Social Commentary: (Please note) I am an experienced ‘educator’, group ‘facilitator’, and human/community services professional, having more than 25 years of working in this area. Policy and politics are par for the course in this kind of work.

In recent months, since the Rudd Government took office in our Federal Government, I have been more overtly concerned by the apparent ’smoothness’ of the political faces now ‘leading’ this country, and how there is no distinct differences from this Government (so-called political leadership), to that of its predecessors, be they Liberal or Labor, going back as far as the Hawke government.

The same ’smoothness’, smiling congenial faces, power-dressed to impress, can now be readily seen operating in numerous ‘leadership’ roles throughout most organisations, be that public, private, governmental, statutory, and or non-govt.

This trend has concerned me for many years; and why so many of my peers, associates, colleagues, and fellow citizens in general, seem to be going along with whatever political/policy changes are occurring, without any real challenge or open dissent, though they often complain, most often outside of the relevant forums/opportunities that they should be ‘complaining’ or ’speaking-out’ in.

I have participated in 100s of forums, meetings, conferences, think-groups, and the like throughout these years, and have often felt disturbed or disheartened at what I believed/felt should have been the outcome “got lost” somewhere in the process, or that I was “on my own” with whatever the issue was being addressed, or ‘discussed’.

In many instances, I truly did feel that ’somehow’ the agenda, or group had been ‘channelled’ (coerced) into a particular consensus — agreement and endorsement of an item that had been presented in such a ‘clever’ way, that it was more the motion of a meeting, without the accompaniment of the passion or emotion of the dialogue …

My ignorance (lack of knowledge, information) bothered me, as I couldn’t ‘name’, ‘understand’ or vocalise coherently why I would feel that things weren’t “quite right”, even though I was witnessing, experiencing such shenanigans time-and-again, on matters where the outcomes would often have major impacts (often detrimental) on many peoples lives and/or livelihood. It was if the ‘group’ couldn’t see, hear or sense that ’somehow’ the decision-making processes had been ‘guided’ to a preordained outcome.

Recently, in my constant quest of learning and researching, I came across The Delphi Technique and sensed I had now an answer (the formula and blue-print) to what had been ‘going on’ in most of those meetings and gatherings.

[I suggest if you're really interested, you do your own reading on Delphi, and then apply that to 'situations' of a political/employment/community nature, that you may have experienced.]

I also found a further article — correlated to that of Delphi — about sensitivity training:

” …Sensitivity training is based on research on human behaviour that came out of efforts during World War II to ascertain whether or not an enemy’s core beliefs and behaviour could be modified by the application of certain psychological techniques. These techniques have been gradually perfected over the years by efforts of business and industry leaders to persuade people to buy products, including the radio and television industry to ascertain how an audience [population] might [can] be habituated to certain types of programming. …

” The techniques perfected by behavioural scientists to change our core beliefs aim at sowing confusion in the minds of those who would oppose such change. This confusion is created by presenting logical contradictions as equally plausible, valid, and actionable. Those without a strong belief system, be it empirical, scientific, religious, or logical are especially susceptible to the urgings of those who seek change. Those who have strong enough belief systems that enable them to challenge, refute, and oppose this change are coerced by small-group encounter techniques to conform to the ‘majority’ view as determined and sown by a ‘facilitator’ and supported by the core group of ‘believers’ plus the newly recruited ’sheep’ who join the ‘majority’ group for fear of confrontation. If the challenger does not conform to the group pressure to adopt the ‘consensus’ view, s/he is further isolated from the group and/or discarded. S/he is never allowed to participate fully in the process thereafter. … ” etc, etc.

In my view, a classic example of such gross “manipulation” of the nation, was the recently held — by the Australian Government — “The Australia, 2020 Summit”, where processes and procedures were typical of the “Delphi” format. And of course the recent “Sorry” apology being enacted is another “consensus” stratagem.

I’ll leave it at that for now.

The much hyped 2020 Summit was a profound disappointment to say the least.

It truly was a talk-fest which surprisingly found the issues of becoming a republic and overhauling the tax and welfare systems as the top issues for the weekend.  I wonder how it is that climate change and the environment was not among the top issues for the weekend?

Apparently the 1002 participants found the environment and climate change to be not-so-important issues compared to overhauling the tax and welfare systems.

So where does this leave Australia on its future environment and combating climate change?  Well it leaves a huge question mark hanging over the Rudd ALP Government.

Surely with the high frequency of climate reports urging immediate and swift action, the 2020 Summit participants would have had much more to say about how Australia can tackle climate change.  The information coming out of the Summit officially and from summit participants indicates that climate change and the environment have low priorities, and there have been no real new ideas produced for tackling these issues.  There have been a number of reports of the coal lobby hijacking the climate change and environment sessions to prevent suggestions of the coal industry being wound back and having their huge government subsidies slashed.

