For instance, a recent debate on the ABC’s The World Today (October 17, 2008) spelt out a major problem ahead, with the former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett and The Australian’s George Megalogenis both urging Australians not to place an unfair burden on those producing economic activity - given that more than 40 per cent of Australians rely on government handouts that offset income tax losses.
While it is unlikely that Labor or Coalition governments could have promoted extensive economic reform without such social welfare assistance, any economic decline will place enormous pressure on Australian governments in regard to social welfare, unless Australians are happy to accumulate significant public debt.
The next 20 years will tell us a lot about the capacity of liberal democracies to lead the world in their attempts to balance national and international considerations as they face unprecedented economic competition. Just who will miss out remains to be seen at a time when many are calling for extra spending for health, education, infrastructure, and the environment.
Advertisement
But we must never rely on the opinion of any one individual, organisation, think-tank, or political party. A number of perspectives need to be offered to ensure that sophisticated debate is encouraged to help policy makers reflect a diversity of considerations; although no policy outcome will ever be perfect.
For instance, do we need to find a better balance between the economy and the environment? A recent Living Planet report (The Guardian, October 29, 2008) estimated that humans “are using 30 per cent more resources than the Earth can replenish each year, which is leading to deforestation, degraded soils, polluted air and water, and dramatic declines in numbers of fish and other species” at an ecological debt of about $US4 trillion every year.
Do we conserve water by applying restrictions for everybody or adopt user-pay principles so that only the rich can afford to use more water?
Do we allow the Commonwealth to assist private schools most and then the state public schools, or do we adopt reform to ensure that most public resources go to public schools or low cost private schools?
Do we keep wages high, or do we reduce them and compensate them through the social security system in order to enhance business investment, although you can bet that many businesses will still urge lower wages or corporate taxation rates in order to compete?
Do we allow wages to be decimated to the point that fewer people can afford to purchase goods, as evident in the US where the majority are on low wages and are now limited by the tightening of credit in response to the financial crisis?
Advertisement
Do we do little in times of economic boom in terms of public housing to ensure that nothing prevents record home un-affordability?
Should we exempt first home buyers from stamp duty and adopt higher rates for each subsequent house bought by an individual or family, or do we continue to give first home buyers higher grants which merely force prices up?
Furthermore, do we uphold our commitment to foreign aid even in times of economic decline, or do we only help more when our high standard of living is less threatened?
It is difficult to predict what will happen, but we do not need to wait for our political or business leaders to give society ideas.
The ideas for a fairer nation and better world are out there from a variety of players, often from people and interest groups who are not that well paid. Although no policy outcome can be guaranteed, extensive debate will hopefully translate into a better policy mix.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
7 posts so far.