by Citizens' Income Trust | May 28, 2012 | Opinion
More than fifty delegates, of all ages and from sixteen countries, gathered at the European Parliament in Brussels on the 26th and 27th April 2012 to discuss an exciting new venture: a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) entitled ‘Unconditional Basic Income’ (UBI). This was the inspiration of Klaus Sambor from Austria. Together with a group of people who met in Vienna in October 2011, he put together a text in English which was circulated to interested parties for comment prior to the Brussels meeting. This initiative has been possible because on April 1, 2012 a new participatory tool was born: the European Citizens’ Initiative. From now on, we – the citizens of the European Union – have the same right as a majority in the European Parliament and the Member States: to contribute to setting the political agenda for the whole continent. (The European Citizens’ Initiative Pocket Guide, by Bruno Kaufmann, published by the Green European Foundation, March 2012, www.gef.eu.)
The purpose of the meeting in Brussels was to agree the text of the ‘Unconditional Basic Income’ paper for the introduction of an ECI into the Parliament, asking the EU to speed up the introduction of a UBI. The paper comprised a short section that introduced the topic of a UBI, setting out the objectives and defining what was meant by a UBI. The major part was taken up by referring to Articles in various pieces of legislation, including the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, March 2010. The introduction of a UBI would help the Parliament to fulfil its obligations under each of the specified Articles.
The meeting was hosted in the European Parliament by Gerald Häfner, MEP for the Green Party in Germany, who welcomed the delegates on the Thursday afternoon. Then Werner Rätz, also from Germany, led an interesting debate on the social context for the introduction of both an ECI and the UBI: changing employment patterns and inadequate income maintenance systems, which had led to widespread poverty, and to increasing inequality between rich and poor. Participants deplored the punitive and controlling nature of the various social security systems within the EU.
Klaus Sambor then went over the first definitive part of the document, giving the purposes for, and definition of, the UBI, indicating why certain wordings had been chosen. ‘The emancipatory “Unconditional Basic Income” is defined by the following four criteria: universal, individual, unconditional, and high enough to ensure an existence in dignity and participation in society.’ He said that the UBI does not replace the welfare state, but completes it and transforms it from a compensatory into an emancipatory one. He explained that only the four criteria for the UBI would be specified, and not any particular means of funding it at this stage. He felt that it was important to get the idea of the UBI accepted first, and to fight the sources-of-funding battle later. It was recognised that it would be up to each member state to work out its particular means of implementing its own scheme, but that the EU would probably have to be involved directly to some extent.
The initial explanation was followed by the first of the two purposes of the conference, which was to discuss the subject matter and objectives of the document. Part of the discussion revolved around the question as to whether one should change the definition of the UBI in order to increase the chance of its being adopted. However, it was agreed that some things were inviolable, such as the unconditional nature of the UBI. Even then, because its presence would alienate the Trade Unions, some recommended the removal of the clause which referred to there being no obligation to work (inserted to illustrate the unconditional nature of the UBI). The discussion went on past its allotted time of six o’clock, after which the delegates were invited to a drinks reception beside an exhibition comprising photographs and other documents from Ojivero-Omitara in Namibia, showing the tremendously beneficial lasting effects of the Basic Income experiment conducted during 2008 and 2009.
During the evening some modest changes were made to the document. The following morning, the company reassembled in order to approve the final draft of the ECI. Some further discussion took place about the wording of the ‘universality’ criterion, with respect to who should be eligible, whether the ‘European citizen’ (with its legal connotations), or a ‘member’, ‘inhabitant’, ‘legal resident’ or just ‘resident’ of the European Union. In the end, those present voted to refer to the UBI as a human right, without specifying the population, again leaving that battle for a later date.
In the end, the clause about there being ‘no obligation to work’ as an example of the ‘unconditionality’ criterion remained, even though members of the Italian basic income network, Bin Italia, were very pessimistic, feeling that it would make it almost impossible to achieve any success in Italy, because of the antipathy from the Trade Unions.
During these sometimes fierce debates, I was reminded of the Basic Income Research Group / Citizen’s Income Trust early discussions. After the relief of meeting some other basic income enthusiasts in 1983, I was surprised to discover how hotly we debated the finer details of our favourite schemes. Back then, as in Brussels, it took us some time to work out what our objectives were, and what was the instrument. Did we want a BI for its own sake, or because it fulfilled certain objectives? We noted that some good unintended consequences would follow, so should these also be listed with the objectives? We had to learn how to prioritise objectives.