Whether the coal lobby hijacked the climate change and environment session or not, the fact that ‘clean coal’ and CO2 geosequestration were still major elements of discussion highlights the farce of those sessions.  And even more farcical is the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, defending how these sessions could continue to support the coal industry.

Unless we make profound changes to our way of thinking on generating and using energy then we may find ourselves boiling in our own sweat.

AUSTRALIA*
Ross Campbell Barham
Ideas of Utopia 161-052
The University of Melbourne
16.10.2006

DISCLAIMER

THE CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT AND SUBSEQUENT PRESENTATION HAVE NOT BEEN ENDORSED BY EITHER THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE OR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR JOHN ARMSTRONG.

Preamble

This document contains 12 articles recommending changes necessary for bringing about a holistically better Australian society. While related articles are grouped together according to topic, there is no hierarchy of importance attached to the overall ordering of articles.

SECTION ONE - PRELIMINARIES

Methodology

All formal Governmental decisions, policies, etc. must be accompanied by publicly available, transparent and cogent explanations of the motivations, considerations, goals, etc. thought to both support and undermine the arrival thereat.

Under the rule of a government, for the citizens to trust (though not necessarily agree with) decisions made, they must be informed of the rationale thereof.
Although certain rhetorical modes will inevitably be adopted according to the particular context, medium, content of any given presentation of decisions, nonetheless, the utmost effort must be made to concur with this

Ontology

The primary foci of Australia* are: (1) Health; (2) Material Resources; (3) Education; (4) Charity; (5) Environment; and (6) Freedom.

The primary foci of Australia* are extrapolated from the various aspects of what it is to be a human being. A human being is:
-  first and foremost, a phenomenal being. That this fact inevitably demands metaphysical primacy over all other aspects of being, deems it appropriate that its most proper expression, freedom, be given last ranking in the primary foci of Australia*. That is, the tendency for this aspect of human being to transgress other aspects of what it is to be a human, warrants that they be given the higher prioritisation, as freedom itself is surely impossible unless the otherwise subsidiary aspects of human being are already adequately addressed.
- secondly, a physical, biological organism. For it to be at all possible for an individual to reach their potential as a self-fulfilling, autonomous citizen of any social, intellectual, moral, geographical, and/or spiritual community, it is essential that their physical health be as optimal as is pragmatically possible.
- thirdly, an object among objects. As an extension of the internal health of the human organism, an individual’s capacity to fully realise its potential is dependent upon its external material circumstances; eg. shelter, transport, communication technologies, etc.
- fourthly, a human being is a thinking being. The acquisition and furtherance of knowledge, both Rationalistic and non-rational, is essential to human flourishing. It is only by virtue of thought that an individual can come to understand and take responsibility for their place within, not only a given society, but within world history.
- fifthly, a subject among other subjects. That is, a moral being capable, along with a number of other emotional capacities, of feeling empathy for its fellow creatures (human, non-human, and non-animal). The life of any individual is so utterly dependent upon its relations (or lack thereof) with other individuals, that this aspect inevitably colours all the others.
- sixthly, a natural part of the natural universe. The recognition of this truth reveals our complete dependence upon Mother Nature to realise any one of the above aspects of human being.

SECTION TWO - HEALTH

Healthcare

In Australia*, all healthcare will be de-privatised and made available to all on the basis of medical urgency, order of request and social utility (in this order only).

Diet

Restaurants of Australia* will be required (with the exception of extenuating circumstances) to offer at least 80% vegetarian meals.

Youth Nursing Homes

Local Australian* communities will be required to provide nursing services for youths, either in their private homes, or in below-40s nursing homes.

Sport

Australian* businesses will be required to provide shower facilities, the organization and time-allocation of team sports.

Tobacco

The commercial sale of tobacco products will be banned in Australia*.

Smoking

The smoking of cigarettes and other tobacco products in public will be banned in Australia*.

Pornography

Men and women depicted in pornographic material must be equally represented in both number and status. The sale of homosexual magazines will be restricted to their gender types.

SECTION THREE - MATERIAL RESOURCES

Free Market Capitalism

Although it must remain our ultimate goal, in Australia* Free-Market Capitalism will be, at least temporarily, restrained. Economic policies will favour businesses deemed to address the primary foci of Australia*.

Income

The upper bounds of an individual’s income will be capped in proportion to the minimum wage.

Non-Material Assets

All non-material assets will, at least temporarily, be liquidated.

Importation

Australia* will strive to be as self-sufficient as possible. Non-essential importations will be discouraged.

