Australian Labor Party

Victorian treasurer mentions population growth

Mon, 2008-04-28 21:21 by ilan

from The Age, 28th April 2008
link to article from The Age

The last 3 sentences are of interest:

Mr Lenders, who grew up on a Gippsland dairy farm and was briefly a Young Liberal, said there should be a debate on how Victoria handles population growth.

But it was the Government's role to help make Melbourne liveable, not to determine how big it grew.

"I'm not quite sure what governments do about that," he said. "If we are trying to have a vibrant economy, people will want to come and live here."

First sentence above is not controversial, but at least a debate could give an airing to the issues that are impacted by population growth.
The second sentence shows how governments in this country "govern", by excluding themselves from issues that governments should deal with. Lenders is using the TINA (there is no alternative) argument, he probably means that because the ALP is funded by the growth lobby we should allow the lobbyists to set policy and the governments role is purely one of management.
In the last sentence he purposely confuses the reasoning behind the current rate of immigration, there is no question that Australia is an attractive destination, it is the role of governments (state and federal) to govern for all Australians and set about creating and implementing policies to that aim, instead of allowing those who are able to give big donations to political parties and have a large lobbying infrastructure to do it for them.

Treasurer John Lenders: "I think a state of excitement in treasury<br /> can imply that you are not doing your job."

Treasurer John Lenders: "I think a state of excitement in treasury can imply that you are not doing your job."

Full article:
Mr Excitement? Not me, says state money manager
Treasurer John Lenders: "I think a state of excitement in treasury can imply that you are not doing your job."
Photo: Roger Cummins
Melissa Fyfe
April 27, 2008
JOHN Lenders wants you to know he is not an exciting kind of guy. In fact, the state Treasurer admits people may think he is dull and, yes, he loves spreadsheets.
Mr Lenders, who will step out of the shadow of Premier John Brumby, Australia's longest-serving state treasurer, to deliver his first budget on May 6, also wants you to know that his non-excitable pair of hands is a safe place for the state's finances.
"If the accusation against a treasurer is that they he is a dull person but has an addiction to spreadsheets, it is probably a very good addiction for a treasurer to have," said Mr Lenders, in response to a comment once quoted from an unnamed critic.
"I think a state of excitement in treasury can imply that you are not doing your job, which is to prudently manage resources."
In an interview with The Sunday Age, the career politician and former state Labor Party secretary saidgovernment revenue would be about $37 billion, up from $34.3 billion last year.
He said Victoria's economy was still growing strongly despite global financial problems. The drought recovery forecast in last year's budget, however, had turned out to be "patchy".
Mr Lenders, who had held the portfolios of finance, education, industrial relations, WorkCover and major projects, said there would be no money in this budget for the Eddington transport plan, as it was still up for public discussion, and the Government had not formed a response.
He said there would be no extra money — beyond an already committed $150 million — for the construction phase of the channel deepening project.
He would not be drawn on relief for home buyers in the forms of cuts to stamp duty, or the business wish list of tax cuts, such as land, payroll and WorkCover.
Mr Brumby decided to give the Treasury job to Mr Lenders over a younger colleague, Tim Holding, partly on the grounds that Mr Lenders is a family man. As such, Mr Lenders said, he was guided by thinking about opportunities for his three adult children.
Mr Lenders, who grew up on a Gippsland dairy farm and was briefly a Young Liberal, said there should be a debate on how Victoria handles population growth.
But it was the Government's role to help make Melbourne liveable, not to determine how big it grew.
"I'm not quite sure what governments do about that," he said. "If we are trying to have a vibrant economy, people will want to come and live here."

Topic:

What are the prospects for Labor bringing about a just society?

Sun, 2007-09-16 02:21 by James Sinnamon

The Australian Labor Party, the world's oldest political political party still in existence, is a contradictory organisation. With its record in Government, at the Federal and state levels, and in opposition, led by Kevin Rudd, with an ever-diminishing number of policy positions which distinguish it from the ruling Howard Liberal Government, it is all too easy for critics to the left of Labor to dismiss it as no better than the Liberal Party as indeed the Greens, the Democrats and some parties of the far left have maintained either implicitly or explicitly.

