2020 Vision: the need for New-Century Reconstruction

Anne Summers2020 Vision: the need for New-Century ReconstructionPosted by Anne Summers on 08 August 2017

book

 

 

 

2020 Vision

Why we need New Century Reconstruction

 

The 2017 Kenneth Myer Lecture

by

Anne Summers AO Ph.d

National Library of Australia

10 August 2017

Brain Centre, University of Melbourne

13 September 2017

 

 

Dr Marie-Louise Ayers, Friends of the National Library and other distinguished guests

Men and Women of Canberra

 

Thank you for inviting me to deliver the 2017 Kenneth Myer Lecture this evening.

In honouring the memory of Kenneth Myer I want to acknowledge his love for the institution where we meet tonight, the National Library of Australia. His love was manifested in practical ways, including financial, that among other things provided funding for this annual lecture.

In sharing some thoughts with you tonight I pay tribute to the kind of philanthropy that fosters ideas because tonight I will be talking about ideas. All philanthropy is important and of course welcome but donating to a hospital or an animal conservancy does not carry with it the risks inherent in making funds available to foster ideas.

You never know where ideas are going to take you.

But it is ideas this country currently, and urgently, needs.

And, just as importantly, we need guidance on how to turn these ideas into the kind of changes this country so desperately needs.

And that is what I am going to talk about this evening.

Before I do so, let me first acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Ngunnawal people.

I acknowledge and respect their continuing culture and the contribution they make to the life of this city and this region and I also acknowledge and welcome other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who may be attending this evening’s event.

I also want to express my support for Makarrata, the process that would formally ensure the voices of Australia’s First Nations are included our constitution, as outlined in the recent Uluru Statement from the Heart. [1]

What I would like to lay out for your consideration this evening is the idea that Australia is in need of reconstruction.

 

I am calling it New Century Reconstruction.

 

‘Reconstruction’ is something we have undergone before so it is not an alien concept even if is more than seven decades since we last attempted it.

 

There are parallels between the Australia that decided to plan its post-war reconstruction and Australia today.

 

In 1942, the government established a Post-war Reconstruction Ministry. As described by Stuart McIntyre,

 

Its functions encompassed the preparation of plans for the transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy, along with a collaborative role in re-establishment of members of the services and war workers; the disposal of wartime buildings, plant and equipment; the maintenance and expansion of employment and the national income; the prevention of want and attainment of social security; and the development and conservation of the country’s resources.[2]

In 2017 we need, in my view, to

 

Prepare plans for the transition from the analogue to the digital economy, from the manufacturing to the services economy, from the no-tech to the very high-tech, along with a collaborative role in the re-establishment of workers from displaced, disrupted or superseded industries; the disposal of old economy mines, plant and equipment; the maintenance and expansion of the national income and the design of post-employment occupations for the population; the prevention of want and the restoration of social security; the development and conservation of the nation’s resources, physical, natural and human.

 

The challenges are remarkably similar.

 

I will expand on this idea later in my remarks but for now I just want to note that I what I have in mind is a larger and even more encompassing project than the post-war reconstruction that was undertaken in the 1940s.

 

In the 2020’s we will need not just economic and social reconstruction, we will also need emotional and even spiritual reconstruction.

 

We will need to rebuild our society to equip ourselves for the challenges of the future, and to address the failures of the present, and in order to do this we need to be emotionally and spiritually strong. We need to be up for what we have to do.

 

 

WHEN I DECIDED to call this lecture 2020 vision, I was thinking of a timetable.

I was thinking not so much a deadline – an end-date – as a starting date for the New Century Reconstruction.

This is less than three years away. It is urgent.

But as well as being a timetable, 2020 vision describes something else: it is a measure of vision.

When we visit the optometrist and have our eyesight measured according to the Snellen chart, if we are lucky enough to have 2020 vision we are considered normal. We do not need corrective glasses or contact lens.

We need such a test for our country as well.

Not just to test our national vision (although it’s a pity it’s not possible to do that) but to measure what kind of corrections that overall as a country we need.

As I will argue for the remainder of this Lecture, I am of the view that we are in need of severe correction. If we were a person, we might well be considered legally blind.

