Opinion - 31 May 2001

The Australian Democrats' "Brief History" [http://www.democrats.org.au/about/history.htm] opens, "In 1977, Don Chipp ...was approached  [by several organisations] with a view to forming a new party.  The motivating force for this was a desire for a party where ordinary people could have real say on policies and directions." [our emphasis].

It is now eight weeks since Senators Natasha Stott Despoja and Aden Ridgeway were elected respectively to the leadership and deputy leadership of the Party, i.e. just over half of their first 100 days "in office". So far no substantial statements of either policy or direction have been forthcoming.

Certainly there has been considerable finger pointing (some 20 press releases with regard to the 2001/02 Federal Budget alone) but that's not the formulation of policy nor giving Australians an understanding of the Democrats' direction. At best it's a bit of counterpunching with little momentum. Is it really unreasonable to expect the Australian Democrats to set out chapter and verse of what their party platform (manifesto) is, what it would cost and how it would be funded?

This past Monday (May 28^th) Kerry O'Brien on The 7:30 Report introduced his interview with Senator Stott Despoja, "While PM John Howard and Labor leader Kim Beazley hurl accusations at each other about who is the bigger taxer, there's not much real debate going on about policy detail, and not much space left to talk about vision. Altogether, not a very edifying sight..."

If Kerry O'Brien had hoped to draw some specific detail from the Australian Democrats' leader it proved a forlorn expectation. The ensuing interview, some 1700 words, allowed the Senator to indulge in such observations as, "Well certainly, we'd like to see the  taxation debate, if you can call it that, change its focus, from not simply a debate about revenues, but about expenditure. What are the priorities for this nation? What is our vision for a sustainable future, and what taxes are required in order to meet that vision? But we're not just talking about increasing taxes or inventing taxes. We're also talking about cracking down on tax evasion, and if need be, getting rid of certain taxes. I mean, look at the $1.1 billion that this Government has lost as a consequence of its backflip on taxing trusts as companies.  That was their Budget decision."

Is it irrational to expect the Leader of the Party formed so that "ordinary people could have real say on policies and directions" and who accuses both Labor and the Coalition of  "A Failure to Invest in the Future" to define her vision of "a sustainable future?"

Later in the interview, "It's not simply about pledging not to introduce or increase certain taxes. It's about talking about the vision for the country, setting priorities, and cracking down on those areas of tax evasion that currently exist."

Well Senator, what is your vision, what are your priorities? In short why shouldn't you be held accountable by the Australian people to exactly the same extent that you believe the major parties should be, especially when you comment:

"I think it's very brave and bold of individuals, whether it's Senator Steven Conroy [ALP, Victoria ] or parties like the Democrats, to actually wade into this debate and talk about a vision for the future and talk about where we should be putting more money and, for example, reinvesting in education."

Fine, but would Senator Stott Despoja like to begin giving specific costed examples or is that out of order? She rightly calls the Labor Party to account for not revealing explicit policies, but is substantially more vague than they. Another example of what might be called vague frustration:

"My vision for my party and the nation's future is one that is both economically and environmentally sustainable. And that was the ingredient missing from the Budget last week. That was the missed opportunity. I can talk about discussing taxes, indirect or direct, as well as, not only revenue, but expenditure, and at the same time, maintain economic responsibility. Democrats can do that. We're just disappointed that no-one's prepared to engage in  that debate with us[our emphasis].

But surely after being a national political party for 24 years isn't it is up to the Australian Democrats to demonstrate authentic leadership. Is it outrageous to expect them to say, "This is what should be done, this is how to do it, this how it should be costed, and this is how it should be financed"? Otherwise it's not a credible organisation.

Oh and as to the not unlikely excuse of being small and bereft of means, the Senator informed Kerry O'Brien in no uncertain terms,

"I actually believe, not only in multiparty politics, but I actually believe in the role that the Democrats play as a balance of power party in the Senate. That's not to say that I am not ambitious, but I am ambitious for my party, Kerry. That means I want the Democrats not simply to remain a third force in Australian politics, but a primary force. To be a primary force ...involves building up the [Australian Democrats], running candidates in every seat come November, or whenever the federal election may be, and breaking that lower house barrier, so that we are considered a real opposition alternative, and maybe one day an alternative for Government."

Now the question is, have the Democrats the will and the ability to publish their "manifesto" or is their new leader just so much talk when emphasising, "... so that we are considered a real opposition alternative."

One simple example just for openers: the Group of Eight of Australia's universities has proposed that for higher education, research and development "the additional investment required over five years (2001-02 to 2005-06) is [$13.65 billion;] $4.2 billion from business, $6.75 billion from the Commonwealth and $2.7 billion from other non-Commonwealth sources. This increase in R&D investment could be phased in so that, for example, the Commonwealth contribution would start at $450 million in 2001-02 and rise to $2.25 billion in 2005-06". The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) concurs.

So far neither the leader nor any other member of the parliamentary Australian Democrats has voiced an opinion on this critical proposal. The last policy statement on science and technology was issued in 1998, is considered current, and is devoid of specifics.

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web