These are notes in response to Ben Eltham’s
21 January, 2014 article in New Matilda on in the need for Labor to address
inequality, if it is to develop a narrative of difference from the Coalition.
- In Australia, “our levels of inequality are higher than the OECD average, and on the rise” (Miriam Lyons 2013, ‘Pushing our luck: Ideas for Australian Progress, eds Lyons, March, Hogan, p. 8).
- In ‘The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better’, R. Wilkinson & K. Pickett explain that the vast majority of the population is harmed by greater inequality. “Across whole populations, rates of mental illness are five time higher in the most unequal compared to the least unequal societies. Similarly, in more unequal societies people are five times as likely to be imprisoned, six times as likely to be clinically obese, and murder rates may be many times higher. The reason why these differences are so big is, quite simply, because the effects of inequality are not confined just to the lease well-off: instead they affect the vast majority of the population” (Wilkinson & Pickett 2009, p.181).
- Labor needs to move away from making struggles with the cost of living the focus of election campaigns. Tax systems need to be appropriate. “After several rounds of income tax cuts our tax system does less to reduce inequality than it did in the past decades.” (Lyons, 2013, p.8)
- “Australia’s taxes are among the lowest in the developed world…In 2010, Australia’s taxes were approximately 26 percent of GDP, compared with an OECD average of around 34 percent…Again, Australia has a low proportion of government spending to GDP compared to other developed nations. In 2012 our spending to GDP ration was around 35 per cent, compared to an OECD average of around 43 per cent”. (Lyons, March, Stebbing & Wilson 2013, pp 22-23)
- “Not surprisingly, just as individuals who trust other people are more likely to give to charity, more equal countries are also more generous to poorer countries. The United Nations’ target for spending on foreign development aid is 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income. Only Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands meet this target”. Australia spends less than 0.3 of Gross National Income on Foreign Aid (Wilkinson & Picket 2009, pp 60-61).
- Australia ranks 16th in OECD countries for foreign aid. Before the September election, Labor announced that $879 million would be cut from the aid budget over four years. “About half of Foreign aid would go to Papua New Guinea, in an effective doubling of its aid program there, in return for support for Labor’s tougher asylum policy to resettle refugees who arrive by boat in PNG”. (See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-02/unicef-condemns-cuts-to-australia27s-foreign-aid/4862672 )
- “According to OECD figures, 40.7 per cent of Australia’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) is “tied aid”. That means it comes with a requirement that it be used to purchase products from Australia. This may be good for Australia’s exports, but the same goods may be available at a lower price from other countries. Thus “tied” aid is not worth as much to the recipient as aid that is not tied. Donors have themselves acknowledged that tying aid represents poor value for money, increasing the costs by 15 to 30 per cent. Tying such a large proportion of aid maybe in keeping with the view that the “single objective” of Australia’s aid program is to advance Australia’s national interest, but it is more difficult to reconcile with the ethical stance that a wealthy nation like Australia has an obligation to reduce poverty”. (Peter Singer & Tom Gregg 2004, ‘How ethical is Australia: An examination of Australia’s record as a global citizen’, p.24)
No comments:
Post a Comment