We have no idea what sort of country we want to be.

Unless we take urgent action, we will be entering the third decade of the 21st century directionless and unfocussed in a world that is in chaos today and likely to remain so.

This is why I am advocating New Century Reconstruction.

First lets look at what is wrong with the way things are.

Let me summarise:

  • The benefits, and the burdens, of our society are unfairly distributed
  • As individuals, we lack agency to change this
  • We have no plan to make Australia fairer or more efficient

We lack the policies to guide us, our political leaders are inept and our institutions, for the most part, are incapable or prevented from serving us in the way that is needed.

If that sounds a bit harsh, let us consider the following:

Australia does not have a clear economic policy.

We have an economic record, a very strong one.

We are, as Donald Horne pointed out in the 1960s, a lucky country. In fact we are unbelievably lucky in that our winning streak has lasted so long.

Our living standards and well-being are ‘generally high’, the OECD noted in its most recent survey of the Australian economy, although it cautioned that ‘challenges remain in gender gaps and in greenhouse-gas emissions, and further challenges arise from population ageing’.[3]

Further ‘challenges’ lie in our ongoing inability to manage microeconomic policy, for instance budget policy and institutional reform.

In other important areas we have no discernible policy at all.

(Note: I will refer only to domestic policy in these remarks. I can only hope we are better served when it comes to defence and foreign affairs, particularly in these current extremely perilous times).

Let’s look at some of them.

We have no employment policy.

We have various ‘strategies’ for creating ‘jobs’ for people in situations such as leaving prison, transitioning from welfare or leaving school but I am unaware of an overriding policy that addresses unemployment, underemployment, threats to employment from global outsourcing, declining industries – hello, coal! – let alone robotics, artificial intelligence and other instances of digital disruption.

Even before we factor in this looming impact of the digital economy, we have performed poorly.

We have averaged an unemployment rate of 6.9 per cent since the late 1970s[4]. We have massive under-utilisation of our workforce, especially of women.

With women making up 71.6 per cent of all part-time employees[5], we have the third-highest rate of female part-time employment in the OECD[6] (25 per cent of women working part-time, against the OECD average of 16 per cent). If we drill down further into employment/unemployment/undremployment by region, by age, by population group, especially Indigenous Australians, the picture is even bleaker.

All of this under-utilisation has consequences for individual financial well-being and for national GDP.

We have no population policy[7] and we exhibit a marked reluctance to adopt one.

It is, literally, the policy that dare not speak its name. We don’t want to have the conversation about ‘a big Australia’ versus a sustainable Australia because it’s a fight not a discussion and we seem unable to reconcile the two sides.

Our fertility rate (births per woman) remains stubbornly below replacement levels and nothing will change that. The Howard government’s baby bonus together with Treasurer Peter Costello’s exhortation in 2004 to women to have ‘one for mum, one for dad and one for the country’ did produce a fifteen-year high fertility rate of 1.90 by 2006.

But it lasted for just six years and has not returned to those levels since. It is currently 1.77[8] which a visiting Canadian commentator in 2016 said puts us in a ‘demographic death spiral’.[9] We rely on immigration to grow our population and to keep it younger than it otherwise would be, but this is an inconvenient truth in an environment where immigration levels are a volatile political issue.

The mass movement of people across and within borders is one of the biggest issues of our time.

It is a confronting and complex matter, involving millions of people moving from their homes to other people’s, in the process causing resentment, anger and push back.

And I am just talking about tourism!

In recent years, towns in Italy and in Spain have taken steps to limit the numbers of tourists who descend on them each summer, putting pressure on local facilities, pushing up housing costs, creating crowding and inconvenience that is not always sufficiently compensated for by the tourist dollar.

This problem is perhaps most evident in Venice where each year 20 million tourists invade this city of just 50,000 residents.[10]

Each day thousands of people are disgorged from enormous cruise liners to roam the narrow streets and canals, gawking at famous sites, snapping selfies in front of iconic landmarks – then returning to their boats for their pre-paid meals.

