'racist' refugee ban). Once again we are seeing the race card played in the run up to a Federal election.

Advertisement

Tax Policy

In the opening days of the 2007 election campaign proper, Howard and Costello announced their $34 billion tax cut spread over a number of years was conditional upon the budget staying in surplus. Rudd held his nerve and waited until the Friday of the first week to announce his me-too tax policy, albeit with a delayed tax cut to those fortunate enough to pay the highest rate of tax. Rudd said the $3 billion saving would be used to provide an educational tax concession for lower income families who purchased educational items for their children and to establish a small fund designed to shorten elective surgery waiting lists. Rudd was plugging into the research which shows that many electors would prefer improved services over tax cuts.

The Howard/Costello rhetoric on tax policy, which has prevailed during the last 11 years, is that tax cuts give back a bonus to those who have made a productive contribution to budget surpluses. In those 11 years, those who pay the most tax have got the biggest tax cuts.  Those on the minimum wage, those who can’t find work, those who make the greatest caring contribution to partners and children with a disability, those who stay home to care for children, and those with the most severe disabilities get little or no advantage from such tax cuts.

Low income workers and their families are the ones who most need publicly provided dental health and other community services. They are not in a position to communally pool their $4-8 dollar weekly tax cuts in order to buy a MRI machine for their local hospital. They can not afford to pay for private hospitals and commercial dental services. Access to private dental and hospital services is only available to the very people who have benefited most from the tax cuts. Such a government policy is the very antithesis of having a social policy.

Interest rates

During the 2004 election campaign the Liberal Party promised to keep interest rates at record low levels. Howard asserts that he did not promise this, saying he only promised that the Liberals would always be able to keep interest rates below what a Labor government would. Since that time there have been five interest rate rises with another one on the day after the running of the Melbourne Cup.

Advertisement

Interest rate rises were a problem for the Keating Government and it is true that, at their peak, the prevailing interest rates were more than double what they are now. The major difference between then and now is that the price of the average home mortgage is in 2007 more than double what it was then.

Howard must be regretting ever uttering his oft repeated question in the 2004 election campaign: "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?"

Welfare Policy

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

15 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr John Tomlison is a visiting scholar at QUT.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Tomlinson

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of John Tomlinson
Article Tools
Comment 15 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy