Achieving Resource Rents:
Media, Public Opinion and Vested Interests
Lev Lafayette
[An address delivered at the 2005 annual dinner for
Prosper Australia.
Reprinted from Progress, November-December 2005]
It is a great honour to be the speak for this, the 115th annual
commemoration dinner for Prosper Australia.
To use the slang term coined by Judge James Maguire's speech to the
New York's Anti-Poverty Society in the 1880s, it was over 15 years ago
that I glimpsed the cat. It was in the course of a final year course
on Population, Resources and the Environment and studying the enormous
waste and costs involved in generating the Australian suburban
landscape. I pondered, albeit all too briefly, the possibility that
whether the idea of a single tax on use of natural resources would be
sufficient to generate the necessary income to provide the regulatory
and welfare expenses of the modern state.
It is to my great shame that I did not investigate this further. I
quickly assumed, without sufficient empirical investigation, that it
would not be the case. I turned my attention instead to the
philosophical foundations of communication, the relationship of
society to technology and the political problems relating to
individual freedom and social democracy. These are of course, not
minor topics themselves, but it did mean that the question of
resources went on the back burner for some time.
Of course, as everyone here would know, the empirical evidence is
available and it is very favourable. The total value of land-site
rentals in Australia, we believe, would be sufficient to pay for the
legitimate expenses of the public largesse. In doing so we could
remove all taxes on labour, on capital investment and consumption. We
could create a situation where we would have, effectively, a voluntary
and user-pays taxation system, where one only pays for the resources
they use and whereby all people would receive their share of the
common wealth. The positive results this would have for both industry
growth and the environment should be self evident.
Being the time of year that it is, everyone is interested in taxation
matters. And, as Paul Keating once commented, every pet shop galah is
talking about reform. From both sides of mainstream politics, there is
tinkering on the edges. For the party that is supposed to represent
the interests of he working people, a call from two senior factional
leaders, Lindsay Tanner and Bill Shorten, that the top rate of
taxation needs to be lowered. On the other side of politics, Malcolm
Turnbull has called for a similar reduction. Meanwhile all three seem
to have been outpaced by reality. As the Age reported today, the main
beneficiaries of the current system are wealthy, single-income couples
with children. Such is the theft from those who do not fit into the
said categories. We may recall Professor Julian Disney's pithy
description of the tax and welfare system at the recent Equity in
Sourcing Revenue symposium at the University of Melbourne as "Upside
Down and Back to Front". The system provides tax benefits to
those who don't need it and punishes those who do and provides income
support at the wrong time of life.
These statements are, of course, preaching to the converted. Everyone
attending tonight's dinner is aware of these facts. The question that
confronts us with some difficulty, is why the idea of public financing
through resource rentals is not receiving widespread media coverage
and debate and why there is seemingly such extraordinary ignorance on
the part of our political leaders on this matter. Indeed, I recently
had the opportunity to raise the issue of land tax in person with one
of the most senior ministers of the Bracks cabinet; "Oh yes",
he started before I could express my point of view, "it's a
terrible thing, we'll be doing something about that". There was
some surprise in his expression when I strongly indicated that not
only did I support land tax as a concept, but indeed wished to propose
wore land tax, not less. It turned out that he neither understood land
tax, nor was he aware of its benefits to economic production and
social justice. His main interest however, was that there was a political
issue and the government was receiving some bad press. I may also take
this opportunity to mention that the member for Monash Province,
Johann Scheffer, told me that actually had taken the opportunity to
discuss with treasury bureaucrats, usually well versed in economic
matters, to discover for himself why the state has land tax. He is to
be thoroughly congratulated for taking this initiative and educating
himself on the matter.
Indeed, increasingly the only people that seem to support the concept
are environmental scientists and economists themselves, who, in those
hallowed halls of academia, have at least some opportunity to engage
in a disinterested pursuit of truth, logic and grounded reason.
Unfortunately such people are rarely activists in political
organisations and as a percentage of the population they carry few
votes. It is small, but necessary, benefit to advocates of resource
rentals that we carry the argument among the intellectuals of society
but are not receiving discussion in the mass media. To understand why
this is the case, and how to change it, we turn to the topic of media,
public opinion and vested interests.
As Marshall McLuhan once quipped, "the medium is the message".
The traditional media of the major newspapers, radio, television and
film is capital intensive. The first thing to realise is because they
are capital intensive they are established by people with a particular
world view whose context is derived from their class interest. Even
competing media, such as the Herald-Sun and the Age,
or to put it more bluntly, the Murdoch and Fairfax families, fall
under this category. Despite the fact that the Herald-Sun
appeals to a working-class readership with a rather moral
sensationalist and politically conservative tone and the fact the Age
appeals to the middle and upper class with a more liberal orientation,
it is important to realise that both these newspapers are still
contextually bound by the particular vested class interests of their
owners which in many cases supports the exclusive ownership of natural
resources. This is inevitable in all mass media because of its capital
accumulation required to establish it.
