The Fairness Test
I recently wrote an open letter to Bill Shorten,
expressing my dismay at three particular policy stances the Labor party
has adopted – continuation of off-shore processing for asylum seekers,
support for the school chaplaincy program and for Abbott’s Green Army. I
wanted the party to show more leadership on such issues, and also to
have a more consultative way of coming to important policy decisions. My
post got lots of comments, with most people agreeing that these
decisions were disappointing, and urging Bill Shorten to be more
decisive in his opposition to the Abbott government. A few people went
further, suggesting that the Labor party is now a lost cause: ‘a pox on
both your parties’ they say.
I certainly don’t agree with this. Who else are you going the vote
for? The Palmer United Party – naked self-interest barely clothed with
populism? The Greens – worthy, but nowhere near in a position to form a
government until they learn that ideological purity is more suited to
activism than government? We need a strong and united progressive voice
and the only party able to offer this is Labor, now with around 40% of the vote.
We need the Labor party to become a formidable opposition and the
popular choice at the next election. And while I’m on this topic, I
don’t think that Bill Shorten alone can save the party; the messiah view
of political leadership is illusionary – just look at how Abbott as the
conservative saviour is working out.
I’ve heard several explanations for the opposition’s apparent lack of
drive at the moment. One is that the party is trying to avoid the
negativity associated with Abbott’s leadership of the opposition.
Another is that no party should reveal its policies too far out from an
election for fear that they are stolen, or otherwise countered. While
there doesn’t look to be much chance that this government will steal
from anyone other than the Tea Party, these arguments have some
validity. Furthermore, there’s the ‘don’t interrupt your opponent when
he’s making mistakes’ line, or in other words, be a small target and
coast to victory on the unpopularity of the government, as Abbott did in
2013. There’s probably truth in the old adage that governments lose
elections, rather than oppositions winning them. But all this
conventional wisdom is politics-as-usual stuff. It allows – even
encourages – the conventional mainstream media to frame Australian
politics as a horse race between two essentially similar parties. It
allows them to claim that Labor has no defining narrative, and that the
two parties are as bad as each other. And that’s the more progressive of
the mainstream media.
So what is to be done? Clearly Labor can’t come up with a full suite
of ready-made alternative policies at this point in time. Bill Shorten
has said that party renewal and increased membership are the priority
this year; policy review is for next year. Even so, there are a whole
raft of policies inherited from the Gillard/Rudd government that Labor
would presumably want to retain, including the full version of Gonski,
the NDIS, superannuation changes and so on. There is much that they
would want to reverse, most notably the Medicare co-payment and the
denial of unemployment benefits to people under 30. But then there are
other decisions that aren’t so straightforward, given the damage already
done, such as putting a price back on carbon, reviving the Clean Energy
Fund and the NBN, and re-funding higher education. Would they reverse
Abbott’s Paid Parental Leave scheme – assuming it ever gets through the
Parliament? Given the problems with the revenue side of the budget,
Labor might feel tempted to keep some of the revenue raising measures of
the current government, such as the changes to the pension age, and the
indexing of some benefits to inflation. And they will have to counter
Liberal scare tactics over returning the budget to surplus. In addition,
Labor needs to respond to the daily barrage of ideologically driven
conservative economic and social measures emerging from the Abbott
government.
This all sounds like a terribly difficult task. But I don’t think it
has to be that hard. It is not true that Labor doesn’t have a narrative.
It’s only true that they don’t always successfully put it front and
centre. As it says in the ALP’s platform:
At the core of Labor’s history, beliefs and aspirations is the need to make sure everybody gets a fair go.
A Labor narrative based on fairness is a no-brainer.
What I suggest is that Labor adopts ‘the fairness test’ as a measure for everything it says and does.
First, it gives a clear basis for opposition. It isn’t negative,
because it is based on a positive value and a stated position that can
be logically defended. It isn’t a scare tactic – it’s merely pointing
out consequences – ie increasing inequality – if certain measures are
adopted. Which of the Abbott government’s budget measures should be
opposed? Whichever of them don’t meet the fairness test, which, let’s
face it is almost all of them. Is the Medicare co-payment fair? No,
because it hurts to most vulnerable people in society. Are the changes
to higher education funding fair? No, because they decrease equality of
opportunity. Is the high income levy fair? Yes, because it asks for a
contribution from those best able to afford it who are, moreover, the
ones already benefiting from other government policies such as the
failure adequately to tax the super earnings of the rich. Some examples
aren’t quite as straightforward; should Labor support the increased
excise on petrol? Probably not, because although it may result in less
petrol being used, and therefore lower carbon emissions, it’s not fair
that ordinary motorists should pay when large carbon emitters like
electricity generator don’t have to. This one’s arguable – but at least
the grounds for argument are clear. What is different from what already
happens? Labor members use the phrase ‘the fairness test’ when they ask
question, speak in Parliament, to the press or in their constituencies.
It becomes as much identified with Labor as ‘great big tax’ was with the
Coalition.
Second, it gives clear guidance for policy development. It already
does, as can be seen from the past policies of the party when in
government and in its National Platform. Gonski, NDIS, NBN – the list of
policies designed to increase equality of opportunity is extensive. But
it needs to be touchstone for the development of new, or modification
of existing policies: child care and aged care spring to mind. It should
also drive decisions about revenue raising. A fairness test demands
that a Labor government be an activist government, as opposed to the
small government mantra of the Liberals, which only benefits those
already privileged.
And when the next election comes around, the fairness test also helps
with decisions about which policies deserve the greatest prominence.
Policies most obviously designed to promote equality of opportunity and
to decrease social and economic inequality must be at the forefront.
Labor should not pander to the policy priorities of the Coalition, such
as balancing the budget at any social and economic cost, or decreasing
taxes for the already well-off at the expense of government spending on
health and education. The fairness test would not be an election slogan;
it would be a coherent message about what Labor stands for that runs
through all the policies it has consulted on and developed long before
the actual election campaign begins.
However much you might dislike the idea of a three word slogan, it is
clear this simple sound bite communication strategy was successful for
the Abbott opposition. What I want to see it that ‘the fairness test’
becomes associated in the public mind with the Labor party. That it
becomes, if you like, the Labor brand. Labor already has the policies it
needs to support this overarching narrative. So now they just need the
words. A short, concise, simple way to frame Labor’s values. The
fairness test. As a Labor voter, I would happily wear this on a T-Shirt.
Would you?
Also by Kay Rollison:
Framing the budget
Queuing Up
Sloppy Journalism from Laura Tingle
Centre for Right-wing Apologist Politics (CRAP)
No comments:
Post a Comment