"For at least my lifetime, the Australian zeitgeist has rewarded an emphasis on managerialism, risk mitigation, public relations, messaging and above all else, maintaining stability. Our instincts have become seismographically attuned to be so conflict adverse that we flinch at faintest of rumblings."
I think you are right about the plethora of manageralism and dearth of leadership, but how do you achieve leadership, when the path of manageralism is paved with gold and the path of leadership is often paved with disappointment and sometimes termination? In my working life I think I could count on one hand the number of good leaders that I experienced (and I don't count myself in that). There are others outside my circle that you can see as demonstrating good vision and leadership, but again they are few and far between and tend to get derided.
My political hero was Whitlam, but I wonder if he came about today, and we didn't have those reforms in place, how would he be received? Probably wouldn't get pass 1st base and we will be closer to America in our social well-being and housing situation than present day Australia.
In Queensland planning terms the best leadership I experienced was Kevin Yearbury (maybe before your time), but he had vision and drive, as well great communication as to letting you know where he wanted to take the Department and legislation and why. Leaders are born not made.
I think it's all about the context of the time that broils a mass politics from below and creates circumstances that facilitate leadership. We can't imagine the change now, because the circumstances aren't right (yet).
For example, much of the welfare state policies of the 20th century or New Deal era policies in the US would never have been considered if not for the Great Depression and the looming threat of a competing idealogy of Communism - which at the time had not been yet discredited. The Bolsheviks could never have seized power on their own, if not for decades of instability, failed revolution attempts and the horrors of WWI. And if they hadn't seized power, there were a dozen other similarly radical groups waiting for their shot too.
To one of the points of my article - I think that right now we're just at the tail end of an era of smooth sailing. Things are going to get progressively worse and that will change our politics.
Agree re: Whitlam and think he would would not recognise the current state of the Labor Party. Look at the hyper-financialised HAFF proposal - coming from the party that, once upon a time had the ambition to give us what would eventually become Medicare - the envy of the world. It reminds me of my favourite Margaret Thatcher quote. Twelve years after Thatcher left office, she was asked at a dinner what she considered to be her greatest achievement. Thatcher replied “Tony Blair and New Labor. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”
"Australia has jealously protected its brand as The Lucky Country, crystallising our much truer essence as The Complacent Country."
It's not well-known, but that was the original meaning of the "the lucky country." We were "a lucky country mired in mediocrity and shackled to its past." Funny how people stop quoting after the word "country."
The authour said that we were lucky to have such natural resources, but we were also unlucky to have them - because it meant we could get away with having mediocre leaders. A little more scarcity would do us good, because scarcity brings forth the imaginative and innovative people.
To a degree that's inevitable. A small to medium sized country can't be totally self-sufficient economically, attempting to do so gets you the prosperity of North Korea. You're always going to have to specialise in a few things, and for a country rich in agricultural and pastoral land and mineral resources, that's what it's going to be.
And it could certainly be worse. Argentina had a similar but larger economy than Australia in the 1930s, but its series of corrupt dictatorships ruined it.
But while the basic type of economy we have is probably inevitable, the use we make of it is not. For example, being one of the world's largest exporters of natural gas, yet also importing it, why? Same reason that the government doesn't get much revenue from mining companies compared to somewhere like Norway or Saudi Arabia - we're supine to large business.
Each country has certain tools in its toolbox. Can't do much to change that. But we can choose how we use those tools.
Australia may seem complacent because as a loyal ally of the US, most important decisionmaking and risk-taking takes place in Washington, not Canberra. If the Yanks have a go at China, the Aussies will be right there with them.
Can't agree more with you on Australian culture, and we saw it clearly in the 2019 election. We're terrified of history beginning to happen to us again.
I suspect Australians would feel happier and more fulfilled if we saw ourselves as a people taking meaningful actions in response to important events. But it will take something to kick us out of complacency ...
"For at least my lifetime, the Australian zeitgeist has rewarded an emphasis on managerialism, risk mitigation, public relations, messaging and above all else, maintaining stability. Our instincts have become seismographically attuned to be so conflict adverse that we flinch at faintest of rumblings."
