Futures Foundation

introduction

The co-contributors to this document recognised the significance of the April scheduled Australia 2020 Summit announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 4th February 2008.  We suggest that the summit represents not just an opportunity for the generation of ideas (though it is likely that one or two gems will be generated), but for the significant shift in terms of how an elected Government chooses to engage with the public on matters of importance.  Should this process of engagement continue to be pursued, enhanced and followed through, the potential for rapidly generated, non-ideological ideas being implemented on behalf of a better future Australia is high. Over time the challenge will be in ensuring that a ‘clean’ input process is maintained such that vested interests find it difficult to wrest broad public perspectives away from the contribution process.

The Prime Minister’s summit then appears to establish a means through which a number of goals might be achieved:

• Recognition of the ‘person in the street’ and their willingness to engage deeply in the political process well beyond the election cycle;

• Willingness by an elected Government to listen to multiple perspectives from outside the typical sphere of bureaucratic or ideological representation

• The identification of key operational ‘spheres’ that carry significant influence in terms of how aspects of Australia will develop over the next decade and beyond

• The potential to generate useful ideas for engaging the 10 key spheres

That a Government appears so willing to engage with the Public in such a manner is to be applauded and ought to be judged as a significant step forward.  Whilst understanding the benefits associated with the Prime Minister’s initiative, the co-contributors to this document also understand that the fundamental weakness of this approach with regard to idea generation and direction setting is the potential for a lack of ‘depth’; lack of ‘breadth’; and lack of ‘distance’.

These three attributes are typically considered by Strategic Futurists as the fundamental weaknesses that limit the potential for effective decision making.  A lack of breadth means a failure to consider multiple voices, alternatives and options, typically leading to disenfranchised stakeholders becoming voices of ongoing opposition to initiatives.  A lack of depth means a failure to critically assess and test those options generated, which often leads to well-intentioned but ill-founded choice selection. The lack of distance often leads to ‘more of the same’ option generation as the current paradigm is stretched into the future, rather than being open to question in the initial stages of a futures process.

We do not suggest that such an outcome (lack of breadth, depth and distance) is certain. What we suggest is that given the time frame available for the summit and the number of people contributing to the process, the format of the process is likely to be problematic.  As some of Australia’s professional futurists engaged by their own clients to assist them in developing a richer, deeper and more effectively considered image of potential future developments, we considered it important to be able to add our own thinking and expertise to the themes identified by Prime Minster Rudd.   We have done so through a process that is designed in a way that does not seek to influence participants prior to the PM’s Summit.

Although willing to discuss the intentions behind the Futurists’ Summit, the process used, the PM’s Summit and our overall hopes for the future, we have embargoed this document from public dissemination prior to the PM’s Summit.  This differs significantly from what we have recognised as attempts by some representative bodies to influence the current thinking of potential participants at the PM’s 1000 heads summit. The influx of white papers, positioning statements, press releases and the like says much about the interested parties who wish their voices to be heard above others.   We have no desire to do that at this point of the process though are willing to engage intimately should we be able to add value, at a later stage.

Instead as some of Australia’s professional futurists, we offer our thoughts as a contribution to the summit that runs not in conjunction to it nor in competition to it but as an additional stream of process that may add extra layers of thinking to the process. As such this Australia 2020 Futurists Summit report ought to be read as a companion document to the one generated by the PM’s Summit.  It neither seeks to replace or stand above the outcomes  of the April summit in Canberra, nor does it aim to suggest a ‘completeness’ in output necessarily better than anything  generated  via the Prime Minister’s summit.

Taken from the Prime Minister’s website, the key themes we addressed at the Australia 2020 Futurists Summit are listed below:

• Australian Economy – future directions for the Australian economy – including education, skills, training, science and innovation as part of the nation’s productivity agenda

• Infrastructure – economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities

• Sustainability and Climate Change – population, sustainability, climate change and water

• Rural Australia – future directions for rural industries and rural communities

• Health – a long-term national health strategy – including the challenges of preventative health, workforce planning and the ageing population

• Communities and Families

– strengthening communities, supporting families and social inclusion

• Indigenous Australia – options for the future of Indigenous Australia

• Creative Australia – towards a creative Australia:  the future of the arts, film and design

• Governance – the future of Australian governance: renewed democracy, a more open government (including the role of the media), the structure of the Federation and the rights and responsibilities of citizens

• Australia’s Future in the World – Australia’s future security and prosperity in a rapidly changing region and world.

Each of these themes was tackled in a ‘small cells’ format that produced an initial thinking document.  This document was then opened to contribution by others and a larger representative document was produced, the final result of which is this report.

We welcome any questions about the content, process and contributors and sincerely wish it to add value to the overall process instigated by Prime Minster Rudd when he announced the creation of an Australia 2020 ideas summit.

Marcus Barber

Convenor

Australia 2020 Futurists’ Summit

understanding process – what we used and recommend

‘Speed’, ‘Quality’ and ‘Cost’ are the three elements that typically impact on strategy making and are ones likely to impact the PM’s summit in Canberra. With the majority of people being asked to contribute their own resources to the process, costs (especially those related to attendance) are by default, kept to a minimum.  But the hard costs will not be insignificant and nor are they likely to end with the conclusion of the summit.

The time available to incorporate the thinking of 1000 people is short, even given the thematic spheres containing just 100 people.  This means that speed is a critical issue for facilitators in each sphere and potentially one that is likely to have an impact on the quality of the outputs.  Effective facilitation would ensure that the time spent generates what would amount to a large ‘brainstorm’ session where multiple ideas are generated, without any need for qualitative assessment of those ideas.

In fact we would suggest that given the sheer number of people involved, treating the PM’s Summit as brainstorm session would be valuable.   At a later stage, when there is more time available, a qualitative assessment of those ideas might be undertaken.  But this also has its limitations as true brainstorming sessions see ideas emerge in context of things being heard at the time. 

Adding ‘depth’ to those ideas after the event may not be possible or may even see a development not initially considered by the ideas generator, aligned to their original thinking.

The end result then of a large brainstorming session is one in which the element of ‘quality’ must be open to question.   We make no value judgements as to whether there exists a push for quality from the PM’s Summit and we believe that time pressure alone places a significant (though not necessarily insurmountable challenge) for generating quality outputs.

Given the weight of numbers involved we would have recommended that a process not too dissimilar from the one outlined below be used to maximise the quality of the outputs whilst ensuring that multiple ideas are still available to be generated.  In order to do so we would use a process that combines what amounts to a face to face Delphi model with an Appreciative Inquiry model.  Such a model would work as follows:

1.     Split the 100 people per theme into groups of 10 people

2.     Have each group of 10 people spend the first 90 minutes generating ideas and thinking on their theme

3.     Assessing the ideas they had generated, each group of 10 would then nominate a list of their top 10 ideas along with any ‘context’ comments to support those ideas.

4.     Each group would also capture every other idea generated by their group

5.     Next, combine two groups for another 90 minutes.  Each group  to explain to the other group their top 10 ideas and reasons supporting each idea, and then generate new ideas developing from combinations of initial ideas or ‘totally new’ ideas that may emerge.

6.     Each alternative group would pick the top 6 ideas they like from the other group’s ideas and explain the reasons they like them.

7.   The two groups would then need to agree on the selection of their top 8 ideas drawn from the combination of all top ideas generated up to that point.  These top 8 ideas would now be representative of the combined group’s output.

8.     The ‘Group of Twenty’ would convene in a larger area with the other ‘Groups of Twenty’

9.     For the next three hours, representatives of the Groups of Twenty would nominate their top 8 ideas and reasons for selecting them and the plenary would work towards identifying the Top 20 ideas emerging from the 100 heads of their theme of focus.  All other ideas would be captured as an additional part of the process.

10.  The final outcome is a document that identifies up to twenty key ideas, the context in which they’d be appropriate and why the group feels these are worthy  of pursuing further.  In addition, all other ideas would be captured in case they lead to other innovative and beneficial thinking at a later stage.

The above suggested process is one way in which multiple opinions might be captured, allows the greatest opportunity for everyone to contribute given the time constraints of the Summit and also adds increasing depth to the best of the ideas being generated.  The process then is very pragmatic – whilst all ideas are accepted as gems, only a handful  are considered valuable enough to ‘polish’ further  in the initial stages of idea generation and option  development.

understanding process – what we used and the purpose of applying futures to issues of importance

If you’ve ever planned for a holiday, job interview, trip to the movies, shopping  for dinner, thought about what to wear for the following day or looked at your watch to check what time it is, then you understand ‘the future’.  Futures work is an everyday issue of life that pretty well every person on the planet engages with at some level or another.   There is nothing particularly unique about Futures thinking nor any special skill required.

As already noted, Futurists seek to add greater breadth, depth and distance to the process of formulating decisions.  We do so because all choices have future consequences yet often we rely too heavily (or solely) on history as our guide.  Even the dominant western paradigm of financial markets recognises that ‘past performance is no guarantee to future success – a warning to consumers that is now part of any financial growth instrument.

Whilst an often significant factor for consideration, ‘history’ is an unreliable guide to future developments.  Most members of the public would have heard of or been exposed to some of the more common ‘futures tools’ like forecasting, trends and scenarios. These approaches are but three of more than forty methods that professional futurists use when engaging with their clients and when considering in greater detail a future based issue.

As professional futurists we do not see ourselves as different from any other members of the public save for one thing – we consciously choose to give ourselves the time to consider in greater detail the future based consequences and we do so using well established tools of inquiry.  To that extent we find both forecasting (actually a sub-set of trend analysis) and trends as highly limited in scope, with both methods  being attempts to extend history (current thinking  and paradigms) by ‘predicting’ the future.  Scenarios also have their place and they do so only when given specific contexts in which they can be considered.

Instead  we seek to explore the space between the ‘possible’ and ‘probable’  and to ensure that any assessment as the much needed ‘Breadth’, ‘Depth’ and ‘Distance’ components so important to ensuring a sufficiently critical consideration of future potential.

The process used by the futurists  at the 2020 Australia – Futurists’ Summit was not too dissimilar to the suggested methodology we would have recommended for the PM’s Summit, though we had the luxury of being able to add greater depth to the process throughout, given our experience at questioning issues of discourse and bias.

Aside from similarities in the facilitation process as outlined above, we also utilised a context framework which required each of the small groups to answer the following:

Futurists Process:

1.     What assumptions exist in the definition?

2.     What are the key drivers having, or are likely to provide, momentum for the development of this theme over the next 12 years?

3.     What vested interests prevent development of, or influence direction of, the enhanced development of the theme?

4.     Can you perceive of some sort of future image of this theme in 2020?

5.     What low lying fruit (ready to go or in need of immediate implementation) ideas exist? What medium term (more work/longer lead time) ideas? What far out, left field, ridiculously weird ideas can you think of?

The emerging thoughts contained here are representative of the thinking of the people who contributed to the formation of this document.  It is just as likely that many of the ideas contained here will emerge at the Prime Minister’s Summit, that alternatives will be suggested and that others not considered will emerge.  We are highly interested in the outcome not just for the Summit but for Australia’s future and the shape of such a future.   In being ‘happy but not content’ we seek it to be far better for those who follow than what we have today.

The outputs of the process follow the ‘Context Setting’ section.

understanding process – what we used and recommend

context setting

It is important to understand the context we established in assessing each of the themes.

Step 1 – Identify existing assumptions contained in the overview of the theme.

We seek to test whether the assumptions we make are valid, given all that we understand about the sphere in question.   A failure to do so ultimately limits the choices we make, leading to unrealistic expectations for the future.

