And Australia voted against that. Admittedly, better Labor than Liberal, but to have a decent chance of making real headway in improving our long term (especially) well being, we needed MORE Greens (and independents) to force the government to look out for our interests. Now they will just rest on their laurels and continue with business as usual with a few tweaks here and there.
Thank you Conor for your comment. It gives me a good opportunity to post some facts and expand awareness of Australia Together.
Correction #1: I did not (and would not) “claim to be making an apolitical analysis”. But if you are merely objecting to the use of the phrase “in apolitical terms” in reference to the sort of language used in the Vision for Australia Together, I note your view.
Correction #2: The full platforms of Labor, Liberals and the Greens, as published by them up to 23 March 2025 were incorporated into the report. As such, the “foundations” of the report couldn’t fairly be called “shallow”. They couldn’t get more comprehensive.
Correction #3: The “first point” in the Vision for Australia Together is not “reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”. The first line is “We are all safe.” That includes you. It doesn’t exclude you or anyone else. And for the record, the fact that the Voice referendum failed does not mean Australians don’t want reconciliation. The referendum was not about that. You could listen to Episode 51 of the Australia Together Podcast, starting at 31 minutes if you want a more detailed response on that point – https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/episode-51-talking-about-a-vision-for-a-better/id1691025007?i=1000671004227
Correction #4: Your statement that “All the other nice points [I'm assuming you mean the remaining 16 elements of the Vision for Australia Together] stand in marked contrast to distinctly less nice viewpoints many articulate,” presents a very sour view of the values of Australians that requires a correction. An evidence-based correction can be found in this ACFP question and answer sheet: “Does the Vision for Australia Together reflect what Australians have said they value and want?” accessible at https://austcfp.com.au/supporting-activities#australian-values. From the sound of it, these “nice” values might not be to your taste but that does not amount to evidence that Australians by and large don’t prefer them. Should you wish to supply evidence of an abiding preference for nastiness and exclusion among the majority of Australians please send a link.
Correction #5: Your statement that “Notably in your points is a total lack of interest in economic change and wealth distribution - and how that might happen, rather than wave an apolitical wand - nor any sense of the global challenges ahead,” also requires correction. If you actually read the report you might realise it examines the published economic policies in each of the parties’ platforms in as much detail as had been supplied by the parties themselves up to 23 March 2025. It also examines whether those policies would lead to a better future. Liberal and Labor Party policies, on balance, will not. ACFP does not accept responsibility for the poor policy choices of any of the parties. That is their own fault.
For your information: Far from having as you call it “a total lack of interest in economic change and wealth distribution,” ACFP has published extensively on this topic. See Chapter 7 of Australia Together at this address: https://www.austcfp.com.au/australia-together. We have also reported on performance and effects of the prevailing economic policies of Australian governments in the 21st century in The State of Australia 2025. Find that report at: https://www.austcfp.com.au/state-of-australia. It demonstrates clearly that the “economic depth” we have been treated to by a succession of Liberal/National and Labor governments has not done us much good. On the contrary!
Correction #6: I do not think my analysis is apolitical. I acknowledge I'm as subject to neither more nor less bias than the next thoughtful person (see page 14 of the report regarding the potential for bias). However, at ACFP we are trying to help Australians rise above politics – otherwise they will not be able to build a better future. That is why we have developed National Integrated Planning & Reporting. You can find out about this process at https://www.austcfp.com.au/national-integrated-planning-and-reporting
Finally, your remarks might imply that you would have preferred we use a different yardstick than the draft Vision for Australia Together to assess the parties because, as you put it, the Vision with its “strong focus on individuals and social issues and little economic depth [sic] naturally makes the Greens look the best fit.” Any Australian is at liberty to design a different yardstick. But unless they were to design one that rejected all the elements of the draft Vision, they wouldn’t be able to come up with a report that gives a better score to Labor and the Liberals. A useful exercise if you wish to persuade Australians to discard Greens policies would be to redraft the Vision in reverse. But if you did that, I’d hazard that you wouldn’t find many Australians who wanted to live in that sort of country.
Of course, there is a "diversity of assumptions" (I suppose you mean opinions) across the political spectrum. I never said there wasn't. But ACFP's research shows that when it comes to the future we basically all want the same things - safety, security and wellbeing - and that goes for people who vote Green or Liberal, people who are indigenous, young, old, etc., unless you want to tell me there's a whole raft or Australians out there who don't want to be safe, secure and healthy - in which case I'd readily admit that ACFP's work won't help them. Nor would we bother trying to build a plan to make an unsafe, insecure, and unhealthy future a reality for them or anyone else.
In any case, regardless of what you or I or Palmer and One Nation party voters might want as individuals - even if it isn't safety, security and wellbeing - the report does nothing more than use a reasonable yardstick for assessing whether the policies of the parties will work for each of us in the long run. It doesn't assume everybody is the same. On the contrary, it celebrates diversity; and knowing that everyone is different, it leaves them all equally free to decide for themselves using a pretty simple yardstick. If the Vision for Australia Together describes the sort of life you want and the country you want to live in, then the report will help you decide which parties are likely and unlikely to help you live that life. Conversely if you don't want that life, then the report will help you decide who not to vote for. Take your pick. But don't shoot the messenger just because the results shed light on the probable future we might end up with depending on our policy choices.
