Presented by Robert Clark MP		www.robertclark.net

Relationships hold key to social problems

(An article published by the Australian Financial Review on 20th October 2003.)

Australians have been remarkably successful in transforming our economy from the stagnation and despondency of the 1970s into the openness and vibrancy of today.

However, problems of drug addiction, homelessness, family breakdown, child abuse and alienation of young people continue.

We also suffer from distrust, insecurity and declining participation in community and civic life.

Peter Costello's social capital speech of July re-focussed attention on the importance of the right social context for a strong community and fulfilling lives, as well as for a strong economy.

Now Lindsay Tanner in his recent book, Crowded Lives, puts the case for a re-think about our relationships in general.

Tanner argues that many of our social woes are due to neglect both of our personal relationships and the way we relate to each other in the broader community.

Tanner identifies two main causes - the pace of modern life arising from the demands of work and technology, and the consequences of the "do your own thing" revolution starting in the sixties.

Tanner proposes governments be required take the effect on relationships into account when making decisions and "intensify their commitment to sustaining community organisations".

Furthermore, "our society should be built around clear, strong rules that are properly enforced", and we need to enhance the power of umpires like the Industrial Relations Commission, ACCC, ASIC and the courts.

As well, penalty rates should be reinvigorated, "blatantly excessive" working hours should be prohibited and leave entitlements should cover occasional attendance at children's school activities.

After arguing his central thesis, Tanner takes us on a Cook's tour of contemporary issues.

From dealings with large corporations ("a nightmare"), we move to criminal sentences (keep them tough enough to replace personal vengeance), the alienation of young men (suffering from the loss of manual jobs) and education (focus on more than universities).

From there we go to "relational parenting" (spend more time with your kids) and family breakdown (the law should expect non-custodial parents to spend more time with their kids).

Then come the campaign for a republic (direct elections), the national anthem ("a major success story"), the flag (no rush to change it), Australia Day (the wrong day), Anzac Day (the right day) and multiculturalism (we must deal with legitimate concerns).

Next follow digital technology and relationships (easier contact but more interruptions), before concluding with euthanasia (against) and biotechnology (destruction of the human species is a real possibility).

It is refreshing that Tanner largely breaks away from political polemic to make a reasoned and fair minded assessment of difficult issues.

But at the same time, Crowded Lives is a frustrating book.

It is more a loose collection of observations and ideas - a "mind dump" of an inquiring spirit - than a tightly reasoned whole.

The vital question left unanswered is the respective contributions to our problems of economic versus social change.

Many on the left (although not necessarily Tanner) blame capitalism and globalisation.

If they are correct - if adverse social consequences are truly inherent in a market economy - it implies radical change is needed to our economic way of life.

But to the extent that "do your own thing" attitudes are the source of our problems, fundamental change to our social and personal behaviour is required.

Some seek to evade this dichotomy by attributing both the liberation revolution and economic liberalisation to a "cult of the individual".

However, the essence of the market economy is not individualism, but free association in productive activity. The "individual" of economic theory can just as easily be a couple, a family or even a neighbourhood who set up a community bank.

One way of testing the dichotomy is to ask what our lives would be like if the liberation revolution had occurred while the economy and technology remained unchanged?

Conversely, what would our lives be like if economic and technological change had occurred without the liberation revolution?

This, of course, is a simplified model. Causation may flow between the two factors, and some may say that other factors, such as taxation levels or social welfare policy, are crucial.

Nonetheless, it can be strongly argued that social problems generally have social causes and that under the first scenario we would still face most of the same problems.

Crime levels, drug abuse and family breakdown all took off in the seventies, well before significant economic reforms got underway.

The Burdekin Report of 1989 was highlighting the problems of youth alienation and homelessness long before mobile phones and email were interrupting our family time.

Under the second scenario, in contrast, our time would be strained but our relationships would be largely intact.

Previous generations have not necessarily suffered relationships crises despite enduring far longer working hours than we do even now, as well as long and uncertain separations as spouses had to leave loved ones behind in search of work or new opportunities,.

True, for many the pace of modern life has become more hectic, and jobs less enduring.

And while our incomes are generally higher, previous working hour/income trade-offs may no longer be available.

However, if enough of us insist on giving more priority to our families and other relationships, we can change prevailing work patterns and lower expectations about what sacrifices of family life are reasonable.

This does not require massive government intervention or an end to capitalism.

Indeed, there are signs change is already happening, as we learn to make wiser use of the flexibility provided by work practice reform.

Tackling the consequences of the liberation revolution is a far more difficult task.

Tanner's call for greater personal responsibility and sense of obligation gets the sentiment right, but he doesn't seem to grasp what it entails.

Thus he argues that requiring a departed parent in a marital breakdown to continue to provide "emotional sustenance" to their children will involve only "minor additional incursions" on adults' freedom.

Yet as most parents will testify, providing proper "emotional sustenance" to children often makes great demands.

To provide such sustenance on an on-going basis requires substantial incursions into adult's freedom to relate to whom they like and when and how they would like.

Call it marriage or call it a long term partnering commitment, but whatever you call it, if at all possible children need secure and enduring "emotional sustenance" by both parents.

More generally, greater personal responsibility doesn't necessarily require government action or laws.

In many fields the rule of law is needed as an essential reinforcement, but in other cases responsibility best flows from personal and community attitudes.

Australians' inherent sense of decency and a fair go has been more effective in establishing a welcoming multicultural society than any government decree.

Nineteenth century Britain and North America transformed themselves from the squalor and misery of Hogarth's Gin Lane and Dickens' Oliver Twist through a community spirit of revival and self-help, with government tagging along behind.

Nor does greater responsibility need to be based on abstract appeals to morality or religion.

Rather, it can be grounded in the blunt recognition, justified by evidence, that particular failures of responsibility have harmful consequences for others, not least of all our children.

Just as the first steps in the 1970s down the road to economic reform were a recognition of our problems and a determination to remedy them, hopefully we are now taking our first steps down the road to equally far-reaching social reform.