Exportation

In accordance with the charitable foci of Australia*, exportation of essential goods and services to countries in need will be encouraged. Exportation of non-essential goods will be discouraged.

Public Transport

Public transport will be made free in Australia*.

Dependents

Progeny will not be allowed to remain dependants of their parents, except in special circumstances.

Non-Profit

Australian* businesses will, at least temporarily, become non-profit organizations.

See ‘Profit’ in Section #5 – Charity, Article #?

Gambling

In Australia*, the proceeds from all legal gambling will be given to charity.

Intellectual Property Rights

While plagiarism will still be illegal, intellectual property must be freely available to the public.

Media

In Australia*, monopolisation of the media will be banned.

SECTION FOUR - EDUCATION

Television

All Australian* television will be free-to-air. There will be only ten television channels devoted to the following areas: Science; The Humanities; Sports; Comedy; Drama; Creative/Fine Arts; Crafts; Politics; Economy; Religion; Local.
Each channel will provide news programs that may emphasise their own specialised interests.
Each channel will be required to provide fair and equal representation of the entirety of its field.
Each channel will be independently operated and owned.

Life-skills

At least 20% of the average working life will involve both further education (not necessarily of a vocational nature) and community participation, except in extenuating circumstances.

Prospective Parenting

All prospective parents will be required to participate in and achieve a minimum level of competency in rudimentary parenting classes. Failing this, upon birth, the child will either be removed into Government custody or arrangements will be made to assist in the upbringing of the child.

Guardian Education

Guardians of minors will be required to participate in ongoing parental education (N.B. this may, in part, fill the quota required of ‘Vocational Education’ (see article #??)).

Community Arts

The local arts will be fostered in Australia*.

Secondary Schooling Early Commencement Programs

The last three weeks of the school year will be devoted to orientation programs for the subsequent grade level.

SECTION FIVE – CHARITY

Kibbutz

Land reclamation camps will be established in rural and outback Australian. These camps will provide shelter, food, clothing, etc. free of charge. In addition to this, Kibbutz members will receive a minimum wage of $15K per annum.

Immigration

Except in extenuating circumstances, all immigrants will have to work on a kibbutz for a minimum of 5 years before being integrated into society at large, with permanent residency.

Asylum Seekers

Asylum seekers will normally be required to spend a minimum of 10 years working on a kibbutz. If, after such time, no decisive evidence can be found either to support or deny their request for asylum, they will be fully integrated in the broader community and given permanent residency. If, at any time during the ten-year period, substantive evidence is discovered that conclusively refutes their claim for asylum, they will be deported immediately, and any gained assets confiscated. If, in the first five years of their time on the Kibbutz, substantive evidence is discovered that conclusively supports their claim for asylum, they will simply be regarded as other immigrants. If such evidence is discovered after the first five years on the Kibbutz the
Apart from the above considerations, Asylum Seekers will be treated the same as other immigrants.

Profit

Any profit made by a non-profit business will be donated to charity.

International Aid

Australia* will strive to become the world’s foremost provider of international aid.

SECTION SIX - ENVIRONMENT

Ageing Vehicles

Motor-vehicles made pre-2000 will be confiscated, except in extenuating circumstances, such as heritage-listed vehicles and industry-dependent vehicles.

Self-sufficient housing

All domestic housing will be encouraged to be as self-sufficient as possible. Measures include, solar-electricity, water-catchments, vegetable gardens, etc.

Town Planning

A professionally accredited town planner will be required to approve all building permits.

Town Planning (cont.)

Except in extenuating circumstances, all new buildings in Australia* will be required to satisfy a minimum ratio between the area of free, open space to the area occupied by the building.

City and Inner-Suburban Non-arterial Roads and Streets

City and Suburban, non-arterial streets and roads will be excavated and made into communal parklands. Access paths will be kept to the minimum required to allow access to emergency vehicles. Permits for the operation of non-arterial motorised vehicles will be given only in special circumstances, such as temporary or long-term disability.

Forestry

The practice of logging old-growth forests will be outlawed in Australia*.

Sustainable Power

Australia* will strive to establish sustainable, environmentally-sound power sources.

SECTION SEVEN - FREEDOM

Democracy

Democracy understood as ‘a government on behalf of the people by their elected representatives’ is, at least temporarily, defunct at the Federal level.

The significance, magnitude and inconvenience of the issues presently facing both Australia and the world at large, deem it necessary, though ultimately undesirable, that a Federal Government not elected by its citizens is empowered for a minimum of ten years.

Informing Government Representatives

New technologies such as the internet and mobile telephones will be utilised in informing the decisions of politicians.

