Comments on: Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0: Draft report for comment http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/ Design by Ben Crothers of Catch Media Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:51:50 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-14274 Madeleine Kingston Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:03:45 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-14274 Hi all I was directed to this site by an email posting that highlighted the comments of Hier Artikelverzeichnis. Unfortunately I have been unable to find Heir's comments so cannot respond in detail but if someone can email me directly to point me in the right direction I will answer Heir in more detail. Meanwhile I am posting here, despite the fact that this may not be quite the right place as I followed directions and am here no. Recently I became involved in a blog experiment on a site unconnected with ov2. The comments made therefore are simply brought to Gov's attention as it was a lesson learned that deserves to be shared. It is no secret that I am interested in supporting human rights initiatives and more inclusiveness in social policy. Gov 2 is one of many sites on which I make blog postings. My blog career is 21 days old, so I am no more than a novice with technical skills that need much enhancement. Ideas - that is a different matter. My style is verbose, detailed and sometimes annoying. Though I have previously worked in a verity of settings that could be loosely termed "quasi-government" I am not a public servant. I have considered writing a book on how to any the government" but feel there may be more constructive ways in which I can connect. Given the encouragement I have received, I will persist in making comments within the limits of my style and approach. Very recently I encountered a negative blogging experience that had no impact on my broad shoulders. Nevertheless the site on which I made three postings regarding the human rights of international students represented a negative blogging experience which I share here as a learning experience. It is connected with standards that are acceptable, consistent and sustainable in terms of the types of postings that will be tolerated. My stance on human rights is a matter of record. My direct grassroots voluntary experience in supporting human rights principles is tractable, though much of what I do is not visible. I took a recent stance on this publicly on a blog site discovered accidently. I had no problem with disagreement and challenge to my views - that is exactly what I expect to encounter. In fact my preference is for a direct "call a spade a spade approach" However, I draw a line at discourtesy, unacceptable derogatory remarks and gratuitous insult. The site that I posted on deteriorated into a mud-slinging match associated with dialogue more suited to a private exchange than a public blogging site seeking comment on social policy issues. I withdrew my involvement as a protest not over disagreement with my opi9nion, which I have no problem with, but because the dialogue had deteriorated into something demoralizing and acceptable. Ultimately the site owner took a stance and posted a comments policy. It will be interesting to see whether this has any impact on blogging conduct of personal followers of the site owner. Meanwhile there are some lessons to be learned. There needs to be a clear policy about acceptable blogging behaviour. There needs to be a clear written accessible policy about moderation. Moderation that is indiscriminate because someone does not "belong" to the social set or mind-set of others is unacceptable. Unless one is discourteous, derogatory or engages in others identifiable unacceptable behaviour, in my book a more inclusive liberal moderation policy is preferable. But this needs to be clearly stated not only for the benefit of intra-government or quasi-government benefit, but for the benefit of other components of your target audience, including ordinary citizens such as myself wishing to effectively engage with government. Digital communication highlights certain moral challenging. The environment needs to feel and be safe. The bar for standards needs to be set high. This does not mean a narrow, forgive me "constipated" view of moderation policies or openness. Far from it. However my recent experience as someone well able to defend herself have highlight certain issues. Those who are more tentative, less confident; more vulnerable, wishing nonetheless to engage with government, or indeed with any other social media outlet, but feel confident that there will be no derogatory remarks, no social exclusion, no negative experience that will bring into poor repute the interactive dialogue. If it is Government's genuine desire to effect engagement with its constituents, the experience must be and be seen to be a positive one. Abusive language, derogatory and discriminatory remarks about segments of the community, regardless of personal opinion or belief is totally unacceptable. AQ clear and unambiguous stance must be taken on this issue. The policy stance should not be restricted to Government, but to every single web owner or host leaving digital communication open for community participation. On the other side of the coin, this is not merely a vehicle for purely social exchange on gardening tips and recipes or the latest in nappy-wear. The purpose of such a dialogue here is to engage the community, seek ideas and feedback and to operate at such a level as to embed and incorporate lessons learned and valuable information that may be provided from a variety of sources. I did not have some reasonable hope that the precepts behind Web2 and Gov2 went beyond superficial shop-front skin-deep dialogue I would have long been gone. I cannot be bothered with the trivial. This does not mean that I do not enjoy light chatter, humour and fun. It means that of this site I expect a serious dialogue with the community to the extent that there is an indisputable desire to develop strategies through which improved policy, regulatory governance and leadership responses can be developed. In developing a communication strategy that is directed by an underlying desire to improve governance leadership and policy, Gov 2 needs to keep all eyes and ears to the ground in finding out exactly what community expectations are and how they can be effectively met. This means building forming a collaborative partnership from which all groups learn and develop together. It requires an atmosphere of mutual respect, courtesy without sacrificing frankness, and a willingness to form unexpected partnerships through which information exchange can be an effective learning lesson. It takes time and effort to engage in this type of dialogue Therefore, returning to moderating policies, and assuming that Government as a genuine desire to find out what may be going wrong at ah early enough stage to discover and implement counter-acting strategies on a stitch-in-time basis, I urge a very open mind to policies and seek a communication climate where frank and timely identification of problems are encouraged. The second I gain an impression that this whole enterprise is a shop-front not committed to improving governance, leadership and flawed policy - I will have to count myself out. In short, I am a supporter - but my support is conditional on my expectations being met. Why should I settle for anything else? Hope this is constructive. It was meant to be a coffee break blog, but I must get back to the non-cyber world of deadlines, deadlines, deadlines. Lift the bar all round or resign. No point in half-baked measures. Cheers Madeleine Individual Stakeholder Hi all

