Peter Martin has posted the “starter questions” for discussion and the working papers which will guide the work of the Australia 2020 Summit at his blog.
Yep, there are about 1000 questions apparently.
And here’s a question - will Brendan Nelson be able to resist the obvious?
Some of the papers are notable for what they omit. The discussion paper on Australia’s economy includes no mention of taxation. And Japan, the world’s third biggest economy and Australia’s biggest customer, has been left off of the graph showing the evolution of the global economic landscape. The US, China and the UK are on it, just as they are on the Prime Minister’s present overseas tour…
Professor Glyn said ““We hope they will trigger a conversation”.
When I hear the phrase “national conversation” I reach for my trigger.
Yeah, cos all we’ve had for the last umpteen years is a deafening silence throughout the land.
I read the paper about ‘Creative Australia’. It seems so weak and anodyne and has so many assumptions built into it, a first year media studies studnet could probably pull it apart.
The questions at the end of the future or RARA are excellent but the last 4 are all focused on the same area ie farming will have to respond to climate change in ways which preserve farm income and promote careful and planned land use.
The lessons learnt for Landcare programs( one of the questions ) are evidence that ‘all farm’ planning will be necessary and farmers will have to learn to be carbon farmers in all their management decisions.
Hopefully this trend in agricultural production will then invigorate the local economies and the flow on will be funds to sustain the regional centres and their infrastructure needs. With the improvement in regional services and more specifically farm income they are then hoping , I guess , that some people will continue farming.
As a basis from which discussion starts I think this use of a set of questions on closely related subjects will minimise discursive discussions and keep the group’s
considerations moving cohesively.
The unchallenged assumption in these questions , which is a good one , is that climate change is the fundamantal problem for the future for farming.
I seem to be hearing a lot of negativism about the 2020 summit which to my mind are based on a misunderstanding of its role. It’s just a brain-storming session - you put some smart people from different backgrounds in a room, give ‘em a problem and see what ideas they can generate. The group doesn’t have to have the ‘right people’ or be representative and it doesn’t have to decide anything. Nor should it be judged on whether all the important questions have been asked. If it comes up with some useful ideas to help solve some important problems then it will have served its purpose.
Jenny [5]:
I really would love to agree with you. I really would.
Unfortunately, I - along with many many others - have had just too much experience of all the stunts and cons and tantrums and gushing “concern” by the same bunch of losers who have striven so hard to prevent Australia becoming a great and prosperous country. Oh no! Here we go again!
Its NOT negativism - NOR is it misunderstanding; it’s just long hard experience.
The basic concept of such a Summit is wonderful - as I have said so often before. Pity about its implementation.
What changes to the implementation would you make, Graham Bell?
Random extract from Peter Martin’s summary of the ‘Governance’ paper:
“It asks whether we need an Australian head of state, whether the structure of federalism is the right one, and whether the parliament needs fixed terms.”
WTF is ‘new’ about any of that? Great goddlemighty people have been arguing about those questions since forever. What purpose is going to be served by sticking 100 people in a room for two days to continue the argument?
Especially when the argument will occur within the tight boundaries of perceptive questions like:
“Is there a need for constitutional reform?”
Yeah I know, someone will come up with a wonderful new idea that nobody ever thought of before and there’ll be a collective intake of breath followed by spontaneous applause and then they’ll all have to duck to avoid the flying pigs.
Question from the ‘Australia’s future in the region and the world’ paper:
“How should Australia maximise its cooperation with its long-standing ally the United States?”
Gosh, plenty of room for innovation in foreign policy there.
The potential benefit to having these questions raised at a formalised summit is that it can give electoral credibility to any subsequent proposal. It avoids the stigma of a proposal being attached to a particular group or being perceived as coming out of left field.
It’s a process - this summit - to furthering the legitimacy and standing of a proposal.
Characterising the summit as a place where completely new ideas are the main goal is missing the point.
It’s clever politics to genuinely seek input but just as importantly coopt as many influential voices as possible into taking ownership for future implementation.
I love this bit:
“The Summit will have the following objectives:
* …
* …
* To provide a forum for free and open public debate in which there are no predetermined right or wrong answers
* …
* …”
Refer to the question regarding our alliance with the US (#9) … seems to be a pretty well predetermined right answer there.
I am, on the whole, with Jenny and wbb and find most of the blogospheric knee-jerk 2020 trashing quite suss, but I must say I find those Creative Australia questions very sinister. The cacophony of begged questions alone is enough to get my philistine detectors bleeping and trilling in overdrive.
