Citizens Holding Government to Account by being Democracy Guardians. A White Paper and Its Analysis

CITIZENS HOLDING GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT BY BEING

DEMOCRACY GUARDIANS

A White Paper & Its Analysis So Far

Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey

Title: Citizens Holding Government to Account by being Democracy Guardians.

A White Paper and Its Analysis So Far

Author: Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey

Commentators:

Sir Gustav Nossal

Dr Nikhat Shameem

Claire Kearns

Diane Dromgold

Rev. John Owen

Howard Blacker

Dr Kate Crawford

Michael Dowling

Sally Moyle

Judith Henderson

Date of Publication: 2 March 2023

Issuing Body:

Australian Centre for Leadership for Women, PO Box 3144, Minnamurra NSW 2533 admin@aclw.org

Copyright ©2023 Diann Rodgers-Healey, Ph.D.

Cover Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Political Science > Civics & Citizenship

Political Science > Political Process > General

CITIZENS HOLDING GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT BY BEING DEMOCRACY GUARDIANS

A White Paper & Its Analysis So Far

Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey

PREFACE

This E-book was written to ignite considerations for making governments accountable during their term in Office rather than at the ballot box. It presents the White Paper that was originally released and the analysis of it by a number of commentators from diverse backgrounds.

The original White Paper was titled, ‘Citizens holding government to account by being ‘GOD’

Guardians of Democracy.’ Taking into account concerns raised by some commentators about the ‘GOD’ acronym due to religious overtones, and to ensure that the premise and framework remain the central focus, the title of this E-book uses the name, ‘Democracy Guardians.’

The White Paper was written in the aftermath of the Morrison government federal election in Australia in May 2022. From July 2022, an open invitation was released via social media to anyone who wanted to comment on the White Paper. A number of people were also emailed invitations to comment on the White Paper.

The White Paper was not updated to include any post-election revelations about Mr Morrison such as that of 16 August 2022 and the Bell Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments - the Department of Health on 14 March 2020, the Department of Finance on 30 March 2020, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources on 15 April 2021, and the Departments of the Treasury and Home Affairs on 6 May 2021. The Report of the Inquiry stated that “Mr Morrison had been appointed to administer six of the 14 departments of State. These appointments had not previously been disclosed to the Parliament or to the public.” Although the Report found that the former PM’s appointments were legal, and that he used his extra powers only once to overrule a minister in a matter unrelated to the pandemic, it ruled Mr Morrison "fundamentally undermined" responsible government… Once the appointments became known, the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.”

With the aim of the White Paper centring on how to make governments accountable, culminating from a period of despairing declining accountability during the Morrison government, the Paper launches from a regurgitation of areas of concern that transpired during the Morrison years with the ultimate aim to advance a framework for citizens to make governments responsible during their term.

The first section of this E-book comprises the White Paper in its original form which presents why the need for a better way to hold governments to account and what would this look like for better or for worse. The second section includes all the feedback from diverse commentators who have kindly taken the time to carefully appraise the proposal using their expertise and experience. I owe them a debt of gratitude. The final section presents conclusions as my overall response to the feedback received.

I am hoping that this proposal is widely considered and debated, in order to galvanise thinking for how we as citizens can be partners with government in the running of our nation so that governments act in the best interest of the public good and remain accountable during their term and not just when their term ends. The proposed framework enables this constructive partnership.

1. Why the need for a better way to hold government to account?

In the aftermath of Election 2022 we continue to celebrate real change in Australia promised by a diverse Albanese-led Parliament, the Greens and Teal Independents

Yet a bitter aftertaste lingers from being forced to swallow many a time, during the years of Morrison’s Prime Ministership, the decaying integrity imbued in rorts, lies, deception, misconduct, passing the blame, bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment of women in parliament and more.

Deconstructing nuanced flavours of partiality, conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, probity, and many complex guises of sophisticated dishonour, sickened one’s soul, as baselines of decent governance were thrashed

It wasn’t hard to see, so many government actions were simply wafts of nothingness, truth cajoled repeatedly, as a national conscience of propriety was increasingly overlooked when the stupor of the government power ‘whipped’ things into place for the government’s benefit

The bruises still linger of democracy tarnished: ‘Government by the people, for the people’ became more like ‘government by the government, for the government.’

The taste of our Powerlessness lingers. That people suffered, lingers. Recall refugees whom Australia owes protection to, punished through prolonged and indefinite immigration detention (the average time being 689 days); people on JobSeeker and income support left struggling to cover the basics on $46/day (a policy that continues with the Albanese government); children under the age of fourteen sent to prison; the aged dying from COVID due to poor preparation against Delta and Omicron; LGBTQI+ adolescents and adults marginalised further as a push for the divisive Religious Discrimination Bill grew with provisions limiting human rights of equal status, privileging religious belief over human rights such as freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity; the many women who suffered sexual and sex-based harassment in parliamentary workplaces and the physical, psychological, sexual, and economic harm that they experienced as a result, with little recourse for justice; the many women and disadvantaged people who experienced disproportionate economic impacts of COVID-19 and whose safety and wellbeing were impacted during lockdowns; those who lost their lives and were economically and psychologically impacted by the Black Summer bush fires of 2019 and 2020 which veteran emergency services chiefs tried to warn the federal and state governments about and seek necessary resources; and those who suffered from the 2022 devastating floods in the eastern part of the country only to find injustice in the Morrison Government’s politicised funding for flood victims, and the list goes on

While some vociferous action led the government to do something, there remained government decisions that selectively addressed critical issues and were impenetrable to standards of accountability. Eventual adoption of 46 of the 55 recommendations contained in Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins' landmark (2019) Respect@Work Report, to drive cultural changes to make the Parliament workplace safer, left out a key recommendation that would place a positive duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, discrimination and victimisation at work, thereby ensuring that the responsibility for ending harassment and violence still falls to individual women rather than employers. Jenkins recommended a new positive duty as it would require all workplaces including the parliament to take a proactive and collective approach to ensure gender equality, rather than relying on individual remedies to prevent discrimination.

The Jenkins (2021) ‘Set the Standard’ recommendation for an Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission to operate a fair, independent and confidential system to receive disclosures and handle complaints about breaches of the Codes of Conduct was accepted insofar as it would not include coverage of historical complaints of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault. This, despite the Report finding that over half (51%) of all people in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces (CPWs) had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. The parliamentary culture of shaming and silencing had stopped many from coming forward. Over half (53%) of people in CPWs who experienced sexual harassment and over threequarters (78%) of people who had experienced bullying, disclosed at the time of the investigation that their most recent experience of harassment or bullying by a single perpetrator was by someone more senior. In the absence of historical investigations, these perpetrators are most likely still working in parliament.

There were many occasions when the Morrison government had crossed a line of government transparency, accountability and responsibility over women’s rights The government’s failure to call an enquiry over the rape allegations against Attorney-General Christian Porter, and the government’s collective failing over the rape reported by exLiberal staffer Brittany Higgins culminated in thousands of women protesting in the March4Justice. Yet we had a Draft National Plan to End Violence Against Women 20222032 without detailed targets, measurements and accountability for its focus areas.

In terms of climate change, the Morrison government failed on climate action over its three terms of government, with deceiving claims, fake accounting, and lost credibility on a national and world stage. A national poll of 1,299 Australians conducted by Roy Morgan on 21 and 22 March 2022, commissioned by the Climate Council showed Australians on average, rate the Morrison Government’s performance on climate change and its response to worsening extreme weather events a ‘three’ out of ‘ten ’ One in four (26%) surveyed rated the Morrison Government a ‘ zero ’ for ‘not doing anything at all’.

Consistent, comprehensive and principled responses to critical issues did not characterise the Morrison government. Yet we had to endure the government for three terms.

It is important to note that Australians’ trust in politicians overall, regardless of party affiliation, has been on a steady downward trend since 2007. Professor Ian McAllister who has been studying elections for 40 years and who led the Australian Election Study of the 2019 Federal Election, conducted by The Australian National University (ANU) in 2019, found that trust in government had reached its lowest level on record, with just one-in-four Australians saying they had confidence in their political leaders and institutions The 2019 study also found that Australians' satisfaction with democracy was at its lowest since the constitutional crisis of the 1970s with the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. The 2019 study found that only 59% of Australians were satisfied with how democracy is working, compared to 86% in 2007. The historic low sits at 56% in 1979.

In fact, since 2010 the rise of ‘better government’ was stated as one of the three major concerns of the Australian public Since 2008, the ANUpoll which consistently asked, ‘What do you think is the most important problem facing Australia today?’ found that respondents said the economy/jobs and immigration. Sarah Cameron and Ian McAllister in their paper, Trust, Parties and Leaders: Findings from the 1987–2016 Australian Election Study state that this broadly corresponds to the election of the Gillard minority Labor government They add, “Indeed, in several of the surveys, ‘better government’ is ranked second only to the economy/jobs, and in the most recent ANUpoll, conducted in early 2017, 16 per cent of the respondents mentioned ‘better government’. This provides important confirmation that there is indeed a widespread concern among the public about how politics is conducted in Australia.”

Cameron and McAllister point out that there are a range of indicators that point to citizens’ disaffection with politics and that there are a number of factors underpinning declining trust in politics and voter disaffection with political leaders. Factors include “the rise of the career politician,” politicians “motivated less by public interest than their own personal electoral survival,” and party leaders being perceived as lacking in trustworthiness, honesty and strong leadership as Australian Election Study data indicates from surveying leader characteristics since the 1990s.

So, in our suppressed rage, while there is a sense of optimism that a new parliament in 2022, promising higher standards of governance to genuinely address issues, is now in place, the question remains:

Is there a better way to call a government to account when it has gone astray on issues of national and global significance and repeatedly fails to listen to the national discourse?

Is investing time and energy to shout out and decry bad policy and behaviour, malfeasance and corruption of our political leaders, the only way for citizens to act, with the hope that eventually they will influence change?

Is there a better way other than relying on oppositions in government to hold the government to account, given that oppositions have vested interests in decrying everything for power gain and given that dishonourable governments become oppositions?

