The Cranlana Programme Alumni Speaker Series 2014



Dame Julia Cleverdon DVCO CBE

Chief Executive of Business in the Community, UK

What do business leaders need to do to retain/rebuild the trust of society?


When: Wednesday 30 April 2014

Time: 6.00 start for 6.30pm seating

Address: 62 Clendon Road, Toorak

Drinks and canapés will be served before the talk.



To register go to:


What do business leaders need to do to retain/rebuild the trust of society?

Adam Smith wrote in 1759 that ‘the wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest.’ The interdependence between business and society continues to challenge wise and virtuous business leaders across the globe, especially now that every company action is seen through glass walls and communicated instantly through Twitter. As businesses increasingly blur their boundaries with the public sector and deliver government services,  transparency, accountability and trust in business are even more critical to success. The immense challenges now faced by society cannot be solved by any one sector working alone so what must business leaders do to earn the trust to play their part?



Dame Julia Cleverdon DCVO CBE is the Chief Executive of Business in the Community, a UK business-community outreach charity, one of the Prince's Charities of Charles, Prince of Wales, that promotes responsible business, CSR and corporate responsibility. For 25 years, she has engaged executives and leaders in the issues which affect society and impact on business. Dame Julia will reflect on the successes and failures of businesses she has witnessed and set the priorities for corporate leaders if they are to contribute to a good society.



Dr. Fiona Jenkins

Convenor of the ANU Gender Institute, and Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, ANU.

Fiona Jenkins has a co-edited book (with Katrina Hutchison) “Women in Philosophy: What Needs to Change?” forthcoming from Oxford University press in October 2013 and was the fourth speaker in the 2013 Cranlana Programme Alumni Speaker Series. Below is the transcript of that evening.


Meritocracy’s Unmeritorious Outcomes



Is meritocracy good for women? Yes, in some respects, of course it is. In other respects, as I shall try to explain here, no: I think it’s a system of judgment that those who seek greater gender equality should be highly sceptical about.


A couple of weeks ago, on Equal Pay Day, we heard a lot about the gender pay gap, which continues to run at around 17.5%. This means Australian women will on average have to work 68 days longer in order to earn the same annual pay as a man, or 15 months for every year. – It doesn’t sound like too great a prospect for 50% of us! And especially when you consider that all the evidence shows we are still doing more of the housework, not to mention the child bearing and rearing.


In fact, however, things are even worse than this grim picture.


One of the key components of the pay gap is vertical segregation, or the under-representation of women in senior positions. Where organisations operate on meritocratic principles of selection and promotion, the pay gap is shaped by what I shall call a “merit gap”.  Some groups systematically appear to deserve more pay than other groups; and we are led to assume that those better rewarded are the more talented and harder working.


Indeed, if you haven’t noticed the pay gap in your institution, because men and women at the same level get paid at more or less the same rates, it’s likely because the optical effect of the merit gap is hiding it from you. Whereas the calculation of the pay gap looks at averages, the merit gap individualises performance. Meritocracy is a system of regulated competition that, amongst other things, secures an individual’s “value” (and sense of value) over against others. Such a person will attract greater investment in his or her career as well as greater personal rewards. The merit gap also reflects hierarchical tiers of value in which individuals compete between one another – “amongst peers” – while remaining subordinate to the appropriate authority of the levels above them. In a meritocracy such authority is always tied to a rationale - be it superior expertise, established track record, productivity, or most likely some combination. These terms can be very slippery. Yet the competitive aspect together with the operation of seemingly rational evaluation based in apparently clear criteria gives the all-important sense of fairness.


But do these systems deliver just results? The merit gap yawns between women and their male counterparts in institutions with highly developed and long-standing meritocratic systems. In universities, the more prestigious the institution is, the fewer are the women who make it into senior roles. Where promotion committees again and again return results that favour men, the impression is created that women’s inferior status is fairly deserved.


So if we look at these sort of outcomes across a range of institutions, we find a strange fact. It seems that although they do well at all the lower levels, the majority of women fail to provide evidence that they have accumulated sufficient merit to ascend a stage on the competitive ladder that would allow them significant authority in relation to groups below them. Their male counterparts meanwhile display disproportionately vast quantities of merit.