Exactly PC. I’ve very sussed about its obvious bias against ‘fragmentation in funding’. Why is that a bad thing? Is that a key issue? Very strange. It also seems to accept the ABC and SBS as unproblematically very good things. Yet, there’s so many problems with them and it’s not just a question of ‘more funding’. And that’s just a couple of points form a film and tv perspective.
Hi Pavlov’s Cat: I’m confused, didn’t nice Dr Pavlov set you up with little electric bells, so that when….. or did he only do that to the doggies, while you were allowed to purr and rub against his legs while he [tortured] observed the dogs?
Point taken about knee-jerk reactions, but isn’t that what blogs are all about?
But if critics have been flailing knees hitherto, at what point are we permitted to criticise?
a) when guest lists were published?
b) when the questions were released?
c) when we’ve carefully considered the background papers?
d) when the “results” are announced?
e) when the Govt starts justifying some move by saying it “arose from the Summit”?
f) when Senate Estimates Committee finds out how much it cost?
g) when Summiteers start subsequent self-praise?
wbb wrote: “It’s clever politics to genuinely seek input but just as importantly coopt as many influential voices as possible into taking ownership for future implementation.”
I doubt this’ll happen. They’re not “locked in” to decisions/recommendations are they? It’s not like a Labor Caucus or a Federal Ministry decision is it?? I’d hope they value their free speech: otherwise they may be the brightest but they’re not “the best”.
Free Speech Rules, OK?
As someone who’s been doing a lot of the criticising, I don’t think I’ve been engaged in “knee-jerk 2020 trashing”. If the dichotomy is cynicism v. patient expectation, then I think there’s a very important middle term that’s been erased - constructive and democratic engagement.
Just on the Creative Australia thing, as Ben and others inferred from the list of participants in that stream, the links with creativity and innovation appear to be missing, and the agenda seems strikingly similar to that of the lobby group who’re campaigning for a higher profile for “the arts” - understood in a fairly circumscribed way. I think that’s a big pity.
(Though I shouldn’t be understood as anything other than supportive of teh yartz!)
No, I don’t think you have either, but a lot of people have, here and elsewhere. At LP it’s been pretty much confined to the comments threads, and I won’t name names, partly because it’s a cumulative effect over time and blogspace (’Oh God not another one’), and partly because I am a wuss.
Ambigulous, by the same token, it’s not a matter of being ‘permitted’ or ‘not permitted’ to criticise; it’s that dozens of bloggers all over the place have piled on, in the way that we/they so often do, even when we/they palpably have no real information about whatever it is we/they are trashing. (NB re Pavlov, the point here is that cats do not come when the bell rings, unless they happen to feel like it. I didn’t realise when I came up with my blogname that (1) comedian Eddie Izzard, (2) a rather good English fok-rock band, and (3) a producer of kitty products had all been there before me. Eddie Izzard: “Day Four: Cat rings bell, I eat food.”)
Mark, I agree with you that there is a Third Way
— I just haven’t seen much of it yet, you and one or two other people excepted. Margaret Simons in today’s Crikey also does a not-at-all-bad job of moderate but sharp-eyed engagement.
Mark, I’m not sure in what way think the links between creativity and innovation are missing? Though, I would heve interested in seeing a few scientists invited, because they tend to be creative thinkers in a differnt way than artists and I think some really fascinating links could have occured. Or is that really batshit crazy?
Sorry for the misspelling - …. the future OF rural and Regional Aust (RARA).
No.
Yikes, Dr Cat, I may have to change my position if I’m a closet Third Wayer!
I went looking to see if Margaret Simons’ article today was on the free website for Crikey so I could link, but it’s not. But I agree with her too.
Fine - I have a class in 30 mins so unfortunately don’t really have time to answer at length. But the thinking in cultural policy over the last decade or so has increasingly been about breaking down barriers between “the arts” and the broader culture, a wider understanding of the latter, and creativity as a unifying theme. It’s a big debate, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Ben comes back to say something about it since it’s one of the things he’s working on, but it may as well have never happened as far as the agenda for the “Creative Australia” session is concerned it appears on the basis of a quick inspection. I should emphasise that I’ve got a really busy day today and thus haven’t had time to read the “working paper” so that should all be read as a snap judgement - but I’d be surprised if it’s not broadly right given what Peter posted.
Also, re 16, one of the reasons LP has tried to provide links and annotations of the participants is precisely to stimulate an informed debate.
And we greatly appreciate those links and wonder why the government couldn’t have done it.
