The revolution we have to have

It is encouraging that Mr Rudd is talking about a “revolution in education”. After 19 years of shifting the financial burden onto students and parents, and commercialising the various sectors, the overall report card looks pretty sick.

Starting with the misguided Dawkins reforms the reductions in public funding have accelerated. Ten years of Howard Government, with a series of unspeakably incompetent Coalition Education Ministers, has damaged education seriously.

But the Rudd revolution would have to embrace much more than “more investment and skills formation”. High on the policy-to-do list should be the environment; second, industrial relations; third, the political system itself, the Republic and the structure of the state and all constitutional issues; fourth, the incredible subservience to the US; and finally, the economy.

Let us reflect briefly on what “revolution” essentially means: a significant change in ideas, in doing things differently, in work practices and attitudes. That can be a quite peaceful, democratic process provided that there is (1) a government that is committed to fundamental change (2) a population that is ready to accept and participate in implementing fundamental change.

Do these preconditions exist? Perhaps.

To begin with the Australian Labor Party would have to position itself much more boldly than it has done hitherto. If it does it may find a much greater preparedness for radical change on the part of the community. If the ALP continues to chase votes by means of spin or modelling itself on what has worked for the Coalition, or promising relatively minor improvements in public policy problem areas, the look-alike image remains.

The ALP can present a set of hugely different policy proposals compared to the Coalition. A turn-around in education policy is an excellent and important start. An acceptance of public ownership of key resources would be another. The public would certainly also welcome the reintroduction of integrity and ethics in politics and public service. But let us consider the five other areas of public policy flagged in the introduction.

Environment

The ALP could embrace much of the Greens’ agenda. No doubt there are some exceptional instances where this would involve a likely loss of seats, as in Tasmania. Where such losses are to be avoided in order to achieve government, the latter must come first, a practical decision Rudd has already made.

The nonsense the nation has been fed about uranium ore export and nuclear energy should be canned, forever. Rudd and much of the ALP have it wrong here. There is simply no good case to be made for either.

Climate change is a reality and apart from signing the Kyoto Protocol the ALP should go much further to prepare for it. Massive investments must be planned for exploring all sustainable energy alternatives. At present inventors and scientists are leaving the country in frustration because they are not funded. Australia was a leader in this field. We have the know-how, and enthusiasm but 10 years have been wasted in these areas.

On water policy it is not enough to make this a national concern to be managed by the federal government. What matters is what is the federal government actually going to do about it?

There are still economic rationalist commentators, who claim the market mechanism will solve anything including the water shortage problem. Really? Certainly, it would make sense for Australians to pay more for their water but there is no reason at all to suggest that the market place would be the only or the best way to determine what its price should be. It could be the least suitable way to allocate a very scarce resource. The ALP should make its position very clear, soon.

Industrial relations

The implementation of the “WorkChoices” legislation in 2006 is expected to be a significant issue in the Federal election in 2007. Growing insecurity and a sense of unfairness in the workplace is pointing to major flaws in this complex piece of legislation.

The “scrap the law” position being put forward by the ALP is not good enough as a response. While the “WorkChoices” legislation is a major step back in time for industrial relations it doesn’t make sense for the ALP to go back as well. There has been talk about a return to collective “bargaining in good faith” and “the Australian way” (by the ACTU) but the ALP can and must do much better than that.

What employees are looking for are better workplaces, which offer opportunities for participation, skills and advancement, better work-life balance, and fair sharing of the wealth created by their efforts. Is there a role to play for workplace democracy and employee share ownership (ESO) in meeting 21st century employee expectations? Are we not in need of a different IR culture? Neither workplace democracy nor ESO formed part of the IR “reform debate”.

Earlier, the ACTU/TDC Report Australia Reconstructed (1987) showed the way forward but Bob Hawke rejected its blueprint for industrial democracy as culturally inappropriate, something that “couldn’t be done here”: a fork in the road that was refused. Enterprise bargaining was perhaps a very minor step in the direction of workplace democracy, one that could be vastly expanded.

The modest recommendations in the Nelson Report, Shared Endeavours (2000) - 45 of them - to encourage broad-based employee share ownership, have hardly been taken up by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Many Australian unions have a very cautious attitude towards it, but in the UK workplaces with employee share ownership have much higher union membership than those without it!

The Employee Ownership Act in Belgium (October, 2002) was negotiated with the union movement and has the full approval of the unions. In the past the EU itself has been predominantly active with employee participation in decision-making rather than employees owning shares in the business. But the Pepper Reports of the 1990s, recommending ESO, have had a far-reaching impact on new EU directions. Implementing both generally results in much enhanced productivity and employee satisfaction. Australia is 30 years behind Europe and the US on both counts.