The second thing to realise, and this logically follows from the
first, is that the mass media are commercial institutions. They are
interested as a matter of priority in making a profit. Something as
dull as the dry facts and careful analysis with a carefully considered
conclusion are not matters for publication in the mass media; such
documents belong in the journals section of the universities,
well-hidden from public discourse. These things don't sell newspapers
or build ratings, they don't turn a profit -- but sensationalism does.
If you doubt this for a moment, I would simply refer you to an
excellent report by Sydney University of Technology in 1998. It
studied the frequency and types of violent crimes and their reporting
in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph
over a thirty year period. In that period there was a tiny increase in
the number of violent crimes reported to police, but the media
reporting of such crimes had increased by up to 2,200 percent. Indeed,
if you wish to take this matter a little further, you will discover
that it is a point of view among many in the mass media that
sensational publishing is even a stronger principle than publishing
the truth itself. I refer in particular to the recently successful
defamation case that maverick Scottish MP George Galloway brought
against the Daily Telegraph. The Telegraph claimed
that Galloway was in the pay of Saddam Hussein, claiming it was hi the
public interest to publish its story regardless of whether it was
true. So dry facts and careful analysis are out, truth is an optional
extra and only when required and enforced by law and sensationalism is
the order of the day; that is the basic orientation of our mass media.
We shouldn't be surprised or shocked by this. It is quite a normal
outcome of the technological requirements and the political and
economic system under which we live. However what we must understand
is the serious effects this situation has on the formation of public
opinion -- and which we will discover an interesting conceptual link
with the idea of resource rentals. To express as an ideal, using the
model proposed by the German social theorist Jurgen Habermas, public
opinion is supposed to represent the body of knowledge formed under in
the "public sphere", a real or virtual place where people
come together with the mutual interest to discuss matters of
theoretical and practical import. In this ideal conceptualisation, it
has certain stringent conditions attached: all are freely able to
express their opinion on any topic, all have the same capacity to
express that opinion, and none are under any coercion, biological,
social or even internal, to express anything other than their
sincerely held beliefs and carefully considered convictions. Under
these ideal circumstances, so the argument goes and I think it is a
thoroughly reasonable suggestion, the strength of the better argument
will ultimately determine the best propositions.
Unfortunately the formation of public opinion has as much to do with
this "ideal speech situation" as our current economy has to
do with the axioms of a "free market" or our political
system has to with "democratic participation". In theory, we
are all able to participate in the formation of public opinion -- but
in reality, as AJ Leibling coined, "freedom of the press belongs
to those who own one". In theory we are all are all able to
participate in the market place. But in reality, there are serious
barriers to entry and exit, knowledge and ability to alter the prices
and conditions set by oligopolies. In theory, we all have the right to
political participation in the democratic process. In reality, the
contemporary system of representative democracy is far removed from
involved civics; as a trivial example, in the firs! Federation
election the seat of Melbourne, where we meet tonight, was decided on
8,200 votes. In the last election, some 84.000 voted. So once upon a
time, the possibility of a Federal member of parliament being known by
the average constituent was quite high. Now it is clearly impossible.
It would be a little unkind if 1 gave this presentation with just
negative views on the ability to achieve resource rentals. So, in the
direction of a conclusion, I would like to suggest some things that we
as individuals and Prosper Australia can do to change this situation,
to get its message "out there" and ultimately introduce a
system of financing the public revenues that is fair and equitable.
In the first instance I think it is very important that we assume
that, barring an extraordinary transformation of mass media
technologies or an equally dramatic change to our system of political
economy, that the current circumstances under which mass media is
produced remains the same. This means adopting their criteria and
their needs. In May 2002, some 2000 people packed the Melbourne Town
Hall to hear the former Prime Minister of Australia, Malcom Fraser,
speak about the plight of asylum seekers. The mainstream media
coverage of that event was nil; indeed, if I recall correctly, it was
Fraser who wryly welcomed the absent media to event. In comparison,
recently (June 11) some fifty members from the ALP lobby group "Labor
for Refugees" protested outside Petro Georgiou's office in
Camberwell in favour of his proposed changed. That event was reported
on the ABC, the Murdoch and Fairfax newspapers, across national
television and even in the Chinese press.
Why this disparity. Simply because of the priorities of the mass
media as mentioned. Malcom Fraser's event wasn't covered simply
because it wasn't news. Everyone by that stage already knew what
Malcom Fraser's views were on asylum seekers. However, the idea of
Labor Party members engaging in a demonstration ./or a Liberal MP --
well that's a bit quirky, a bit strange, a little offbeat. But it also
includes an important political message. It gets people thinking about
the topic and why such an unusual situation could possibly occur.
