What will the ALP roll back?
If the ALP win federally at the next election (expected to be around October/November this year) it seems pretty certain that they will not be rolling back the GST. However what will they be rolling back? A few things that we might speculate about:-
i) Voluntary Student Unionism.
ii) Industrial Relations Reforms.
iii) Income tax cuts.
iv) Section 45D of the Trade Pracices Act
Now it is not clear that they will roll back all of these things and it is certainly not clear whether they would roll back to the previous situation on any of them. Perhaps they would just tinker with some details and call it a rollback. However I wonder what they will say between now and election day to ease the mind of those that supported these reforms. And I wonder what they will ultimately do in government should they win.
What do you think they would roll back?
25 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Catallaxy Files- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012I am just giving you a sneak preview of my piece in the Inquirer section of The Australian today. You will all have to run up to the newsagency or go on-line to read it. No doubt, it will make me popular with parts of the blogosphere! Gosh, at least Alesina’s paper was published in [...]Judith Sloan
- Should the RBA intervene to lower the Australian dollar? February 10, 2012I had this piece in The Australian during the week. I became interested in the topic during my visit to Switzerland. I conclude that the RBA will not, and probably should not, intervene but it is an interesting topic. The value of the Australian dollar is putting many of our trade-exposed industries under real pressure. [...]Judith Sloan
- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Evaluating Rudd’s Fiscal Stimulus February 11, 2012
- inCISe
- Oliver Hartwich:Greece’s austerity package February 11, 2012 Editor
- Amnesty on truth February 10, 2012I’m ashamed to admit I was a member of Amnesty International in high school. Back then I proudly wore an Amnesty badge on a black beret. Now I cringe at the memory of my naive self lapping up their hyperbole. The Sydney Morning Herald recently reported that Amnesty International is urging a parliamentary human rights watchdog to investigate the federal gover […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
VSU – nah, why would they waste their political energies on a trivial issue like that. whose votes would they win? Labor student hacks?
IR reforms – yep, and main reason why I might consider preferencing Libs over Labor at the end of the day
income tax cuts – highly unlikely. there is at least one strongly pro-low tax person in labor (Emerson) and one in the union movement (forgot his name, the AWU guy)
s45D – hmm, good call, possibly
You’re refering to Bill Shorten no doubt.
Actually, I think income tax will be reversed, but it will be done the traditional way of not indexing the tax brackets. This makes the the tax take across the income distribution flatter, which I guess is something the ALP would not admit to wanting to do.
They will roll back any and all legislation or limit freedoms even further in their longstanding philosophical and written and unwritten policy bent to maximise social programs that prop up up anyone and everyone who have no desire to be independent, free, or who refuse to recognise or accept they have choices in an open, civil, democratic society. They will willingly serve the many people who have grown up with the belief that they must rely on government making their decisions for them.
What ought to be demanded from the ALP is categoric written policies rather than vague, sweeping statements or overviews of possible policies in the event that they win the election. They can’t be held accountable for what is not specific in their policies.
With Rudd “full of himself” and having captured many media commentators who get swept along with his media savvy personality, I suspect that people will only be given a vague idea of what the ALP intends to do in government, with the intention of leaving the real substance and shocks to when they actually gain government.
Look at Queensland ALP practices and how they treat people to understand what Rudd and his team will be like when they get their hands on Government. Along with a bunch of failing Labor States, Australia will be much worse for their combined control and their effects on the lives of the Australian people.
Turn the question around and ask what further “reforms” will Howard impose if he wins again. I am more concerned about that than any roll back by Labor which would probably need to get through a hostile Senate any way.
Australia will be much worse for their combined control and their effects on the lives of the Australian people.
Not on past experience. Labor was the party that lowered tariffs, floated the dollar and deregulated the financial markets.
They won’t be able to get much through the Senate anyway. If they win, the following election may well be a double dissolution.
The IR reforms are the only area in which some rollback might occur. It will also be a key talking point right up to the election. That is of no real concern as Howard’s reforms were of limited benefit and another round is required to get it right.
The senate situation will be interesting. As Rossco and DavidL indicate with a half senate election (as it will be) the chances of the Coalilition losing control of the upper house is extremely slim. Does anybody have any good articles or analysis of this?
It’s true that Hawke and Keating did some good to the economy, but the natural inclination of the socialists everywhere is to regulate, or to repeal laws that don’t help unions. These days, the Liberals are also turning into a centralist party, and the phrase ‘State’s Rights’ seems like a quaint expression from a by-gone era. Whilst I’ll be voting Lib-Dem-Par, i don’t think they’ll be able to do much.
