BY ALEX BAINBRIDGE
HOBART — After looking at the Socialist Alliance's priority pledges for the July 20 Tasmanian elections, several of my workmates made comments such as "that would be nice if it were possible, but you could never fund promises like that".
During the last two decades, as governments — state and federal, Liberal and Labor — have cut services and workers' living standards, the expectations of most people have dropped. Many workers have been convinced of the supposed need to "balance the budget" and be "fiscally responsible". The big corporations — who are taking a higher proportion of the profits made from workers' effort than before — are gaining from this dampening of workers' confidence to fight for a better deal.
The Tasmanina Labor government's spending priorities benefit a tiny minority of already wealthy people over the vast majority of workers. The Socialist Alliance wants to reverse this — so that life is better for the great majority. We don't care that it will involve taking money away from the corporate rich, which is what the economist elite falsely claim is "fiscally irresponsible".
We think it is more important to increase funding and resources for public health and education services than it is to cave in to business demands to reduce payroll tax. We think it is more important to solve the public liability crisis by nationalising the insurance industry than it is to protect that industry's profits.
Many would agree with our priorities, but still want to know: where's the money coming from?
It's simple: tax the corporate rich, wipe out wasteful government expenditure, mobilise under-utilised resources (in particular the skills of the unemployed) and democratise the budget process, so that any "sacrifices" that do need to be made are fairly implemented.
Of course, socialism could not be fully implemented even in a single wealthy country like Australia, let alone in Tasmania. But implementing these pledges would go a long way to improving people's lives and sending a message that economic rationalism is not inevitable.
While 40% of the Tasmanian population is poor enough to qualify for a government health-care card, a small number of Tasmanian multi-millionaires enjoy a luxurious life. But the state ALP government keeps giving subsidies and loans to big companies' ventures — subsidising their profits.
The job-destroying woodchip industry has had a big profit increase since the regional forest agreement was signed in 1997, but the amount of money coming back to the public from that industry has proportionally decreased. Yet workers' subsidise the industry through initiatives such as public funding for roads that are used only by woodchip trucks.
Tasmania's official unemployment rate is more than 8% — the highest of any Australian state. These thousands of people could be driving buses, building public transport and public housing infrastructure, teaching students and nursing in our hospitals and nursing homes.
In fact the Socialist Alliance priority pledges — which seem so radical to some — are really very modest for such a wealthy country. Even a slice of the $13 billion currently wasted on Australia's annual military budget could make a big difference to people's lives if spent on public transport and health.
If Cuba, with a per capita GDP less than 8% of Australia's, can maintain universal health care and education, why should we settle for anything less?
Of course, to implement this program, we would need to appeal to workers in other parts of the country — and the world — for political support to defend such a people-first program against big business attacks. But the Socialist Alliance is confident that we could obtain such support. Socialist priorities — the priorities that put the majority before the wealthy minority — will be the solution in the 21st Century.
[Alex Bainbridge is a Socialist Alliance candidate for the seat of Denison in the Tasmanian elections. More information on the alliance's campaign can be found at <http://www.socialist-alliance.org>.]
From Green Left Weekly, July 17, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.