Paul1405,

I have said many, many times that I would like to see government directly consult with the electorate. Populism, particularly populism driven by talking heads and lobbyists is the bane of modern government.

There are ways tried and proved by Aussie universities to direct consult with people affected by decisions. The change management methodology is robust and results achieved relatively fast and as changes are being introduced and implemented.

Ray Martin, ABC chat shows and surveys are unreliable and are in fact often the very opposite of what is required.

Dear Paul,

There's an interesting executive summary in a government
report dealing with citizenship involvement in government
decisions and policies and it states:

"Genuine engagement in the 'co-production' of policy and
services requires major shifts in the cultures and
operations of government agencies. It demands of public
srvants new skills as enablers, negotiators and
collaborators. It demands of citizens an orientation to the
public good, a willingness to actively engage, and the
capabilities needed to participate and deliberate well."

"These are tall orders, especially if citizens are
disengaged and certain groups within the population are
marginalised."

"More especially, effective engagement by a citizen-centric...
requires political support for the genuine devolution of
power and decision-making ..."

Would Ministers and agency heads be really willing to undertake
this task?
Realistically?

cont'd ...

My apologies I forgot to add the link:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1112/12rp01

I have given much thought to our differences in OLO .
And trying to reinvent myself , yet again.
I want to point out a simple truth, like most but not all, I post as I truly think.
I could put a long list of Libs/Nats/Conservatives I think do the same.
And will not bother to do the same for the few with other reasons to post.
So, all truth, I just am unable to believe the current ABC targeting comes from folk who believe what they write.

That leaves me wondering, what if?
What if in a WASP country, our country a party wants to harness free speech?
Different speech? thoughts and ideas next?

Belly and his speculative gossip. Old men proving they are no different from old women. Bring on the daytime chat shows to entertain them and give them the 'villains' to get angry at and make them feel alive for an hour.

Your Labor/Greens government was fond of new and higher taxes, it spent big but constantly forgot the essentials it was supposed to be providing. Just to put an obvious example, single mums were sent back to work. Yet Gillard gave more millions to the ABC. That was a government's priorities at work. Not judging either way but it should be clear to all that government only has a certain amount of money it can take compulsorily from taxpayers and it doesn't stretch to everything.

I have asked repeatedly but no-one can answer, what business case can be put for continued funding for the ABC. That is what it all comes down to, putting the 'must-dos' first and ahead of the 'should-dos' and 'could-dos'.

Are the supporters of an open cheque book and no accountability for the ABC as juvenile and irresponsible as they appear to be that they cannot understand that government funded agencies have to be accountable and they must demonstrate value for money is always being obtained for taxpayers' $$?

Are the standards the ABC would demand of others not applicable to itself?

Dear Belly,

The question that we should be asking is -
Does Australian TV need the ABC?

The following link answers that question:

http://theconversation.com/does-australian-tv-need-the-abc-21230

And as one person pointed out - those people that insist
on "value for money" would probably also resent their
"taxpayer dollars" going towards education, museums, libraries,
Australian theatres, films, and the Arts in general.
Very sad really! However tax cuts for the rich are ok.