Marise Payne: Just briefly on the previous question, I wouldn't like to leave without saying that I don't quite have the same confidence in the US political process as Jim does. Laws for the Congress are overwhelmingly sponsored by individual members, so to get their laws through they have to construct a majority for each Bill that comes before the Congress from their colleagues. How they do that is an entirely secretive process. It's not a public or a open process at all, and my understanding is that you usually end up with more quid pro quo than with anything else between members on particular bills.

To go to this question, though, cyanicism about the political process, as my deputy leader Peter Costello said during the 1999 referendum campaign, when he and I were both strongly on the same side, he warned some of our colleagues in the Coalition not to run the Don’t Trust a Politician line. And I think one of those colleagues spoke to your group at a previous session [ie Tony Abbott]. He said in November 1999 “I don’t think we’re ever going to develop a future for this country by denigrating people who engage in public service”, in reference to that particular campaign. I think that was a very reasonable position for him to take. How can we not be cynical about the political process when politicians are prepared to do thatto each other, let alone what happens more broadly. But the premise of this question is about truthfulness, I suppose, more importantly. What I’d like to say first up is that in my view lying is incontestably not a legitimate political tool. (Audience reaction) I’m sorry, but that is my personal view, and if you don’t believe me, then you don’t know very much about me. And the fact that I can have discussions like this tonight in a reasonably robust and healthy fashion is an important part of that process. I don’t for example support the Whatever It Takes program that Graham Richardson adopted in 1994 when he launched his book and said he could rememb er dozens of times when his government had deliberately leaked lies to the media for the purpose of advantaging their position. I mean that’s totally inappropriate political behaviour and it’s not something I’ve ever done myself.

In 1995 in the parliament I learnt when doing some research for tonight, the Speaker tabled for discussion the draft proposals of a working group called “A Framework of Ethical Principles for Members and Senators”, and it had a number of principles which were meant to provide a framework of reference for us in discharging our responsibilities. Those principles were set out as: [?indistinct] for the nation and regard for its laws, diligence and economy, respect for the dignity and privacy of others, integrity, primacy of the public interest, proper exercise of influence, personal conduct, and additional responsibilities of parliamentary office holders - a separate area. I had not been aware of that before I was researching for this evening. I think it’s a very interesting proposition that we might do well to read and bring back to the parliamentary process, our procedure committees and the relevant parts of the parliament, to discuss again to address some of the concerns that clearly the public have and clearly find themselves very cynical about the political process and I can understand that position.

Aden Ridgeway: I suppose for me in answering the question, I'd look at the system of democracy that we have that contributes to Australians feeling cynical in the first place about a system that's not listening and not hearing, and certainly not making decisions that represent their views.

In many respects it follows on from what Jim was saying in the last question. Quite frankly when we look at what’s happening before elections, what we have is marginal seat democracies. How many people feel neglected that people aren’t rolling into town to talk about things that are going to benefit them when they have been taken for granted, because you only have to look at the polls, look at it from the last time and work out that you're in a safe seats so, therefore we can take for granted whatever views you might have. Now it seems to me that we don't respect what Australians think about their form of democracy. Are they going to go back and forward, with the same sort of decisions that they've made for a long period of time? Because I think the issue of cynicism with the system starts with the individual's approach. We don’t get to change that system but you can get to change it by deciding how you cast your vote. And I think that’s the most important thing about our form of democracy is that it is compulsory. I know that people like Tony Abbot and others will take a view that it ought to be a system that’s voluntary, that we ought to follow the UK and the US and all the rest. I actually think it’s quite a good thing to make a political gesture for all those that are 18 or over to have to engage in our political system no matter how cynical they might be.

I suppose the final thing is that it does come back to things that we also need to improve in the system that are, like some of the topics we've been talking about tonight, on the decision to go to war in Iraq and about falsehoods and secrecies. And I think that if we were so loyal in our faith to follow the US and the UK in going to war, then why can’t we be exactly the same about having a public inquiry about the truth, not hiding it behind closed doors. Because that’s exactly what’s happening.

Kerry Nettle: How can our faith in the system be restored? I think by changing the system and changing the people in it. I think we also need to be supporting legislation for an independent public service and independent intelligence services supporting our government. We need to be able to have strong and lively public debate in forums such as the forum that we’re having tonight, and we also need to have participants in democracy with a strong social conscience to ensure that they hold government and political parties to account for policies that they make. We also need to have scope in our democracy for people to participate and put forward their views, and I acknowledge at the back of the room tonight is a gentleman who did that, coming along, who is one of the heroes of the antiwar movement in climbing up onto one of our great buildings and expressing the views that so many of us have on the day that they started to bomb Iraq. It’s important that people be able to participate in ways that they feel confident with, in a whole variety of different sorts of protest action, whether it be being part of those big rallies that saw millions of people across this country come out, or whether it be writing a letter to a local politician, or coming along to a forum like this . That’s what helps to make our democracy strong and that’s what helps make sure that our politicians are accountable.

Kevin Rudd: There are two or three principles to bear in mind here. One is for those of us participants in the political process to be genuinely accessible, as I was talking about before. Second is for that political process to be genuinely accountable. Third is for the political process to be genuinelyly transparent. Marise talked about the need for truth, and that's true. I also happen to be of the view that Honest John is very loose with the truth: loose with the truth over Tampa; loose with the truth over children overboard; loose with the truth over prewar intelligence from Iraq; loose with the truth about the impact of our participation in the Iraq War, and Australia as a terrorist target. Remember, Police Commissioner Keelty, described by Alexander Downer as running Al Qaeda propoganda because he dared to say that our participation in the Iraq War could have an effect on Australia as a terrorist target. But the loose-with-the-truthfulness doesn't stop there. This current debate about so-called cutting-and-running. Who was it who said in March-April last year that Australia's future role in Iraq would be a humanitarian and economic construction, would be humanitarian and rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country and not a military one? Alexander Downer. I find it passing strange that that seems to have escaped the attention of the Prime Minister in the conduct of the debate about timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, that the Foreign Minister said twelve months ago there would be no continuing military role: strange that. And the rest of this debate about our time of engagement in Iraq.

But the one thing, the great central travesty as far as the truth is concerned about this whole involvement in Iraq as I see it is this: and that is the Howard government saying that they have absolutely no responsibility of any description in Iraq in relation to what has happened most recently with the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Zero responsibility. Now I heard John Howard say in April last year that Australia was an occupying power in Iraq. An occupying power under the Geneva Convention is a power which has a responsibility for the well-being of the civilian population of the country that it invades and occupies, as well as for the prisoners: prisoners of war and civilian prisoners. That's why we have the Third Geneva Convention, that's why we have the Fourth Geneva Convention, that's why we have the First Optional Protocol on the Third Geneva Convention of 1977, that's why we've got the Hague Convention of 1907. N ow, we talked at the beginning about the importance of international law. We have this fabric of laws to handle these sorts of circumstances. So we are, by the Prime Minister's own admission, and occupying power in Iraq, he said that himself in April last year, and these are the responsibilities of occupying powers conjointly - UK, US, Australia - in relation to the handling of prisoners of war. And Mr Downer says, on national television on Sunday, that that's not his concern, that he hasn't bothered to raise it with the United States because Australia doesn't have that responsibility. That is a travesty of the truth, and we are demeaned as a nation as a result.

Shelley Reys: Thank you, everyone. I'm now going to move to the first of the two questions from the floor, and I think that they're good ones, because they do in fact cover concerns that we haven't quite covered yet. And we do hope to finish up quite shortly for those of you that are worried about carparks etc, as I know some of you are. This is a double-barrelled question ...