Australians consume politics like we consume sports: as spectators, and usually from the comfort of the couch. Our aversion to joining the game has led to a reliance on government that is unhealthy, dangerous to our democracy, and costly to the economy.
This matters because the quality of public policy depends on striking a balance between the government and civic sectors. It matters also because good public policy depends on competition between governments, business and community groups in the marketplace for ideas.
Experiments repeatedly show that groups of regular citizens, each looking after their own interests, on average produce outcomes that are superior to the judgements of experts. It is the same principle behind democratic elections, free markets, jury duty and even the organisation of the Internet. And it is why good public policy in Australia, like everywhere, depends crucially on the engagement of citizens.
The late William Buckley once said: “If I had a choice between being governed by the Harvard faculty or the first 100 names in the Boston phone book, I would take the phone book”. He said that because history is replete with examples of experts and technocrats getting it wrong.
In 1878, the Chief Engineer at the British Post Office, Sir William Preece, said that “The Americans have need for the telephone, but we do not; we have plenty of messenger boys”. Not long afterwards, the founder of telephone company AT&T, Theodore Vail, predicted that one day there would be a market for “fifty calls a day between New York and Chicago”.
Imagine if powerful governments, relying on expert opinion and unconcerned with the free market, had regulated on the basis that Preece and Vaile were right.
Yet in Australia, decisions about technology investments have too often made this way rather than by free markets. For instance the decision about how to construct Australia’s national broadband network is in the hands of experts, not the free market, even though the delay is costing our economy $200 million each month we wait.
Despite the cost to our nation, few companies aside from Telstra (and few executives aside from Telstra’s outgoing public policy chief, Dr Phil Burgess) have been willing to engage citizens in public debates that affect their economic interests. They have been concerned about upsetting governments, or deterred by the unwillingness of Australians to join the game.
This is why Telstra has attempted to transform the debate over our broadband future by inviting citizens to join the conversation. In fact everything we have done has been intended, one way or another, to mobilise the civic sector and empower civic leaders to take a greater role in debates affecting their vital interests.
It’s why we created a consumer website that has engaged the general public in the debate over the investment in telecommunications. It’s why we created a group of active supporters who take direct action to support their financial interests. It’s why we engaged citizens in a web 2.0 version of participatory online debate. And it’s why we overhauled our corporate philanthropy so we invest in civic institutions, and only where we have expertise as well as cash to offer.
These initiatives have a unifying purpose – to engage regular citizens in public debates about the future of their investment in Telstra; to encourage them to challenge the government where their interests require it; and to participate more fully in the community around them.
They are essentially about transforming debate in our sector from a passive spectator sport, into an active participant sport. It’s time to get active, a little sweaty and definitely out of breath.