This article appeared in the Canadian progressive e-newsletter Rabble.ca:

Social movement campaigners rarely get the chance to write up their own history. But in a new internationally comparative book on labour-community coalitions — called Power in Coalition — the successful strategies of Canada’s Ontario Health Coalition (OHC) take centre stage. The OHC is one of three coalitions whose campaigns are documented as part of a grounded study of what makes community-based coalitions successful and what makes them fail.

It’s a good time to reflect on the power and possibilities of these coalitions given the current challenges faced by progressive politics in Canada. Weak leadership from centre-left party politics invite community-based movements to increasingly play a role in setting the agenda for public debate. Yet, social movements themselves have been struggling to build a progressive agenda beyond specific mobilizations and issue-based organizing.

The Ontario Health Coalition’s experience is instructive, given that it has sustained relationships between a diverse array of unions and community organizations over the past 16 years. Part of its success lies in its defense of Medicare — a Canadian national icon. But its longevity is equally attributable to its development of sophisticated movement-building strategies that allow it to span the province of Ontario.

The OHC’s most distinctive strategy is its ability to create a movement that is simultaneously local and provincial. It is what I call a multi-scaled coalition, where it has both a provincial steering committee supplemented by local town and city based coalition partners scattered across the province.

This multi-scaled structure is embedded in a generation of social movement campaigns that pre-dated the OHC. The health coalition learned from the Days of Action of the 1990s and its strategy of regional mobilization. The practice of building permanent town-based health groups began the late 1990s, when the Harris government’s privatization threats led to the opportunity of a province-wide study into the state of health care. As the study was conducted, wise organizers built local health coalitions while engaging regional communities in a conversation about the crisis in health care. This gave birth to a movement that could move an agenda in local towns as well as across the province.

Building local coalitions turned the challenge of Ontario’s expansive geography into a strength. Organizers realized that provincial political influence could not be organized in Toronto alone, so it built a structure to match the complexity of the province. These local coalitions in turn have spurned a variety of different tactics in the fight to defend public healthcare.

In response to the 2001 Romanow Royal Commission into Medicare, the OHC worked with local coalitions to coordinate a mass support campaign to Save Medicare. They translated the traditional techniques of electoral campaigning to an issue based campaign, and coordinated a canvas that went door-to-door across the province, organized by local activists town-by-town. A province-wide assembly of community leaders signed off on a strategy that was then implemented locally, where teams of union and community activists hatched plans to raise awareness through media stunts and coordinate door-knocking and petition signing in their neighborhoods.

By acting locally through a coordinated provide-wide campaign, the OHC was able to collect over 250,000 signatures in defense of Medicare. This public pressure, sustained over an eight-month campaign, was responsible for the Royal Commission’s positive embrace of Medicare, pushing back the pressure to privatize.

For the OHC, this robust coalition structure built a platform for tactical innovation. When public-private-partnerships began to loom large in late 2002 with the proposed P3 hospital in Brampton, the coalition could experiment with a different kind of multi-scaled campaigning. At first, the OHC was able to build a local movement in Brampton led by retired teachers, union activists and members of the Council of Canadians. This was then supplemented by provincial supporters who joined a large mobilization in the town. But the coalition could also zoom out and build awareness about P3s by holding events and activities in dozens of other towns.

Later in 2005 the OHC’s local coalitions provided opportunities for another creative strategy — plebiscites – community-initiated referenda. By then, the health coalition knew it was struggling to maintain momentum against public-private-partnerships while also being aware that most communities remained hostile to the idea of health care privatization. So, to capitalize on this conjuncture it developed a strategy where local health coalitions could run a community vote on whether their local hospital should stay in public hands or be subject to a public-private-partnership. The referenda provided an opportunity for mass awareness raising, participation and engagement in a campaign and hundreds of conversations about health care. But it was only possible because a hub of local activists in towns as diverse as Niagara-on-the-Lake, Thunder Bay and Hamilton could initiate and co-ordinate these popular votes.

Local health coalitions have been a critical plank to the power of this coalition, as they have created spaces to build and co-ordinate mass mobilization through local organization. Unlike rallies, which can have a transitory impact on public debate, the local coalitions have been an organizational anchor that have built different local campaigns while also being a space for training and developing community leaders who can strategize, plan and execute powerful social movement action.