The past 3 terms and especially in the lead up to Election 2022 showed that a crescendo of motivation in the Australian public was reached with a fierce deliberation to call the government to account. Outside of some reputable media, there were people vigorously doing this on social media platforms Many cited evidence and critical analysis to evaluate government actions and policy intentions.

Can this power and drive be better harnessed, if we are to search for a better way to call a government to account? Left as it is, such engagement only remains in the peripheries, for example as it did in Twittersphere to ascend and plummet with frustration and disappointment.

Clearly something registered, beyond Twittersphere being used to gauge the mood of the people, when on the eve of the federal election, Morrison stated, “And if a government has to negotiate its existence every day, based on how independents are going to jump by what’s been said on Twitter, then frankly, that’s not going to help the country be strong at this time.” His perception that a hung parliament might be the result of views on twitter, shows the perceived power that Twittersphere has in holding government to account.

To harness such engagement of citizens, is to harness a power of primary users of all government policy, who are ultimately the most important stakeholders in any evaluative process of government.

While a future federal ICAC with teeth might investigate and deliberate/prosecute politicians on issues of corruption, a grassroots institution of citizens, critically appraising and articulating views on government policy and actions, covers all grounds to do with what the government is doing on a day-to-day basis in relation to policy and bills, as well as how they act. This is equally as valuable as it does not only enhance the national discourse, but would consolidate people’s commitment and engagement with protecting and strengthening democracy in the here and now.

To harness such citizen engagement on a regular basis is to make ethical governance in the interest of the nation, a norm – a norm that is not just reactive but proactive, as its impact

would shape government culture and keep its governance in check It would elucidate perspectives for decision makers’ learning and application, and if ignored, become track records of resistance and failure to change.

To harness such citizen engagement is to enable the functionality of public evaluation for political decision-making, sustainable and powerful. It would elucidate factors that are significant for each issue, that could lead to urging concomitant intervention by policymakers.

A credible, formalised and inclusive platform for citizens to evaluate government policy and actions, places real power in the hands of the electorate to demand action. The outcomes of such a platform could parallel and support legal pursuits of a body such as an ICAC. In its consistency, prevalence and credibility, this platform could ultimately make integrity considerations the norm of small and large-scale political actions, beyond politics and personalities Its heart would beat to the heart of democracy itself. It would ultimately enable the government to increase the legitimacy of public policy decisions by placing an emphasis on citizen’s analysis of the policy.

In a way, it would ‘livestream’ government accountability and responsible leadership in the here and now, rather than delaying it until election day Governments and civil servants could achieve better strategic decision-making, informed by public evaluations by citizens, specific and broad based in relation to the issue. Policies/bills/action to meet community needs identified through this platform would enable the government to be iterative and responsive to its citizens.

2. What would a better way look like? Stage 1: Guardians of Democracy (GOD) and GOD’s Evaluation

The general public (citizens) would be invited to be Guardians of Democracy (GOD) by a newly created independent grassroots institutions entitled Guardians of Democracy.

As GOD they would be invited to engage in 4 processes:

Read the GOD institution’s detailed evaluative document on the government’s policy/bill/action selected for investigation during its term in office. The document would be balanced, thorough and well researched, put together and checked by an experienced team including independent relevant experts.

Create a Citizen’s Governance Index (CGI) (alternatively could be called GOD I)

Having read the GOD summary of the policy/bill/action, evaluate the governance of the government policy/bill/action using the Governance Matrix to rate the nominated policy/bill/action against 5 primary Governance Criteria; and 25 sub-governance criteria.

(See Table 1)

The 5 Governance Criteria are:

• Is it inclusive?

• Is it fair?

• Is it transparent?

• Is it responsible?

• Is it effective?

Each policy/bill/action is scored against all 25 sub-governance criteria using numbers from 0 (Poor) to Good (2.5) to 5 (Excellent). (See Table 2)

The total score becomes the Citizen’s Governance Index (CGI) for that policy/bill/action as deemed by the GOD member.

Identify indicators for what would be Excellent Governance for the nominated policy/bill/action of government. This is called The Citizens’ Governance Index Indicators (CGII) (alternatively could be called GOD II)

The Citizens’ Governance Index Indicators presents what citizens identify as being Excellent Governance for the nominated policy/bill/action of government. As such, it would enable decision makers to strive to improve their decision in light of these indicators, identified by citizens. (See Table 3)

Communicate the analysis of CGI and CGII to the government of the day for a response by a deadline, and disseminate the government’s response to all GOD members for feedback.

The data from CGI and CGII are analysed by a team of the grassroots institution and the findings are communicated to government by the GOD institution for a response as to how will they apply the findings to improve the policy/bill/action in line with citizens’ evaluation of it

The response when received is disseminated by the institution to all GOD members for feedback.

The institution makes public a GOD statement on how the government has factored in citizens’ considerations of the policy/bill/action and if they ought to further improve it in line with GOD feedback, CGI and CGII.

The feedback is used to create a public statement by GOD as to whether the government has considered citizen views of the policy/bill/action; any ensuing changes; and areas that have been unaddressed by government requiring improvement based on the CGI and CGII results.

This information could be drawn upon during election time to offer the public an overall report card of the government of the day.

During an election, how the opposition addresses particular issues could be evaluated in terms of citizens’ previous CGI and CGII on relevant policies or on policies put forward by the opposition running for government.

Table 1. The 5 Governance Criteria & 25 Sub-Governance Criteria for rating government policy/bills/action

A. Is it inclusive?

1. Does it meet the needs of the relevant groups?

2. Does it respect the rights of all groups, equally?

B. Is it fair?

3. Is it equitable for all groups in society or does it favour some groups above others?

4. Is it consensus-oriented in being for the good of the community?

5. Is it consensus-oriented in how it can be achieved?

C. Is it transparent?

6. Is it fully impartial in whom it favours?

7. Has it been independently arrived at?

8. Is there full disclosure of who is involved in its policy design, implementation, and evaluation?

9. Is its intent objective?

10. Are its criteria objective?

11. Are there any conflicts of interest?

12. Is the information pertaining to it adequate?

13. Is the information pertaining to it freely accessible?

D. Is it responsible?

14. Is it driven by national interest or self-gain?

15. Does it include monitoring instruments?

16. Does it include enforcement instruments?

17. Is it upheld by pre-existing laws/codes?

18. Do the laws/codes that it upholds have a bias?

19. Does it uphold norms in the good interest of all people?

E. Is it effective?

20. Does it address identified needs?

21. Is it sustainable?

22. Does it use resources adequately?

23. Does it use resources equitably?

24. Does it serve stakeholders within a reasonable time frame?

25. Does it protect the natural environment?

Table 2: The Citizen’s Governance Index (CGI)

This is the matrix for establishing the Citizen’s Governance Index (CGI) that would be used by GOD members to evaluate a particular government policy/bill/action that would be nominated for consideration by the grassroots institution

5 PRIMARY & 25 Sub-Governance Criteria

1. Does it meet the needs of the relevant groups?

2. Does it respect the rights of all relevant groups, equally? FAIRNESS

3. Is it equitable for all groups in society or does it favour some groups above others?

4. Is it consensus oriented in being for the good of the community?

5. Is it consensus-oriented in how it can be achieved?

TRANSPARENCY

6. Is it fully impartial in whom it favours?

7. Has it been independently arrived at?

8. Is there full disclosure to do with who is involved in its policy design and implementation?

9. Is its intent objective?

10. Are its criteria objective?

11. Are there any conflicts of interest?

12. Is the information pertaining to it adequate?

13. Is the information pertaining to it freely accessible?

Score the policy/bill/action against each Sub-Governance Criteria using numbers on a scale of 0 (Poor) to Good (2.5) to 5 (Excellent)

Primary Criteria Total Score (sum of subGovernance criteria) for the policy/bill/action

RESPONSIBLE RESPONSIBLE

14. Is it driven by national interest or self-gain?

15. Does it include monitoring instruments?

16. Does it include enforcement instruments?

17. Is it upheld by pre-existing laws/codes?

18. Do the laws/codes it upholds have a bias?

19. Does it uphold norms in the good interest of all people? EFFECTIVENESS

20. Does it address identified needs?

21. Is it sustainable?

22. Does it use resources adequately?

23. Does it use resources equitably?

24. Does it serve stakeholders within a reasonable time frame?

25. Does it protect the natural environment?

CITIZEN’S GOVERNANCE INDEX (CGI) TOTAL (for the policy/bill/action)

Table 3: Citizens’ Governance Index Indicators (CGII)

The Citizens’ Governance Index Indicators presents what citizens identify as being Excellent Governance for the nominated policy/bill/action of government CGII elicits a qualitative written response from GOD members. As such, it would enable decision makers to strive to improve their decision in light of these indicators, identified by citizens. An alternative name for CGII could be GODII

5 PRIMARY & Sub-Governance Criteria

INCLUSIVITY

1. What would indicate this policy/bill/action is addressing relevant groups ’ needs?

2. What would indicate this policy/bill/action is respecting the rights of all relevant groups, equally?

FAIRNESS

3. What would indicate this policy/bill/action is equitable for all groups in society?

4. What would indicate this policy/bill/action has reached consensus in being for the good of the community?

5. What would indicate this policy/bill/action has reached consensus in how it can be achieved?

TRANSPARENCY

6. What would indicate this policy/bill/action is fully impartial in whom it favours?

7. What would indicate this policy/bill/action has been independently arrived at?

8. What would indicate this policy/bill/action has full disclosure of who is involved in its policy design and implementation?

