I’m a big believer in bold goals. I want my policy making to achieve as much as it possibly can because this is one of the ways we can build a better society.

Government policy making is a costly exercise. It’s costly because it calls on multiple agencies to change what they do. It’s costly because it often requires additional investment. It’s costly because each area gets its “moment in the sun” for only a short time, and then the focus moves on. And it’s costly because if it isn’t successful, it can create political disfavour.

I know that many people are scared off by even thinking about big goals. They’ve watched things go wrong before.

Let’s take the well-intentioned but ill-fated commitment by former Prime Minister Bob Hawke at an election campaign launch in June 1987:

“By 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty”.

What an amazingly bold goal. What a completely worthwhile goal. Is this not worth striving for?

What happened? Well, it is now history that the goal was not achieved. And it is legendary that Bob Hawke didn’t read what was written in his speech: that “By 1990, no child need live in poverty”.

Does that mean it was a failure? I don’t think so. I think that is exactly the right kind of goal that policy makers should work towards. It is a bold goal. It is one that asks what would a society look like where things were going the way we would all want them too. It doesn’t limit its ambition because it isn’t likely to be achieved. And the resultant suite of policies was the right kind to support this goal. They included:

  • Family allowance supplement
  • Rental assistance for tenants in the private market
  • Child disability allowance
  • Job creation
  • Reducing inflation
  • Housing: first home owners scheme
  • Childcare
  • Education: two thirds of school children staying to year 12, stable funding scheme for schools, skills training program, vocational training opportunities including apprenticeships and a youth training program for unemployed young people
  • Affordable healthcare: improving Medicare
  • Global competitiveness through new technology.

From the systemic (a robust and healthy society) through to the specific (additional income for people who were living in poverty, more jobs, education to help break cycles of disadvantage). Of course, we could argue about the things that were missing. Maybe funds for more social housing, mental health, parenting classes, more sophisticated preschool education for poorer children. We now know that we need stronger and resilient communities that can step in and support the less competent families. Even so, there really was a complete package there.

Maybe the goal was window dressing. Maybe it was coined by a speechwriter and didn’t actually inform the strategy underpinning policy development.

But let’s just assume for a minute that there were actually debates about this. Let’s imagine a group of people in a room asking what is the best they could do for children. Not having a need to live in poverty is a good “best” goal. I don’t know about you, but these are the kind of goals I want my governments working towards.

And you know what? According to ACOSS there was a substantial reduction in the number of children living in poverty in the 1980s and 1990s as a consequence of this commitment.

I’m going to confess that I started out writing a post about why it was important to think bold and then tailor your actions in a circumspect way. My basic premise is that good policy is formulated by bring two factors to the table: ambition and pragmatism. Ambition is the drive that propels us forward; pragmatism is the step that makes things happen. When I lead public policy masterclasses, this is one of the important points we discuss.

But when I picked up this oft-quoted “failure” and thought more deeply, I saw that sometimes being really bold makes the difference. Even if you end up being shot down by detractors. Even if you don’t make it all the way there. Boldness reminds us of what is worthwhile.

I would argue that this bold goal had a greater impact than would a more achievable goal—let’s say “we’ll try to get more money and education to poor households”. A useful effort, no doubt. Something that would make things better for people. But not inspiring, not coherent, not something that makes us believe in what is possible. Not something that will be a game changer.

And I believe that every time we water down our goals because “they are not achievable” we cut short an opportunity to bring about good. Even if we never publicly commit to bold goals for whatever reason, we have to dream big to make big improvements. Don’t move to the pragmatic position too soon.

There is, of course, another famous bold goal. A goal that is lauded by many for its boldness, its specificity. A goal that I remember university lecturers raising as one that really nailed goal setting. Let’s go back to May 1961. This one has John F Kennedy speaking to a special joint session of Congress:

…I believe, that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.

I can’t believe that commitment would have sounded possible at the time President Kennedy made it. And what was his logic?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

What happened? On 20 July 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. Impossible goal achieved.

Our society, our environment, our future. These all depend on doing things not because they are easy, or deliverable, or practical, but because they are hard and because we are unwilling to postpone that challenge. Let’s embrace the bold goal.