Church & State

‘The Lord’s Prayer’ will no longer be recited at the opening of meetings of Parliament.

The reasons for this are twofold: 1) such ceremonies do disservice to the Democratic separation of Church and State; 2) such ceremonies perpetuate religious minorities as such.

Defence

Australian* defence forces will not leave Australia*, except to protect against human rights violations.

Non-lethal Defence Methods

Non-lethal measures will be further developed and universally adopted by Australian* defence forces.

Euthanasia

In Australia*, conscientious euthanasia will be permitted in extreme cases where palliative care is ineffective.

Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gays and Lesbians will be accorded the same rights as all other Australian* citizens, including the right to marry.

Abortion

Each request for an abortion will be required to face an ethics committee that, although not having power of veto, will be permitted to make recommendations and, in extreme circumstances, will be permitted to lay charges on behalf of the state, where the maximum penalty will be sterilization.

IDEAS for UTOPIA
MANIFESTO

AIM

Philosophy is all too often dismissed as inconsequential with respect to the ‘real world’. IDEAS for UTOPIA is an email based group that aims to remedy this by applying methodologically rigorous philosophical thought to issues that cannot possibly be resolved by pragmatic measures alone.

FUNCTION

While the IDEAS for UTOPIA mailing-list is also used to communicate details pertaining to relevant events (publications, presentations, protests, etc.), the general function of IDEAS for UTOPIA is the facilitation of conception, discussion, and development of philosophical ideas that we hope to share with the world at large.
The casting of a philosophical-eye over one’s work is thus the secondary function of IDEAS for UTOPIA.
The primary function of IDEAS for UTOPIA is the conception and communication of positive philosophical ideas intended for the betterment of the world at large.
While on-going discussion is unavoidable, the primary function of IDEAS for UTOPIA is not to foster an ‘ivory tower’ atmosphere; it is to get our ideas out into the world at large before it’s too late!

FOCI

“You must consider the following: What have I been doing? Is it important to you? Is it important to someone else? Or is it important to many others? Is it important to your country? Is it important to the world? Is it vital to all living things, all nature? If it isn’t, then you should stop.” – Osamu Tezuka, Buddha.

Although there are no fixed foci of IDEAS for UTOPIA, at present some of the more salient issues facing the world at large include: poverty; climate change; feminism; pacifism; etc.

‘MEMBERS’

No ‘member(s)’ of IDEAS for UTOPIA is accorded any higher status or privileges. Except for the guidelines express herein, IDEAS for UTOPIA is essentially an anarchic organization.
Except with explicit permission to the contrary, these addresses are only to be used for legitimate IDEAS for UTOPIA purposes.
The email addresses of all current ‘members’ are (alphabetically listed) as follows:

ACHIEVEMENTS

Below are chronologically listed (soon with hyperlinks to the full-texts?) the articles, essays, letters, etc. that IDEAS for UTOPIA have supported:

DISCLAIMER

IDEAS for UTOPIA is not a politically affiliated group.
IDEAS for UTOPIA accepts no responsibility for the actions, opinions, reputations of any one of its members.

I was pondering the 2020 summit and the following observation hit me. From meeting many ordinary Australians over the years, I came to believe that most hold very low opinion of their politicians. They don’t really trust the polies and often describe them as the “useless pack of bastards” and such.

Yet at the same time many Australians naturally gravitate towards big government solutions. Middle-class welfare, large government spending, enterprise bargaining agreements and government subsidies to prop up inefficient private enterprises with taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars are all part and parcel of Australian political narrative.

There seems to be a genuine disconnect between people’s belief that on one hand they are governed by untrustworthy bastards, while on the other hand surrendering more and more control and influence over their everyday lives to the very bastards they loathe.

The 2020 summit was especially stark as the orgy of big government solutions in which the government was omnipresent and individuals non-existent. It presented an unflattering portrait of Australian urban elites as a special class of people with big government prescriptions for the great unwashed, a sweet vision of the corporatist nanny state.

I think the time has come for the red-bloodied Aussies to reassert self-reliant spirit of the frontier and wake up to the fact that governments cannot solve all our problems. Why do we think we can outsource control of our lives to the “pack of bastards” we don’t actually trust and expect something good to happen in return?

News Limited’s website says that the bulk of comments from its news stories indicate that Ruddfest (aka. the 2020 Summit) had little in the form of substance, innovative new ideas, and ordinary Australians. Being keen to see for myself whether such critical analysis was warranted, I downloaded the Initial Report that contains the ideas generated from the summit for a quick glean.

On the whole it seems that the document merely reinforces ideas and “needs” that have already been explored/raised in the past, and only in some places fleshes out these ideas for future application. I think Kevin Rudd will find himself in a rather sticky and unenviable position, in that he will feel the pressure to somehow enact as many of these ideas as possible without fail.