9. What would indicate its intent is objective?

10. What would indicate its criteria are objective?

11. What would indicate this policy/bill/action has no conflicts of interest?

12. What would indicate that the information pertaining to this policy/bill/action is adequate?

13. What would indicate that the information pertaining to this policy/bill/action is freely accessible?

Indicators for how the governance of the policy/bill/action could be EXCELLENT for each Sub-Governance Criteria

RESPONSIBLE

14. What would indicate this policy/bill/action is driven by national interest or self-gain?

15. What would indicate this policy/bill/action includes adequate monitoring instruments and what are these?

16. What would indicate this policy/bill/action includes adequate enforcement instruments?

17. Which pre-existing laws/codes should this policy/bill/action be upholding?

18. Do the laws/codes that this policy/bill/action upholds, have a bias? What is this bias?

19. What norms or principles should this policy/bill/action be upholding in the good interest of all people?

EFFECTIVENESS

20. What would indicate this policy/bill/action addresses identified needs?

21. What would indicate that this policy/bill/action is sustainable?

22. What would indicate that this policy/bill/action uses resources adequately?

23. What would indicate that this policy/bill/action uses resources equitably?

24. What would indicate that this policy/bill/action serves stakeholders within a reasonable time frame?

25. What would indicate this policy/bill/action protects the natural environment?

While the CGI identifies where citizens are at in their numerical appraisal of what the government is doing, CGII articulates what they believe needs to be done to improve what the government is doing to attain an excellent standard of governance, in relation to the nominated policy/bill/action under consideration.

The aggregate analysis of CGI for the nominated policy/bill/action under consideration could be done on the basis of the overall index score and on the basis of the scores for each criterion. This could also apply for the CGII instrument.

Stage 2: GOD evaluating government policy against other party options for better solutions

Once Stage 1 is established and working smoothly, the institution could undertake Stage 2.

While CGI is based on a basic decision matrix, Stage 2 could allow for comparisons against other party policies/bills using a weighted decision matrix, thereby motivating government to consider a better alternative or refine its current response on an issue

A weighted decision matrix would allow for specifying and prioritising citizens’ needs with a list of governance criteria; then evaluating, rating, and comparing government and other party solutions; and selecting the best citizen’s favoured options for policies/bills/actions.

Stage 3: GOD could be proactive and reactive

While Stage 1 of this grass roots institution is reactive to what the government does and Stage 2 presents the most favoured citizen option amongst other party policy/bill/action, Stage 3 enables GOD citizens to be proactive in 2 ways:

• allowing for expert solutions to be rated against that of existing government policy using a weighted decision matrix, thereby motivating government to consider a better alternative or refine its current response.

• allowing experts in relevant areas to solely undertake CGI and CGII and to use these results in addition to that of GOD members’ evaluations

• using CGII to define indicators of an emerging issue thereby enabling government to see what could be considered to be excellent in terms of a government response to an issue.

Stage 4: GOD’s media channel to disseminate and utilise findings about the policy/bill/action

Having an independent dedicated program or channel for the communication of GOD summary report findings and of CGI and CGII results raises the impact of GOD to improve the governance of the government.

It provides the general public a vital, well researched and evaluated source of information about the nominated policy/bill/action

It could showcase interviews with experts; government representatives, and/or the general public basing the interviews on the summary document findings, and CGI and CGII, thereby holding government to account.

It also can be iterative as feedback of the community can be checked against the summary document to see if it has covered / addressed the concerns of the community.

Stage 5: GOD and its GOD Indexes (CGI and CGII) could go state, local, and global!

If GOD and its evaluation mechanisms of CGI and CGII work in Australia and are well received by citizens and are proven to be useful in strengthening and protecting democracy, then a review of how this platform could be used at a state and a local government level could be undertaken.

This platform might also be valid in other countries, as a means for citizen engagement on matters to do with the governance of any nation’s government.

Improving the governance of other governments by its citizens would need adaptation, but if the premise for this level of engagement is proven to be sound, then the potential for its adaptation should be considered by invited stakeholders.

3. Other Key Considerations

I. Relying on citizen’s knowledge of the issue or providing objective background information for undertaking CGI

Should every evaluation be preceded with a precis of information relevant to the issue being evaluated?

This is a critical consideration for GOD to be effective. In light of the plethora of information, guided and misleading, partial and comprehensive, with different agendas underpinning them, available on the net or non-net sources, the quality of the CGI and CGII could be diminished if the quality of the information citizens has at their fingertips is poor. These days who has the time to research all the issues thoroughly and to keep abreast of all the evolving pieces relating to it, or its history that has shaped it.

Pros for providing objective background information for CGI

• Brings everyone up to speed with the policy/bill/action being considered

• Takes the onus away from citizens having to find this information as some of it is not always easily accessible or requires time to research it, for example, laws upholding policy

• Objectively presents both sides of the relevant information leaving it up to the citizen to interpret and evaluate

• Levels the knowledge field amongst citizens thereby leaving them to make an informed rating and reflection

• The background information precis is developed by experts with expertise in that issue only and as such could be a combination of institution staff and/or external non-political experts

• The background information precis is rigorously checked for independence and bias

• Relying on citizens’ awareness of the issues without it being based on impartial comprehensive background information might not show up gaps in citizen’s understanding of the issue and its nuances, and as such would not contribute to strengthening government decision-making.

• Ticking a box on the form would indicate if the GOD member has accessed/read the provided precis.

Cons for providing objective background information for CGI

• Potential for ensuring it is objective, comprehensive and clear of any bias would necessitate rigorous constant checking

• The information might not be comprehensive, and this would be time onerous, but is doable

• It might not be considered by the citizen before rating, though a tick box could determine this

• It might stall evaluation as the background information might attract criticism or be used to detract from the CGI outcomes – all the more reason for a balanced view that is rigorously checked for bias

• It might attract criticism that the outcome is as good as the information provided, so if it is considered to be biased then the outcome would not be trusted. This would be circumvented with thorough checking of the information

• An alternative to providing background information would be to provide links to articles that are online that are favourable and not favourable to the issue under consideration thereby leaving it to the citizen to make up their own mind. This however is not a full proof method in availing a comprehensive and high standard of research that is balanced, checked for bias and misinformation However, approved sources of balanced information by other institutions could be given the GOD stamp of approval on a regular basis.

In conclusion, GOD I and GOD II will only be as good as the decision making that underpins it. If citizens’ evaluation is based on knowledge that is not of a high standard in relation to the specific policy/bill/action under consideration, then the instruments discussed here would lead to findings based on unequal platforms of knowledge, and knowledge of unequal quality.

The richness of the citizen evaluation and its credibility would be improved from a level playing field of thorough understanding of the issues and evidence available on the issue and presented ethically in the best interest of democracy.

II. Identifying the citizens doing CGI and CGII

Identifying GOD members undertaking CGI and CGII, using data identifiers to show a particular relationship or link to the policy or action would give strength to the findings making it representative of those who would be affected by the policy. For example, if it is a policy about disability, the ratings of those with lived experience of disability would be significant.

Identifying GOD members in terms of their voting preferences for previous elections might point to ideological drivers if there are consistent patterns, but going down this path undermines the ethos of this whole initiative which is to seek and give voice to citizens’ evaluations of policies/bills and actions based on Governance criteria.

Given that all perspectives are influenced by people’s values (guiding principles) and/or by ideologies (systems of values and attitudes around a driving theme), these would underlie CGI and CGII, as it would via any platform.

Maintaining the focus on making this initiative as objective as possible is critical to getting to the truth of what should be done for the good of all people. Use of the Governance criteria in CGI forces evaluation of the policy/bill/action on objective considerations.

Having said this, evaluations that ignore the application of criteria and are made on the basis of predispositions would skew the results.

In this case voting history, might explain this bias, and perhaps could be trialled in the initial use of CGI to see if it is worthwhile, but the focus needs to be on how constructive the CGII responses are so that citizens’ evaluations feed back into government policy/bill/actions. This would diminish the need to factor in voting history.

At no event though should any results be excluded as that would indeed make GOD’s power toxic in being a good instrument for the nation.

III. Refining GOD, CGI and CGII

GOD members could be asked to reflect on the entire platform from time to time or at the end of each CGI evaluation to ensure its effectiveness, along the following lines:

• Did you gain something from participating in this activity?

• In which evaluation did you participate? Were you satisfied with the policy/bill/action change that eventuated? Do you believe that the results of this evaluation have been instrumental in changing government policy/bill/action ?

• Have you observed barriers in the uptake of the findings of this platform?

• What challenges and successes have you noted about this platform? How can it be improved?

• Have you been influenced by engaging in this evaluation? How have you been influenced?

• This will also point to the capacity building of citizens in becoming more astute in their capacity to evaluate policy and make recommendations.

IV. Tracing the action gap of impact of CGI and CGII on government

To show the impact of this platform on changes in policy/bill/action, a record of changes relating to each policy/bill/action must be maintained and analysed to report on. This could be supplemented by firsthand accounts of the impact of evaluative findings on policy and action. All of this would add to the credibility of this platform and its aim to realise change for the good of the nation It would also shed light on the barriers that prevent the uptake of evaluative findings by the government, making a cumulative record card useful for elections.

V. Making government accountable

It is egregious that no government is held to account for its actions once out of office and even when it is in office. A federal ICAC would remedy this in relation to corruption, but citizens are subject to all manner of policies of government in terms of impact - Take climate change policy or the refusal to put a tax on LNG for equitable return to Australians that would fund necessary government services.

GOD would enable that governments, previous and current are held accountable, not in the showmanship adversarial style seen in parliaments, but in a detailed account of how particular policy went ahead despite CGI and CGII findings.

Every workplace has performance appraisals that are ongoing and feed back into goals for improvement. Yet this does not apply to our parliament, except at the ballot box.

GOD would afford further considerations of what politicians should bear the cost of when their actions fail to consider the considered evaluations of its citizens. This would curtail the abuse of power of some and reinforce new standards for policy making and evaluation.

VI. Structural considerations

The structure of a grass roots institution to lead this platform would require:

• developing evaluation criteria to specify what policies/bills and actions are to be evaluated through this platform and when it should be done and the time frame for it

• ensuring the validity of GOD members so that they remain Australian and 18+ and there is no fraudulent behaviour

• ensuring the confidentiality of GOD member’s CGI and CGII responses

• ensuring the expedient and thorough collation and analysis of the data, quantitative and qualitative, and its availability to the general public

• linking with other platforms for data analysis, for example NVivo for qualitative analysis of CGII

• reviewing the ongoing use of the platform for deep relevance - should CGI and/or CGII necessitate specific criteria relating to a nominated policy/bill/action

• ensuring effective tracing of changes that result from the release of the findings that show instrumental (direct/indirect) change or symbolic change registering government awareness or resistance to real change

• developing summative reporting and report cards on government in relation to policy change; willingness to listen, discuss, reflect and/or barriers of resistance

• ensuring a regular evaluation of the platform itself (by the public and experts) on a regular basis to improve its quality of evaluation, strengthen its relevance and impact and the communication of its impact/non-impact and evolution to enhance its credibility

• ensuring GOD members are non-partisan and interested in strengthening democracy

• inviting non-political ambassadors who are well respected for their integrity who endorse this body and its work

• identifying how experts are selected to develop background information or undertake CGI and CGII

• identifying how the institution can be financially sustained and clear of vested interests and influence so that its governance is always excellent

VII. Effective promotion of the findings to engage stakeholders for the uptake of the findings

This is crucial as it would enable promotion of the relevance of GOD and CGI and CGII.