Yet there seems to be no other path out of the political rut in which this country has become stuck since the election of Howard in 1996, except through the election of Labor.

Labor's dismal record since 1983

Since at least the early 1980's the Labor Party has been dominated by leaders who have acted to represent the same kinds of powerful vested interests that the Labor Party was originally formed to oppose, that is large corporations, financiers, property developers and land speculators.

Every Labor Government that has come to office since 1983, at both the Federal and state level has shamelessly, and often corruptly, served those interests to the detriment of its own support base, the country as a whole, and the environment.

Both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating willingly adopted the agenda of the economic neoliberals to 'reform' the Australian economy to give more wealth and power back to the Australian elite. This entailed the deregulation of the Australian economy, including the rate of exchange of the Australian dollar and the banking and finance sector, allowing greater access by foreign investors to Australian companies, land and mineral wealth, and an increase in the rate of immigration.

In 1986, the Hawke Government privatised the pension system, adopting the model of that had been conceived by neoliberal economist Milton Friedman and had been previously implemented by the Chilean military dictatorship. They failed to even consider the more equitable and efficient system which had been proposed by Professor Keith Hancock for the previous Whitlam Government.

The result has been that millions of ordinary Australians, in an increasingly casualised labour market, often having been forced to join a new scheme for each new employer, have had much of their funds flow, as commissions and annual management fees, into the pockets of the fund managers. In spite of this abysmal outcome, the Labor Party still, almost unbelievably, hold this to be a proud achievement of the Hawke/Keating years.

Almost following to the letter John Howard's script presented to the public in the 1986 elections, the Hawke and Keating Labor Governments sold nine of the twelve public enterprises on John Howard's hit list, including the Commonwealth Bank, QANTAS, and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. They stopped short of privatising Telstra, but they nevertheless deregulated the telecommunications sector, paving the way for the Howard Government's eventual full privatisation of Telstra.

At the state level, Labor Governments have been no better. They, too, have sold off state owned banks and insurance companies and much publicly owned land and many publicly owned buildings. Most have harmed the environment by promoting population growth and property development and supporting ecologically destructive industries including woodchipping, coal and Uranium mining and aluminium smelting.

Even at the level of local government where they should be closer to the people, Labor councillors still poorly represent many communities. Brisbane City Council, whilst having a Liberal Lord Mayor Campbell Newman elected in 2004 still has a majority of Labor Councillors. However, Brisbane residents' hopes that Labor would use its majority to curb the excesses of Newman have been repeatedly dashed.

Today, much of Brisbane resembles a war-zone as Campbell Newman realises his engineer's dream of fixing up problems, caused by population growth and past planning failures, by building a parallel transport system underneath Brisbane. Tunnel projects include the North South Bypass Tunnel (NSBT), the Northern Link and the the Airport Link. All of these are to be operated by private consortiums and their use will incur tolls. In addition, all bus movements through the CBD are to be moved underground, to leave the streets above ground free for private motor vehicles.

Most of these projects have provoked heated community opposition and groups have been formed to oppose the NSBT and the Hale Street Bridge. In spite of the overwhleming cases against all of these projects and ovewhelming oppostion from at least the affected communities, the Labor majority has given into Mayor Lord Mayor Newman on each occasion.

Why Labor can nevertheless become a vehicle for change

However, the fact remains that the Labor has drawn, and continues to draw, into its ranks, people who have the best motivations and aim to work through the Labor Party to bring about goals similar to what the Labor Party originally stood for. It would be wrong to assume, in spite of the seemingly insurmountable corrupting influences that now exist within Labor, that such elements will never again prevail.

This happened in the years of the Whitlam Labor Government and happened, more recently, albeit very briefly and tenuously, when Mark Latham became Labor Party leader.

Mark Latham's diaries published in 2005, reveal that he had, indeed, joined the Labor Party, entered Parliament and worked his way up the ranks all the way to the Federal Labor Party leadership for the most laudable aims.

To be sure, many of Latham's political ideas, including his embrace of 'dry economics' were not good. He held out Tony Blair's Labor Government in the UK, which had left intact nearly all of Margaret Thatcher's program of privatisation, emasculation of the Trade Unions and cutbacks to social spending and which had followed George Bush into the Iraq war, as the model that an Australian Labor Government should follow.