While these local coalitions have set the OHC apart, in my research into coalition strategies across three countries, I have found them to be a strategy that can travel. In Australia, a public education coalition** similarly set up local public education lobbies of teachers, parents and school principles who organized locally in partnership with a centrally co-ordinated Inquiry into public education. The very successful 2005-2007 Your Rights at Work campaign in Australia learnt from the OHC’s experiences when it began to build local union committees in marginal electorates (ridings) to complement centrally coordinated rallies. Similarly, the 2008 Obama Presidential campaign harnessed the power of multi-scaled campaigning, where it gave networks of volunteers the freedom to determine how to build a get out the vote effort — in stark contrast to the traditional command and control strategies that have previously characterized U.S. electoral campaigning.

It takes a lot of reflection and innovation to sustain a coalition over 16 years and that is exactly what we have seen from the large team of committed staff, volunteers and organizational leaders across the Ontario Health Coalition. They have learned from their successes and their mistakes, and the book identifies some of the trials and tribulations encountered by a multi-scaled coalition.

Thanks to the OHC’s open-minded creativity, coalition organizers in Canada and across the world can learn from this coalition’s experimentation. Multi-scaled coalition organizing can inspire other coalitions to identify new possibilities for how they too can build mass participation in coalitions and reinvigorate our social movements so we can deliver on the promise of progressive politics to improve the lives of the majority.

As published in the SMH’s National Times

There are signs that the timidity of Federal politics may be turning with the announcement that both sides of politics will support a feasibility study into a bullet train for the Australian eastern seaboard.

While commonplace in Asia and Europe, this would be revolutionary here. It would reduce the number of planes in the sky and be a welcome antidote to commuter chaos. A bullet train could make the journey from Campbelltown to Sydney’s CBD 10 minutes, Tullamarine to Melbourne 5 mins or the central coast to Sydney 20 minutes.

But the chances of this idea happening are very slim if left to the politicians.

We can anticipate a significant negative reaction from the airline industry. The Melbourne-Sydney flight path is the third busiest in the world, and it won’t be given up without a fight. And, like in the 1980s, the project could get bogged down in debates about the route the train line takes.

The hope for the bullet train lies in the fact that it could be championed by a highly unusual coalition of organisations that all have an interest in better transport.

But, some important lessons about coalition building will need to be kept in mind if such an alliance is to be successful.Planning will be key. This is a very long-term project and will need to maintain popular and political support through multiple electoral cycles and probably a variety of different state and federal governments. Of critical importance will be the period before elections. That was the case for a community coalition in Brooklyn, New York in its successful campaign for a major piece of public infrastructure – the development of 3000 affordable homes. The coalition cultivated support from Democrat and Republican mayors over a 10-year period by timetabling escalating public pressure in advance of mayoral elections.

A multi-scaled coalition will be essential. This can’t be won just in the cities of Melbourne or Sydney. It will require national coordination but also the ability to actively involve residents in places like Campbelltown, the Central Coast, Canberra, outer Melbourne and other regions. Like the Ontario Health Coalition in Canada or the Your Rights at Work campaign in Australia, regional groups of local community activists could come together to build community support and maintain political pressure.

A Bullet Train Alliance would need to focus on handpicking organisational partners that shared a direct interest in this long term project. To broad or too open a coalition would likely fail. This was a lesson learnt early on by the Ontario Health Coalition in Canada, where a very larged network of organisations struggled to agree on specific policy reforms or on strategies to achieve them until they limited participation to a group of 16 interested and powerful organisations.

At the same time diversity will be essential – the issue of a bullet train has many different constituencies. Winning such a radical reform will require all these constituencies to be drawn in. Involving diverse groups was essential for Chicago’s 2003-7 living wage coalition. It cultivated new relationships with African American churches and labor unions as well as community organisations, because only with that diverse alignment of people and interests could the living wage ordinance be passed.

When it comes to a bullet train a diverse alliance based on mutual interests could include:

• Resident groups and Councils in South West Sydney, outer Melbourne and the Central Coast, for whom a fast train provides a way to take pressure of commuting times. As Julian Disney argues, residents in these areas spend 2-3 working days per week traveling at enormous costs to their families.

• Unions for whom a bullet train provides another way to deal with the issue of work-family balance and working hours. An eight hour day can’t be reinstated without dealing with how people get to and from work, especially as commuting times are getting worse. A recent survey found that the average daily commute in Sydney has increased from 79 minutes in 1999 to 81 minutes in 2007. In addition, building this train line would be a massive investment in jobs in a period of unstable employment.