Unless we identify and then question the inherent assumptions, the possibility of generating multiple or alternative options is by default, limited.  We spent considerable time questioning the inherent assumptions we believed existed and, which by design or by default, place a cognitive boundary around the types of ideas and thinking that might emerge, as ways to tackle the questions contained within the sphere.

Step 2 – Suggest the key drivers likely to influence how this sphere will develop over time Once the existing assumptions have been identified and questioned, we are in a position to suggest the existing operational ‘drivers’.   ‘Drivers’ are the suggested areas of momentum that require an entity to use energy and resources, as part of their day-to- day engagement with the sphere.

In this process we identified both existing drivers that are likely to be widely known to the general public, as well as emerging issues which as professional futurists considering future outcomes, we perceive to be likely to have an influence in the future

Step 3 – Where are the ‘vested interests’ and how are they likely to respond? 

Through this stage of our process we sought to identify who the existing stakeholders were, and the supporting weight of ‘power’ they had to shape and develop the way the sphere unfolded in the future.

In futures strategy development, we seek an explicit recognition of who holds weight of opinion and potential to influence.  In this way we aim to answer the question

‘Who wins and who loses if we believe opinion ‘x’?’ A failure to do so often means that strategy development ignores important players who may support, derail, offer alternatives or dig their heels in, should a suggested initiative threaten their existing position of authority or being.

Having  identified potential ‘winners and losers’ we can then consider the types of actions a group might take to prevent an idea from gaining traction, or how they may push alternatives more to their liking, but ones not necessarily holistic in providing

overall benefits to the sphere under consideration.

Step 4 – What might a future image look like for this sphere? Where feasible and appropriate to do so, the groups suggested a future image that captured much of what they considered as a plausible future.  This image is neither predictive, nor complete and captures much of what emerged in the process of consideration of the theme.

Step 5 – Idea generation – low- lying fruit; medium term; long range  Having considered the assumptions in play, key drivers, weight of existing vested interests and potential future,  the groups were asked to generate ideas that ought to be easy to implement  and or seem ‘obvious’ solutions; medium- term ideas that might require more resources to implement  or take longer to implement; and ‘Left Field’ ideas of both a long-term  nature  and ones outside a typical cognitive and rationalistic mindset.

economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities

The Australian Government is committed to building on our $1.2 trillion economy so that we can compete with the leading nations in a world economy that is being transformed by globalisation, new technologies, and the rise of China and India. While we take full advantage of the mining boom, we must also build long-term competitive strengths in the global industries of tomorrow - industries that will provide the high-paying jobs of the future.

In implementing the Government’s human capital agenda, the objective is to build a world-class education system that can transform our workforce into the best educated and most highly-trained in the world. This in turn is aimed at boosting long- term workforce participation and productivity. This program has begun with the immediate priorities of expanding training places to tackle the skills crisis, as well as providing universal early childhood education, a rigorous national school curriculum, improved information technology and trades training infrastructure for the 3.3 million young Australians at school.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• After a long period of sustained economic growth and with the added benefits of the global mining boom, how do we best invest the proceeds of this prosperity to lay the foundations for future economic growth;

• How we best prepare for a global economy that increasingly based upon advanced  skills, advanced technology, low carbon energy sources and integration with global supply chains;

• How we take advantage of Australia’s proximity to the fast growing economies in the world;

• How Australia attracts and retains the most talented, creative and highly skilled people, including researchers and scientists, entrepreneurs, and professional and skilled workers;

• How we ensure that our children have the highest quality teachers, whether in early childhood, school, TAFE or university, including dealing with the crisis in maths and science related disciplines across the education system; and

• How we foster innovation in the workplace; encouraging the transfer of ideas across businesses and economies.

Assumption Summary:

The content above suggests that this theme has been written by an academic with a strong internal bias towards the existing education system, and who also buys into the economic rationalist mindset of market-driven economies.  Whilst potentially valid we suggest that such a position is open to a serious critique and also that each of the assumptions identified are open to question regarding the validity and usefulness to framing the overall issue:

• That there is a crisis in maths and science, that a degree is more important than a trade and that (formal) education is the key that drives the economy;

• That we have to be ‘high-tech’ and that we can transform our workforce into the best educated and most highly-trained despite decades of under-investment and that our education system fosters innovation (highly contentious); and perhaps  initially that we don’t already have or we need to have a world class education system;

• That we need to compete against leading nations, that we have to attract and retain the economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our cities best talent,  and by default that Australia  should seek to drain away talent from (more often than not) third world countries in order to do so);

• That the government doesn’t pick winners, just supports every facet of the system to succeed, which requires an unquestioned belief that markets  should drive decisions and that continued economic growth  and competition are good things (very 20th century….);

• That people want to stay in the workforce and keep producing;

• That we are taking full advantage of the mining boom;

• That population growth is good and should be unlimited; and

• That the government is competent in managing the economy even as it expects that China and India will keep rising, and that the benefits of globalisation will continue, that peak oil won’t affect us, and Australian demographic change won’t affect the number  of entrants into the workforce.

There is an assumption in much of the existing thinking about  attracting students from overseas, that they will be able to travel here in 2020 or that there is a need for them to travel here. Yet there exists the strong possibility that continuing hikes in the price of fuel will make this more difficult and is likely to diminish our attractiveness to overseas students. Additional the need to study in Australia could be made redundant by co-operative partnerships delivery qualifications directly into overseas countries.  On the flip side, a US undergraduate education (ala Melbourne Uni for much less than the amount paid in America) may well be attractive in the short-term (to 2012) especially as the US/AU dollar gap narrows.

Potential Future Image:

The future shift sees a much greater distribution of education provision, with a well-supported TAFE system in rural communities, running cutting-edge technology courses using the natural environment as the symbiotic partner. Water and solar farming is taught on-site in places such as Ouyen, where funding for sustainable energy trials is linked to these courses which provide ‘free places’ encouraging wider take up across the wider community.

The mining industry boom has slowed but the income has been focused on the ‘post-mining’ slow down with the emergence of niche product projects as the dominant paradigm, releasing Australia from its reliance on the ‘market’ as a lead surface indicator of economic well-being.  We’ve shifted from activity-based to productivity- based value judgements.

Overall, education is accessible to all as a result of strong government investment in technological infrastructure and local learning communities since 2008.  Both young people who are starting out, existing workers who are retraining, and people returning to the workforce are able to design relevant programs to support their careers, with the support of learning facilitators, who work with students to support their learning.  A range of delivery methods is available across the country.  The focus is not only on skills development ‘required’ to build the economy, but also on building strong community and citizenship values.

Key Drivers

This sphere has a number of existing drivers and emerging drivers which influence or have the potential to influence and shape its evolution.  Among those identified by the groups are -

Existing:

• Australia’s long-term competitive (mining and agriculture) advantage;

• ‘Lucky country’ mythology;

• Lack of effective venture-capital industry success;

• Oligarchic Industry structures;

• Australia’s place as the only Western nation in Asia-Pacific rim and proximity to Asian markets;

• Climate change and opportunities for innovation;

• Societal values re-education (currently teachers not highly- regarded); and

• The (manufactured) desirability of high tech consumer goods.

Emerging:

• An increasing global awareness that small economies succeed on the basis of winning in niche markets;

• Increasing dependency ratios;

• Transition to knowledge economy then to wisdom economy (new enlightenment era); and

• Potential ‘bust’ of the mineral/ resources sector- need to invest beyond the boom.

To successfully develop this sphere for Australia, future based challenges exist in managing any ‘deemed’ transitions that might emerge through core drivers, such as climate change, changing societal values and an awareness of the need to shift beyond the reliance on the mining and agriculture sector.

Potential roadblocks emerge through a failure to question the assumptions that arise within the ‘lucky country’ paradigm, the Oligarchic  Industry structures and vested interests unlikely to sign up to ‘new directions’ without much angst.

vested interests

Vested interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.

Education Industry (mainstream): likely to resist any change that threatens the existing power structure especially at the pinnacle end of the industry.  Universities act as powerful players across the sector, and along with established ‘players’ in the secondary education sector act as constraint to innovative teaching and learning programs.

The ‘pre-grading’ models used to determine the apparent suitability of a secondary school student for tertiary education is questionable and overall encourages a focus on content and not process, which is a key requirement for developing innovative work practises. Entrenched teacher mindsets – ‘experts in everything’ are likely to resist opportunities for self-learning and professional development (almost no academic staff in Universities have degrees in teaching although there are signs this is starting to (and should) shift, instead being ‘content’/subject matter experts).

Many innovative  teachers in universities and TAFE who are being very innovative  within the constraints of current funding arrangements, could become the catalyst for substantial change in methods  and process if they can be protected from institutional inertia and bias.  The expected response by the sector will be a demand for additional funds as the ‘cure all’, and will also play the ‘education= innovation = income = success’ card despite lack of any correlation.

economic infrastructure, the digital economy and the future of our  inefficient industries: these include elements of the automotive, agriculture, aged care, governmental and education sectors (as already detailed).

Many will play the ‘employment  card’ citing the employee size of their industry or the ‘history’ card citing the past as a reason for continuation into the future,  or the ‘public good’ card suggesting that they services or contribution they provide outweighs any perceived lack of appropriate delivery of those services.

Simultaneously these industries whilst seeking subsidies and support, whilst also suggesting that the costs required for change or improvement outweigh any economic benefits

New Industries: same as inefficient industries, and will lobby to direct government support away from “dinosaur” industries.

Economists & Market Mythology: the players in this sector have a current ‘revered’ position as ones who know the needs for Australia.  Despite continued historical aberrations suggesting their understanding is open to serious questioning, there is much weight in the sector’s ability to provide content for media.  As such they are in a position to influence public opinion and government policy.  The players in the sector will maintain that ‘markets know better’; that competing forces will shake out the sector and are most effective and efficient ways of encouraging growth.  They include government bureaucrats who work in policy development.

ideas for development - low-lying fruit

• New learning methods to leap-frog other nations (beyond content delivery streams to context development streams)

• We recommend that ENTER is abolished and replaced by a system that recognises multiple ways of knowing, teaching and learning (ENTER is only useful for universities);

• Close some universities; open more trade and craft specific sectors and encourage investment in alternative models for educational delivery;

• ‘Kill’ the CRC’s - burn all of the university research commercialisation arms to the ground and potentially replace them with a centralised commercialisation entity that can specialise in getting ideas to market, and out from behind the clumsy, heavy- handed and commercially unrealistic approaches inherent in the majority of university commercialisation units;

• Free tertiary education for citizens of all ages other than those listed immediately below;

• Shut down the administrative reporting-based functions that demand reporting data of highly questionable value whilst sucking up excessive human,  financial and time resources; and

• Private School secondary students will also be required to enter the university sector as fee paying students.

Medium-Term

• Develop ‘hot beds’ of innovation as test beds for innovative services;

• Set up public prediction market to ID likely winners and niche areas for long-term competitive advantage and funding assistance;

• Educate public that universities are not always the best places to ‘send’ children – equal valuing of other ways of learning and other skill sets;

• Broaden current teaching practices to cover the range of learning styles we know of (arguably nine or ten of these – mainstream schooling teaches to only two or three);

• Create a system where students paid what they could afford, or what they thought their education was worth, especially during delivery of fee-for-service tertiary programs; and

• Continue to develop non-university pathways to education.

