2020

31 Mar 2008

Who's Counting?

By Mark Bahnisch

The 2020 list has only 884 names on it, writes Mark Bahnisch. That means at least 116 usual suspects will be attending

On Friday, Professor Glyn Davis released the list of participants to take part in the Australia 2020 Summit on 19-20 April. Initial media reports highlighted some of the higher profile participants - Claudia Karvan, James Packer and Alisa Caplin were the names mentioned in the majority of stories posted at online news sites. The full list wasn't available until later that afternoon, prompting some negative comment in the blogosphere.

Over the weekend, most reports failed to note that the list didn't in fact contain 1000 names. Only 884 people were selected through the nomination process, with the remainder being a list that really is the "usual suspects" - state premiers, opposition leaders and other such worthies. Most discussion has focused on the merits or political allegiances of the delegates - the predictability of some of the selections being mirrored by predictable criticism from the usual contrarian suspects.

newmatilda.com can reveal that a number of the participants named didn't have to go through the nomination process or submit a 500 word screed on their ideas for Australia. Rather, some summiteers were tapped on the shoulder by the secretariat in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet after having been picked directly by the summit steering committee. This lack of transparency hasn't been publicly acknowledged, although some of the steering committee did (perhaps unwisely) allude to it early on.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such an approach, but the sleight of hand involved in concealing it is deeply worrying. It suggests that there are two tiers of participants - those whom the Government and the steering committee really think are the best and brightest, and those who took the thing seriously but are in effect relegated to the second tier.

The ad hoc nature of the summit's organisation is clear from other stories that have made it into the public domain. The initial controversy about the gender balance on the steering committee has left its scars and the claims about the representative nature of the participants have to be understood in this context. In case anyone missed it, the words "FEMALE" or "MALE" after the name of each summiteer on the list are intended to drive home that point, rather unsubtly. Glyn Davis said on Friday: "There's 51 per cent female, they come from every state and territory, they are from a whole range of professions, there are people here from electricians through to university professors and everything in between."

In fact, there are a lot more professors than electricians or "stay-at-home mums", and proportionately a lot more professors than the tiny percentage of the Australian population who delight in that title.

Here, again, the ambiguity at the heart of the process rears its head. The rhetoric of the summit has always veered unstably between the idea that those attending will be the wunderkinden of Australia - ideas gurus chosen on merit - and the notion that they will be representative of everyday Australia. We've been assured that it won't just be the "usual suspects" and various news organisations have been able to offer readers or listeners the chance to go. On the other hand, the Kennedy-esque phrase "best and brightest" has been chanted as a mantra at every available opportunity.

Comparisons with Bob Hawke's 1983 summit have hinted that this affair might be a similar corporatist love-in - designed to yank in various powerful interest groups to a political agenda. There do seem to be elements of that strategy evident in the selection of delegates. The captains of industry such as Heather Ridout and Don Argus, the media moguls and editors and the columnists such as Paul Kelly and Gerard Henderson have never had any difficulty getting government to listen to their ideas about the future direction of Australia, should they have any. Their attendance suggests a desire to make the tent as big as possible, and to co-opt rather than contribute.

Given all the opportunities for e-democracy and genuine inclusiveness that have been missed, there might be legitimate grounds for scepticism as to what will happen to the "ideas" of both the second tier summiteers and the rest of us mob who can submit ours via the summit's website. Some summiteers have, in praiseworthy fashion, opened up discussion on their blogs for anyone to have their say.

But the remaining unanswered question is the crucial one. Exactly how are the sessions to proceed? It's arguable that the smaller size of both the 100-strong Youth Summit and the 50-strong Jewish Summit give promise of producing more meaningful outcomes. Anyone with any experience of these talkfests knows that you don't get sensible outcomes from packing 100 people into a room, and that if you're going to break the larger cohort down into small working groups, you need a very tight agenda in order to achieve anything real.

Those who will have the real power to shape the outcomes of the 2020 summit will be those who are in charge of setting the agenda, and cherry-picking the submissions to support working papers which will shape discussion. It may well be the case that the communiqué could be written before anyone even lands in Canberra. We may yet be surprised by the outcome, but we shouldn't be surprised if the 2020 summit produces no surprises at all.