I was directed to this site by an email posting that highlighted the comments of Hier Artikelverzeichnis.

Unfortunately I have been unable to find Heir’s comments so cannot respond in detail but if someone can email me directly to point me in the right direction I will answer Heir in more detail.

Meanwhile I am posting here, despite the fact that this may not be quite the right place as I followed directions and am here no.

Recently I became involved in a blog experiment on a site unconnected with ov2. The comments made therefore are simply brought to Gov’s attention as it was a lesson learned that deserves to be shared.

It is no secret that I am interested in supporting human rights initiatives and more inclusiveness in social policy.

Gov 2 is one of many sites on which I make blog postings.

My blog career is 21 days old, so I am no more than a novice with technical skills that need much enhancement.

Ideas – that is a different matter.

My style is verbose, detailed and sometimes annoying. Though I have previously worked in a verity of settings that could be loosely termed “quasi-government” I am not a public servant.

I have considered writing a book on how to any the government” but feel there may be more constructive ways in which I can connect.

Given the encouragement I have received, I will persist in making comments within the limits of my style and approach.

Very recently I encountered a negative blogging experience that had no impact on my broad shoulders. Nevertheless the site on which I made three postings regarding the human rights of international students represented a negative blogging experience which I share here as a learning experience. It is connected with standards that are acceptable, consistent and sustainable in terms of the types of postings that will be tolerated.

My stance on human rights is a matter of record. My direct grassroots voluntary experience in supporting human rights principles is tractable, though much of what I do is not visible.

I took a recent stance on this publicly on a blog site discovered accidently. I had no problem with disagreement and challenge to my views – that is exactly what I expect to encounter.

In fact my preference is for a direct “call a spade a spade approach”

However, I draw a line at discourtesy, unacceptable derogatory remarks and gratuitous insult.

The site that I posted on deteriorated into a mud-slinging match associated with dialogue more suited to a private exchange than a public blogging site seeking comment on social policy issues.

I withdrew my involvement as a protest not over disagreement with my opi9nion, which I have no problem with, but because the dialogue had deteriorated into something demoralizing and acceptable.

Ultimately the site owner took a stance and posted a comments policy. It will be interesting to see whether this has any impact on blogging conduct of personal followers of the site owner.

Meanwhile there are some lessons to be learned.

There needs to be a clear policy about acceptable blogging behaviour.

There needs to be a clear written accessible policy about moderation.

Moderation that is indiscriminate because someone does not “belong” to the social set or mind-set of others is unacceptable.