Bin Italia had provided an alternative version of the ECI document, the purpose of which was to ensure that the group followed the procedures set out for the introduction of an ECI closely. They were in favour of having less precise definitions of a UBI, so that the EU would have less reason to reject the idea out of hand as inadmissible, and also to appeal to a wider set of interest groups, thus widening participation. Some of their ideas were adopted and were put into the final draft, but Bin Italia felt strongly that there should have been a proposal to vote for either their version or the previous one, but this did not happen.
In the end, compromise has to be reached because one cannot please everyone. I myself would have preferred a slightly different definition of the UBI, which would have emphasised that it was not means-tested, and that it was not just assessed on an individual basis, but also delivered to each adult recipient on an individual basis too. I would also have liked non-selectivity to be introduced as a concept, where the amounts that are received are not based on different characteristics, such as gender, age, marital status or household composition, to distinguish it from the unconditionality concept, where the right to the UBI would not depend on preconditions being met.
The second main purpose of the conference was to draw up the outline of a Campaign for the ECI. This requires obtaining the signatures of one million (1,000,000) EU citizens, out of its five hundred million inhabitants, either through a website, or by the usual signed petition, within a period of one year. A Citizens Committee was set up, comprising an organiser (together with at least two substitutes in case the need should arise) from each country present, to help to organise the campaign. The task is to specify some succinct wording on the petition, and to obtain legal advice to make sure that the wording and process of the ECI conforms to EU legislation: otherwise the Parliament could reject the ECI out of hand. Gerald Häfner was very helpful in giving some overall guidance about how to present an ECI to the Parliament, and he suggested strategies. Klaus Sambor and Ronald Blaschke (who had also been closely involved in the development of the ECI document) were voted as Chair and Vice Chair of the committee respectively. It was agreed that the first meeting of the committee will be held on the 7th and 8th July in Paris. It is hoped that the preparatory arrangements will be made in time for the Campaign to be launched on the afternoon of Sunday the 16th September, the last day of the 14th BIEN Congress, to be held near Munich, Germany.
I am left feeling excited about this new enterprise, but also feeling rather humble as, so often on the continent, all those around could communicate in many languages, while I could merely offer my one and only. I am also left with a warm glow of having been with a group of friendly people, who all believe that ‘human beings are more important than the economy’.
by Yannick Vanderborght | Oct 10, 2011 | Opinion
I graduated in Social Work in 1964 and back then, in Australia, we were three quarters of the way through the 23 years of unbroken conservative rule. The prevailing welfare ideology of the time was heavily influenced by the combination of providing assistance to those ‘in need’ whilst sifting out ‘malingers’ and others who could but wouldn’t work. There was a sense of noblesse oblige [nobility obliges one to assist others less fortunate than oneself]. Yet such ‘generosity’ was hedged around by a prevailing view that some people were ‘bludging’ on the system and this meant that social security officials were wary of being taken for a mug. Fortunately, the Labor Party had consolidated the social security legislation in 1947 in one Act and set out eligibility entitlements in clearly defined categories. The ideological biases of social security administrators only came into play at the edges. In church run and other not-for-profit organisations, which supplied many of the ancillary welfare services, such conservative ideologies were very much to the fore.
Competing welfare ideological circles
In tropical Australia on full and new moons [which create huge tidal flows] currents flow very strongly. Whenever such flows are constricted, for example, by the narrowing of passages between islands, ocean eddies are formed that are so powerful they can force boats off course. Such eddies form patterns which are as unpredictable as the turbulence created in a jug of boiling water. Whenever I listen to neo-conservative economic fundamentalists pontificating about the propensity of social security recipients to sink into the “mire of welfare dependency” I have a sense of deja vu. As I try to untangle the twisted amalgams of ideological thought, I am reminded of the turbulence of these ocean eddies. At the same time in my mind’s eye, I see a gatekeeper of an 18th century Poorhouse berating those who enter with warnings about impending ‘sloth and licentiousness’.
Some of the competing descriptions exhibiting such ideological constructions are:
socially approved/ deserving/ good moral character- including previously adequately supporting ‘his’ family. Married/ widowed/ unmarried mother/ separated/ divorced/ living in sin. Citizen/ permanent resident/ migrant/ refugee/ over stayers / asylum seekers/ boat people/ illegal arrivals. Worthy/ entitled/unworthy. Universalism/ individual/ targeted/ categorical. Able bodied/ disability /sick/ malingerer/ blind/ old/ worker/ unemployed/ skilled/ unskilled/ contributing/ productive/ unproductive/ dependent/ self-reliant/ adequate/ inadequate/ helpless / hopeless/ taxpayer/ dole bludger.
