1
Draft Report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce
What's in a name?
The invitation to “engage” is both a call to action and affirmation of the vision towards which that action leads. This is the promise of Government 2.0. “Engagement” is what Government 2.0 is all about:
- Easy to find re-useable public information is, at heart, an invitation to the wider community to engage innovate and create new public value with public sector information (PSI), which often sits underused or simply ignored in government agencies and data banks. As we have seen during our work, as people engage, possibilities – foreseeable and otherwise – are unlocked through the invention, creativity and hard work of citizens, business and community organisations. The government’s job is to liberate much more of its information as a key national asset.
- Public agencies and professional public servants are also invited to engage more energetically with the tools and capabilities of ‘collaborative web’ or Web 2.0. Everything, from enabling data to be re-used, to forming and participating in online communities in their areas of interest will help build a public service that is smarter, more responsive, more strategic and personally rewarding.
- Public agencies and their public servants increasingly associate good practice with deeper engagement with those outside the public service. As the new Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) guidelines make clear, Web 2.0 tools like blogs and wikis now provide unprecedented opportunities to take this much further.
In the transition from traditional consultation towards true community collaboration engaging the community and the public service alike is key. In this more open, connected and instinctively adaptive and innovative process, the motivation, interest and skills of all involved contributes to it success.
5
- Engagement between those in and outside the public service is constrained by the need for public servants to continue to be professional and apolitical. Creating the culture and practices that can seize the new opportunities but yet stay true to enduring public service values will not be easy.
We have little to lose, and much to gain from moving boldly in this direction. Ultimately, the invitation to engage is an invitation to get involved and get things done. This requires us to accelerate the policy, organisational and cultural changes needed so we can reap the rewards of Government 2.0.
2
Chapter 1: Executive Summary
As a world leader in public administration and public policy innovation Australia should, with the United States of America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, be leading transition towards Government 2.0. However, although some individual Australian agencies have been international leaders we have yet to pursue Government 2.0 in a co-ordinated way that reflects a whole of government position.
Australia must do better if it is to realise the Government’s aspirations as set out in the Taskforce’s Terms of Reference which anticipate stronger, more co-ordinated governance and a renewed public service culture of openness and engagement. Proposed legislation to strengthen access to information and the promulgation of very encouraging new Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) guidelines for online engagement set the stage for us to join the other countries in pioneering Government 2.0.
The Taskforce recommends some important policy improvements that need to be made. However the greatest barrier to Government 2.0 is cultural. Leadership on the issue of more open disclosure and engagement is the key driver of cultural change.
The Taskforce was asked to provide advice on how government information can be made more accessible and usable in order to establish a pro-disclosure culture around public sector information. (Note: The Government 2.0 Taskforce was asked to provide advice and guidance to Government on a number of enablers to Government 2.0 in the course of 2009, during this time a number of legislative reforms relating to freedom of information (FOI) have been considered by the Australian Parliament. On 26 November 2009, Anthony Byrne MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, introduced to parliament the second stage of the Government’s FOI legislative reforms, in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009, and the Information Commissioner Bill 2009. Critically for the consideration of the advice of this Taskforce, the latter Bill proposes the establishment of a new Australian Government Office of the Information Commissioner. This legislation has not yet been debated or passed by parliament at the time of publication of this report. If the legislation does not pass, the Taskforce encourages Government to give consideration as to how to implement the recommendations contained in this report.)
2
Recommendation Summary: (Note: The recommendation summaries appearing in this Executive Summary are arrbreviated from the recommendations appearing in the report. For the precise recommendations of the Taskforce see Section 2). The Australian Government should make a Declaration on Open Government that states:
- Public sector information is a national resource, and that releasing as much of it on as permissive terms as possible will maximise its economic and social value and reinforce a healthy democracy;
- Using technology to increase collaboration in making policy and providing services will help achieve a more consultative, participatory and transparent government;
- Online engagement by public servants should be enabled and encouraged. Robust professional discussion benefits their agencies, their professional development, and the Australian public;
- Open engagement at all levels of government is integral to promoting an informed, connected and democratic community, to public sector reform, innovation and best use of the national investment in broadband.