In general, a sense of the “rightness” of hierarchies, coupled with differential reward or access to authority that define levels of employment, is vigorously protected in meritocratic institutions. Indeed one might suspect that meritocratic systems are in part designed to block what could otherwise erupt as reasonable dispute over criteria of value, distribution of benefits or actual talent.


Belief in due desert is endemic in meritocracies. Yet there is profoundly bifurcated vision around the merit gap, as many studies show. Where men who are surveyed about fairness in their meritocratic workplaces will generally respond that their institutions are very fair, women in the self-same locations will report bias and discrimination. This effect is intensified the more male-dominated an area is.


(- And there is a terrific recent report I recommend you look at - A study on the Australian Public Service that details the range of this effect across all departments (– its called “Not yet 50/50: Barriers to the Progress of Senior Women”).


However, despite their greater sensitivity to general bias, women like men, tend to internalise individual merit-based judgments. Women who “lack confidence”, are “unwilling to compete” or won’t “take risks” may be accepting at face value the view constantly reflected back to them that they, not only as a group but individually, are less able, less deserving and less valuable. They may also justly fear the cruelties of these pyramid-shaped hierarchies that humiliate and silence those who step out of line. Certainly anyone who seeks to alter “merit” based processes is liable to be cast as a “whinger” who is simply unable to compete. Meritorious men, meanwhile, whose status as superior has been confirmed, and re-confirmed, can sometimes give off an unattractive whiff of complacency about the system’s workings.


Even those who doubt whether our actually-existing meritocracies are working as they should, generally think that the problem we face is how to better perfect the systems of judgment they employ. There is currently a strong revival of equity activism that points to the role played by unconscious bias in shaping judgments of performance, and makes the economic argument that businesses are missing out on talent they might capitalise and use if only they did not so carelessly overlook women. This strategy sets out to be persuasive by pointing to the role idealised meritocratic arrangements play in generating the best possible outcomes in terms of wealth or knowledge. If you are missing out on detecting who is “really” the best then you are missing out on the end results only the best can deliver.


These are important arguments and deserve to be heard. The question I raise however is whether the ideology of meritocracy is not itself part of the problem that women face in challenging institutions that, despite many years of equal opportunity legislation being in effect, continue to exclude women from authoritative, decision-making roles? Although women are now participating in the workforce in numbers comparable to men, or obtaining higher degrees in numbers greater than them, glass ceilings, chilly climates and some downright ugly misogyny remain puzzlingly pervasive. How deep does change have to go in order to overcome them?


The economic argument seems on the face of it a good strategy; it is likely to be persuasive insofar as those to whom it is addressed can be made to recognise that they are missing out on a “good thing” – and not some burdensome employee who is likely to disrupt work patterns by needing career breaks, school friendly hours, an emotionally supportive workplace or forms of respect tedious to men who enjoy a “blokey” culture.


But there’s the rub. To persuade those who hold most of the power in the workplace to change their evaluation of women not just as employees but as leaders and decision-makers involves not just cultural shifts at a range of levels, but also profoundly redistributive political and economic transitions. Workplaces must learn to accommodate women-shaped lives, aspirations and values, thus respecting their agency and choices, rather than simply demanding that women “fit in”. But they must also review and question the functioning of the competition-driven hierarchies that have been putting men into positions of power in overwhelming proportions for many, many years, and long after formal meritocratic processes have become well-established.


If the pay gap is to close, and therefore the merit gap that is so often underpinning it, perhaps its time to poke some fun at the faith meritocracies generally command. I want to suggest to you that only as we give up some of our addiction to merit-based competition, and become more critical of its various pathologies, will we be able to begin more fruitful and broad-ranging discussion of what kinds of institutional arrangements we want. Is competition always the best means to secure the end or goods that institutions aim to realise? And what other sorts of arrangements might do better justice to that goodly percentage of the population who, as matters presently stand, will not only need to work for 15 months to earn as much as a man earns in 12, but be made to feel inferior in the process?


