How many times in its short history as a nation has Australia been a pioneer?
There have been many periods of reform activity but only one that really saw us as a stand-out. This was in the early years of the Commonwealth when an alliance of socialists, social liberals and trade unionists introduced a whole range of democratic and social reforms that made Australia a model of social democracy.
One hundred years later an alliance of Labor, the Greens and three independents is seeking to make Australia a model of green democracy by incorporating a price for carbon into the economy.
Supporters and opponents all agree that what is proposed represents a significant structural change in the way we do things. Disagreement is over the necessity for, and the timing of, the change.
It is true that Australia has successfully managed structural change before. The microeconomic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s come to mind. However, what was different then was the bipartisan support for the competition agenda across the major parties.
For a brief moment in time with Malcolm Turnbull leading the Liberals it looked as though there might be Labor/Liberal agreement on a long-term strategy to tackle climate change. However, this was not to be and adversarialism has again prevailed.
In order to win the argument the alliance for change has a tough battle. Firstly, they face a public that sees a world not only still grappling with the Global Financial Crisis but also not focussed nor united when it comes to climate change.
Secondly, we need to remember that we live in a country that is truly lucky with its geographical location and resource endowment. By focussing on economics it has achieved much and, although per capita emissions of greenhouse gases are large, the overall contribution of Australia to climate change is small.
Thirdly we should note that the most powerful political argument in the past 15 years has been developed around the idea of a "relaxed and comfortable" nation clear on its values and united in their defence. In fact it could be argued that such a notion has held back further improvements in productivity because of its justification for middle-class welfare and infrastructure conservatism.
Why us? Why now? These are the questions being asked by the public.
It is the toughest task of all to reassure people at the same time as you are asking them to change. Linking the price of carbon to a package of measures involving tax, compensation and investment support should be part of the story and has been delivered, but not without inevitable gaps that will be highlighted by the Opposition.
What will also be required is a formidable campaign in the service of our public interest as a nation today and in the future. In this campaign the alliance for change should not be reluctant to emphasise time and time again the environmental risks we face. The vested interests in favour of change, particularly but not only in rural and regional Australia, will need to be as active as those who oppose change, and the fears generated by the sceptics and deniers should be countered by the evidence-based fears generated by science.
The deniers in particular remind me of the mid-20th century conservatives who so hated the left that they were blind to the threat presented by the emergence of fascism.
However, the real challenge is with the Opposition and their so-called "direct action" alternative. The political battle will probably be won or lost on the question of which strategy - carbon price or direct action - finishes up in the dock under cross examination. There are credibility issues as well as policy issues at work here and, as is often said, he who sets the agenda inevitably wins the argument.
It is often said that attack is the best form of defence. In this case the only form of defence is attack.
Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU
.gif)
111 comments
More comments
Comments are now closed