Can the Australian Left and Right work together on national interest issues?

Positive Triangulation

Part I

Is it conceivable in contemporary Australian public life to stand outside one's ideological position or party in order to work with ideological and party adversaries on practical projects in the national interest?

Is it possible to develop a sort of 'second best'agenda which takes the country forward? There are obviously times of national crisis, and certain issues when this sort of political civility does occur. But could we engineer a situation where it was possible for this to occur as an ongoing working reality on particular issues of national importance? That,I think,is a civility that most Australians crave.

The great Australian feminist Rose Scott, of early twentieth century Sydney, believed that organised politics was evil and that only a truly independent, free thinking individual was capable of truly representing his or her community's interests in a political forum. Rose Scott's 'anti-party politician' sentiments are not too far off the views of middle Australia today.

However, to follow through on this radical liberal view in Australian politics today would be to walk a very uneasy and insecure pathway. Maybe it is perilous for public intellectuals too.

..in mainstream politics there is some question about whether a radical liberal would be effective?

The role of a free thinking independent can at best moderate the agenda of the main political parties. Perhaps this will change and independents will become more powerful sometime over the course of the twenty first century.

Such a change would be as breathtaking as the fall of the Berlin Wall and it seems inconceivable to think about seriously in contemporary Australian political terms.

But I do think at this point in political time, intellectuals and public policy experts, and organisations like the CIS and hopefully other forums of the left, can have a major role in developing and promoting agendas that might create common goals and purpose around national interest issues.

Unlike the parties and the politicians it is much easier for intellectuals and think tanks to do this work without penalty, and perhaps, with even a modicum of support from middle Australia.

For some time now the most interesting ideas have emerged in a sort of offstage sphere away from the grand contests of ideological politics. Since the end of the Cold War, the most interesting role for public intellectuals, is to mark out areas of what I want to call 'positive triangulation' where we identify policies and working areas that create a heavy political and moral consensus based on the achievement of practical outcomes within our community. For example, the concept of social entrepreneurship, using business and management skills for social outcomes is one such positive new arena of work.

Part II

In talking about this politics of positive triangulation I don't want to be so naïve to argue that the voices and strong arguments of the left or the right should somehow discontinue, to the contrary.

But The idea I want to invoke is a sort of spectator in the breast of politics which considers and evaluates the need for compromise in the national interest, where it is clearly evident that real, measurable tangible outcomes can be achieved that cannot be achieved by one party on its own. Where one sets aside an absolute or non-negotiable party political goal in order to obtain what may be seen as a lesser but nonetheless, positive national political goal.

I want to outline three areas where I think the country needs this sort of work to occur.

The first is the concept of a Makarratta and land tenure issues.

The second is unemployment.

The third is the concept of an Australian republic. There are clearly other areas where we need to achieve national interest consensus, but I pick these three areas because I believe that we can create a triangle of agreement around particular approaches and issues.

In the first and third of these examples there is no choice but to work on a politics of compromise for any progress to occur.

In the second example, that of unemployment, my contention is we will not make any inroads into long term unemployment unless we put in place a ten year plan that is in broad terms adhered to by both sides of politics and is steadfastly maintained which ever party is in power at a Federal level.

Part III

Let us examine the idea of a Makarratta and land tenure issues from a positive triangulation perspective. I speak on this issue because I believe that we white fellas have to, as Wayne Bergmannn from the Kimberley suggests, not walk behind, nor ahead, but alongside our indigenous countrymen and women.

Richie Ahmat's historic speech at the Hollows Foundation/Whitlam Institute/Reconciliation Australia conference on July 8 this year went unreported but will be remembered as an important stepping stone towards a final act of reconciliation between white and black Australians.

Richie argued that we needed to turn towards the bush, corporate Australia and the conservative parties to lead the way towards the hallowed indigenous goal of a final written Makarratta or act of reconciliation. (See http://www.whitlam.org/its_time/7/Treaty.html)

Some within the indigenous and progressive left community greeted this speech with derision and/or incredulity. Given the controversy around the PM's position on saying sorry and broad reconciliation they were annoyed at Richie.

Richie replied to these critics the following morning by noting that the constitution had been changed only six times in the last century and that any Makarratta would require 80 per cent support of the Australian people. It is not a time to speak of radical proposals, it is a time, in the spirit of Dalrymple and Noel Pearson, to be tough minded, he said.

