Rosie, excellent article that explains open accountable Government, Aussie style, and thank the Lord they're not closed, virtually unaccountable, excuse making election manipulators and inherently dictatorial. Ha, ha, ha, ho, ho, ho, he, he, he, rolling on the floor and LOL, oh my aching ribs!
Rhrosty.

Rosie, have you looked at the sheer number of hoops you are required to jump through in order just to contribute, with the criteria already in place, that simply limits the available areas open to questioning and or, what an open accountable government should actually look like?

I could start with question time and the complete banning of self serving dorothy dix questions, replaced by questions from the opposition/cross benches and genuinely relevant and civil replies, even where that requires a wriggling or obviously incompetent minister, clearly not on top of his/her portfolio, to take the question on notice in order to be both relevant and genuinely informative, and indeed accountable!

I contributed once [after literal hours of waiting (MUZAC) and thank the lord for a fully charged battery] before, on long overdue (real)tax reform, only to be shut down by an imperious public servant with the comment, we already have a broad based tax, the GST!

And given that sort of brick wall moribund, moronic response, why would anyone in their right mind ever bother?

Even so, an open accountable government is never ever going to strenuously argue against a bill of human rights and genuine equality being included in our manifestly inadequate constitution, or are they?
Rhrosty.

Oh god NO.

The last thing we need is a plan devised by all the ratbag, single interest groups of nutters who will participate in this rubbish.

I suppose it will give a government a list of the activists we would be wise to lick up for the normal folk's safety.

"The OGP is a multilateral agreement, the kind of legally binding contract multiple countries sign up to that requires them to do certain things to be part of this 'Partnership' "

Rave on! Our government isn't even 'open' with it's citizens. I'm sure the same situation is the same in other countries. There never has been, and never will be, openness between countries, even those of similar ilk and allies.

Well Has, I suppose lick up is your particular forte?

I'm just not into that(spit, spit) particular deviation!?

And heaven forbid, certainly not with nutters? Albeit not completely ruled out with normal, reciprocating, hetro partners.

Are you sure you weren't having an in depth discussion with the mirror on the wall, before you posted your most insightful comment to date?
Rhrosty.

Rosie, when you have a theory that doesn’t explain the facts, it means the theory’s wrong.

Your article is a good example of talking about government without ever questioning the fixed idea of government itself.

“The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation - that is to say, in crime.”
Albert Jay Nock

Once we correct for your assumption that the government is some kind of presumptive optimizing device, or some kind of benevolent institution, or some kind of magic pudding that makes benefits out of thin air by issuing threats called legislation; on the ground that these assumptions have no basis in reason or reality, then one can only ask what you were thinking with your appeal to “diversity”?

If there were increased diversity in rape and rapists, would you think that a good thing? No?

“But” you may say, “rape is bad, but anything government does is automatically, intrinsically, necessarily good.”

So you’re back to your assumption that has no basis in reality or reason, and back to taking no account of the coercive nature of what you’re advocating.

If there is a greater diversity in using the State to plunder your neighbor, that’s automatically presumptively good, is it?

Is it?

You see Rosie, the reason government didn’t do what you, or anyone, would think sensible to promote open government, is because they do not want to promote it, obviously, and because government is not some kind of benevolent institution. At least now we have a theory that’s starting to explain the facts, don’t we?

Government has a self-granted exemption and immunity from the law against misleading and deceptive behavior, that it imposes on everyone else on pain of imprisonment.

Perhaps it would be more to the point for you to argue to bring in the same criminal penalties for governments, politicians and bureaucrats that apply to everyone else for the same actions?

I’d like to see that.