Acknowledgements
George Megalogenis; John Cain - President of the Board of State Library of Victoria; Anne-Marie Schwirtlitch - CEO, State Library of Victoria; Henry Rosenbloom - CEO; Scribe Publications; Staff of Scribe Publications and Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
Introduction
Thanks Henry - I'd like to say I'm glad to be here this morning. But then again as I reflected on whether I was or not, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that I've seen this book somewhere before George.
Actually, if I remember rightly, it's already been launched - indeed not by just one Prime Minister before me, but by two Prime Ministers before me. Mr Howard, back in 2006, on May 31st, and then two days later by Mr Keating, on June 2nd.
And now, George has tacked on a couple of chapters at the end, refreshed the cover and fixed up some of his typos, and hey presto - he's got a third Prime Minister to launch the book today. To paraphrase the great Oscar Wilde to be launched by one Prime Minister is unusual, to be launched by two Prime Ministers is exotic and to be launched by three Prime Minsters, George boarders on the extreme. I'll let you explain that later.
Now George is just the sort of detail-oriented journalist who'd have a crack at a politician for going around the country doing the same thing, re-launching old policies and pretending those old policies are in fact new policies.
Clearly, George has been observing politicians for so long that he's now behaving like one. In fact it gets worse, because this isn't the only launch he's doing for this latest re-run. He's already re-launched this edition, in Canberra last week. I'm told he was out at Avid Reader in Brisbane last night, re-launching it again. And I'm informed that he's re-launching it again with Barrie Cassidy and David Marr at Gleebooks in Sydney in a week's time. And yet again in June, with Barrie Cassidy and with Annabel Crabb at Readings Hawthorn. Politicians might get accused of going round the country launching the same policy in each city under a different badge, but relaunching the same product twice in the same city takes a particular style. This book has had more introductions than Dame Nellie Melba had farewells, but I like it and that's why I'm here.
In fact when I became leader of the Parliamentary Labor party at the end of 2006, this book together with a long tome on early childhood education by a gentlemen called Heckman made up my summer reading in 2006-2007. So for the unfolding strategy George for the year which followed you are partly to blame.
Today I won't repeat Paul Keating's characteristically self-effacing remark when he launched the book just two years ago, Paul put it in these terms:
“Would I write a better book? Well, of course I would. I write better than George and I know more than George. But George is not me and he is not John Howard and his third party view is worth something. Is it worth the world? No. But is it worth something? Indeed, it is.” (Paul Keating, 2 June 2006)
Core argument
Let me turn to the book itself. As I said before I like this book and I've read it. I read it at an important time in the political evolution of the Labor party as we moved from Opposition into what became the world longest election campaign in 2007. Culminating in the events of late last year.
Like all of George's writing, it's clear; it's crisp; it's well-informed and it has an argument even if you can chose to disagree with the argument.
So let me now to contest the argument that George advances:
* Firstly, Mr Keating and Mr Howard share similar views about an internationally open, market-based economy.
* And secondly, while they have fundamentally similar economic policies what distinguishes them is different perspectives on national identity and what's broadly described as the culture wars.
In short, George's argument about Mr Keating and Mr Howard is economic similarities versus cultural differences and I'll let him contest the gross implication of his thesis when he responds.
I know George delivers the analysis with nuance and with caveats and many more than I've just articulated. But still, I think he sometimes blurs some very fundamental differences between the two. Mr Keating and Mr Hawke were very different leaders from Mr Howard.
I'd make just three points, two relating to Mr Keating and Mr Howard and one further remark much more general in pointing toward the future.
First, the Hawke and Keating Governments delivered a massive program of economic reform, and they didn't shy away from taking on their own political base when they knew it was in the national interest.
Think tariffs.
Think cuts to the marginal tax rate.
Think enterprise bargaining.
Think how unpopular all of those were with the trade union movement of Australia.
Mr Howard, on the other hand, never took on his own political base in the prosecution of any significant economic reform. His reform agenda never moved out of the ideological straightjacket of the 1970s and 1980s.
Think industrial relations.
Think consumption tax.
And think also of the explosion in untargeted welfare.
Second, Mr Keating was a policy-driven leader who is responsive to changing national needs, which Mr Howard was not. Mr Howard was responsive to politics, but not policy.
When the economic circumstances change, and the demands of a competitive economy change, Mr Howard never adjusted and never took the lead when it came to new ideas.
Look at climate change.
Look infrastructure policy.
Look at education policy.
Look at early childhood education.
There's a mountain of economic evidence about the importance of those policy domains to Australia's future. Mr Howard in eleven years never sustained an interest in any of those policies.