To acknowledge the reality of achieving a large bi-partisan consensus is one thing, it is another to bring it about. Here it is my suggestion that think tanks and public intellectuals should be on the look out for ways we can 'positively triangulate' on indigenous issues.

Aboriginal leaders are looking for opportunities in the pastoral industry. It is not too far fetched to have a goal of bringing back the employment levels for indigenous Australians in country areas to up above those of the 1960s and with full award rates of pay? Beyond that, there are many opportunities for creating partnerships over farming lands and pastoral businesses. Beyond that there is the idea of joint businesses and networking enterprises and so on. These instances are occurring, there is no need to reinvent them but our job is to broadcast and focus on the difficult work involved in making them work well.

Secondly there are opportunities for the mining industry to contribute to much needed indigenous economic and business development. At present Aboriginal leaders are talking about one of the conundrums of native title, that is the land cannot easily be used as a capital or wealth creation tool to boost up their communities. Could this be an historical opportunity for us to achieve some stepping stones of progress?

In all of these areas I take my lead from Aboriginal leaders but I think we need to be supporting work on these problems bit by bit and I believe that by doing so we will gain the support of the great majority of Australians. From these beginnings I can hear Richie Ahmat's call to move down the pathway towards a larger national agreement which is supported by 80 and 90% of Australians.

But what I also want to emphasise here is that what also makes the idea of such a consensus possible is precisely the existence of the unfettered radical vision of the right and the left.

A strategy of positive triangulation is particularly reinforced by a leftist position that sees any discussion between indigenous Australians and conservative or corporate Australia as a sell out or alternatively by a rightist view that simply sees pastoral or mining interests as an empire that need not take their economic obligations to traditional owners or the indigenous community seriously. So I don't think we need to be afraid of the full free articulation of those ideas and views, they keep us honest and on track.

Part IV

A second instance of where we need to create forms of positive triangulation is unemployment. My belief here is that we will not make any inroads into long term unemployment unless we put in place a series of initiatives that are broadly adhered to by both sides of politics and is steadfastly maintained which ever party is in power at a Federal level.

There is now a consensus across the majority parties that social welfare is no panacea for unemployment.

We should be turning this consensus into practical initiatives to move regions of above 10% unemployment to social enterprise, towards an intermediate labour market between the welfare economy and the market economy. The idea would be to actively develop examples of best practice from work for the dole to more substantial social enterprise projects that have the support of both parties. In practical terms this is the next evolutionary step of Job Network in these areas and central to this is the development of the social entrepreneurs network in Australia which is an initiative that I hope the CIS will support and that currently both sides of politics do support.(www.sen.org.au)

Is it too much to talk about a vision of job zones where both parties agree on a smorgasboard of measures that are about stopping unemployment and moving forward? My view is that through public intellectuals working together we could get there.

Again the debate between the radical Keynesian left or the radical adherents of free market economics can rage. The point is that whether you're a monetarist or a Keynesian I think there is a consensus that in regions of high and concentrated unemployment we need to take special measures to put people who are unemployed back in to contact with the real economy and the world of work.

Part V

My third example of trying to bring about forms of positive triangulation concerns the idea of an Australian republic.

This is in effect an easier issue than the first two examples because republicans exist on both sides of the parliament. The problem is we need a new vehicle for achieving consensus with those who voted against the republic.

A project I developed at the Brisbane Institute was the concept of an Andrew Inglis Clark Society, like its namesake, the foremost writer of our constitution, it would actively promote free discussion between the different camps and sides of the republican divide in the electorates which voted most actively against the republic.

The idea was very different from the way in which the republican campaign was concentrated in the capital cities and focused on a particular set of proposals. In the great spirit of Andrew Inglis Clark, it would concentrate its efforts in the regions and smaller spheres of Australian society.

We would need to make the subject of this forum relevant and worthwhile trying to spell out the implications of the Australian constitution for ordinary Australians in the suburbs, native title would also have to be part of this forum.

In sum, the role of the Andrew Inglis Clark Society would be to explain the relevance of the constitution and the republic to sceptical and often ignorant Australians and also to explain that in fact the constitution is broke and does need fixing. Over the next few years I want to revive this concept and I would welcome people to work me towards this end from all walks of public life and from all sides of politics.

Part V

My third example of trying to bring about forms of positive triangulation concerns the idea of an Australian republic.