A system based on cultivated competition can of course benefit women. It has been the major mechanism in giving women access to jobs that were once strictly “for the boys” at least at the lower levels of organisations. Without the guarantees of gender-blindness offered by equal access at entry points, or by examinations to establish competence, the numbers of women receiving higher degrees would not have exponentially grown as it has. But when we look beyond what is involved in establishing “qualification” to participate and contribute, toward what it means to belong to the smaller groups holding authority and power over others, things seem to starkly change. Suddenly women are “uncompetitive”. Why?


One of the paradoxes of meritocracy is that those whom the system has rewarded with power and influence, become the judges and arbiters of what should be allocated to the next generation – we call them the “gate-keepers”. We may imagine we regulate their power of judgment, and negate its tendency toward social conservatism by reference to impartial standards; and no doubt in part we do. But another possibility is that the appearance of following neutral procedures for measuring talent hides something that is always open-ended in the moment of decision-making. It hides, indeed, the moment of judgment when we decide in effect what kind of people we want to lend power like ours, or whom we will allow to wield authority over others in our institutions. Such moments are not only unavoidable but also full of potential for transformation. Yet they are moments that meritocratic ideology makes it hard for us to own up to, because they open onto questions of vision that exceed rule-governed calculative processes.


What faith in meritocracy too often expresses is the desire that there should be an “objective” way of determining a person’s capacity and value. And it’s a desire that’s likely to be passionately felt by those who have found themselves to depend upon such measurements in order to be allowed in at the door at all. Many women are profoundly hostile to affirmative action or quotas, on the grounds that these would undercut all their own hard-earned personal “merit”. Consequently, and despite all the flaws evident in our meritocratic systems – flaws which show up in their strongly gendered results once we get beyond a certain level – many maintain confidence even against the evidence: the promise of achieving the right results through determining merit too often protects the system from critical scrutiny on the results it has actually delivered over many years.


Perhaps we should worry less about how well meritocracy is able to count, than about counting the cost of meritocracy itself as a system of judgment, distribution and measurement of human value. The system of meritocracy, like any, is vulnerable to flaws. Precisely because it is imagined to be ideally regulated by principles of neutrality and fairness, it tends to lack safeguards against the reproduction of standards that are so tacitly accepted as the norm that they have become invisible to all who use them. Through the unchecked mechanism of confidence in “who we are”, “what we are about”, “what the main game is”, and where our “overall objectives lie” (the very stuff of CEO’s strategic plans) - the schema is laid whereby one group consistently appoints to positions of authority those “like itself”: Those by whom, and with whom it is comfortable to rule, since all are “on the same page”. The “glass ceiling” might be one name for the bar that comes down once a certain threshold has been reached in accepting that others who are less like ourselves, less confident of the things we are confident of, less committed to the faith that things have gone pretty well so far, nonetheless have the right to share our power; indeed, have the right to share in it to the point of making decisions, raising questions or criticising goals and preconceptions in ways that will change the “game” that brought us to where we now find ourselves in a social hierarchy.   


Defying the result that prior competition has produced will often appear as under-cutting “fair” competition itself. When a woman is elected to high office the point is often stressed that her merit was the key, reassuring us in view of this rather deviant – or at least unusual - result that fairness and objectivity were after all, the sole considerations. As legal scholar Margaret Thornton has wryly commented, the headline “Woman of Merit Elected to the Bench” would look ridiculous in the reverse gender. To say “Man of merit elected….” would draw attention to something odd going on about the appointment itself through the very redundancy of the attribution of merit. What – do all the others lack merit?  What is going on that they should claim fairness and objectivity to be the criterion rather than the subtly different idea that this is the person whom the good, just and powerful have chosen because he is someone like us – also good, just and powerful?


Women in high office consequently may feel they owe - or they may be seen by others to owe - special allegiance to procedures and processes that secure their own minimal entitlement to position, despite any insights they may have gleaned on the way up about how competitive patterns continue to disproportionately hamper others of their sex. 