And Australia voted against that. Admittedly, better Labor than Liberal, but to have a decent chance of making real headway in improving our long term (especially) well being, we needed MORE Greens (and independents) to force the government to look out for our interests. Now they will just rest on their laurels and continue with business as usual with a few tweaks here and there.
Thank you Conor for your comment. It gives me a good opportunity to post some facts and expand awareness of Australia Together.
Correction #1: I did not (and would not) “claim to be making an apolitical analysis”. But if you are merely objecting to the use of the phrase “in apolitical terms” in reference to the sort of language used in the Vision for Australia Together, I note your view.
Correction #2: The full platforms of Labor, Liberals and the Greens, as published by them up to 23 March 2025 were incorporated into the report. As such, the “foundations” of the report couldn’t fairly be called “shallow”. They couldn’t get more comprehensive.
Correction #3: The “first point” in the Vision for Australia Together is not “reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”. The first line is “We are all safe.” That includes you. It doesn’t exclude you or anyone else. And for the record, the fact that the Voice referendum failed does not mean Australians don’t want reconciliation. The referendum was not about that. You could listen to Episode 51 of the Australia Together Podcast, starting at 31 minutes if you want a more detailed response on that point – https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/episode-51-talking-about-a-vision-for-a-better/id1691025007?i=1000671004227
Correction #4: Your statement that “All the other nice points [I'm assuming you mean the remaining 16 elements of the Vision for Australia Together] stand in marked contrast to distinctly less nice viewpoints many articulate,” presents a very sour view of the values of Australians that requires a correction. An evidence-based correction can be found in this ACFP question and answer sheet: “Does the Vision for Australia Together reflect what Australians have said they value and want?” accessible at https://austcfp.com.au/supporting-activities#australian-values. From the sound of it, these “nice” values might not be to your taste but that does not amount to evidence that Australians by and large don’t prefer them. Should you wish to supply evidence of an abiding preference for nastiness and exclusion among the majority of Australians please send a link.
Correction #5: Your statement that “Notably in your points is a total lack of interest in economic change and wealth distribution - and how that might happen, rather than wave an apolitical wand - nor any sense of the global challenges ahead,” also requires correction. If you actually read the report you might realise it examines the published economic policies in each of the parties’ platforms in as much detail as had been supplied by the parties themselves up to 23 March 2025. It also examines whether those policies would lead to a better future. Liberal and Labor Party policies, on balance, will not. ACFP does not accept responsibility for the poor policy choices of any of the parties. That is their own fault.
For your information: Far from having as you call it “a total lack of interest in economic change and wealth distribution,” ACFP has published extensively on this topic. See Chapter 7 of Australia Together at this address: https://www.austcfp.com.au/australia-together. We have also reported on performance and effects of the prevailing economic policies of Australian governments in the 21st century in The State of Australia 2025. Find that report at: https://www.austcfp.com.au/state-of-australia. It demonstrates clearly that the “economic depth” we have been treated to by a succession of Liberal/National and Labor governments has not done us much good. On the contrary!
Correction #6: I do not think my analysis is apolitical. I acknowledge I'm as subject to neither more nor less bias than the next thoughtful person (see page 14 of the report regarding the potential for bias). However, at ACFP we are trying to help Australians rise above politics – otherwise they will not be able to build a better future. That is why we have developed National Integrated Planning & Reporting. You can find out about this process at https://www.austcfp.com.au/national-integrated-planning-and-reporting
Finally, your remarks might imply that you would have preferred we use a different yardstick than the draft Vision for Australia Together to assess the parties because, as you put it, the Vision with its “strong focus on individuals and social issues and little economic depth [sic] naturally makes the Greens look the best fit.” Any Australian is at liberty to design a different yardstick. But unless they were to design one that rejected all the elements of the draft Vision, they wouldn’t be able to come up with a report that gives a better score to Labor and the Liberals. A useful exercise if you wish to persuade Australians to discard Greens policies would be to redraft the Vision in reverse. But if you did that, I’d hazard that you wouldn’t find many Australians who wanted to live in that sort of country.
Of course, there is a "diversity of assumptions" (I suppose you mean opinions) across the political spectrum. I never said there wasn't. But ACFP's research shows that when it comes to the future we basically all want the same things - safety, security and wellbeing - and that goes for people who vote Green or Liberal, people who are indigenous, young, old, etc., unless you want to tell me there's a whole raft or Australians out there who don't want to be safe, secure and healthy - in which case I'd readily admit that ACFP's work won't help them. Nor would we bother trying to build a plan to make an unsafe, insecure, and unhealthy future a reality for them or anyone else.
In any case, regardless of what you or I or Palmer and One Nation party voters might want as individuals - even if it isn't safety, security and wellbeing - the report does nothing more than use a reasonable yardstick for assessing whether the policies of the parties will work for each of us in the long run. It doesn't assume everybody is the same. On the contrary, it celebrates diversity; and knowing that everyone is different, it leaves them all equally free to decide for themselves using a pretty simple yardstick. If the Vision for Australia Together describes the sort of life you want and the country you want to live in, then the report will help you decide which parties are likely and unlikely to help you live that life. Conversely if you don't want that life, then the report will help you decide who not to vote for. Take your pick. But don't shoot the messenger just because the results shed light on the probable future we might end up with depending on our policy choices.