Far from knee-jerk trashing, I’ve asked a few times if anyone can refer me to a theory of change management which suggests this exercise will be effective. Nobody has obliged. In the absence of such a justification I fail to see why anybody would support it, unless they are acting on a simplistic ‘gosh that sounds like a good idea’ level which I don’t regard as a serious basis for government action.
Bored now.
Thanks Pavlov’s, esp the Eddie Izzard joke.
Mark, I’ve learnt more about 2020 here than from the daily papers. Thanks.
The Margaret Simons piece mentioned at #16 and #20 has come out from behind the wall here.
Wbb [7 - way back on Friday]:
Sorry about my delay in responding.
Okay. Try three for a start.
[a]. Encourage people on the OTHER side of the Digital Divide to attend. I’m very lucky, I’m on this side of that social divide [only just - with 2kb/week dial-up and a 5-valve computer] - but what about everyone else? Does not being able to have internet access automatically relegate one to second-class citizenship and brand one as being too stupid to have a practical, revenue-saving original idea? [And thank you to all those people who will suggest community access internet at public libraries - you are cordially invited to visit the OTHER rural Australia at your convenience].
[b]. We might be right in the midst of a Menzies-style Austerity Campaign with razor-gangsters being spinned as the great saviors of our nation’s revenue …. but failing to offer the basic bus/train fare to Canberra, a bunk in a dormitory and a couple of free pies to all participants at the Summit was a very serious blunder. The crystal-clear message that petty meanness sent to the electorate will bite Rudd and his party in some unexpected ways.
“Saving revenue”? Yeah, right. I can just see Professor This and C.E.O.That queuing up to beat some granny or labourer at getting first pick of the stretchers [= folding camp beds] and the steak-&-kidney pies - and thereby sending the Commonwealth Government broke.
[c] Local Summits sounded like a good idea - pity they were limited to relatively few electorates …. and again, how do the participants get there? By a local A.L.P. branch car-pool perhaps?
[a]. Encourage people on the OTHER side of the Digital Divide to attend.
Was the summit not advertised in the print media?
[b] ..failing to offer the basic bus/train fare to Canberra, a bunk in a dormitory and a couple of free pies to all participants at the Summit was a very serious blunder ..
I reckon they could put all these people up too - but the popular outcry about junkets etc would have been deafening. Especially as most participants inevitable can afford to pay for a couple of nights accomodation themselves. And anyway, I imagine it possible that some delegates will be paid for by their respective NGOs etc.
[c] - Seriously, if someone can’t get to a local summit under their own steam - then I doubt they are in a position to be able to contribute at a meaningful level.
Look, I’m the type of person who can’t get out of bed with a clear head before 9:00 on a workday. I am very aware that there are two types of people in the world. Clearly the summit is pitched at the other type. Sensible, really.
Wbb[27]:
[a]. Not in the weekly district paper - too unimportant to be noticed by Canberra; a few local proprerty owners might buy the metropolitan papers. There was plenty of mention of the Summit on radio but details were vague and sparse. The overall impression [though an erroneous impression] was that participants would be appointed, not asked to apply to attend.
I was aware of the Summit because I do have regular access to the internet [3rd world standard here]. I chose not to apply because, as a pensioner, I could not afford such an expensive trip, no matter how worthwhile the occasion.
[b]. No, it was because there were so many outrageously expensive junkets in the past that the failure to offer basic transport and accommodation for this important Summit looked so stingy and exclusive. Which NGO? the local cricket club or the school p&c?
By the way, apparently 2 lunches and 1 breakfast will be provided …. so ignore my remark about squabbling over meat-pies.
[c]. A Local Summit would have been nice …. but there is not one in the region, let alone one in this electorate. [Even though that would have meant a five-hour round trip by car over imperfect roads - there has not been any public transport here for years].
So …. making a meaningful contribution is dependent on having money, is it? Of course, of course …. that’s why the whole world calls Australia “The Clever Country” and calls Queensland “The Smart State”, isn’t it?
L=O=L!!
I am not surprised you couldn’t even consider getting to the summit after reading all that Graham! It’s another country isn’t it? Anyway you are here at LP - and I am very glad about that.
(What’s the postcode out there?)
Wbb:
Postcode? Out at the edge 4702. Why - are you considering my job application? [I’m lucky it’s not 2770 or 4114 or my job application would never get read at all]
Disappointed the new federal member couldn’t hold a rolling Local Summit in various parts of the far-flung electorate.
Now, if the Rural Dukedom Of Central Queensland tried to secede from the Commonwealth Of Australia, would that get us a Local Summit? [Always worth a try, I suppose].