Discuss this article

To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register

Tom McLoughlin 31/03/08 3:05PM

As said on a previous string Mark, if it looks, smells, feels, like a vainglorious vehicle for Rudd’s domination of all discourse and inspiration, not to mention distraction from say tension with Japan say, or NSW raising price of water 13%, or selloff of $15B in PUBLIC assets, then it probably is just that.

Insiders yesterday had a hilarious quote from John Singleton and Gerry Harvey that ‘no they wouldn’t go if invited’ and that it was "bullsh*t" and "waste of time" said hanging out by comparison at the horse farm no less (by definition not a waste of time), to quote both in good humour direct to the camera. They knew it would run surely. Singo added a qualifer "its good bullsh*t" with a twinkle "like Hawkies". That’s allright then!

My off hand list of missed experts on sustainability group in a country that is polling 14% Green Party is:

Senator Christine Milne (Taswegian)
Peg Putt MP
Jill Redwood (feature in Women’s Weekly)
Dr Judith Adjani - though disagree with her on privatising NSW plantations.
Alexandra De Blass - environmental broadcaster
Dr Sharon Beder, engineer, educator
Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith (Phd law) senior adviser National toxics network
Kirsty Ruddock, senior solicitor EDO
Prof David Lindenmeyer (CRES)
Clive Hamilton (principal researcher RAC, TAI)
Senator Bob Brown
Prof Tony Norton (CRES)
Professor Andrew Cockburn (ANU)
David Holmgren/Bill Mollison, founder(s) of permaculture global movement
Scott Kinear organic farming expert
Dr Geoff Mosley AM - heritage pioneer, world heritage issues
Professor Tim Bonyhardy, environmental law academic, author
Brian Preston chief judge Land & Environment Court
Alec Marr, Director The Wilderness Society

revilo 31/03/08 8:55PM

"…But we should’nt be surprised if the 2020 summit produces no surprises at all…" a bit tautological but true.

The general rule when enlisting consultants is to advise them as to what findings you are looking for and then make sure that is what they indeed find.

Democracy won’t produce anything more than the sum of its inputs.
So the subset of our society that thinks this sort of gab fest is "bullsh&t" is correct in so far as democracy is bullsh&t.

Hawke’s summit heralded in and paved the way for all that economic rationalism we now have to deal with.

Floating the dollar, opening the floodgates to the world’s banks,etc

Fraser was right , we should have just put our money under the bed, it would probably been safer.

Ringo 31/03/08 9:36PM

I’d like to see the ages of the participants (next to the listed gender and state).

Which one is the electrician Glyn Davis is talking about? If it’s a Labor hack who was once a shop steward for the ETU, then I don’t think that counts.

Tom McLoughlin 01/04/08 7:36AM

Oh, and on sustainability, the inestimable Prof Jamie Kirkpatrick in Tas, who is so very very smart and so greatly independent of thought.

Also I think in that particular group there ought to have been a world class mountaineer like Tim McCartney Snape or Brigitte Muir or one of several actually because we are very strong as a country in this respect. Sports I hear you cry, but actually they are become cross cultural experts from all the travel and experience of montane environments which are melting first meaning dangerous climate change.

Lateral but still true, as per my report of great Blue Mountains Climbing festival report 2007 here:

http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog/1671145/australian…

Of similar comment would be some of our awesome Antarctic scientist types - can’t think of the name but we have some beauties.

Very lastly I read worthy Sam(antha?) Mostyn’s background on Trust of Australian Museum - 2003 - ex staffer of Paul Keating, and BA/Llb - say no more eh? (The ALP stodge factor? We shall see.)

Tom McLoughlin 01/04/08 8:22AM

Some more notable omissions from sustainability group:

Prof Stuart White - UTS - Institute of Sustainable Futures (!)
Prof Peter Newman - Director of the Institute for Sustainability and Technology, Murdoch Uni
Dr Mark Diesendorf - UNSW - Institute of Environmental Studies UNSW

Oh and you might notice absence of Jeff Angel which may be to do with the passover clash, or my determinedpublished analysis of collaboration with ALP Govt, not least on energy assets sale.