The Taskforce was asked to advise on how responsibilities should be assigned and coordinated to promote greater information disclosure, digital innovation and online engagement.
4
Recommendation summary: The Taskforce recommends that a lead agency take responsibility for Government 2.0 policy and provide leadership, guidance and support to agencies and public servants. The agency’s work program should be developed though a Government 2.0 Steering Group in consultation with:
1
- The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
- The proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner (The second stage of the Government’s FOI reform agenda proposes a number of changes to the Freedom of Information Act (1982) and Archives Act (1983), including a proposal, introduced for consideration by parliament on 26 November 2009, for a new Australian Government Office of the Information Commissioner. This report refers to the proposed function of the Information Commissioner as outlined in the Information Commissioner Bill 2009);
- The Department of Finance and Deregulation;
- The Australian Public Service Commission;
- The National Archives of Australia;
- The Australian Bureau of Statistics;
- The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
This is not to preclude the possibility of one of the listed agencies being or including the lead agency.
The Taskforce was asked to advise on building an online innovation culture to ensure that agencies are open to the use of new collaborative technologies and that efficiencies and knowledge are shared across government.
3
Recommendation summary: To facilitate a more consultative, participatory and transparent culture the lead agency should provide guidance to improve the extent and quality of online engagement. All major agencies (all Departments of State and material agencies.) should within 12 months of the Government’s response to this report:
1
- Identify barriers within their organisation that inhibit online engagement and develop plans to reduce their impact;
- Nominate specific projects aimed at enhancing policy making and delivery through the use of social networking and ‘crowd sourcing’ tools and techniques;
- Identify specific projects that increase the use of online tools and platforms for internal collaboration within and between agencies across the public sector.
The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC)’s annual State of the Service Report should detail agencies’ progress in implementing these measures, including successes and learnings.
1
All public inquiries funded by the Australian Government should, subject to security and privacy requirements, require that all submissions are posted online in a form that is searchable and able to be re-used.
7
The Government 2.0 lead agency should encourage the use of interactive media in public inquiries to facilitate public discussion of issues of relevance.
The Taskforce was invited to advise on how government can be made more consultative, participatory and transparent to ensure that the views, knowledge and resources of the community are utilised.
Recommendation summary: The Taskforce endorses the revised online engagement guidelines for public servants issued by the APSC on 18 November 2009. In particular, the recognition that Web 2.0 provides unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making to the community is strongly endorsed.
1
The Taskforce agrees that, consistent with APS Values and Code of Conduct, APS employees should be actively encouraged and empowered to engage online. Government 2.0 approaches should be used by:
2
- The APSC in consultation with the lead agency to regularly review online engagement guidelines, through open and transparent processes;
- Agencies to support proposals that create greater engagement and participation with their customers, citizens and communities of interest.
- Agencies to create a culture that enables its people to experiment and develop new opportunities for engagement, rewarding those who explore new methods that can be used in mainstream agency activity.
- The Government 2.0 lead agency to establish an online forum on which agencies can record their initiatives and lessons learned.
In consultation with relevant agencies, the lead agency should establish awards for individual public servants and agencies that recognise outstanding practice in the use of Government 2.0 tools to improve agency and program performance.
3
Significant cultural change is needed to enable greater support for the adoption of accessible Web 2.0 tools, collaboration and online community engagement activities, and PSI delivery projects.
The Taskforce was asked to investigate extending opportunities for the reuse of government information, and on what terms, to increase its beneficial use.
Recommendation summary: The Taskforce recommends that in order to make Public Sector Information more open, accessible and reusable, it should be:
1
- free (provided at no cost in the absence of substantial marginal costs);
- based on open standards;
- easily discoverable;
- understandable (supported by metadata that will aid in the understanding the quality and interpretability of the information);
- machine-readable (able to be easily shared by machines – see semantic web definition at Box 11);
- freely reusable (not having limitation on derivative uses).
