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.