Beyond the 2020 Summit

Australia 2020 Summit
will be held in April 2008. But try to
imagine for a moment that it’s the morning after.

Surely the one thousand visionary experts chosen to
participate were impressive. They were selected by a committee following
self-nomination and institutional suggestions and may have represented Australia’s
best minds. They had an enriching and expansive exchange of ideas about how Australia’s
policy course should be set for the long term. The Ministers and Steering Committee
members who chaired sessions in each of the ten pre-specified policy areas were
pleased by the respectful and energetic endeavour of the participants. It was a
networking paradise.

But then, what? Can we judge the event a success? You would
think that the Government’s stated objectives for the Summit would be a good place to start. Here we scrutinise just two: harnessing the best ideas across the nation
and producing options for consideration
by Government

Objective: To
harness the best ideas across the nation.

This might be difficult to measure and doing so will
be a very long-term exercise. For those who missed out on their opportunity to
present their ideas at all, it is probably a sore point. Candidates had to
write 100 words to justify their inclusion and many with wonderful ideas would
not have considered themselves worthy of consideration. From amongst those bold
enough to apply, can we be certain that the Steering Committee did not filter
out potentially radical ideas in their participant selection process? No matter
how open-minded the selectors, it is certain that the Summit was a select group rather than a genuine
opportunity to generate the best ideas Australians could offer.

Objective: To
produce options for consideration by the Government.

This is hardly a firm commitment to do anything in
particular with the ideas. As well, there was a promise that a public response would be produced by the end of 2008. The decision-making
process is hardly transparent; it is not clear who will decide which ideas are
capable of being shaped into concrete policy responses. This objective, unfortunately,
will most likely lead to contributors at the Summit passively awaiting the Government’s
response. Moreover they will be unaware of how the output of the Summit will be
processed. Of course they are the
‘lucky’ ones. Those who never made it, especially those who will potentially be affected by
policy responses emanating from the Summit,
will feel even more obsolete.

The authors rather wish that the Summit’s objectives had instead been
modelled on some principles on best practice in community engagement that are expressed in The Brisbane Declaration 2005, endorsed by over 2000 attendees from 44 countries of the International Conference for Engaging
, a conference hosted by the Queensland Government
and the United Nations. Article 13 calls for engagement processes
to carry prescribed qualities of integrity,
inclusion, deliberation and influence.
In particular,

a. the
real objectives and process methods should be transparent to all.

b. the
conversation should include expressions of the values and perspectives of the
broad population potentially affected by the outcomes.

c. dialogue
and decision-making ought to be facilitated, encouraging reflective exploration
of alternative options and common understandings.

d. participants
should help determine aspects of the process itself and the implementation of
the outcomes.

These objectives also reflect the core values of the
International Association for Public Participation, which brings together thousands of individuals from
public and private sectors around the world; practitioners with a career commitment
to citizen engagement.

The Summit
process has certainly come up short on these objectives. The critical
difference is that Kevin Rudd, co-chairman Glyn Davis (vice-chancellor of The
University of Melbourne) and their advisors might inadvertently be limiting
discussions about our future to an elite and mostly affluent group of citizens.
But how well do those people really understand the values and needs of corners
of the population they may scarcely know?
Are their ideas appropriate? And how will we know?













Options are ultimately generated for the benefit of
the people, not just the Government. However, with any relatively small group of
people who believe they have come up with something worthwhile, it is quite
difficult for that accomplishment to be shared and endorsed by the broader

Here is a different scenario for what might happen the day after April 20.

The Summit
itself is finished. Instead of locking the ideas up behind the closed doors of
bureaucracy, they are now opened up to real public scrutiny. This starts with a
random selection of one hundred citizens for each policy area – a microcosm of
the actual Australian population. They are drawn just like a jury, but from
across the country.

The idea of gathering together a microcosm via a
lottery is advertised widely and selection take-up is encouraged as a
democratic right and privilege. Random selection via the electoral roll is the
key to getting beyond the ‘the usual suspects’ who found their way to the Summit.

The randomly-selected citizens are presented with
ideas from the Summit
and able to obtain clarification from the authors. Rather than just private
submissions lodged through the Summit
website, all Australians are encouraged to participate in e-panels (electronic
issues-based forums) that simultaneously discuss the ideas. The randomly-selected
citizens have access to all these views as well, including new ideas or concerns
that emerge. They are given the opportunity and time to discuss the options in
small groups and, with the aid of neutral facilitation, to unpack the benefits
and impacts on their community on their own terms. Good facilitation encourages
reflection and mutual regard without diminishing individual views or steering
the conversation to particular ends. To reduce cost, some of their interactions
are conducted online. Then they could individually endorse the ideas that had the
most merit. The popular ideas would rise to the top, and their activity could
be recorded for television and media commentary.

What then is to become of all the ideas that were,
according to the Office of the Prime Minister, harvested? Kevin Rudd should make a more generous and open
statement about what the Government will do with the ideas. Perhaps a regular Report Card should be issued which
outlines the progress made by Ministerial departments in acting on them, with
invited public comment.

Some critics might say that it is impossible for
citizens to come to a consensus. But that is not the goal. It is sufficient to
endorse a diverse set of solutions which are accepted as good for most people
and harmful to none. This process acknowledges James Surowiecki’s claim
that wisdom can indeed emerge from the crowd.[1]

Critics have labelled Ministers who support such
citizen engagement processes as weak-kneed and indecisive given their apparent
electoral mandate. The question is what kind of leadership do we need? It takes
courage to open up a process that attempts to draw on the collective
intelligence of many, to introduce a different way of doing ‘democracy’.

The new Government certainly deserves accolades for
responding to the growing trend toward shared decision-making. By sharing the task of generating and prioritising ideas with a wider constituency, we can focus on long-term
challenges instead of the short-term electioneering which dominates the thinking of
political parties and distracts us from solving pressing problems.

Here is a chance for Kevin Rudd’s Government to really
follow through with the Australia 2020 Summit; transforming it
from old-school consultation to exemplary public engagement that truly respects
the people.



[1] James Surowiecki (2004). The Wisdom
of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom
Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations
Little, Brown


Leave a Comment