A system that secures an individual’s sense of value over against that of others – which in its hierarchical aspect is what meritocracy does - has by nature fairly inflexible boundaries on membership at each level. As social change occurs, these boundaries need to become selectively more porous, but remain intact and regulative. Moving forward slowly, or perhaps better put, in scrupulously rationed ways, allows for the continuity of power to determine value. What guarantees, then, that while a few women are successfully breaching these boundaries, by demonstrating their capacity to compete and be “best”, the end result will not simply be to ratchett up the general unfairness of the overall system, creating and entrenching further hierarchies and more profound inequalities? Is meritocracy not a system designed to allow social mobility to a few while keeping the majority firmly in their place, thus leaving the status quo largely intact?  Despite the extent to which meritocracy appears to embody our aspirations toward equal opportunity and convinces many that it offers the best method for delivering on them, I would argue it also contains severe counter-forces to genuine gender equality.


The idea of meritocratic appointment stands for a modern approach to allocating public office and status, replacing inherited privilege or arbitrary favour. First instituted as a system of measurement conjoined with appointments in the public services of England and France at the end of the nineteenth century, competitive processes involving examinations evolved in a symbiotic relation with the development of education systems. These were in significant part designed to provide training and to validate qualifications suitable to service the exponentially expanding needs of Empire for competent and loyal functionaries. It was sometime later, however, that the term “meritocracy” was coined in 1958 by a sociologist, who in fact invented it to describe an ideology of which he was highly critical. The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870-2033 is Michael Young’s satirical and prescient fable about the rise - and fall - of what we would now recognise as the culture of constant measurement of performance – one we all inhabit, from kindergarten to exhausted retirement.


From the vantage point of 2034, the fable chronicles the emergence of continuous IQ testing, which is being used to allocate work and position on the basis of strict “merit”. In Young’s fable, which pokes fun at the belief gathering pace in his times that the measurement of merit would provide the social conditions for a true egalitarianism, the bewildered author of the account is trying to discover the reasons for the disturbing signs of collapse within this system.


One direct target of Young’s subversive reflections was Eric James, an important advocate of the 11 plus examination system that was introduced into the UK through the 1944 Education Act. James, the Headmaster of the newly established Manchester Grammar School, wrote an influential book, Education and Leadership setting out the claim that any educated and talented child could now reach lofty heights of public office once reserved entirely to the upper classes. From the selective 11-plus exam, to the Grammar School, to Oxford or Cambridge and thence to a desk in Whitehall, James extols a vision that entirely ignores the detrimental effects on the many children to whom this path of achievement would be firmly closed from the tender age of 12. His view expresses the aspirations of the provinces and the peripheries to gravitate toward the centre, obtaining access to the upper tiers of power, at the expense of renouncing any alternate politics or demands regarding how to re-distribute power, privilege and wealth.  


Meanwhile, of course, those at that centre had no need or time for meritocratic processes themselves; what was needed was the provision of loyal officials, bound by debt and gratitude to the system of their elevation; competent and capable in servicing administrative tasks. If some broke through these ranks to join the ruling class at work, no matter; competent public servants would always support the class system, not challenge it. Meritocracy in this way functioned admirably to ration access to power and status within an expanding middle-class. 


Over time, the Ox-bridge system has been forced to become more “truly” meritocratic, due to its dependency on the public purse. But it remains an institution in which old class privileges flourish alongside the more egalitarian appearance of competitive entrance exams, not least because the qualities that mark “merit” are the ones best taught in England’s most expensive schools. 


Yet today the capacity of meritocracy to deliver equitable results in principle, if not in present-day practice, is rarely questioned. Consequently, insufficient critical attention has been directed at the pathologies of institutions that not only lend themselves to pursuing competition for competition’s sake, but were in part formed to service the production of “merit” in contexts laden with politics: the histories of gender, race and class relations; the present-day realities of negotiations between universities and the governments – or publics – to whom they are beholden, and whom ultimately they are supposed to serve. 