It would attract a larger base of participants wanting to be GOD and therefore would enhance the validity of the CGI in terms of being representative of the public.

Promotion of the way GOD operates and its methodology for each CGI undertaken would promote its validity as an objective instrument for citizen evaluation of government undertakings.

VIII. Mode of delivery

GOD’s CGI and CGII can be enabled digitally through an app or an online portal or could be the basis of a new virtual space for Australia A digital platform that translates results quickly and efficiently is useful for impact and citizen engagement

For CGII analysis, online analytical tools for qualitative data analysis could be employed such as NVivo and Atlas.

Media should be engaged for release of all findings.

A GOD dedicated media platform would enhance membership and also raise the potential for how results are used to further shape government actions.

IX. Code of Conduct for GOD

Any member who is a GOD will need to adhere to the rules of engagement that will ensure the integrity and validity of GOD and its sustained relevance and significance for Australia.

Reading the summary document in order to undertake CGI and CGII, for example will ensure the engagement of GOD is well informed, considered and done in the knowledge that being GOD carries with it a responsibility to advocate and shape governance of the government based on the facts and the evidence to do with policy/bills and actions.

The GOD institution will need to establish and maintain a culture and practices that enable it to be a non-political, non-partisan institution, focused solely on good governance

4. Conclusion

Strengthening democracy requires a whole of society effort. Key to democracy is good governance. When governments fail to listen and deliver policies/bills and act in the best interests of the nation, the impact on citizens is cumulative, but the power of citizens to address this is predominantly on hold till election day, and effective change is not always guaranteed

Governments need to be held accountable not just when their term is up, but all along the way so that their actions do not cause suffering along the way.

Whilst we rely on minority parties and the senate and outcomes of reviews and commissions to improve the policies of governments, there is no formal avenue for citizens’ voices to be regularly taken on board in a constructive way to shape government policy/bills/actions.

With the predominantly Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy in Australia relying heavily on those in power (single party government) to make all the decisions, it is clear from the results of Election 2022, that the community can be an effective force to be reckoned with. This was demonstrated by the successful Teal wave - the 23 independent candidates, most of whom were women, who challenged traditionally Liberal-held seats or Senate spots.

Furthermore, Australians are growing stronger lenses and voices for critiquing policy and politicians, as their trust in politicians has waned While there is ample critique of government actions on the internet, for example, (verbal and written), some biased, some reliable, to varying degrees of comprehensiveness, they at times effectively exert pressure for change on governments. But as experience has shown, we live in times where decision makers once elected, and the political system, cannot always be relied on to do what is best for the nation.

This White Paper proposes a platform that enables citizens to become Guardians of Democracy (GOD) and to have an ongoing constructive carefully planned participatory approach on matters deliberated on by those in power. This platform primarily aims to sustain citizens’ critical, constructive, reactive, and proactive, evaluative engagement of government policy/bills and actions, in relation to objective criteria of good governance to do with inclusivity, fairness, transparency, responsibility and effectiveness of any Australian government’s policy/bill/action.

Equipping GOD with information that is balanced, evidenced, checked rigorously for bias, relevance and comprehensiveness enables them to deliberate on nominated government policy/bills/actions in an informed and constructive way. This maintains the focus of GOD on facts and evidence and not on spin, ideology, affiliations, and vested interests.

Citizens’ Governance Index (CGI) and Citizens’ Governance Index Indicators (CGII), as evaluative instruments, enables GOD to strengthen their capacity individually and collectively to critique policy, bills, and actions Government is given an opportunity to see the GOD results and change what it is doing by factoring in the citizen’s evaluations. GOD is able to track improvements that result.

The GOD institution can ensure that Democracy and good governance is secure in Australia through its Citizen’s Governance Index (CGI), and if it is not, then articulate how it can be attained through its Citizen’s Governance Index Indicators (CGII).

GOD would need a structure to provide multiple functions including: a selective Board; membership; policy framework for setting governance and practices governed by criteria; experts to create the background information, experts to analyse the data from CGI and CGII; communication of the findings to the public and government; members who engage with government on tracking the impact of the findings; members who publicise the report card of government during elections and those who work towards how to make governments accountable for their actions on policy/bills, while governing; a media facility to drive its aims that moves beyond partisanship. As an institution, GOD would need to be independent and have an executive to run it and engage its members.

Maintaining the focus on making the GOD platform, its preparative background information for GOD evaluation, and its instruments of CGI and CGII as objective as possible is critical for high quality trustworthy outcomes that can be applied by government and relevant institutions. Non-partisanship and objective criteria for good governance must be the mantra of such an institution.

If CGI and CGII can be seen to be impactful in shaping government policy/bills and actions, these instruments will gain respect and motivate more people to be GOD.

GOD would be a citizen accompaniment to what government does on a regular basis on matters of national significance on a federal, state, or local significance Moving beyond reviews instituted by the government and pollsters, this would be a quicker and disciplined way of identifying good solutions driven by citizens for the good of Australians.

The Stages outlined of this potential grass roots institution shows the immense potential of such an organisation for democracy for Australia and the world.

Ultimately GOD develops the capacity of citizens to strengthen democracy through their participation in GOD activities aimed to shape what government do for whom they govern.

GOD brings the heartbeat of citizens to the everyday of government when citizens rise to have their say in a quantifiable and qualitative way on what government is doing and what it ought to be doing. It gives government a radar into citizen’s appraisals of their actions, and centres policymaking for them, and with citizens being at the decision-making table.

Guardians of Democracy and its GOD Indexes (CGI and CGII) would have enormous value for citizens and politicians.

5. References

Allen, D. (2016). Rethinking the Australian model of promoting gender equality. In K. Rubenstein, & K. G. Young (Eds.), The Public Law of Gender: From the Local to the Global (1st ed., pp. 391-412). (Connecting International Law with Public Law). Cambridge University

ANROWS. 2022. Intimate partner violence during the Covid-19 pandemic: A survey of women in Australia. Accessed May 2022 ANROWS

https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/intimate-partner-violence-during-the-covid-19pandemic-a-survey-of-women-in-australia/

Australian Electoral Commission. 2022. A short history of federal electoral reform in Australia. 8 October 2019. Accessed October 2021.

https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/history-of-electoral-reform.htm

Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2022. The National Plan to reduce violence against women and their children. 2010-2022. Accessed October 2022. https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/womens-safety/national-plan-reduceviolence-against-women-and-their-children-2010-2022

Australian Human Rights Commission. 2022. Respect@Work: Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report (2020). 5 March 2020. Accessed October 2021.

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/respectworksexual-harassment-national-inquiry-report-2020

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). 2020. Award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Program 15 January 2020. Accessed October 2021.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/award-funding-under-thecommunity-sport-infrastructure-program

Australian National University. 2019. Trust in government hits all-time low. 9 December 2019. Accessed May 2022. https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/trust-in-governmenthits-all-time-low

Bell, V. 2022. Report of the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments 25 November 2022. Commonwealth of Australia. Accessed 5 January 2023. http://www.ministriesinquiry.gov.au

Cameron, S. & McAllister, I. 2017. Trust, Parties and Leaders: Findings from the 1987 – 2016 Australian Election Study. In Commonwealth of Australia Papers on Parliament No. 68. 2017. Accessed July 2022.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/ Papers_on_Parliament_68/Trust_Parties_and_Leaders_Findings_from_the_1987_2016_Austr alian_Election_Study

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. 1986. Becoming critical : education, knowledge and action research Rev. ed., Deakin University Press, Waurn Ponds, Vic.

Climate Council. 2022. Morrison Government’s climate record deemed ‘A catastrophic failure’: One in four Australians give zero rating. 31 Mary 2022. Accessed May 2022.

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/morrison-governments-climate-recorddeemed-a-catastrophic-failure/

© 2022-2023

Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey | Page 26

Cox. L. & Davies, A., 2019. Labor demands Angus Taylor and Josh Frydenberg explain ‘shocking allegations of misconduct.’ The Guardian. 20 June 2019. Accessed October 2021.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/20/labor-demands-angus-taylorand-josh-frydenberg-explain-allegations-of-misconduct

Cusack, C. 2022. Rectifying an atrocious injustice by the Morrison Government. 5 May 2022. Echo Net. Accessed May 2022. https://www.echo.net.au/2022/05/rectifying-an-atrociousinjustice-by-the-morrison-government/

D’Ostie-Racine, L., Dagenais, C. & Ridde, V. 2016. A qualitative case study of evaluation use in the context of a collaborative program evaluation strategy in Burkina Faso. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2016: 14(37).

