My view has been that this would be a lot of hot air and b/s. For more informed opinion, to see if I'm right or not, check out the multiple postings over at The Visible Hand in Economics who are covering the summit more closely than I am.
Update: In the comments section Matt Nolan writes
We didn't aim to follow it - we just heard such bad quotes were felt obliged to make fun of it.From little I have heard of the summit I have to agree with Matt. So far it looks like it has lived down to my expectations :-( But I always assumed that it would be called a "success", these things always are. I just don't know what "success" means in this context.
I can't believe the sort of rubbish they came out with - and I can't believe people are calling it a success. Seriously, a country-long cycle track.
Update 2: In a second comment Matt Nolan makes what I think are a couple of very good points. Matt writes
What can I say - I hoped for nothing, and instead I got a whole lot of lobby groups convincing the government to do things.I to worry about what types and levels of subsidies and government (vote winning?) handouts we could see in the next budget. It's a lobby group's dream. Also Matt's point that policy systems have gone crazy when unemployment is only 4.6% is worth taking note of. What will happen if we get to the levels of unemployment we saw in the early 1990s? How much crazier could thing get? It's a worry.
I wonder what sort of other subsidies we are going to see in the upcoming budget.
To think - our policy systems have gone crazy, and we only have 4.6% unemployment!
Update 3: For another view of the job summit check out the series of posts at Not PC.
Update 4: For the party line on 'the job summit will save the world' view see, not surprisingly, Kiwiblog.