Universities today often function like machines to produce merit, not only at the lower tiers where students with suitable “qualifications” are manufactured for business consumption; but at the highest tiers, where “excellence” on the world-stage is the holy grail. Like latter-day souls in purgatory, academics labour for the merit that accrues to those who produce a suitably virtuous quantity of “output”, and whose networks of “peers” provide validation of the quality of work, in ways that often cement and entrench existing hierarchies and privileges. The top-ranked are also the bastians of a tradition of privilege: Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton and Yale remain the gold standard. As we yearn toward their glory, our resources are all spent on creating super-star teams of researchers whose task is to procure as much grant-money as possible, and to spend it building international reputations. Although I would not for a moment say what such researchers do lacks merit, I would say that the discourse of outputs, “excellence” and rankings which are the proxy for discerning the value of what is done, provides a highly-distorting lens. It serves, for instance, to devalue much in the range of tasks academics are engaged in, including teaching.


Into these devalued areas, women often gravitate or are pushed. Hyper-competitive “excellence” is no friend of career-breaks, of limited mobility for international travel, and job-seeking; nor indeed is it a friend of projects and interests which fall outside the male-determined norm. The pursuit of so-called “excellence” trumps equity considerations in the contemporary university. But it is unclear to me that genuine excellence in scholarship and research is thereby served. Where “playing the game” or “being the best” becomes the whole object and rationale within a sector, neither genuine excellence nor equity is being served. 


 So what to do?


Critique can seem like a purely negative exercise, but I think it is useful in indicating where we need caution and alternate strategies. It is especially important where we put too much faith in mechanisms that can have strongly counter-productive effects. Meritocratic systems protect themselves from critical scrutiny being directed at their own workings by placing blame on those who “fail” – thus women are charged with being “bad” at competition, self-promotion, or entrepreneurship; with not wanting to succeed, or prioritising private life over their careers. But I think the frame needs to change.


Committing to the redistributive transitions that are needed to close the pay gap does not mean throwing out all competition-based indicators of promise and performance. But it does mean recalibrating them in light of substantive judgments and decisions we need to make about the ends we are pursuing, both in terms of genuine excellence and in terms of genuine equality.


To commit to change might mean setting targets – do we want in 10 years time to look around this boardroom and see an overwhelming mass of white male faces?  If not, what are the targets that need to be set to change it. Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick’s Male Champions of Change programme has, I think, been enormously successful in spreading recognition that such commitments are the start of seriously overhauling institutions that have become an embarrassment to those who lead them, because they seem unable to catch up with the social change happening all around them.


But the leaders of these organisations often express perplexity about what to do in practice to change selection-processes that already seem scrupulously fair, based as they are in competitive, merit based selection. I have no doubt that much can be done by examining more closely what passes for “merit”. But this inquiry has to go wider than the case by case to examine the “currency” of merit, its terms of accumulation, or exchange; its symbolism.


Gate-keepers need to become game-changers. Not only must they commit to change but to pluralising the field of judgment in ways that prepare for a greater variety of decision-makers to have legitimate voices within their organisations. They must listen to the malcontents – the women for instance who say, I love everything I do in my job and I do it well, but I can’t stand the constant pressure. Where is that pressure coming from? How is it that a highly qualified person can be doing a perfectly fine job, and still be viewed as under-performing and uncompetitive? Is that judgment coming from true organisational needs or fake ones?


Game-changers must admit when they lack competence to assess potential and talent and bring in more appropriate experts. Above all, they must use their imagination, or learn from others when it fails them.


So when you next look at one of your employees in a male-dominated organisation who has two young kids and is feeling the pressure, just remember that you are looking at an incredibly tough and talented women, who is probably over-qualified for the position she currently occupies. Remember that you are looking at someone who is balancing a huge range of demands on her time, and that you need balance in your organisation, more than you need more useless, destructive, chest-beating competition.


When you consider work-life balance, do NOT look at this woman and see her as precarious – only just balancing, a bit wobbly – and therefore rather dispensable! On the contrary, you should admire in this woman the athleticism of a tight-rope walker, as she negotiates a social world that gives us her insufficient help, deprives her of respect and kudos, then blames her for failing to succeed.


Think all this: and then consider if you really want to make her work an extra 3 months a year to earn as much as the man does on the floor upstairs.




         · Cyber Threats · Disability in Prisons · Security · Gender Equality ·

We are delighted to invite you and your guests to join us at Cranlana for our annual speaker series. These speakers will build on the discussion of what constitutes a good society.

