I was shocked at Rudd's "great idea". We have already experienced the pointlessness of Hawke's concensus talkfest and Howard's republican talkfest. There is no point to bringing the who's who of this country together in a big social.

Whatever you think of Rudd's smart summit (I think it is just a political cover up for Rudd's lack of the plan he said he had), Mirko's article shows the great misunderstanding of human nature and success.

Mirko wants to ask people who have not had success how to succeed because he puts the blame on society rather than individual character and ability. This is wrongheaded, and an essentially disastrous idea, which would put out more bad ideas and lame solutions than a communist convention. Mirko's idea is essentially like asking someone who only played Rugby in the under 9 F's to coach the Wallaby's. It won't ever happen in the Rugby world because the consequences and results are a lot more immediate, but Mirko would try to foist upon society a host of disastrous suggested solutions that would take years to discover their deadly consequences.

I have nominated someone I know for the talkfest. She has outstanding academic qualifications and once held a very prestigious scholarship.
She succeeded in getting one of those UN international years off the ground and is a very active lobbyist for people with disabilities and other disadvantages. She understands the constraints on government and has a sound knowledge of both national and international affairs.
The nomination will almost certainly fail. A small part of that will be due to the fact that I put it in at the last moment. Most of it will be due to the fact that, believe it or not, she is both disabled and 'unemployed' and would require some financial assistance to attend.
As she most certainly does not sit around doing nothing and contributes a heck of a lot more than many people on incomes of $100,000 plus - and contributes in a practical and meaningful way which adds several million dollars value to our foreign aid budget each year - I think she would be the ideal candidate. It will however prove my theory correct - that the talkfest is for the Rudd party faithful who will condone his agenda - when the nomination fails.

It will not come as a surprise that I disagree with Mirko, as I have done so many times before. But, this time, he hasn't got it all wrong.

Although I mostly agree with Grey, I do agree with Mirko that the underprivileged should at least be included in the discussion.

nothing like seeing a torture advocate advance an argument by reference to justice kirby.

When for 12 years Australians have been told that they were wrong unless they agreed with Howard’s point of view it is a tremendous turn around to have people of all sorts of background and expertise being invited to come together to present points of view and learn from each other.
Mirko’s article is negative, destructive and pre-emptive. [a remnant of the Howard tradition?] He has not demonstrated that Rudd is wrong and he appears to be claiming some form of psychic power to know the results of the proposed Australia 2020 Summit.
The fact that all of us, whether rich or poor, have unique life experiences does not devalue our contributions towards a collective vision for a better future.
Mirko should apply his logic to his own output. By your logic what is the point in “writing 20 books and over 100 refereed scholarly articles?!” Are you writing them for an audience of 1- Mirko?

There is not enough "talkfests", and this is an opportunity for anyone to nominate themselves or whom they may consider can contribute constructively.

We have had near twelve years of stagnation in the country, with no right of contribution from the populace, to the needs for the future of Australia.

The opportunity has been presented, now go and contribute.

To those who say it was a committee that designed the horse and it came out as a camel.

Guess what? A camel can survive a lot longer in our climate than a horse!

Beats the way the Bonsai would have done it.

This is one of FIFTY new committees. Its also an attempt to recruit some potential opponents.

Clearly,he has no clue what to do.

For a guy who got voted in on fresh ideas he doesn't seem to have many of his own.

Telstra's mindless single-eyed greed beats anything we can utter about the inflated profits made by the 'credit fever' assaying distortions or expansions assiduous to the interest creditability coffered by the over reach of Banks.

If we say ‘communication between people’ is salubrious to business networking because while we have people communicating we have an apt climate for the creation of more business making between those ‘doing’ the communicating, then is it possible to infer that the performance of Telstra is insalubrious to the underlying drive for more business, especially for the cost it has on households and small business.

Pointed is the underlying stillborn indices of the micro-economy when we consider the disconective_ness(s) present over distance. Broadband and all the talk of G-technologies is over-spun, discernible against the basic need for communication servicing.

The cost of STD calls especially STD packaging contracts to rural and remote regions (Cape York) plus the wound of paying an inflated extra cost, outside these (so called Telstra) packages for 1300 + 1800 numbers.