Too true, but good luck with finding the solution. There was an article in today's Brisbane Time written by a young person about the future of Brisbane as part of an essay competition (https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/brisbane-in-2050-the-world-s-most-sustainable-city-20231129-p5ens8.html). All very nice and you would like it to be true (apart from all that vegetarianism), but in your heart of hearts you can't see 25% of these things happening.
I think you are right about the plethora of manageralism and dearth of leadership, but how do you achieve leadership, when the path of manageralism is paved with gold and the path of leadership is often paved with disappointment and sometimes termination? In my working life I think I could count on one hand the number of good leaders that I experienced (and I don't count myself in that). There are others outside my circle that you can see as demonstrating good vision and leadership, but again they are few and far between and tend to get derided.
My political hero was Whitlam, but I wonder if he came about today, and we didn't have those reforms in place, how would he be received? Probably wouldn't get pass 1st base and we will be closer to America in our social well-being and housing situation than present day Australia.
In Queensland planning terms the best leadership I experienced was Kevin Yearbury (maybe before your time), but he had vision and drive, as well great communication as to letting you know where he wanted to take the Department and legislation and why. Leaders are born not made.
Thanks Neil. Agree with all said.
I think it's all about the context of the time that broils a mass politics from below and creates circumstances that facilitate leadership. We can't imagine the change now, because the circumstances aren't right (yet).
For example, much of the welfare state policies of the 20th century or New Deal era policies in the US would never have been considered if not for the Great Depression and the looming threat of a competing idealogy of Communism - which at the time had not been yet discredited. The Bolsheviks could never have seized power on their own, if not for decades of instability, failed revolution attempts and the horrors of WWI. And if they hadn't seized power, there were a dozen other similarly radical groups waiting for their shot too.
To one of the points of my article - I think that right now we're just at the tail end of an era of smooth sailing. Things are going to get progressively worse and that will change our politics.
Agree re: Whitlam and think he would would not recognise the current state of the Labor Party. Look at the hyper-financialised HAFF proposal - coming from the party that, once upon a time had the ambition to give us what would eventually become Medicare - the envy of the world. It reminds me of my favourite Margaret Thatcher quote. Twelve years after Thatcher left office, she was asked at a dinner what she considered to be her greatest achievement. Thatcher replied “Tony Blair and New Labor. We forced our opponents to change their minds.”
"Australia has jealously protected its brand as The Lucky Country, crystallising our much truer essence as The Complacent Country."
It's not well-known, but that was the original meaning of the "the lucky country." We were "a lucky country mired in mediocrity and shackled to its past." Funny how people stop quoting after the word "country."
The authour said that we were lucky to have such natural resources, but we were also unlucky to have them - because it meant we could get away with having mediocre leaders. A little more scarcity would do us good, because scarcity brings forth the imaginative and innovative people.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3305564-the-lucky-country
Yes I’ve always said that our economy is much closer to Saudi Arabia’s than it is to the USA’s.
To a degree that's inevitable. A small to medium sized country can't be totally self-sufficient economically, attempting to do so gets you the prosperity of North Korea. You're always going to have to specialise in a few things, and for a country rich in agricultural and pastoral land and mineral resources, that's what it's going to be.
And it could certainly be worse. Argentina had a similar but larger economy than Australia in the 1930s, but its series of corrupt dictatorships ruined it.
But while the basic type of economy we have is probably inevitable, the use we make of it is not. For example, being one of the world's largest exporters of natural gas, yet also importing it, why? Same reason that the government doesn't get much revenue from mining companies compared to somewhere like Norway or Saudi Arabia - we're supine to large business.
Each country has certain tools in its toolbox. Can't do much to change that. But we can choose how we use those tools.
Australia may seem complacent because as a loyal ally of the US, most important decisionmaking and risk-taking takes place in Washington, not Canberra. If the Yanks have a go at China, the Aussies will be right there with them.
Can't agree more with you on Australian culture, and we saw it clearly in the 2019 election. We're terrified of history beginning to happen to us again.
I suspect Australians would feel happier and more fulfilled if we saw ourselves as a people taking meaningful actions in response to important events. But it will take something to kick us out of complacency ...
Unfortunately agree - things will have to get worse in order for the politics to change from the ground up. Thanks for reading!
Great article 👍👍
Need more people on this wavelength.
Thanks for reading :)