Committee Secretary Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Parliament Inquiry into Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy

I, Jodi Steel, wish to make a submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Nationhood, National Identity and Democracy.

I make this submission as an individual citizen. I hold tertiary qualifications in Engineering and in a career of more than 30 years have served in the Royal Australian Air Force and worked in academia and the private sector. My work and life experiences have taught me the importance of culture, leadership and diversity to successful outcomes for individuals, organisations and communities. I believe it is time for us as a nation to embrace fully our heritage and the diversity of our citizens, to discern with courage a clear and renewed understanding of our past and who we are now, to find common purpose and to work together.

My submission addresses the following aspects: • The Uluru Statement from the Heart. • Our national narrative. • Our national social contract. • Decline in public trust of political processes and representation. • The Public Service.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart

I believe ’s Nationhood, National Identity and our democracy can be vastly improved by accepting the invitation in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

We need only look to the powerful words of The Statement to identify what is missing from our national identity: A First Nations Voice enshrined in the constitution, and a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and Truth-Telling to the nation, supervised by a Makarrata Commission.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly expresses ‘With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.’

A First Nations Voice I support the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ‘from all points of the southern sky’ deserve a Voice that will be heard. A First Nations Voice will improve our social cohesion by empowering Indigenous peoples to work with government cooperatively – this way, the best possible policy and legislation will emerge – this is the roadmap to closing the gap. It is the roadmap to improving our democracy. It will create a new unity that will prove fundamental to a proud national identity.

1

Constitutional reform to include a First Nations Voice will improve our democracy. First Nations have a special place in this nation, ignored at the founding of our Federation in 1901. The effect of this – First Nations voicelessness – for First Nations people is detrimentally affecting our nation's social cohesion. Indigenous incarceration and suicide rates, along with the immense gap in life expectancy compared with non-Indigenous Australians are examples of this.

We should heed what is sought in the Uluru Statement from the Heart:

‘We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.’

Establishing a First Nations Voice in the constitution will be the binding social fabric that brings us together. Inclusion of First Nations Voices will give us a unique cultural identity that we can be proud of – more than 60 000 years of continuous culture.

At the very least, this Voice should speak on matters that affect the rights of our First Nations peoples, as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), which Australia has ratified. In reference to point f. the extent to which nation states balances domestic imperatives and sovereignty and international obligations, we have an obligation both internationally and domestically to adhere to UNDRIP, and the proposals in the Uluru Statement would deliver on these commitments.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ culture is significantly different from our Westernised national culture, and is poorly understood (if at all) by most Australians. David Gulpilil’s 2016 film Another Country patiently explains important differences between the two cultures and provides a clear illustration of why many Government programs have failed First Nations communities. Giving First Nations peoples a Voice in matters that affect them greatly increases the likelihood of successful and meaningful outcomes. We would also make real and material the recognition in the overwhelming ‘yes’ vote in the 1967 Referendum.

Makaratta Experiences in my professional and personal life have taught me the value of facing situations and learning from them what we can, even – and perhaps especially – those that have been very uncomfortable. For example, a strong feature of RAAF and aviation culture is infused with ‘brief the mission, fly the mission, debrief the mission’: to learn and improve. If not, air travel would not be the safe mode of transport it is now.

Our Western linear construct of time and the notion that we can ‘rule a line under’ an event and ‘move on’ fails to recognise an essential human truth: that we carry our past with us. This is beautifully expressed by 20th Century author and poet, Kahlil Gibran:

‘Of time you would make a stream upon whose bank you would sit and watch its flowing. Yet the timeless in you is aware of life’s timelessness, And knows that yesterday is but today’s memory and tomorrow is today’s dream.

2

… But if in your thought you must measure time into seasons, let each season encircle all other seasons’ (p80-81)

This notion of timelessness is more consistent with our First People’s understanding of time, as explained in a story conveyed in McKenna’s Quarterly Essay ‘Moment of Truth’ (2018). By ignoring and failing to learn from our history, we essentially deny a part of ourselves. To be fully ourselves as individuals and as a nation, we must face our past and take the opportunity to grow.

As such, I support a Makaratta – a coming together after a struggle – for truth telling and to supervise the making of agreements with governments. I believe that facing together the impact that colonisation has had on our First Nations – honestly and with openness and courage – has great power to heal divisions in our nation, for those forgiven and those forgiving. Not all stories are of conflict. There are also stories of cooperation. A deeper understanding of our history will help build a richer sense of identity that will enable us to take our place in the world with greater confidence in who we are and what we stand for.

