What workplace AI is secretly recording in your meetings
When the client asked her to meet again, Lewis added him to a call she was already on with her assistant. Before he joined, Lewis joked: 'Is he, like, a Nigerian prince?'
Despite the scammy red flags, he turned out to be a legitimate person. Lewis was relieved – until she realised her new client had received a full summary of the call in his inbox, including her 'Nigerian prince' remark. She was running an AI notetaker the whole time.
'I was very lucky that the person I was working with had a good sense of humour,' said Lewis, who lives in Stow, Ohio.
AI is listening in on your work meetings – including the parts you don't want anyone to hear. Before attendees file in, or when one colleague asks another to hang back to discuss a separate matter, AI notetakers may pick up on the small talk and private discussions meant for a select audience, then blast direct quotes to everyone in the meeting.
Nicole and Tim Delger run a Nashville branding firm called Studio Delger. After one business meeting late last year, the couple received a summary from Zoom's AI assistant that was decidedly not work-related.
'Studio discussed the possibility of getting sandwich ingredients from Publix,' one bullet point said. Another key takeaway: 'Don't like soup.' Their client never showed up to the meeting, and the studio had spent the time talking about what to make for lunch.
'That was the first time it had caught a private conversation,' Nicole said. Fortunately the summary didn't go to the client.
Andrea Serra, an account-strategy co-ordinator at a communications agency, has experienced this first-hand. In one transcript, an AI notetaker caught her describing her frustration with the new Whole Foods store in her neighbourhood; though she'd set her preferences so that notes go to the host only, she shared the email with two other people on the call for laughs. Another meeting recap featured bullets of her discussing almost burning down her kitchen while trying to make a new sweet potato recipe.
'It'll be like all of our action steps, all the strategy we discussed during the meeting, and then randomly in there, something about our personal lives that we had talked about last week and wanted to catch up on this week as well,' Serra said. 'Just one little sentence as a surprise in there.'
Though her boss, Debora Lima, had hoped the AI summaries would reduce work for the team, she's still waiting for the technology to improve. Meanwhile, she and her colleagues have embraced them as comic relief. As she was looking over notes from a meeting she recently hosted, she noticed the phrase 'hey cutie pie' in the transcript. Lima said there should be a company-wide Slack channel to archive the funniest examples.
Notetakers can do a variety of tasks, from recording and transcribing calls, generating action items for teams and recapping what's already been said to anyone joining late. Many signal to attendees that a meeting is being recorded and transcribed.
Zoom's AI Companion, which generated more than 7.2 million meeting summaries by the end of January 2024, flashes a dialogue box at the top of the screen to let participants know when it's turned on. As long as it's active, an AI Companion diamond icon continues to flash in the top right corner of the meeting. People can also ask the host to stop using the AI Companion.
'We want users to feel they're really in control,' said Smita Hashim, chief product officer at Zoom.
Google's AI notetaker functions similarly, where only meeting hosts or employees of the host organisation have the ability to turn it on or off. When it's on, people will see a notification and hear an audio cue, and a blue pencil icon will appear in the top right corner.
'We put a lot of care into making sure meeting participants know exactly if and when AI tools in Meet are being used,' said Awaneesh Verma, senior director of product management and real time communications at Google Workspace.
The automatic summaries can be informative and timesaving, or unintentionally hilarious.
Kelsey Ogletree, chief executive of a tech platform for media professionals, received a Zoom AI summary, titled 'Monty's Messy Morning', describing how her dog, Monty, ate leftover food on the counter and threw up in the house. It went on to say that 'Kelsey was disgusted by the incident and considered washing Monty's head with Dawn dish soap.' It was a conversation between her and her husband, who's also her business partner. (And Monty is a cat, not a dog.) John Barentine, an astronomer and consultant in Tucson, Arizona, doesn't use AI notetakers but has been on plenty of calls with them. He was most recently surprised by the AI summary of one call that was sent to him, summarising the small talk at the beginning of the call. It said: 'John Barentine humorously notes that there is a lethal dose of water for humans.' Mr Barentine said he was discussing the devastating Texas floods with a client; the AI had completely misunderstood the context.