Unless one is discourteous, derogatory or engages in others identifiable unacceptable behaviour, in my book a more inclusive liberal moderation policy is preferable.

But this needs to be clearly stated not only for the benefit of intra-government or quasi-government benefit, but for the benefit of other components of your target audience, including ordinary citizens such as myself wishing to effectively engage with government.

Digital communication highlights certain moral challenging. The environment needs to feel and be safe. The bar for standards needs to be set high. This does not mean a narrow, forgive me “constipated” view of moderation policies or openness. Far from it.

However my recent experience as someone well able to defend herself have highlight certain issues.

Those who are more tentative, less confident; more vulnerable, wishing nonetheless to engage with government, or indeed with any other social media outlet, but feel confident that there will be no derogatory remarks, no social exclusion, no negative experience that will bring into poor repute the interactive dialogue.

If it is Government’s genuine desire to effect engagement with its constituents, the experience must be and be seen to be a positive one.

Abusive language, derogatory and discriminatory remarks about segments of the community, regardless of personal opinion or belief is totally unacceptable. AQ clear and unambiguous stance must be taken on this issue.

The policy stance should not be restricted to Government, but to every single web owner or host leaving digital communication open for community participation.

On the other side of the coin, this is not merely a vehicle for purely social exchange on gardening tips and recipes or the latest in nappy-wear.

The purpose of such a dialogue here is to engage the community, seek ideas and feedback and to operate at such a level as to embed and incorporate lessons learned and valuable information that may be provided from a variety of sources.

I did not have some reasonable hope that the precepts behind Web2 and Gov2 went beyond superficial shop-front skin-deep dialogue I would have long been gone.

I cannot be bothered with the trivial. This does not mean that I do not enjoy light chatter, humour and fun.

It means that of this site I expect a serious dialogue with the community to the extent that there is an indisputable desire to develop strategies through which improved policy, regulatory governance and leadership responses can be developed.

In developing a communication strategy that is directed by an underlying desire to improve governance leadership and policy, Gov 2 needs to keep all eyes and ears to the ground in finding out exactly what community expectations are and how they can be effectively met.

This means building forming a collaborative partnership from which all groups learn and develop together.

It requires an atmosphere of mutual respect, courtesy without sacrificing frankness, and a willingness to form unexpected partnerships through which information exchange can be an effective learning lesson.

It takes time and effort to engage in this type of dialogue

Therefore, returning to moderating policies, and assuming that Government as a genuine desire to find out what may be going wrong at ah early enough stage to discover and implement counter-acting strategies on a stitch-in-time basis, I urge a very open mind to policies and seek a communication climate where frank and timely identification of problems are encouraged.

The second I gain an impression that this whole enterprise is a shop-front not committed to improving governance, leadership and flawed policy – I will have to count myself out.

In short, I am a supporter – but my support is conditional on my expectations being met. Why should I settle for anything else?

Hope this is constructive.

It was meant to be a coffee break blog, but I must get back to the non-cyber world of deadlines, deadlines, deadlines.

Lift the bar all round or resign. No point in half-baked measures.