My work and community experiences have taught me the importance of diversity in learning, solving problems and generating ideas. Our world is increasingly complex, and many of the challenges we face require the skills of multiple disciplines. In listening openly to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, we have the potential to learn from a very different culture, fresh perspectives and wisdom discerned over 60 000 years.

We can also learn from the process that led to the Uluru Statement, drawing together so many diverse voices. We often believe that groups of people we don’t know well will have a single perspective, such as expecting that all Christians have a single view on any particular topic. Yet as we meet more people from those groups, we realise that they hold a variety of views, just like the groups we feel ‘at home’ in. Our diverse First Nations peoples, through a process of talking and listening have found common ground and a way to express their desires through the Uluru Statement. In spite of the difficulties they have faced since white settlement, it is a generous statement, inviting us to walk together.

How can we ignore such a generous invitation?

Our cultural identity – national narrative

National narratives – the stories we tell ourselves and others about ourselves as a nation - can build social cohesion and cultural identity by providing examples to citizens of the values and experiences that are important to us, that bring us together. They allow us to laugh at ourselves, to keep things in perspective, and help us strive for our better selves. They also define for us – consciously and subconsciously – social norms and what constitutes merit. However, narratives that too narrowly represent our population can cause people to feel excluded and unvalued. They can close our minds to opportunities, to different models of leadership and limit our view of what is of value. These overly narrow narratives undermine social cohesion and can discourage people’s engagement in our civic and public life.

Perhaps our most prominent national narratives are of the larrikin, steely toughness or ‘sporting legend’. These narratives are primarily about Caucasian males, although we are starting to recognise female sporting legends. We also have narratives about the bush, even

3

though most of our population is concentrated in cities on our coastline. We are those things – and we are more.

Some national narratives – like our infamous ‘cutting tall poppies down to size’ – hold us back as a nation. From my professional experience in the innovation sector, entrepreneurs in Australia frequently receive feedback telling them why they or their idea will fail, as a consequence of this narrative. In other countries, entrepreneurs are typically encouraged to ‘have a go’ and learn along the way, or are given feedback on how to improve their idea. Our approach leads to aversion of risk, of not taking a chance, and yet so much learning arises from doing, whether we succeed or fail. This has delayed and reduced our success in this sector that creates wealth and employment for many other countries.

Another limiting narrative is that ‘we don’t pick winners’. There is something to be said for leaving ourselves open to opportunity – breakthrough innovations can occur serendipitously. However, they don’t occur in a vacuum. To make the most of potential opportunities requires infrastructure, knowledge, skilled people and capital, which take time to build. In the highly competitive global economy, we do not have the time to build from scratch when new opportunities arise: we must be ready to run with them. The risk in ‘not picking winners’ is that we aren’t playing to our strengths. For example, overseas investors capitalised on our national investment in the creation of solar technology at UNSW when local conditions did not support commercial development. We must change this narrative and make deliberate choices. These choices must also include considerations of how to re-employ people whose jobs no longer exist as older industries have closed, relocated offshore or become automated. Governments have an important role to play in leading this process.

I believe it is important for us to create new national narratives that represent the richness of population - diversity of cultures, perspectives, experiences – and includes our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their cultures. Our political, business and cultural leaders must lead this discussion.

Our National Social Contract with Governments

One important motivation for concentration of responsibility at Federal or State level is to provide public services, such as health and aged care, education, public transport and roads. In return, citizens and businesses pay taxes to enable the provision of those services. Although these services should be provided in as effective and efficient manner possible, that imperative should not be confused or conflated with the need to make a profit. For example, some of the services, such as public transport, routinely run at a loss if considered in isolation. However, their provision may have a benefit in terms of reducing road usage, thereby reducing needed expenditure on roads in terms of maintenance and capacity increases, reducing congestion that reduces economic productivity and also reducing pollution that can lead to increased health costs and environmental damage. Thus at a Government and social level, an ‘unprofitable’ service is supported because of its overall benefit.

However, over the last 20-30 years, there has been a gradual erosion of those services and an increase in ‘user pays’ (or at least ‘co-pays’). For example, our educational standards – in schools and in TAFEs – have dropped against international measures. And there are more toll roads and privately-operated rail and bus services, which have in the main increased the costs to households and reduced their return on the ‘investment’ of their taxes.