• Urban planners and housing advocates who know that the commuting crisis in our metropolitan cities is a key strain on affordable housing. Adam Farrer from the NSW Housing Association has argued that land release is not enough – affordable housing strategies require transport solutions that make housing accessible to jobs. A bullet train could help by making the CBD more accessible to the suburban fringe.

• Environmental advocates who could champion a bullet train because it would actively reduce emissions caused by cars and airlines. Transport accounts for 13.5 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Of that the greatest emissions come from road transport and secondly airline transport.

• There are would also be key allies in the business community including those involved in civil construction and tourism

For those excited by the prospect of a bullet train the challenge is clear – we need to develop a diverse, long term community coalition if we want this idea to become a reality.

As published in ABC’s Drum Unleashed in Australia:

So now the Tobacco industry have decided to join the latest Australian trend – forming coalitions between organisations to win public support. This follows the painstaking construction of the Gillard-Green-Wilkie-Oakshot-Windsor coalition.

In Power in Coalition – a book released this month by Allen & Unwin – I examine what it takes to build powerful coalitions. But my focus is coalitions between civil society organizations like community organisations, unions and religious organisations rather than big Tobacco and political parties.

Regardless, many of the lessons I identify can help us understand these new political alignments.

The key finding is that not all coalitions are powerful and successful. Coalitions are not a magic bullet for political influence. There are ingredients and strategies that if present or absent are likely to lead to success or failure.

One lesson heralds a warning to the Gillard coalition – “less is more”. Coalitions with highly diverse partnerships are vulnerable to collapse because it makes it difficult to find consensus and agreement over time. I found that coalitions with a smaller number of partners tended to be able to sustain relationships more effectively than highly diverse coalitions that often had to rely on lowest-common denominator positions.

While less is more may worry the politicians, I think it actually provides opportunities for citizens. Precarious political alliances are likely to be a boon for community coalitions and social advocates. A little political instability may provide a welcome space for popular movements to build attention for important issues like climate change, congestion and transport or work/family balance.

Another lesson spells a welcome warning for the carcinogenic coalition. I found that to be successful, coalitions needed to work on issues that were both in the interests of the coalition organisations and wielded a sword of justice (or connection to the public interest). Without a public interest connection, coalitions struggled to influence public debate.

When it came to community coalitions, this weakness was apparent when they just said “no” – no to education cuts or no to privatization. Even though saying no demonstrated resistance, it struggled to effectively build momentum for an alternative vision for how to respond to social and economic challenges. In contrast, when a community coalition presented a new agenda – like reducing class sizes to improve public education – it was far more successful in winning its issue and building a supportive political climate for progressive social change.

When it comes to the Tobacco Alliance – shining a sword of justice is going to be tough. That is not for want of trying. They are spinning hard to project “neutral language”, after all their PR firm is called the Civic Group and the toxic alliance is called the Alliance for Australian Retailers. They do have an advantage over most people-centred community coalitions – the billions of dollars these corporations can funnel into a campaign. But their greatest vulnerability is their reactive message. Their argument is a “no” argument – “it just wont work so don’t do it.” It sounds like every other no coalition and will struggle to set an agenda when weighed against the health costs of smoking that are in the public interest.

It may be the year of the coalition. But for those passionate for progressive social change know that what is important is how coalitions between organisations are built and sustained. Genuine social change takes painstaking, people-centered, smart strategising and movement building, not just the penmanship of cynical spin.

Amanda Tattersall, author of Power in Coalition

Its difficult times for progressives in the United States with Tea Party reaction, state budget deficits, escalating foreclosures and unemployment. So it is an inspiring step to see a multitude of over 170 organizations coming together in the One Nation Working Together coalition to demand the change that was voted for in 2008. At the moment – this network’s immediate goal is a mass mobilization in Washington on October 2 2010 (known as “10-2-10”).

But like all coalitions between different community-based organizations, there is the question of if and how it can work to build change for the long haul –through the November elections, and for years and decades to come. If the history behind the Team Party movement teaches us anything – a sustained effort is needed to build a progressive movement for change.

In a new book, Power in Coalition, I identify a series of strategies for building strong coalitions. These lessons are built from the experiences of three long-term coalitions in the US, Canada and Australia, as well as my experience as a union and community organizer. These ideas may prove useful as this new progressive network begins to build up steam. I have pulled out four lessons that may guide how One Nation Working Together can build a sustained progressive coalition capable of social change.

1. Less is more – be explicit about who you want at the table cause big is not always better

Perhaps controversially, and certainly against much conventional wisdom, I found that smaller coalitions tend to be more powerful long term than larger ones.