Cheers

Madeleine

Individual Stakeholder

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-13028 Madeleine Kingston Sat, 10 Apr 2010 04:52:21 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-13028 Hi Nicholas Thank you for taking the trouble to respond so personally and alert me to the possibility of the posting from "Flowers" representing spam. Online dialogue carries some risks for all participants, but this one at worst may have been no more than a tiny nuisance if the posting was not genuine. On the plus side my note of encouragement to "Flowers" as a real or imagined Gov2 blogger has given you a change to clarify things and to let us all know what is happening. Putting oneself out on the net for blogging or any other purpose carries a spam risk and as far as I can gather this situation is not easy to reverse. I was sorry to hear that the “Flowers’” posting may have been spam. This brief posting was emailed directly to me as I had asked for all comments to be directly notified. My reason for making a prompt response was to encourage blogs from those who may be a bit reticent to join in. Since the philosophy of Gov2 is to encourage participation at all levels by a wide cross-section of the community. When I viewed the calibre of initial responses it was easy to see the high standard set may perhaps intimidate others to "test the waters" with blogging. Therefore I have been very frank about my novice blogging status and limited technical skills, neither representing the barriers foreseen. Subject to motivation to connect, as observed by Stephen Collins' 11 Sept 2009 blog in response to Lisa Harvey’s article What about the rest of us? (tags: community, engagement, ethics, public service), to which I have belatedly responded under "If I had a blank piece of paper" (/#comment-12945), the myth about barriers needs to be exploded. Most of those designing and maintaining innovative sustainable online communication platforms such as this appear to be primarily strategic planners and philosophers with a real interest in linguistics and communication forms as the hooks through which engagement can be achieved. You will notice that my three blogs (see #comments 12783; 12795; 12923) against Mia Garlick's powerful graphic and wordless message in "The Faceless Bureaucrat" were responses to a graphic marketing communication tool that was arresting in its own right -words were superfluous. Whilst on the subject of communication, may I give credit to the marketing tools being utilized of late by the ACCC in their Update Newsletters. The last two editions have been lively, modern and written for a wide audience in simple informative language using colourful cartoons to illustrate the message. As an engagement strategy these tools are commendable. On the issue of keeping blogs alive at least till the Government has made its decisions - please accept this as a personal plea to do this. You should not be concerned about perceptions of "vainglory" if you continued to blog. I considered that very thing before I sent a series of blogs which I know may remain unanswered during this lull at least. However, I persisted since someone had to take the first step to resurrect dialogue whilst it was still an option. You will not be talking to yourself if you blog since I will look out for recent postings if highlighted in the sidebar and try to maintain the impetus to the best of my ability, even if only a brief blog to signal ongoing interest in the engagement concept. Please do keep lines of communication open since it is my view that out of sight is often out of mind in terms of public engagement whatever strong activity may be happening "behind the scenes". Those of us who have stuck around in the hope of effective collaborative engagement need doses of encouragement to keep interest alive. Hope needs to be fed. Regards Madeleine Individual Stakeholder Hi Nicholas

Thank you for taking the trouble to respond so personally and alert me to the possibility of the posting from “Flowers” representing spam.

Online dialogue carries some risks for all participants, but this one at worst may have been no more than a tiny nuisance if the posting was not genuine. On the plus side my note of encouragement to “Flowers” as a real or imagined Gov2 blogger has given you a change to clarify things and to let us all know what is happening. Putting oneself out on the net for blogging or any other purpose carries a spam risk and as far as I can gather this situation is not easy to reverse.

I was sorry to hear that the “Flowers’” posting may have been spam. This brief posting was emailed directly to me as I had asked for all comments to be directly notified.

My reason for making a prompt response was to encourage blogs from those who may be a bit reticent to join in. Since the philosophy of Gov2 is to encourage participation at all levels by a wide cross-section of the community.

When I viewed the calibre of initial responses it was easy to see the high standard set may perhaps intimidate others to “test the waters” with blogging. Therefore I have been very frank about my novice blogging status and limited technical skills, neither representing the barriers foreseen.

Subject to motivation to connect, as observed by Stephen Collins’ 11 Sept 2009 blog in response to Lisa Harvey’s article What about the rest of us? (tags: community, engagement, ethics, public service), to which I have belatedly responded under “If I had a blank piece of paper” (/#comment-12945), the myth about barriers needs to be exploded.

Most of those designing and maintaining innovative sustainable online communication platforms such as this appear to be primarily strategic planners and philosophers with a real interest in linguistics and communication forms as the hooks through which engagement can be achieved.

You will notice that my three blogs (see #comments 12783; 12795; 12923) against Mia Garlick’s powerful graphic and wordless message in “The Faceless Bureaucrat” were responses to a graphic marketing communication tool that was arresting in its own right -words were superfluous.

Whilst on the subject of communication, may I give credit to the marketing tools being utilized of late by the ACCC in their Update Newsletters. The last two editions have been lively, modern and written for a wide audience in simple informative language using colourful cartoons to illustrate the message. As an engagement strategy these tools are commendable.

On the issue of keeping blogs alive at least till the Government has made its decisions – please accept this as a personal plea to do this.

