Have your say at Australia 20/20

perhaps this is too late but better late than never! The government should direct more resources towards supporting development of the Prius and other types of low emission vehicles such as a vehicle fuelled by Hydrogen power. It should be a priority to aim for these types of vehicles to be affordable (ie competitive with existing vehicle prices) for the average Australian family. Also to aim for a production industry for low emission vehicles to be developed in this country.

Is the current balance of powers and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the States workable for the future?

No, especially after the High Court decision re Work Choices & the corporations power. The Commonwealth has virtually unlimited power in relation to the States, acquired indirectly through the corporations power and through vertical fiscal imbalance, rather than through a deliberate allocation of powers & duties through the Constitution. State Governments are then left to deliver services & take the heat for decisions that have effectively been forced on them from above. What's needed is a root & branch restructure which allocates constitutional responsibilities openly (and thus by deliberate decision rather than by default) and allocates the funding capacity necessary to discharge those responsibilities. While I have no fixed ideas about the distribution of responsibilities, I firmly believe they should be explicit and be matched by the resources to discharge them.

Does the culture of the public service need to change? If so how? And how could this be achieved?

Definitely YES. We need a re-establishment of industrial democracy. The cult of management prerogative, together with an unrealistic interpretation of the APS Code of Conduct, has led to staff being fearful of the consequences of speaking their minds and being seen to differ from the line of the Government or existing management. This stifles public service innovation and has also made the APS a party, on some occasions, to dishonesty at the political level.

Specifically, there should be:

(a) Broader protection of public interest whistleblowers. Protection is needed, not only for disclosures of breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, but also for disclosure of information in the public interest. Allied with this is a necessity to entrench the realisation amongst the APS that the Code of Conduct requires us to decline to assist in providing false or misleading information. Ministers should not be allowed to keep inconvenient information buried in the bowels of the APS and deceive the Parliament & the public over crucial issues. If they wish to mislead the Parliament & the public, they must rely solely on their own efforts. Without assistance from their Departments, Ministers would have been far less successful in the cover up involved in the SIEV X and Children Overboard affairs - something which would be a strong deterrent against such appalling events occurring in the first place.

(b) A recognition that public servants have the right to discuss political matters with their colleagues. The APS Code of Conduct mandates that the public servants have to be apolitical in the performance of their duties, but it does not mandate that we have to be apolitical at all times. Provided that our opinions do not affect the performance of our duties, do not create a reasonable apprehension of partiality amongst the public, and we take reasonable care to avoid offence in the manner of their expression, we have the same right to voice our opinions at work that we would have outside.

(c) A general re-establishment of openness of communication in the APS would help encourage innovation in both policy and process. Further, by making practices of "verdict first, trial afterwards" more difficult, it would also assist in protecting procedural fairness, which is essential to the maintenance of staff morale and the retention of valuable skills and experience.

Is the public service sufficiently innovative and creative? Is it delivering the right results? Is it properly accountable for its performance? To whom should it be accountable?

At a first approximation, the public service is accountable to the relevant ministers. This is only, however, because this is the mechanism by which the public service serves the Parliament and, above and beyond that, the public. The APS, therefore, should be judged according to the criterion of whether the public is being served. When there is a clear case for it, public servants should be in a position to assist in making the Government accountable to Parliament and the public.

The APS is not, in my view, sufficiently innovative and creative. This is because of a culture of conformity and subservience that has been growing in it for the last 12 years.

Does the public service attract, or keep, the caliber of people it needs ? what disincentives exist and how could they be addressed?

Firstly, the word is "calibre", not "caliber". Bill Gates does not determine correct spelling in Australian English. We accept that, in order to have a career public service, our remuneration package needs to be more heavily weighted towards superannuation than in the private sector. That's no excuse, however, for any continued slippage in pay relativities. Secondly, the conformist atmosphere drummed into the APS by the late, unlamented Howard government results in talented people with ideas going elsewhere to be appreciated.
"In relation to Open Government and the Media:

Are the Freedom of Information Acts working as they were intended?

Intended by whom? They're certainly working as the incumbent State governments and the previous Federal government intended. The new Labor government doesn't yet have anything much to hide, so now is the chance to get them turned into legislation which deserves the name that's applied to it - Freedom of Information, rather than Freedom from Information.

Is there sufficient protection for public servants if they disclose information in the public interest?

No way! If a Minister is a lying rodent, the Parliament & the public have a right to know. I'll leave it to others to suggest specific remedies, but what I do know is that what we have now isn't working.