Many of these ideological conundrums and often several other arcane protestations pop up when neo-conservatives discuss welfare issues and they have been doing much the same for many centuries. Joel Handler (2002 p. 56, footnote No. 217) pointed to 1348 Statute of Labourers admonishing the provision of assistance to ‘sturdy beggars’. Guy Standing (2002, pp. 173-174) makes the point that: “the principles of workfare were enshrined in the English Poor Law of 1536 dealing with ‘sturdy vagabonds’, and in the French Ordonnance de Moulins of 1556. The 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act in Great Britain, was designed to reach only the ‘deserving’ and desperate poor (italics in original)”. Jennifer Mays (forthcoming) notes that similar ideological constructions prevailed in Australia throughout the 20th century and into the 21st. There is little doubt that those who wish to limit the scope or generosity of income support provisions find the frequent repetition of dependency rhetoric useful. However, it should be noted that the veracity of an idea is not established by its longevity nor by how frequently it is asserted.
The distinctions which neo-conservatives attempt to make in these dependency/ self reliance debates are based on distortions of reality. They are, as Joshua Holland (2006) notes, “a ‘zombie lie’ – no matter how many times you shoot it in the face, it keeps coming back to haunt you.”
Currently, in Australia, the favourite prevailing welfare myths are:
- Australians pay high levels of taxation compared with the rest of the world,
- asylum seekers without visas arriving by boat are entering Australia illegally,
- Aborigines get exceedingly generous welfare payments compared with other citizens, and
- there is such a thing as a ‘self-funded retiree’.
The reality is that:
- “Australia has a low tax burden, both currently and historically. In 2003, Australia had the eighth lowest tax burden of the OECD-30 countries and has typically ranked in the bottom third of countries for the period since 1965” (Treasury 2003).
- Because Australia has signed and ratified the 1951 Convention on Refugees asylum seekers have every right to enter this country to seek protection.
- As a group, Aboriginal citizens are the least wealthy section of the society, who face the greatest health difficulties and they get less generous assistance than other Australians. This is sometimes because of the rural and remote regions in which they live. But mainly it is often due to Indigenous people’s lack of bureaucratic sophistication coupled with non-Aboriginal racism and governments’ determination to foist their ‘best intentions’ upon Indigenous citizens rather than to listen to Aboriginal peoples’ suggestions.
- The statement that, unlike age pensioners, ‘self-funded retirees’ don’t draw on the public purse’ is a nonsense – they get exceedingly generous tax waivers on their superannuation and, provided their income is below $50,000 annually, get government subsidised medicines. Some of the recently beatified ‘self-funded retirees’ get more assistance from the government (by way of tax concessions) than age pensioners get from the pension.
The left is left behind
The absence of logic, in many of the arguments propounded by rightwing ideologues about the need to force recipients of social security to meet onerous obligations in return for payment of benefits, should make it easy to destroy their arguments. But in Australia, as elsewhere, this is not the case. As George Monbiot points out:
rightwing movements thrive on their contradictions, the leftwing movements drown in them. Tea Party members who proclaim their rugged individualism will follow a bucket on a broomstick if it has the right label … Instead of coming together to fight common causes, leftwing meetings today consist of dozens of people promoting their own ideas, and proposing that everyone else should adopt them.
Australia in the 21st century
After the economic fundamentalist and thirdwayism of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments in the 1980s and 90s. John Howard came to power, in 1996, promising even more economic fundamentalism coupled with conservative social policies. He set out, with alacrity, to fight the ‘Culture Wars’ it didn’t matter whether it was winding back the Native Title legislation ‘to give pastoralists more certainty’, removing industrial award protection, enforcing individual work contracts, setting up Star Chambers which compelled building workers to give evidence, tightening disability support pension eligibility, enforcing ‘work for the dole’ provisions on ‘job snobs’ (by which he meant people who were unemployed), expanding mandatory detention of asylum seekers, introducing temporary protection visas for refugees (which did not allow family reunion), excising offshore islands from our migration zone, sending those who did not reach the Mainland to be processed on Nauru or Manus Island and launching the Northern Territory Intervention in 73 Aboriginal communities. This Intervention involved suspending the Racial Discrimination Act, compulsorily acquiring leases of town areas, quarantining half of people’s social security pensions and benefits on a Basics Card that could only be used for government approved purchases (Altman and Hinkson 2007).