You should not be concerned about perceptions of “vainglory” if you continued to blog. I considered that very thing before I sent a series of blogs which I know may remain unanswered during this lull at least.

However, I persisted since someone had to take the first step to resurrect dialogue whilst it was still an option.

You will not be talking to yourself if you blog since I will look out for recent postings if highlighted in the sidebar and try to maintain the impetus to the best of my ability, even if only a brief blog to signal ongoing interest in the engagement concept.

Please do keep lines of communication open since it is my view that out of sight is often out of mind in terms of public engagement whatever strong activity may be happening “behind the scenes”.

Those of us who have stuck around in the hope of effective collaborative engagement need doses of encouragement to keep interest alive. Hope needs to be fed.

Regards

Madeleine

Individual Stakeholder

]]>
By: Nicholas Gruen http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-13020 Nicholas Gruen Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:12:45 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-13020 Hi Madeleine, I think 'Flowers' contribution may be spam. (If not, this is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test" rel="nofollow">Turing test</a> for Flowers). The reason there's not much activity here is that the Taskforce has finished it's official business and we're waiting for the Government to announce it's decisions. We haven't closed off comments, and in fact there was some thought of keeping this blog more 'live' than it is, at least until the Government announced it's own decisions. That hasn't happened. If anyone is to blame it's me most of all - I felt that it would be mostly me blogging and that it would look rather vainglorious to be continuing to do so on this platform. But none of us have gone away. A search engine would enable you to find <a href="http://www.clubtroppo.com.au" rel="nofollow">me</a> and other Taskforce members happily blogging away, in my case on many issues but certainly including Government 2.0. Hi Madeleine,

I think ‘Flowers’ contribution may be spam. (If not, this is a Turing test for Flowers).

The reason there’s not much activity here is that the Taskforce has finished it’s official business and we’re waiting for the Government to announce it’s decisions. We haven’t closed off comments, and in fact there was some thought of keeping this blog more ‘live’ than it is, at least until the Government announced it’s own decisions. That hasn’t happened. If anyone is to blame it’s me most of all – I felt that it would be mostly me blogging and that it would look rather vainglorious to be continuing to do so on this platform. But none of us have gone away. A search engine would enable you to find me and other Taskforce members happily blogging away, in my case on many issues but certainly including Government 2.0.

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-12953 Madeleine Kingston Fri, 09 Apr 2010 15:24:15 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-12953 Hi Flowers I was so hoping that a sustained ballast of blogs by me recently as a newcomer would resurrect the early momentum that accompanied initial draft stages of Gov2's worthy initiatives. There has been such a big gap in postings as I have noticed in my recent browsings. Please spread the word the Gov 2 is alive and kicking even though the Taskforce is not in visible action. However, Nicholas Gruen as Chair of the Taskforce made a fleeting appearance the other day to show that he does read the blogs and continues to take an interest. Be patient. These are very early days. I am hoping that something will come of renewed interest. From what I have been reading there are so many out there who would like to see a more citizen-driven democracy and improved public policy. Wherever you are, your posting was noticed and appreciated. Cheers Madeleine New Individual Stakeholder Hi Flowers

I was so hoping that a sustained ballast of blogs by me recently as a newcomer would resurrect the early momentum that accompanied initial draft stages of Gov2’s worthy initiatives.

There has been such a big gap in postings as I have noticed in my recent browsings.

Please spread the word the Gov 2 is alive and kicking even though the Taskforce is not in visible action.

However, Nicholas Gruen as Chair of the Taskforce made a fleeting appearance the other day to show that he does read the blogs and continues to take an interest.

Be patient. These are very early days. I am hoping that something will come of renewed interest.

From what I have been reading there are so many out there who would like to see a more citizen-driven democracy and improved public policy.

Wherever you are, your posting was noticed and appreciated.