A large number of these tourists are just day-trippers so they contribute nothing to the hotel economy but they are wreaking huge damage on the fragile eco-system of this marvellous city.

San Sabastian in northern Spain is another town that is pulling up the Welcome sign as tourism becomes a burden rather than a bounty. Tourists are now confronted with signs such as ‘Tourist you are the terrorist’ or ‘Tourists go home. Refugees welcome’.[11]

This particular sign of course highlights the other mass movement of people into Europe, the flood of refugees and asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle east. T

This has become a political nightmare for most countries of Europe.

Immigration is a tinderbox issue in France, Belgium, Germany and the Scandinavian countries and there is a pronounced absence of political solutions.

And speaking of immigration, what is our immigration policy?

It is another of those ‘dare not speak its name’ areas. Net overseas migration now accounts for 55 per cent of our population growth[12] but we don’t mention that in public.

Immigration policy has been conflated and confused with refugee policy and our political leaders have seemingly encouraged this by subsuming Immigration within the Department for Border Protection.

Now, with the proposed Department of Homeland Security about to swallow up that department, immigration will perhaps only be viewed via a border protection and security lens. How will this affect our population’s growth and age if we lose sight of the demographic imperatives of continued immigration?

I could go through any number of policy deficits. What is our cyber policy, our cultural policy, our energy policy, our digital policy[13], our income and wages policy, our housing policy, our retirement incomes policy, our welfare policy, our industry policy, our environment policy?

There are undoubtedly many other areas and issues where spending and other decisions are made without the benefit of an overarching policy.

Instead, decision are taken on an ad hoc basis, perhaps influenced by ideological conviction, budget constraints or lobbying, rather than driven by an articulated, well argued and publicly available policy.

The absence of policy means reduced accountability because there are no benchmarks or goals against which activity can be measured. Absence of policy also means that government occurs within a vacuum, rather than within an electorally endorsed framework that defines our national aspirations and priorities.

While I am quite confident that our political leaders are sincere when they say they are governing ‘in the national interest’, I wonder if any of them could tell us what that ‘national interest’ actually is.

At the same time, we voters have reduced agency. We have little or no power to even confirm, let alone decide the kind of country we want to be – and how we are going to get there.

At election time, when political parties seek a mandate to govern on our behalf, the recent tendency is for party leaders to speak in slogans. We get to decide our future on the basis of a catchy phrase, a string of words.

We vote for nouns.

Jobs and growth. Border protection. Debt and deficit.

Whatever they might mean.

As voters, we have not endorsed a direction, let alone a policy.

And most of us have no power at all.

Mot of us live in safe seats and are therefore totally ignored by the political parties.

They put all their efforts into wooing those in seats where a change of mind by a few hundred, or even a few dozen, could determine an election result.

Elsewhere in the world we have seen the votes of a minority of a population deliver calamitous outcomes. I am thinking of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

Our system has seen parties win government without winning a majority of votes and we know that Senators can be elected with just a handful of primary votes but in the House of Representatives we are protected against a small minority determining who sits on the Treasury benches.

However, as citizens we have no influence on who is nominated for pre-selection by our parties.

We have no redress if we feel that those who are nominated and who sit in the parliament are increasingly unrepresentative of popular opinion on contentious issues such as climate change, same sex marriage or abortion.

If we feel politically marooned, all we can do is protest, seek out third-party candidates, join in the wave of so-called populism.

 

Once in power, our governments are becoming less accountable by being less transparent.

There are a number of disturbing examples of this.

A great deal of policy is now outsourced.

The beneficiaries of this practice include the accounting firms, especially the so-called ‘Big Four’. They have seen their expansion into government consultancy bring in lucrative returns.

In the past three years, these four companies have been paid $1billion to do work that once was done in the public service.[14]

Senator Nick Xenophon has called for public disclosure of the details of the policy work done under these contracts. It seems extraordinary that this is not public information.

While our democracy is not challenged, or overtly threatened, in the same ways as is happening in countries such as Turkey and the United States, we should still be worried about unaccountable and possibly corrupt practices.

We do have the covert subversion of democratic processes where governments are influenced in their decision-making by the efforts of lobbyists for special interests.