I’m not prepared to dismiss the notion of a summit as a waste of time, but as the years go by and come 2020, there’s no real progress in key areas, one can’t help but think that this past weekend will indeed be looked upon as a gathering of the elite who were just too unrealistic and ambitious for the good of the country.

I’ve been neglecting my blog recently as I’ve been in Australia on personal business. I’d hoped to attend the first Canberra Barcamp but wasn’t able to go at the last minute. As a result, I spent much of the weekend watching the coverage of the Australia 2020 summit. 

The similarities to a barcamp, even with 1,000 people in attendance, were pretty significant. Participants were equipped with white boards, sticky notes and some even sat on the floor in the more popular sessions, like Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in the session on the Australian economy.

Kevin Rudd said the purpose of the summit was:

‘…to do something new. Today we are throwing open the windows of our democracy, to let a little bit of fresh air in. Rather than pretending that we, the politicians of Australia have all the answers, and the truth is, we don’t, we are turning now to you, the people of Australia.’

The event started on Saturday and was broken into 10 separate sessions on the Australian economy, sustainability and climate change, rural change, health, communities and family, indigenous Australia, creative Australia, governance, productivity and Australia’s future in the world. Each working group was asked, by the Prime Minister, to deliver the following:

‘…First, to nominate at least one ‘big idea’ in their area for the future. Second … submit at least three, and I am sure there will be more, concrete policy ideas, at least one of which is to involve no cost or negligible cost… Third … identify at least three specific goals for which we should aim by 2020.’

As with most large gatherings there remains a degree of scepticism that the goals will be achieved. But, there is also a degree of hope. In 48 hours 1,000 Australians came together to suggest Australia should, amongst other things, open up schools 24/7 for ‘after school care; develop a bionic eye; lead the world in creating a green and sustainable economy (less than 12 months ago Australia hadn’t signed the Kyoto agreement); encourage retirees to act as workplace mentors; provide rural-city student exchanges; provide universal first aid training and digitally archive Australia’s art collections. Oh, and that republic thing seems to be on the agenda again.

I have to say that I was one of the sceptics when the Australia 2020 summit was announced. Though the public was asked, and did, contribute to the agenda, I thought the overarching event with 1,000 of Australia’s ‘best and brightest’ might tend to be elitist. I still have some reservations, but I can’t help feel a resonance with many of the ideas and suggestions. I think there were a few things that the summit organisers could have done to increase participation even further, but on balance it was well organised and aggressively covered by the print and broadcast media. Where the organisers may not have thought of ways to keep the debate alive, bloggers are rising to the challenge.

It will be interesting to see how the Australian government goes about implementing some of the ideas; there are some big, although not impossible, challenges  (Kev, if you’re reading - try this: http://www.sicamp.org/). The Australian Prime Minister has committed to a public response by the end of the year, although I have a feeling some of the suggestions will be implemented far quicker (he announced a couple as policy objectives in the last election).

For me one of the most interesting things has been the reaction of friends, family and colleagues who have all said they feel there is a better chance of being ‘part’ of the way forward, one in which people, not just politicians, ’own’ Australian policy. It might be a tall order for the Australian Government to make good on some of the ideas that have been suggested - but they’re willing to get stuck in and give it a shot.  As Kevin Rudd said:

“We can either take command of the future, or we can sit back and allow the future to take command of us.”

So, anyone up for UK 2020?

An interim report has been posted on suggestions thrashed out on butcher paper during the 2020 Summit at Parliament House on 19th-20th April at 2020 Summit Interim Report.  Senator Andrew Bartlett had some interesting Impressions of the 2020 Summit outcomes.  The Australian Labor Party website has the rundown of panelists.

The Prime Minister has the remainder of the year to propose any changes to parliament.  I’m sure we will see a better future for all Australians.  Some ideas might be thrown out, but an open discussion usually leads to a 50/50 compromise.

Kevin Rudd’s 2020 ideas summit has been and gone. One weekend to brainstorm the direction for a nation. Well, it was, after all, only about producing some ideas.

It will be in the next year that action has to be taken.

Some people have labelled it as a PR stunt. However, I’m not that sceptical. Rudd has shown an open approach. Sure, there will be people who say certain groups weren’t represented. But it would be impossible to be totally inclusive.

Give ‘em a go. Give ‘em a year.

Tried to watch a bit of the 2020 summit this weekend but gave up pretty early.

I couldn’t get past the meaningless speeches full of motherhood statements. All the carp-talk of taking the nation forward, increasing productivity, improving conditions, boosting whatever… Who on Earth is against any of this? Why do we need to bring together so many “best and brightest” to restate these sort of banalities?