4

There has also been a change in language more akin to commercial operations, such as ‘Government shouldn’t be in the business of …’. With the later statement is often an implication or outright statement that ‘the private sector could do it better’. This position appears to be ideologically based, rather than being arrived at through careful consideration of the evidence and the relative benefits and disbenefits. In some cases the private sector can do things better than governments and should be given that responsibility, and in some cases services are better left in public hands. However, governments typically do not engage the public in discussion in the relative merits of privatisation of services nor the criteria on which to make the decision to privatise or retain. For example, as is its function, business must make a profit on its own particular terms, and therefore the overall societal benefit as in the public transport example above does not necessarily apply.

In combination, these factors erode the existing social contract with governments, decreasing public confidence in governments and especially in their commitment to working for the greater good. I believe that citizens would welcome discussion of the priorities for public spending in a more open and transparent way, to help them understand competing priorities, and rationale for different approaches and engage them in our democratic and civic process.

Loss of trust in public institutions, particularly in Governments, politics and democratic processes

I believe there has been a gradual loss of trust in public institutions, particularly in Governments, politics and democratic processes. There are many factors that have contributed to this loss. Some of the more significant factors are (in no particular order):

• An apparent devaluing of the social contract with governments. See separate section below. • An increasingly short term focus and a lack of an expressed clear and holistic vision on important challenges facing our nation, such as climate change, energy policy and industry mix in response to global changes. Successful overseas examples include Saudi Arabia, which has initiated structural reform of its economy in response to global movements such as the phasing out of fossil-fuel powered vehicles, and the UK, which last northern summer experienced a number of days of 100% renewable energy supply. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is a stunning example of long-term vision. Could it be built today? • The lack of a holistic vision also affects revenues and our economic mix. The Parliamentary Budget Office report on Trends affecting the stability of Commonwealth taxes (2018) shows we are increasingly dependent on personal income tax revenue. Sources of other taxation revenue are in decline, including due to losses that can be carried forward by greater concentration of investment in capital intensive industries. However, as we are seeing at present, wage stagnation and increasing costs (electricity, fuel, gas, water) are having an impact on consumer spending, which is negatively impacting the retail and services sectors. Having such a dependence on essentially a single source of income, and a concentration of industry type is risky to our economic stability. Addressing the ‘picking winners’ narrative would support a national effort between governments, business and citizens to readdress our taxation base and economic mix.

5

• It is not clear that policy making is routinely evidence-based, but rather seems to be ideologically or politically based. To use an example with which I am familiar professionally: the decision to change the NBN from the original fibre to the premises (FTTP) to a mixed technology model (MTM) when a Liberal Government was elected increased the cost (in both capital and operating expenses) and time to implement, while delivering a less capable service and fewer revenue options. The decision did not appear to be based on sound technical or business evidence from the telecommunications sector. The adverse impacts of the decisions have also not been acknowledged or justified by the Government to the nation, as part of our social contract. As another example, Australian companies and their Boards are increasingly recognising and acting on the business risks of climate change, yet many of our governments do not accept the science and are not taking action on this existential threat. • Increased appearance of partisan and adversarial political stances and behaviour, and less appearance of cooperation for the national benefit. For example, a commonly used phrase now is ‘we have a mandate’ which seems designed to suppress any opposition to or discussion of any proposed Government legislation. This does not appear to create an environment where agreement on a higher purpose can be sought, in the service of the common good. There are not many contrasting images of listening, of reasoned and nuanced discussions and cooperation that some parliamentarians have asserted do happen. • Parliamentary behaviour has not kept up with societal norms. For example, images portrayed in the media, including live broadcasts of Question Time, show aggression, shouting, name calling and interrupting, while other members in the chamber are often laughing. This behaviour would be unacceptable in most other workplaces and even subject to disciplinary action, a point made clear in 2018 by Julia Banks, who had served in senior legal positions before entering Parliament (Guardian, 2018). • Political representation does not reflect our population, such as in the proportion of women, diversity of race or nationality, different generations and people with disability. Whereas Australia was quite progressive in the early days of Federation, being one of the first nations to grant sufferage to women, we are now falling behind. For example, for gender diversity in our Federal Parliament, Australia ranked 15th globally in 1999, and is now 50th reflecting the relatively small amount of progress we have made (BBCNews, 2019). • Many electors live in safe seats in the Federal and State lower houses of parliament (although the 2019 Federal election did see more marginal seats). As such, they may feel as if their vote does not count in terms of expressing their will. I believe this situation has been a strong causal factor in the increased diversity of voting in the upper houses. New Zealand has received international recognition for its mixed- member proportional (MMP) system of voting that addresses this issue. • Finally, our Westminster system of Government appears to encourage more siloed approaches, which encourages competition for funding rather than the seeking of cooperative approaches. This system makes it difficult to take cross-departmental approaches that may yield more effective solutions to some of our democracy’s more complex problems.