Thursday 13 June - Mr Scott Borg - closed
Wednesday 10 July - Ms Colleen Pearce - closed
Wednesday 21 August - General David Hurley AC DSC - closed
Thursday 12 September - Dr Fiona Jenkins - closed

Time: 6.00-8.30pm
Venue: Cranlana, 62 Clendon Road, Toorak
Cost: $45 per evening, per person

Cranlana Advanced

In response to many requests from alumni for a further opportunity to engage with the Cranlana program – but over a shorter timeframe – we are very pleased to announce Cranlana Advanced, a new symposium exclusively for alumni.

The two-day event is designed to be the next stage after the Colloquium and will be the first in a series of shorter, intensive Alumni programmes. Using the Colloquium round-table discussion format, this symposium will specifically focus on Power and Society.

· Find out more ·

2013 Cranlana Conversations

After the resounding success of the inaugural WA Cranlana Alumni gathering last year, we are delighted to announce the dates of 2013 Cranlana Conversations to be held in Perth.

The dates are: 27 March, 4 June, 14 August and 30 October.

These events are facilitated sessions with dedicated readings, that promise to inspire continued dialogue about the good society in an informal and enjoyable environment. Please do not wait to register as places are limited to 20 and last year’s event was over-subscribed. The readings and details will be sent to you a couple of weeks before each event. There are no admission fees.

 · Find out more · Purchase Tickets ·  

WA Alumna, Karyn Lisignoli, reports on the first WA Conversation in November 2012


Alumni lecture speakers have included:

Professor Dan Russell, Percy Seymour Reader in Ancient History and Philosophy, Ormond College, The University of Melbourne
Alumni Speaker Series 2012: Meaning Well and Doing Well

Professor Martin Krygier, Gordon Samuels Professor of Law and Social Theory, The University of New South Wales
Alumni Speaker Series 2012: How to think about what we've done?

Professor Geoffrey London, Victorian Government Architect
Alumni Speaker Series 2012: Housing Equity

Dr Philip Freier, Archbishop of Melbourne
Alumni Speaker Series 2012: How will a future Australian generation judge ours?

Professor Larissa Behrendt, Professor of Law and Director of Research, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney
Alumni Speaker Series 2012: Financial crisis = arts crisis

Ms Jennifer Westacott, Chief Executive Officer, Business Council of Australia
Alumni Speaker Series 2012: Growth to what end? Changing the Australian mindset

Professor Michael Dodson AM, Australian of the Year 2009
2011 Alumni Speaker Series: Australia - The Good Society?

Mr Simon McKeon, Australian of the Year 2011
2011 Alumni Speaker Series: Australia - The Good Society?

Professor Patrick McGorry AO, Australian of the Year 2010
2011 Alumni Speaker Series: Australia - The Good Society?

Sir Gustav Nossal AC CBE, Australian of the Year 2000
2011 Alumni Speaker Series: Australia - The Good Society?

Professor Ian Frazer AC, Australian of the Year 2006
2011 Alumni Speaker Series: Australia - The Good Society?

Professor Fiona Wood AM, Australian of the Year 2005
2011 Alumni Speaker Series: Australia - The Good Society?

Hon Michael Kirby AC, CMG
Life after the High Court of Australia

Mr Petro Georgiou MP, Member for Kooyong
Principles and Refugees

Dr Robin Niblett, Director, Chatham House
Ready to Lead? Rethinking America’s Role in a Changed World

Dr Rufus Black
Educating the Millennial Generation for the Challenges of the 21st Century

Dr Jim Peacock AC
Climate Change: What we should do and what we can do

Mr Greg Bourne, CEO, WWF Australia
Climate Change - Pathway to the Future

Ambassador Pete Peterson
From Handcuffs to Handshakes

Professor Alan Dupont, Director, Centre for International Security Studies, University of Sydney
Heating up the Planet: Climate Change and Security

Mr Waleed Aly, Executive Committee Member, Islamic Council of Victoria
Classical Islam - A Problem or an Ally in Seeking a New World Order

Rt Hon Malcolm Fraser AC CH
Who Matters? How Many?

