2020: Where were John Howard’s four favourite chairmen?
|
Apart from a few overly cynical media types like Andrew Bolt and some spurned summit wannabes such as the IPA’s John Roskam, Kevin Rudd’s 2020 Summit has been overwhelmingly welcomed – as it should be. Sledging the concept before it actually happened was pretty unfair and even the harshest critics should now acknowledge it was a worthwhile exercise. In a nation of citizens with increasingly brief attention spans, led by politicians driven by electoral cycles and investment markets marred by short-termism, what happened over the weekend was a hugely refreshing change. It was hard not to feel inspired. Whilst the AMA, the gambling industry and a few other special interest groups were complaining about not being invited, it was also interesting to note that CEOs and billionaires were given a far bigger role than the people who traditionally represent big business: non-executive directors. Luminaries from the directors’ club were notably absent, especially the four ageing chairmen most associated with the Howard years. The Australian’s Adele Ferguson has today called on ANZ chairman Charles Goode to give up the ghost after 13 years in charge. We ran a similar argument in this video last year. Charles is a major Liberal Party fundraiser, who was very close to both John Howard and Peter Costello. Without any political protection and given the Opes Prime fiasco, Charles will be lucky to still be ANZ chairman by the time he turns 70 on August 26. For too long, success in Australian business has relied on some sort of oligopoly, excessive market power or government concession. The likes of Kerry Stokes, former Westpac CEO David Morgan and Lachlan Murdoch are classic examples of beneficiaries from banking and media policies. Whilst those three business insiders clearly remain inside the tent, John Howard’s defeat will trigger a substantial changing of the guard in Australian business and it is Charles Goode who is likely to be the first to go. The other three chairs who weren’t in Canberra over the weekend and should be considering their positions for age, political, tenure and performance reasons are as follows:
|
|
|
|
3 Comments
“Sledging the concept before it actually happened was pretty unfair and even the harshest critics should now acknowledge it was a worthwhile exercise”
Speak for yourself Mr. Mayne because you certainly don’t speak for me. You arrogant man.
Even though the lovable Alan Ramsey called it a giant wank we got to hear from so many people not normally thrown into the spotlight at this level-scientists and such. Even though one famous baby stole the limelight it really just brought lots more attention to the talkfest so it was a help and considering lobby groups pay millions of dollars to get the ear of our politicians, the concepts produced will emanate and be talked about from now on so that something good good must come from it. Think what you will about Kevin, but this was a great idea, excruciatingly clever, but a winner.
Did the computer write its own stuff or has Stephen gone mushy in the head? A worthwhile exercise for whom? The Labor spin doctors that will try to feed off it for next 2 years. It was about as useless and irrelevent as the sorry day theatre - exciting for the self-important participant but a passing farce for the rest. WHere are the fresh ideas? There weren’t any new ideas - same old tiresome left agenda. The four old directors would be more stimulating and have more new ideas.