Long-term and Left Field Ideas

• Restructure education system, removing the ‘age cohort’ factors as pre-determinant of acceptable or required progress, allowing students to develop more in line with their own developmental needs and time frames;

• Apply the ‘Killing Trends’ model for innovation – identify existing trends and kill them;

• Children will get to design their own curriculum and assess teachers and schools on their ability to deliver that curriculum;

• Inject education chip into tertiary students and save a fortune in salaries and infrastructure; and

• Make futures thinking/ innovation the core of any curriculum that is developed – the ability to think with an open mind, to seek breadth and depth in any analysis or problem-solving exercise, and to focus on the ‘important’, not the ‘urgent’, is surely a critical underpinning for developing an innovative economy.

population, sustainability, climate change and water

The Australian Government is committed to decisive action on climate change, to transform a current threat into an opportunity. As the driest inhabited continent in the world, Australia is more vulnerable to climate change than almost any other developed nation, and we need a comprehensive plan to facilitate population growth.  But climate change also gives Australia a unique opportunity:  with our abundance of natural resources, sun, wind and ocean tidal flows, we could be a world leader in the global low-carbon energy revolution that will transform the global economy in coming decades.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• How Australia develops a long term plan to adapt to the growing impacts of climate change on our environment;

• How does Australia best plan for its long-term water and energy needs;

• How we position Australia to become a global leader within the next decade in the new low-carbon technologies and industries; and

• How do we plan future population growth at a national and regional level, given the constraints of water shortages and sustainability?

Assumption Summary:

The terms of reference seem to imply that the Australian Government should facilitate population growth, while managing the increased water and energy use that will inevitably accompany this.  Despite taking this position it also appears that climate change mitigation is not a sufficiently high priority to be included explicitly in the terms of reference, other than as a consequence of pursuing opportunities in the development of low-carbon energy technology. Presumably this reflects the current Commonwealth Government’s stated commitment to 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, a figure that, as was pointed out in the interim Garnaut Report, is now thought inadequate to avoid more severe climate change.

The issues of population, sustainability, climate change and water are indicated as closely related, but by implication are less related to issues such as governance, health, economic infrastructure etc. This division is arbitrary, and tends to down play the systemic, interrelated nature of the challenges associated with all of these areas.

• The concept of “sustainability” is not defined in any way, and the critical importance of the process by which this is defined in relation to the Summit’s focus is not highlighted. On this basis, it appears that the meaning of this concept is taken to be self-evident – this is highly problematic.

• Population growth is a given – and in fact, it needs to be facilitated, implying that it is not necessarily inevitable,  but is part of a preferred future for Australia and also assumed is that population growth  is desirable.

• All the issues mentioned are important because of the economy.

• Water and energy needs: The focus is on future planning, but how is appropriate resource use going to be determined in the first place? What is the basis for thinking about long-term needs?

• There is no reference to linking resource use with ways of life, and no reference to consumption. The only variable explicitly mentioned in relation to this is population size.

• Although essentially undefined, sustainability is framed as a constraint—this reads as something that has been imposed on us from outside, a limitation to be dealt with on the way to going about our “normal” business, rather than fundamental to our existence.

• Similarly, water is mentioned in terms of shortages.  But shortages relative to what? What was “natural” about our water use prior to the perception of shortages? How was this water use regime determined to be the appropriate benchmark against which we should be considering current availability? Why not reframe the current availability as an abundance, within which we will need to shape our expectations of what is possible and how we would like to live.

Potential Future Image:

A major shift in social values and awareness population, sustainability, climate change and water sees a vast increase in the degree to which all sections of the community accept responsibility for both the existing problem and the need for improved future outlooks.  This awareness has seen the polarisation of the issue to one of two choices – ‘life’ or ‘lifestyle?’ By and large, people are choosing life as the preferred paradigm and seeking to use existing skills and infrastructure to pursue a more intelligent design framework.

The key developments see the emergence of dispersed and interconnected communities that are self-sustaining.  Policy settings have shifted to reflect nodal forms of dispersing and collecting water, energy and food ensuring the rise of locally based energy collection points, community water storages under roads, rainwater tanks and solar panels, pushed along through funding targeted at developing retrofitting technology for existing housing stock to six star standards.

Key Drivers

This sphere has a number of existing drivers and emerging drivers which influence or have the potential to influence and shape its evolution.  Among those identified by the groups are:

Existing:

• Population change

i)    Immigration—planned and managed vs informal.  ‘Fortress Oz’ vs Global Family.

ii)   Shifting values with regard to life expectations. Will birth rates continue to diminish?  Or might birth rates see a sustained revival as family life is placed ahead of career?

iii)  Medical science—will we see significant life extension leading to reduced death rate?

iv) Might death rates increase due to CC-related changes to disease and disease vectors?

v)  Nature of innovation infrastructure—how well is our innovation ecosystem cultivated to allow development of low-carbon energy technologies?  Will our infrastructure unleash creative potential? Will outmoded organisational structures get in the way?

• Perverse energy and transport subsidies that emerged in times of required economic support to establish and encourage industry  growth, but in current terms seem well past their suitable used by date and now act to block investment  in more viable and environmentally suitable alternatives.

Emerging:

• Level at which targets are set for energy and water efficiency, emissions with a push for true cost price setting regimes.

• Lifestyle and consumption expectations including expectations of economic growth and the emergence of the ‘enough-ness’  concept including developing Societal values that will shape environmental issues and business/govt responses.

• Global climate change – anticipation of the need for adaptation to hotter drier conditions for some, wetter colder for others, rising sea-levels, climate refugees combined  with a growing awareness of the complexity  of natural systems;.

• Need for economic diversification – broaden base to include knowledge industries.

• Shifting of traditional Australian values (from resource exploitation to eco-stewardship).

population, sustainability, climate change and water

vested interests

Vested Interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.

• The “sustainability industry”: expert colonisation of the sustainability definition process that sees the everyday person in the street sidelined and ‘other-ed’ as mere consumers  and not  as active, able and willing participants in the process.  This element includes and is not restricted to major consultants, educational experts and bureaucrats who’ve developed specialisation skills in the sector. They will be unwilling to have their positions as experts and authoritative voices diminished by distributed knowledge networks across mainstream sectors of the community.

• Infrastructure providers, owners, operators.  Expect many to suggest that costs associated with shifting to a lower carbon based approach will place too heavy a strain on the economy and end consumer whilst those likely to benefit from a greater renewables focus will be pushing for greater subsidies and support.

• Politicians elected on specific platforms with respect to climate change response and other sustainability issues: can political positions be shaped to fit with the flexibility demanded in relation to a concept such as “sustainability” that defies objectification?  We expect to hear the ‘sky is falling’ card from both sides of the sustainability and carbon fuel debate with headlines revolving around the Government level of investment in renewables;  R&D  costs & subsidies.

• Consumption reliant marketplace: Those who benefit asymmetrically from defining people in relation to consumption activity. This includes business and governments (and the public) who want a growing population, a bigger market  and increasing power base; which suggests we also need to look at how many people this country  can house in the context of its natural systems.  Expect many of the other ‘cards’ to be represented here.

• Major energy and resources firms: not quite ready for transition to renewables.  Many will play the ‘pain for consumers’ card, some will play the ‘stall for more time’ and ‘we shouldn’t be penalised because you want to change the rules’ card.

ideas for development - low-lying fruit

• Introduction of the sustainability tax by state governments as a replacement for current stamp duty taxes on houses and vehicles.

• Remove perverse subsidies for energy use and transport in Australia.

• Introduce co-indices of societal health, alongside GDP. Track relative trajectories of these measures against key indicators such as GHG emissions, water use, energy efficiency.

• Adaptive and flexible approach to setting key targets for GHG emissions, water use.  Set up structures whereby targets can drive innovation processes—whether these be social or technological. In fact, do away with this artificial divide between social and technological, recognising that social technologies are fundamentally important to dealing with sustainability challenges.

• Adopt subsidiary-based principles in relation to sustainability responses: how far down can we push decision making in relation to appropriate situation definition and response. Critical, for instance, is deciding between local water harvesting, recycling, desalination etc. One-size-fits-all cannot be adequate where objective definition of adequate outcomes is impossible.

• Business to adopt UN water challenge.

Medium-Term

• Participatory deliberative processes for definition and understanding of sustainability concepts, and definition of appropriate indicators to be used in relation to these concepts.

• Use of the Global Currency Map and ‘Globals’ unit of value to detail true production costs based on sustainable development principles.

• Introduce a three strikes penalty for high polluters which will ban their products from sale for 12 months immediately following their third breach of pollution targets.

• Adopt the ‘oxygen credits’ system to counter balance the carbon (pollution) credits system.

• Immigration policy based on economic footprint.

• All jurisdictions in Australia adopt and apply the Oil Depletion protocol.

Long-term and Left Field Ideas

• Launch large scale public study into psycho-cultural aspects of resource use, consumption and human wellbeing. As part of this process, ensure government participation in the third annual ‘Happiness and its Causes’ conference to be held from 8-9 May 2008 in Sydney.

• Expand definition of human development in line with study findings.

• Integrate findings with national education reform process.

• Put up the closed sign “sorry we’re full” – Australia’s eco- systems are ancient and fragile

- don’t allow developers and others to keep pushing the growth agenda at the expense of our natural environment.

• Temporary three month ‘in exile’ periods for high water users sent into middle of Australia to live in the desert (a world without water).

future directions for rural industries and rural communities

Australia’s 130,000 farmers generate $30 billion worth of exports each year and are custodians of 60% of our land mass. The Australian Government is committed to working with rural industries, and the communities they support, to grow their contribution to Australia’s economic prosperity and our social wellbeing. The Government is also committed to examining how best to deliver services to rural communities in the future.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• What rural industries are best positioned to take advantage of the global consumer markets of the 21st century;

• What options are possible for effective structural adjustment for rural industries and communities suffering the long- term impact of climate change; and

• What is the most intelligent form of support the government can provide to ensure the long term sustainability of rural and regional communities, including the fostering of the next generation of Australian farmers?

Assumption Summary:

The content of the theme assumes that farmers are the best custodians of the nominated 60% of land mass and that the best use of that land mass is farming of export-orientated produce. Also present is a sub-context that the export income generated by shifting Australian fresh water (in the form of farming exports overseas) is a viable proposition in the long-term despite inherent questions as to the level of likely supply in the near-term and long-term future.  Arguably the biggest explicit omission from this statement is the apparent lack of connection between the needs of the rural sector and the opportunities likely to be afforded to the cities through a focus on infrastructure and digital access. On the face of it, ‘farming’ is being positioned as the only purpose of the rural sector on the only thing that a rural population offers to Australia,  a paradigm unlikely to stand up to any real scrutiny.

• That there is a future for agriculture in Australia;

• That they provide a large % of Australian exports (or ought to be exporting);

• arable land becoming unviable

future directions for rural industries and rural communities due to climate change;

• Ongoing broad acre farming is appropriate in Australia;

• That the sector needs structural adjustment;

• That we should be focused on exports rather than on internal supply;

• That people want to work on the farm;

• That rural communities aren’t sustainable; and

• That the focus in on what Government can do to repair rural industry.

Potential Future Image:

It took some time but the fundamental flaw of seeing and treating rural areas as little more than Australia’s breadbasket, finally gave way. Whilst still an important part of the rural values, the mythology of ‘riding the sheep’s back’ was first questioned for validity and subsequently found to be wanting.