Structural change

It is refreshing that Kevin Rudd has acknowledged that the federal structure presents serious public management problems. The remedy is to end federation, nothing less. In July last year all ALP state premiers went to Canada and announced they wanted to form a Canadian-type Council of States, presumably to more effectively counter the Howard Federal Government. But what would happen if the ALP won the federal election?

The growing federal-state problems, now acknowledged by several Coalition ministers, can no longer be fixed by piecemeal tinkering. The answer, surely, is to move rapidly to a two-tier structure: a national government and stronger local government aided by the Regional Organisation of Councils which, in part, is already in place.

This could be described as the mezzanine layer of governance, indirectly elected by and responsible to local government. State governments in metropolitan areas could be replaced by city governments, no longer having responsibilities in rural and regional areas of Australia.

There are important other areas crying out for change, for example, the electoral system. The dominant Australian electoral system is based on single-member electoral districts, which is a hindrance to democratic government and has many other functional disadvantages.

The best solution is to introduce proportional representation, a system in place in over 25 European countries, New Zealand and the new South Africa. This is based on multi-member districts and ensures that parties receive seats in proportion to the votes cast for them.

It is a vastly more democratic system and also ensures much more diverse representation in the Parliaments. Recently proportional representation was advocated strongly by Carmen Lawrence.

Also some dysfunctional aspects of the Westminster system should be removed, two in particular:

• fusion between the government and the legislature; and
• very limited choice of competent ministers.

Citizens cannot be ministers unless they are elected to Parliament as MPs. This virtually ensures that ministers are functional amateurs. In addition, an undesirable fusion exists between legislative and executive powers. Thus the political executives completely dominate the legislature.

In a Westminster type Parliament the choice from which to recruit a ministry is limited to the MPs of the governing party or coalition. In Australia, federally, that adds up to a mere 110-120 MPs - a narrow choice considering about 30 ministerial posts have to be filled. In all other systems the choice is much wider, i.e. any eligible citizen outside the Parliament. Not surprisingly the competence of ministers, both at the federal and state levels, leaves much to be desired. Could this be a major factor why politicians enjoy such low esteem in Australia? There is big case for reform here.

The Republic should be back on the agenda and many other constitutional changes should be part of a strategic, maximalist approach towards change.

The ALP minimalism has got it nowhere. If it wants to make an impact it should identify areas for constitutional change well beyond replacing the Queen with a President. The ALP’s current republic policy is woefully inadequate.

US dependency

The often-astonishing subservience towards the US by Australia’s Government is a distinct hindrance on the way to becoming an independent Australian Republic and to achieving more fruitful relations with Asian and Pacific countries. Australia’s participation as a partner in the Coalition of the Willing in the Iraq War, which is opposed by the majority of the population, has exposed the relationship with the US as counterproductive.

The recently concluded Free Trade Agreement with the US, opposed by many community groups, is another case in point. The ANZUS Treaty, based on the fears of the Cold War, has long been overtaken by events.

The various defence and intelligence arrangements with the US supposedly have the same purpose, to tie the US in with Australia as “insurance”. But why should Australia be involved in the many US foreign policies follies?

Is the ALP going to take an independent position worthy of a Republic or will this neo-colonial relationship endure in its foreign policy package? Surely, the time for a bold change is overdue.

Economy

The economy looks in good shape but it isn’t. The resources boom is an economy in itself and puts a gloss on the total economy which is suffering and is highly vulnerable to interest rates, inflation and overseas trends. Rudd had this to say recently: “all these booms come to an end and, … I've got to say, Australia wants a bigger vision for its economic future than being China's quarry and Japan's beach.”

The very high private sector foreign debt has the making of a bubble that could burst. Similarly, the record personal debt levels could suddenly trigger a downward spiral with dire consequences. The unemployment levels are not really good because there are a very large number of underemployed persons while others work long hours. Many skilled workers are not available for some segments of the economy. The inequality of incomes has grown strongly in recent years and social justice has suffered.

But what of the economic policies, for example, taxes? One would hope that the trend to cut taxes further will cease, particularly because most citizens are prepared to pay more taxes for better services: new transport infrastructure; better hospitals and Medicare; free and excellent education; affordable childcare; and many other public services. Taxpayers would prefer more research and investment in protecting the environment and managing water needs as a higher priority than lowering taxes.

The investment climate would hopefully move away from the often-disastrous public private partnerships and costly contracting out practices. The private equity financing strategy, the latest fad of economic rationalism and globalisation, should be subjected to the most stringent scrutiny imaginable if not abolished altogether.

The strengthening of the now powerless Foreign Investment (Advisory) Board would be a welcome development.

The ALP should address the bizarre situation that Australian farmers’ organisations, the National Party and the Coalition require farmers to export on an uneven playing field while powerful economic blocks like the US and the EU happily subsidise their farmers to the hilt. Efficient farmers have gone to the wall as a result. Australian Governments should match the foreign subsidies to create a level playing field.