MOTION: That the Rudd Government immediately conduct a public debate followed by referenda to establish whether or not Labor’s electoral promise to spend $30Bn on tax cuts should proceed or whether all or some of the funds should be spent elsewhere such as on infrastructure, immigration of skills, housing, health and education.


During the campaign for the 2007 Federal Election, both the Coalition Government and the Labor Opposition leapt into pork barrelling mode. Rudd Labor apparently felt obliged to match the Howard Government’s promises in what was known in the media as “Me-too-ism” to avoid being wedged on any major policy promise. The obvious problem with the less than democratic election was that the people had no choice and no say in the matter. Consequently, the bipartisan $30Bn tax cut promises did not provide the electorate with a democratic choice. That the Rudd Government now feels obliged to uphold his promise, may not be the most prudent economic decision in today’s global environment.

Today, the Rudd Government’s razor gangs are busy hacking off the legs and arms of services to the people to keep the next budget out of inflation-territory. The policy contradictions inherent in public perceptions of slashing and burning essential services or failing to properly fund election promises to try to compensate for the massive tax cuts’ promises, would not augur well for the longevity of the Rudd Regime if interest rate rises continue to mount.

Since Australia is confronting rising inflation and rising interest rates to cool an overheating economy, The Reserve Bank of Australia which is struggling with interest rate issues that affect house mortgage affordability, a different economic strategy might be seen as being prudent. If the people were fully apprised of the alternatives, then any political odium that would normally arise from a broken promise such as modifying the tax cuts promise could be ameliorated at least, if not eliminated entirely.

By means of the democratic mechanism of a full blown public debate followed by an online specific vote of the people, which the Australian Electoral Commission could organise in a jiffy, the Rudd Government could somersault otherwise potentially promise-breaking-odium into a democratic virtue. Why not Kev? If you really are big enough for “New Leadership” and the actual practise of democracy, you would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing so.

magine a 50 year reign of Labor in actual democratic government, because there would be no need to change government? A truly one-party democratic state could arise where the people would be consulted, debated and voted specifically, on proposed major legislation and all mooted wars. Then truly, Howard would have been the last of the far right hubris, minority driven Liberal Prime Ministers.


Click here to Return to the INDEX