Comments on: 2020 breakaway group itching to fight Garrett

By: Raoul Dunk

Raoul Dunk — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Looking at the stupid proposals listed by the Creative strand at 2020, no wonder they went missing

By: Gary White

Gary White — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Indeed Raoul… Everyone can get stuffed, just go home and watch American TV in their meriton apartments.

By: Andrew S

Andrew S — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I am not sure the summiteers are as “incensed” as your article indicates. The emails may be flying but only from a limited number of participants. Rudd got it right when he said that the Summit was an opportunity for a national conversation about the future. But that is all it was. A conversation. There was simply insufficient time to do more than fly a few kites and dream a few dreams. In the 7 hours of group sessions not one idea was fully debated or explored and not one idea ended in an formal agreement. That is not a criticism. Its just a fact. No final communique was ever going to please everybody given the haste in which it had to be cobbled together. Yes there is a level of frustration but more in dissapointment of a lost opportunity to present a coherent and agreed position (assumimg that was ever possible).
The “advocacy group” is simply the Creative stream following through on Garretts invitation to continue the discussion.

By: Mary G

Mary G — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

And what is this “advocacy group from within” doing “to keep a check on the Federal Government”? Do we really need to wait until the final report is published? Can’t Crikey reveal a bit more?

By: Glen G

Glen G — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Huh??? So the delegates are proposing to form a new organisation to ensure that good design is a core requirement, to include aesthetics/design as part of the school curriculum, to mandate 80% quota for Australian content by broadcasters in digital delivery and to develop a whole of industry national screen strategy. AND then, on top of all that bureaucratic red tape, they propose removing barriers and bureaucratic red tape to make funding models and reporting requirements easier!!!!

Reconciling those contradictory strands would require some creativity indeed!

Maybe the government’s alleged “pre-existing agenda” was for ideas emerging from the summit to have a modicum of coherence. Peter Garrett, all power to your elbow!!!

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Who wants a lobby group^H^H sorry, advocacy group keeping a check on the federal government, anyway? That is what the Opposition is for. Perhaps the government will have learned its lesson from this exercise.