Santa's coal, country protest and the patchwork economy

Australiais a small country in population terms. In economic terms we are bigger, but still less than two per cent of the global economy. Our relative position will decline over the next twenty years.

If you look at the foreign affairs archives, you will see that past Australian Governments were very sensitive indeed to the views of other countries. The reasons were simple. We were insecure and knew it. Domestic political considerations were important, but tempered.

You can see this in the history of the White Australia Policy. This was an article of faith, a core domestic concern. Yet even at the height of the policy, international considerations were important in language and exception. Once the policy became a major international problem, it was simply swept away.

The position with the Howard, Rudd and Gillard Governments was very different. For the first time, purely domestic considerations came to dominate on particular issues in a way not seen before. The blind insensitivity in some policy and in reporting and commentary to external reactions was quite remarkable and at variance with Australia's real global position.

I want to finish this post by awarding a Christmas present to the various country protest movements. I may not agree with you on particular issues, but I applaud you.

I accept that this reflects my biases and make no apology for it.

From the 1980s, structural and social change swept the country. At national level and indeed for those not affected, change was relatively gradual. At local and regional level, to those directly affected, change was profound.

I have been writing on these changes for some time from a variety of perspectives. For a long time, my focus on change, regional issues, on New England as a particular case, on the need for new policy approaches, seemed quite quaint to many. I was a relic of the past and indeed felt that way. Now things have changed.

I find the degree to which the latest changes blindsided the Eastern States metro dominated main stream media and indeed policy makers quite interesting. It's not just their failure to see the changes coming, but also their inability to properly interpret fundamental change that is now affecting them and the groups that they are drawn from and represent.

Take, as a simple example, the latest patchwork economy buzz phrase.

Australiahas always had a patchwork economy. Further, the types of issues now in prominent discussion flowing from the mining boom are not new. I remember Alan Moran and me trying to explain the so-called Dutch Disease to Sir Phillip Lynch back in 1980.

What is new is that the changes are affecting the relative power and position of groups that were dominant. We have a patchwork economy now not because a patchwork economy itself is new, but because the patches are in different places.

I find that interesting.