PM big on vision but small on strategy

THE paradox of the Gillard government's white paper on the Asian Century is that the 2025 benchmarks it identifies as national aspirations cannot be achieved within Labor's present public policy and financial frameworks.

Does Labor understand this reality? It is inconceivable that Julia Gillard, whose stamp is imprinted on this document, does not grasp this point. It is equally inconceivable that the chasm between the benchmarks and the policy has not been a major theme of the white paper's finalisation.

This contradiction lies at the heart of the ambivalent response to the document. For the first time as Prime Minister, Gillard has done "the vision thing" in the style of Paul Keating. Some media critics who mock her vision are the very people who have been bemoaning her lack of vision for the past two years.

John Howard never produced such a vision document. He hated promoting grand schemes or fantastic plans that would never be delivered and invite ridicule as pipedreams. But Gillard has gone for vision and such vision demands to be taken seriously.

The first question is: does the Gillard government take its own white paper seriously? If so, we need to see an implementation plan. Where is the plan? Why was the implementation strategy not announced?

Integral to such a plan should be a timetable for progress, given such 2025 benchmarks must be achieved incrementally.

Authorising Trade Minister Craig Emerson to oversee progress is insufficient, even given his ability. Frankly, an Asian Century cabinet committee would seem to be essential as a co-ordinating unit. How else can this whole-of-government agenda possibly be realised?

In 40 years covering national governments I cannot recollect a previous vision statement that has been so ambitious nor a statement where the gulf between present outcomes and future benchmarks is so substantial. This agenda, therefore, requires fresh governance arrangements to monitor progress and new policy.

Consider just two of 25 objectives defined by the white paper. It says by 2025 Australia will have 10 universities in the world's top 100. At present we have none in the top 50, followed by the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University, and then three others ranked in the 90s - that is, their positions in the top 100 are hardly secure.

And competition will only get more intense.

How many vice-chancellors think this goal is remotely achievable with present policy? It will require not only massive extra funding but a new policy towards universities and a more open commitment to excellence (note that 17 of the world's top 100 universities are American). So, when does Gillard Labor begin to fashion a new approach to universities? How long do we wait?

Another goal involves the multiple level school objectives - that by 2025 our school system be in the world's top five; that "all students" have access to a priority Asian language; and that all schools will "engage" with at least one school in Asia.

This will demand vast policy, cultural and financial changes at school level. It will require full support from the states. Yet state ministers are saying they were not consulted. How deep, therefore, will be their commitment? When will they sign up? Where does the money come from?

The Asia Education Foundation's executive director Kathe Kirby says "at a minimum" the new Asian agenda will cost $100 million a year. The Gillard government, however, has provided no costs. Perhaps it does not know the cost, nor how many extra teachers will be required, nor where such qualified language teachers will come from. Or does it prefer online techniques instead?

Yet such concerns pale compared with the heroic goal of getting into the Asia-dominated top five school systems. How will Labor tackle the influence of the teacher unions that pose an insuperable obstacle to such an educational transformation?

The Prime Minister announced on Sunday that the states will be required to meet the Asian agenda as a condition of the Gonski funding deal for schools. That's new. But when you look at the mid-year economic review, you see the problem - there is little capacity across the entire forward estimates to fund the pre-white paper Gonski school agenda, let alone the new Asia agenda, let alone the rest of the Asian white paper agenda, let alone the huge cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

The surpluses out to 2015-16 are too thin and too unreliable. The risk with the white paper is white elephant syndrome: more grand plans without any funding capacity, a problem accentuated by fresh doubts about the 2012-13 surplus. The white paper is conspicuous for its conundrum: it seems more a sustained defence of existing Labor policy than a circuit-breaker to new Labor policy to achieve the benchmarks.

Are there some ministers fool enough to think the self-congratulatory tone of this document means the goals can be reached without radical policy changes? If so, that would negate the entire purpose of the project.

At its launch, Gillard waxed lyrical about Labor's record: its clean energy policies, its National Broadband Network and its education outcomes. The moral, perhaps, is that politicians have to think they are doing a brilliant job before moving on to fresh reforms.

What is the real purpose of this document? It embodies several competing agendas. Given the leadership from former Treasury chief Ken Henry, it constitutes a series of goals that provide leverage for better economic reforms if the politicians are serious. This leads directly to the most important question: does Gillard Labor possess the political strength to begin to realise this vision?

It is noteworthy that Wayne Swan said yesterday the document meant more reforms in a whole range of areas. Gillard and Swan hammer the need for higher productivity. The suspicion, however, is they are relying too much on human capital investment that, while vital, cannot substitute for Productivity Commission type market-based reforms.

Consider the 2025 economic goals: that Australia be in the world's top 10 nations in GDP per person and that it be in the world's top five nations in terms of ease of doing business. Frankly, there are conflicts here with Labor's social and green priorities that drive its regulatory agendas, and its trade union ties that dictate its labour market regulation that is largely alien to Asia.

This document must not be forgotten in today's disposable politics. It is a test for the nation and a test for Labor. It needs to become a permanent measuring stick. In order to prove her commitment, Gillard should unveil a credible implementation strategy. It is her first test.