Dalzelll, S., & Long, C. 2022. Five Liberals cross the floor as contentious religious discrimination bill passes House of Representatives after all-night debate. ABC News. 10 February 2022. Accessed May 2022. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-10/religiousdiscrimination-bill-passes-lower-house-of-parliament/100818262

Equality Australia. 2022. Official statement on the religious discrimination bill. 10 February 2022. Accessed May 2022. https://equalityaustralia.org.au/official-statement-on-thereligious-discrimination-bill/

Hamer, D. 2004. Can responsible government survive in Australia? Centre for Research in Public Sector Management, University of Canberra. First published 1994. Revised by author in 2001. Accessed July 2022.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/hamer

Feik, N. 2021. The Scandals he walks past. The Monthly February 2021. Accessed October 2021. https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2021/february/1612098000/nickfeik/scandals-he-walks-past#mtr

Gilmore, H. 2021. Former fire chief Greg Mullins faces the firestorm again 23 September 2021. Sydney Morning Herald. 23 September 2021. Accessed October 2021.

https://www.smh.com.au/culture/books/former-fire-chief-greg-mullins-faces-thefirestorm-again-20210918-p58stw.html

Goldie, C. 2022. Why don’t politicians get that $46 a day isn’t enough to live on? Sydney Morning Herald. Opinion 14 April 2022. Accessed January 2022.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/why-don-t-politicians-get-that-46-a-day-isn-tenough-to-live-on-20220413-p5ad4d.html

Groch, S. 2022. ‘Limbo’: What’s happening to refugees still in immigration detention? Sydney Morning Herald 30 January 2022. Accessed May 2022.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/limbo-what-s-happening-to-refugees-still-inimmigration-detention-20220126-p59rgq.html

Hitch, G. 2021. Review finds 1 in 3 staff in federal parliament experience sexual harassment. ABC News 20 November 2021. Accessed May 2022. https://www.abc.net.au/news/202111-30/sexual-haassment-report-parliament-brittany-higgins/100660894

Joshi, K. 2021. Morrison finds shameless new way to fake climate action as world steps up. In Renew Economy Clean Energy News and Analysis 23 April 2021. Accessed October 2021. https://reneweconomy.com.au/morrison-finds-shameless-new-way-to-fakeclimate-action-as-world-steps-up/

© 2022-2023

Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey | Page 27

Khalil, S.2022. Scott Morrison: Ex-Australia PM held five additional portfolios, Albanese says. BBC News. 16 August 2022. Accessed 5 January 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/worldaustralia-62462277

Ledermann, S. 2012. Exploring the Necessary Conditions for Evaluation Use in Program Change. American Journal of Evaluation 2012; 33(2):159-178.

Lim, J.Y., & Kuk-Kyoung, K. 2020. Perceived environmental threat and pro-environmental behaviors: Investigating the role of political. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(9): 3244. New York Times. Accessed May 2022.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/world/australia/fires-climate-change.html

McLeod, C. 2022. ScoMo claims hung parliament would be ‘governed by Twitter.’ 20 May 2022. News.com.au. Accessed May 2022. https://www.news.com.au/national/federalelection/scomo-claims-hung-parliament-would-be-governed-by-twitter/newsstory/e7dd4657e4a750d731128933582057ab

Middleton, K. Morrison ministers overrule advice on grants. The Saturday Paper 14. May 2022. Accessed May 2022.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2022/05/14/morrison-ministersoverrule-advice-grants/165245040013883#hrd

Muller, D. 2022. As Covid rips through Australia, is Scott Morrison’s media strategy starting to fail as well? The Conversation. 7 January 2022. Accessed May 2022.

https://theconversation.com/as-covid-rips-through-australia-is-scott-morrisons-mediastrategy-starting-to-fail-as-well-174332

Murphy, K. 2021. Sex discrimination commissioner finds gender inequality key driver of toxic culture in federal parliament. The Guardian. 30 November 2021. Accessed January 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/30/sex-discriminationcommissioner-finds-gender-inequality-key-driver-of-toxic-culture-in-federal-parliament

Nethery, A. 2022. The big teal steal: independent candidates rock the Liberal vote. The Conversation 21 May 2022. Accessed May 2022. https://theconversation.com/the-bigteal-steal-independent-candidates-rock-the-liberal-vote-183024

OECD. 2021 Monitoring and Evaluating the Strategic Plan of Nuevo Leon 2015-2030: Using Evidence to Achieve Sustainable Development, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing Paris.

Prime Minister of Australia, 2022. Media Release. 25 November 2022. Accessed 5 January 2023/ https://www.pm.gov.au/media/government-welcomes-bell-inquiry-report

Raise the Age. Keep Kids in Community Petition. https://www.raisetheage.org.au/ Accessed October 2022.

Richards, S. 2022. ‘Autocratic agenda’: Scott Morrison faces mounting bullying allegations. The New Daily 31 March 2022. Accessed May 2022.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2022/03/31/morrison-bullying-allegations/

Russell, M. and Serban, R. 2020. The Muddle of the ‘Westminster Model’: A Concept Stretched Beyond Repair. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics. 56(4). October 2021, pp. 744 – 764.

United Nations ESCAP (The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific). What is good governance? Accessed June 2022. https://www.unescap.org

UNSW Australian Human Rights Institute. 2022. Explainer: What happened to the Religious Discrimination Bill? Accessed May 2022.

https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/research/commentary/explainer-what-happenedreligious-discrimination-bill

UNSW Australian Human Rights Institute. 2022. Religions Discrimination Bill puts lives at risk. Accessed May 2022.

https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/research/commentary/religious-discriminationbill-puts-lives-risk

Wahlquist, C. 2022. Teal Independents: who are they and how did they upend Australia’s election? The Guardian. 23 May 2022. Accessed June 2022.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/23/teal-independents-who-arethey-how-did-they-upend-australia-election

Watt, A. 2015. Comparing Options Using a Weighted Decision Matrix. Project Management. Open Textbooks for Hong Kong. Accessed June 2022. https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk

Williamson, S. 2021. Explainer: what is a ‘positive duty’ to prevent workplace sexual harassment and why is it so important? The Conversation 8 September 2021. Accessed October 2021. https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-positive-duty-toprevent-workplace-sexual-harassment-and-why-is-it-so-important-167430

Wood, D., & Crowley, T. 2021. Women’s work: The impact of the Covid crisis on Australian women Grattan Institute. 12 April 2021. Accessed October 2021.

https://grattan.edu.au/report/womens-work/

SECTION 2

FEEDBACK RECEIVED FOR THE WHITE PAPER - CITIZENS HOLDING GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT BY BEING ‘GOD’

(28

July 2022)

FEEDBACK COMMENTATORS

From July 2022, after the release of the White Paper, comments were sought about the White Paper by inviting people to read and comment on it, and through an open invitation via social media.

The White Paper was emailed to each commentator in its original form for comment

This section includes all the comments received from the individuals listed below and are presented in the order of receipt

• Sir Gustav Nossal

• Nikhat Shameem

• Claire Kearns

• Diane Dromgold

• Rev. Jon Owen

• Howard Blacker

• Dr Kate Crawford

• Michael Dowling

• Sally Moyle

• Judith Henderson

Sir Gustav Nossal

Dear Diann,

Thank you for the comprehensive, thought-provoking and beautifully constructed White Paper. There is much wisdom and common sense in it.

GOD is an ambitious project and perhaps a little too idealistic to be taken up in full. Let us hope that at least the main principles resonate and influence community attitudes.

I hope it reaches a wide audience and that you get widespread feedback, all of which can influence a “second edition.”

Lots of luck for your continuing important work.

Best wishes Gus.

Dr Nikhat Shameem - Lecturer, The University of the South Pacific. Suva, Fiji

There is something quite healing in the title of this White Paper by Diann Rodgers-Healey. It takes the focus away from the general citizenry being marionettes in the machination of government and allows a re-allocation of some of that power to the citizens of Australia (and citizens in Australia aren’t alone) who have felt increasingly marginalised and excluded from governance in their country over the last decade if not for longer. To assign the acronym ‘GOD’ to a set of citizens who will become part of the network of the Guardians of Democracy is to assign them the poetic license to be the eyes of GOD – ever-present, vigilant, resilient, fearless, and knowledgeable. That members of this group will be selected based on their knowledge, expertise, experience and standing in the field related to the policy/action/bill under review ensures that their rating of and response to the bill will be useful to government and helpful as a guide to the citizens of Australia to decide on their expectations of government and the accountability they expect from it.

The premise that this White Paper is based on is that Australian citizens have felt the brunt of the ineptitude and foot-dragging of previous Australian governments in key strategic areas of governance. Rodgers-Healey names the three most critical of these as:

Gender issues, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying; refugee and migrant handling and climate change. The unaccountability of government in the fallout and repercussions from the policies they have developed, the bills they have passed and the resulting actions which have been taken in these areas have been to the detriment of those who suffer the consequences of such lassitude.

Perpetrators of workplace bullying, and harassment continue to survive and thrive in their environment, regardless of the toxicity that they have brought to it. In fact, they continue to flourish in the highest, most revered institution of the land: the parliament itself where some of them continue in senior positions. This in itself should raise concerns about the ability of governments to grant immunity to serious offenders when they see fit. Public accountability becomes external to self-interest and self-preservation, often lasting for decades. The oldcolleague network remains, as do the policies, bills, and actions they have left as legacies for current day Australians. The head-in-the-sand mentality remains for those in power.

As Rodgers-Healey points out, only 59% of those recently surveyed felt that Australian democracy was working well. This raises immediate concerns about why the remainder are dissatisfied and wish to see better governance and accountability from past and present governments of the country.

The Paper presents a solid blueprint on what GOD could look like. Especially noteworthy is the ability of the institution to make their findings publicly available. Findings have credibility for two reasons; the assessments are done by people in the public who are qualified to make a judgement based on facts but also have no conflict of interest in the bill/policy/action under scrutiny. Second, they have for their use a well-crafted and designed “citizen’s governance index” (CGI) which allows judgements to be made along a scale, on the following items:

• Inclusivity

• Fairness

• Transparency

• Responsibility

• Effectiveness

Each of these criteria is further refined, listing the features expected under it which in turn leads to a well-defined rationale for any findings that GOD publishes publicly. Worthy of mention here is that the Government body responsible for the policy/bill/action has the right of reply to GOD findings and publication.

To be fair, Rodgers-Healey discusses the pros and cons of this approach – that it may be difficult to keep out biases and power relationships, however the criteria in the evaluation schedule are as she says based on “truth” and therefore easy to uphold.