A paradigm of community planning, rather than top down centralised planning was identified as the key to sustainability of rural communities and the industries occurring in rural locations. Communities, especially those in rural areas, are a rich source of ideas and innovation around sustainability. The community has taken the lead on this topic, ahead of government, and have been driving the plans made to enact the ideas.

Rural industry began to focus on the farming of all resources including water and energy, shifting the metropolitan population’s appreciation of rural communities away from ‘big tractors, big trucks and stockyards’ to the key contributor of essential resources for life.  As the ‘inversion’ of the city-rural activities gained a foothold with whole office building being turned  into ‘farms’, land that was being used to grow crops was seen as being more valuable as a water collection point.

Key Drivers

This sphere has a number of existing drivers and emerging drivers which influence or have the potential to influence and shape its evolution.  Among those identified by the groups are:

Existing:

• Climate variability including water access issues.

• Lack of staff to run farms (through ageing workforce and non-youth take up).

• Competitiveness of exports

(DOHA).

• AUD higher = less exports = cheaper imports = cheaper trucks & tractors etc.

• Ageing populations in some outer areas whilst regional centres increase in size = less volunteerism.

• Diets of competing nations and the Cultural (WASP) diet of Australia, with its heavy reliance on water to support livestock.

• Domination of ‘customer access’ by a duopoly.

• Interest rate rises.

Emerging:

• Organic farming methods.

• Increasing push for permission to grow GM crops.

• Rise of farmers markets and buying co-ops.

• Increasing energy costs (esp. freight); fertiliser costs.

• Rise of hobby farmers who demand services whilst not being truly connected to the community (i.e. never around to volunteer  for bigger social issues in the community).

• Changing dietary requirements of a non-waspish immigrant population.

• Time lag for adjustment in the sector.

vested interests

Vested Interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.

Government(s):  Who like to be ‘seen to be doing something’ rely on the mythology of farming as backbone of the country, offer rural employment initiatives geared around existing industry sectors and seem to shy away from serious actions due to perceived political palatability for change instead trying to win hearts and minds by discussing balance of trade issues and benefits of exporting. Likely to play the ‘drive for greater efficiencies’ card without any real shift towards alternative ideas.

Current Farmers:  Maintaining viability of their farm is a key issue especially as many identify as ‘me is farm’.  A wide number will seek ongoing taxpayer support when required in order to keep doing what they love and know best - to keep farming (though the weighting of expected support across sectors varies). Simultaneously many appreciate they are in a losing battle with the biggest issue being the lack of staff interested in taking up farming as a career.  ‘Just a few more years’ card is the biggest in the deck of the farming community as many try to hold on to what appears  to be a retirement and farm closure or sell-off.

Buyers/Supermarkets: Maintain margins – keep squeezing suppliers until they fall over so that they can then import even cheaper stuff.  We recognise that they do face some supply chain issues with increased transport costs.  These groups hold two main weapons.  First they control the dominant customer access stream for the sector and will threaten ‘vocal opponents’ within the sector with removal of that access.  And the sheer volume of buying power of goods means they keep playing one supplier off against another squeezing the supplier’s long-term (and short-term) viability in order to increase their own profits.  Expected to play the ‘deny all responsibility’ card and ‘we have increasing costs too’ card.

Commodity Brokers/Bankers – build Ag loan portfolios but only fund sexy stuff, lend when going well, cut throats when not so well;  Not expecting to see any real behavioural change in this group though that may change when the first GM crop leads to a wildcard event.

future directions for rural industries and rural communities - ideas for development

Low-lying Fruit

• Technologies such as seed injection and GPS farming are changing the face of modern agriculture.  There will be larger properties with less people farming, but more services needed to support the technology.

• High-tech training and support services will be needed in rural communities.

• Locate more tertiary institutions in rural locations with a focus NOT on agriculture but innovation.

• Boost communications technology to ensure low-cost, high-resolution video ‘at site’ is viable in rural areas overcoming many of the staff shortages issues.

• Use rural towns as development sites for renewable technologies.

• Start up the ‘At The Gate. com.au’ website that explains to consumers how much the farmer gets for the produce they buy at supermarkets and allow consumers to compare both the supermarket and each product.

• Quadruple the numbers of farmers markets to cut out supermarkets who are bleeding them dry.

• Remote sensing for production issues (stock health, water, feed etc) (required BROADBAND capabilities in the bush).

Medium-Term

• Farmers co-ops to pool resources, share expertise and reduce risk.

• An adjustment to planting  for profit - plant less due to water constraints but grow what is making the most money per tonne.

• Farm design methods improved for crop placement to maximise water & land use.

• More sustainable land use meaning the end of sheep and cattle farming.

• Improve city/rural links & support (esp. primary & secondary education).  Look to have kids spend a week on exchange – say three kids from a school each week across a 15 week period.

• Nutritional education – what constitutes ‘good food’.

• Tax on food waste.

• Water efficient grain varieties.

• More water efficient farming methods.

• Carbon miles labelling on all food.

Long-Term and Left Field Ideas

• Invert the rural/metro paradigm

– crop growth  inside city buildings using water capture  and solar capture,  cattle on lower floors with methane capture  used to power 24-7 hydroponic crop growth methods whilst the quieter rural  zones are used for remote working of knowledge  workers  who are freed from peak hour traffic chaos.

• Repatriate top soil from island nations hit by volcanoes etc or requiring infrastructure improvements on proviso that the top soil can be brought back to Australia.

• Turn Lake Eyre into a permanent inland sea for tourism, fisheries and to act as an inland water cooler also increasing precipitation on the ranges.

a long-term national health strategy

The Australian Government is committed to improving the overall health of our nation through improved preventative primary health, increased access to general practitioners and new dental care services. Investing in prevention can reduce the estimated 550,000 chronic or preventable admissions to hospital each year. The Australian Government is also committed to reforms to improve our hospital system and to ensuring Australians are able to access the best possible care when they experience serious illness or disease. The Government is also committed to a greater national medical research effort – particularly into the major disease categories impacting millions of Australian families.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• How we invest to help prevent chronic and acute health problems;

• How we plan to ensure all Australians continue to have access to the very best of modern medical technology including pharmaceuticals;

• How we meet the emerging regulatory challenges of modern medical technology;

• The use of electronic infra- structure to facilitate efficient and effective patient care;

• Strategies to preserve Australia’s internationally unique blend of public and private health services; and

• How Australia best plans for the future demands on our medical workforce.

Proposals identified at the summit will also be provided to the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commissions for consideration.

Assumption Summary:

The framing of the health sphere outlined above seems to suggest that at best, initiatives will be targeted to playing catch up to a system already out of control.

The entrenched model is open to improvement but there appears no possibility of replacement even if one were identified.  The phrasing contained here reads as arguably the most ‘politically’ palatable of all themes outlined, with nothing overtly focused beyond incremental improvements and ‘more of the same’.

• That a health strategy has no links to strategies for infrastructure, education and sustainability.

• That euthanasia will continue to be banned in Australia.

• That modern technologies (as opposed to additional historically proven methods from outside mainstream medicine) are the key to the future health of Australia.

• That the best point of leverage is via reforms of the hospital system.

• That there are no reforms that might be directed elsewhere in the system, that might better affect the overall health system.

• That the best approach is to preserve the ‘unique blend of public and private health services’.

Potential Future Image:

Society (whilst  excellent PR vehicles for hospitals  and cheap production for networks) were recognised as suggesting to the public that the health system’s job was to ‘fix’ people who were sick, and that there were sufficient resources to do so, and that no matter what happened to you or how much you were responsible, somehow someone would make it right. Simultaneously the images on the small screens were interpreted in a way that the answer lay not in the process of treating patients, but identification of the types of actions and industry sectors that were generating these patients in the first place.

This paradigm-busting moment led to the major the ‘health stream’ that focused on maintenance and prevention methods.

Key Drivers

This sphere has a number of existing drivers and emerging drivers which influence or have the potential to influence and shape its evolution.  Among those identified by the groups are:

Existing:

• Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme costs increasing as more and more health issues are treated via the assorted ‘pills’;

• Private industry health system players looking to increase market share or gain greater subsidies from taxpayer support;

vested interests

Vested Interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.

Pharmaceutical Industry:  One of the bigger beneficiaries from the sickness industry, it has managed to successfully foster the notion (often quite justifiably so) that a cure is but a pill away.  With many millions of dollars in research taking place (mainly outside of Australia) and a patents systems that limits the time span from which income can be generated from sales of pharma-based finally grew up and recognised that the model that had developed over time was not a ‘health sector’ model and more of a collection of entities under a ‘sickness industry’ banner, disconnected from the realities of effective operational requirements.  The first shift came with the breakdown of ministerial ‘silos’ after the independently sourced health sector white paper ‘Where’s the Money Going?’

General Practitioners: A key player living off their decades of being ‘trusted’ entities within local communities.  GP’s have seen their showed just what money was being spent where.

In that white paper the accountability for costs associated with road trauma was placed at the feet of the Roads and Transport Minister.  The costs associated with Type 2 diabetes was placed at the feet of both the Education Minister and the Minster for Trade.  The costs associated with treating depression  based and mental illness based patients in hospitals, was passed along to the Minster for Community Services, and finally the responsibility for community attitudes and expectations was tossed onto the desk of the Communications Minister.

One interesting result was that TV programs that focus on treating people in hospitals contributors of patient care being funded from the source.  Road trauma patients were funded from the Transport budget; mental health patients were funded from Community Services budget; Diabetic patients funded from the Trade Department activities and so on.  The only Ministries whose funds were unaffected and in fact increased were the Education Department and the Sports and Recreation Department, where finally the penny had dropped – when at an early age you educate people how to eat well and you teach them about how to be active, you remove the likelihood of them entering the system through diabetes, heart disease, depression and road trauma.

Two industry streams emerged:

‘the sickness stream’ focusing on repair and recovery methods and

• Public industry sectors looking to maintain their role in the current system whilst looking for greater income and employment support; and

• Population living longer.

Emerging:

• Rising neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and dementia;

• Diabetes linked to chronic over consumption and lowering exercise levels;

• Importation of overseas health professionals, especially from developing nations; and

• An increasing shift away from westernised ‘institutional’ approaches towards eastern ‘non-interventionist/holistic’ approaches.

·     roles changing dramatically as they attempt to balance the needs of ‘lonely souls’, mental patients, and ‘fix my headache’ types of patients begin to encroach on their positions  as confidante, at the same time as billable increments limited their ability to make an income.  At the same time the rise in alternative streams of health intervention has begun to chip away at the customer base.  Likely to play the ‘case management and total care’ card to ensure ongoing relevance and to enhance and provide a degree of ‘regulation’ to nonregulated (alternative medicine) health care providers.

Surgeons: A vocal voice through entities like the AMA, surgeons are the expertise and ‘star power’ of the sector, seen as the shining knights saving people from certain death.  But the image is also one that perpetuates the mythology of self-denial and a failure to take responsibility wherein individuals believe that there will always be a cure or a fix through the latest medical procedure.  Likely to play their ‘star power’ card to work against any ‘pre-health’ sector that ultimately reduces their customer base and requirement of their services.

Mental Health Professionals: A generally quiet voice in the sector, they often play in the heavy impact, silent pain areas of depression, stress and suicide.  A more holistic view of overall health would see a far greater emphasis on mental health education as a part of an overall strategy.

Allied Medical Professionals:  This sector includes the emerging regulated players such as chiropractic, myotherapists and the like, as well as the self-regulated groups such as acupuncture, massage, osteopathy, rolfing, private nursing and naturopathy etc.  Increasingly these allied players are being looked at as a preferable option of health maintenance and repair, and will likely play the ‘give us equal billing’ card in any future development of the sector.