Maybe it’s time to move to Hutt River Province, stage a People’s Libertarian Revolution, and start afresh! Who’s got the ammo!?
The Labor of their Hawke / Keating economic reformist period is unlikely to be repeated again. That would take just too much courage. The ALP would be seen to have travelled too much to the right.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many Labor people actually rue that period of Australia’s history.
Isn’t it Rudd who’s talking about recreating a manufacturing base, obviously without having real competition in mind, because labour costs offshore would still be far too low and Australian labour costs far too high by comparison. It could only happen with favoured companies being artificially propped up by government – taking us back, not forward, to an awful cycle where cash rich governments are relied on for financial support too much instead of competitive free enterprise. Of course, they could fly in the face of FTA’s and reintroduce limited forms of tariffs, just as their mates in the US Democrats favour so much. In other words it could only be achieved with government intervention in business.
I couldn’t think of anything worse, and neither do most Australians I’m sure, based on the balance that they achieved through most elections, of having the ALP in government federally and the States. The States’ many failures in health, education, the environment (which includes water conservation and usage and supply), roads, transport, etc despite having huge windfall incomes from GST revenues (which they fought so hard against) will be simply covered up by grants from the Commonwealth. There would be no accountability for the States’ ineptitudes. Social engineering will flourish unabated and unchecked. And another generation will lose the ability to be self-reliant, independent and free.
Although its unlikely the Senate will change, it could do so, with the Greens assuming the balance of power. That’s going to be their campaign. Combined with the issues, now starting to alarm people, about global warming, the Greens increasing votes, the fluffy way that the ALP’s Peter Garret is responding to environment issues, by taking the ALP line, Australian’s might want a more green Senate. That’ll make life interesting for everyone, and will be a test of the Green’s ethics in government as opposed to being another Opposition.
We could massively reduce labour costs in manufacturing merely by cutting taxes and compulsury on costs of labour, such as payroll taxes and compulsury non wage entitlements.
I think IR is the danger area in terms of an ALP government. Like Jason, this is the issue that could swing me Liberal (on preferences of course, not primary), though I’m thoroughly undecided at the moment.
It boggles my mind how anybody could accuse the ALP of being socialists and then vote for Howard!
The the Greens to get balance of power the coalition will have to lose 2 senators, which is unlikely. However, it is very possible that Steve Fielding (Family First) could have balance of power. Or the LDP, insh allah.
Weren’t payroll taxes one of the numerous taxes that the States agreed to drop or at least reduce as a trade off for receiving GST income?
Even though Rudd says he is not a Union man, it will take a lot of soft shoe shuffling on his part not to implement changes that the ACTU has been pushing for. IR would have to be central to the ALP platform. And as a consequence, Unions’ power and influence will rise and rise. It will be their quid pro quo.
Let us hear though a commitment from Rudd that under the ALP interest rates will remain low, there will be no Government deficit and GST won’t rise.
It should be noted that Labor’s ability to roll back much of these will depend not just on them winning government, but also on the make-up of the Senate. It is basically impossible for Labor to get control of the Senate, even if it was equal to the biggest landslide in Australian electoral history. If the Coalition retains control, major rollback efforts will probably trigger a double dissolution (which would suit Labor and ironically may encourage them to make their rollbacks as large as possible so they can get the ‘purest’ versions through in a joint sitting). If they only require Greens to get things through, they may need to rollrightback in order to get their support. If they require Greens plus some Dems or Greens plus Family First, or all three, it is harder to predict.
Anyway, putting the Senate reposnse to one side for the moment:
(i) VSU – i doubt they would go back to the way it was, but they would probably go partway, to something like the ‘nonpolitical’ model that was in use in Victoria and which even most Libs thought was reasonable. Labor reversed Liberal-implemented VSU at state level in WA before, and I don’t see why they wouldn’t do it again.
(ii) workplace – there’ll be a lot of unwinding, but not back to pre-2004. There’d be big changes, but precisely what they be , and what powers they might hand back to the states is unclear, as is the possible responses of the other Senate parties.
(iii) income tax cuts – no way they will formally reverse these. never ever. But as Conrad says, bracket creep will do the job to some extent anyway as it always does.
(iv) 45D – maybe, but wouldn’t think so. Senatre would be crucial again. Greens would back it and want to take it further, Family First wouldn’t support it and Democrat would need to see precisely what was proposed first.