Cheers

Madeleine

New Individual Stakeholder

]]>
By: Flowers http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-12943 Flowers Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:04:58 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-12943 I like the idea is fine for me thank you I like the idea is fine for me thank you

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-12772 Madeleine Kingston Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:02:44 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-12772 My pleasure Nicholas. Your appearance and encouragement is required even occasionally to keep things alive and show that there is a real person out there. Please also consider a means of regularly feeding back to stakeholders outcomes of suggestions, perhaps by publishing a table of outcomes every now and then, if resource constraints do not permit individual responses. Current formal consultative processes tend to be gruesomely one-sided and it is almost never possible to establish what has been done, if anything to properly consider or at least validate the enormous efforts that stakeholders sometimes make to engage and impact on public policy outcomes. Frequently one is made to feel as if the public service is offering a favour to allow participation - instead of accepting for an instant that things are the other way round. Stakeholders who give a damn make the effort, and therefore should not only be tolerated but given some feedback and encouragement to persist. The Productivity Commission made in a 2009 report on its Review of Regulatory Burden: Social and Infrastructure; Electricity gas water and waste services, Ch 3, p202. “The following quotes are illustrative of the concerns raised in submissions by participants from the energy sector: “… AER is requiring parties to resubmit material already submitted to the AER, even if it is part of an earlier submission to the ongoing regulatory process. Often information requests require the provision of information that has already been provided for a different purpose or is available through a simple web search. … such requests amount to requiring market participants to conduct research work for regulators rather than an appropriate information request. (APIA, sub. 12, p. 14)” The same can be said for inputs by community organizations and of individual stakeholders such as myself. In the same vein, I have been staggered to find that frequently complex, far-reaching inter-related decisions by government agencies and related incorporated bodies such as regulators (examples AER, AEMC, RET, MCE, ESC) are made in one arena without due regard to readily available related material submitted to other arenas is simply not accessed at all or considered though the impacts of decisions based on incomplete or inadequate information are obvious and often irreversible. On Gov 2 on 6 April (posting #12234 Mashies) I posted a blog detailing one pertinent current utility-related matter that may well suffer long-range flawed policy with significant economic and social impacts from what appears to be continuing inadequate inter-body collaboration and commitment to access all pertinent material, including those submitted to other arenas. For the phenomenal effort that I have personally made to have this matter fully aired by actively participating in the utility policy debate (with impacts on proposed generic provisions) I have been rewarded by sustained discouragement in one form or another, even to the point of being assured that the matter will not be dealt with however meritorious it may be. These messages whether covertly or overtly conveyed do not represent appropriate ways to secure long-range stakeholder commitment to engagement, and applies as much to online strategies to real life policy management. Therefore I would like to see e-Gov providing opportunities not only for cyber engagement and information accessibility, but as a sustainable means of communicating any deficiencies in collaboration with stakeholders or policy hiccups that could far more readily be corrected if addressed in a timely way in a spirit on cooperation. Any influence you may have in expanding existing e-Gov parameters in this regard would be greatly appreciated. Please do make at least a guest appearance online from time to time. Regards Madeleine Individual Stakeholder My pleasure Nicholas. Your appearance and encouragement is required even occasionally to keep things alive and show that there is a real person out there. Please also consider a means of regularly feeding back to stakeholders outcomes of suggestions, perhaps by publishing a table of outcomes every now and then, if resource constraints do not permit individual responses.

Current formal consultative processes tend to be gruesomely one-sided and it is almost never possible to establish what has been done, if anything to properly consider or at least validate the enormous efforts that stakeholders sometimes make to engage and impact on public policy outcomes. Frequently one is made to feel as if the public service is offering a favour to allow participation – instead of accepting for an instant that things are the other way round.

Stakeholders who give a damn make the effort, and therefore should not only be tolerated but given some feedback and encouragement to persist.

The Productivity Commission made in a 2009 report on its Review of Regulatory Burden: Social and Infrastructure; Electricity gas water and waste services, Ch 3, p202.

“The following quotes are illustrative of the concerns raised in submissions by participants from the energy sector:

“… AER is requiring parties to resubmit material already submitted to the AER, even if it is part of an earlier submission to the ongoing regulatory process. Often information requests require the provision of information that has already been provided for a different purpose or is available through a simple web search. … such requests amount to requiring market participants to conduct research work for regulators rather than an appropriate information request. (APIA, sub. 12, p. 14)”

The same can be said for inputs by community organizations and of individual stakeholders such as myself.

