Our Prime Minister Tony, Abbott has become famous for his various verbal faux pas, most recently his comments in relation to remote Aboriginal communities.
Speaking on ABC Radio in WA he stated: 'It is not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise particular lifestyle choices.' Predictably this resulted in a storm of protest from various Aboriginal spokespersons and other commentators.
Notably the premise behind the comment fails to recognise any inherent cultural and spiritual connection between Aboriginal people and their land.
They should just pack up and leave, moving to areas where there are proper resources and services which would not be as expensive for the government to provide. Everything would be so much simpler if only they were more like us, if they assimilated to our western conceptions of the good life. And then they could become 'economically productive.'
And of course, to remove Aboriginal people from their traditional lands would weaken their claims to traditional land rights. Undoubtedly there are many mining companies who would find life much easier if they did not have to negotiate over royalties and sacred sites with the traditional owners of the land.
All this is fair comment in relation to Abbott’s words, but there is another feature that has become so commonplace as to go unnoticed and uncommented. And it raises fundamental questions about how we understand our Australian nation.
Ask yourself the question, in light of Abbott’s statement, on whose behalf does the government govern? To whom is the Australian government responsible? The logical response from Abbott’s statement is 'the taxpayer'.
I’m not sure when this slippage began. I certainly noticed it in the Howard-Costello years when our then treasurer regularly referred to the Australian people as taxpayers. It may go back to Paul Keating, but I cannot be sure. What I can be sure is that it represents a fundamental distortion of the role of governments in a democracy.
Governments are not responsible to their taxpayers, but to their citizens. I was a citizen before I was a taxpayer and it is likely I will still be a citizen when I cease to be a taxpayer, or at least become a minimal taxpayer through the (regressive) GST. As a citizen I vote for my government to do the best it can for Australian citizens.
On the other hand, there are any number of taxpayers who are not Australian citizens: overseas residents, to whom the government owes the rule of law, but who do not take part in our political life; and of course corporations, both Australian and foreign, who pay substantial tax, but do not have voting rights.
Indeed, if a government is governing for taxpayers rather than citizens, then one’s call upon the government becomes a sliding scale. The more tax one pays, the more the government should attend to you. Gina Rinehart only gets one vote – the same as me – but she pays far more tax than I do, and so doors open for her that will forever remain shut for me.
And so the slippage in language from citizenship to being a taxpayer begins to distort our democratic system, moving us away from democracy and towards plutocracy. And of course this is exactly how the Prime Minister behaves. On election night he proclaimed, 'Australia is open for business.' His is a government whose primary concern is to be responsive to business interests, and the bigger and more powerful the business, the more responsive he will be.
An Irish Facebook friend of mine posted a photo of a person holding up a poster stating, 'I don’t mind you being rich, I mind you buying my government.' As long as our public discourse falls into the habit of referring to us as taxpayers and not citizens, this is the risk we run, of getting the best government that money can buy.
Neil Ormerod is Professor of Theology at Australian Catholic University.
Coin offering image by Shutterstock.