All you have is the occasional reluctant capitulation when the political heat reaches boiling point - like the reluctant acceptance of emissions trading last year. Mr Keating by contrast learns on the job, embracing new policies during the 1990s like CAP competition policy, Working Nation in terms of new approaches to labour market policies, and universal superannuation.
George to be fair to him, doesn't entirely miss this point - he concedes it in part and I turn particularly to page 363:
“Ironically, [Mr Howard] left office with the economy stronger than he found it, but with a reform legacy less substantial than Hawke and Keating, because he went too far with the labour market, and because he seemed more interested in offering bribes over policy substance.”
What do these conflicting narratives of economic reform for the last decade have to say about the decade that now lies ahead?
Less than six months into the new Government, we have outlined the core elements of our policy strategy for the future:
* First, a policy of responsible economic management, based on strong surpluses, fighting the fight against inflation and putting downward pressure on interest rates
* Second, a vigorous program of microeconomic reform, based on productivity, participation and population:
* On productivity, we have begun an ambitious program of reinvestment in human capital formation, in physical capital formation (infrastructure) and in business deregulation through the COAG reform process
* On participation, we have embraced a program of tax reform, reform of child care payments, as well as a new approach to preventative health care - all designed to enhance workforce participation in the long term, given the particular challenges emerging from an ageing Australia
* On population, the Government has already announced an ambitious expansion to the migration program in order to deal with long and short-term skill needs; the long-term neglect of skills policy over the past decade; and once again the impact of the ageing of our population
* Third, the Government recognises rather than rejects the strategic economic challenge represented by global climate change and associated challenges to energy security, water security and food security - and the need for a program of national and global action to respond to each.
* Fourth, the Government's policy strategy also unapologetically embraces social inclusion, and I've just come from the first meeting of the Government's new National Social Inclusion Board with the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard. And through Social Inclusion which we unapologetically embrace, we believe that there is a need through Government to intervene and in partnership with corporate Australia and community associations as well to assist those suffering from structural disadvantage and to enable them to have greater economic and social opportunities in the future. Failure to act in this area in fact creates a long-term and entrenched social problem that comes at a significant economic cost in its own terms unless dealt with.
* Fifth, an activist foreign policy which seeks to enhance global, regional and national security and economic opportunities for Australia and to enhance an international rules-based order given the challenges that now present themselves through the rise of China, the rise of India, the continued challenges of terrorism, the need to combat the re-emergence of global protectionism and the need to spread the tent on the global reach of economic development.
For us this constitutes an ambitious policy framework for reform for the future. By contrast, we continue to identify a combination of policy irresponsibility and policy inertia on the part of our political opponents:
* The Liberals today fail to embrace the key disciplines of economic responsibility by refusing to recognise the inflation challenge; by describing the inflation challenge as a ‘fairy tale'; by maintaining that there is no economic case to cut government spending; by raiding the surplus to the tune of $22 billion without offering any savings - thereby putting upward pressure on inflation and upward pressure on interest rates.
* The Liberals continue their disinterest in microeconomic reform from the decade that has just gone by. They refuse to recognise that there is a problem with declining productivity growth, let alone advancing new problems to reverse that decline; nor is there any evidence of responsible policy to improve workforce participation.
* Further the Liberals continue in a state of denial on climate change - resorting to political populism rather than engaging in the substantive debate on the future of emissions trading, the future of renewable energy and the future of energy efficiency.
Therefore, if we're interested in the future, the contrast I would submit George is clear:
* The Government advances a program of policy reform for the future - Which will not be without it's controversy.
* The Liberal Opposition retreats into its political shell - and continues to play the same game of populist politics that dictated the policies of much of the last decade.
The nation, of course, has suffered from a wasted decade - a decade of squandered opportunity and a decade when instead of investing the proceeds of the mining boom, these proceeds were instead squandered on consumption.
Therefore, we would with absolute confidence argue that there are two clear and competing narratives for the nation's future - one based on considered policy activism; the Liberal alternative at this stage based on a cocktail of political populism and their strong historical suit - policy inertia.
So having added that to my warm words of welcome and response to George's narrative and the contribution which George has made to political debate. It is with great pleasure that today, for the 27th time, I launch, relaunch and launch again, George Megalogenis' book, The Longest Decade.
I leave to one side George's analysis as to whether I should be described as ‘manic', ‘disciplined', ‘shameless' or, much more distressingly, ‘Geoffrey Boycott'.
In fact, I'll let all those go through to the keeper.
Which perhaps was the greatest hallmark of Boycott's career.
I commend the book to you all.