It should be released as early as practicable and regularly updated to ensure its currency is maintained. By default public sector information (PSI) should be made available on the following terms:
- Consistent with the need for free and open re-use and adaptation, PSI released should be licensed under the Creative Commons BY standard;
- Where ownership does not rest with the Commonwealth, or is shared with other parties, agencies should seek to ensure its release under Creative Commons BY;
- From June 2011 all agencies that enter into new agreements with third parties should ensure publication under a Creative Commons BY licence (a consistent clause should be developed by Department of Finance and Deregulation and inserted as a standing requirement of all Australian Government contracts, similarly to that used to ensure access and reporting by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO));
- Copyright policy should be amended such that if published or unpublished works are covered by Crown copyright, the works should automatically be re-licensed under a Creative Commons BY licence at the time at which Commonwealth records become available for public access under the Archives Act 1983.
Use of more restrictive licensing arrangements should be reserved for special circumstances and should only occur in accordance with guidance or advice from or with the agreement of the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner.
The Government review the property-based definition of Commonwealth Record in the Archives Act 1983, with a view to replacing it with a definition that defines Commonwealth records as ‘any information created or received by the Commonwealth in the course of performing Commonwealth business’.
The Taskforce was asked to consider how developing and managing government information could be used to encourage greater disclosure of public sector information.
Recommendation summary: Any decision to withhold the release of PSI, other than under a legal obligation to do so, should only be made in conformity with policies endorsed by the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner, noting that agencies should:
1
- In the case of structured data (any data kept in an electronic record, where each piece of information has an assigned format and meaning), exhaust options to protect privacy and confidentiality before seeking an exemption;
- Proactively identify and release, without request, data that might reasonably be considered as holding value to external parties;
- Ensure that the PSI they release should be discoverable and accessible via a central portal (data.gov.au) containing details of the PSI.
Regarding the existing stock of PSI that has been brought into existence before the information management policies recommended in this report have been adopted, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner should, in consultation with relevant agencies, propose policies to government which would maximise the extent to which that stock of PSI was re-licensed Creative Commons BY whilst ensuring that this did not impose undue administrative burden on agencies. The Taskforce envisages that rules could be adopted whereby a large amount of PSI that has already been published – for instance government reports, legislation and records that are already accessible to the public – could be automatically designated Creative Commons BY, with other PSI being re-licensed Creative Commons BY on application with rights of appeal to the proposed new Information Commissioner.
In order to measure the benefits of releasing PSI, the proposed new Australian Government Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) should:
2
- Within 12 months of its establishment develop a common methodology to inform Government of the social and economic value generated from published PSI;
- Require major agencies under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) to report their performance in the release of PSI in their annual reports, commencing from the first year of the establishment of the OIC;
- Annually publish a report on the contribution of agencies to the consolidated value of Commonwealth PSI, commencing from the first year of the establishment of the OIC;
- Consider the development of a summary version of the common methodology of releasing PSI for use by other FMA Act agencies;
The Taskforce recommends that the Australian Government engage other members of the Council of Australian Governments to extend the principles of open disclosure into a National Information Policy.
The Taskforce was asked to advise Government on structural barriers and policies to promote greater information disclosure, digital innovation and online engagement.
Recommendation summary: Agencies should seek policy guidance or case by case guidance on the licensing of PSI either before its release or in administering licences after publication from the proposed new OIC.
The functions currently performed by the Commonwealth Copyright Administration (CCA) unit within the Attorney General’s Department (AGD) relating to pre and post licensing of copyright material be transferred to the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner.
It is recommended that the Government, through the proposed new Information Commissioner function, examine the current state of copyright law with regard to orphan works, with the aim of recommending amendments that would remove the practical restrictions that currently impede the use of such works.
The Taskforce was invited by the Government to identify policies and frameworks that would assist the Information Commissioner and other agencies.
Recommendation summary: The Taskforce recognises the importance of clear guidance on the issues of privacy and confidentiality, and recommends the adoption of the following measures:
- To protect the personal information of individuals, the Privacy Commissioner should develop guidance on the de-identification of PSI before it is released;
- To protect the commercial-in-confidence information of businesses, the proposed new OIC should develop guidance on the de-identification of PSI before release.