Education Sector: This includes funding for schools and maternal nursing groups who can act as excellent sources and deliverers of food education and activity education.  The decrease in funding for schools has seen cut backs to areas like physical education and material for eating programs, which has in effect seen the sector passing off costs associated to prevention  onto the sickness sector.

Food sector: Dominated by large multinationals at one end and private restaurants at the other, the sector caters to three key approaches to food – ‘fast food’ through restaurant chains; ‘processed and pre-packaged’ foods accessed mostly via supermarkets; and ‘prepared to order’ mostly seen through the formal dining and small restaurant approaches.  The one thing these three approaches have in common is the shift away from in-home preparation, to outsourcing some or all of the components of a meal. With increasing pressure being focused on obesity, expect to see the MNCs playing the ‘we supply cheap food and give consumers a choice’ card and the ‘change will be too costly for the consumer’ card, the grocery stores playing the ‘fresh food to the table’ card, and the restaurant chain playing the ‘we have no responsibility to consumer’s lifestyles’ card.

Sports Industry: Probably the most silent player in the sector, yet the one with most to gain and most to offer, the sports industry  has by and large been focused on two core approaches – organised sporting clubs that mimic elite and professional sports, and ‘fitness in a room’ in the form of membership based gymnasiums.  If a stronger focus on health improvement and illness prevention takes hold in the community, we can expect to see this sector play the ‘prevention is cheaper than a cure’ card in an attempt to gain subsidies or increasing support.

Health Insurers: This private based component of the sector will look to increase its presence whilst looking to off-load expensive patients to the public system in order to keep costs lower.  Expect to see the ongoing use of the ‘we need more government funds’ card at the same time as certain segments of consumers continue to grow in number  (plastic surgery and body enhancement activities).

Consumers:  At what point ought consumers be made to accept responsibility for their own health outcomes?  At what stage will society begin to place the onus for fitness and health on the user of services?  When it comes to food, this element of the sector uses the three ‘F’ for their guiding principles - Fitness, Fatness and Focus and depending on the focus, the path of fatness or fitness will be chosen.  For many the perceived lack of time or genuine lack of understanding, impacts decisions about what food to eat, where to access it and costs involved. Other consumers see little issue with engaging in behaviours that have known and potentially dire consequences – speeding, smoking, manic work schedules and drug taking.  Expect the types of cards to be played by this sector to be wide and varied with many continuing to pass responsibility for their own choices off to some other entity like ‘government’.

ideas for development - Low-lying Fruit

• Rename the existing sector the ‘Sickness Sector’ and commence a new sector called the Health Maintenance sector – allow the two sectors to fight for prominence and Government support, with vastly greater support being provided  to those elements that work to maintain health and prevent sickness, and a slow draw down of assistance to the ‘sickness’ player.

• Tax foods based on their energy levels (aka the Sugar‘N’Fat tax).

• Medicines created elsewhere (using non-Australian based research) should receive less PBS support than those that do, to encourage a greater industry presence here in Australia, rather than being used as a simple income stream for products developed elsewhere.

• Shift the focus away from hospitals and onto the health sector.  Hospitals ought to be the ‘last option’, not the first one.

• Two of the first five years of a new doctor’s training ought to be in a rural area.

Medium-Term

• Move away from a Medicare based model that allows ongoing free or heavily subsidised access at any time for everyone, to a model that allocates accruable ‘medical days’.  These days would be bankable, stored and transferable, effectively establishing a model that rewards people for staying out of hospital and staying healthy, whilst also setting up a market driven trade in ‘health days’ which could be bought, sold or traded.

• Penalise surgeons whose interventions require subsequent return visits by patients.

• Consider the move to a GP controlled ‘case management’ and maintenance focus to keep people away from and out of the most expensive area of the system (hospital).   Pay GP’s on results of the improvements in case management.

Long term and Left Field Ideas

• Tie health costs for interventions to manufacturer of foods, based on the profits derived from product category lines, such that the qualitatively poorer foods (high fat, salt etc) would be ‘health  taxed’ at a higher level than the ‘fresh food, low fat’ alternatives.

• Tie health funding of interventions on to those sectors contributing the greatest number of patients to the system.

strengthening communities and supporting working families

The Australian Government is committed to practical measures aimed at helping families cope with the collision of work and family life. The Government is also committed to examining new possibilities in partnership with the community, church and charitable sector. Through its focus on social inclusion, the Australian Government is also determined to reduce the barriers to full participation in the economy and Australian society, address locational disadvantage, isolation and the economic dislocation experienced by a significant minority of Australians.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• How we provide practical support to families to combine the tasks of work, raising children and caring for ageing parents;

• How we make a long-term difference on homelessness;

• How we better harness the goodwill and commitment of the Australian community through voluntary and community organisations and philanthropic endeavour; and

• How we build social capital within and between communities, particularly those that are cut off from the economic mainstream.

Assumption Summary: Existing assumption suggests that the combination of work and family is a ‘crash’ of some sort and that ‘family’ exists only for those with children or with ageing parents – there is nothing that suggests a recognition of ‘family’ for those without kids, who may be homeless or who may be single.  The challenge is also on providing support through economic work-related structures. Social inclusion is not defined even though it is apparently an area of focus.  There’s also a sense that the only persons requiring support are ‘working families’.

There appears to be a lack of connection between the ‘community’ element of the theme and the focus on ‘working families’ which seems to suggest that in addressing the working family issue, the community issue is also assisted.  It also appears that the purpose of a community is to provide goodwill, social capital and commitment to some un- stated endeavour.

• We wonder if there is a sense that only Christian churches are socially acceptable religious organisations, and that Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and atheist organisations are not.

strengthening communities and supporting working families

• That Churches (in whatever sense) ought to be included in the discussion.

• That work and family is undergoing a ‘collision’ that is not desirable.

• That the means to addressing this ‘collision’ is via some sort of work-related economic model.

•That barriers to ‘full participation in the economy and Australian society’ exist or that accepting they may exist, that they provide no actual benefit.

• That the purpose of communities is to provide social capital that can be spent by some ‘higher authority’ for yet to be determined activities.

Potential Future Image: The removal of tax free status for religions saw a massive influx of government funding that was re-directed to a much broader array of social and community inclusion programs. The impact was not without challenge as religious organisations whose existence was being propped up by not being subject to income tax began to fall by the by, and much wringing of hands was played out in various media circles.

However for all of the angst over expected ‘negative impacts’, actual change was more than adequately covered by the increased Government spending through more specific outcome-  focused methods.  One key approach was the development of social incubation solutions to tackle seemingly intractable social problems - an approach that was similar to the seeding of ideas in entrepreneurship incubation – lots of start-ups and then the use of venture capital as a means of testing the rigour of the prototype.

These cross-disciplinary, participative, community- based processes worked within communities to address the issues they considered most important and difficult to deal with, and also led to a rapid knowledge distribution method of multiple community-based ideas.  This shifted the approach away from the top-down and often ‘one size fits all’ approaches that often entrenched the issue rather than removed the problem.

A shift towards an interconnected housing model for homeless people that combined adequate and lasting support along with ties to economic self-sufficiency was one of the first big winners emerging from community based ideas bank.

Combined with the vastly improved approaches to employee management that began tapping into the available (but previously ignored) online infrastructure, more people worked from home which lowered the employees cost of transport to the city (which also lowered employer costs for salaries and office space), enhanced the use of time, increased the available time for all household members to connect to their communities and saw a massive spike in cross-community engagement.

vested interests

Vested interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.

Governments: At all levels who see community engagement as an attempt to stay connected to the needs of the community. Local councils seem to do this best but face increasing costs and difficulty in raising revenue bases.  Federal Governments are great at using community issues as headline statements for door stop interviews, and although interested tend to rely on top-down approaches.  State Governments tend to fall somewhere in between.  In addressing the needs of communities a common approach is used by all levels of Government – the creation  of ‘agencies’ (see below) whose role is to administer some form of distribution method  for Government largesse, and the required  reporting elements such largess requires for accountability measures.   Expect them to continue to play the ‘we care’ and ‘local communities are important’ cards

Churches: The tradition of Churches engaged in proactively recruiting members continues though there is vastly more competition for new members and certainly increased competition for the right to ‘administer good works’ along with the funding required to do so.  To some extent, governments have been more than willing to let Churches tackle the social-causes needs of the sick, the lonely and the elderly and Churches have generally been very good at administering to the needs of their flocks and those connected to them.  Expect them to play the ‘guilt’ card and ‘social disruption  to the sick and needy’ card, should the their tax free status be removed (as suggested below).

Not-For-Profit entities:  Potentially the source of the greatest leverage for tackling community-based challenges, the Not–For-Profit groups may be connected to the Church entities or non-religious in standing.   Typically not for profits draw their reason for existing or helping others and employees often derive great personal satisfaction in being able to do so.  As greater secularism emerges with changes in immigration profiles, it is anticipated that more of these NFPs will have to or choose to focus on particular sections of society which then exposes them to suggestions of bias and further calls for scrutiny.  Whether they are willing to give up their positions where cross-over of services occurs will be an interesting area to watch unfold. They hold a similar card to Church groups and perhaps their biggest benefit is the ability to focus on sections of the community that existing government entities fail to adequately assist.

Existing Government agencies: Existing government agencies have a vested interest in seeing a not-too-radical improvement in the way this sphere operates.  Consciously or otherwise, government agencies tasked with delivery on, or connected with delivering services related to community cohesiveness and work-life balance, thrive on filling the gaps where things aren’t up to scratch.  Think of all the staff, senior managers, policy advisors and the like whose time, roles and income is derived from being required to generate and encourage a better state of affairs for working families, or improve social and community engagement.  And if they truly succeeded, what would happen to all of those people?  If government agencies want to contribute effectively they need to answer the following question and then TRULY act accordingly – ‘How would we define success?’

Until these agencies define what a true success would be, it is likely that they will keep stepping on each other’s toes, duplicating service delivery in an expensive waste, creating bureaucratic boundaries that generate activity but not productivity and overall, keep muddling along.

Insurance Industry: If a more cohesive social structure existed could that be a bad thing for anyone?  Well if you use imagery of theft, crime and violence to promote your products, social cohesion may not be what you want too much of.  And if work practices changed and people were feeling more financially secure and less concerned  about income protection, or no longer needed cars to get to work so no longer needed automotive insurance,  that also might not be an ideal situation.  We don’t suggest that this is in fact how the insurance industry thinks and we are willing to recognise that in creating utopia for local communities and working families, there may be some who don’t benefit as immediately as others would suggest.

Education Sector:  Consistently studies have shown that an overall increase in education of citizenry is associated with decreasing rates in crime and social disconnection. But the key question is just where should that education be targeted? Players in the education field could be huge beneficiaries of a changing focus on communities and working families, and could as equally be crunched if ideas and initiatives require them to do more with what they already have.  This sector could provide significant benefits if tasked to work more closely with the NFP, groups who can identify specific areas of need both for community groups and individuals.  ‘Funding’ card the most obvious in their deck.

ideas for development - low-lying fruit

• Make travel to work time on public transport tax deductible.

• Teach managers to move away from the ‘hairy eyeballs’ approach to managing their staff and towards ones that judge staff based on output.

• Fund incubator-style solutions programs that create site specific (rather than problem specific) methods for addressing the issues relevant to that area.

