I’m NOT trying to show you the way (as it happens, I don’t know the way myself) nor do I have an objective to get particularly anywhere. You already know I’m in favour of small government and free enterprise, where those things are achievable, so there’s my agenda out in the open, but really this in not the particular forum to cover my desires.

I do believe that you are looking for an answer in the wrong place, making the common mistake of throwing technology at a problem because that’s what you happen to be holding in your hand at the time. As an exploratory method it might (after some time) help understand the problem better, but this particular problem of maintaining communication channels between people across a power gradient is old and thorny. Sycophants will use a channel to say “yes” in the most eloquent and flattering way possible, hoping for self-promotion, but constant positivity contains no surprises. Spoilers throw static, always surprising but not useful. Clever liars just knit their distortion into the flow with seamless craft, doing more damage still.

Although I can describe the problem in a great many ways, I have already admitted a lack of any answer, so your answers are a least as good as mine!

Tell me more about the “community methodologies” that have recently come to exist.

I think the ideas for “Gov 2.0” have been in place, and largely enacted upon since the beginning of the process (yes there are issues, of course), and what we are talking about now is the opportunity for improved transparency and participation through online tools, and online community methodologies which did not exist 30 years ago let alone at the birth of democracy. You’d think the fact that there is a conversation happening, and reform being considered on new methods and tools for improved participation and transparency would be a good thing, and most of the community feedback we’ve had has been really great.

Right now there appears to be a willingness to rethink the processes and the part of the Citizen, so what are you going to do to help this conversation? I know you have great ideas, so how about putting them forward constructively, please.

But hey, John Howard did the same thing, so that makes it OK, right? I mean this concept of parliamentary debate where an idea is examined from a range of points of view and considered by people from various backgrounds, this idea is getting a bit old. It might have made sense back when the Magna Carta was signed but these days the best place for ideas to be examined is in some back room so they can be foisted on the public with as little debate as possible. Sound familiar?

You see Greebo, we already have all the tools for Gov 2.0 because that’s the whole idea of why a Parliament was invented in the first place — long, time ago. All we need now is the willingness to make the original idea actually work.

Now I don’t think they do particularly badly on the openness front (I am now perusing their council meeting minutes).

I am interested in how they compare to other councils (may be a project for the weekend).

And I have no idea whether any of this gov 2.0 stuff means anything to them.

Would love to hear any specific suggestions and ideas you have about what can be done to improve things

I think this is a matter of degree. We have an “open-ish” government. We have consultation and cons-ipulation. We have a very variable record around Freedom of Information. And we have a generation of young people who care passionately about political issues but are disengaged from the political establishment - ALP members make up a quarter of 1% of the Australian population.

Open Government might begin with data feeds & online forums but if it’s serious then it will quickly run up against parts of the Australian Establishment that are deeply undemocratic (never mind “open”). We’ll see how it pans out…