A smaller number of organizations who share a greater commonality of values or interest in an issue, and have a higher degree of commitment to engage their membership and resources, and are better placed to work together for the long term than a very broad and diverse network that only has a lowest common denominator of common interests and commitment holding it together.

But coalitions have to be fit for purpose – and the purpose of One Nation Working Together is to coordinate the breadth of progressive voices to speak about an alternative vision for America that counters the current right wing drumbeat. It makes sense that its initial formation is broad based and that its first public demonstration is about expressing that diverse unity of purpose.

But, if it is to successfully help coordinate policy agendas nationally it may need to identify more complex ways of working than just having a seat for every group at the table. Collectively, broad issue priorities could be identified. But, cultivating strategy for specific policies like the Employee Free Choice Act, housing and foreclosures, financial regulation, withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, or clean jobs, is probably best done by parts of the whole. For instance, smaller coalitions of interested groups could work on specific issues in the name of One Nation Working Together, rather than this work being organized by the whole.

However, working out which issues get prioritized and worked on will also take some solid relationship building between the parties. Often coalitions get stuck when organizations focus first on their own narrow needs – such as around a particular issue – rather than recognizing how their long-term interests are met by building progressive power more broadly. Pursuing issues that have political opportunities or openings – such as around education reform – might prove the most potent for all progressives. Wins here may create momentum for other issues later on.

The grassroots collaborative in Chicago who waged the big-box living wage fight in 2005-6 provides us with a guide for how to make this work. It brought together a relatively small network of organizations – just 10 – but each had the ability to turn out their membership base. They also had a commitment to building solid relationships, and actually spent considerable time in breakfast meetings getting to know each other relationally before developing a common agenda.

When it came to working on issues, the foundation of strong relationships and trust allowed the coalition to let a power analysis and scrutiny of strategic opportunities drive its priorities, rather than just being directed by an organization’s concern for particular issues. So over time the coalition willingly moved from subjects like an amnesty for undocumented workers to state budget issues to living wages, not just because these issues were always rigidly the number one for each organization, but because they were the most strategically likely to be won at the time. There was a give and take – and a recognition that winning on one strategic issue, even if it wasn’t your issue, might make it easier to win on your issue in the future.

Indeed, a base of solid relationships is critical to sustaining long term coalitions ….

2. “Working Together” on building relationships as well as working on politics and the issues

One Nation Working Together is in a unique position to potentially cultivate stronger relationships across its diverse network at the same time as it works on the issues.

Every organizer I know is always “crazy busy” with the latest campaign or issue. But there is a difference between working hard and smart. We sometimes need to sharpen our sword – and build more resources and power in our networks – as well as working with what we have.

Building deeper relationships amongst people we work with, but don’t know well, is one way to sharpen that sword. Progressives spend a lot of time asking people to do things, or planning how to do stuff together, rather than really knowing why we are all doing this in the first place. But knowing why we do what we do – sharing the story behind our commitment – and lifting that up to be central in how we work together, can help stimulate our long term dedication as well as help us collectively focus on what is important (like being stronger together) rather than just promoting our own organization’s needs.

Key to this is coalition staff who can act as bridge builders. The staff employed both by the Canadian and Chicago coalitions actively built this relational culture. They helped organizations that had very distinctive ways of working to build an understanding across their differences. They negotiated tensions. They identified gaps in their networks and sought to build new relationships. In Chicago, staff helped cultivate a culture at meetings where it wasn’t all business talk – where time was intentionally spent getting to know each other better.

Relationship building can feel unproductive when the challenges and threats are so immediate. But relationship building is critical to building power. And strong relationships are a catalyst for creative policies, strategies and tactics.

Indeed, I found repeatedly that a base of strong relationships helped coalitions successfully pursue agenda setting policies …

3. Pursuing agenda setting demands rather than just saying no

When attacked by shrinking budgets, unemployment and reactionary racism, it is often easiest to mount campaigns that “say no”: no to war, no to racism, no to education cuts. These campaigns have their place in fighting the conservative slide.

But, as organizers we need to be conscious of the limits of “no” campaigns. These campaigns still dance on the terrain of the person we are saying no to. They rarely are able to set an agenda for the kind of economy or society that works for us.

One Nation Working Together has begun with this positive vision in mind. The spirit of coming together to campaign for the change that we voted seeks to be agenda setting. However, one of our challenges is that this “change” was never really defined – rather it was aspirational but not driven by specific policies. The coalition is seeking to take that energy and build a new economic and social vision, one where people and their needs are at the center, not just the interests of profit and practices of competition.

