The deal that could balance the government's books as well as our own

A "social new deal" that binds people to taxation but, in a fair arrangement, also binds the government to guarantee that no one will fall into poverty and that sufficient amounts will be spent on the services we deem essential, writes Dr Bronwyn Kelly.

AFTER PAULINE HANSON'S recent address to the National Press Club (NPC), pollster and political analyst Kos Samaras was prompted to observe, sagely, that:

"Every politics is, at bottom, a transaction. You offer people something and ask for their vote in return."

In the same article, he was also insightful in diagnosing how Pauline Hanson may well have taken aim at the very constituency whose support she is seeking by engaging in what he called “the politics of subtraction” — a politics which promises nothing in gains for ordinary (especially city-dwelling) people, only losses.

In that vein, Pauline Hanson is just one politician among the many under neoliberalism who have designed all their policy offerings to imply that loss is inevitable but that there will be no loss for some groups in society if we reduce or extinguish certain benefits for other groups — for instance, entitlements for the unemployed and immigrants, the wages of workers, and the services essential for wellbeing such as childcare and disability services.

Somehow, when Pauline Hanson speaks, as she did at the NPC, we are meant to infer that the losses of benefits she is promising for some might result in a transfer of benefits to someone else. But none of us can be sure that we will be among any lucky beneficiaries — if there are some.

Nor can we be sure that if we are a beneficiary, we will like what we might get. After all, there is nothing much being offered, other than a sense that all will be well for some if (and only if) others, including especially Indigenous Australians, are forced to miss out. This is dismal politics.

The time is ripe for a universal basic income

A universal basic income frees people from the fear of falling into poverty, stabilises labour costs, and stimulates the economy.

But what if the political transaction could be organised from the other end? What sort of deals could we end up with if the community were to design them instead of politicians? Could we reduce the influence of those who rely on a “politics of subtraction” for our vote?

Could we release ourselves and our governments from neoliberal austerity? Could we reverse the trends of real wage losses we have suffered in the last 25 years? Could we reduce the number who have to lose so that some might gain?

Indeed, could we design a deal where no one needs to lose, and everyone can gain?

Well – putting it clearly, the answer to all these questions is yes.

In reality, in any political system where ordinary people can organise themselves to deliberate on how to get what they all want and need, a deal can be crafted which changes the terms of political transactions so that they can work in the people’s favour. People can initiate a deal which, in net terms, benefits all; and then they can look around to see which politicians are happy to accept that trade.

Instead of a politician offering us something (usually a very small something and without a guarantee) and then asking for our vote in return, we can tell politicians what we will accept in a transaction that we can design to benefit us all.

Such a deal in a wealthy society is not at all impossible if we put our own minds to it fairly. In fact, we have benefitted from such deals in the past when politicians were of a mind to offer them, such as the deal made in the 1980s under the Prices and Incomes Accord between the Hawke/Keating Government and trade unions, a deal which re-established Medicare and a social safety net in exchange for wage moderation.

The A to Z of who Pauline Hanson does and does not represent

Pauline Hanson always tells us who she doesn't represent – those of whom she's had a gutful – so who does she represent?

But where might be the best place to start in a 21st-century context where there is now a cost of living problem that has become very difficult for many to escape?

Probably the most efficient deal that could be crafted today, after decades of embedded neoliberalism and real wage decline, is one in which ordinary people take the initiative themselves to devise a statement about what they are prepared to trade in payment of taxes in return for public spending on welfare and services that are essential for us all.

Recent research at Australian Community Futures Planning (ACFP) has suggested that this sort of trade can best be developed as what we might call a “social new deal” that people can devise and then offer to the government, effectively turning the tables on how political transactions occur.

ACFP has suggested that Australians could design this deal by enabling themselves to enter into new arrangements for the fair payment of taxes in exchange for two types of guaranteed security:

Firstly, a guarantee of a universal basic income for everyone at or above the poverty level (untaxed and for life, no questions asked beyond proof of citizenship, permanent residency or eligibility to apply for residency); and

A second guarantee that the government will spend everything we need them to spend on the services we deem to be essential for our wellbeing and community cohesion.

This sort of deal is entirely plausible and affordable because it simply re-arranges how we provide income security (permanently and for everyone) and how we simultaneously achieve the certainty that governments will not rely on austerity to balance their books.

The deal can end the need for austerity. This is because it binds people to taxation but in a fair arrangement and also binds the government to guarantee that no one will fall into poverty and that sufficient amounts will be spent on the services we deem to be essential for everyone’s health, safety and survival in decency.

This sort of deal can balance the government's books as well as our own. It is possibly the only deal that can do that.

A universal basic income could rebuild social cohesion

Declining social cohesion and rising financial stress point to the need for a universal basic income.

This social new deal makes much more sense than deals that offer to cut taxes and services. Those latter deals are where nobody wins, not even the government. They eliminate security for just about everyone.

They are the sorts of deals to which we have been confined by neoliberalism for the last thirty years or more, but which have only resulted in a deepening of our financial insecurity and a decline in the accessibility of services for health, education, housing, and aged care. Soon that austerity may be visited on the disabled too.

By contrast, a social new deal can release people and politicians alike from these net-loss transactions. It makes the politics of subtraction unnecessary because this sort of deal needn’t be designed to take something away from one set to give to another. It need not be designed to create winners and losers.

One group need not be pitted against another. Social cohesion need not be disrupted.

Of course it all depends on the design, and it must be admitted that communities are as capable as governments of designing bad and unfair deals.

But orderly options are available to maximise the chance of a fair deal on tax, welfare and essential services. To that end, ACFP has also suggested an option of establishing an Australian Public Interest Collaboration.

If we want to be sure of designing a deal that benefits everyone, we will need to establish a democratic program of collaboration aimed at securing the welfare and incomes of all Australians and all the services essential for their wellbeing.

Such a deal is possible, and we should be able to expect that it would also be readily embraced by any well-intentioned politician. Find out how the Australian Public Interest Collaboration can be organised here.

Dr Bronwyn Kelly is the Founder of Australian Community Futures Planning (ACFP). She specialises in long-term integrated planning for Australia’s society, environment, economy and democracy, and in systems of governance for nation-states.