My argument against the Liberal party is based on the various mis-truths and bad policy sprouted by the party over the last few years. Some of the derisions that I have directed at the party are probably not so much a fault of the party, but rather a fault of the party's leader John Howard, but really that's splitting hairs. For all intents and purposes, the leader is the party, and the party is the leader.
Any logic which concludes that the GST would mean low-income earners would be better off, is fundamentally flawed and belies an ignorance of the way in which our tiered tax system works.
The reason we have different income thresholds which are taxed at different rates is to reflect the different needs of the taxpayers. Someone earning around $20,000, for instance, is probably struggling to make ends meet and therefore they need every last dollar that they earn, which is why they are taxed at a low rate. Compare that with a CEO who rakes in a million dollars annually, and who clearly isn't going to be hit too hard even if a high proportion - currently around 50% - of that money is paid to the government as tax.
Now look at the GST. The Goods and Services Tax is paid not on income or earnings but rather when a purchase is made. The result is that everyone pays the same tax, regardless of income; the whole system just comes undone.
Ignoring the rights and wrongs of mandatory detention, there is still the case of the Children Overboard scandal. Essentially, Howard and other Libs (such as Ruddock) claimed that, upon being approached by an Australian navy vessel, the refugees aboard a fishing vessel began throwing their own children overboard, presumably to force the navy to pick the children up.
After a while it emerged that children had not been thrown of the vessel by their parents. Somehow, the wrong message had wound its way upwards and into the Prime Minister's hands, from where it was promptly disseminated to the general public. When the truth came out, Howard back-flipped and informed us that he'd been given mis-information.
The crux of the problem is that Howard made a big noise when he first heard of the affair, with quotes such as:
"I express my anger at the behaviour of those people and I repeat it. I cant comprehend how genuine refugees would throw their children overboard."
... without bothering to check the facts and the sources. Howard was more interested in scoring political points than he was in the truth.
Read more at the "Truth Overboard" site.
In a similar manner to the Children Overboard scandal, Howard and his political allies touted intelligence reports which indicated the presence of so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq. Now, of course, it's emerging that the reports were unreliable and, well, just plain wrong. Of course, as in the Children Overboard case, Howard claims that he's not to blame and that he was only passing on information given to him from third parties. Once again, Howard has been to eager to accept such information as being true, simply because it ties in with his own political agend, rather than to conduct a full assessment of the facts.
The "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is just another form of propaganda itself. Obviously, if any weapon deserves the title of "Weapon of Mass Destruction" it's the Nuke, and the US has got more of those than the rest of the world put together...
The Home Buyer's grant is a bandaid solution to the problem that many Australian people cannot afford to buy a house. The idea of just giving them a few bucks to help them on their way is just naive. Such a scheme has undesirable side effects, such as causing the average house price to rise, and ignores the fundamental problem which is one of income and cost of living. A few thousand dollars may help go towards a deposit on a house, but once that's gone the monthly loan payments are going to be a huge drain on a family that wasn't earning enough to be able to save up a deposit in the first place.
The Baby Bonus is designed as an incentive to families to have more children, to solve the problem of a disproportionate number of pensioners which are/will be around due to the period of the Baby Boomers. Those pensioners soak up a lot of welfare money and the government wants more taxpaying citizens to help balance the books. There are a multiplicity of problems with the chosen solution; for one it seems that, based on current water shortages in several major cities, Australia should probably be trying to reduce its population rather than increase it. Not forgetting that it will take a good twenty years before today's babies become taxpaying citizens, assuming that they can still all find jobs at that time, and that a far easier solution which has other benefits attached is just to allow some more immigration.
One major problem with the Baby Bonus is that encourages low-income couples (to whom three thousand dollars seems a large sum of money) to have babies which is going to cause an additional strain on the welfare system. So the initial problem is going to get worse before it gets better - if it ever does get better.
The recent tax cuts, a lead up to an election that is surely not far off now, are not a bad thing in themselves but are targeted at the entirely wrong bracket - those who are earning over $50,000. Howard stated that he doesn't believe anyone with that earning capacity is by any means well off in today's economic climate, which is apparently a justification for giving such people a tax cut - but which ignores the basic premise that, if someone earning over fifty thou is not doing too well, anybody earning under the same amount is positively struggling and is in far more dire need of tax relief.
Far from being appalled at this state of affairs, Howard applauds it. He's stated that, if Hicks were brought back into Australia, there would be no charge against him - as if that should be a reason for allowing him to be held in a Foreign confinement. But Howard is missing the point (or else deliberately ignoring it) - the fact that he's broken no Australian laws is exactly the reason why the release of David Hicks should be being demanded by our government.
Howard seems to see the law as an afterthought of society. From his point of view, the law is a loose approximation of the values of society, which are paramount and which displace the law, rather than the other way around. This is very, very dangerous; although the basic premise - that law is an approximation of society's values - may be correct, at least the law is a formalised approximation and is not subject to the immediate whims of individuals (like Howard) or groups (such as the Government).
Although I don't for a minute believe Howard wishes to be a dictator, he apparently doesn't understand the meaing or value of a free society, or just how tenuous that freedom is - how easily it can be lost; how hard is the struggle to win it back.
So, dear reader, I ask only that you remember these decisions that the government has made, and to consider my arguments against them; and finally, to cast your vote accordingly.
-- Davin McCall. Comments welcome, to davpage@davmac.org.