For future work, a disciplined commitment to positive, agenda setting issue-based campaigns will be critical. And, progressives have already shown a capacity to initiate new policies having won a new agenda on health care, and crafted new agendas around employee free choice.

The importance of positive campaigns is reinforced by the lessons in Power in Coalition. I found that coalitions that pursued new demands – like campaigns for reduced school class sizes for young children or living wages – were the most successful at shifting the political climate to be more supportive of progressive issues. In contrast, “no” campaigns were easily wedged by political leaders. For instance, in Canada, there were built-in limits to how a campaign against privatization could set a new direction for the health care system. In the media and public mind, there was a popular recognition that the health care system was in crisis and needed changing, and while the coalition was able to voice their opposition to negative reforms, they did not provide their own vision for the kind of reforms they would like. It made it difficult to sustain public support for their campaign, and allowed their opposition to get the upper hand.

4. Make the coalition work inside and outside of Washington DC

To build and move an agenda, successful coalitions frequently need to take action at multiple scales – across the nation, the state, the city and in our neighborhoods.

For example, in 2001-2 the Ontario Health Coalition built a multi-scaled coalition around health care – where a set of provincial organizations came together in Toronto, and then supported the building of dozens of local health care coalitions in regional cities like Kingston, Niagara and Thunder Bay. The health care movement was able to reach across the diverse geography of the province because activists, organizations and leaders located in different towns and cities anchored the coalition.

The coalition was most successful when local town and neighborhood coalitions had some autonomy to determine “how” they ran the campaign – and could structure activity based on their local idiosyncrasies and strengths. They were weaker when they were told what to do by leaders in Toronto. The coalition as a whole was at its best when the local groups had enough control to mix local campaigns, such as a campaign around a specific hospital privatization, with a broader provincial agenda around health care.

One Nation Working Together is working with different cities and states to mobilize for October 2. But beyond the October demonstration, how this coalition can build and sustain a national movement through local activity, and how local local-cum-national relationships are managed will be critical for the coalition to sustain its network and agenda.

One possibility is that the One Nation Working Together provides a broad umbrella narrative that is connected to local issue based campaigns and actions. This is like what happened with the 2005-7 Your Rights at Work campaign in Australia. This was an extraordinarily effective campaign built around industrial relations leading up to the 2007 Federal Election. In this campaign individual union contract or organizing campaigns were defined as being about “Your Rights at Work.” This fed bottom-up energy into a nationally consistent agenda because Your Rights at Work became tied to specific and meaningful local struggles, as well as a broader national political agenda. Of course, the national campaign still had key national demands and messages, but they became concrete when linked to specific local campaigns. Building a narrative within which local campaigns can operate helps to counter a risk, which is that One Nation Working Together could be reduced to just a slogan that does not have public policy content beyond an electoral strategy, rather than being used to build a consensus around common agendas.

Successful multi-scaled coalitions also provide space for local city and state based coalitions to feed-up strategies to the national scale. The Ontario Health Coalition managed this by providing the local groups with a seat at the table. The coalition’s Administrative Committee not only included province wide organizations but many of the most active local groups – so they could have their discrete needs and ideas voiced as part of the broader strategy.

Again, post-October, it could prove useful to provide a seat at the table for the network of state and city based One Nation Working Together groups to participate in developing the coalition’s national, and more local, strategies.

It is a very important period for progressive politics in America, and it is the time for different organizations at a local, state and national level to cultivate stronger relationships. As it was put Deepak Bhargava, Executive Director of the Center for Community Change, at one of One Nation Working Together’s early meetings, “Raise your hand if you can push your part of the agenda all by yourself.”

We need collaboration, but we need to collaborate powerfully. I hope some of these lessons may be helpful in thinking through how to sustain powerful coalitions and build a new progressive economic and social agenda.

Published on Tuesday 21 September in the West Australian:

The CEO of BHP has surprised us by signaling his support for a carbon tax and a future beyond coal powered electricity that leads, rather than follows, the rest of the world. Its bolder talk than what we have seen from either of the major political parties.

Mr Kloppers’ decision to play a role in the climate change debate demonstrates how the complexity of a hung parliament may provide more opportunities for leadership from outside of it ranks. It also opens the possibilities for how diverse coalitions on the issue of climate change could take Australia to a more climate friendly future.

