Applications must have come from “legitimate media organisations” too. This wouldn’t necessarily have been a problem for me, and I do understand that there’s probably limited space. Still, it reinforces the quaint idea that “the media” is about established “organisations” doing things in the established way. The idea that an individual could attend, observe and report their observations to the world without being part of a “legitimate media organisation” seems beyond them.

Now this doesn’t mean I can’t still do something this weekend. It only means I don’t have physical access to the venue — unless I wangle some post-deadline approval, which in principle should be possible since plenty of the delegates didn’t go through the correct application process either. But it does mean I’ll need to be more creative. Stay tuned.

I’ve written elsewhere how the Summit seems to have brought out the whingers who complain that their interest isn’t specifically listed in the topic titles. Today I’m wading through news reports which boast, as the Preston Leader does, that “nine Derebin residents” will be going to Canberra. Similarly, “A strong contingent of gays, lesbians and equal rights advocates has been chosen,” cheers Queensland Pride.

I’ve also written about who I think should be selected, on the basis of talent not quota-filling Nevertheless, the steering committee has magically arranged for 51% of their nominees to be female.

There’s also a heavy bias towards professional academics and professional politicians in the 884-personal list put forward.

“884?” I hear you ask? Isn’t it 1000 of our “best and brightest”? Well no. Though this wasn’t a secret, it wasn’t heavily publicised: space has been reserved for state premiers and various federal politicians.

And, as sociologist Mark Bahnisch noted in New Matilda, the fact that some delegates didn’t have to go through the nomination process creates a two-tier summit:

[A] number of the participants named didn’t have to go through the nomination process or submit a 500 word screed on their ideas for Australia. Rather, some summiteers were tapped on the shoulder by the secretariat in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet after having been picked directly by the summit steering committee. This lack of transparency hasn’t been publicly acknowledged, although some of the steering committee did (perhaps unwisely) allude to it early on.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with such an approach, but the sleight of hand involved in concealing it is deeply worrying. It suggests that there are two tiers of participants — those whom the Government and the steering committee really think are the best and brightest, and those who took the thing seriously but are in effect relegated to the second tier.

Bahnisch is also rightly concerned that a group of 100 usually can’t produce quality outcomes, and that the background papers will shape debate.

Those who will have the real power to shape the outcomes of the 2020 summit will be those who are in charge of setting the agenda, and cherry-picking the submissions to support working papers which will shape discussion. It may well be the case that the communiqué could be written before anyone even lands in Canberra. We may yet be surprised by the outcome, but we shouldn’t be surprised if the 2020 summit produces no surprises at all.

Sadly, after reading Peter Timmins’ comments on the papers for Topic 9, I tend to agree:

The set of 13 PowerPoints (PDF 260KB) includes one (9) on Freedom of Information that unfortunately does not provide basic information about debate on this topic. It consists of a claim that “granting rates” are 95% for personal information and 89% for other information, with the only qualification on this rosy situation in the form of three sentences from two court judgments about accountability and secrecy, and an unsourced claim that 70% of Queensland applicants were satisfied with the FOI process.

Nothing here about the stack of reports that have identified the problems in this area as an enduring culture of secrecy; lack of leadership within government; inadequacies in the law; technical legalistic responses; long delays; high cost and slow review mechanisms…

Then, in what will be a surprise to most government watchers, there is a table [on slide 8] that lists Australia as 12th when ranked against other countries in terms of “transparency of government policy making”. You have to ask yourself exactly what is being measured here when countries not renowned for democratic practices such as Singapore, are rated one, Hong Kong five and Malaysia 16. My guess from the footnote is that it is a score of something to do with monetary policy based on a survey of business leaders, but to put this forward as a positive general indicator of the trust in Australian public institutions is a bit of a stretch.

With all of the controversy about the role of the public service, the background slide (10) on this topic is devoted solely to how difficult it may be to recruit sufficient public servants in future.

It really makes we wonder what my role should be here. I mean, what my role really should be.

To prevent summit delegates being overwhelmed, there’s a 500 word limit — and also a ban on photographs and other images. Sometimes a diagram could explain things much more effectively, but not this time.

They’ve been summarised and analysed by Canberra Times correspondents Peter Martin, Danielle Cronin, Andrew Fraser, Emma Macdonald, David McLennan and Ross Peake.

Some of the papers are notable for what they omit. The discussion paper on Australia’s economy includes no mention of taxation. And Japan, the world’s third biggest economy and Australia’s biggest customer, has been left off of the graph showing the evolution of the global economic landscape. The US, China and the UK are on it, just as they are on the Prime Minister’s present overseas tour…

Here’s their summary of the Governance topic’s background paper…

Australia is a world leader in the turn out of registered voters at elections, but we may not be getting a good deal from our elected representatives.

The working group chaired by the head of News Limited John Hartigan will be asked whether ordinary people’s views are heard in the Cabinet room, whether governments are too sensitive to opinion polls and whether they get their information from the right places.

The background paper raises the need for a bill of rights and also talks about the way in which interactive technology can change the nature of political engagement.

The role of lobbyists, think tanks and the media are open for discussion as well as the role and limits of freedom of information laws.

The paper asks whether the right structures are in place to ensure that decisions are made in the interest of the nation, rather than just the interests of political victory.

It asks whether we need an Australian head of state, whether the structure of federalism is the right one, and whether the parliament needs fixed terms.

It says that increasing public expectations of government will require an increasingly skilled and flexible public service.

The full background paper is available as a PowerPoint [928k] presentation (!) and a PDF file [260k]. And here’s a local copy of the PDF file in case the official website vanishes.

The paper ends with a list of discussion questions:

• How can we increase the participation of citizens in policy debate and decision-making?
• How could public trust and confidence in politicians be improved?
• Is parliament sufficiently accountable to the public? If not, what reforms are needed?
• What is the appropriate role of the judiciary in the Australian democracy? Is the current procedure for judicial appointments appropriate?
• What does the public have a right to know and what sort of information does the government have a right to keep secret? What accountabilities should bind both government and the media?
• What does it mean to be an Australian citizen, particularly in a multicultural context?
• What are the rights and responsibilities of citizens in our democracy? How should our rights be protected?
• How should individuals and the state share responsibility for community problems like climate change, lifestyle-related diseases etc?
• How could modern communications technology be used to improve access to information, citizen engagement and community awareness?
• What can be done to increase the quality and number of people wanting to enter the public service? What about politics?
• How can the current system of federal and state responsibilitiesbe improved to achieve (a) better delivery of services and industry; (b) better outcomes for the economy; (c) more cost effective use of public funds?
• Is there a need for constitutional reform?

Is there anything obvious missing from this list? Any slant?