In the same vein, I have been staggered to find that frequently complex, far-reaching inter-related decisions by government agencies and related incorporated bodies such as regulators (examples AER, AEMC, RET, MCE, ESC) are made in one arena without due regard to readily available related material submitted to other arenas is simply not accessed at all or considered though the impacts of decisions based on incomplete or inadequate information are obvious and often irreversible.

On Gov 2 on 6 April (posting #12234 Mashies) I posted a blog detailing one pertinent current utility-related matter that may well suffer long-range flawed policy with significant economic and social impacts from what appears to be continuing inadequate inter-body collaboration and commitment to access all pertinent material, including those submitted to other arenas.

For the phenomenal effort that I have personally made to have this matter fully aired by actively participating in the utility policy debate (with impacts on proposed generic provisions) I have been rewarded by sustained discouragement in one form or another, even to the point of being assured that the matter will not be dealt with however meritorious it may be.

These messages whether covertly or overtly conveyed do not represent appropriate ways to secure long-range stakeholder commitment to engagement, and applies as much to online strategies to real life policy management.

Therefore I would like to see e-Gov providing opportunities not only for cyber engagement and information accessibility, but as a sustainable means of communicating any deficiencies in collaboration with stakeholders or policy hiccups that could far more readily be corrected if addressed in a timely way in a spirit on cooperation.

Any influence you may have in expanding existing e-Gov parameters in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

Please do make at least a guest appearance online from time to time.

Regards

Madeleine

Individual Stakeholder

]]>
By: Nicholas Gruen http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-12717 Nicholas Gruen Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:50:49 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-12717 Thx Madeleine Thx Madeleine

]]>
By: Madeleine Kingston http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-12714 Madeleine Kingston Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:43:07 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-12714 Wow Stephen I will be following your work and blogs with great interest. I am a newcomer citizen wishing to effectively engage and still feeling my way round the maze of processes and archived material in order to gain a better understanding. I missed out on the early stages of dialogue and will have to go backwards to read about Taskforce deliberations. The lively on-line dialogue between Nicholas Gruen as Chair of the Taskforce created a real feeling of collaboration and even reading the exchange retrospectively online recreates a sense of real-time discussion In your blog "Much-promise-many-miles-to-travel-my-thoughts-on-the-government-2-0-taskforce-draft-report" published on acidlabs and referred to above in your post of 11 December you referred to the risk that with the disappearance of the Taskforce "....the work of the Taskforce becomes business as usual in some part of the byzantine machine that is the federal government. All that enthusiasm, interest, and modeling of the way things could and should be potentially goes dead in the water on 1 January." This bothers me also. The potential is enormous for this imitative to provide real-time feedback to Government about stakeholder needs and expectations, and also importantly feedback as to where things may be malfunctioning with public policy in order that a stitch-in-time rectification process can be embarked upon long before protracted consultative processes fall short of any such goal and exhaust stakeholders through consultation fatigue - a real and seemingly incurable malady of the 21st century. It is not yet clear to me whether inputs to the Gov2 arena are being regarded as material useful to evaluation of general outcomes associated with online efforts to achieve enhanced community engagement, or whether the Taskforce goals are to seek concrete suggestions and proposals from the community as to how real-life governance and service delivery may be achievable. As mentioned in my blog on Project 19 on 7 April, I seek to learn more about sustainability goals, how the government will harness and utilize the information gleaned from citizen participants; whether two-way dialogue will be considered (at the very least every now and then); how citizens will be informed of the outcomes of their suggestions Rodger Hills as the author of The Consensus Artifact: 2007 Astro Projects Sydney discusses eloquently the principles of political governance like social justice, sustainability, human rights, participatory democracy, alternative monetary systems, limits on corporate power, cutting out political corruption, and holding governments accountable for their policies and actions. These principles appeal to my personal ideals especially as the material is presented in the context of how an ideally designed constitution may work to achieve collaborative democracy through the best use of citizen engagement. If any of these long-term goals are on the radar of the Gov2 Project, and if there is a genuine desire to create a new means of dialogue with this nation’s constituents, I'm in for the long haul but ahve a lot of catching up to do. I will continue to read your postings and blogs with great interest. There are many in the community who would like to see changes in the direction of a more citizen-driven democracy. I hope that I can learn from the great ideas and philosophies being discussed at many levels and that many of these will find their way into the Gov2 arena. Regards Madeleine Individual Stakeholder Wow Stephen

I will be following your work and blogs with great interest.