Mr Owen Harries, Senior Fellow, The Centre For Independent Studies
Living with a Super Power: the future of the American Alliance

Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP, Minister For Education, Science & Training
The Role of Australia's Universities in National Development and Civil Society

Professor Amin Saikal AO, Director, Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies - The Middle East & Central Asia, Austalian National University
Islam, The West & The War on Terrorism

Professor Raimond Gaita, Professor of Moral Philosophy, King's College University of London & Professor of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University
Seeing the Humanity in People Who are Degraded

Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, Justice, High Court of Australia
Thinking Globally, Acting Locally - the Growing Impact of the World on Australian Law

Mr Hugh White, Director, Australian Strategic Policy Institute
A Contingent Asset: Australia's American Alliance and the Rise of China

Mr Patrick Dodson, 'Father' of Reconciliation in Australia
Beyond Bridges and Sorry

Professor Ross Garnaut AO, Professor of Economics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University
America, China and India: Australian and South-East Asian Places Amongst Tomorrow's Giants

Mr Paul Kelly, Editor-at-Large, The Australian
New Challenges for Australia's Role in the World

Mr Yasser Soliman, President, The Islamic Council of Victoria together with Dr Greg Barton, Senior Lecturer, School of Social and International Studies, Deakin University
Islam in Australia and the Region

Professor Peter Dawkins, Director, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne
Hard Heads, Soft Hearts - a New Reform Agenda for Australia

Professor Robert O'Neill AO, Chairman, Council of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute
Australia's Strategic Role in the World

Professor Robert Manne, School of Politics, La Trobe University
Justice and the Good Society: Thoughts on Australia's Past, Present and Future

Mr Paul Barratt AO, Principal, CEO Collegiate Pty Ltd,
Responding to Terrorism

His Excellency J Thomas Schieffer, Ambassador United States of America
Challenges to September 11

Hon Gareth Evans QC, AO, President, International Crisis Group
Challenges to September 11

Professor Geoffrey Blainey AC
Boyer Lecturer, 2001

Professor Robert Manne, Associate Professor, School of Politics, La Trobe University
The Road to Nauru

Professor Cheryl Saunders, Director, Institute for Comparative and International Law and Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, The University of Melbourne
The Constitution, Diversity and Globalisation

Mr Paul Kelly, Editor-at-Large, The Australian
Australia and Globalisation in the 21st Century

Mr Patrick Dodson, Indigenous Leader
Pathways to Reconciliation

Professor Stuart MacIntyre, Dean, Faculty of Arts, The University of Melbourne
The Place of Humanities in Australian Education

Dr Tim Flannery, Director, South Australian Museum
Australia, The Environment and Culture

Mr Alan Oxley, Chairman, National APEC Study Centre
Australia's Third Golden Age - Globalised, Greener and Wired

The Hon Fred Chaney AO, Member, National Native Title Tribunal and Chancellor, Murdoch University
The Search For Values and Standards

Rev Tim Costello, Director, Urban Mission Unit, Collins Street Baptist Church
Justice and Society

Professor David Penington AC, Professor Emeritus, The University of Melbourne and Director, The Cranlana Programme Advisory Board
Australia Agonising over Policy for Illicit Drugs

Dr Simon Longstaff, Executive Director, The St James Ethics Centre
Living on the Edge: Reflections on an Uncertain Nation

Mr Carrillo Gantner, Former Councillor, Melbourne City Council
Clown Hall Revisited

Professor Martin Krygier, Boyer Lecturer, 1997 and Professor of Law, The University of New South Wales
A Good Society

Professor Spencer Zifcak, Associate Professor of Law and Legal Studies, La Trobe University
The Anxious Republic: Reflections on the Constitutional Convention and Constitutional Making

Mr Alistair Maitland, International Adviser, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
The Economy and Culture: Australia's Relationship with Asia

Mr Paul Chadwick, Journalist and Founder, Communications Law Centre
The Media and Accountability

Dr Timothy Potts, Director, The National Gallery of Victoria together with Mrs Catherine Walter, Company Director and The Hon Warwick Smith MP, Federal Member for Bass