Often, perhaps more than we realise, these influences are not disclosed. Sometimes they are even disguised so that the Opposition, the media, the electorate and, I suspect, even the government is not always aware of who is pushing for particular outcomes.

They are not open to any kind of scrutiny and therefore none of us are any the wiser when a particular decision may have resulted from what lobbyists like to brag about as ‘fingerprintless’ campaigns.[15]

Also of great concern should be recent examples of ministers going straight from the cabinet room to post-parliamentary employment with companies directly affected by their former portfolios.

Andrew Robb, the Trade minister in the last government, took an $880K job with a Chinese trade company days after the 2016 election[16].

And just this week it has been revealed that Bruce Billson, the Minister for Small Business until the 2016 election, was actually on the payroll of his future employer, the franchise lobby, while still sitting at the Cabinet table.[17]

 

IT IS TIME to change all this.

I think we can learn quite a lot about how to approach this massive project from the Post-war Reconstruction model, and the people who made it happen.

There are three ways in which it is still a relevant model despite the lapse of more than 70 years.

First, it was a set of policies based on values. The values drove the approach and led to the creation of the institutions such as the Commonwealth Employment Service, funding for housing, hospitals and universities, social security benefits, and the insistence on economic planning for the betterment of the population

H.C. (‘Nugget’) Coombs who in early 1943 at the age of 37 was put in charge of the Ministry of Post-war Reconstruction described his brief in the following terms:

Widening opportunity for all was to be the criterion by which policies were judged. The task was to ensure an economic and social context in which positive opportunities were present rather than merely the absence of constraints. “Freedom is opportunity” might have been the watchword…[18]

The program was, he wrote in his autobiography Trial Balance, ‘an instrument of social change’.

Second, the people who staffed the Ministry were exemplars of the then-new model for public service: professional and idealistic. They were led by Nugget Coombs who was one of the most outstanding people this country has produced. He shaped Australia in ways that are almost beyond measure, in the policies and practices and institutions that he influenced or directed, and in the many people across more than one generation that he befriended, advised and guided.

Ken Myer was one of these. Ken sought out Nugget for advice and what today we would call ‘mentoring’. He was influenced by Coombs’ belief that wealth ought to be more equally distributed and that people in commerce and industry had a responsibility financially to support the arts.[19] The two met frequently, starting in the 1960s and continuing until Ken’s untimely death in Alaska in 1992.

Ken’s son Michael Myer was an avid listener to many of their conversations; he has said that Coombs ‘expanded Dad’s universe [and] made him more politically aware’.[20]

Nugget also delivered the second Kenneth Myer Lecture, in 1991. (The first was delivered by Gough Whitlam.)

Today’s issues are both similar and different although the magnitude of the reconstruction task is comparable.

We need the kind of dedicated and visionary people who are committed to public service and to the betterment of Australia to carry our the New Century Reconstruction.

We have plenty of such people but they need to be encouraged and empowered.

They will also be different from the men of the 1940s. They were all white, mostly Anglo and although they were progressive for their times, todays’ policy architects would both be more diverse themselves and would take into a account a broader range of social and personal issues than was seen as necessary back then.

Coombs and his generation saw the need to encourage wide-scale immigration, although this was initially only from Europe. The White Australia Policy was still in place. They also recognised the need to deliver justice, and empowerment, to Australian Aborigines – and indeed sought the extension of commonwealth powers to do this and many other reforms in the referendum of 1944 that was rejected.

But that generation was blind to women’s equality. Although women were employed in the Ministry, including in some senior economic roles, they did not receive the same recognition – nor, probably, the same pay – as the men whose names are forever associated with this era.

In those days, when women were asked for advice, it was only on ‘women’s issues’. For instance, during the panic about the declining birth rate Dame Enid Lyons and Lady Cilento were asked in 1944 by the Director-General of Health, who was working in concert with Post-war Reconstruction to report on childbearing.[21]

Today, we would expect expertise to exist across gender lines.

A new century reconstruction will have different premises about inclusion and the diversity of the country. Australia is a very different place from the small frightened country of just 7.2 million in the 1940s.