• Coordinate and sufficiently fund the homeless sector, close down the punishing ‘rooming accommodation homes’ that foster violence and hardship and provide ongoing support across all levels, ages and types of homeless persons

Medium-Term

• Remove negative gearing on investment properties and replace it with a small government subsidy for suppliers of low-rent housing to break the entrenchment of poverty.

• Ensure that housing developers are tasked not with building roads infrastructure but public transport and community services infrastructure.

• Make it illegal for any employer to require an employee to travel more than ten hours total travel time to and from work across a five day working week.  Allow for appropriate exceptions where industry specific requirements exist.

• Remove duplication of services delivery across the community sector.

• Ensure city-centric businesses provide appropriate support for childcare support and truly flexible work-time and work-locale options.

• Shift the focus of Defence.  Force recruitment from military engagement to one of crisis management and response and have them work more closely in community building projects.

• Provide adequate carers and parental leave along the lines of Sweden’s model.

Long-Term and Left Field Ideas

• Alternatives to the negative gearing option would be to retain it but only where the housing is used for low rent properties; or to allow negative gearing, but maximise the number of investment properties to one per state or territory, with the exception of low rent housing options.

• Remove tax fee status from Churches and use the massive tax windfalls to support charities of all types regardless of religious affiliation or religious status.

• Along with the focus on the 3 Rs, ensure that compulsory education in social cohesion occurs.

options for the future of indigenous australia

The Australian Government is committed to closing the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australia.  This includes the gap in literacy, numeracy, infant mortality, health outcomes and overall life expectancy.  The Government is also committed to working with indigenous Australians to ensure they are able to fully participate - both socially and economically - in the life of the nation. This includes providing access to high quality education, health services generally, and addressing alcohol, violence and homelessness in those communities where these threatens the safety and wellbeing of individuals and families.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• How we forge a new partnership with between indigenous and non-indigenous Australia to overcome disadvantage and provide practical pathways to the future;

• The role of targeted programs and interventions such as the Northern Territory Intervention and the Cape York Welfare Reform Trials, in achieving change in remote communities;

• How we might promote economic development in remote Australia to provide indigenous community members with the opportunity to be economically independent;

• Improving access to mainstream programs by indigenous Australians; and

• Promoting and preserving Indigenous culture, languages and traditions.

Assumption Summary:

The framing of this sphere is arguably the most rounded of those suggested thus far, though there does appear to be a continuation of the ‘from on high’ decision making criteria that entrenches the position that local communities themselves have no ideas of their own to offer.  Some assumptions might be identified as being:

• That indigenous groups want a new/any partnership.

• That the issue resides only within ‘remote’ communities and that indigenous persons living in larger rural and urban settings do not require assistance.

• That communities can be ‘fixed’ and that a key approach is to give mainstream programs to those who need it.

• That there is a future for remote communities.

• The theme does not appear to recognise the tribal nature of the groups involved.

Potential future image: 

Just 12 years since ‘the apology’ has seen significant change in the state of many indigenous communities around Australia.  In 2008 it had become clear that the ‘indigenous issue’ was becoming a millstone around the neck of ordinary Australians who, by desire of wanting  the problem  gone, or a desire to want the problem  resolved, needed the apology to be able to move forward and begin the relationship-building so desperately needed.

By far the biggest shift came within indigenous policy initiatives that moved away from the top- down ‘we know best’ approaches of bureaucratic government initiatives, and towards encompassing local knowledge and local solutions to resolving local issues.  The development of the central ‘indigenous ideas bank’ which captured the best of the

local approaches to community issues was the backbone of the shift.

Running alongside (but superordinate to) the Federal Government programs, the ideas bank saw a rapid knowledge share approach.  Government actions were targeted at the bigger issues – employment actions; drug and alcohol dependency  support programs; and the community safety programs, and took their lead from local communities who were the determinants of who needed and who warranted assistance.

This dual-pronged approach has seen a significant reduction in violence in regional and remote communities, and a significant improvement in ‘quality of life’ ratings by local communities.

But for all of the positives, there are areas requiring improvement.  Indigenous peoples who were already living and working in large regional centres and urban cities have become the forgotten peoples, with the focus for action being centred on the vastly smaller remote communities.

Many still face the silent injustice in workplaces and the rental market, despite their skills across every industry sector.  And the once powerful indigenous groups, having lost much of their voice as local communities took charge of their own destiny and agitated for more specific change, are also feeling the bitterness of the cold shoulder.  These heavily patriarchal and tribal groups are now mere hollow shells of their former selves and are bitter about losing control.

Key Drivers

This sphere has a number of existing drivers and emerging drivers which influence or have the potential to influence and shape its evolution.  Among those identified by the groups are as follows.

Existing:

• The fixation upon a ‘one size fits all’ approach to improving the current state of play, means that there are structural issues within governments.  The large departments have established people resources, budget allocations, legal infrastructure and so on.  Any change to process that ignores the existing ‘weight’ and fails to take effective and explicit steps to overcome that inertia will probably fail.

• Existing leases, lease holders, titleholders.  If some of the ideas below are enacted, there is potential for resistance among emerging stakeholders.

• Mining sector – as above. What if there was a rise in ‘militant’ engagement methods by aboriginal groups looking to maximise their position within new of existing mining leases on aboriginal land sites?

• Land management and natural resource management. One of the positive programs was the use of indigenous groups in land and resource management. However tightening seems to be required where incomes are not just for work, but also for the improvement of the resources over time.

Emerging:

• Emergence of community agreements.   Need to identify the top attractors for engagement by communities

– are they one-off or ongoing programs?  Can the agreements be multi-tagged – some things offered might be once off payments etc.

• ‘Bottom up’ community based strategies giving direction and gaining traction from top down infrastructure support mechanisms

vested interests

Vested interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.

‘Save the indigenous’ welfare/ support groups: might look to push for compensation and seek to construct models around how compensation might be paid, how much might be paid, and who it might be paid to and then look to guide any recipients on how to spend it.

Taxpayers: by and large want the ‘problem’ gone.  Will they prefer a one off payment to get it over and done with?  No payments at all, less payments or an enrichment of the current welfare-based model?  Expect taxpayers to be split over the way any form of compensation might be provided.

Mining companies and pastoralists: to date negotiations between indigenous groups have seen nothing like what the scaremongers claimed would happen as a result of Mabo.  Relationships have by and large been very well handled. But if an emboldened indigenous group emerged through whatever means (such as the need to move off any welfare offerings as suggested as one of the key ideas) they might take a more commercially proactive stance in terms of incomes from leases.  If such a case were to emerge, you’d likely see mining companies and pastoralists play the ‘threat to exports’ card.

Indigenous welfare recipients: Some might like the idea of ongoing government handouts though we believe that overall a drive for greater purpose is highly desirable for the vast majority.

Current indigenous groups – expect to see issues over the Patriarch v Matriarch roles within indigenous societies and a push back where there is a perceived loss or lack of power and control. Need to be aware of the fact that even within the indigenous community, there are clear ‘clans’ of influence.  There is potential for emerging conflict as these groups jostle for prominence in a world of greater self-determination.

National Parks & Land Management policies – Arguably a key area for positive developmental initiatives,  providing focused employment opportunities able to draw on the quality of skill sets available across indigenous communities.

ideas for development - low-lying fruit

• Payments for Land Management tied to enhanced conservation value of the area.  The better the work the better the payment.

• Study into comparative welfare payments across indigenous communities compared to each other and across other sectors of the community.

• Penalty legislation for suppliers allowing dependency substances into communities.

• Treaty with Aborigines, similar to the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand.

Medium-Term

• End any indigenous based funding to communities.

• Give them land rights without them needing to work through the legal system.

• Teach the communities how to self-fund through management of land rights, tourism, creative industry approaches and natural resource management.

• Ongoing royalties and revenue for IP creations – every sale of the same item results in income.

Long-Term and Left Field Ideas

• Conduct secret ballots within communities so that they can nominate the top 10% of residents requiring to be repatriated for the purpose of substance abuse and assault/ behaviour assistance.  The Government will then arrange to repatriate those people into programs away from their communities, to assist with their addictions or their ‘tending to violence’ behaviours.

• Allow for the community to nominate others at any time should there be an additional need for repatriation of a member of the community.  If the community doesn’t nominate someone, they accept ‘management’ for that issue within their communities, over and above what might be automatically provided to them through law.

• Complete Aboriginal sovereignty and independence from Australia, or something like Nunavut, in Canada.

the future of Australian governance: open government - Including the Role of the Media

The Australian Government is committed to greater access to freedom of information, effective parliamentary reform and removing as many dysfunctional dimensions to the Australian Federation as possible. The Government is also examining ways in which Australians can increasingly deliberate in the making of government policy through a range of mechanisms, including community cabinets, as a part of a commitment to contemporary democracy.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• How best to implement an effective agenda of open government which best balances the legitimate requirements of the media and the confidentiality requirements of cabinet government in the Westminster system;

• How best to engaged the community in government decision making;

• What forms of Federation reform are appropriate for the future to maximise outcomes for the economy and the community; and

• How to ensure the future viability of local government operations and infrastructure provision.

Assumption Summary:

The summary  is concerning for the most glaring omission – nowhere is the role of the judiciary mentioned and given the various Courts’ roles in legitimising or enforcing the mechanisms  through which we are governed,  such an omission is startling.

The phrasing also suggests that we are heading from ‘representative democracy’ to ‘participatory democracy’ or ‘deliberative democracy’ which suggests that an individual is also part of inclusion agenda: included in decision-making processes that impact on you (i.e. that you are a stakeholder in).  Whilst participatory democracy is a potential worth exploring we suggest that the notion of a ‘community cabinet’ in no way confers a greater degree of democracy of itself.  ‘Government’ is also positioned as being equal to ‘governance’, which establishes a narrow  view of public institutions vested with formal authority to make decisions on behalf of the community vs broader view of collective decision- making across all sectors, as well as by individuals.  It also downplays the effective level of responsibility an individual ought to take.

Here we see potential danger in following a path where, under the guise of an all-knowing higher authority, individuals have ‘rights’ but no counter balancing  notion

of individual responsibilities which means a total disregard for the idea of ‘self-governance’ of behaviour and choices.

Roles and responsibilities of the ‘third estate’ (media) in creating a more open society and holding government to account are specifically mentioned, though  we wonder  what the ‘legitimate’ requirements of the media might be now and in the future, where ownership resides with ever fewer and more powerful  individuals,  who may not agree with a direction  that whilst beneficial to Australia overall, might impact negatively on the media owners’ preference; and whether  legitimate requirements extend only to those stationed behind high IP citadels.

• That the current Australian Federation is dysfunctional and the Federal Government didn’t cause the supposed dysfunctionality by undermining state initiatives.

• That we will continue to govern Australia (e.g. that some global government won’t exist with a South Pacific Department that governs the land formerly known as Australia).

• That we will continue with the Westminster system and largely just tinker at the edges (e.g. add ICT to old forms), rather than rethink what governance might mean and how it can be achieved.

• That we won’t face a situation/scenario where more authoritarian/dictatorial Government is desired or required.

• Greater involvement in decision-making delivers a benefit in relation to the future of government. Also, linked to this is the idea that more people collaborating will create better outcomes (quantity, bigger, is better)…

• That “shining as much light as possible” (that makes sense in the circumstances), will generate better outcomes (rather than closed-door processes, secrecy etc) which by default suggests that transparent decision making is better.

• That people want to become more engaged in the creation of government policy (personally involved) and want to participate in political processes more than once every three years.