On the issue of security in relation to Government 2.0, the Taskforce recommends:
2
- The Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) provide guidance to agencies on mitigating concerns relating to the use of social networking and related tools. This guidance should take account of the different environments in which agencies operate and the range of tools that may be used.
- The lead agency, in conjunction with DSD, should develop guidance to assist agencies in the effective, efficient and secure use of Web 2.0 tools and how to undertake risk assessment.
Some of the most successful experiments in Government 2.0 have been led by not-for-profits in the UK and the US. In regard to this the Taskforce recommends:
- Australian policy-makers facilitate recognition of info-philanthropy (the building of public information goods and platforms for public benefit) as an eligible activity to qualify for deductible gift recipient status and other measures that recognise charitable or philanthropic purposes.
The Taskforce recommends that, in the development, management and implementation of a government information publication scheme, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner, once established, take regard of the findings and recommendations contained in the Taskforce Project report 7. The Taskforce supports the model for the publication scheme set out in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 and notes that the Bill currently provides for the majority of the recommendations in Taskforce Project report 7.
The Taskforce was invited to identify and trial initiatives that demonstrate how the Government 2.0 agenda can be developed to encourage online innovation, consultation and engagement.
Details of projects commissioned and undertaken by the Taskforce and the lessons drawn from them are included in the detailed report.
1
Chapter 2: Recommendations
Central recommendation – A Declaration of Open Government by the Australian Government
Accompanying the Government’s announcement of its policy response to this report, the Australian Government should make a Declaration on Open Government, stating that:
1
- Public sector information is a national resource and that releasing as much of it on as permissive terms as possible will maximise its economic, social value to Australians and reinforce its contribution to a healthy democracy;
- Using technology to increase collaboration in making policy and providing service will help achieve a more consultative, participatory and transparent government;
- Online engagement by public servants involving robust professional discussion, as part of their duties and/or as private citizens, benefits their agencies, their professional development, those with whom they are engaged and the Australian public. This engagement should be enabled and encouraged;
- The fulfilment of the above at all levels of government is integral to the Government’s objectives including public sector reform, innovation and utilising the national investment in broadband to achieve an informed, connected and democratic community.
Recommendation 2 – Coordinate with leadership, guidance and support
An existing agency should be appointed lead agency with overall responsibility for Government 2.0 policy and advancing the Government 2.0 agenda providing leadership, guidance and support to agencies and public servants on Government 2.0 issues. Its work program should be developed in consultation with relevant agencies, for example:
2
- The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
- The proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner;
- The Department of Finance and Deregulation;
- The Australian Public Service Commission;
- The National Archives of Australia;
- The Australian Bureau of Statistics;
- The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
This is not to preclude the possibility of one of the listed agencies being or including the lead agency.
Recommendation 3 – Improve guidance and require agencies to engage online
To make government more consultative, participatory and transparent, the lead agency, in consultation with other relevant agencies, should issue and maintain guidance to improve the extent and quality of online engagement by agencies. Within the framework of this guidance, and in conjunction with the lead agency, all major agencies should:
1
- Identify barriers within their organisation which inhibit online engagement and develop and explain what they will do to reduce these barriers within 12 months of the Government’s response to this report;
- Within 12 months of the Government’s response to this report, each agency will identify specific projects to make use of social networking and ‘crowd sourcing’ tools and techniques to enhance agency policymaking, implementation and continuous improvement;
- Within 12 months of the Government’s response to this report, each agency will identify specific projects to increase the use of online tools and platforms for internal collaboration within their agency and between agencies that they work with across the public sector;
- The APSC to include in the annual State of the Service Report details of agencies’ progress in implementing the above recommendations, covering successes, disappointments and lessons learned.
Subject to security and privacy requirements, all public inquiries funded by the Australian Government should ensure that all submissions are posted online in a form that makes them searchable, easy to comment on and re-use. The Government 2.0 lead agency should encourage those conducting inquiries to use interactive media such as blogs to publicly discuss emerging lines of thought and issues of relevance.