Monbiot (2010, p.59) quotes with approval Thomas Franks 2004 book What’s the matter with Kansas? whose thesis is that the new conservatism systematically erases economic explanations by blaming the trouble of the poor not on corporate or class power, wage cuts and so forth but on cultural factors. In 2001, Brendon O’Connor argued that George Gilder and Charles Murray’s “central claim (was) that welfare causes dependency and thus unemployment and poverty – and that welfare reform therefore needs to focus on changing the behaviour of welfare recipients rather than providing employment opportunities (p.221).
In 2007, Kevin Rudd led Labor to victory – promising to wind-back the worst excesses of Howard’s Work Choices legislation and ending offshore processing of asylum seekers but maintaining the Intervention and other conservative social policies such as continuing the suspension of the racial discrimination legislation whilst leaving in place the prohibition of same sex marriage and euthanasia. In 2008-9, almost all developed countries experienced recession. Largely through counter-cyclical spending, Labor managed to avoid it. Rudd tried to introduce substantially increased mining taxes. The billionaire miners launched a massive anti-mining tax campaign that somehow convinced average Australians that the increased mining taxes, which Rudd was proposing, were not in their best interests. Just prior to the 2010 election, his Deputy, Julia Gillard, rolled Rudd. She immediately decreased the amount the mining taxes would add to Federal revenue and limited the types of mining that would attract a tax.
The subsequent election resulted in a hung parliament. Gillard’s minority government rules with the assistance of the Greens and three independents. Opinion polls put support for Labor in the high 20s. Gillard promised 2011 would be the ‘year of delivery’ when what we needed was a year of deliverance. Gone are the days when it could truly be said “Hope springs eternal in the human breast” (such as in the run up to Gough Whitlam’s 1972 electoral victory) when it seemed that grand improvements in social welfare were imminent: or in early 1975, when it appeared that the government was about to introduce a guaranteed minimum income. But, that was before the Dismissal of the Whitlam government by the Governor General on the 11th of November 1975; when progressive Australians realised that “Man always is but never To be blessed” (Pope 1733).
What is on the Gillard government’s agenda is revealed when she speaks about: wanting everyone to have a job ‘for the simple dignity that work brings’, or wanting to process asylum seekers, arriving in Australian waters, in Malaysia, or increasing the hurdles which those with disabilities have to jump-over before they will be considered eligible for a disability support pension, or maintaining many aspects of the Northern Territory Intervention, or moving to be able to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act by extending the quarantining of half people’s social security from just Northern Territory Aborigines to other disadvantaged groups in other parts of Australia (Tomlinson 2011) and at the same time increasing the compulsory superannuation levy from 9 to 12 per cent.
John Howard won the ‘Culture Wars’ and there is no-one in a leadership position within the Australian Labor Party with the ticker to take on the continuing conservative dominance of the of the ideological debate. The Parliament has literally become a coward’s castle. The words: equity, justice, equality, freedom, least restrictive, honour, decency, solidarity and ensuring everyone has an above the poverty line Basic Income have disappeared from the Australian lexicon.
Bibliography
Altman, Jon & Hinkson, Melinda (eds.) [2007] Coercive reconciliation, Arena, North Carlton.
Handler, J. (2002) “Social Citizenship and Workfare in the United States and Western Europe.” BIEN 9th International Conference, Geneva, Sept.12-14.
Holland, Joshua (2006) “Myth of the Liberal Nanny State.” AlterNet, June 8.
https://www.alternet.org/story/36895/myth_of_the_liberal_nanny_state/
Mays, Jennifer (forthcoming) Australia’s disabling income support system: Tracing the history of the Australian disability income support system 1908 to 2007 – disablism, citizenship and the Basic Income proposal. PhD thesis Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Monbiot, George (2010) “Bogus, Misdirected and Effective.” The Guardian, June 14.
O’Connor, Brendon (2001) “The Intellectual Origins of ‘Welfare Dependency’”. Australian Journal of Social Issues. Vol.36, No. 3, August pp.221-235.
Pope, Alexander (1733) “An Essay on Man, Epistle I”, Princeton.
https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~rywang/berkeley/magic3/paris/singles/eternal_spring.html
Standing, Guy (2002) Beyond the New Paternalism: Basic Security as Equality. Verso, London.
Tomlinson, John (2011) “Needs must when the devil drives.” On Line Opinion
https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11494
Treasury (2003) “International Comparisons of Australia’s Taxes.” Australian Government
https://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/05_Chapter_3.asp