He says he's now more likely to use the private chat feature in meetings instead of saying something aloud while AI is listening.
'At least I know that if I make a remark to somebody privately for now, that's not being swept up by the AI notetaker,' he said.
Dow Jones The Wall Street Journal
Trump has stopped sending US weapons to Kyiv, but is willing to let allies buy them for transfer to Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal
Artipoppe's 'Zeitgeist' carrier has taken over women's social feeds and the sidewalks of wealthy neighbourhoods.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The Age
7 hours ago
- The Age
The system for selling property is broken
AI, something's not right Apropos Waleed Aly's article on AI (8/8), yesterday I asked Google for train times from East Malvern to the city and got an AI Overview saying East Malvern is on the Frankston line and takes about 15minutes to travel to the city. Another attempt gave ″you can take a Glen Waverley line train to Caulfield then transfer to a Frankston line train to Flinders Street″. One answer included a link to Rome2Rio which also contains this wrong information. I was asked to rate the first answer and I said it was wrong, so I was then requested to give the correct answer for the purpose of training AI! Does PTV or Metro Trains know prospective passengers are being given wrong information? It's also not my job to train AI. This is preposterous. Don Jordan, Mt Waverley Legislation not needed Surely, mandating working from home with legislation is cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. Forward-looking employers are already facilitating working from home arrangements. Those who don't, will be judged by the jobs market as inflexible, and will miss out on recruiting the best talent. Legislating work from home is already redundant. Matthew Hamilton, Kew WFH just a useful tool Working from home is not a hill to die on. Before the arguments get too polarised and confrontational, politically, socially or economically, we need to recognise that it's merely a useful tool that can offer greater flexibility to some people and some workplaces, not all. We all look at work-life balance from different angles, and find the best option in any situation needs to be a matter of sensible negotiation not a battleground. The COVID years provided a glimpse of options we hadn't previously had to try; it would be a pity if this led to insistence on legislated rights that undermine the potential benefits of newfound flexibility. Jenifer Nicholls, Windsor Meaningless roundtable Despite continued calls for change, if Anthony Albanese insists there will be no major overhaul of the tax system, just what is the point of the economic reform roundtable? Annie Wilson, Inverloch Learn from history Benjamin Netanyahu is deluding himself in believing that he can defeat Hamas. The full force of the American military battled the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese army for 10 years and was defeated. The same will happen in Gaza no matter how much destruction and killing the Israeli Defence Force wreak there. Reg Murray, Glen Iris How high the toll? Gaza. How many more will die? Malcolm McDonald, Burwood A military occupation So it's now official Israeli policy to turn Gaza into a demilitarised zone, except for the Israeli military, of course. David Robertson, Wheatsheaf This is not freedom Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to free the population of Gaza. More likely he'll free Gaza of its population. Richard Wilson, Croydon PM, do something Israel has said the quiet part out loud. It plans to conquer Gaza, fence it in, and decide who can live there and who cannot (″ Israel set on conquering ″ 10/8). After months of bombing, starving, and killing, they call this 'security'. And our government? It nods along with concern written on its face, but its hands stay firmly in its pockets. No sanctions. No arms embargo. Not even the courage to recognise Palestine without strings attached. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Foreign Minister Penny Wong – you know exactly what is happening. You know the siege, the starvation, the expulsions, the massacres, are part of the same story that began in 1948. You know this is the erasure of a people. So what's stopping you? Fear of upsetting Washington? I don't want to hear another word of sympathy from leaders who will not act. Sympathy doesn't feed the starving. It doesn't rebuild the ruins. It doesn't save a single child in Gaza tonight. Lila Malagi, Flinders Premier, do something Thirty years ago, Jeff Kennett sold off government assets to pay down the massive public debt incurred by the Cain and Kirner administrations. We were the rustbucket state going nowhere, largely because the (then) powerful transport unions, supposedly 'supporters″ of Labor, regularly shut down the transport networks. Since then Labor has enthusiastically followed Kennett's playbook, selling off the last remaining government-owned assets. Now Victoria is once again mired in debt but with no 'silver' left to flog to pay it off. Instead of moaning about what the Liberals did a political eon ago, the premier should focus her attention on how she is going to