It is now much larger, more populous and far more diverse with all of our citizens rightly demanding to be heard and to be valued but Australia is, again, a frightened country.

Many of our fellow citizens are dismayed by the changes that have occurred: the loss of jobs, the size and composition of our immigrant population, the impact of technological change.

These fears are driving many people to the fringes of politics as our leaders fail, or are unable, to understand and manage the pace of change in modern Australia.

This is another, and urgent, reason why we need reconstruction.

The third reason why I think the post-war reconstruction model is still relevant is that the work was conducted, and policies implemented, while the business of government went on.

Indeed they did so during the most difficult years of the Second World War, when Australia was under attack, rationing and civil conscription were in place and the entire society was in state, not just of tremendous upheaval but in fear for its very survival.

Today’s disruption barely compares with that inflicted by the War but we feel it nevertheless.

And we have to deal with it – and find ways to reconstruct and reform while continuing to manage the day-to-day economy and affairs of state.

 

I HAVE ONLY been able to give the barest outline of why I think we need reconstruction, and how it might happen, but I would like to give two specific examples of how we might go about starting the process of a values – or principles – driven approach to policy making and change.

First, is the Uluru statement from the Heart, released on May 26 2017 by the Reconciliation Council that sets out the principles of sovereignty that would form the basis of a genuine reconciliation between all Australians. That statement can, and should, guide the specific policy-steps that are needed to achieve this.

My second example is far more detailed. I would like to conclude by taking you through The Women’s Manifesto,[22] which is a document that I have written and which I released on March 8 2017.

The Women’s Manifesto does not have the endorsement of a wide community as Uluru Statement does but the many audiences to whom I’ve presented it since its launch on International Women’s Day this year have responded with approval and acclaim.

I present it as policy tool in its own right, but also as a template for other areas of policy.

I should also add the caution that because it was written as a Manifesto, rather than just as a policy document, it is written in the language of advocacy.

I could have translated it into bureaucratese – but I decided that it was not necessary because the felt need for change is as legitimate a driver as any other.

The Manifesto lays out the four principles of women’s equality:

  1. financial self-sufficiency
  2. reproductive freedom
  3. freedom from violence
  4. the right of women to participate fully and equally in all areas of public life

I contend that everything that is needed in order for women to have full equality can be subsumed within these four basic principles.

Policies are of course needed to implement these principles; I have summarized these as follows:

  1. Financial self-sufficiency

Have enough money, or the means to earn it, to not have to rely on anyone else to survive and thrive.

To be financially self-sufficient and therefore not dependent on a husband or other person to provide the basics of life (or to have the option of leaving a relationship that isn’t working) girls need twelve years of school education that is equal to boys.

Girls and young women must then have the same opportunities as boys and young men to enter post-school education at university or technical college. They must be free to study any and all subjects and be encouraged to test themselves and branch out from areas that traditionally have attracted more women than men. If they wish, women should be able to pursue post-graduate education and be able to combine that with having a family if that is their choice.

Women need to have the same employment opportunities and conditions as men, including full-time employment.

Women must receive equal pay and equal opportunities for promotion, for training opportunities and other benefits of the place of employment.

Women must be free from sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination.

Childcare must be available, flexible, affordable and shared between all parents.

Women must have the right to keep their jobs while pregnant and get paid parental leave when they take time off from their jobs to have the baby.

Women must receive superannuation, including while on paid parental leave, and if necessary receive top-ups from either government or employers during their working life to ensure they have adequate retirement incomes.

 

  1. Reproductive freedom

The ability to determine when and if to have children

This is achieved via all women having access to effective and affordable contraception backed up by safe, legal and affordable abortion.

Women must have access to health services, including screening and care for female-specific conditions such as breast, ovarian and cervical cancer, and other services needed to ensure sexual health.

Women also need to be able to secure pre- and post natal care for their maternal health and that of their baby.

 

  1. Freedom from violence

Our bodies and our minds must be our own

Women must be safe from rape and other forms of sexual assault and must have the right to be believed and their complaint taken seriously if they suffer an attack.

Women must have access to laws that adequately address all crimes of violence and legal services that enable them to seek advice and legal redress if they chose.