To date, on the whole, the community-coalitions on climate change have been fairly ineffective. Most formed in reaction to the national political debate around the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – and their purpose was either to support or oppose that policy.

But coalitions are far more likely to achieve social change and influence political debate if they lead a new policy agenda. There are two reasons for this. Focusing on new policies allows organisations to come together to advocate for policies based on their  own needs and self-interest, while also suggesting policy changes that serve the public interest.

When it comes to successful coalitions, self-interest is key. After all, Mr Kloppers is not talking about a carbon tax because he is a nice person. He is advocating for it because he recognizes that sooner or later a price on carbon is inevitable, and that his business would be better able to predict, respond and plan for it if his company is part of leading the change rather than reacting.

His decision to engage with climate change policy throws down a challenge to organisations worried about climate change. His proposal, while very constructive, also has its limits. For instance, he doesn’t support the tax revenue being used to fund new technologies for renewable energy and he opposes an Emissions Trading Scheme. On the other hand, his participation in the climate change debate is powerful – Julia Gillard has already signaled that she might consider a Carbon Tax as part of a climate change policy mix.

Some in the climate change movement have played an unconstructive role in the climate change debate so far. Arguments that we needed a 20% cuts in emissions in Australia, no matter how right they might be, proved powerless to the rise of climate skepticism that Tony Abbott cultivated at the beginning of this year.

Now there is an opportunity for some practical coalitions around a carbon tax. To be successful this will require some open-mindedness on all sides. It wont be about forming a coalition where everyone agrees with everything – but rather creating a coalition based on some core policies – like the importance of a carbon tax.

But, to achieve policy change the coalition will need to be diverse. While BHP has shifted interest in the Labor Government, other constituencies like unions will also be influential. Similarly, the Greens and independents will also need to support this policy for it to pass. For them, the voices of the environmental movement will be crucial too. An unusual business-union-community alliance could help lead this debate – but it will need to follow some of the lessons about what it takes to build powerful coalitions.

Amanda Tattersall book Power in Coalition was launched in Perth last night.

See the article in the National Times on 1 September 2010 (Sydney Morning Herald Website).

The news that a group of independents that will decide the government highlights new political opportunities for the power of community-based coalitions of community organisations, religious organisations and unions.

Observers of social movements, such as Sidney Tarrow in Power in Movement, have argued since the 1990s that political opportunities – or ”cleavages in the political decision making of elites” – provide space for popular voices to shine. And, in doing so, these opportunities can inspire the development of expanded social action because these political spaces give social movement activists hope that change is possible.

Australia now has a political cleavage of this kind. A hung parliament will be very different from politics as usual where new policies are debated and endorsed in a closed process of cabinet and caucus. When one party has the power, they can ”talk of consultation” but there is often little pressure to genuinely consult other parties, let alone the community, on policies before they are announced.

If the independents are prepared to vet policies, and potentially challenge the policies of government then their role may provide an opportunity to open up policy debate to the wider community.

In Power in Coalition, I argue that political opportunities are a critical ingredient in the success of community-based coalitions. Coalition campaigns that are planned and run conscious of electoral timetables and legislative timetables, and that are timetabled to escalate at critical decision making times, tend to have greater success at achieving social change.

This means that we may see more, and more successful, community-based social action over the next term of government.

However, political opportunities are just a chance for influence, not a guarantee of social impact. These opportunities need to be harnessed by community-based movements, where clever, well-planned, well-built social action develops carefully, and strategically builds public and political support.

For instance, the book’s case study of the public education coalition and the Vinson Inquiry into Public Education was a good example of this. An 18-month inquiry that built slowly in the community through public hearings in schools around New South Wales, then releasing three major reports on its findings in the nine months before the 2003 state election. Then at six months out from the election, the public education alliance identified and discerned six key united demands to pursue during the election period. These demands were new policy ideas that had come from the community through the public hearings. This strategy of broad public awareness then targeted social action produced major policy reforms – including a $250 million policy for reducing the class sizes of young school children.

The hung parliament throws down the gauntlet to all those organisations and individuals who have a vision for a better Australia. It’s not just about speaking your mind, but it is time to get organised and build a powerful broad based community voice. No politician, however ”independent” can substitute for community-led solutions to challenges such as housing costs, gridlocked transport, work-family balance or community tension over cultural difference.

The ball is now in our court as to whether we can turn the opportunity of a hung parliament into social change.

Amanda Tattersall is the author of Power in Coalition and honorary associate in Work and Organisational Studies at the University of Sydney.