2
Recommendation 4 – Encourage public servants to engage online
The Taskforce endorses the revised online engagement guidelines for public servants issued by the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) on 18 November 2009, including the declaration that Web 2.0 provides public servants with unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community. The Taskforce agrees that, consistent with APS Values and Code of Conduct, APS employees should be actively encouraged and empowered to engage online.
1
The APSC in consultation with the lead agency should regularly review online engagement guidelines, using Government 2.0 approaches to ensure the process is open and transparent. Agencies should support employee-initiated innovative Government 2.0-based proposals that create, or support, greater engagement and participation with their customers, citizens and/or communities of interest in different aspects of the agency’s work. They should create a culture that gives their staff an opportunity to experiment and develop new opportunities for engagement from their own initiative, rewarding those especially who create new engagement/participation tools or methods that can quickly be absorbed into the mainstream practice that lifts the performance of the department or agency.
1
The Government 2.0 lead agency should establish an online forum on which agencies can record their initiatives and lessons learned.
Recommendation 5 – Awards
In consultation with relevant agencies, the lead agency should establish awards for individual public servants and agencies that recognise outstanding practice in the use and impact of Government 2.0 tools to improve agency and program performance.
Recommendation 6 – Make Public Sector Information open, accessible and reusable
By default Public Sector Information (PSI) (The definition of PSI is introduced in Chapter 5 of this report. For ease of reference it is as follows: “information, including information products and services, generated, created, collected, processed, preserved, maintained, disseminated, or funded by or for the Government or public institutions, taking into account [relevant] legal requirements and restrictions”.) should be:
1
- free (provided at no cost in the absence of substantial marginal costs);
- based on open standards;
- easily discoverable;
- understandable (supported by metadata that will aid in the understanding the quality and interpretability of the information);
- machine-readable (able to be easily shared by machines – see semantic web definition at Box 11); and
- freely reusable (not having limitation on derivative uses).
PSI should be released as early as practicable and regularly updated to ensure its currency is maintained.
Consistent with the need for free and open re-use and adaptation, PSI released should be licensed under the Creative Commons BY standard as the default.
Use of more restrictive licensing arrangements should be reserved for special circumstances only, and such use is to be in accordance with general guidance or specific advice provided by the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner.
Regarding the existing stock of PSI that has been brought into existence before the information management policies recommended in this report have been adopted, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner should, in consultation with relevant agencies, propose policies to government which would maximise the extent to which that stock of PSI was re-licensed Creative Commons BY whilst ensuring that this did not impose undue administrative burden on agencies. The Taskforce envisages that rules could be adopted whereby a large amount of PSI that has already been published – for instance government reports, legislation and records that are already accessible to the public – could be automatically designated Creative Commons BY, with other PSI being re-licensed Creative Commons BY on application with rights of appeal to the proposed new Information Commissioner function.
Where ownership of the data rests with the Commonwealth, data should be released under Creative Commons BY licence. Where ownership does not rest with the Commonwealth, or is shared with another party/ies, agencies are required to negotiate with the other party/s with the aim of ensuring its release under these arrangements and under Creative Commons BY. Where Agencies enter into any new contracts or agreements with a third party they should endeavour to include a clause clearly stating the Commonwealth's obligation to publish relevant data and that this be under a Creative Commons BY licence. (A consistent clause should be developed by Department of Finance and Deregulation and inserted as a standing requirement of all Commonwealth Contracts - similarly to that used to ensure access and reporting by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).) This policy should become mandatory for all contracts signed by the Commonwealth after June 2011.
1
Copyright policy should be amended so that if published or unpublished works are covered by Crown copyright, the works should automatically be re-licensed under a Creative Commons BY licence at the time at which Commonwealth records become available for public access under the Archives Act 1983.
