Correspondant Victoria Cross observes in a comment to an earlier post that there should be a way to bring together the interests of the so called ‘battlers’ and the interests of the concerned urbanites who are currently deemed irrelevent by the major parties, and that way is through forward looking visionary policies.
Such a way is naturally a difficult road to hoe. Graeme Richardson, former Hawke government wheeler dealer, had this to say about John Howard (Quarterly Essay 20 2005).
He knows instinctively what really matters to those that decide his fate. That used to be Labor’s strength, but it no longer applies. While Keating talked about engaging with Asia, Howard talked about interest rates. When Keating passionately appealed for reconciation with indigenous people, Howard talked about interest rates. When Mark Latham obsessed about reading to our children and climbing ladders of opportunity, Howard doggedly continued with his economic themes.
Howard has it easy really. All he has to say is, we promise to do nothing. Make no changes (except IR) and just let you get on with your low-interest rate lives. We won’t do anything, in fact better than that, we’ll make government smaller (which of course they don’t really do), and then it’ll be even less in your way.
Perhaps Ms Cross is right, the solution is a grand vision. But what could it be? How does the ALP weave a coherent encompassing vision of the future that can be relevent to the outer urban fringe, and will also keep the inner urban tree huggers from going native? What might such a vision consist of, and finally could it possibly be achieveable? Can any government achieve anything – Read The Herald Sun and you’d certainly have your doubts? The neo-liberal position is clear. Small government is it. And leave the important stuff to private enterprise.
We know that’s rubbish of course. It wasn’t private enterprise that put a man on the moon, it wasn’t private enterprise that built the electricity grid or installed the telephone system or invented the Internet, and its now clear, it won’t be private enterprise that develops a cure for HIV. The big visionary things that take us forward, often as not, comes from the public sector because the private sector simply doesn’t have the same motivation. The profit motive is not always in sympathy with the greater good, and we’d all do well to remember that.
But back to the vision thing. No doubt there are plenty of candidate solutions to inspire the masses, more digital television channels, more choice, turn the screws on some group or other, invade a neighboring country. More wise words from Graeme Richardson might help to make sure the emphasis is correct.
Australians see economic policy as the core, and social policy as what can be afforded after the real work is done. Labor may believe it has the right policies, but the results suggest it has the politics all wrong.
It’s the old hip pocket nerve according to Mr. Richardson, and that probably explains why the messages about tax cuts are beaming out loud and clear from ALP divisional HQ at the moment. It’s a reverse auction. Which Party can make the lowest offer? Who can promise to interfere less, do less, take less? But don’t be surprised if Mr. Howard asks this of the electorate next time round: “Who can you trust to do less – Liberal or Labor” Their slogan may well read “Liberals : Doing less with even lesser”.
I for one would like to see the ALP start to raise the profile of some the big changes that we know are coming. One of these is of course oil, which must become more expensive in the near future as increasing demand from China and India meets a decline in availability.
Mr. Beazley has rightly started down this path wih the Australian Fuels Blueprint, but I’d like to see a greater emphasis. I’d like to see the hyperbole ratcheted up to Herald Sun levels to force the issue onto the agenda.
Prices at the pump today are ranging from 111.5 to 122.5 cents per litre in Melbourne which equates to about $1700 per year for the average motorist.´That may or may not sound much depending on who you are, but in a terrific paper over at Australian Opinion Online, the subject of Oil Vulnerability in the Australian City, is explored in great detail. It takes a good hard look at who the losers are going to be when the oil price jackpots, and no surprise it’s the outer urban fringe folk who are going to find life getting a whole lot tougher.
Clearly outer-suburban areas, locations that contain low socio-economic status populations, and suburbs which have high levels of car dependence will be the most affected by such increases. Acknowledging this uneven distribution of impacts will be critical to policies that governments may pursue to adjust our urban systems to cope with costlier fuel.
The paper makes quit a few interesing points which I’m sure you instinctively knew but its useful to have confirmed:
-
Government policies on infrastructure investment have favoured the motor vehicle over other forms of transport
-
Transport costs are one of the largest items in the houshold budget (15.2%)
-
There is currently little attention given to the impact of rising fuel costs on those who only have poor access to public transport
There are also some nice little maps of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane which show very clearly the most vulnerable areas. It would be an interesting exercise to overlay these onto a map of the various electorates and see who currently holds these seats.
Oil Price Vulnerability in Melbourne : Red = Most Vulnerable
Also, there’s a wonderful line in the conclusion of this report that puts the kerfuffle over tollways in Sydney and Melbourne into sharp perspective
The humble local suburban bus stop is likely to become a more important item of community infrastructure as fuel prices increase, than any cross-harbour, cross-river or cross-city road tunnel.
Of course the state governments have a role to play in this, and Mr. Howard will be quick to blame them for lack of effort in providing transport alternatives to the outer fringes, but in the end it is the Federal government that sets the overall agenda. If Mr. Howard was really concerned about this he would pull the big levers to fix the problem, but Mr Howard is all about stripping down and cutting back, and dealing with this issue is all about building new stuff to deal with big future problems. Surely this is something right up the ALP’s alley?
