How many times have you heard the words "What passes for public debate in this country"? It is usually said by someone who has been critical of political discourse or the latest media outrage, who feels (s)he deserves to be served by an idealised version of democracy or press freedom. Of course, hoping for high quality public debate from either politicians or journalists in mainstream media is always likely to end in frustration. Neither group is particularly qualified or interested in debate. Politicians are interested in being re-elected and exercising power, while journalists are focused on writing stories that sell papers to make them enough money to survive and ensure that they are sufficiently famous to keep their jobs.
So, from where will this much lamented high quality public debate emerge? Obviously, from people interested in public debate!
Two such people are Kim McKay and Michelle Wood, co-convenors of Sydney Salon. I attended the second event of Sydney Salon, appropriately on the night of the State of Origin, that other high quality debate that Sydney stops to consume. Kim and Michelle were inspired by the French salonnières whose salons were vectors of social and intellectual exchange which helped spread the Enlightenment from its core in Paris to the remainder of France and eventually further afield - even to Sydney, some 250 years later.
Wednesday night's ‘Provacateur’ was the undoubtedly provocative and entertaining social researcher, Randall Pearce, who addressed the topic:
A golden voice but a tin ear: why the media has misread community opinion on climate change and where our thinking is headed.
Dr. James Bradfield-Moody kept the discussion flowing and the house in order.
While Pearce sought to reframe the climate change debate to focus on the 80% of Australians who believe climate change is happening, rather than a discussion of whether it is caused by human action, the discussion from the floor expressed the frustration of people who understand and care about the issue, but see it tossed around as a political issue aimed at not losing votes in marginal seats. The Tony Rudd's about face on the ETS and Kevin Abbott's "non-delivery of an invisible trade to no one" comment, provided a suitable focus for the frustration. Fortunately there was none of the physical disagreement seen at ANZ Stadium on the same night, and no streaker to conclude the proceedings.
I took two things away from the debate. Firstly, as a representative of the old white men who were blamed for nearly everything, I felt a little hurt at been described as a "Pale, stale, male". In particular, I felt that the comment that these people would probably die off soon, solving the problem of "climate skeptics" hit a little close to home. Oh! The cruelty of youth. But secondly, as a director of several companies which need to give some strategic thought to the issue of climate change, whatever the cause, I began to wonder what questions I should be asking at the next board meeting.
I am looking forward to the next one, reportedly on gambling to be held on the day before the Melbourne Cup!
