Australia 2020 Summit: What will make the most difference?
11 April, 2008
As part of our homework for the Australia 2020 Summit, delegates were asked to prepare a response to the question: “If you could do one thing in your stream area, what would it be? What is it that you think would make the most difference?”
Here is my response (I’m in the Future of Australian Governance stream). I would really welcome any comments.
The Australia Commitments
Like the Millennium Development Goals, but for AustraliaThe longest period of economic growth in our nation’s history calls for a new set of national commitments to promote social progress and realise better standards of living for all Australians.
The Australia Commitments would be a short and memorable set of national development goals, including - importantly - indicators by which Australians can continually monitor progress. They would be long-term, outcome-focused, and measurable - but above all, they would display an unprecedented audacity.
Together, they would serve as a new blueprint to galvanise attention and energy to solving our most pressing, basic problems, ensuring that no Australian lives in poverty, that indigenous Australians enjoy health equality, that our children will have clean air and clean water, that they can all go to good schools and universities and rely on comprehensive healthcare.
The Commitments would offer a radical vision for Australia’s prosperity beyond the individual electoral cycle. Setting such demanding targets would give Australians a more hopeful vision of government, ambitious and optimistic, and in doing so, help reinvigorate public confidence in our nation’s political system.
Update (13 April): My idea is now on the GetUp! Australia 2020 Summit ideas forum for voting. This post will remain the first post on the blog for the next few days to allow for easy access. Regular posting will continue below.
Update (16 April): Okay, so this is totally cheating, but I absolutely love this idea and couldn’t resist. I’ve adapted it from an idea from the GetUp! ideas forum:
Taxpayer-directed Funding
Every tax return should include a section asking whether the individual would like to allocate a small amount of their tax to one of any number of government-funded programmes. These could conceivably include initiatives such as Landcare and Coastcare, the ABC and SBS, the Commonwealth Scholarships Programme for universities, overseas emergency and humanitarian assistance, etc. Some information on each of the programmes would be included.The funds received through this mechanism would be additional to any regular funding (which would be protected from any government cuts that might occur in anticipation of this additional funding). Additionally, the amount able to be donated by each taxpayer would have to be significant enough to outweigh the costs of administering such a system, but not too large so as to give the rich a way to disproportionately affect government spending and policy.
This mechanism would give everyday taxpayers a more intimate interest, and a more substantial and regular say, in how the nation is governed. It would be a powerful tool to provide regular direction to our representatives on the issues on which taxpayers would like action. And, as it establishes a clear monetary link between taxpayers and political action, it might in time persuade more people to take an interest in the priorities of government.
April 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
alan i think the australia commitment idea is very sound, potentially exceptional, if we can get bipartisan agreement. i agree that the goals should be audacious but achievable. they should be used to galvanise political will and community and business by in. and there should be no more than 5. i think the ones you’ve put about indigenous quality of life, poverty, environment and education are key. of course, i would like to see something in there about our commitment to globalism, international development, sustainable development in our region, that kind of thing.
hopefully within the governance stream there can be some attention given to the HOW of governance which would better enable the above and for it to be agreed and pursued …
April 14th, 2008 at 4:34 am
For my comments see Andrew Leigh’s blog.
As an after-thought, I quote:
“I believe that governments should be optimistic and ambitious - they should encourage and welcome high expectations.”
Comment: Only if they want to lose elections. You should know that you always under-promise and over-deliver to keep your stakeholders happy.
I guess neither of us has changed very much since that dinner at Ahmet’s a few years ago…
April 18th, 2008 at 2:40 am
What you propose here is essentially a tax on stupidity - the likely result, a lot of added administrative expenses and no benefit which couldn’t be generated by a simple (and far less expensive) survey.
Consider it from the point of view of the government, lets say they need $100m to run ABC, which would normally come out of general taxes. Assume now through donations people contribute $20m to ABC. What would the government do? Use only $80m to run ABC and take the rest of the money (20m) and use it on any projects they like.
Net result is government gets more money from the part of the population who doesn’t realise that this is just another way to increase tax revenue. This is likely to be the part of the population that is less intelligent and on average earns less. Which means welfare payments from government are more likely to be going to these individuals (if not in that year, then in the future) - therefore creating inefficiencies all around.
It would just be easier to conduct a survey and ask people if they want to pay the government any extra taxes because they know how to spend our money better than we do.