Reflection on the process, the findings and the responses to the findings are integral parts of the process, lending the suggested establishment of a GOD institution greater credibility and usefulness. The suggested systems include addressing barriers which become visible during the uptake of findings published by GOD and engaging stakeholders as they uptake and implement the findings, especially in the three areas of relevance, participation and representativeness

Rodgers-Healey is thorough in her underlying suggestions for the establishment of “GOD” by including the mode of delivery as a digital platform which includes an on-line analytical tool and a link with media for wider dissemination and support. A specific GOD dedicated media platform would both enhance membership of the institution and further shape government efforts for greater accountability, transparency, honesty, and integrity. To this end GOD would strive for validity of all findings and integrity of its reports and judgements. Rodgers-Healey writes that this is necessary for sustained relevance and continued significance of GOD in Australia. To this end, she calls for a polished, non-partisan institution which focuses on good governance in Australia, and which will play a powerful role in truly democratising the nation’s ethos, governance and approaches to the issues of greatest concern to Australians.

Claire Kearns

- Graduate researcher, Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy, La Trobe University

Hi there, thanks for letting me read such an interesting Paper!!! I don’t know how you managed to produce something of this amazingly high-quality during lockdowns and the pandemic!! Please note that in my below comments most of these things are very petty, trivial things. My background has been partially spent in publishing and how my brain works is to home in on very minor issues. I do not wish to cause any offence & apologise in advance for my overtly candid nature. Perhaps it may be of some use, at least I hope it is!! I would like to add that this is an exceptionally well structured, written and conceived white Paper. It makes me want to read more about the topic, it has invested me as a reader in the outcome of what you are arguing for, and it holds my interest throughout the Paper (which is something that is rare, I often only read the intro and conclusion).

I enjoy the layout. It’s very considered. Easily accessible by people with disabilities. Excellent the “contents” page and later bullet points. Although, not sure about the paler blue in parts of the White Paper (e.g., title page); I would find it easier to read in black or a darker blue. This is an important point, as many politics/IR papers are not. Yours is one of the first I have seen that is. What is different about yours and makes it accessible to neurodiverse people is the way in which it is laid out. We find things that are systematically organised like that much easier.

In the intro, I think you may need to include a description of what the Teal independents are. Especially if this Paper is going to be accessed outside of Au. “In the aftermath of Election 2022 we continue to celebrate real change in Australia promised by a diverse Albanese-led Parliament, the Greens and Teal Independents” Perhaps a footnote.

“sickened one’s soul” part of me really likes this phrase & another part of me thinks it needs rewording to something less personal and more broad such as “soul destroying”.

The section on what the Morrison government did is excellent and reads very well.

“future federal ICAC with teeth” I think that paragraph might need rewording very slightly. For example, “with teeth” being something else like “with necessary powers” and where it says “might” perhaps “should”? Although, if “With teeth” is changed it may become less powerful? I’m unsure here – perhaps say different phrases aloud.

This was my favourite section in the Paper = Stage 1: Guardians of Democracy (GOD) and GOD’s Evaluation it was clear, succinct and “hit home”.

Stage 5 I liked how you said it could have a global application and it makes the reader consider that. I would enjoy hearing more about that.

Very minor typo in heading of Stage 5 (globall instead of global – I think spell check has changed it on you)

The key considerations section is strong. You raise valid and good points.

Top reference on page 27 needs more details.

Congratulations on this article!! It was impressive & powerful!!

Diane Dromgold - Managing Director, RNC Global Projects

Hi Diann,

Thanks for sharing this fascinating thought piece.

I’ve taken a few days to contemplate its content and find it so compelling that I need to ask ‘do we need elected officials at all?’ I’ve come to realise that for right or wrong, good or bad, in most cases our elected officials have ceded power to the bureaucracy and that institution (at levels) has too much power. Gone are the days of the honest broker public servants.

If we did away with elected officials and everything was directed by GOD decisions I think we might actually get to a place where we feel we have a voice. Where what we want matters. Where we can see what our money is being spent in. Where we can understand where the money we spend comes from. Where no one person’s single agenda can be forced on community at any level.

The only thing I think might need rethinking (as much as I love it) is the GOD acronym. It’s powerful and fabulous BUT may hinder substantive discussion on the idea because of an acronym many people won’t see past.

How to implement? You don’t need approval, just an app and Twitter et al coverage.

If I can help please let me know.

Thanks again for being brave and forward thinking and for trusting me to read it!

Truly impressed, yours,

Diane

Diane Dromgold

Rev. Jon Owen - CEO & Pastor, Wayside Chapel

Thanks Dr Diann,

As a minister obviously I am less that excited about the GOD term – not because it is potentially “blasphemy” – more I worry about God and Politics and calling anyone one, or thing or group GOD – has the potential to create an “us and them” which has really destroyed the world. As a minister I never dare suggest I speak on behalf of G-d.

Other than that:

Democracy was always intended to curb the rule of power – and yet every sector of society has seen the way these protections have been eroded. Dr Diann’s Paper is a passionate call to action that we should heed. Governments need to be held to account from outside of the system in ways other than a 4 year election cycle. The challenges facing our world and society are immense and more urgent, as the link between climate change and homelessness continues to be ignored.

Howard Blacker - Board Director, Bookmaker, Dairy Farmer

Congratulations Diann on your manifesto. You have obviously put a lot of thought and time into this process. There are many fine ideas and objectives in this Paper.

There is no doubt that our current democracy is not functioning very well. The extreme factions on both sides of politics and the media have a lot to do with our loss of confidence in the government. It would be great to see your ideas and others be further discussed and enhanced. But I do find it difficult to believe that the two major parties will willingly give up any power. As it is often seen that they are more interested in their own power than governing for the people.

Dr Kate Crawford - Director, Eviva Pty Ltd

This White Paper is very timely when, as the author states, ‘The bruises still linger of democracy tarnished…’ In the twenty first century, the old colonial version of the two-party Westminster system in parliament based on inequality and ‘opposition’ is no longer functioning well The situation is exacerbated by changes in the broadcast media business conditions and the emerging interactive socio-technical context provided be social media. After forty years of research and innovation with a focus on the human impact of emerging technologies, I agree whole heartedly that a well-designed new infrastructure for political activity in our democracy is overdue.

The idea that the voters must play a role ‘Guardians Of Democracy (GOD)’ is gaining wide credibility after recent failure of governments to address major challenges such as climate change and discrimination. This Paper presents a set of possibilities for creating an engaging technical/institutional national infrastructure to enable voters,’ the primary users of government policy’, rather than broadcast media mediators, to hold government more accountable during a term in office. The ideas would certainly address the widespread loss of trust in governance and the feeling that voting once every three years is no longer sufficient to ensure our members of parliament are acting to represent either the national interest or address the specific needs of their electorates.

The suggested processes would certainly go a long way to inform, engage, and co-evaluate government legislation, policies, and actions. The suggested good governance criteria (CGI and CGII) represent a fair summary of the emerging public consensus after extensive discussion on social media.

However, like our current parliamentary system, there are some aspects of this Paper that might need some very careful consideration and careful development with an eye for unintended consequences. For example, the suggested mechanism for the GOD is much broader than the current processes but still very much a top down and hierarchical model that privileges certain kinds of knowledge and reasoning. Careful observation of the emerging communication processes in digital democracies suggests that a wider interactive discussion between people, and learning processes based on a mix of shared information, from experts and lived experience in all parts of society, is essential. The extensive work of

Habermas 1 theorises the communicative action, as it now occurs on social media, as civil learning processes that are essential components of building collective consensus. He suggests that there is a tension between the functionalist reasoning of legislative parliaments and government policies and the ‘life world’ experiences of citizens.

That said, the idea of a public channel that is accessible for all and provides an alternative to the current forms of journalistic mediation, reframing and oversimplification, that are characteristic of broadcast and print media. The need for more careful checking of truth in media and a more informed citizenry is already recognised (E.g., AAP Factcheck, The Conversation). It seems that in the emerging politics this should be the repository of accessible communication from all elected members of parliament and not just the government. The imbalance of public communication and accountability, for elected representatives and cabinet, is one factor reducing the transparency and integrity of government decision making. If the parliament continues to move away from the traditional two-party system, the suggested channel might well serve as a public source to share and discuss alternative policy proposals and expert advice given as a basis for policy development, and related legislation. If the channel was integrated with an accessible means for networked discussion, co-evaluation and considered feedback by voters to parliamentarians that worked constructively to enable learning by all (people, members of parliament and public servants) that would be consistent with the observable trends in citizen efforts to guard our democracy.

This Paper was thought provoking and helpful. The proposal encourages us all to imagine a future where knowledge and learning processes in society engage most people and where the whole diversity of human lived experience and ingenuity can be used in the processes of licencing and holding to account the representative power in our democracy.

Michael Dowling

- Retired teacher and education Consultant

Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey has written a White Paper called “citizens holding government to account by being ‘GOD’” in which she outlines issues of poor governance, poor policy making and poor decision making.

Dr Rodgers-Healey proposes the establishment of a special institution to enable in-depth and practical ways for a range of “grassroots“ citizens to contribute to improved, evidence based decision making. She further sets out checks and balances to ensure the best possible processes and outcomes.

The “GOD” in the title has nothing to do with religion. It is an acronym for “Guardians of Democracy”, being the name of a consultancy group of fair minded, concerned members of society who would help reach better solutions for society and government using systems and tools to research and evaluate government policies, legislation, actions before they are progressed too far with negative consequences for society.

Dr Rodgers-Healey sets the context for “GOD” with the myriad failings of governance of previous governments, highlighting some of the most egregious of the recent decade in particular. Workplace bullying, sexual assault, and harassment, women’s rights, failure to

1 Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action: Life world and systems, a critique of functionalist reason Volume 2, Wiley, UK ,1989

act on climate, trust. Only 59% of Australians think our democracy is working. She wants to harness the frustration to better hold government to account.

“To harness such citizen engagement on a regular basis is to make ethical governance in the interest of the nation,”

Dr Rodgers Healey provides five governance criteria and 25 sub governance criteria in two matrices to help GOD members evaluate government policy/bills/actions that would be nominated for consideration.

The matrices are titled Citizens’ Governance Index (CHI) and Citizens’ Governance Index Indicators (CGII), detailed and deal with a number of specifics.

Grassroots members would need training and guidance to use the matrices effectively as evaluative instruments, I think. Once mastered, however, they could be a helpful and practical tool that might provide quality information and feedback for the GOD group and for the government.