Any decision to withhold the release of PSI, other than where there is a legal obligation to withhold release, should only be made with the agreement of, or in conformity with policies endorsed by the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner and consistent with the Government’s Freedom of Information policy, noting that:
1
- In the case of structured data (any data kept in an electronic record, where each piece of information has an assigned format and meaning), agencies must exhaust options to protect privacy and confidentiality before seeking an exemption; and,
- Agencies must proactively identify and release, without request, such data that might reasonably be considered as holding value to parties outside the Agency.
The Australian Government should engage other members of the Council of Australian Governments, to extend these principles into a National Information Policy agreed between all levels of Government, federal, state, territory and local.
1
In order to accelerate the adoption of Government 2.0, in addition to any distribution arrangements they wish to pursue, agencies should ensure that the PSI they release should be discoverable and accessible via a central portal (data.gov.au) containing details of the nature, format and release of the PSI.
Within a year of its establishment, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner, in consultation with the lead agency, should develop and agree a common methodology to inform Government on the social and economic value generated from published PSI.
The major agencies under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) should use the common methodology to report their performance in the release of PSI in their annual reports, commencing from the first of the establishment of the proposed OIC.
The proposed new Information Commissioner function should annually publish a report outlining the contribution of each agency to the consolidated value of Commonwealth PSI, commencing in the first of the establishment of the proposed OIC. The report should be published on line and be accessible for comment and discussion.
Following Government acceptance of the initial Value of PSI Report, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner should consider the development of a ‘lite’ version of the common methodology for use by other FMA Act agencies.
The Taskforce notes the proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 to have the Information Commissioner issue guidelines to support the future operations of the Act as described in the Explanatory Memorandum for Schedule 2, Section 8. To ensure a consistent implementation of PSI in relation to the Freedom of Information Act, these guidelines should give due consideration to the concepts outlined above.
Recommendation 7 – Addressing issues in the operation of copyright
Agencies should seek policy guidance or case by case guidance on the licensing of PSI either before its release or in administering licences after publication from the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner.
The functions currently performed by the Commonwealth Copyright Administration (CCA) unit within the Attorney General’s Department (AGD) relating to pre- and post- licensing of copyright material be transferred to the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner. Other administrative functions of the Commonwealth Copyright Administration (CCA) unit should be reviewed to identify which of the functions should remain within AGD and those that should transfer to the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner.
An important category of PSI held by public collecting institutions is information for which the copyright is held by third parties who cannot be identified or located, i.e. ‘orphan works’. It is recommended that the Government, through the proposed new Information Commissioner function, examine the current state of copyright law with regard to orphan works (including s.200AB), with the aim of recommending amendments that would remove the practical restrictions that currently impede the use of such works.
Recommendation 8 – Security and Web 2.0
The Defence Signals Directorate (DSD) should provide guidance to agencies on the appropriate mitigation treatments that could be adopted to address concerns or exposures identified in relation to the use of social networking and related tools. This guidance is to take into consideration the different environments that agencies operate in, the varying risk profiles that exist and the range of tools that may be used. DSD should update the Information Security Manual (ISM) accordingly.
The lead agency, in conjunction with DSD, should develop a Better Practice Guide (or “how to guide”) to assist agencies in the effective, efficient and secure use of Web 2.0 tools and how to undertake associated risk assessment.
Sensitive and National Security data requires special consideration in the context of PSI. To ensure consistency between PSI arrangements in the future and the proposed changes to the FOI Act, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner should provide advice to agencies in relation to the treatment of PSI to enable its broadest possible release. Consistent with good practice, and the requirements of the Protective Security Manual (PSM), agencies must avoid the over classification of data so as to limit the need to review or pre-process data to enable its release.
Recommendation 9 – Privacy and Confidentiality
To protect the personal information of individuals included in PSI, the Privacy Commissioner should develop guidance on the de-identification of PSI before it is released. (The Privacy Act 1988 provides for the Privacy Commissioner to prepare and publish guidelines on privacy under s 27(1)(e). The Taskforce understands, however, that responsibility for this function would transfer to the Information Commissioner following proposed amendments to the Privacy Act and proposed new legislation to establish an Office of the Information Commissioner. In this event, responsibility for the preparation of guidance on de-identification of PSI as outlined in this recommendation should transfer to the Information Commissioner.)
