The Great 2020 Hoax

I watched the ABC1 Sunday afternoon showing of Vision 2020 Summit and, its participant speeches and summations. A fascinating spectacle, of motherhood statements and sector wish lists often at odds with each other, revealing a truth which cannot be spun or hidden. 

 

The Australia 2020 summit does not speak for Australia. In fact, by no disciplinary yardstick in existence can it be said to speak for the whole nation.

A badly-worded, one question, single issue online newspaper poll has more chance of being reliably considered representative of a majority national view.

Which means that 2020 is a hoax, a piece of political theatre designed to make voters think that government is doing more than running on the spot.

 

When Kevin Rudd first made that throw-away announcement, of a national ideas summit to help set the political agenda, I was mildly amused at his nonsense.

Then I became slightly irritated on realising that no thought had gone into how this would be achieved and, that invitations to chair workshops were based on the usual suspects known to those in power.

 

By the time it became obvious that dominant groups had hijacked both the summit's agenda and who would be chosen to attend, I have to say that irritation had turned to pronounced annoyance.

Particularly when Rudd decided to ginger things up by so obviously manouvering a republic onto the list.

 

This metamorphosed into definite anger when it could be seen that most of those attending had not even bothered to do the most preliminary homework on the their own stated aspirational goals, as opposed to their 'new' ideas of which there appeared to be none.

Even a trawl through the published 2020 written submissions revealed a dearth of proposed solutions to the problems which face us as a nation.

 

But what induced my almost incandescent rage has been the many assertions (made by smug elite spokespersons during this summit) that these little mouseketeers actually represent the views of all Australia.

The only views these people can possibly represent are the views of those attending over the course of the two-day summit. That is, those who were chosen and could afford to attend by paying all travel and accommodation costs, as well as buying most of their own food and drink.

 

However, because the final documents produced by this summit will have had to be massaged by bureaucrats to produce a least a few facesaving practical 'solutions' from that pile of well-worn aspirational goals, these may more properly be said to potentially reflect the views of ministers and their advisers.

If the televised ministerial speeches unconsciously foreshadowing this didn't give the hint, then the Prime Minister's shameless herding of the working groups would.

 

So Rudd and Co. let us be clear about what was achieved at the end of the 19-20 April exclusive Canberra weekend.

Your government presided over the biggest, collective manual self-gratification gathering ever held in Australia's long history.

I suggest you approach the Guinness Book of Records for inclusion, because that will be your sole enduring demonstrable outcome from this great hoax.

Telstra rewarded for its support of Labor during 2007 election?

During the 2007 federal election Telstra actively campaigned against the telecommunications policy and business decisions of the Howard Government.

 

Is this part of Labor's reward to Telstra for services rendered?

In The Australian this morning.

 

DETAILS about Australia's telecommunications infrastructure, crucial for bidders pitching for the $4.7 billion national broadband contract, are not available from the Government -- more than a week after the request for proposals (RFP) for the bid.

In the week since the release of the RFP on April 11, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy has been trying to assure the telco industry that the process being used to award the lucrative contract is not biased towards Australia's dominant telecommunications player Telstra.

But in the battle to win the $4.7 billion national broadband bid, Telstra, which wants an after-tax return on the network north of 18 per cent for its shareholders, appeared to win the psychological advantage when its media man Phil Burgess said the day before the RFP was released that the former government-owned monopoly expected to get the nod.

The timing and tenor of his comments sent a murmur through the telco industry but the release of the RFP a day later had some convinced that a deal had been done.

The three main criticisms from Telstra's rivals of the RFP for the open access fibre network are that it lacks public scrutiny for such a large investment of public funds, that it could entrench a monopoly provider and that it disadvantages Telstra's rivals in the bidding process.

The Australian understands that a number of companies are currently crafting letters to the minister expressing their concerns about the deal, and the CEOs of the G9 group of Telstra's rivals are planning to meet within days to discuss how to respond to the RFP.

The federal Opposition has also raised concerns about the inclusion of a gag order in the broadband tender which prohibits bidders from discussing it publicly. Opposition communications spokesman Bruce Billson says that he has received legal advice describing the gag order as an "extraordinary" inclusion in a government RFP.

"Legal opinion I have sought is also contrary to the claims from the minister's office that the gag order is common. I am advised it is quite uncommon in both private sector and government contracts," he says.

Australia 2020 - thinking glib

The Australia 2020 summit logo - something else Rudders asserts he owns.

Words the 2020 summit initial report tries not to use

So quickly after the final session closed yesterday was the Australia 2020 summit initial report (with pictures) posted on its website that one has to wonder if some of the pages were typed in anticipation of workshop outcomes.

 

The 40-page initial report covering the official 10 topics is here.

 

Using Acrobat Find to count, it is remarkable for those words it seldom uses or uses not at all, across these forty pages which cover everything from the economy to an alleged call for a republic.