fix the state's dreadful finances. Perhaps she could start by selling off the reconstituted SEC, but would anyone buy it? Greg Hardy, Upper Ferntree Gully A timid country You have to wonder why Anthony Albanese is organising a talkfest about policy when he is spending most of his time ruling policy options out. No increase to GST; no tackling of negative gearing (even for investors with multiple properties); no reforms to capital gains taxes or dividend imputation policies; and importantly no consideration of a carbon tax – the most effective and efficient tool in the fight against climate change. Above all else multinationals continue to exploit our natural resources while paying minimal or no tax. Australia was once a model for reforms – particularly in democratic initiatives – now we are a timid country run by timid people. Noel Turnbull, Port Melbourne

ABC News
12 hours ago
- ABC News
Instagram's new location-sharing feature is raising privacy concerns
Instagram's new location-sharing feature is drawing criticism for potentially sharing users' whereabouts without their knowledge. The recent update, which Meta announced as rolling out in the US on August 6, allows users to see content their friends and favourite creators are posting from specific locations. Though Meta says the feature is off by default, some users claim they were shocked to find their location had been shared without their knowledge, prompting viral warnings online. "Mine was turned on and my home address was showing for all of my followers to see," user Lindsey Bell commented under a TikTok video posted by reality TV star Kelley Flanagan. "Turned it off immediately once I knew, but had me feeling absolutely sick about it." In her video, Flanagan called the new feature "dangerous" and shared step-by-step instructions on how to disable it. On Wednesday, Instagram launched a new feature allowing users to share their location through an in-app map. The release statement said it is one of "several new ways to help you better connect with your friends on Instagram". The update is opt-in, meaning that users have to elect to use the new feature, otherwise it is turned off, which Instagram chief Adam Mosseri was quick to point out after the backlash online. "Quick Friend Map clarification, your location will only be shared if you decide to share it, and if you do, it can only be shared with a limited group of people you choose," Mr Mosseri wrote online. "To start, location sharing is completely off." According to Meta, if you choose to use location sharing, "your location is updated whenever you open the app or return to the app if it's been running in the background". For parents with app supervision set up for their children, Instagram says you "will receive a notification if your teen starts sharing their location". The social media app said this will give parents "the opportunity to have important conversations about how to safely share with friends". Research from the eSafety Commission has linked location-sharing features to a higher risk of tech-based coercive control. Tech-based coercive control is defined as a pattern of behaviour where digital tools are used to monitor, manipulate, or intimidate a partner or ex-partner. The 2024 report found that many young adults have normalised tech-based coercive control in intimate partner relationships, with nearly one in five believing it's reasonable to track a partner's location. "Young people have become so accustomed to a certain level of online tracking and monitoring by family and friends that it wouldn't seem strange to expect similar digital access in a romantic relationship," said eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in a statement. "It isn't an exaggeration to say preventing tech-based coercive control, and the attitudes that condone it, can save lives." The latest backlash comes just a week after a federal jury in San Francisco sided with women who accused Meta of exploiting health data. The lawsuit alleged that Meta exploited sensitive health information collected through the Flo app, a menstruation and family planning tracker, to target users with advertising. A jury found that Meta used women's sensitive health data to better target users with advertising, according to law firm Labaton Keller Sucharow, which represented the plaintiffs. Evidence at trial showed Meta knowingly received confidential health data from the third-party app, and that some employees appeared to mock the nature of the information. "This case was about more than just data … it was about dignity, trust, and accountability," said lead attorney Carol Villegas in a blog post. Damages in the suit have yet to be determined. ABC/AFP


The Advertiser
17 hours ago
- The Advertiser
At this rate, the only outcome from this summit will be making us poorer
