The Guardian 30 April, 2008
Australia 2020 Summit:
Public inclusiveness or
an exercise in policy promotion?
Anna Pha
Close to one thousand Australians, hand-picked for the occasion, took part in what was billed as a "public conversation in which all voices are welcome". They gathered in Canberra at Parliament House on April 12-13, to briefly voice their ideas on the future of Australia. It was a slick, stage-managed show, leaving some participants with the feeling that the official summary of its outcomes was not necessarily an accurate reflection of the strength of views expressed in the individual sessions.
The summary reads more like an overview of a new radical neo-liberal agenda for Australia, which has passed through the hands of a highly skilled spin-doctor.
A great deal of sincere work went into the contributions, including smaller youth, school and community summits, and submissions from a range of organisations including some trade unions. As requested by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who called the Summit, participants thought seriously about the challenges facing Australia and how to meet them.
The Summit was divided into 10 streams, each co-chaired by a government minister and a well known figure from that field. Not all participants feel happy with the documents produced. Some feel their ideas were watered down, and others that they were completely omitted. This was particularly the case with the reportage on Indigenous issues which will be covered in next week’s Guardian. This reads more like a continuation of the Howard’s government’s intervention and assimilation policies.
The reports were produced by private consultants and are quite sophisticated in their approach. A number of common themes were raised in the different streams and there is an internal consistency between those chosen as "Top Ideas".
Take for example the question of taxation and the funding and provision of health and welfare services. Midst all of the calls for "new ways" of confronting challenges there is a persistent theme or sense that "the role of government is changing". That "There is an expectation civil society will strengthen as government becomes less central in our lives".
The summary report says: "The 2020 Summit also heard from many voices keen to recognise the world outside government — the work of the 700,000 not-for-profit organisations operating in Australia." The report talks of "encouraging a strong role for new organisations and approaches." "The hope that philanthropy might find a firmer home in Australia, and become an accepted part of corporate and individual life …."
Corporate sponsorship and charity, along with privatisation (often by nicer sounding descriptions such as partnerships) are repeatedly raised in the place of government responsibility.
There is a proposition for a "Learning for life account: Develop lifetime participation accounts for every Australian from birth — into which the government and others can make payments for education, training, parental leave, and superannuation contributions, with capacity to go into deficit and income-contingent repayments which maximise the choices available to individuals and link flexible personal choices to a new range of early childhood and learning services."
Such an account would not only enable the government to pull back from its responsibilities for the age pension (as is in progress now) but also open the way for government to wind back direct funding and responsibility for education and parental leave.
A close reading of the report on the health stream discussion also reveals an approach designed to wind back the role and responsibility of government for ensuring the health and well being of the community.
Amid all of the shortages in hospital funding, nurses, doctors and other resources for the public sector, the ideas that make it into the summary are around the theme of developing partnerships with industry and encouraging philanthropy. Research efforts should be underpinned by public funding and translated into "commercial and health outcomes" and "supported by increased private and philanthropic investment in research and development," it says.
Making social inclusion a national priority is at the top of the list of reported ideas from the group looking at strengthening communities and supporting working families.
This stream, according to the report, proposed a National Action Plan for Social Inclusion which would combat poverty. "The ambition and scope of the Plan should reflect economic analysis of the return on investment produced by improving social inclusion." What does that bean counter language mean? Don’t worry about social inclusion if it does not bring higher returns on investments? Whose investments — the philanthropists?
As for government: "… in 21st century Australia, there is a sense that the role of government is changing."
"There is an expectation civil society will strengthen as government becomes less central in our lives. Yet many perceive in climate change, or the response to Indigenous Australia, exactly the national challenges that require choices through collective public action."
The report highlights voluntary work; it is even proposed that there be a discount on tertiary education fees for students who volunteer with community organisations for an extended period. The unemployed could also do voluntary work instead of seeking paid employment.
Abolition of states?
On the group discussing the future of the Australian economy, the report notes: "This stream proposes the creation of an independent body to carry out a ‘clean sheet of paper’ review of the roles and responsibilities of federal, state and local governments in areas of major economic activity ..." According to the summary the call was for a "consistent national approach".
Also from the economy group: "… numerous inefficiencies in the Australian economy were identified flowing from differences between states and territories. Participants believe it is time to drive for a seamless national economy. This will mean single national markets and approaches in key areas such as taxation, energy and transport."
The summary report notes that there "was a strong push across streams for a consistent national approach, particularly in economic policy. The government is already committed to this under its World Trade Organisation membership in relation to foreign trade and investment.
"… there should be a single, national education and accreditation system to promote mobility of talent", was reported as a priority theme from the productivity agenda group which included education.
These and other references to the states and the federal government suggest that the argument is leading towards the abolition of the states. This has been on the conservatives’ agenda for some time; council amalgamations were a first step in that direction, with the aim of creating larger regions or provinces without state borders.
The views of those who support the public education system or abolition of fees certainly did not make the summary. Instead, amongst the so-called "Top Ideas" and under the theme "Supporting kids" was the call for "encouraging more private investment."
The various proposals on taxation appear to be heading in the direction of a radical transformation of the taxation system, in line with the rolling back of income taxes, personal and corporate, and reading between the lines, the distinct likelihood of an increase in the GST.
There are many other extremely important themes arising in what has been selected as "Top Ideas" and a fuller reportage will be produced for the public next month.
One extremely frustrated participant told The Guardian they felt used by Rudd, for them the 2020 Summit was political exercise by him and his government. That is what it appears to be — a clever, slick, public discussion which will continue into the future as a vehicle to launch Rudd’s agenda and try to gain acceptance for it as coming from the public. Its underlying base is one of winding back the state and strengthening the hand and role of the corporate sector.