It was noted that at the moment Australian society tends to use formal qualifications and expertise as requirements for involvement in parliamentary processes (e.g. advisory committees for policy development). If we are moving to towards wider involvement then it was mentioned that we might also need to be less strict on these traditional requirements, and value other forms of wisdom/knowledge, thus reducing the barriers to participation.  Indeed the selection of the ‘best and brightest’ for the PM’s Summit carries with it the tone of the ‘formal and prominent’ – the issue is over diversity of views being available and heeded.  It was also noted that flexibility in relation to the degree of participation in decision-making processes is required – in some cases may not be appropriate.

Potential Future Image:

The view emerging in Australia was an understanding that the current state that we had reached in parliamentary democracy, should only be viewed as the particular state we have reached today and not as the end-state.  This view triggered much deeper thought as to the appropriate means for representation and governance targeting the institutional underpinnings of the then current system – and sought to question whether they were appropriate for 21st century.  Based on historically inherited views of a world in which ‘Rule Britannia’ dominated, they were found to be wanting and in need of improvement.

Governance emerged from a relative state of ‘adequate dysfunction’ and began shifting towards one in which ‘ability to pay’ was removed from the legal system as the key advantage; Federal terms were extended to four years; state government elections were aligned to occur on the same day as Federal Elections; government election promises became ‘l-a-w’ and could act as triggers points for a new election in the seat of the member who made the promises.   And significantly the changes in law that ended the ‘lifetime’ political career possibilities that helped ensure that elected representatives maintained an understanding of the ‘real world’ of everyday citizens.

Over time we began deliberately shifting to forms of government that are more flexible

– i.e. flexible enough to meet the situations being faced, whilst placing greater emphasis on the notion  of citizenship – i.e. what the rights and responsibilities of Australians are to Australia, and to the wider world also required a more inclusive (and perhaps more politically educated) citizenship.  Australia became the first nation on the planet that made ‘understanding and negotiating human values’ a core school subject taught at all schools across years eight, nine and ten.  Indeed persons standing for public office were required to undertake ‘human values’ training before their applications could be accepted.  And arguably it was the improvement in the local community governance approaches that provided the impetus to more specific and well-targeted actions for representation, though it brought with it the challenge of dealing with faster, more frequent, more disparate and less broad policy initiatives, as Australia took on the idea of a National Ideas Box, that was seen not only a collection point, it was a initiator point for customized approaches to representation and community needs.

Key Drivers

This sphere has a number of existing drivers and emerging drivers which influence or have the potential to influence and shape its evolution.  Among those identified by the groups are -

Existing:

• Lobbyists of both the professional, paid variety and the rise of the participatory lobbying (e.g. ‘GetUp’ and growth of special interest groups – wanting engagement and influence) and e-activism approaches looking to shape the domestic and international political scene.

• The general population:  people are expecting and demanding greater control of their own lives and to be empowered beyond relying on approval/assistance of experts or authorities, especially where the systemic blockages are perceived to be causing unnecessary delays, or increasing costs for no perceived value is seeing a declining citizen confidence in political process, increasing cynicism about politics and politicians.  Simultaneously, the relationship between power and the ability to make good decisions, has been based on processes requiring  lots and lots of data and information, even though there is an increasing understanding that it is the ability to interpret information that often creates the greatest leverage.

• The current  legal system, based on an imported anglo-model has history and weight of industry size on its side is one that has proven to be highly reluctant to adapt to current societal needs, preferring to extend the ‘expertise’ status it now holds.

Emerging:

• Technological change:  the increase in web 2.0/3.0, mobile communications and computing, wireless is making it more practical to have wider-scale input and generating greater scrutiny.  This emerging area of change leads to questions over purpose of technology - It is technically feasible, but is it socially feasible? (i.e. are people informed enough to participate? Do they want to participate?  Are people in positions of power willing to disseminate decision-making – enable subsidiary processes?).  This includes the idea of eGovernance as applied to elective and social democracy.

• People and land mass: new complex challenges (e.g. mitigation of and adapting to, climate change) demanding more sophisticated mechanism for resolving issues / negotiating solutions and likely to challenge the world view that favours assumptions of an orderly world whose problems can be solved by rational deliberations.

• Education; better educated masses, with access to more data and information in the information age, are more likely be informed enough to participate meaningfully in deliberate processes. Increasingly most people have access to information (although there are the have and have nots) BUT do they have the interpretive and ethical capacity to participate in deliberative democracy and what might the impacts be if the answer is ‘no’? In the past we assumed that the ability to retain and share information = intelligence, but is this the case anymore where ease of access makes it possible for answers to be found at the tip of a finger?

vested interests

Vested interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.  Elected officials at all levels; in particular how they view their role and their place in it.  Could their view assess change as a threat to their hard earned power and personal aspirations and how might they feel about the potential disbursement of power in participatory/deliberative democracy?  Could they embrace the sources of additional input where it will overcome the politicisation of policy?  Likely to play the ‘we’ve been doing this for years’ card, the ‘the public aren’t smart enough not to stuff it’ card and the ‘we are the only ones who can be truly independent’ card.

General public; those who like not having to take responsibility for the management of the nation are quite pleased to leave it to others and enjoy the benefits, providing  that they can also have the opportunity to vent their displeasure.  Is the general public ready and willing to accept the increased levels of responsibility that comes with greater requirements for personal input? With increased access comes increased workloads and the potential for ‘participatory fatigue’ to set in.  The cards held cover a wide range from the ‘leave things as they are’ to the ‘let us shape the direction’ cards and everything in between, above and below.

Lobby groups / peak bodies: those that benefit from the current system – i.e. having greater voice and input into policy processes than the general public and/or other stakeholders (e.g. the “greenhouse Mafia” of fossil fuel interests and control of climate change policy, will be less than pleased if they are judged as just another ‘equal’ participant in the policy developing space at all levels of government).  Their clients too will begin to question the costs of lobbyist activities where no real weighting is given to the lobbyist beyond that of any other form of representation, which might see a surge in a new raft of public shaping and policy shaping initiatives by peak agencies.  Likely to play the ‘we can shape public perceptions better than anyone’ card.

Political parties –: there is arguably nothing as entrenched in the area of governance as the existing political parties even where it can be said that their means for electing officials, fund raising and setting of policy is adjusted from time to time within the parties themselves.  In comparison to the United States we are perhaps more flexible and in comparison to Italy, more stable.  Yet there is much potential room for improvement in the political process that is more likely to emerge from outside of

the main political parties.  Given their hold on setting their own salaries, superannuation schemes, acceptance of donations of all ilk, apparent lack of accountability to election promises and the like, expect the two major parties to play the ‘let’s fine tune a good system’ card, whilst the emerging or smaller parties will play the ‘we need a fairer system for representation’ card.

Mainstream media; is a large beneficiary of today’s principles of governance – i.e. what attracts audiences/readers and advertising dollars is, more often than not, not what would support/generate more deliberative democracy.

This would require a shift that towards focusing on what readers want Vs what they need, which ought to be reported, investigated and/or discussed.  But increasingly the more in-depth and open discussions are taking place outside of the mainstream media, with an increase in online media groups and activist websites. Mainstream media is likely to play the ‘we still reach more people than any other’ card to try to shore up its slowly ebbing reach, whilst running  hard to integrate  its own online internet  based methods  for media capture,  social engagement and research of opinions.

Legal Industry; is a producer of extreme incomes for many of its established players and holds particular sway in the community and with all stakeholders. Traditionally an intimidating place for everyday persons, the Legal sector, in particular judges and courts are charged with enforcing the very laws by which we are said to be governed.  Any moves to revamp the sector is likely to be hard fought (expect them to play the ‘changes would threaten the independence of the courts’ card) though we would like to see the more senior courts being more active at interpreting the law in ways that reflect the current needs of society where legislation is often a decade behind the times.

ideas for development - low-lying fruit

• Create new ways of cycling people through the political process, like jury duty, to give the general public the experience of being a member of the public service or sitting on ministerial policy advisory committees.

• Ban lifetime political careers by preventing sitting members from being elected for any more than two consecutive terms, with exceptions for ministers.  Politicians may return to parliament but only after spending at least one full term in the ‘real world’ and then the same ‘two terms’ restrictions apply.

• Provide greater support for independent media and the ABC.

• Give greater training to the public on participation and their rights and responsibilities.

• Re-establish the Australian Commission for the Future.

• Create an online discussion portal on the future of Australia that runs as a open conversation on imagining and creating Australia’s future.

• Ensure that all legislation is established with a ‘sunset clause’ and have the various parliaments main role to be to focus on assessing whether  the existing legislation still meets current  needs, ought to be changed or ought to be removed completely, thus ensuring that the laws that govern us are up to speed with the current needs of society.

Medium-Term

• Create an electronic direct democracy (see a recent paper by Jim Dator entitled “Governing the Futures: Dream or Survival Societies”, pp.8-9: http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/11-4/A01.pdf) – direct citizen participation in policy-making.

• Stimulate a culture of debate and dissent that overcomes efforts of previous government to silence it.

• Change structure of Australian political parties, creating an additional level of participation (like in the United States where membership is free).

• Play lead role in establishment of more effective global governance mechanisms.

• Have the United Nations moved to Australia and or create the ‘United Pacifica’ to represent the Oceania-based Asian and Pacific Nations to the world.

Longer-term and Left Field Ideas

• Open-source, bottom-up policy making (participatory, potentially enabled by the internet)  rather than by government / public servants – like Wikipedia.

• Adjust borders of VIC, NSW, QLD, SA and WA so that the surface area of rural and regional Australia governed by Victoria is proportional to its gross state product. That is, VIC becomes responsible for some regional and remote Australian problems similar to the other states.  Right now the wealth of VIC is focussed on that small part of Australia south of the Murray – why should this be so?

• Run a presidential raffle to elect the president of Australia – one ticket per eligible person to be appointed for a 12 month period.

australia’s future in the region and the world

The Australian Government is committed to restoring Australia’s place as a nation of creative middle power diplomacy – both in our region and in broader international forums. Australia has the potential to be a significant force for good in our region and on the world stage, including through our diplomatic efforts, increased contribution to efforts to reduce extreme poverty and fostering stability and peace in our region.  The Australian Government is acutely aware of the new range of security, economic and foreign policy challenges across our international operating environment.  The Government is conscious of the need for creative, long-term responses to these challenges.

The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:

• How Australia  best protects its national security interests in the face of an increasingly complex threat spectrum, including terrorism, bio-security and other threats to human security – as well as the adequacy of existing institutional arrangements for dealing with the threat  spectrum into the future;

• How Australia should maximise its cooperation with its long- standing ally the United States;

• How Australia engages with China and India in the coming decades, as both play an increasingly important economic and political role;

• How Australia can make the greatest contribution both within and outside the framework of the United Nations in addressing the challenge of extreme poverty; and

• The long-term adequacy of Australia’s existing foreign language capabilities to meet increasingly complex challenges presented by the globalisation.

Assumption Summary:

From the outset we are instructed to see the purpose of this sphere is in generating ideas that restore Australia’s status in some type of positional paradigm of good and evil.  Yet language can be a double-edged sword and the line ‘Australia has the potential to be a significant force for good in our region…’ has multiple interpretations. Have we currently been a force for evil in the region? Have we been good, but not a ‘significant force’ for good?  Does good need force? And so on.