I am a newcomer citizen wishing to effectively engage and still feeling my way round the maze of processes and archived material in order to gain a better understanding.

I missed out on the early stages of dialogue and will have to go backwards to read about Taskforce deliberations.

The lively on-line dialogue between Nicholas Gruen as Chair of the Taskforce created a real feeling of collaboration and even reading the exchange retrospectively online recreates a sense of real-time discussion

In your blog “Much-promise-many-miles-to-travel-my-thoughts-on-the-government-2-0-taskforce-draft-report” published on acidlabs and referred to above in your post of 11 December you referred to the risk that with the disappearance of the Taskforce “….the work of the Taskforce becomes business as usual in some part of the byzantine machine that is the federal government. All that enthusiasm, interest, and modeling of the way things could and should be potentially goes dead in the water on 1 January.”

This bothers me also. The potential is enormous for this imitative to provide real-time feedback to Government about stakeholder needs and expectations, and also importantly feedback as to where things may be malfunctioning with public policy in order that a stitch-in-time rectification process can be embarked upon long before protracted consultative processes fall short of any such goal and exhaust stakeholders through consultation fatigue – a real and seemingly incurable malady of the 21st century.

It is not yet clear to me whether inputs to the Gov2 arena are being regarded as material useful to evaluation of general outcomes associated with online efforts to achieve enhanced community engagement, or whether the Taskforce goals are to seek concrete suggestions and proposals from the community as to how real-life governance and service delivery may be achievable.

As mentioned in my blog on Project 19 on 7 April, I seek to learn more about sustainability goals, how the government will harness and utilize the information gleaned from citizen participants; whether two-way dialogue will be considered (at the very least every now and then); how citizens will be informed of the outcomes of their suggestions

Rodger Hills as the author of The Consensus Artifact: 2007 Astro Projects Sydney discusses eloquently the principles of political governance like social justice, sustainability, human rights, participatory democracy, alternative monetary systems, limits on corporate power, cutting out political corruption, and holding governments accountable for their policies and actions.

These principles appeal to my personal ideals especially as the material is presented in the context of how an ideally designed constitution may work to achieve collaborative democracy through the best use of citizen engagement.

If any of these long-term goals are on the radar of the Gov2 Project, and if there is a genuine desire to create a new means of dialogue with this nation’s constituents, I’m in for the long haul but ahve a lot of catching up to do.

I will continue to read your postings and blogs with great interest. There are many in the community who would like to see changes in the direction of a more citizen-driven democracy. I hope that I can learn from the great ideas and philosophies being discussed at many levels and that many of these will find their way into the Gov2 arena.

Regards

Madeleine

Individual Stakeholder

]]>
By: brainmates – product management people » Blog Archive » Government 2.0 – a Product Manager’s Perspective http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-8697 brainmates – product management people » Blog Archive » Government 2.0 – a Product Manager’s Perspective Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:16:43 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-8697 [...] in 2007), the work of the Australian taskforce has received many commendations from analysts and governments [...] [...] in 2007), the work of the Australian taskforce has received many commendations from analysts and governments [...]

]]>
By: February 2010 E-Democracy News — Hot Topics | Ashoka.org: News & Knowledge Entrepreneurs http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/12/07/draftreport/comment-page-1/#comment-8323 February 2010 E-Democracy News — Hot Topics | Ashoka.org: News & Knowledge Entrepreneurs Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:03:15 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?p=1435#comment-8323 [...] 2.0 in Australia The Australian government recently posted a draft report about its efforts to engage the public through its Government 2.0 Task Force. The report identifies [...] [...] 2.0 in Australia The Australian government recently posted a draft report about its efforts to engage the public through its Government 2.0 Task Force. The report identifies [...]

]]>