Women must be free from domestic and family violence of all kinds: physical, psychological, financial and any other type of controlling and domineering behaviour on the part of a family member or intimate partner.

Where needed, women must have ready access to emergency crisis services including women’s refuges in order to be safe from violence or other threats.

 

  1. Equal representation and participation in public life:

We should be part of all decision-making in our society

Women should participate fully in all areas of our society’s public and economic life.

Women must be represented fully and fairly at every level of government including the public service, in the companies that make up our economy, the not-for-profit sector, arts organizations, trade unions, the military and the churches.

 

This is a deceptively simple agenda.

I like to say that it is simple, but that it will not be easy to achieve it.

Every single aspect of it requires laws, policies, programs or other elements to make each goal realizable.

Simple. But not easy.

 

To show how the principles of the Manifesto can be realised, I have drawn up four specific policies, one from each of the four principles.

I recommend that these four reforms be implemented by 2022, which will mark 50 years since the election of the Whitlam government, the first government of Australia to commit to women’s equality as a national policy objective.

Implementation of these four policies would in itself represent progress in achieving the principles of women’s equality.

In addition they would lay down markers for the full equality that would result from implementing the Women’s Manifesto in its entirety.

These four specific policies are:

  1. Legislated equal pay for all women in all jobs
  2. Decriminalisation of abortion in New South Wales and Queensland
  3. Specialist domestic violence courts in every state of Australia
  4. Gender quotas dictating that women make up 50 per cent of all parliamentarians, all cabinets and other ministries and directors of all public company and government boards.

Let me spell them out:

1 Legislated equal pay (Financial self-sufficiency)

It is unconscionable that in 2017 Australian women still earn on average 20 per cent less than men. In some jobs and some industries, the gender pay gap is even greater.

As Mary Gaudron, the first woman to sit on the High Court of Australia, famously said in 1979: ‘Equal pay was “won” in 1969 and again in 1972 and yet again in 1974.[23]

It is 43 years since women first ‘won’ equal pay. It is 37 years since Mary Gaudron pointed out that women still don’t have it.

The industrial court system has failed to deliver so it is now up to the federal parliament to legislate mandating equal pay for all women in all jobs.

The Leader of the Opposition has said he is prepared to legislate to restore penalty rates abolished by the Fair Work Commission[24]; if he can do it for penalty rates, he can do it for equal pay.

So could the government.

It is constitutionally possible. All it needs is political will.

 

  1. Decriminalization of abortion in New South Wales and Queensland

Every other Australian state and territory has decriminalized abortion. It is time for New South Wales and Queensland to do so as well.

  1. Specialist domestic violence courts in every state

This is already happening in Queensland as a result of recommendations made by the Task Force on Domestic and Family Violence headed by Quentin Bryce in 2014-15.

Following the successful trialling of such a court in Southport during 2015, the Queensland Premier made a commitment to create four other courts in major centres across the state[25].

Such specialist courts can provide expert handling of domestic violence cases, as well as shining a spotlight on the extent and severity of such violence across Australia.

  1. Gender quotas dictating women make up 50 per cent of all parliamentarians, cabinet and other ministers, and directors of public companies and government boards.

It is clear that increased representation of women in all decision-making organizations of our society is not going to happen organically.

If so, it would already have happened. Women have been graduating from universities in greater numbers than men since the 1980s so there is no case to be made that women continue to lack merit or experience.

Were merit the sole basis for appointments, women would already outnumber men.

Affirmative action in the form of quotas – planning, in other words – is the only way to ensure that the best talent available leads organizations and to do so means including the group that makes up 50 per cent of the population.

 

If this were federal parliament, I would conclude by saying, I commend the Bill to the House. Of course, we are at a lecture not sitting in a deliberative forum – perhaps more’s the pity! – so I will finish simply by saying that I appreciate the opportunity to lay our some ideas to help us grapple with, and solve, the problems facing Australia.

 

I hope that they are ideas of which Ken Myer would approve. I am sure that he could support the notion of putting them forward.

And as I hope I have outlined, major social change does not happen by itself.