…..

The forum was hopelessly stacked to present the last century wishlist of Labor-left ideas as the fresh ideas for the 21st century. This was evident in the republican vote that was passed by a 100% vote with one abstention. This is clearly not reflective of community views.

…..

I was shocked by the sheer greed of our artist whose central argument boiled down to the demand that government should pay the artists regardless of whether what they produce is any good or has the audience in the community. They really think that the government owes them a carefree living while the the taxpayers (talent-less nobodies that pay their wages) have to do something productive. Parasitic is the word that springs to mind…

…..

Didn’t catch any big ideas that I didn’t hear before. I guess that’s what happens when you bring together the people most of whom have already had numerous opportunities to put their ideas forward to the public.

…..

Rudd’s hanging with celebrities and hip sitting on the floor antics are again borrowed from Tony Blair’s “Cool Brittania”. Anyone wants to puke?

Brendan Nelson is a fool for turning up to this sham. He should’ve stated a simple case against going. We already have a system called democracy where people elect their representatives. If they have a good idea, they can take it to their local MP. Furthermore all ideas, good or bad, need to be scrutinised in vigorous debate, not agreed upon by the like-minded committee. Parliament is a much better place for this than a stacked talk-fest.

…..

2020 summit presents some dangers and opportunities.

Danger: 2020 has potential to stifle the national debate and cement one set of ideas as legitimate expression of what all Australians want. Rudd was already spruking about groundswell of support for republic. What else was he expecting when he stacked the panel with republicans? (By the way I am in favour of the republic. I just have a soft spot for democratic process and don’t claim to know better than the great unwashed).

Opportunity: Rudd is playing a dangerous game. To stay in government Labor needs to be popular with the grass root voters. Not the urban elites, not the 1000 “best and brightest” and not the adoring media.

Rudd’s summit was clearly designed to give him the answers he wants to hear. This is not the same as what the voters want to hear. Great opening for the Liberals to take advantage of, while Rudd is greasing the 2020 rope to hang himself. The more Rudd is convinced that his elite vision represents the consensus of what all Australians want, the sooner he will be out the Lodge.

Media this morning is buzzing with 2020 ideas and debates, but I’ve searched and searched and found very few reported debates about what the foster care system should look like in 2020.

Indigo of the previous post has been involved in quite an informed debate here.

I’ll keep watching and hoping that more of the ideas discussed will filter through and hopefully bring about change.

The positive aspect of the Summit though was a really strong focus on preventative supports, which is an important contributor to the wider community solutions, together with strong mechanisms to support the essential contributions of foster carers.

Red-letter day for woman fighting for sex workers’ rights

“AMONG the air chief marshals, cabinet ministers, departmental secretaries, academics, analysts and enthusiasts defining future threats to Australia’s security, Elena Jeffreys stood out.

That was due, partly, to her bright green-and-gold hair and, largely, to her role as president and summit representative of the Scarlet Alliance, which represents thousands of Australian sex workers.”

A surprising inclusion to the 2020 Summit but nice to see. Thoughts?

Red-letter day for woman fighting for sex workers’ rights

“AMONG the air chief marshals, cabinet ministers, departmental secretaries, academics, analysts and enthusiasts defining future threats to Australia’s security, Elena Jeffreys stood out.

That was due, partly, to her bright green-and-gold hair and, largely, to her role as president and summit representative of the Scarlet Alliance, which represents thousands of Australian sex workers.”

A surprising inclusion to the 2020 Summit but nice to see. Thoughts?

An interesting debate has been sparked here after this post:

Researcher Indigo Willing, who was adopted from a Vietnamese orphanage in 1972, will propose a way to tackle the twin problems of long waiting lists for couples seeking overseas adoptions, and the chronic shortage of foster parents for children in Australia. Ms Willing said that if parents waiting to adopt were automatically asked to become foster parents — either instead of or as well as adopting from overseas — both problems would abate.

Though this plan looks like it ticks all boxes, experience tells us that its probably not as easy that. Firstly, the understanding that foster care is temporary care of someone else’s child is a cornerstone of the provision of healthy relationships to develop between child and carer, and if possible, with the birth family. There are often emotional obstacles for carers if there is a confusion of this role with other roles such as adoptive parents, where the child becomes your own.

Secondly, our state has worked really hard to create a screening process to make sure prospective carers are motivated by a desire to care for children in need. I think it would be problematic to blur the boundaries of the motivations towards one where foster caring is a means to another desire, and I’m not convinced that people in this situation, that is, forced to care, would be able to provide adequate care for that child.