1
To protect the commercial-in-confidence information of businesses included in PSI, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner should develop guidance on the de-identification of PSI before it is released.
Recommendation 10 – Definition of Commonwealth Record
The Taskforce recommends that Government agencies wishing to use third party sites for the purposes of collaboration, service delivery or information dissemination, ensure that copies of records so generated are retained in the possession of the Commonwealth such that they satisfy the definition of Commonwealth Record in the Archives Act 1983.
The Government review the property-based definition of Commonwealth Record in the Archives Act 1983, with a view to replacing it with a definition that defines Commonwealth records as ‘any information created or received by the Commonwealth in the course of performing Commonwealth business’.
To enable and assist the discovery, sharing and reuse of PSI, agencies should deploy endorsed metadata standards such as the AGLS Metadata Standard (AS 5044) together with whole-of-government taxonomies such as the Australian Government’s Interactive Functions Thesaurus (AGIFT) as outlined in the Australian Government’s Information Interoperability Framework.
Whenever not being able to meet such standards would appreciably delay the release of PSI, agencies should release non-compliant data until such time as they are able to comply with the standards.
Recommendation 11 – Information Publication Scheme
The Taskforce recommends that, in the development, management and implementation of a government information publication scheme, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner, once established, take regard of the findings and recommendations contained in the Taskforce Project report 7.
The Taskforce supports the model for the publication scheme set out in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 and notes that the Bill currently provides for the aims below. To reinforce its support, the Taskforce recommends information publication schemes be developed with the following explicit aims:
1
- Provide an overall and consistent statutory framework for information publication by all agencies;
- Encourage the widest disclosure of reliable and useful government information consistent with the public interest, and thereby greater trust in government;
- Guide agencies in overcoming attitudinal, technological and legal barriers to optimal information disclosure and use, and to improved public engagement;
- Provide a planning framework to assist agencies in their overall information management;
- Provide an integrated and simplified guide for agencies to meet their information publication and reporting obligations;
- Provide clear and understandable guidance to the public on their rights to, and methods of, accessing and using government information, leading to improved service delivery and public engagement in policy development;
- Enable the proposed new Information Commissioner function to monitor schemes, and encourage agencies towards achieving government pro-disclosure objectives through reference to exemplars, and reporting of unsatisfactory progress.
Recommendation 12 – Encourage info-philanthropy
Because some of the most successful experiments in Government 2.0 have been fuelled by not-for-profits in leading countries such as the UK and the US, Australian policy-makers should minimise obstacles to info-philanthropy being treated as an eligible activity to qualify for deductible gift recipient and other forms of legal status which recognise charitable or philanthropic purposes.
Recommendation 13 – Accessibility
Significant cultural change is needed to enable greater support for the adoption of accessible Web 2.0 tools, collaboration and online community engagement activities, and PSI delivery projects. The Taskforce therefore recommends that:
1
- Agency compliance with the Worldwide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as the minimum accessibility level for all online community engagement and online PSI provision is required. (This recommendation deliberately avoids specifying which version of WCAG is being referred to as a means of ensuring the recommendation refers to the most current version of the guidelines mandated by the Government.) Data provided on the primary PSI site, data.gov.au, should be provided in full compliance with WCAG;
- Where an agency is considering a project where strict compliance with WCAG accessibility guidelines would unacceptably delay or prevent a project from proceeding, AGIMO will provide guidance on options to facilitate maximum access for people with disabilities;
- In this case projects should only proceed with an online statement explaining site accessibility, together with an outline of where and why it does not meet a specific WCAG guideline, and what alternative options for accessible access were considered or are provided and plans for future compliance.