We need to entrust competent and selfless people to design it, meticulously and in line with our values, in order to create the kind of society we want.

We need to do it.

We’ve done it before.

And, I sincerely hope, we can do it again.

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/2017-05/Uluru_Statement_From_The_Heart_0.PDF

[2] Stuart Macintyre, The Seven Dwarfs and the Age of the Mandarins: Australian Government Administration in the Post-War Reconstruction Era, edited by Samuel Furphy, published 2015 by ANU Press, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. P. 46 http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p319381/pdf/ch02.pdf

 

[3] EOCD Economic Survey of Australia 2017 http://www.oecd.org/australia/economic-survey-australia.htm

 

[4] https://tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate

 

[5] https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/Stats_at_a_Glance.pdf

[6] https://data.oecd.org/emp/part-time-employment-rate.htm

[7] Liz Allen, ‘Australia doesn’t have a population policy. Why?’ The Conversation July 3 2017 https://theconversation.com/australia-doesnt-have-a-population-policy-why-78183?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%2078406239&utm_content=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%2078406239+CID_0f1278d033dd2f98c8dc6c1beebea734&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Australia%20doesnt%20have%20a%20population%20policy%20%20why

[8] http://www.geoba.se/country.php?cc=AU

[9] Clarissa Bye ‘Migrant birthrates are changing Australia: Average birthrate below replacement level’ Daily Telegraph February 20, 2016 Reporting comments by Mark Steyn, right-wing commentator from Canada.

http://www.geoba.se/country.php?cc=AU

[10] Jason Horowitz,

Venice, invaded by tourists, risks becoming “Disneyland on the Sea”’ New York Times August 2, 2017

[11] Lisa McMah ‘”Tourists go home”: Why you’re no longer welcome in Spain’

news.com.au June 1 2016

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/tourist-go-home-why-youre-no-longer-welcome-in-spain/news-story/4febc459dcd721f25bc113eab6c509e5

 

[12] Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Demographic Statistics September 2016 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats%5Cabs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/CA1999BAEAA1A86ACA25765100098A47?Opendocument

[13] Tom Burton ‘The case for the department of digital’ The Mandarin August 9 2017

Tom Burton: the case for the Department of Digital

[14] David Crowe, ‘Government paid $1bn to big four consultant firms over three years’ The Australian August 3 2017

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/government-paid-1bn-to-big-four-consultant-firms-over-three-years/news-story/31e0e507543f15e24cca2f92024f427c

 

[15] The author has viewed a lobbyist’s CV that boasted of its track record in such campaigns.

[16] Nick McKenzie, Richard Baker, Chris Uhlmann ‘Liberal Andrew Robb took $880k China job as soon as he left Parliament’ Sydney Morning Herald June 6 2017

http://www.smh.com.au/national/investigations/liberal-andrew-robb-took-880k-china-job-as-soon-as-he-left-parliament-20170602-gwje3e.html

[17] Pat McGrath ‘Bruce Billson, former Liberal minister, failed to disclose salary from lobby group’ abc.net.au August 9 2017

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/bruce-billson-sorry-for-not-disclosing-salary-from-lobby-group/8785174

[18] H.C. Coombs Trial Balance MacMillan, Melbourne, 1981 p. 26

[19] Sue Ebery The Many Lives of Kenneth Myer The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne, 2008 p. 254

[20] Ebery p. 362

[21] National Archives of Australia Research Guides Land of opportunity: Australia’s post-war reconstruction n.d. http://guides.naa.gov.au/land-of-opportunity/chapter27/

[22] The Women’s Manifesto 2017

http://annesummerspull.issimoholdingspt.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TheWomensManifesto_pdffinal.pdf

[23] cited in Anne Summers The End of Equality. Work, babies and women’s choices in 21st century Australia Random House, Australia, 2003 p. 171

[24] Stephanie Anderson, ‘Penalty rates: Labor vows to stop Fair Work Commission cuts’ abc.net.au February 23 2017

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-23/labor-vows-to-stop-fair-work-commission-penalty-rates-cut/8296716

 

[25] http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/domestic-and-family-violence-court