Having said that, I myself have spoken at an inter-country adoption information session about foster care, inviting people who already have broad views about what makes a family to consider this area with significant success.

What we should focus on, in my opinion, is improving the supports around carers, as well as our valuing of the foster caring role to encourage more people to willingly take responsibility for caring for our neighbours.

I carried out a small survey of people I know, a straw poll of the common person, what aspirations do they have for 2020? Here are their thoughts:

Taxation - Income splitting between spouses that would recognise the contribution of homemaker during periods of child raising, whether male or female.

Energy-The hope climate friendly sources of energy will be in common use. We don’t have to do anything innovative we already have the technology we just need to roll it out.

Education-give teachers back their rights-eg.being able to discipline students in the classroom (not physical punishment).

Social Services- Reward people who do things the right way - Centrelink payments should be linked to people making positive contributions to the society that supports them.

Superannuation-We need a uniform superannuation fund that treats everyone equally and protects the contributions of members.

Science and Technology-Faster broadband that is available to everyone ensuring equity of access.

Housing-We need housing that provides a variety of types, not just wall-to-wall MacMansions but small medium and larger dwellings for different needs and stages of life. What people need, not just what developers want (maximising profits at the expense of the peoples actual needs).

Education- A more balanced education system. Find better ways to provide a quality education not just in affluent areas but also in disadvantaged communities.

What this little survey highlights is that the 2020 Summit has actually started people talking in positive and creative ways about the future and that, like the delegates, there is a variety of ideas for the society that we will be in 2020. All those interviewed had thought about the Summit and had ideas to share.

The 2020 Summit and the discussion it has engendered has been, as the Prime Minister said, like a window opening and a fresh breeze filling the room with fresh air after 12 years of living with the blinds pulled down against the world. Of course it is governments that have to bring these aspirations to fruition and not all the ideas may be feasible, but at least people are being engaged in thinking about the future in positive ways and engaging in the discourse of future building and our place in our world. The naysayers who wallow in their negative views expect society to progress without any effort or creative thought. Surely a vision for the future is required if we are to create the 2020 world of tomorrow.

The challenge for the Rudd government now will be to show that the exercise was not just a talkfest by following through with some actual policy from the ideas. The gesture of participative democracy, even if only by an ‘elite’ is important, but it must be followed by concrete policies that bring about societal change, if the vision is to become a reality in 2020.

The importance of strategic planning

We’ll explain. When any new boss enters a new workplace, the first thing s/he should do is look at the strategic plan. If there isn’t one (and we know some workplaces that have “virtual” ones i.e. it’s in someone’s head) or it’s out of date, then that’s the first thing that needs work. We can not stress enough the importance of a strategic plan - it is both the chassis and the driving force of the organisation. It allows businesses to chart their course, and more importantly, measure how well they’ve done, and then adjust the direction if necessary (sorry about all the travel metaphors!).

Writing the plan

And how do you go about writing a strategic plan? You gather information and ideas. You listen and you talk. To lots of people who are involved in and with your organisation - at all levels. From the information, you look at your priorities. You work out what is achievable (given your timeframe and budget) and what can wait for a while. You sort out who is responsible for what areas and you set accountabilities and a timeframe. Then you allocate resources to make it happen.

This is what the 2020 Summit is about. It is the strategic plan for Australia. It is a way forward for our country, and we celebrate the creation of Vision Australia. It is a masterpiece of communication management!

The 2020 Summit is upon us as 1000 of the ‘best and brightest’ gather in Canberra to brainstorm a vision for Australia in 2020. It has been the subject of much hysterical cynicism from the MSM — always looking for an angle and invariably missing the story — the same tired old hacks who spent all of 2007 opining that Howard was unbeatable and that Rudd would never win.

The real story was that the electorate wanted a different style and direction of government and Howard wasn’t it. There are too many issues facing Australian society that Howard simply ignored or treated with cynical tokenism — issues that the invisible hand of the market couldn’t fix.

The conservatives and much of the MSM are still in denial. In 30 months time, the electorate will realise how shallow and ineffectual Rudd really is and then they’ll coming running back for a real government and business as usual. Yeah, right.

You’d expect it from a dolt like Bolt and his ‘1000 of Rudd’s Mates’, but Misha Schubert in The Age today shows us how clever she is with her ’scoop’ accusing Rudd of stealing his childcare vision from Tony Blair and calling it his own in Rudd’s 2020 hindsight.

So fvcking what?! He wasn’t claiming it as his Own Original Idea. More pertinently, is it a good idea, or not? Worthy of discussion or what? Pathetic. I’m not aware of a proviso that any ideas being brought to the Summit must be entirely original. I’m sure any 2020 participant asked what their idea for the Summit is would begin, “Well, my idea is …” How many truly original ideas do any of us have? It’s so not the point. But it makes for a ‘clever’ story. The MSM commentariat are willing the 2020 Summit to fail and are busily positioning themselves to say ‘I told you so’.

