We all needed to recover from the turmoil and excitement which came from being included in what was in essence a very large public-policy jamboree and party. I have been in discussion with many colleagues since, and for these economists there is an emerging consensus about the Summit:
It was invigorating to be there;
We got most out of meeting other Australians interested in public policy from outside our fields;
The all-inclusive sessions, with the 1002 ‘Summiteers’, many politicians and the media, were not generally a good use of time for those wanting to develop policy issues; and
Non-economists don’t like us much because what really matters in terms of public policy are issues of fairness and equity.
I was initially quite disappointed in the absence of much informed debate and the significance placed on the snappy one-liner, but my consulting of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has helped me come to terms with this: ‘Idea’ is defined as ‘vague belief or fancy’. [Editor’s Note: Professor Chapman’s opinion that income-contingent loans can solve all the world’s problems seems to sit quite comfortably with this definition.]
Through the haze, confusion, and general positive feel of the Summit, there were naturally some memorable moments. The best example for me from the Productivity Panel entails all the members of one sub-group being asked at the death knell to state in a few words or less their one brilliant idea. Joshua Gans of the University of Melbourne, tongue firmly in cheek, sang out: ‘Put an Australian on Mars by 2020!’ A graver economist noted that ‘would be very expensive’. Joshua retorted: ‘We don’t have to bring them back!’
Boring it wasn’t.