What reforms are needed to ensure the public has free and sufficient access to information about how it is governed and how our courts dispense justice?

See above.
"A range of questions are being posed in the area of Parliamentary Reform. Some questions of particular interest to our members include:

Should Parliament introduce codes of conduct for members and their staff / advisors?
Should Ministers be more accountable (if so, then how?)
How could accountability of Government be enhanced? For example by having more watchdog agencies like the Ombudsman report directly to Parliament rather than to government.

Due to time, I'll pass on these ones. Some of my earlier comments might be applicable.
"Finally in a section on Constitutional Reform, Rights and Responsibilities we are asked:

Do we need a Bill of Rights? If so should it be constitutionally entrenched, or in a statutory form?

Yes, we need a Bill of Rights. The Common Law is extremely valuable, but it has a fatal weakness - it can be over-ridden by legislation. I would recommend a Bill of Rights, to be introduced in two stages. The first stage is a provisional one, enacted in legislation. This means it can be road-tested for twenty years or so, before the second stage, where a "final" version is put to a referendum for incorporation into the Constitution. Ultimately, Constitutional protection is necessary to prevent an ill-intentioned government violating essential rights (witness the repeated over-riding of the Racial Discrimination Act by the late, unlamented, Howard government), but an introductory period where the Bill of Rights was statutory would help generate public confidence and also discover whether there were any unintended consequences of the wording.

Are indigenous people appropriately recognised in the constitution?

No. Terra Nullius is a doctrine that needs to be repudiated.

Should we revisit whether we become a republic?

Yes, though I'm open on the timing. A monarchy is a standing affront to democracy and is the clearest possible endorsement of the principle of hereditary privilege. A "democracy" headed by a monarch is not a full democracy. Please note that this argument has no connection with ideas of "Australia growing up" or "becoming independent" or "having our own head of state". I'd be just as much a republican if I lived in Britain as I am here - and probably more noisy about it, since the monarchy would be in my face more often. And I'm actually attracted to the idea of abolishing the head of state entirely. The G-G, when not exercising the undemocratic reserve powers, is an overpaid ribbon-cutter. Let the Chief Justice of the High Court swear in the PM. It would provide the opportunity for a little lecture on how the rule of law depends first and foremost on the State obeying its own laws.

Should the process of initiating referendums be expanded so this is no longer a matter for the Commonwealth Parliament alone?

Yes. Referenda should be capable of initiation by a petition of a reasonable percentage of the electorate and/or the Parliaments of a majority of States. Further, these referenda should be capable of passing ordinary Acts, as well as Constitutional amendments, though I'm not sure of the details of how this would work, so I'm not entirely convinced this aspect would be practical. It's worth a look, though.

We are living in an era where family work versus family members' care is often in conflict. Rather than have specific Maternity, Paternity & Personal leave available, why can we not recognise, address and then formulate leave that accomodates all stages of employees' lives? eg. I started when my youngest was 12mths old, for the past 10 years I have been primary carer for my Grandmother which necessitates regular appts re aged care and medical treatment. Whilst having family members take responsibility for their family members care, it can reduce the burden on Government and private agencies' resources. Many childless employees find themselves at the other end of the spectrum. A reasonable number of days/mths could be allocated for each employee.

I would like to see something in the agenda to discuss ways by which the community can assist Muslim members of our society to integrate more inclusively as Australians. Events since the 9/11 incident appear to have caused marginalisation of Muslims in Australia in general as potential extremists. There is evidence from media reports that this situation could be driving Muslim youths especially, towards indoctrination by Muslim elders who may be inclined towards extremist views.

Are there any ideas to develop suitable programmes to address this issue?

I have an idea which you may be able to raise at the summit.

I think it would be a good idea to create an indigenous centre of excellence, located somewhere centrally within Australia. The centre would include an indigenous university and facilities for practical skills and training for indigenous communities. It would include world class university research and a central museum for indigenous tribes and communities of Australia. It would be a centre to record, archive and promote cultural and linguistic arts and indigenous heritage . It would be a place of shelter and learning where members of indigenous communities could come to obtain practical assistance in life skills, welfare, counselling and advice on issues within their local communities e.g. health, training, project management. It would be a place of respite that indigenous Australian could always identify as somewhere that they are always welcome and can obtain help, sustenance and share knowledge. The goal would be for indigenous people to use this centre to help advance their communities in practical and cultural ways.

Thank you.