Dr Rodgers-Healey leads us through the nitty-gritty, pros and cons, requirements to create the structure, effective promotion of the findings, a code of conduct for guardians of democracy members, and more. Implementation of Guardians of Democracy offers a path to a much better informed population and participatory democracy. There would be rewards for all with better, more transparent, evidence based governance.

As Dr Rodgers-Healey says in her concluding remarks:

“GOD brings the heartbeat of citizens to the everyday of government when citizens rise to have their say in a quantifiable and qualitative way on what government is doing and what it ought to be doing. It gives government a radar into citizen’s appraisals of their actions, and centres policy-making for them, and with citizens being at the decision-making table.“

I commend Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey for her detailed submission in this White Paper. Please give it full consideration.

Sally Moyle

- Honorary Associate Professor, Gender Institute, Australian National University

Thanks for letting me read your Paper. I really feel your frustration with the way our democracy works at present. Too often, it feels like Australia and other so-called liberal democracies are in fact plutocracies, held to ransom by the ultra-wealthy and powerful corporations. We focus a lot, post-Trump, on autocracy and the takeover by strong men of former democracies, but in fact many argue we are already post-democracy, with the plutocrats dominating

So it is vital, I agree with you, that we think about how we can re-form our systems of government to revitalise them and make them more egalitarian.

There is a great deal of thinking going on onto some of these mechanisms, including citizens juries and deliberative democracy processes, and some of these are being usefully applied in Australia and internationally. Your process has some things in common with the Swiss referendum driven approach, too. It might be useful to swing through a few of these different approaches in discussing your methodology, to elucidate how and why you

decided on your particular mechanism. I have found this summary quite useful: I would, in particular, commend the citizen jury methodology as it avoids some of the key pitfalls with these processes. Some of these pitfalls I outline in my comments below.

Your approach las a lot of strengths, but I have several queries.

First, is your approach open to anyone? You seem to suggest it is but then talk about Members. How are these people chosen? If they are self-selected, how will the process ensure this is representative? Clearly it requires people who are literate and technically sound enough to be able to read and comprehend legislative instruments. This, as you know, can be quite a technical process. Asking someone without a legal background to read, for example the Fair Work Act and comment sensibly on its operation would be a real challenge. This requirement means there will be a real risk of excluding those whose voices are not usually heard – people with lower literacy skills who are often the most vulnerable and silenced. It will be time consuming, as people need to read the Bill, read the background paper or do their own research and then complete the detailed feedback. This means you would skew towards those with more time – generally an older and wealthier demographic. It would exclude the time poor – women, lower income people and parents/carers. You note that it is important that only Australian citizens and adults (over 18) are able to participate, quite rightly. I wonder how you will do that without again excluding some of the people we most need to hear from? Will you require people to register and prove their identity with identity documents? This will exclude many Indigenous Australians and others who have trouble maintaining access to identity documents including homeless people and others. And finally, in terms of self-selection, how will you ensure the process isn’t captured by the crackpots and ultra-partisans? If you are debating a Family Law Reform Bill, for example, how will you ensure you are not swamped with thousands of men’s rights activists that push a particular agenda without taking the time to consider the merits of the legislation? If the agency does weed out the crackpots and ultra-partisans, how do you then make the process fair and representative? Many will claim that you have silenced their voices. So I do have some questions and concerns about who would participate in this process.

Also, would these people be paid? How can you then ensure this doesn’t open the process to allegations of ‘buying’ opinions? If you don’t pay people, how would you ever get enough people to be representative? Most people haven’t got hours of free time to devote to this process.

You could alternatively, think about recruiting a smaller number of people for particular processes and pay them appropriately. This gives you more flexibility to do deep dives with experts so the people learn as they go. This is the citizen jury approach.

I have also some questions about the agency that would oversee this process. First, as you know, the funding of, and appointments to, this sort of independent body are clear pinch points. A government not interested in this kind of oversight could just defund (or underfund) this institution (as conservative governments so often do with the Human Rights Commission for example) and they could appoint people to its leadership that share its partisan values. This would be fatal to this organisation, given its functions that require clear and apparent objectivity and non-partisanship. Australia’s Human Rights Commission is established under an international agreement ensuring its independence (the Paris Principles) and even still it is in danger currently of being deregistered because the former government undermined its independence. In my opinion, an organisation without such international oversight performing such a sensitive function would be at real risk of becoming partisan through funding decisions and appointments. And then, the radicals on either side of any debate will pick thorough every utterance, summary and action of the organisation for evidence of bias. It will be difficult for the institution to operate effectively

with that level of scrutiny. It would be useful for you to think about how you can avoid these risks.

Would the organisation pay the experts who prepare background papers? There is a risk of bias in the selection of experts of course. How would you ensure it is objective and balanced? Would you need to have ‘both sides’ of an issue represented? Even if it is a climate denialist, racist, or misogynist position? The selection of experts has real potential to become a battleground over the legitimacy of the institution. It would be useful to think about how this is done.

I have some questions about the process. Would all Bills be put before this process? If not, who decides which ones are? It seems quite time consuming, with a need to prepare and distribute background documents, which could be quite detailed and long (and time consuming to prepare). Then the process itself and the analysis of the feedback would add more time to the process. This will slow down the passage of any Bill massively. It is also not clear to me what the process adds that a bi-partisan Senate committee process doesn’t give us. It might be useful to take us through what you see as the differences to the Senate review processes.

Why focus on Bills? It might attract a broader consultation on the real issues if you introduced such a process at the development stage, rather than at the penultimate stage of considering Bills. Once you have the legislative provisions drafted, a lot of assumptions are already built in. Could you instead seek public input into broader questions, like – what should a National Anti-Corruption Commission look like? How will we ensure its independence? Should it be able to start investigations of its own motion? Public hearing or not? Etc. Once you get the Bill stage, these decisions are already baked in and governments are already pretty committed. Maybe introducing a process earlier might help?

I hope I’m not being too critical of your work, Diann. There is a lot to like in the mechanism you outline, and I very much commend you stepping up to start this conversation. I would love to see Australia thinking in new and ambitious ways about how we can maintain and revitalise our democracy.

Oh, I have one personal critique – while I respect your acronym GOD for the process, I am a bit uncomfortable with it – “playing god” has some negative connotations and I was wondering of there was some religious underpinning for the first couple of pages. Not a big issue, of course, but just a personal reflection. And I’d like to see a process that helps us preference a different notion of power, where power is shared and reciprocal, rather than reflecting or reminding us of the systems of dominance that the Judeo-Christian religions have bequeathed us.

Judith Henderson

- Principal, J & J Henderson Consulting

Dear Diann

…I congratulate you on your work on this and think the concept has potential… I hope some comments are helpful.

Regards

Judith TITLE COMMENT:

The use of GOD raised the following considerations:

1. It could offend and alienate groups of readers even though quote marks are used.

2. Being GOD might well be interpreted as “to Play God” – a term used pejoratively and understood to convey misappropriation of power or tampering and acting as if you alone have ubiquitous control. In this case government and perhaps gives quite the opposite meaning your Paper intends.

3. In my mind it is also reminiscent of the term infallibility 4. If written perhaps as G.o.D, while not as confronting or dramatic as you intended it might overcome a possible dismissal by some readers of your proposal before they even read it.

SECTION 1. Why the need for a better way to hold government to account?

I have the numbered the paragraphs in this section from 1-23 and make the following suggestion for your consideration. This section could be divided into five discrete subsections as follows:

A. Paragraphs 1-6 provide overarching /general statements regarding the broad reasons for the marked public shift in the recent election and the widespread dissatisfaction with the Morrison Government.

B. Paragraphs 7-14 encompass more specific and detailed evidence of significant issues of public concern:

I. 7-9 Respect at Work Report/ Women

II. 10-11 Climate Change

III. 12-14 Citizens’ declining respect for politicians and political processes.

C. Paragraphs 15-17 consider how to capitalise on the changed public dynamic and dissatisfaction in order to ensure sound public governance that eliminates corruption etc.

D. Paragraphs 18-21 enunciate the value of engaging citizens in protecting democracy

E. Paragraphs 22-23 puts forward a recommendation for providing a credible platform which would enable engaging greater citizen participation in keeping the government accountable and responsive to citizen voices.

By doing this I was able to focus my attention as a reader on the very specific and poignant examples you were providing to support your argument.

Regarding Section A Paragraphs 1-6. I offer the following comments:

1. I am not sure we are actually celebrating real change as of yet, but rather as voters we are anticipating such a change as a result of the increase in the number of teal independents and the Australian Greens who have claimed traditional strongholds of both major parties. Voters have high expectations for real change from this diverse Albanese-led Parliament.

2. The use of the word ‘imbued’ to me was too positive/bland as a precedent of the examples of ‘decaying integrity’. In my mind I thought your examples suggested this decay was epitomised by such egregious behaviours.

3. Likewise baselines thrashed? or perhaps did you mean trashed?

4. stupor of power whipping seems to be contradictions in terms.

Do you mean the government was unconscious of its power or in a state of unconsciousness the government deliberately made decisions for its own benefit with no conscience of propriety.

5. Instead of bruises perhaps the marks or evidence to match the use of the tarnished .e.g. The marks/evidence of a tarnished democracy still linger.

6. Provides a strong reminder of the ongoing social impact and prolonged suffering caused by the Morrison Government.

Regarding Section B Paragraphs 7-14. I offer the following comments:

7. I found Par.7 somewhat disjointed and offer the following suggestion:

- Use the opening sentence as a heading .i.e. While some vociferous demands led the government to take some action accountability.

- Begin a new paragraph with Respect @ Work Report and the eventual adoption of 46 of the 55 recommendations discrimination.

8. Put the title of the Jenkins Report in bold to differentiate it clearly from the Jenkin’s report in the previous paragraph.

9. I would highlight women’s rights in blue. Also I would highlight in blue the entirety of the final sentence in this paragraph.

10. Climate Change make bold to indicate another critical issue.

11. The Morrison Government served one full term between 2019 -2022.

Morrison was PM in 2018 after leadership spill with Turnbull.