It would be nice to think they might modify one or two things on the GST – taking it off public transport for instance, but if they do it will be thought about after the campaign, not before hand.
Andrew,
Thanks for sharing your insights. I hope we will hear more from you as the election approaches. I can’t recall if you are up for re-election this time around.
Taking GST off of public transport would likely just result in the state governments later putting it back on in the form of price increases. So I doubt it matters much. The purist in me says leave it on even though I’m generally in favour of tax cuts.
Regards,
Terje.
Just had a browse through some recent TPA cases. I’ve got a strong feeling s45D (and allied provisions) may well get the chop. For non lawyers, s 45D is the prohibition on secondary boycotts – the classic example is wharfies refusing to unload cargo in order to get at the importer of said cargo, rather than the shipping company.
Terje — yes, Andrew is up for re-election. If the Dems do get one or two people elected they will be the ALP’s minor party of choice to deal with so they may regain relevance. And if they are seen as a block on the ALP against leftist reform then they may re-gain product differentiation from the Greens and re-establish themselves as a centrist party. It will be interesting.
Selective exemptions are silly. The policy of not picking winners to me overrides the policy of cutting tax wherever possible, especially where all it leads to is a patchwork of different taxes which amount to the same level of extortion but have to be paid in different ways and therefore increases compliance cost as well. If you are going to have a tax it should be broadbased and low rated.
of course, the best possible result would be for the Liberal Democrats to field candidates in all seats, and win a majority! Then we can roll-back as many Govt programs as we want! So, Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Humphreys, what would be your wish-list program, if such an unlikely event were to happen?
The government has $50 billion in the bank and its an election year – I’m expecting a huge tax cut. Hard to pick the up and coming election until we see how that’s received.
Rising rents in Sydney will come into play, expect some form of subsidy/program addressing it amongst election policies.
If Rudd wins, he’ll probably have a somewhat hostile senate. The Democrats are likely to decline further, leaving him to deal with Family First (they are polling at around 5% now, and could well pick up another senate seat).
Family First would deal with Rudd to “protect workers in the interest of their families”, rolling back WorkChoices. Rudd would rediscover his status as a “Christian Socialist”.
After much umming and ahhing Tanya Plibersek (the ALP Human Services spokesperson) has announced that the ALP will roll back some of the more ridiculous elements of the Access Card. A bit like being half pregnant, but a big improvement on their initial position. They didn’t support the Access Card Bill but if it was passed and contracted by the election of a ‘Rudd’ Government they wouldn’t ‘interfere’ with an ongoing programme.
All power to the Democrats on this – go to the democrats.org.au site to sign the on-line petition. The new Minister aims to ram the Access Card Bill through sometime after the 20th March restart of the Senate and the 29th March end of the sitting.
In the NSW election the TV advertisments being run by the ALP are making much of the fact that the Liberals would refer IR powers to Canberra. I think IR will be a big issue at the coming federal election. Unfortunately I think all the easy soundbites (as opposed to reasoned arguments) favour the ALP. As such I think it is almost inevitable that the ALP will roll back IR if they win as it will be a core promise. Whether a roll back really means the old system reinstated is unclear but they seem certain to re-regulate labour prices. My real concern is they will use Howards centrist logic to try and impose the system on an even wide grouping of people then the old system included.
People have often wondered at the contradiction of a decentralist party trying to get elected to power, to put an end to parties. I now propose that the LDP should go all-out, if it is in a position of power, to pass as many restrictive laws as it can! Make as many deals as it can, make laws as complex as it can, turn red tape into a growth industry!
My cynical proposal is so that the voting public will become fed up with laws and regulations in general, and end up embracing freedom, as they’ll have discovered that the alternative doesn’t work!
THAT’S what a Libertarian Party should do- be all laws to all! That should be our program, never mind the ALP.
Nicholas,
Most people see the debate as being about good government and bad government. Showing them bad government will make them seek good government but not necessarily less government.
Regards,
Terje.
It looks like the ALP is commited to reinstating unfair dismissal laws, all be with a mildly modified flavour:-
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rudd-unveils-labors-ir-alternative/2007/04/17/1176696818518.html
They appear to be quite adamantly opposed to freedom of association.
Oh dear, I don’t know how they’ll define employee, but I’m sure that we have more than 15 commentors to this blog. Should we be worried? Because some of them have also been blogging for more than 6 months! Will they insist on a right to be paid? Or to have their views aired here?
Maybe there’s a good side to this! If I stay on for a year, I might be able to demand wages! Yeah, Rudd!! Rudd for prezdent!!!