What the hell is wrong with having a workshop for the vision of the whole nation? You can’t have ideas unless they’re already implemented? Give us a break. You have to start somewhere. Every corporate and government entity in Australia has been doing this very kind of thing for decades. ‘Where do you see this company/department in 5 years time, 10 years time?’ ‘What are the obstacles that might prevent this from happening.’ ‘What are the opportunities?’ ‘What would need to happen/change?’ Standard strategic planning stuff - mission statement, objectives, priorities. It works. So why not for a nation? We don’t elect a government of experts. We elect a government to represent us. And this one, by having a ‘talkfest’, is willing to listen. This doesn’t sit easily with authoritarian Howardians. It’s much more Australian to be a knocker and suspicious of anyone who might be an intellectual or has differing ideas. Fancy having the gall to speak Mandarin to the Chinese! He must be up himself.

The dogs may bark and the cynics carp, but the 2020 Summit will be productive, if for no other reason than it is tapping the electorate’s desire for a narrative. A narrative that isn’t about narrow self-interest and fear — a narrative for a better, more inclusive future.

His detractors underestimate Rudd — they always have. In these early days, all evidence indicates that he is hard-working and ruthlessy efficient and methodical, so there is little reason to doubt that he will also be quietly very effective. Sure, there will be policy and political failures along the way, but have no doubt that Rudd will inexorably reshape Australia towards the narrative visions given voice by the 2020 Summit. That’s what the concervatives are really worried about. If Rudd is even partially successful in making progress toward that vision, the conservatives will still not be electable by 2020. They think they do, but they just don’t get it.

“The sins are mainly of omission. For instance: there is not one delegate from the gaming sector, despite the heavy emphasis made by the Summit about the importance of gaming and other “emerging creative industries”. There are no game designers, game industry producers; in fact, there’s not even a prominent graphic designer or animator, though there is one digital special effects wizard.”

from www.newmatilda.com

Some food for thought and something to ponder!

Guy Rundle lashes Kevin Rudd’s 2020 Summit for having more faith in the state than its people:

Amazingly, the left-liberals behind the ‘2020’ conference seem intent on enacting exactly the sort of elite anti-democratic cultural push that the right had, largely falsely, accused them of pursuing during the Howard years. Unwilling to do the hard work of arguing the case for pet issues in the marketplace of ideas, they are taking an easy road which suggests they have little faith that their ideas express anything imporant to the lives of many Australians.

Genuine excellence in all its forms should be supported, but it doesn’t require the state to do it. Indeed, ‘2020’ can be accused of counterfeiting the concept; many of the best Australian thinkers, such as Germaine Greer or Pierre Ryckmans, are absent from the gathering (possibly by choice), while the ‘best and brightest’ includes a range of TV presenters and dim-bulb children of the wealthy and powerful in a manner more likely to encourage servility than free-thinking.

Whether we will get any true account of its successes and failings remains to be seen, as every major Australian media outlet has key representatives attending. Given an opportunity to stand up for free intellectual life, critical independence and a commitment to genuine excellence wherever it may be found, Australia’s left-liberals lack faith both in themselves and in Australia’s people.

The beneficiary of a late call-up for the 2020 Summit, my friend and colleague Marcus Westbury has been discussing what ideas about cultural policy might be worth bringing to the “Towards a creative Australia” group.

The discussion taking place on his blog is notable not only for the sophistication of many of the comments but also for Marcus’ timely ideas for cultural policy reform:

Half a century on from the Whitlam era few Australians would be convinced that a 2020 cultural vision focusing on innovation and initiative will be found in shovelling bigger buckets of money at conservative major institutions. Expecting it to trickle down through the layers of management to actual risk taking artists is naive at best.

Many of the comments posted here over the last few days either explicitly or implicitly acknowledge this. While many argue directly for a more diverse, competitive and dynamic funding environment the aim is less for grand, centralised and expensive top down public programs than for attention to the impediments and practical barriers that make it hard for creators to create, to find audiences, to take risks and to innovate.

The amazing lack of a single representative of the game design or interactive digital media industries at this panel has also been taken up at Fairfax’s Screenplay blog by Jason Hill.

Over at Larvatus Prodeo, I’ve published an annotated linked analysis of the attendees to the “Towards a Creative Australia” forum at Kevin Rudd’s 2020 summit. The list is cross-posted at Nick Pickard’s “Sydney Arts Journo” blog, with some interesting back and forth between me and Alison Croggon.

The link is here.