Prosper Australia could easily engage in a similar sort of gathering.
One can readily imagine the attention the mass media to a protest
outside parliament house with the banner "We Want Tax".
Sure, we all here know that "land tax" is in reality a
resource rental. But in order to get our message out, we have to use
the circumstances and the vernacular. No one protests in favour of tax
or for more tax. It would be extraordinary for someone to do so. Yet
there is a particular type of tax which we think is a good idea and it
would do as well to choose the time and adopt the means to get others
to think about it as well.
Meaningful convictions however are not established through the mass
media. It generates an ersatz, temporary public opinion of
sorts. An organisation like Prosper Australia apart from needing to
get its message "out there" also needs to reach out to new
people and convince them of the strength of our argument. In this
instance, the new media of the Internet is most worthwhile on Iwo
levels. On one side it provides great opportunities as a resource for
people to read at their own leisure. The degree of detail that can be
provided is far in excess of that which can be achieved by other
means. People who seriously want to form a considered opinion can be
convinced by the weight of evidence provided. In addition to acting as
an asynchronous and detailed means to present an opinion, the internet
also provides the opportunity to reach out to individuals in a more or
less synchronous way to deal with short questions and points of
debate. It must be mentioned there is no need to engage with
individuals are deliberately and distastefully argumentative here.
Only those who are genuinely interested in mutual understanding are
worth debating and enticing. The others are a psychic vampires, who
will suck time and emotion from you, even if you genuinely want to
help them. As I have discovered myself, as with the real world, online
therapy only works if the recipient understands that they are insane
and that they want to change.
The importance of these actions is not to be underestimated. In
engaging , in the process of "communication among equals" in
a virtual community, one is actually engaging in the regeneration of a
genuine public sphere and under conditions which are as close to an
ideal speech situation that we can possibly reach. In doing so we at
Prosper Australia should have a certain vested interest, because I
think that we actually believe that we are right when it comes to
understanding the most fair, efficient, and environmentally
sustainable means to finance public revenues. We have not received our
"knowledge" from the mass media debates about taxation and
the bellicose arguments or tinkering on the edges. Through a variety
of avenues we have come to "see the cat" and be convinced
that it is through rental of the gifts of Providence, the Common
Wealth, that public revenues are best achieved. This is not a
doctrinal position, hut rather one that has been established through
the strength of the argument. We must always acknowledge that if
anyone, anywhere, can falsify our position that we would readily
change.
Finally, as advocates of a new system of public financing we should
not shy from targeting our vested interests and noting those who would
be opposed lo us. There is already a wealth of prominent literature
that can be used in favour of resource rental, citizens dividend and
against the landlord class. We know the comments that various Nobel
Peace Prize recipients in economics have made about the necessity of
resource rentals. We have people as erudite as Thomas Paine announcing
the need for a citizen's dividend derived from resource rentals.
Classic economists such as David Ricardo were justifiably scathing of
landlords "who do naught but collect rent, who contribute nothing
to the progress of society, get wealthier and wealthier, while the
rest of society -- both capitalists and labourers -- get poorer and
poorer." We should not be afraid of taking the issue to the
landlord class and demanding that they defend their lack of
contribution to human society, whilst achieving great wealth.
Likewise we should not be afraid of targeting the poor renters for
membership to our organisation and involvement. It is bad enough that
renters have to see such proportions of their wages disappear into the
pockets of the landowner, but it is worse still to see their meagre
wages eaten up by ignorant and uncaring governments who seek unjust
means to raise public revenue. Even if we are partially wrong and that
resource rentals do not provide enough to properly finance public
expenditure. we should advocate the raising of the tax Tree threshold
to lift the burden on our most impoverished because that is the most
ethical thing to do.
Also, and concluding our pitch to our vested interests, there should
be no shame in approaching the manufacturing, building and other
productive industries ("or financial contributions.
It is certainly in their interest that these productive capitalists,
the ones worthy of the title, witness the introduction of resource
rentals. It is manifestly unfair lhat these people, with genuine
inventiveness, entrepreneurship and managerial skill, see their
profits whittled away simply because a landlord's contribution to
production is nil and theirs is great.
Ultimately, 1 have great faith in the eventual success of resource
rentals as a means to achieve public revenues and to provide a common
wealth for all citizens. However we face serious challenges through
ignorance, vested interests, and the institutional factors of the
media. By adapting to ihc circumstances of the mass media, by taking
advantage of the new media technologies, and by being thoroughly aware
of who our potential allies and enemies are we can make great gains.
With confidence we will be able to achieve a just, fair, equitable and
environmentally friendly system which provides for the legitimate
expenses of government and the economic security of its citizens: it
is through the gifts of Providence, which belong to no one, and the
Common Wealth, which we all have equal right to.
|