|
|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
Subscribe to the RSS feed › 
Australia needs a permanent, highly visible and accessible repository for ideas.
In 1988 I wrote to the then Minister for Science, Barry Jones and advocated the concept of a centralised ideas database. I envisaged a system where members of the public could submit ideas for inventions, models for governance, infrastructure improvements, etc. via phone, fax, mail or even the newfangled "email".
My envisaged model was a system administered by universities who were probably the only bodies at that time with enough computing power to handle the influx of data. Since then, of course, there have been massive advances in internet technologies making such a system not only feasible but, I believe, imperative. It is sad to contemplate that there have doubtless been many creative ideas formulated by ordinary people which have withered and died for want of an avenue for expression.
The transparency debate is nuanced & needs a lot more work.
Applying transparency and ratings to policing raises some fascinating questions that have been around for a long time. In one sense, the case recently put at "Transparency in policing?...or invasion of privacy...risk?" is that a very important group in our society should have applied to it the same logic as it wants applied to the rest of us: 'If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear'. The reaction, though, is interesting. Like many professions (legal, accounting, medical etc), arguments come back along the lines of 'we are different & deserve special treatment" - legal professional privilege; doctor-patient relationship etc.
Google recently used the transparency argument in "Using log data to help keep you safe", at Google Public Policy Blog, posted 13 Mar 2008.
David Brin explored the extreme of this logic some years ago in his book "The Transparent Society". For a fascinating review of this book and the "communitarian" counterpoint, see "Privacy please", a book review in Salon magazine, 26 April 1999.
A World Economic Forum report predicts multinational corporations and individuals will exercise more power than governments by 2030...
Government bureaucracies have been the main mechanism for supporting government since the late 18th Century and the French Revolution. By virtue of their gatekeeper position between decision makers and the community, public service agencies have wielded significant power in advising government on the development and implementation of policies and services.
Consultation with business, NGOs and citizens has always played a part in developing government initiatives, but the decisions about whether and how to involve the community have been ad hoc, and the bureaucratic hierarchy involved can sometimes make the whole process cumbersome and slow.
Since the early 1990s, the environment in which the government must respond to change has been transformed by the rapid development of the Internet and the accelerating pace of globalisation. Many activities to meet community needs, which were once only within the ambit or capacity of government, have now moved into the domain of people and in many ways have become self-regulatory.
By Prof Stuart B. Hill
Some thoughts on Rudd's '1,000 Great Minds' initiative and what might need to happen to improve its chances of success
Because of the holistic nature of the approach being advocated, all of these areas overlap and are highly interactive and interrelated.
1. Getting the usual ‘experts' together, to then plan for a better future. This always leads to tinkering with existing (flawed) plans, and excludes those most affected by such plans.
2. Taking problem-solving (back-end, reactive/responsive, curative) approaches. These tend to focus on symptom management and neglect the need to address the underlying maldesign and mismanagement roots of the problems. They typically over-focus on measuring problems (a prime strategy for postponing action - by those who benefit from the status quo), and on efficiency and substitution strategies (eg, improved application of pesticide and on finding less disruptive [but still purchased] substitutes, such as biological controls and genetically modified organisms - same story in other areas, such as medicine and energy).
Would you respond to a government online consultation on the subject of interest to you, if you were aware of it? What expectations would you have from such a consultation? What features and functionality would you like to see? Would you provide your real contact information on registration? Have your say in an open discussion about the proposed Australian Government Consultation Blog.
TOWARDS A CREATIVE AUSTRALIA
The future of the arts, film and design
