A bipartisan approach is needed, in politics and media, to solve the long-term problems, writes JOHN BRUMBY
'Dog days." "The Greek road." Massively higher debt and declining real incomes. Call it what you will, but make no mistake: short of a miracle, this is where Australia is headed, irrespective of who wins the   July 2 election.
When Donald Horne called Australia "The Lucky Country" in 1964 he wasn't being complimentary. He meant that we were coasting along on overseas demand for our agriculture and resources and neglecting to do the hard work of building a smart, resourceful and innovative nation. 
Today it's more true than ever that Australia has to make its own luck. The mining boom is over and the world economy is sluggish at best. The recent federal budget brought a number of issues into sharp relief: $67.7 billion in combined fiscal deficits by 2020, and net government debt up from $285 billion to $355 billion in that time.
To make matters worse, most commentators agree the key budget projections (on growth, inflation, commodity prices etc) are highly optimistic and unlikely to be achieved. This makes bigger deficits and higher debt more likely. How did it get to this? And why is it we seem prepared to burden our younger generation with unsustainable deficits and growing future indebtedness?
I don't believe our leaders are the problem. The real problem is our political system revolves around party votes, two divided houses of Parliament and short-term media and electoral cycles. It is unable to deal with the profound long-term problems we face, from mounting debt and unsustainable deficits to "wicked" policy problems such as terrorism and climate change.
There is no easy answer. But here are three suggestions for real, achievable systemic change.
The first is to create a political culture in which bipartisanship is a real option. The media have a role to play in this. Political points should go to the side willing to compromise. Election campaigns may be a horse race, but governing need not be.
Coverage should not only be about who's up or down, strong or weak, but also about how the sides are working together in the interests of the nation. We generally see this kind of bi-partisanship on the issue of national security; fiscal questions are no less important to the future wellbeing of the Australian people.
Another step would be for both sides to introduce more "free votes" in Parliament in an attempt to gain consensus around difficult, long-term issues. These should not be limited to the traditional "conscience" issues of abortion and sexuality.
In the absence of a new approach in our Parliament, the hard decisions we need to make will inevitably be bid down to the lowest common denominator - that is, to whoever delivers the numbers in the Senate.
Three examples of difficult, long-term issues are climate change, negative gearing and road pricing. I don't want to go over the tragic history of climate change policy post-2007, but the fact is that sound, stable, evidence-based long-term policy was destroyed by divisive political leadership and short-term political opportunism.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind a sensible (free) parliamentary vote around appropriate pricing and renewable energy arrangements would produce a clear consensus.
Ditto for negative gearing. The fact is a clear majority of the Parliament would support some action to limit it. The end result may not be Labor's policy; but it will almost certainly be more than half-way along the continuum between Labor's policy and simply doing nothing.
And then there is road pricing. Fuel excise raises around $17 billion per annum, but with lower oil prices and rapidly improving fuel economy, real revenues are in decline. Over time, as electric cars become ubiquitous, it will fall to near zero.
The policy solution is road user and time-of-day charging - but what government wanting to be re-elected is going to impose a $25 toll to enter the Melbourne or Sydney CBD, or whack a huge new charge on heavy vehicles? Again, the best way to a sensible, long-term solution will be through a genuine bipartisan agreement or free vote.
Finally, whoever wins the election should model themselves, at least in one respect, on Bob Hawke.
I was elected to the Federal Parliament as part of the first Hawke government in 1983, which meant that one of my first experiences of government was the National Economic Summit.
Prime minister Hawke brought together representatives from every part of the nation: trade unions, business, church and welfare groups, and many more. The goal was simple, and it was summed up in Bob Hawke's election slogan: "Reconciliation, Recovery, and Reconstruction."
We need a similar national conversation today: one with no predetermined outcome, with everything on the table. The results and policy prescriptions of such a summit could claim a strong mandate. Whichever side wins on   July 2, they should immediately commit themselves to pursuing in this way Hawke's "one great goal - to reunite this great community of ours".