Damn, damn good piece and pretty pushes for what I'd like to see in our next government, though there are a few issues that need to be resolved.

Take the french system of governance - they're mired in economic stagnation with high unemployment - this isn't the solution... we need a middle ground, though to be sure, Australia has drifted very far to the right and repositioning ourselves closer to the centre should be a priority.

economic power and political power are not the same, but if you have more of one, you will soon have more of the other. so i suggest decentralization of political power from parliament to the electorate.

this decentralization is much easier to achieve than economic equality. it just needs a democratic constitution- switzerland would provide a good model.

with the power of initiative, direct election,and public access to government activities, the electorate could impel or direct action to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth. this is why the rich fear democracy as much as communism. but they should not. the swiss haven't legislated away wealth, and nor would ozzies.

it's easy to get to democracy from here- a (would-be) citizen movement like 'getup' can write a skeleton constitution in a wiki process, and supporters simply add their name to a list of people who agree only to vote for parties or candidates who will put put the constitution to referendum. no riots, no gunfire.

Frank,

What would you see to be a fair Gini Co-Efficient for Australia given our people and economy? Or would you see a better measure? Is wealth more than income? For instance, quality of life? Does self-centredness play its role, whether a billionaire avoiding tax or someone "playing" the social services system, which is meant to help the genuinely needy.

Based on assets over population Australia is the wealthiest country in the World (Kotler, Jatusripitak and Maesincee). Do we responsibilities to help other countries, such as, small pacific nations? Where does being a benefactor end and being colonalist start

"...economic power and political power are not the same, but if you have more of one, you will soon have more of the other" - DEMOS

Historians of civilizations (Quigley) suggest that when economic and political powers meld, there exists a motive to maintain the status quo, which can be arresting.

Civilization, country and society are different constructs. The West is a civilization. Australia a country. Singapore has three societies, Chinese [dominant], Indian and Malay].

The West, perhaps declining, exerts a global influence. Chinese societies representative of the Chinese Shang [merchant caste], have quashed other peoples in S.E.A., and, more recently the South Pacific, e.g. Tonga. The Shang are only nominally Confucian and societal outsiders, in China, historically. Economic power is being used to buy political influence Herein, the nineteenth century term, Political Economy might have relevance?

There is no perfect world or perfect form of government. Everything is a compromise. While I agree with the writer that we should have a more egelatarian society, we also live in a global village and unless we give incentive and remuneration to those that bring wealth to Australia, they will just go to the USA or whatever country offers them more. We are governed by atavistic genes that tend to make most people want to climb to the top, and "the top" in this day and age is mostly material wealth compared to others. It always amuses me to see nightly on TV the public calling on the government to provide more money for everything from education, health, defence, pensioners, roads, R & D, social security to tax reduction. You name it, everything is mentioned eventually depending on personal priority. What seems to be forgotten is the fact that all the money is "our money" and people always feel that someone else should provide more than them. The government already "gives away" billions of dollars to compensate over half the population for anything from the baby bonus to first home buyers. Obviously there is a compromise somewhere between the USSR some years ago and the United States, but I think it is significant that even in China, a professed Communist State, there are many millionaires and several billionaires who are tolerated because of the wealth they have introduced. Gradually there is a culture appearing that seems to support more philanthropy in this country and I see that as a sign of increased empathy. Unfortunately we shall never have equality for as long as we want a strong economy because everyone works for himself and what he can obtain, not for others. As I have mentioned many times in these columns, our problem comes mainly from too many people in the world and the unsustainability of land available for building to the production of food whose costs will keep rising, through to insufficient water or the exploitation of the sea.

Yes a very astute article. Social outcomes must indeed be embraced far more and the old Howard economic growth trample-at-all-costs mantra must be silenced.

The furphy that Howard has used for so long that you can't have economic growth AND top social outcomes has been frankly a short-sighted national disgrace. I feel many are now cautiously optimistic for the first time that politics may actually be about to return a social dividend with team Ruddard.

Education, health, public transport, employment e.g. all need major inputs if Australia is too stay competitive - and on the rails.