 

democracy used twice

democratic not used at all

equality    used once

equity       used once as a financial term

justice       used once as in 'justice system'

fairness     used once

fairgo        not used at all

rights        used seven times, but two of these as in 'property rights'

welfare      used three times

humanity   not used at all

freedom(s) used three times   

protection(s) used twice

share(ed/ing) used eleven times, but eight of these referred to data/information sharing or sharing priorities/topics/aspirations 

caring       used three times

disadvantage used seven times, but once was as a paragraph heading

regional     used twenty-four times, but seven of these were as international descriptions

 

The people who supposedly decided on the language are here.

Based on simple maths they are each responsible for about 0.04 parts of one page.

North Coast music industry Dolphin Awards to be held at Lismore on 30 April 2008

It's time for those Dolphin music awards again.

 

The Dolphin Awards, co-ordinated by the North Coast Entertainment Industry Association, will be staged at ONE nightclub, next door to Mary Gilhooley's Irish bar in Lismore on April 30.

The night will feature the best of North Coast talent and reward the efforts of artists and industry workers in numerous award categories.

There will also be live performances by Diana Anaid, Invisible Friend and Andy Holm, and a DJ.

Co-ordinator Rod Tyson described the event as the North Coast's answer to the ARIAs.

"It's a good starting off point for some of these bands," he said.

"The North Coast has the biggest concentration of music and artists in all of Australia."

This year, the event will be sponsored by Splendour in the Grass, and in the next 12 months the Dolphin Awards and Splendour are also joining to host a number of youth-focused events, including a proposed gig called Bands in the Park.

"We're happy to be on board to support the Dolphin awards which are a great showcase of North Coast talent," Splendour representative Darcy Condon said.

Spivs Inc (NSW) and Developers Unlimited are at it again

The Sydney Morning Herald yesterday.

 

THE State Government plans to give its agencies and councils power to compulsorily acquire private land to re-sell to developers at a profit - or, if they choose, at a reduced price so the developers make even more money.

Legal authorities describe as "quite remarkable" a section of new planning laws flagged by the Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, to acquire land by force to onsell to private developers.

"A man's home may no longer be his castle, but it could well end up being somebody else's castle," said Anthony Whealy, a planning expert with Gadens Lawyers. "It will certainly be welcome news to many in the development game.

"Under the current law, the minister is not able to re-sell land which has been acquired or transfer it to another person. The new scheme expressly allows that, and makes it clear that it may be done as part of a profitable proposal by a private developer."

 

The last time New South Wales was perceived to be so thoroughly in the hands of big business interests (not all of these of spotless corporate character) was in the 1970s and 80s.

Some of the development companies operating in this state right now were unfavourably mentioned during government inquiries, royal commissions and even one coroner's inquest during that period.

Quite a few of the most generous political donors have business interests on the NSW North Coast.

Planning Minister Frank Sartor and the rest of the Iemma Government may protest about media beat ups, but they have done nothing to dispel the idea that NSW Labor is blatantly 'on the take' and just as susceptible to brown paper bag deliveries as that not so long ago Coalition Askin Government.

Indigenous delegation heads for UN to protest Rudd Government policy

ABC News reported on Friday.

 

The National Aboriginal Alliance is taking its concerns about the Northern Territory intervention to the United Nations.

A delegation leaves today for the annual UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York.

Delegation Leader Les Malezer says parts of the intervention, like income management, breach United Nations charters on racial discrimination and human rights.

"What we hope to do is at least make people aware internationally of the extent of racial discrimination that occurs only against Aboriginal people in Australia and that continues despite changes of government," he said.

"Despite decades of supposed reforms in Australia, it's still the most discriminatory place in the world."

 

On the same day The Age published an article on Australian National University researchers.

 

A GROUP of academics predict it could take 2000 years to bridge the gap in the median household income of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

Before the 2020 Summit, the Australian National University researchers have warned that the Rudd Government needs a "fundamentally new policy framework" if it is serious about closing gaps in social outcomes for Aborigines.

Jon Altman, Nicholas Biddle and Boyd Hunter, from the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, examined census data from 1971 to 2006 to chart trends. They found that most socio-economic outcomes for indigenous people have improved in the past 35 years.

The number of indigenous people getting qualifications after school and employment in the private sector has improved. And if current trends and policy persist, gaps in these areas could be bridged within 35 years.

But gaps are not closing in areas such as the unemployment rate, male and female life expectancy and median incomes. The latter is partly to do with the rise in incomes for non-indigenous workers.

 

Full copy of April 2008 ANU study here.

 

Kevin Rudd's Australia 2020 summit has a big job ahead of it and only two days to come up with a new way to approach the issue of inequality and racism.

This is an impossible task and may only increase general dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's handling of indigenous affairs.