As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive. As we approach the productivity summit to end all summits, the various players have begun to stake out the propositions they wish to advance when Jim Chalmers' roundtable begins in just over a week. The various union representatives want to advocate for higher taxes, and further restrictions on businesses: this time in relation to potential AI job losses. Meanwhile, the various business groups are focused on achievable reforms, especially in relation to regulation and red tape. Though more united than in the lead-up to 2022's disastrous "jobs and skills" summit, business leaders should be very nervous about the prospect of being cornered and pressured into accepting a "compromise" that is anything but. Specifically, business leaders should outright reject any compromise that increases taxation in order to close the budget deficit. Increasing taxation, especially tax increases that also increase the progressivity of the tax system, will be terrible for productivity. Nor will it actually fix the budget deficit problem which, as my colleague Robert Carling argues in his recent research, is driven entirely by increases in government spending. History has shown that attempts to close budget gaps with additional taxation will only lead to more spending. The deficit remains and the size of government ratchets up again. Of course, whether the roundtable achieves anything tangible will depend on the extent to which the government will use the gathering to push its economic agenda. Unfortunately, most of the Treasurer's economic ideas are unlikely to increase productivity. If anything, his government-centric view of capitalism, and the broader left's obsession with redistribution over growth, will reduce productivity growth. That said, there is no reason for the government not to do so. It is riding high after a thumping electoral victory and the opposition is in disarray. The ALP previously outmanoeuvred the same groups to gain cover for its industrial relations re-regulatory program, and productivity remains a subject poorly understood by the public at large anyway. Worse still for those actually concerned about the inevitable decline in future living standards that will come from poor productivity growth, the Labor government is the only one attempting to explain how their economic agenda fits into a broader vision for Australia. This is where the true battle should be for the summit. Labor's view of the economy is one with government at the centre directing the economic and social priorities of society in favour of unions, super funds and interest groups. These are the core left constituencies, although they claim to represent broad swathes of society - a claim that could be the subject of substantial dispute in practice. Over time, as their direct constituencies have fallen away, they have tended to adopt a broader social focus. One specific area where the left has shifted focus is the rhetorical move away from "poverty" towards "inequality". At the same time that absolute poverty in Australia has fallen significantly, the focus on the need to increase the progressivity of the tax system has increased to the point where it drowns out all other concerns. Consequently, redistribution is no longer just about creating a robust safety net for those who need it but a broader project aimed at the impossible goal of making society "fairer" for all. As we have already seen, parts of the left can never be satisfied that businesses and high-income individuals have paid enough tax to meet their supposed "fair share". This has a direct and lasting impact on productivity. Higher taxes dampen incentives to save and invest. In a world where capital and high-income individuals are highly mobile, these incentive effects are amplified. Even the government has admitted that a big part of the problem has been a sustained investment drought in Australia. Yet, for all the focus on cash incentives to lure businesses to invest again, almost no focus has been placed on why investment dried up in the first place. Surely, at least in part, the constant increase in both the volume and complexity of regulation for decades now - together with the constant pressure for higher taxation on anyone who does make a decent return - has shifted the perceptions of risk and return? Moreover, the need to constantly rebalance society to combat inequality means the burden of regulation and taxation can only increase over time. A temporary focus on deregulation at this summit, and perhaps for a short time after, will not shift this direction. The risk of a summit like this is that business, government and unions will all get together and divvy up the economic spoils, without a thought for the interests of voters and consumers. READ MORE SIMON COWAN: In that sense, not only does productivity growth not need a grand bargain from this event, there is every chance that such a deal will reduce productivity growth! It is not just alternative policies that are needed: an alternative vision is needed as well. A vision of society where anyone can get ahead, not just those who belong to the right political group. A vision where personal responsibility and personal freedom are matched and prioritised. A society of low regulation and low taxation, with a genuine safety net for those who need it, not one that institutionalises envy, and pursues policies aimed at punishing people for being successful, (like taxing unrealised gains). This leads to an economy where the interests of the consumer are put above the interests of both business and unions. Such an economy is vibrant, innovative and productive.