By Tim Dunlop Thursday 16 July 2015
Photo: The Abbott Government does not accept the premise of Egalitarian Australia. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)
By attacking the institutions of redistribution, closing down democratic debate wherever possible, and demonising his political opponents, the Prime Minister is leading an assault on Australia's commitment to fairness, writes Tim Dunlop.
The Abbott Government's game plan for the nation is pretty obvious by now: it is a three-pronged attack on what we might call Egalitarian Australia.
Egalitarian Australia can be defined as the idea that government has a role in managing the risks associated with the inevitable problems that arise in a globalised, capitalist economy.
Such an economy is brilliant at producing goods and services at the lowest possible price and satisfying the material needs of that part of the population which can afford to pay the market price for them.
But the principle underpinning Egalitarian Australia is that a nation is not just an economy. Markets, for all their brilliance, do not always work, are not always applicable, and do not in and of themselves have anything to say about equality. Government therefore has a role in doing what markets can't.
The pillars of this approach are universal healthcare, equitable access to education, a wages system that protects the rights of workers against the (generally) more powerful claims of capital, and a secure retirement.
Of course, not everyone has accepted the premise of Egalitarian Australia, but it has been remarkably resilient, being broadly endorsed across parties of the left and right.
But this is where the Abbott Government is qualitatively different, even from previous right-wing governments. This Government does not accept the premise of Egalitarian Australia and from day one has sought to destroy it.
The three prongs of the strategy to do this are: (1) actual attacks on the institutions of equalisation and redistribution, from healthcare to education to retirement; (2) closing down wherever possible the means of democratic debate; and (3), the demonisation of political opponents in ways more ruthless than any government of the modern era has dared.
Let's go through them.
The most obvious examples of (1) are the two budgets the Government has brought down. The first one in particular was a blatant attack on the pillars of health and education, as the Gonski funding model was abandoned and the Medicare co-payment was introduced.
In a report on the 2014 budget, independent economic modellers, NATSEM, noted that overall, the cuts to various programs and other budgetary changes fell disproportionately on poorer families:
The poorest 20 per cent of Australian families will pay $1.1 billion more into government coffers than the richest households as a result of the budget, highlighting the huge inequity in the government's four-year blueprint for fiscal repair.
...By contrast, the wealthiest 20 per cent of households - earning $88,000 or more after tax and benefits - will suffer a $1.78 billion hit, some 40 per cent less than the lowest income families.
The first budget was such an obvious attack on Egalitarian Australia that in selling their second, the Government tried hard to counter the image of unfairness. Cosmetically, this was somewhat successful, but in reality, nothing much had changed. As this analysis notes, "The budget is still unfair."
Examples of the second prong of the strategy abound. From day one, the Abbott Government has sought to minimise discussion of key policy issues, most obviously by invoking "national security" as a way of either blocking discussions or guiding it in a certain direction.
This has led to everything from a refusal to talk about actions against asylum seekers, to the flag orgy of Mr Abbott's press conferences about ISIS and other terrorist-related activities.
It also led to the passing of laws that criminalise reporting abuse of asylum seekers held in offshore detention, and what the MEAA (the journalists' union) calls an attack on freedom of the press in the form of data retention laws.
The strategy of limiting debate has been extended to Parliament itself where Speaker Bronwyn Bishop has presided over an unprecedented attack on parliamentary discussion:
Both sides of politics are guilty of yelling insults across the chamber, but in this 44th Parliament, Opposition MPs have been disciplined 193 times and Government MPs just four.
The ongoing attacks on the ABC are part of the same strategy and it has culminated in Mr Abbott banning ministers from appearing on Q&A, launching an inquiry into the program, and demanding that Q&A be moved into the news and current affairs division before ministers are again allowed to participate.
As an article by Jonathan Holmes notes, "The concept of editorial independence seems to be lost on the Communications Minister."
There is also the defunding of various non-government bodies that have previously played a role in providing alternative views to governments of all persuasions:
The list of high-profile government agencies to be sold or merged is long. The lesser-known advisory bodies already abolished include groups working on sustainability, climate change, social inclusion, charities, homelessness, indigenous leadership, education, positive ageing, animal welfare, gambling, firearms, children and family, corporate wrongdoing and insurance reform.
Overall, these measures amount to an attempt to limit scrutiny of government policy and corral the terms of public debate.
The third plank of the strategy to undermine Egalitarian Australia is the demonisation of the Labor opposition via an unprecedented use of royal commissions. We have thus seen the establishment of royal commissions into the so-called pink batts affair as well as the activities of trade unions.
So blatant is this misuse of the instrumentality that even John Howard has condemned it, saying:
I'm uneasy about the idea of having royal commissions or inquiries into essentially a political decision on which the public has already delivered a verdict. I don't think you should ever begin to go down the American path of using the law for narrow targeted political purposes.
Where does all this leave us?
At the last federal election, there was a lot of talk about the fact that the Coalition didn't explain what their plan for the country was. Mr Abbott was big on three-word slogans, but less forthcoming on the detail.
Once they were in power, the new government set about breaking a number of promises they had made, most significantly, those regarding education and healthcare funding.
As this unfolded, the media were rightly chastised for not holding Mr Abbott to account before the election, and it is fair to say that people have been shocked at just how extreme the Government has been, not least in regard to the first budget.
As the next election approaches - whether it is called early or not - Mr Abbott will claim that he wants Australia to remain a fair and equitable place, but he has shown himself to be an unreliable narrator of his Government's intentions.
Only a fool - or an overly compliant media - would give someone with his track record the benefit of the doubt.
The three-pronged strategy remains in place, and make no mistake, no matter how it is framed, the next election will be about the future of Egalitarian Australia.
We certainly can't say we haven't been warned.
Tim Dunlop is the author of The New Front Page: New Media and the Rise of the Audience. He writes regularly for The Drum and a number of other publications.
EmoticonEmoticon