The vision thing

With Federal Parliament back from its holiday recess, it’s a good time to think about what we might wish to see from politics in 2011.

The Australian political landscape has been through the tumble dryer over the last few years, turned upside down and every which way.

A long-run Prime Minister dramatically thrown out by a new contender, who himself went on to experience the highs and lows of politics in less than a single electoral cycle.

And it doesn’t stop there. After knifing their own man, the Labor Party only barely dodged an ignominious bullet at last year’s federal election by cobbling together a rare minority government.

So this year is likely to see plenty of grist for the media mill, long hours of negotiations for parliamentary staffers, and grand high-stakes theatre for political junkies.

But what about the Australian people at large? Why might they be in a punishing mood for both sides of the political spectrum?

Politics and government are rarely held in high regard. There are many reasons for this and it is too convenient by half to place the blame solely on the collective shoulders of politicians and bureaucrats.

But it has to be said that there is something uninspiring about Australian politics. And that is corrosive to public belief in government.

It’s generally not kosher to criticise the founders of a country but frankly, the designers of Australia’s system of government let us down.

For one, in setting the federal electoral cycle at a short three years, they made it difficult for future governments to step out of campaign mode.

The English geographer Sir Halford Mackinder once noted that except in times of war, democracies are terrible at thinking strategically. If you’re going to hold elections every three years, you’re going to find out just exactly what Sir Halford meant.

Second, in striving to preserve the sovereignty of the states, Australia’s founders created a country that is vastly over-governed in the modern age.

Three layers of government and associated bureaucracy is excessive for a population that is smaller than some metropolitan regions around the world.

It duplicates effort, creates curious overlaps in responsibility, and wastes resources.

Let’s tick off the policy issues mentioned by Prime Minister Gillard in her speech at the 2010 ALP campaign launch - economic management, skills development, employment, infrastructure, industrial relations, education, costs of living, health, taxation, and immigration.

What about the key issues in state politics? Let’s take a look at Ted Baillieu, kick-starting his campaign to win the Victorian election - he covered economic management, costs of living, taxation, law and order, health, and infrastructure.

Picking some themes? Sometimes the clearest difference between the two is that one side campaigns on assuming national control of services while the other talks about standing up to Canberra.

This breeds political fatigue and cynicism among the public. But it’s also a lost opportunity.

Of all the levels of government, federal government should be about more than just the politics of the kitchen table. It should be about those things we can do as a nation that we can’t do as individuals or separate states.

Of course people most want to hear about how policies are going to affect their lives.

But there needs to be space in federal politics for leadership on issues that extend beyond the daily routine. Like what future we want for Australia. Or the role our country can play in shaping the world the way we would like it to be, not just reacting to the way it is.

It’s that vision thing - and it’s lacking in the engine-room of Australian public policy.

The most inspiring leaders in history weren’t known as such because of their views on budget deficits, interest rates, or the costs of living. They were inspiring because they called for collective action that transcended day to day life.

Despite the cynical age we live in, that desire is still there. And policy that sets specific, inspiring goals and commits the resources to meet them, is one way to tap into it.

And for that to happen, the political establishment needs to show leadership, because it won’t come from the bureaucracy.

With its many levels of hierarchy and risk-averse culture, the Australian bureaucracy is far better at scrutinising ideas than at breeding them.

It leaves a vacuum that the political leadership needs to fill. They need to dare to think big, and be clear on what they want the bureaucracy to work towards. Without that, this country will never know its full potential.

While initiatives such as the 2020 Summit and the Asia-Pacific Community were flawed and smacked of being put together on the run, Kevin Rudd deserves praise for attempting to bring some vision back into politics.

It remains to be seen whether Prime Minister Gillard is so inclined.

Even if she is, long-term national goals may seem an impossible luxury for a Government preoccupied with the recovery from a string of natural disasters, and implementing its Budget plans when it controls neither house of Parliament.

But on the other hand, it may be just what the Government needs to stand out in a crowded political landscape. And to present something different to the Australian people from the endless campaigning - at federal and state levels - focused so overwhelmingly on short-term issues.

So here’s one wish for the political New Year - that in the 2011 edition of federal politics, there is room for a little bit of that vision thing.