Universal income
John Tomlinson (GLW #442) calls for a universal citizens' income. The right vehemently opposes this idea, but isn't it being hypocritical?
Conservative Paddy McGuinness (Sydney Morning Herald, February 10) rejects the idea that people who have lived unhealthily should be denied public medical care. The "undeserving" should be treated on a par with the "deserving". Yet when it comes to social security McGuinness is an aggressive advocate of "mutual obligation".
If unconditionally meeting basic needs in the health sphere is a god idea, why isn't it a good idea in the income sphere?
There is a case for meeting everyone's subsistence income needs, especially given the unearned private income available via inheritances, gifts and property income. However, we need higher payments for those willing, but unable, to work full time.
GST complaints by pensioners are justified but the real problem is that the conditional basic pension is only 25% of average male earnings when it should be at least 30%.
Tomlinson is certainly right to advocate 50% taxation. In Australia the ration between the net cash income of comparatively high-income and comparatively low-income recipients is 4.2. In much higher-taxing Sweden this ratio is only 2.6.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
The Aussie nuclear bomb
Jim Walsh takes me to task for describing his historical research into the pursuit of nuclear weapons in Australia as "disingenuous" (Write on, GLW #443).
It was a poor choice of words — my point was not to question Walsh's motives but his characterisation of Australia's nuclear weapons history as a transition from sinners to saints.
Walsh states in the (northern) Autumn 1991 Non-proliferation Review, "Over the course of four decades, Australia has gone from a country that once sought nuclear weapons to one that now supports their abolition. It is a remarkable story, and certainly one of the untold successes of the nuclear age."
This ignores the support given by successive Australian governments to the nuclear weapons programs of other imperialist powers, not least the US. The cementing of the US military-nuclear alliance with the construction of the three major bases was probably the primary reason for the declining interest in nuclear weapons acquisition or production in Australia from the early 1970s onwards.
Australia lobbied in 1995 for the indefinite and unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus entrenching the position of the declared nuclear weapons states. The following year, Australia lobbied for a flawed test ban treaty which does not prohibit sub-critical tests, computer simulation, or, in the case of the US, upgraded weapons systems under the guise of the "stockpile stewardship program".
Last but not least, the Howard government's support for the US's national missile "defence" plans is incompatible with Walsh's sinners-to-saints framework.
Jim Green
Chippendale NSW
Image for whom?
Lachlan Malloch (Write on, GLW #444) agrees with Alison Dellit's critique of women's magazines (and ain't I a woman, GLW #443) which hypocritically denounce ultra-thin models. Malloch, however, neglects the intense pressure of sexist society when he writes "Many women have worked hard to gain a decent level of health and fitness for themselves and Jennifer Lopez is unremarkable in this respect apart from her fame."
Why has health and fitness required women to "work hard"? Health, fitness, and personal happiness should not be a chore, but it is for many women in this society cause they are doing it not for themselves but for others — the magazine ideal, their boyfriend, whatever. Do millions of women wear disfiguring high heels through some innate personal desire (that somehow escaped other women for thousands of years); or to fit sexist ideals of long legs and prominent buttocks?
Malloch asks "Is Dellit suggesting that those women are oppressed and would be better off by abandoning regular exercise and healthy eating in order to join the growing millions of us who suffer obesity?"
Yes, Dellit is suggesting Lopez is oppressed. Lopez' image and fame are intimately linked — she must fit the ideals to continue her work and fame. How many non-slim female pop stars can you think of?
The argument is not that these women would be better off by abandoning exercise, but that we all would be better off by getting rid of a society that promotes sexist beauty myths and unreal ideals, for commercial purposes.
Paul Benedek
Parramatta NSW [Abridged.]
CPA sectarianism
It was with surprise and dismay that I discovered that the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) was prepared to use censorship and threats to prevent participants at a recent CPA public meeting from being able to read either Green Left Weekly or the draft platform of the newly formed Socialist Alliance. The public meeting, advertised in the CPA's newspaper, the Guardian, was held in Sydney on April 13 to launch the CPA's 9th congress.
I arrived at the public meeting, held at the congress venue in the Rocks area of Sydney, accompanied by Graham Matthews (Melbourne district secretary of the Democratic Socialist Party, DSP). We commenced selling GLW and distributing Socialist Alliance leaflets. This alliance of progressive parties, initiated by the DSP and the International Socialist Organisation, has invited the CPA to join the nine progressive parties currently in its ranks in a united campaign in the coming federal election, but has thus far received no formal response.
After being told our actions were "cheeky" by two CPA members, the party's leadership decided to send seven members on to the footpath to intimidate us. Four of them surrounded our stall, and commenced selling the Guardian, and another three were sent afterwards to move us on. We were told by one to "fuck off", while another told us that if we remained "tempers might flair". Despite this, three CPA members purchased copies of GLW and many more took copies of the Socialist Alliance's platform.
The decision of the CPA's leadership to not only refuse us entry to a public meeting, but to use intimidation to prevent us from selling Green Left Weekly on the footpath outside the meeting is a cowardly and sectarian act. Furthermore, it denies the CPA's membership the opportunity to be informed and make up their own minds about the Socialist Alliance and what it stands for.
Nick Everett
DSP Sydney central branch secretary
Chippendale NSW
Drug law reform
Congratulations to Green Left for once again adding your support to the growing movement calling for drug law reform. There are however a number of issues I would like to raise in relation to your recent editorial (GLW #443).
Counterposing zero tolerance with harm minimisation is not as effective as it would appear. The Howard government recognises harm minimisation in the National Drugs Strategy. This policy incorporates harm reduction measures (needle-syringe provision, methadone maintenance) with demand reduction (education and life-skills programs) and supply reduction.
Supply reduction strategies call on the police and customs to reduce the flow of drugs into the country, and particular areas within. These measures often force users away from areas where services have been provided, and, as evidenced by the recent heroin drought, lead to the sale of poor quality gear that damages veins, forces more users into greater levels of crime to sustain their habits as prices rise and purity drops, and to substitute benzodiazipines and cocaine.
The inclusion of supply reduction in the strategy therefore does not contribute to harm minimisation, but rather increases the potential harm to users and the community.
Moreover, the inclusion of supply reduction in the harm minimisation framework is another factor in the systemic denial of users' democratic right to do with our own bodies as we choose, so long as that does not harm others.
For these reasons most user activists reject harm minimisation policy. We try to point out its difference to harm reduction, until we can find a new term that is easier to distinguish.
Finally, it is surely drug laws and the international drug war that are instruments of social control, not "drug addiction". Many dependent users are actively involved in fighting the system and supporting our communities.
Michael Arnold
VIVAIDS (Victorian Drug Users Group)
UA Online
In my article "Evidence mounts that universities are underfunded" (GLW #442) I stated that Labor's university plan would create 10,000 online places. In fact University of Australia Online (UAO) will create 100,000 places over 10 years, or 10,000 places a year.
The amount of money required to implement UAO would be staggering: initial start up and infrastructure costs and subsidies to students to purchase the equipment needed to study online (if it is really about accessibility).
An example of the huge start up costs involved can be seen in Universitas 21. An article in the March 21 Australian reported that Melbourne University has already committed US$5 million and along with the 18 other partners will be required to further invest US$25 million. This is only half of the start up cost, with Thompson Learning, the private partner, matching the capital invested by universities.
UAO would only be a really good proposal if it was matched with substantially increased government funding for universities; yet no such proposals are forthcoming from the ALP.
Viv Miley
Chippendale NSW [Abridged.]