Mark Thirlwell is director of the International Economy Program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

Australian media interest in the G20 (and G8) summit in Toronto in 2010 was significantly lower than was the case with last year’s Pittsburgh summit. Back in 2009, news of Australia’s inclusion at the world economy’s new top table merited space on the front pages of the serious newspapers, along with plaudits for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s success in delivering this coup. In 2010, those same front pages have been dominated by news of a different kind of coup: the ruling Labor Party’s decision to replace Rudd with former Deputy Leader Julia Gillard. 

The news that Rudd was in trouble came on the evening of June 23 and he was gone by mid-morning the following day. With 2010 already scheduled to be an election year, the story of Rudd’s fall has dominated the media, leaving little space for other issues, including international summits. The same holds true for the new prime minister’s initial agenda: Rudd’s place at Toronto was taken by the new deputy prime minister, Wayne Swan, while Prime Minister Gillard opted to stay at home: “Who needs Canada when Canberra calls,” was the headline in the Sydney Morning Herald.  

When the summit did make the front pages, it was with reference to Australian domestic politics. The Australian had “Swan field coup questions” leading off a story on how Australia’s man in Toronto had to spend his time explaining to bemused foreigners what had happened to Kevin Rudd.

Finally, it is worth noting that while the political obituaries of Rudd penned to date have been quite critical, they have also stressed that one of his most significant foreign policy achievements involved his role in securing the recent elevation of the G20, which is still seen as a major win for Australia.

The Role of the G8 in the G20 Era

Since Australia is a member of the G20 but not of the G8, it should probably come as no surprise that there was rather more interest in the former than the latter.This relative ranking of the two groupings reflected much more than Australia’s own presence, however. As Australia’s economy has increasingly become linked with the prospects of emerging Asia, in general, and of China, in particular, Australians’ views on the world economy have shifted accordingly. For example, The 2010 Lowy Institute Poll found that 55 percent of respondents identified China as the world’s leading economic power as opposed to 32 percent picking the United States, and just 8 percent choosing the European Union. A grouping that does not include China (and the other big emerging economies) is, therefore, seen with strictly limited relevance when it comes to dealing with international economic issues. Moreover, the economic relevance of the G8 economies is widely expected (by policy makers, by business and by the broader community) to continue to decline over time.

That said, there was media coverage of the G8. In particular, with the remit of the G20 still overwhelmingly economic, the press continues to pay some attention to G8 statements on geopolitical issues, such as Afghanistan (for example, “G8 tells Karzai the clock is ticking” in the Sydney Morning Herald), Iran and North Korea. There was also been some reporting of the G8’s shifting stance on economic issues, particularly on foreign aid.

G20 Conflict or Cooperation

As elsewhere, press headlines from the Toronto summit concentrated on the shift to fiscal consolidation: “G20 leaders agree to rein in budget deficits,” in the Sydney Morning Herald; “G20 aims for fiscal balancing act amid debt fears,” in The Age; and “G20 leaders aiming to halve deficits,” in The Australian. 

Below the headlines, the accompanying analysis has tended to discuss the way in which the Toronto G20 Summit had to paper over the differences between leaders on issues ranging from the pace of fiscal consolidation to bank taxes. A piece in The Age began by noting that, “Differences among the G20 nations on how best to tackle unsustainable debt levels without jeopardizing the global economic recovery appear to have been defused, for now,” but then went on to suggest that, “post-summit comments appeared to undercut the…headline achievements…exposing again the divergent  thinking among the group.” Similarly, in the Australian Financial Review, the analysis stressed that “it is much harder to find the same consensus that underpinned coordinated fiscal stimulus when the global economy was looking into a deep abyss,” although it also commented that “surprisingly enough then, leaders…did agree on a few things.” A piece in The Australian delivered a broadly consistent assessment, noting “Issues such as a proposed bank tax and capital requirements for banks were left to individual countries to decide, reflecting widespread disagreement.”

The G20 Framework

There has been a degree of elite engagement with the concept of a G20 “Framework” — at least in the sense that the treasurer (and now deputy prime minister) and the Treasury more broadly have referred to the framework on several occasions. It has also merited the odd mention elsewhere, but it would certainly be a stretch to suggest that there has been any real public engagement with the idea in Australia.

G20 Record of Achievement

Recent months have brought about some public discussion on what, if anything, the G20 meetings (not just of leaders but also of finance ministers and central bank governors) have delivered in practical terms, as opposed to promises in communiqués, and there are some signs of a bit more skepticism on this front, particularly now that the initial euphoria of Australia’s membership in the new elite club has, to some degree, worn off.

With regard to the Toronto summit, a second theme of the analysis (along with that of disagreement over fiscal policy described above) has been the decision to postpone or delay the previously promised measures on financial reform. So, for example, the national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ran a story noting that deadlines were “slipping” on financial reform, and that there had been some “watering down” of previous pledges to turn them into more open-ended commitments.

Taken overall, the delivery of past promises is a topic that is starting to get some traction in the public debate.

Summary

In Australia, media and public interest in the Toronto summit was much lower when compared to last year’s meeting in Pittsburgh. As already noted, however, this is almost entirely a product of the dramatic domestic political developments that occurred in the days leading up to the meeting. Not surprisingly, this has squeezed the time and space available in the media, and in public debate more generally, for other issues.