| Uniya - Jesuit Social Justice Centre | CONTENTS | Summer 1995 |
Despite a federal election in the wind, the major parties appear
quite stagnant in public policy development. This is striking at a
time when policy research in Australia is pointing in exciting new
directions. Calls for increased public participation are increasing,
together with pleas for government to take up a strategic leadership
role.
The 1993 Australian election was a watershed in our political history. The ‘Fightback’ banner stood poised above Parliament. Australia readied itself for a full dose of economic rationalism on the UK and New Zealand model. The defeat of ‘Fightback’ sent a clear signal. The longterm future lies with whoever develops a new model of economic and welfare policies in tune with the electorate’s aspirations. Yet, with the 1996 election looming, significant policy initiatives are nowhere to be seen.
Given some vigorous prompting, the Opposition has assured us that the award-wage system and welfare safety net are in no danger from ‘Figh- tback’-style attacks. However, there is little evidence of any fundamental change in Coalition policy. Similarly, the Labor Government’s current term has been characterised by a lack of innovation.
The Hilmer Report on National Competition Policy is the main influence shaping the Government’s economic and social policy agenda. The Working Nation paper and various inquiries by the Industry Commission have also been important. These papers were conspicuous for adhering to the market model. Indeed they did much to keep Government public policy rolling along in the well-worn ruts of economic rationalism.
This party political stagnation contrasts with developments in socio- economic research. Here the economic rationalist paradigm is in virtual demise. In terms of global competition, for example, few researchers now talk of a ‘level playing field’. According to the ‘level playing field’ approch, national economies have ‘natural’ advantages which are best left to market forces.
Helping people become ‘job ready’ is not the same thing as creating jobs for all. Here there was only blind faith in market forces. |
The ‘competitive advantages’ of high performance economies, according
to Australian researchers Linda Weiss and John Hobson, have in fact
been actively cultivated by governments in close partnership with
industry. Weiss and Hobson show that, in those nations that are
economically successful, governments have accepted a role in
providing strategic leadership, while working cooperatively with the
key economic players.
The flip side of the new economics is a call for a new politics. As researcher Ian Marsh puts it, economic rationalism seems to have bred a twin: the so-called ‘economic theory of politics’. This theory encourages political passivity. It suggests that, because we are all incurably selfish, all well intentioned government initiatives will be corrupted by interest groups. Far better to leave us to the disicpline of market forces. For Marsh, this whole scenario is anti- democratic. Marsh instead proposes institutional innovations designed to enhance public participation and to develop and implement a new national economic vision. |
In brief, strategic government and participatory democracy have become key motifs of ‘post-Fightback’ public policy research. Working Nation was a step in this direction. Real money went into labour market programs. At the same time, Area Consultative Committees encouraged community involve-ment in implementing them. This, however, was only a beginning. Helping people become ‘job ready’ is not the same thing as creating jobs for all. Here there was only blind faith in market forces.
The Australian electorate is looking for a new beginning. Government that is stronger and intent on enhancing social partnerships could stimulate better economic performance. It could also enliven democracy. So far the major parties have failed to notice that a wind-shift has occurred in the wider public policy debate.