Rudd 2020 talkfest gimmick

If Kevin Rudd really wants a lasting positive vision for Australia he should be talking to the least resourceful and worst off Australians, rather than having a talkfest with 1,000 of the country’s smartest and most influential people.

People with big brains and deep pockets don’t need an alteration to existing societal structures and institutions to make their lot a good one. The situation is vastly different for the handicapped, Aborigines, the chronically ill, victims of serious crime, refugees, homosexuals, single parents, the depressed and the downright talent-less. Not only are many of these people struggling, but most are political mute and socially invisible.

But can’t the smarties advise the PM what the down and outs need to make their miserable lot a bit more tolerable? Surely they can do some “research” and theorise about what needs to be done.

Rudd’s 2020 gimmick would have us believe that, but in fact the opposite is true. An irreducible aspect of understanding what needs to be done to improve another’s lot is an appreciation of the barriers and challenges they face. Why do some people prosper and others fail in society? What is it about some groups that prevents them attaining any modicum of personal success and flourishing?

The best way to understand this is to walk in their shoes. Failing this, the next best approach is to ask them - engage them in a manner whereby they will identify their difficulties and spell out what they need to make their world a better place.

Rudd is demonstrably wrong if he thinks 1,000 of his hand-picked supposedly smart mates (the chairman of the talkfest - Professor Glyn Davis - is a long time friend of Rudd) can understand and connect with another’s misery from afar.

People’s beliefs, sensibilities and priorities are principally shaped by one criterion: their personal experiences. That’s why victims of crimes groups are comprised solely of victims of crime; gay lobby groups are comprised solely of gays; the new political party focusing on the interests of carers is comprised solely of carers; only students attend demonstrations relating to increasing student fees and only nurses lobby the government for more pay for nurses.

The defining impact of our personal experiences on our values and outlook is unshakeable. It transcends every person and every institution in society. This applies even to people that are appointed to positions demanding the highest level of independence and impartiality.

In my vocation, lawyers are trained to believe that judges decide cases on the merits, dutifully applying the law. The notion of judicial impartiality and objectivity is a con. Judges don’t just interpret the law. They make it, and always in a way to suit there underlying political and moral sentiments, which have been shaped by their life experiences.

As noted by America’s leading lawyer Allan Dershowitz, “Almost all justices vote almost all of the time in accordance with their own personal, political and religious views. That is the reality. … On many occasions, the impact of [a judge’s] biography is overt and conscious. Other times it is subtle and unconscious. But it is always there.”

That’s why in high profile or sensitive cases, the choice of judge is often more important than the words in the statute book.

There is nothing more pleasing to the legal eye in a human rights case than to see Justice Kirby stroll towards the bench. Kirby nearly always makes decisions that promote humanistic objectives above other goals.

So why is it that Justice Kirby is the most human rights orientated judge in Australia’s history? Well, there’s a fair chance that it relates to the fact that he belongs to a group that has subjected to an enormous degree of prejudice.

Kirby has walked in the shoes of the marginalised. He no doubt appreciates the level of helplessness and despair that come with this.

The fact that so often Justice Kirby’s fellow judges don’t agree with his views has little to do with intellect. It has everything to do with the fact that nearly all judges come from well-to-do backgrounds and hence have no understanding of what it is like to belong to a socially repressed group.

Governing a country is far more difficult than deciding who wins a legal case. The just allocation of resources, benefits and burdens requires the government to consider and balance an enormous number of competing demands and interests.

The first part of this process requires the government to understand the existence and depth of these interests and concerns.

Calling the supposed “smarts” and people of influence to Canberra is a positively dumb move. These people have one trait that is disproportionately shared by them: their parents were rich. Accordingly, they lack the capacity to understand what is needed to build a fairer and egalitarian prosperous Australia.

Among their main concerns are likely to be faster Internet and stronger privacy laws. When all the important things in life are shored up, there is little else to stress about.

They have lost touch of the fact what people need most is equal access to good health care, education and cheap essential services in the form of shelter, electricity and water and ways of tackling inflation other than discriminating against people with mortgages. All of this is absent in Australia.

If Rudd is truly interested in a better Australia and doesn’t want to get his hands dirty by talking to the miserable sectors of the community, he should just go to any Scandinavian country and see how they do government. There, the worst off live as well as the Australian middle class.

The talkfest will produce nothing of value. So why is Rudd having it? There are only two possibilities.

First, Rudd might actually believe that you can make important decisions via committee consensus. This would make him a genuine dill. Democracy appoints people to leadership roles who have the acumen to lead the way. There is no scope for consulting every step along the way - otherwise nothing gets done. If Rudd lacks the intellect and confidence to stamp his footprint on society, he should resign - now.

The more likely reason for the talkfest is that it is a gimmick aimed simply to elicit support for his policies. It is difficult to criticise a policy which one had direct a role in framing. What Rudd is trying to do is lock in 1,000 of the most influential Australians into supporting policies he has developed. Having succeeded with his first gimmick (Kev07), he is becoming addicted to them and is now going with his second: 1000/10 - 2020.

Either way, it’s all a bit sad - especially for the most miserable in our society.