12. -14 While considering voters’ perceptions of politicians would it be appropriate to consider the apathy of the voter in engaging with political parties and playing an active role in politics: 17,767,155 eligible to be enrolled 17,259,041 voted in 2022. Membership of parties: ALP 60,085,LIB.50-60,000,Greens 1,500. Nats not known. The willingness to turn a blind eye to corruption, misconduct and lies as acceptable behaviour for leaders and politicians suggests that citizens have become resigned to believing there is nothing they can do to change what the government chooses to do. Such an institution as you are proposing might engage more citizens, as you suggest, in becoming more politically active and responsible.

Regarding Section C Paragraphs 15-17. I offer the following comments:

PARS.15 -16. The distribution of seats in the new parliament demonstrates citizens’ growing disconnect and anger with the old, and a strong desire for greater accountability and respect for the voice of its citizens. The time might be ripe for providing citizens with a way to sustain their growing desire for a fairer, more open and more honest government. This proposal for a better way for citizens to hold government accountable to provide sound public governance might facilitate wider citizen participation in achieving this.

PAR.17 That widely accessible social media can be a strong influence in engaging citizens in forming opinions relating issues and while it might be also be seen as a means to hold the government to account, it also can lead to knee-jerk reactions and policy made on the run. Subsequent policy failure enables special interest groups with no direct claim on social or

economic grounds but, who have gifted and convincing spokespersons, to secure privileges for themselves which are often costly to society. An ethical process for engaging citizens more directly in policy processes from: policy making, policy analysis, policy implementation and evaluation provides a more clear-sighted approach to stakeholderdriven policy.

Regarding Section D Paragraphs 18-21. I offer the following comments:

PAR. 18 The critical role of stakeholders in the policy process should be undisputed. The role in rating the government’s role in delivering a relevant and agreed-upon policy.

PAR. 19 Federal ICAC. The powers of a Federal ICAC to investigate and prosecute as well as identify corruption risks serves a significant purpose in ensuring public trust in government. The proposed model of greater citizen engagement in rating performance in the policy domain provides a further avenue for sustaining integrity and accountability.

PARS. 20-21 Regular involvement of citizens in rating government policies would not necessarily make ethical governance a norm as many players are involved in the process of both formulating the policy, implementing the policy and evaluating the achievement of its intended outcomes. It would be a positive step in generating awareness in government that citizens were actively involved in monitoring government performance in meeting its accountabilities and promises.

Regarding Section E Paragraphs 22-23 I offer the following comments:

PARS. 22-23. The key issue for the potential value and success of a proposed platform for citizens will be the extent to which it embodies the same standards and principles of governance as it

SECTIONS 2 What would a better way look like?

AND 3. Other Considerations

GENERAL COMMENTS

On reading Section 2 for the first time I found myself asking the following questions as I felt the answers to those questions were not only fundamental but critical to the credibility and integrity of the proposed “better way”:

Who is leading and establishing this “newly created independent grassroots institution”? What are their credentials?

Is it a legally constituted organisation?? What are its governance structures?

How would the general public be invited to be a Guardian of Democracy?

Would all Guardians be invited to engage in the 4 processes listed?

Who is responsible for selecting and providing “the GOD institution’s detailed evaluative document on the government’s policy/Bill/action selected for investigation?

Who appoints the “experienced team’ and identifies the “independent relevant experts?” Or are they self-appointed.

How will the Guardians create a CGI or will this be the role of those responsible for the Institution after the Guardians have rated the policy/Bill/action.

I guess by showing you an example of my immediate and initial response to Section 2 I am trying to explain why you might like to consider whether placing Section 3, , which clarifies many of these concerns, before Section 2 in the Paper might be helpful in demonstrating that the concept is well thought out and determined to be a credible, reliable and trustworthy way of helping to hold government to account and engaging citizens more actively and responsibly in sustaining a vibrant, more democratic policy-making process.

A few other comments:

The Governance Criteria v.

How will effectiveness be measured? To evaluate effectiveness the policy would need to have been implemented and pre-determined measures in place to monitor and measure results. This is a time factor which implies that Guardians would stay for the duration of its implementation and beyond.

Alternatively, if it is intended that the Guardians will assess the scope of the Policy and its intended outcomes in its formative/developmental stage as to whether it is likely to be effective then this might need to be clarified.

The Citizens’ Governance Index

It is stated that the CGI would be used to evaluate a policy etc. However a Likert Scale model in the Index which would therefore be more accurately termed as rating a policy against certain criteria.

On the scale itself:

INCLUSIVITY – perhaps add equally after groups in point 1

TRANSPARENCY – point 7 not sure what this means. What does it mean for a policy to be independently arrived at?

RESPONSIBLE – point 19 What are the norms to be upheld? Would principles or values be clearer? Are they principles or values of democracy? of Sound governance?

On the Indicators:

INCLUSIVITY Point 1 add all before relevant groups.

RESPONSIBLE Point 14 Add whether before this policy Some further questions

Where do you see the role of the Public Service?

How will priorities for GOD rating be determined in terms of the number of Bills and policies passing through the Parliament (I think 40or more every year)?

How will the Guardians of Democracy be funded? Will there be a paid workforce? Or will the Platform itself if it is a purely virtual community cope with volume of work and political engagement and ensure security for its members.

If it is exclusively virtual will it exclude who have limited access or ability to engage in the process?

Where does the accountability of this group sit?

I would like to draw your attention to the following documents which I think could be used as standard against which could Guardians of Democracy could measure its model and which would also align the “institution’ with international standards because you mentioned it might be used by other countries.

OECD (2020), Policy Framework on Sound Public Governance: Baseline Features on Governments that work well. OECD Publishing, Paris. https//doi.org/10. 1787/c03e01b3-en

Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Public Trust.

OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes September 2022 http//doi.org/10.1787/f765caff6-en

CONCLUSIONS

From the feedback received, it is evident that the White Paper’s proposal for citizens holding governments to account by being Democracy Guardians has generally been well received, and the reasons for it have resonated with many.

The questions raised by the commentators, their concerns, questions and recommendations reverberate and extends the dilemmas raised in the White Paper, and addressing each would only add to the integrity of the final proposal in terms of its independence, transparency, scope, effectiveness, inclusivity and sustainability. This spirit underlines the ethos of the White Paper, so any suggestions to intensify and magnify these conditions are considered noteworthy in order for citizens to hold governments accountable. Every effort to make the framework and institution governing the framework credible and trustworthy in upholding the ideals and values espoused is significant for this proposition’s evolution. Refining the proposal requires stages of wider consultation than what has been achieved so far. It then requires evaluation of all recommendations to develop a robust framework, if this is to be instituted.

The gulf between what is expected from governments and what is delivered has widened globally and pitifully in the face of wars, human rights abuses and climate change to name a few. While democracy delivers elected governments, it has not followed that governments always act for the betterment of people. There are many reasons including the “perils of political myopia” (Moyo, 2018; Griffiths & Wood, 2020 2) why democracy does not deliver as it is meant to ideally. Holding on to the baseline that is reached, falls far short of what is possible.

Accepting our current role merely as voters of elected governments falls short of our significance as key stakeholders of government decision making and the constructive contribution, we can make by being at the decision-making table of governments.

Operating outside the current paradigms that underlie our society, economic, political, social and otherwise, might be the only way the proposed framework can exist as it requires a disconnect with vested interests and powerbases, ego, security and money in the pursuit of genuine public interest.

Whether it be this proposal that is adopted, as Democracy Guardians using the Citizens’ Governance Index (CGI) and the Citizens’ Governance Index Indicators (CGII) or another to shape government actions, proactively or reactively, or even a different name than ‘Democracy Guardians,’ does not matter. What matters is that as citizens we do not remain marginalised, and just continue to hope for better elected governments to act responsibly and ethically while in Office, or for those who hold the balance of power to ensure this happens. We need a mechanism for constructive engagement with government during its term in Office, to shape relevant, responsible and effective governance for the nation.

2 Griffiths, K. & Wood, D. 2020. Vested interests, money and the democratic deficit. Grattan Institute. Public and Government integrity. 13 February 2020. https://grattan.edu.au/news/vested-interests-money-and-thedemocratic-deficit/ ; Moyo Dambisa, 2018. Edge of Chaos: Why Democracy Is Failing to Deliver Economic Growth - and How to Fix It New York: Basic Books

The acronym 'GOD' for ‘Guardians of Democracy’ as used in the White Paper has understandably been criticised for its religious overtones by some of the commentators. As Diane Dromgold points out, “It’s powerful and fabulous BUT may hinder substantive discussion on the idea because of an acronym many people won’t see past.” So that the premise and framework proposed remain the central focus, the title of this E-book does not have the acronym ‘GOD’ as it replaces the name, ‘Guardians of Democracy’ with ‘Democracy Guardians.’

With deep gratitude to those who have considered and commented on the White Paper and with much hope that it starts a wider conversation, I invite you to consider the framework being proposed.

Thank you.

Diann Rodgers-Healey

About the Author

Dr Diann Rodgers-Healey has for more than two decades worked with women and organisations to advance the development of and recognition of women’s leadership in Australian workplaces. Diann has enabled executives to lead authentically, transformed workplaces to value purpose-driven leadership, diversity and inclusion. She has challenged systemic gender barriers in institutions and workplaces through research, publications, facilitation of public forums, submissions to formal government reviews and contributions to NGO national gender and leadership plans and submissions

Diann established national leadership Awards that ran from 2004 to 2016 to recognise individuals and organisations in Australia that advanced marginalised women and those who identify as women. She has through youth leadership programs worked with marginalised youth to make them visible as leaders and enable their leadership capacity.

Diann has lectured in postgraduate leadership and management subjects as a sessional lecturer for a decade She is an editorial advisory board member & reviewer of The International Journal of Public Leadership and an editorial review board member and reviewer for the international Gender in Management Journal (GM). She has participated in government reviews to advance the Constitutional recognition of First Peoples in Australia. Her work upholds the values of responsible purpose-driven leadership and integrity.

Diann is Adjunct Professor at the Cairns Institute in James Cook University and is a recipient of awards that recognise her social impact and her excellence as a tertiary educator. She manages the Australian Centre for Leadership for Women (ACLW) which she founded in 2000, and the Illawarra Centre for Enablement which she started in 2018