2020 delivers as expected
The Age has lengthy coverage of the outcomes of the 2020 summit.
The initial report is online now for the truly curious.
Oooh a republic! Gosh why didn’t Kevin think of that! And removing the ability of States to make different laws based on the differing priorities of their own people, well that’s an anachronism, lucky we’ve got a high powered non-political panel endorsing demolishing that.
John Howard’s greatest legacy will probably be the way he debased federation and sent it out to walk the streets. It does need fixing. Codifying the transition of power to the center is, however, not progress. One supposes life will be easier for 2020 delegates when they can just bribe one set of crooked time servers in Canberra rather than having to stitch up support in the States as well.
From the Age’s report the 10 “biggest” ideas from the summit are (with my comments in brackets):
– Introduction of an Australian republic with a two-stage, beginning with a plebiscite on the issue, followed by a referendum. (Wow deja vu, I’m sure I’ve heard this idea before. ACM will be licking their lips at the prospect of campaigning against an undefined republican model)
– Creation of “community corps” to allow students to reduce their HECS through volunteer work. (Oh my the potential for abuse this opens up given the mendacity of HECS dodging students. Even if it works we’re talking about a massive backdoor subsidy of the self-described “community sector”)
– A national preventative health care agency funded by taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and junk food. (I eagerly await a clear and concise definition of “junk food” on which to base this tax)
– Increasing the formal and legal recognition of Aborigines, with the possibility of a treaty. (Why not, it’ll make them happy and cost us as little as it will mean)
– Contributing 1% of federal funding allocated to each government department to the arts. (Put a bunch of luvvies in the room and what do they ask for? More loot.)
– All new buildings to be carbon neutral. (Why won’t those ghastly little people build nice houses? Let’s make them!)
– Bringing regulations for transport and agriculture across states into line. (It’s so annoying to massive agribusiness having to respect the wishes of the communities it operates in)
– Establishment of a new federation commission to review the roles and responsibilities of federal, state and local government. (We probably do need this, but if this is one of the ten best ideas we’re in trouble)
– A comprehensive reinvigoration of Asian language literacy and a recruitment drive of foreign language teachers. (We’re twiddling with language teaching policy? Nothing better to discuss?)
– A charter of rights and a national action plan. (When people are asked if they want a bill of rights they think of a US style document which protects them from the Government. What we seem to get are “charters” which impose more obligations on the citizenry while granting the Government ever more rapacious means with which to regulate our lives to ensure we are not breaching the “rights” of other citizens. Really though, shouldn’t this be a sub-point of a general “fix the constitution” idea?)
So, as predicted, we have Kevin’s laundry list all shiny and pressed and endorsed in a blaze of breathless media.
As a reader has pointed out Kevin has now also done himself no harm by massaging the egos of 1000 influential people. That was certainly planned for from the beginning.
But hey, maybe I’m being to cynical. Any really good (and genuinely new) ideas I’ve missed?
April 21st, 2008 at 10:22 am
I was pleasantly surprised to see this amongst the ideas from the Productivity group:
“Enabling the free movement of labour from the Asia-Pacific region into Australia, underpinned by Australian workplace standards.”
It’s not 100% brand new (what is?), but I haven’t previously heard it seriously put forward as a policy possibility by any political party - large or small.
In any case, I think it qualifies as “really good”, and outside anything that either major party (or the minor ones for that matter) has put forward.
The idea of seasonal workers from the Pacific has been resisted by both major parties for years, and this proposal goes much further - at least on the face of it.
Apart from its productivity potential, it would also have a significant impact on ones of the main ambitions listed by the group dealing with Australia’s security, which is to “reinvigorate and deepen our engagement with Asia and the Pacific.”
April 21st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Good from a foreign policy point of view but won’t it be driving wages down in the already lowest paid end of the spectrum?
I mean sure the growers can’t (or should we say couldn’t given the exploding price of food) afford to pay more, and few Australians want to work for what they have been paying in the past.
I guess the devil would end up being in the detail of what constitutes “Australian workplace standards” and ensuring they’re applied to the agricultural sector.
And boy the unions would go mental (unless there was a deal to stitch up all the pacific workers to a union as they enter the country one supposes).
Where would you draw the line? PNG? Indonesia?
Not knocking the idea at all because I can see the positives. Just wondering.
April 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Here’s an interesting bit from the health section:
• Have health policy focused on prevention – across not just health, but across Government and the whole community, with “zero tolerance†of unhealthy actions
“Zero tolerance”??????
Who defines “unhealthy actions”?
What sort of government interference in peoples’ behaviours does this envisage?
Does this mean “doctor’s orders” are enforceable by law?
Are impure thoughts “unhealthy actions?
Could the speakeasy of the 1920s have a counterpart 100 years later with a snackeasy supplying fizzy drink and potato chips under-the-counter?
April 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
not one ‘new’ idea.
not one.
i’m sure at least one of the little people had a great idea, posssibly brilliant. but when the connected trough snouters of many years standing get a sniff, there is no way they wont trot out the same tired old agendas.
‘no existing ideas’ should have been a pre-requisite.
i now see this as a massive time waste.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
It certainly didn’t do what it said on the tin.
April 21st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
John - after asking around a bit more, it sounds like this idea of ‘free movement of labout’ is probably just the existing proposal to let in some seasonal workers from some Pacific Islands, even though the words are much broader than that as I read them.
However, taking it on face value for a moment, while I am sure unions and others would be uneasy about it, I think it is an interesting idea worth exploring a lot further - the sort of thing I’d hoped the summit might have come up with a few more of. These sorts of ideas are not the things you’d try to implement tomorrow, but things to work towards over the next decade.
The vision it gives to me of some sort of open labour market across the entire Asia-Pacific, perhaps along similar lines to the EU, is not likely to be tenable this side of 2050, but exploring what might happen in working towards that goal is the sort of exploring new horizons that I think we should do a bit more of.
As for the other ideas at the summit, I’d rather ideas be good than just be new, but I agree that there are not as many fresh approaches or outside the paradigm ideas as I’d hoped. I don’t suppose you can blame many participants for grabbing the chance to push their preferred ideas, which in many cases would have meant ones they’ve been working on for a while (and hence by definition not new).
However, it would have been good to try to encourage the groups to come up with one or two ‘outside the box’ ideas - not necessarily big bang headline grabbers, but just fairly new ones which the particpants hadn’t all chewed over 100 times before. Even if only for the purpose of further consideration.
They could still have managed a few ‘big ideas’ as well, but these are always likely to be well known ones in order to get the (semi) consensus necessary.
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Well spotted Ari, quite a lot of these “ideas” have jackboots on.
What was it Justice Brandeis said?
Ah yes: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
I liked the idea that I heard before the summit, of waiting until the Saturday morning then mixing up the groups totally, so that the delegates were all working on problems outside their usual field. *That* would have definitely led to some fresh thinking…
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Or perhaps if they hadn’t let movie stars represent the arts?