The framing challenge is exacerbated by ensuring that we ought not be under any illusions because diplomatic efforts and extreme poverty are separate streams of thinking tacked on to the notion of being a ‘force for good’.  We wonder what our neighbours might think about Australia’s self-positioning as being the region’s significant force for good – are they ‘not’ ‘good’ or might we be seeing them as something else?  In what way might the framing of this issue limit the types of ideas and approaches that could be considered should the following assumptions not be tackled explicitly?

• Doesn’t address our principal identity issue – who are we as a people and why not instead consider being a contributing regional player rather than as a dominant player within the region?

• Statement starts off all positive for outcomes and ends with a clear focus on threats and negative statements.

• That Australia should retain its US relationship (in preference to neutrality;.

• What ‘threats’ exactly and who says they are threats?  producing things for itself.  A decade on they remain a significant player but have been overtaken by India, still riding on the back of its ‘best ever’ Commonwealth Games.

The region has seen the emergence of lasting stability in Indonesia especially as the benefits from the country’s income finally reached down into the poorer areas and through the rise of Vietnam,  whose Government drew inspiration from Malaysia and Singapore in embracing clearly defined economic growth models that were inclusive of the talents of that connected  it to Manhattan. Instead Australia realised that where we were, and where our future lay, was in embracing our position as just an island in the Region of Island Zone Nations (RIZN).  Through the RIZN we began to recognise the similarities we shared as Island Nations, the types of issues we faced as a region and built significant relationships to share infrastructure, technology, education and employment opportunities.  This understanding gave us the RIZN for being who we are.

Emerging:

• Role of Australia as a regional protector and whether we ought to be positioning our military forces for an increased human rights intervention and response capacity.

• Issue over security management in the region especially regarding a growth in militant and hard wing religious movements calling for paradigm change.

• Do we believe that the focus on the current major players in the region (Indian and China) will hold for an image of 2020 or might we be better placed to consider what the world could look like in 2020 and then consider, from that position who the major players in the region might be?

 • Have we ever been a ‘creative middle power’ and what exactly does that mean?

• If it is assumed we are a ‘force of good’ so does that make others a force of bad?  Does it mean our actions have always been good whilst others have been bad?

• That threats are (mainly) of a military nature.

Potential Future Image: 

China’s mid-level economic implosion in 2011 was devastating but the issues over pollution, land management, fresh water access and human rights issues proved overwhelming for its economy and its government.  Thankfully Australia had begun building capacity and relationships with other players in the region allowing us to experience less impact from China’s shift from producing goods for others, to people across all levels of society.

Vietnam remains Australia’s main source for production outsourcing and our ties with Indonesia have shifted beyond the ideology clashes that gained prominence in the late 20th century, especially since the joint initiatives assisting the populations of displaced island nations devastated by rising sea waters and lack of drinking water.

Our relationship with the US remains steady, though the years of trying to play deputy are well behind us, given our significantly improved regional relationships. The one thing that has changed is Australia’s assessment of ‘who we are’ which was driven by a series of public forums that focused on ‘where we are’.  Australia finally realised it wasn’t an island nation parked off the coast of Scotland or England, wasn’t a smaller part of Hawaii and didn’t have a bridge

Key Drivers

This sphere has a number of existing drivers and emerging drivers which influence or have the potential to influence and shape its evolution.   Among those identified by the groups are:

Existing:

• The divide in rich v poor which has seen a huge increase in poor (now 6;1 v 2;1 a decade ago).

• Peak Oil and Peak Coal and the issue of how prepared we are for a future in which these resources are either too expensive to extract for wide spread use, or too punishing on the environment.

• Existing US relationship and how that shapes our approach to the region and beyond.

• Global warming and displaced populations.

• Regional resource demands where Australia is seen as having so much for so few whilst others have so many with so little.

• The increasing irrelevance of Australian people (a micro population of just 21 million) v increasing relevance of Australia’s land mass (with so much room to spare).

• Emergence of global legislation (global take-back legislation).

vested interests

Vested interests exist wherever an entity is willing to expend energy to change or maintain the existing direction of the environment in which they operate.  Listed below are some key players and the expected approaches they will take in resisting change or shaping the outcome more to their liking.

Regional Governments – tend to fall into two categories with one being the larger nations holding stable political processes and an active military capability requiring nothing of Australia and those governments that draw on Australia to supply rescue and stability services with no in-kind contributions or benefits.  The cards then will be different – stronger bilateral and multilateral economic agreements in the region with the larger and more established governments, and the ‘please help us return to democracy’ card within the smaller less stable nations in the region.  Potentially the Regional Area Governments could look to out-manoeuvre Australia through partnerships that exclude us from regional developmental initiatives.

Consortiums of Large Employers – entities like the BCA/Mining Council will be keen to ensure that relationships with regional players and beyond benefit their opportunities to sell more raw products.  Indeed Australia’s relative economic prosperity hinges on an ability to trade (export) with these countries whilst regional stability might require Australia to focus its importing efforts on countries closer to home.  Likely to play the ‘income, balance of trade and employment’ card.

Australian Bureaucracy – some policy makers in Australian Governments with a habit of treating certain (often smaller) regional governments with disdain due to size or lack of perceived economic benefit to Australia might be due for a shake-up.  As we seek to increase our ability to contribute to stability and prosperity in the region, there may be a reliance on Australia for coalition support in exchange for cheap fruit pickers.  Poor existing paradigms of thinking about certain regional governments may not allow us to ramp up this capability.  Likely to play the ‘leave it with us, we know what we’re doing’ card.  Current approaches to trade suggest that we are in danger of becoming a warehousing facility for China.

Military Hardware Suppliers – have the same interest as many industry players – to increase the sales and profits of their companies.  Unfortunately by default that growth comes from instability around the world and that means a desire for things to ‘be stable, but not too much’. Many cards exist and the ones most likely to be played are uncertain.

ideas for development - Low-Lying Fruit

• Compulsory tri-language in schools with at least one of those languages being that of a regional neighbouring country.

• Increase multi-lateralism.

• Ensure bilateral agreements allow regional flexibility.

Medium-Term

• Major initiator of global laws and tested through the development of shared laws within the region

• Compulsory Peace Corp service in region, tied into the military focus moving from armed response and towards the natural disaster mitigation efforts and community rebuilding projects.

• Serious regional engagement.

• Contingency planning for implosion of US military and economic power by 2020.

Long-term and Left Field Ideas

• ‘Bomb them with butter’, rather than work through expensive military engagements we ought to consider sending in the types of products and goods that make the need for unrest, less palatable. If we are worried about regional poverty and the impacts on regional stability then perhaps we ought to be sharing our abundant (comparative wealth) rather than working out how to protect it through military means.

• Parcelling off areas of Australia for sale to larger regional foreign powers – perhaps an overloaded country like Indonesia could think of ways to use some of the non-coastal fringes that the present Australian population seems reluctant to embrace.

• Push for a universal language perhaps non-English

• Take on board the Bhutan Happiness Index as key indicator of the health of Australia and work through a 360 degree feedback program with regional stakeholder, to see how we are doing from their side of the fence.

• End alliance with the USA as it no longer shares our democratic values and is a corrupt single party state.

• Ally with India, as it shares more of our democratic values and assist in the regional growth of Vietnam and Timor Leste

Contributors

All of the people listed, work as or consult as professional futurists whether for their own organisation or on behalf of others.  They all contributed to the 2020 Australian futurists’ Summit and this document in their own time and at their own expense.

Marcus Barber

Convenor Of the 2020 Australia futurists’ Summit

Director of strategy firm Looking Up Feeling Good Pty Ltd (www. lufg.com.au).  His skills have been utilised by Fosters, DEST, the Department of Defence, Pacific Brands, Gold Coast Water, Deakin University, General Motors and City of Greater Dandenong among many others.  An author and inventor, Marcus has had papers and articles published around the world and presented at numerous conferences on sustainability, innovation and foresight.  He holds a MSc in Strategic Foresight and a Graduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning and specialises in applying strategic foresight and human values methods to generate opportunities for innovation and prepare for emerging risk both within the corporate and government sectors.

Charles Brass

Charles Brass is the Chairman of the Futures Foundation, Australia’s only membership-based futures organisation. He has enjoyed this role for 15 years following a 15 year career in corporate human resources.  His passionate interest is in creating the sort of future we would actually like, rather than enduring the one which we will probably get.

Maree Conway

Maree Conway runs Thinking Futures, an innovative futures practice that works with organisations to develop futures ready strategy. She has over 25 year’s experience working in universities and TAFE institutes, and her expertise is focused around strategy development and implementation, and the use of futures approaches to strengthen strategic thinking.  Maree holds a BA from Griffith University, an MEd (Hons) from UNE, and a Graduate Diploma in Strategic Foresight from Swinburne University of Technology.

Josh Floyd

Josh Floyd is a researcher, educator and consultant in the areas of strategic foresight and sustainability. He works with a range of organisations and individuals to assist in developing collaborative capacity for navigating responsively and proactively, towards preferred futures within a world characterised by inherent uncertainty and unpredictability.

Anita Kelleher

Anita Kelleher is the Principal of Designer Futures, a Perth-based foresight, innovation and strategy consultancy. Acknowledged as a skilled practitioner of intelligence- acquisition, Anita works in partnership with clients to discover, dream and design strategies for the longer-term that anticipate emerging issues and shape destinies. Anita’s most recent clients include: the Water Corporation, Australia Post, Fire and Emergency Services Authority, WA Depts of Education and Training, Premier and Cabinet, Culture and the Arts, and The Harmony Project (creative industries). She has also worked with the United Nations and the OECD on international futures projects.

John McBride

John McBride is Director of Victorian-based Strategic Futures Concepts and an agribusiness company based in SA.  Since leaving the Air Force after a 25 year career as an Aerospace Engineer he has worked on projects for CSIRO, Land and Water, CPA Australia and Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services.  His current, and on-going, research project is into the stability of the global financial system and its impact on the Australian economy and financial markets.

Stephen McGrail

Stephen McGrail is a Consultant at Futureye, a specialist sustainability and foresight advisory firm. He has worked on broad mix of corporate and Government projects, most recently leading the development of global climate change scenarios for BHP Billiton. Stephen was also chosen by the City of Melbourne to be one of its “Future Melbourne Leaders”, assisting the Council with the development of its new 2010-2020 plan in the high-profile “Future Melbourne” project, and is a regular guest lecturer at Swinburne University.

Rowena Morrow

Rowena runs Prospective Services – a foresight consultancy assisting organisations to build thinking capacity and futures literacy. Working with all industries, for profit and not-for-profit, we develop organisational culture and direction by facilitating the development of powerful, motivating, images of preferred futures then assisting clients to plan present actions to achieve them. We also have developed workshops for personal futures and have undertaken scenario and visioning projects.

Luke Naismith

Luke Naismith is an accomplished strategist and knowledge manager.  He has extensive experience in strategic management settings within the public sector, incorporating government service delivery, knowledge management strategies and initiatives, information economy strategic policy development processes and the application of futures techniques for strategic planning.  Luke holds a Masters of Science in Strategic Foresight and is currently on a 6 month knowledge management assignment in Dubai with a leading research and management consultancy firm.

Andrew Wynberg

Andrew Wynberg completed his Master of Science (Strategic Foresight) at Swinburne University of Technology in 2004.  He wrote a monograph on science and technology foresight which was published by the Australian Foresight Institute in 2003.  In 2006-07 he was the convenor of the ACT Greens political party.  In his career in the Commonwealth public service he has written speeches for the Chief Scientist of Australia, and developed grant programs to assist the commercial deployment of low emission electricity generation technologies in Australia.  He currently works on policy to improve the energy efficiency of Australian industry.