Australia 2020 Summit – Links (End of Day 1)

When I got home this evening it was around 9AM AEST, so I was able to watch a live stream of the opening of the Australia 2020 Summit. A transcript of Rudd’s opening speech is here. It was at times both stumbling and inspiring; I can easily picture a number of the summit delegates writhing in their seats and thinking to themselves that the PM must be brave or stupid to try and pull this off.

I do agree that there are plenty of good reasons to be sceptical about the summit, but like Andrew Leigh, even so I can’t really help but be more interested in its positive possibilities. I don’t think this is really about the Rudd Government. I don’t believe that we have a an ideas culture in Australia anymore, and this summit is an artificial but realistic way of bringing ideas back into the public limelight of political debate again. Even if only fleetingly. I would not be surprised if this summit spawns a new annual event for Australia should it be successful in throwing a few worthwhile ideas out into the public domain – something already hinted at by Rudd. One thing Australia does not need less of is the focused discussion of ideas.

There are already quite a number of interesting reports out there from the summit, so I thought I would summarise some of them here. I have to say once again that it appears that the best coverage is coming from The Australian. Fairfax, lift your game.

Peter Martin: A nice look at how the discussions actually unfolded for the economics group at the summit.

‘2020 summit city-centric’ (ABC): Covers National Leader Warren Truss’ assertion that the summit was too city-centric. I had forgot that the Nationals had a leader, truth be told.

Danielle Cronin (Canberra Times): Some high-level notes on those who have declined to attend.

Philip Hudson (SMH): Has an overview piece on the summit, notes that discussions between delegates are continuing this evening in Canberra over dinner. Glyn Davis reportedly “excited” about the exchange of ideas.

Annabel Crabb (SMH): Focuses on the summit’s ephemera which is I think a bit unfortunate. Butchers’ paper, blocks of ice and what sounds suspiciously like airline grade food choices.

‘Prosperous and engaged’ AAP (The Age): The following quote from General Peter Cosgrove sounds strange coming from someone who was always close to John Howard with a defence background, but welcome:

“We believe that we should aim for a cultural step where we are the most open and the most diverse culture in the world.”

Alan Dupont sees the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorists as one of the key global security issues facing the nation. Also some interesting snippets from David Wright-Neville, Sharyn Burrow and Fiona McLeod.

Katharine Murphy (The Age): Takes a somewhat sceptical view of the summit, and wonders about its nebulous nature and how this ties in with Rudd’s current focus on “vision”. Does Rudd really have a vision? Looks like an interesting read.

David Marr (The Age): Takes an interesting look at how folks have in some cases tried to sell their own ideas to the delegates. Marr is “just going for a yak” though (not the mammalian sort one assumes).

Sid Marris (The Australian): Highlights an interesting idea regarding the adoption of a school by each of Australia’s Top 100 companies. Also some interesting ideas there from Ernesto Peralta (a “peace corp” of retired Australians) and Marion Baird calling for a paid maternity scheme to be introduced.

Paul Maley (The Australian): Covers Brendan Nelson’s reaction to the summit so far. The story seems to want to put words in Nelson’s mouth a bit; probably the defining quote from the Opposition Leader on it all is the following:

“It’s a bit of a schmozzle, but I think there’s some method in the madness.’’

Mike Steketee (The Australian): Covers NAB Chief Executive Ahmed Fahour’s idea for a special loan fund used to provide loans to those normally excluded from sources of finance. This one sounds like an idea that is going somewhere, particularly in the context of Australia’s indigenous communities.

‘Legalise all drugs’ AAP (The Australian): GP Wendell Rosevear had some guts throwing this one out there. Bound to be a magnet for populist criticism, but I think there might be something in the concept of introducing a new category of “illegality” for people with the misfortune to have become addicted to drugs.

Samantha Maiden and Christian Kerr (The Australian): Covers (unsurprisingly given that this is the Murdoch Press after all) Westpac Chief David Morgan’s call for the abolition of inefficient state taxes. Hard to disagree with this assessment:

Dr Morgan backed a major review of tax. “We are paying a very heavy cost for fragmented, unharmonised, duplicative inefficient arrangements between state and commonwealth governments,” he said.

Sian Powell (The Australian): Covers the Prime Minister’s big idea of a one-stop “parent and children” centre from the perspective of a suburban mother.

Stuart Rintoul (The Australian): Takes a look at indigenous issues, including former Federal ALP President Warren Mundine’s strenuous objection to the formation of a publicly funded aboriginal body to replace ATSIC. Brendan Nelson’s views on this were similarly scathing, although the formation of such a body does still remain ALP policy.

Patricia Karvelas (The Australian): Covers Tim Costello’s view that the government should act as a guarantor for struggling renters attempting to buy their own home. We really do need to end the new and destructive Australian divide between renters and owners.

Mike Steketee (The Australian): Steketee for one seems generally upbeat about the summit.

George Megalogenis (The Australian): On the other hand, we have George, who is perhaps the most brutually pessimistic of the mainstream columnists I have read, excepting of course the usual suspects.

8 thoughts on “Australia 2020 Summit – Links (End of Day 1)

  1. There’s certainly something to be said for Australia’s remarkable ability to effectively take the piss out of everything. :)

  2. Indeed.

    I think there will be always differences of opinions on most of the issues, often falling along the predictable ideological lines, but sometimes stratified based on income, background, geography, and so on. On the other hand, I am actually fairly confident that some degree of begrudging consensus can actually be reached on most of the big issues facing the nation. At the end of the day, if a policy makes sense and achieves its objectives, it makes sense, no matter what one’s personal politics might be.

  3. Thanks for putting this together. Looking forward to your day 2 roundup.

    Although when you say “fairly confident that some degree of begrudging consensus can actually be reached on most of the big issues facing the nation”, you’ll be disappointed when you read the final report. Big issues with major disagreement? (Clean coal – some say only hope, others say no hope. Genetically Modified Food – some enamoured, some hating).

    Most of the agreement involves “On X we need more data and more gabfests”

  4. On the 7’o clock news, the Rudd 2020 summit sounded more like a Howard nuclear inquiry as in the result was already known and a fact or ideas finding forum just confirms those preconceived ideas to give more creditability.

  5. Thanks Dave. I might look into a day 2 round-up, but I am already behind the eight ball know it seems. It’s sleep time over in London for me now. Haven’t had a chance yet to read up on the news from the second day of the summit, but from your comments it sounds a little disappointing.

    Matthew, that’s an interesting take. Again, I will have to go away and do some reading tomorrow London time to catch up on what has eventuated.

Comments are closed.