I offer the following suggestions: • Establish a national body to take a holistic view of the situation for citizens – impact of rising costs, job insecurity, wage stagnation on the country (outlook, mental and physical health) and the economy

6

• Ensure more evidence-based policy, and use of experts (such as in UK). If evidence is already widely used to make policy, provide mechanisms to enable the public (where possible) to see the evidence used to inform the policy. A specific suggestion for the use of experts would be in support of Parliamentary Committees where specialist expertise did not exist among the Committee Members. The experts could be drawn from academia, professions and trades, consultants and suitably current retirees, and be seated in a separate room to view proceedings remotely and provide questions to the Parliamentary panel members. • Where possible, make available to the public the criteria on which decisions were made, such as in large infrastructure spending. It may also be of value to ask communities affected by potential decisions to submit criteria of importance to them. • Raise the standards of political discourse to become more civilised, respectful and inclusive, and focussed on ideas and actions rather than personalities. Provide more exposure to the public of the way decisions are made, and of times when politicians across parties come together to pass legislation of benefit to the nation. • Reconsider the purpose of Question Time and whether that purpose is being served by the current format and behaviour.

Public Service

I believe our Public Service to be an important strength in our system of democracy. The Public Service, not being subject to elections, is our democracy’s ‘knowledge base’, the ‘wisdom’ of lessons learned through implementing policies that helps inform new decisions and initiatives, and a mechanism to provide diverse perspectives on policy initiatives.

However, since about the mid-1990s there has appeared to be a gradual devaluing of the Public Service by politicians and Governments. Interestingly, this Inquiry’s Discussion Paper references research showing higher levels of trust by Australians in institutions such as the Public Service, the Defence Forces and the courts. I believe that this reflects a clear understanding of the value that those institutions provide to the community and a trust in the motivation of the individuals within those institutions to be of service to our nation. By being employed for that service, they are perceived as being free from potential conflicts of being popular with the electorate or other interests.

The individuals I have known personally and professionally to have served in the Public Service have been dedicated and skilled people who would receive higher salaries in the private sector. Several of these individuals have left the Public Service during the various reviews and reductions, which led to a great loss of corporate knowledge (to the benefit of the institutions they subsequently joined!)

Statements made by various Federal and State Government ministers seem to show a decreasing desire for the ‘frank and fearless’ advice that was a hallmark Public Service function. There seems to be an expectation that the Public Service is simply there as an instrument to deliver policy as directed by the Government, and an increasing preference for the advice of political advisors and business leaders. Governments should use the diversity of

7

resources and perspectives available – including the Public Service – to increase the likelihood of successful policy implementation and outcomes. 1

Public statements by politicians that devalue the Public Service and its role are at odds with the public trust for this institution, further eroding trust in the political process. Politicians must recognise the valuable and trusted role of the Public Service in our democracy, and treat the Service and its people with the appropriate respect.

Conclusion I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to our democratic process through this Inquiry into Australian nationhood, national identity and democracy, specifically on the topics of: • The Uluru Statement from the Heart. • Our national narrative. • Our national social contract. • Decline in public trust of political processes and representation. • The Public Service.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr Jodi Steel CSM

References:

BBCNews 2019 Mao, Frances. ‘2019 Election: Why politics is toxic for Australia’s women’. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48197145, BBC, 15 May 2019, accessed 30 Sep 2019

Carreyrou 2019 Carreyrou, John. Bad Blood. Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. Picador, London. 2019

Gibran 1992 Gibran, Kahlil. The Prophet. Penguin Arkana, London. 1992

Guardian 2018 Karp, Paul. ‘Liberal MP Julia Banks to quit parliament, citing 'bullying and intimidation'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia- news/2018/aug/29/liberal-mp-julia-banks-to-quit-parliament-next-election-citing-bullying-and- intimidation, 29 August 2018, accessed 30 Sep 2019

Mackay 2018 Mackay, Hugh. Australia Reimagined. Pan Macmillan Australia, Sydney. 2018

1 John Carreyrou’s 2019 book Bad Blood. Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup provides a clear example of the dangers of relying solely on the advice of those we trust, without seeking evidence and diverse opinions.

8

McKenna 2018 McKenna, Mark. ‘Quarterly Essay 69: Moment of Truth. History and Australia’s Future’. Schwartz Publishing Pty Ltd, Carlton . 2018

PBO18 ‘Trends affecting the sustainability of Commonwealth Taxes’, Report No 02/2018. Parliamentary Budget Office, , Canberra2018

9