Responding to the return of ‘self-interested’ national policy making

There is an old saying that “charity begins at home”, which is oft used by both sides of politics for wildly conflicting attitudes as to how this saying actually materialises and impacts public policy making.

Equally, one of the often cited criticisms and, indeed, weaknesses associated with public policy making in liberal, democratic nations is the double-edged sword of lacking long-term thinking and the often slow, disrupted and incoherent way in which these nations respond to rapid onset shocks.

These characteristics of liberal democratic systems has, for many, put us at a disadvantage when confronting and responding to the economic, political and geostrategic challenges of mounting great power competition, multipolarity and direct state-on-state conflict.

While the idea of “self-interested”, as I have stated, may come across as distasteful to some, ultimately the deteriorating state of the world is forcing our hand.

But what does this look like in the Australian context?

Economic and industrial sovereignty

It is safe to say that the era of globalisation that culminated in the successive waves of de-industrialisation that swept the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and some European nations have placed these nations in an increasingly precarious position economically.

VIEW ALL

For important Australian context, this de-industrialisation has taken place over a number of decades, largely as a result of both government policy and regulation and free-falling productivity, with Australia now ranking at 93rd out of 133 countries, according to the Harvard University’s Economic Complexity Index.

This ranking has seen Australia placed between the well-known industrial powerhouses of Uganda and Pakistan, hell, even Malawi, Kazakhstan and New Zealand outrank us, with this decline marking a drop from a ranking of 55th in 1995, marking a 38 ranking drop over the nearly three decades.

For comparison, during this same period, the People’s Republic of China, our major nation-state competitor, rose from 46th in terms of economic and industrial complexity in 1995, to be ranked 18th in 2024, meanwhile, Vietnam rose from 107th in 1995 to 61st in 2024.

Meanwhile, India, Australia’s next economic, industrial, political and strategic hedging partner, grew from 60th in 1995, to be ranked at 42nd in 2024, truly an immense turnaround for each of these nations.

Yet despite this, we have seen a relatively lacklustre and often ideologically driven approach (to be fair, by both sides of Australian politics) to respond through initiatives under successive governments, including the ongoing Luxury Car Tax that was supposed to protect Australia’s ailing, now dead auto manufacturing industry, the various defence industry development strategies under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison government’s, culminating, ultimately, in the Future Made in Australia Act and the National Reconstruction Fund.

Even COVID-19 and then the subsequent host of sanctions against Australian goods implemented by the People’s Republic of China in response to Australian government requests for an international investigation into the origins of the pandemic, at both the macro and micro levels, seem to have only a limited impact on Australian policy making.

This comes despite the rhetoric highlighting the importance of economic and industrial sovereignty, which ultimately devolves into a reductive series of arguments tantamount to, “Australia can’t compete with low wage, mass production economies like China, India, Vietnam or Indonesia” which is, to be fair, an entirely reasonable statement to make.

But those sectors aren’t where we should focus our effort, nor is it where we should focus our time or resources, nor is to say we should be all things to all people, rather, we need to work with our like-minded partners to form a division of labour, collaborate and build, or perhaps, rebuild our industrial base.

Equally, if Australia is to be serious about building economic and industrial sovereignty, we will require innovative and contrarian thinking in defiance of the established “wisdom” and “consensus” that have dominated the past four decades of Western policy making and is, for all intents and purposes, responsible for our decline as an industrialised nation.

Strategic sovereignty

For the first time in Australia’s history, our “great and powerful friend” and primary strategic benefactor, the United States, is facing a series of increasingly complex and potentially catastrophic flashpoints across the globe that ultimately serve to distract, tie down and diminish the capability of the United States to maintain peace and stability.

This predicament and distraction of the United States will see Australia face an Indo-Pacific that is far more contested, complex and challenging than what we have faced before; this will only be further compounded by the uncomfortable reality that Australia will, despite the presence of Japan and South Korea, face these challenges, largely alone.

In order to deliver this, Australia will have to shift from having our defence and national security budgets driving strategy, to strategy driving our defence and national security budget with a far more realistic, mature and historic understanding of the challenges and opportunities we face in the Indo-Pacific.