Nevertheless, in spite of this, it is clear that Latham was genuinely offended by the corrupt power of Australia's elites as well as those within the trade union movement and the Labor Party and was resolved to end this. In his diaries, he stated that his goal was to take political power in order to give it back to communities and ordinary people. He also adopted 'politically incorrect' stances including opposition to high immigration and once referred to many Australians' fixation upon the rising value of their own homes (largely caused by the increased demand for property fueled by immigration) as 'the great Australian disease'.

He was resolved to begin to drastically reduce the scale of woodchipping in Tasmania and to end Australia's involvement in the Iraq war.

Having stood for such decent democratic principles also eventually proved to be Mark Latham's undoing, but the fact that he came so close to succeeding, shows that even the Labor Party is not entirely impervious to the influence of genuinely uncorrupted progressive political forces.

If the Labor Party, with a leader demonstrating the elements of idealism and altruism shown by Whitlam and Latham were ever to form Government, then that Labor Government could indeed be the vehicle for the changes which are necessary to establish a fair and decent society and also to confront the grave environmental threats that our society and our whole planet face.

Even given the questionable record of the existing Rudd-Gillard Federal Labor leadership, it can't be entirely ruled that either or both of them may yet prove to be such leaders.

However, this seems unlikely in the current political context. If Labor is elected the two more likely scenarios are:

  1. a monolithic Labor Government which will govern in the interests of the wealthy as those of Keating and Hawke have done before, or
  2. a less monolithic Labor Government, where those opposed to pro-business policies will be prepared to take a public stance.

An anti-Howard grass roots mass movement is needed

A non-monolithic Labor Government is more likely if a popular grass-roots movement in favour of progressive change is brought into existence.

Such a mass movement should be unambiguously in favour of the election of Federal Labor as the only feasible alternative to the continued rule of John Howard's unaccountable, anti-democratic and morally bankrupt Government.

This should not preclude it from from being strongly and openly critical of Labor's poor policy decisions: support for woodchipping and the pulp mill in Tasmania, support for Uranium mining, watering down of its opposition to 'WorkChoices', support for high immigration and population growth and the abandonment of opposition to privatisation of Telstra.

Also, this should not preclude such a movement advocating a primary vote for independents or smaller parties which have better policies than those of either Labor or Liberal.

However, it must be unflinchingly clear on the need to use Australia's preferential voting system to preference Labor candidates ahead of any Liberal or National candidates. This will ensure that where those minor candidates or independents fail to win office their votes will flow to a Labor candidate.

If it argues such a case clearly and logically it need not drive voters back into the arms of the Liberal Party.

If, upon winning Government, Federal Labor maintains its current pro-business agenda, then the grass-roots movement will be in a position to ensure that disaffection with the Government will cause Labor's base of support to change its allegiance to something better, rather than to simply drift back to the Liberal Party as has happened in the past. In such circumstances, the prospect of a party such as the Greens, or else, some other party formed through the likely ensuing political struggles being able to form Government, will become more achievable.

However, this scenario is unlikely to unfold if John Howard's Government retains office in 2007.

Footnotes

1. "Australia's neoliberal path" by Kenneth Davidson in Dissent Magazine isue 23 Autumn?Winter 2007.

Topic:

Beattie wins Queensland State elections by default

Sun, 2006-09-10 12:36 by James Sinnamon
I don't often find myself in agreement with Coalition politicians but Springborg was not too far wide of the mark when he said that the Beattie Labor Government was returned by default. Like the coalition, the Queensland branch of the Labor Party is a party which depends upon donations from property developers and land speculators. This would be the explanation behind most of Beattie's misgovernment of Queensland in the last 10 years, and why would have got no better from the Coaltion if they had won. It's a shame that Cate Molloy did not win her seat back in the election. Of all the candidates, she deserved most of all to win for having had the courage to defy the Labor Party machine and for having tried to support the best interests of her constituents. Her vote of 23.6% was impressive in the circumstances, but obviously not sufficient. Cate Molloy's letter of resignation from the Labor Party can be found here. --- Originally posted to John Quiggin's blog.

Topic: