from Crikey .....

Reclaiming reform: why Labor needs to explain itself better

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

ECONOMIC REFORM, LABOR

Before her recent departure overseas, "reform" was Julia Gillard's major theme both in her efforts to carve out a purpose for her government, and in her attacks on the Opposition.

Since the 1980s, economic reform has, along with budget surpluses, become not just a key benchmark by which Australian governments are assessed, but a raison d'etre for parties in government. Reform is no longer a finite process but a permanent revolution demanded by business, the media and many politicians themselves, with the agenda shifting over the last decade from major economic restructuring to further tax reform, a "human capital" agenda and a seamless national economy - not to mention endless demands from business for "reform" in the form of corporate tax cuts. If governments aren't reforming, they're considered useless.

This is most assuredly a good thing, as a quick glance at other developed countries, where political cultures do not support tight fiscal policy or put such a strong emphasis on economic reform, demonstrates at the moment.

As the standard-bearer of reform in the 1980s, Labor has been happy to be judged by this framework, even though it turned its back on major reform like the GST and privatisation in the Howard years. And despite its recent track record of failure on the CPRS and the RSPT, Julia Gillard is eager to be seen as following in the footsteps of the politicians from what should now be dubbed the Golden Age of Reform -- Hawke, Keating, Howard and Costello.

This is not a case, as I discussed yesterday, of Labor allowing its opponents to frame the political narrative. Reform is - in part - Labor's own narrative. Moreover, Labor has had some success in keeping ownership of it as the reform focus has shifted from "hard" micro-economic reform to the perceived "soft" agenda of human capital, centred on territory that is more naturally Labor's: health, education and skills. This agenda emerged in the Howard years, partly driven by the Bracks Government, but it succumbed to politicking between a Liberal Commonwealth and Labor states. Labor has adopted the agenda and made a great deal of progress with it, particularly in education, courtesy of Julia Gillard's activism. She achieved in three years much more than the Howard Government certainly managed.

Where Labor has lost control of the reform narrative is in relation to the purpose of "reform". Reform is not -- contrary to the impression given by some commentators - a goal in its own right, but must serve the interests of the community. The Hawke and Keating Governments excelled at selling reform as being in the interests of the voters most likely to oppose it - their own constituency -- by emphasising reform as forming part of a broader purpose of governing in the interests of workers and their families. This job was altogether easier for Hawke-era Labor because it could do so via the Accord, which bought union cooperation with a difficult reform agenda in exchange for "social wage" outcomes such as Medicare and superannuation. The Accord is now regarded as a relic of a bygone era when unions were much larger and altogether more truculent, but it should be seen as a key tool in securing a more consensual community-wide approach to the job of overhauling the Australian economy that Hawke and his Cabinet embarked on after 1983.

It also sent a clear message from Labor to working families that it had their interests at heart.

Courtesy of the (Labor-initiated) arrival of enterprise bargaining, and the steady diminution of the union movement, an Accord-based approach is obviously no longer available to Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan. But there is nothing in its place to convey the purpose of reform. Labor now speaks endlessly of the need to undertake reform, without explaining to voters what's in it for them. While Labor has struggled to ever lead the Coalition in polling on which party is seen as better economic manager, it still has a very strong brand on the issue of managing the economy in the interests of working families. Even during Labor's nadir during the election campaign, it still performed strongly on this indicator. On 9 August, when Labor looked headed for defeat, Essential Research found that Labor, despite trailing the Coalition in "best party at managing the economy", 38% to 44%, had a strong lead over the Coalition on "best party at handling the economy in a way that helps working people in Australia", 44-35%.

It was a message that Labor campaign strategists only faintly understood, to their great cost.

It's there that Labor needs to take the "reform" narrative, better connecting up its ostensible reason for governing with the direct interests of voters, rather than continually prosecuting the case for reform without ever explaining just what reform is for, or more particularly who it benefits. Without that sort of frame, Labor's efforts at reform don't look grounded in any core principles. And that's not just about communicating effectively with voters: if the CPRS or the RSPT were developed and sold as being fundamental parts of Labor's agenda of managing the economy in the interests of working people, it's hard to believe they would have been so readily abandoned on the advice of focus group-driven party apparatchiks.

----------------

I'm happy for Bernard Keene that he still thinks that it's worthwhile analysing & debating the state of our democracy, as evidenced by his sincere advice to the Labor Party.

Sadly, for an increasing number of desperate citizens, the entire exercise is pointless.

I think John Howard's ultimate legacy to this country will be to have convinced Australians in all walks of life that the name of the game is to screw everyone-else as often & effectively as you can, in the implicit belief that if you don't, they'll do it to you.

I don't care where you look Bernard: in our parliaments - state or federal; in local government; in business - big & small; in sport, in the media, in religion, in the courts, in all walks of life, little Johnnie demonstrated how if we are prepared to lie, deceive & cheat at every opportunity, we can get what we want, & screw the consequences.

Hell Bernard, do you really think that faux Australian in Macquarie Street really cares about working men & women as she uses utility companies as tax raising entities? When was the last time that a Union Official elected to political office came from a genuine working class background? Do you really think that bottom feeders who frequent Canberra care about anyone-else or anything-else other than themselves?

And we can't criticise any of them Bernard because we are them, notwithstanding our noble pretensions. Look at how we respond to refugees; hear our loud voices of opposition to our involvement in Afghanistan. And what about the spontaneous outburst of self-interested indignation in response to efforts to save the Murray-Darling or the cynical plea for 'cool heads' by Ned Kelly's namesake, Gail, & the rest of the four horsemen, as they come for the last of mum & dad's gold teeth? And how to explain the affection of our leaders for the criminal Zionists & our tolerance of deluded, evil old men like Rupert Murdoch?

There is a narrative here Bernard, but it's more a narrative about a nation's journey to disillusionment; desperately in need of genuine moral & principled leadership in a time when so such thing exists anymore.

And, in the words of Charles Sullivan: "The inert masses will continue to go wherever the herd goes, following the prompts given them by the men with the electronic cattle prods: the makers of video games, cell phones, Fox News, iPods and SUVs. Mystified by how bad things are, the people expect change from a system that does not permit transformation. Capitalism empowers money and those who have it, not people like us. We aren't in Kansas anymore, Dorothy. Welcome to Oz."

So there is no hope for Labor Bernard, nor for the Liberal/Nationals for that matter: they are peas from the same rotten pod. Surely to heavens this is the obvious reason behind the rise of the Greens?

But let's not waste our time arguing over the corpses of once what was Bernard. For my part, if you're really interested in reform, I'd much rather debate how we might bring about real, meaningful change, starting with how we might rid ourselves of state governments.

End of rant.