This will also require a significant expansion of the nation’s tactical and strategic capabilities, bringing it more in line with the most important statement in the government’s 2023 Defence Strategic Review, which states the requirement for Australia to be capable of “unilaterally deter(ing) any state from offensive military action against Australian forces or territory”.

Importantly, this can be achieved with Australia’s “self-interest” front and centre, while also avoiding alienating our regional neighbours through deft diplomacy, collaboration on shared objectives and enhancing our economic, political and strategic collaboration to maintain the stable environment we all depend on.

The best part is Australia already has the relationships to build upon in this region and the credibility as a reliable, reasonable and fair partner of choice for many in the region.

Longing for a place that no longer exists and the personal ’self-interest’ challenge

Australia, like many Western nations, is facing mounting domestic division driven by a host of factors, including declining economic opportunity, political polarisation, wealth disparity, social dislocation and animosity.

In the case of young Australians, this dislocation and division is predominately caused by a drop in living standards, crash in long-term career prospects, declining relationship prospects and the ever-present housing affordability crisis.

For many young Australians who have followed the advice of their parents and grandparents to “go to school, get good grades and you’ll get a job, be able to buy a house and have a family, with a comfortable standard of living”, this is simply not the lived reality anymore and for the vast majority of young Australians, they feel at best, lied to and at worst, betrayed.

This has then subsequently prompted waves of intergenerational welfare, particularly the Baby Boomer generation who have, by and large, failed to accept or understand the very real grievances of young Australians, instead telling them they need to work harder, forgo small luxuries and stop complaining.

At the core of this is a hunger for a world that, thanks in large part to previous generations, no longer exists, while simultaneously being asked to bare the mounting costs of pensions, aged care and as if that wasn’t bad enough, they’re now being asked to potentially go and fight and die for a country they have no material connection to or physical investment in.

On the flip side, older generations of Australians view the youth (they raised, I might add) as entitled, privileged, selfish and soft, while simultaneously having enjoyed the privilege of free healthcare, free higher education opportunities, stable, long-term employment opportunities, great relationship opportunities, reasonable housing affordability and protested against the draft and having to fight in Vietnam.

Looking at it like that, it is easy to understand why social dislocation, disconnection and intergenerational warfare is beginning to simmer over.

It is becoming clear that in order to rectify these issues, only “self-interested” national policy making can respond to the issues facing all generations of Australians, we just have to get the balance right.

Final thoughts

Ultimately, achieving this comes from Australia unashamedly putting our own national interests and those of the Australian people first, so let’s have “charity begin at home”.

Importantly, in this era of renewed competition between autarchy and democracy, this is a conversation that needs to be had in the open with the Australian people, as ultimately, they will be called upon to help implement it, to consent to the direction, and to defend it should diplomacy fail.

Our economic resilience, capacity, and competitiveness will prove equally as critical to success in the new world power paradigm as that of the United States, the United Kingdom, or Europe, and we need to begin to recognise the opportunities presented before us.

Expanding and enhancing the opportunities available to Australians while building critical economic resilience, and as a result, deterrence to economic coercion, should be the core focus of the government because only when our economy is strong can we ensure that we can deter aggression towards the nation or our interests.

This also requires a greater degree of transparency and a culture of collaboration between the nation’s strategic policymakers, elected officials and the constituents they represent and serve – equally, this approach will need to entice the Australian public to once again invest in and believe in the future direction of the nation.

Additionally, Australia will need to have an honest conversation about how we view ourselves and what our own ambitions are. Is it reasonable for Australia to position itself as a “middle” or “regional” power in this rapidly evolving geopolitical environment? Equally, if we are going to brand ourselves as such, shouldn’t we aim for the top tier to ensure we get the best deal for ourselves and our future generations?

If we are going to emerge as a prosperous, secure, and free nation in the new era of great power competition, it is clear we will need break the shackles of short-termism and begin to think far more long term, to the benefit of current and future generations of Australians.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..