It is a no win insult afflicted onto government, business and citizens when you consider the reason and equitable value meant by the transference, to alleviate the burden of certain costs… for good reason, to counter-act the flawed tele-communication system, where the aim was to help problem solve vulnerable areas through better communication.

Australians need to STAND UP to TELSTA.

How can we ever have faith in private/public partnerships if those partnerships are abused in the way Telstra abuses the game of scabbard. Household are under immense pressure, business needs some breath and we must communicate to problem solve.

I say deal with Telstra and we begin to kick-start a climate change economy.

Historically this equation is symbolic to the battle through time we have had over what to do with the counterfeit side of paper-money, only, like the invention and transaction of credit-data basing…. the value story of communicatrion, for all it’s economic beneifits, needs up-dating…

Food for thought!

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Mirko's origninal and many of the subsequent contributions highlight an ongoing issue in debates about public participation and community engagement: who should be involved? We can use any one of a variety of criteria in deciding who should be allowed or encouraged to join in our debates or participatory exercises. These include: those who know something about the topic or issue; those sufficiently motivated to offer their services; those with certain demographic characteristics; those selected at random from the poulation at large. None of these is inherently better than the other, their merit depends on what you hope to achieve from the exercise. So, if you want to know what a representative sample of the public thinks then select randomly; if you are more interested in the views of experts then think about their credentials; if you want your friends then pick them but don't expect a lot of legitimacy to attach to the outcome.
Most participatory exercises, especially those sponsored by the state, fail to satisfy either their sponsors or their participants becasue these and other ground rules are not considered properly in advance.

"Random selection" can also fail. Look at any meeting. How many people speak up? How many people feel unable to do so? How many people hog the floor with their point of view - the "correct" point of view?
It is always the articulate minority which wins in the end. That's the way governments want it - an articulate minority prepared to express support for them. Suggest that you should empower others to speak up for themselves and the alarm bells start to ring. So much easier if people are provided with limited amounts of information and told what to think in the process.
This is one reason why the talkfest will fail. Not all who attend will participate. (The amount of time on offer allows everyone about ten minutes anyway - and that is without interruptions from others and no set agenda.) Those who do attend and have opposing points of view or ideas that might work but are against government policy will find themselves ostracised.

This is precisely why it is important to be clear about what you (or Kevin) want out of any participatory event and hence the terms on which you engage people. If you are worried about a silent majority being swayed by the rhetoric of an articulate minority, then structure your event as a series of bilateral encounters between you and each person you select (like face to face or telephone interviews). On the other hand, you might positively welcome the opportunity for the invitees to hear what each other says and to respond accordingly. However, you might also plan for some firm facilitation so that everyone gets a chance to speak and proceedings are not dominated by the forceful (not necessarily articulate) few.
The problem with Rudd's 2020 is that these basic assumptions are not clear or are confused. Is it the cleverest 1000 Australians, 1000 of the most interesting people, the most enthusiastic 1000 or a hotch potch? Do they start with a blank canvas or will they be directed and if so, how rigidly? Will they be expected to reach a consensus or simply to think boldly and agree to differ? Are they expected to focus on long term agenda setting or here-and-now problem solving? Will they be constrained by current legislation, policy and budget or given the freedom to think beyond the contemporary box?
Because it is difficult to answer questions like this, I suspect they have simply been avoided. But this avoidance provides fertile ground for peripheral critics like us.

Mirko, sometimes you are annoying but thought-provoking, but on this occasion your think-piece is just annoying. It is just a rant.

Rudd has already sent his MPs out to visit homeless shelters, for heaven's sake. You are behind the game, not in front of it.

Yes, talking to people in need is a part of the process of policy development, but it is not the whole. You have to go on to generate and then select from a series of policy options, and then to a further stage of working them up to proposals. The much-derided elite have their uses here.

Fortunately, some people will be capable of coming to the talkfest with a relatively open mind and will be able to engage in dialogue with other participants. Dialogue sometimes leads to people modifying their positions and growing in their understanding.

It is too pessimistic to say that we just advance positions based on our previous life experience. Some of us are capable of more than that, I hope.

We are not all party politicians! And that is the whole point!