- A central register of accessibility compliance statements should be maintained on data. gov.au;
- In consultation with relevant agencies, the lead agency should establish awards for agencies that recognise outstanding practice in the accessible use and impact of Government 2.0 tools to improve agency interactions with citizens, business and community groups.R
Chapter 3: Prologue
3.1: The Promise
The use of the internet as a platform for collaboration – the phenomenon of Web 2.0 – is already transforming our economy and our lives. Whole industries are being refashioned and citizens are being empowered – empowered to express themselves, organise, and collaborate in myriad new ways. These phenomena offer powerful new opportunities to refresh and deepen the enduring principles and values of modern democratic government. They can make government not just more open and democratic, not just more consultative, but also a truer collaboration between the apparatus of the state and its citizens. By embracing Government 2.0 we can:
- Make government more democratic, participatory and informed;
- Cultivate and harness the enthusiasm of citizens, letting them more fully contribute to their communities;
- Improve service delivery by allowing the users of those services much greater participation in their design and continual improvement;
- Revitalise our public sector and make policy advice more relevant to and reflective of citizen needs and concerns by:
- involving communities of interest and practice outside the public sector which offer unique access to expertise and local knowledge;
- providing it with the tools for a much greater level of responsiveness;
- equipping it with better informed public servants by encouraging them to interact directly with the community – so as to better appreciate their needs; and
- more successfully attracting and retaining bright, enthusiastic citizens to public service by making their work less hierarchical, more collaborative and more intrinsically rewarding.
- Unlock the immense economic and social value of a huge resource – the information and other content already held by governments – to fuel Australia’s innovative capacity.
Government 2.0 will accordingly be central to delivering on critical national objectives including our National Innovation Agenda, improving the quality, flexibility and agility of our public service, and allowing us to make the most of our huge investment in broadband and other enabling infrastructure to make Australia a more connected democracy.
1
3.2: The Obstacles
Old ways can die hard. Even within the community and the market Web 2.0 is only now becoming pervasive when much of it was technically achievable over a decade ago. But old ways die harder still within government. It does not feel the winds of competition and must stay true to the principles on which it has laboriously been built and which are the foundation of its success ‑ principles like due process, accountability and impartiality in decision making. Of all the sectors surveyed in a recent survey, governments had the lowest deployment of unified communications and collaboration technology (Frost & Sullivan research sponsored by Verizon and Cisco, Meetings Around the World II: Charting the Course of Advanced Collaboration, 14 October 2009 p. 14).
The call in our terms of reference for the establishment of “a pro-disclosure culture around non-sensitive public sector information” is straightforward enough. Yet the list of objections that might be made to the release of public sector information – reasons for arguing that despite overarching policies of transparency particular pieces of information should not be released – is virtually endless. At any stage public sector decision makers may be tempted to play it safe.
Accordingly, Government 2.0 cannot be realised without high level, whole of government attention to the issue and the new policy of Open Government being overseen by an agency with sufficient authority to ensure it informs each decision which might obstruct the free flow of government information. (There are many occasions where some principle is endorsed, but remains largely unimplemented. For instance, in 1986 the Prime Minister announced that new regulations would not be introduced without having run the gamut of a rigorous process of regulatory impact assessment. However, the then Office of Regulation Review did not report on compliance with the policy by department. In the absence of this accountability, the policy was fully complied with in only 8% of cases even after the policy had been announced and operating for a decade. Industry Commission, 1997, Regulation and its Review 1996-7, p. 41 Table 3.2.)
1
Some Australian Government agencies have become recognised as international leaders in their embrace of Web 2.0. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and Geoscience Australia have recently licensed much of their output using ‘Creative Commons’ attribution only, permitting others to use, and remix it with minimal cost and restriction. This invites others to enhance it for sale or for further free distribution. It is an invitation to deliberate, or serendipitous, enhancements of the value of an existing public asset.
The National Library of Australia (NLA), National Archives of Australia (NAA) and a number of Museums such as the National Museum of Australia (NMA) and Sydney’s Powerhouse Museum have engaged Australia’s citizenry in contributing their own time and content to enrich and improve national historical collections of text and visual material. (In this report we use many examples of information which is generated principally by state or local government agencies. While our direct mandate is from the Australian Government, we have interpreted that mandate broadly. While our recommendations are, strictly speaking, recommendations to the Australian Government, many of the principles developed apply at the state level and all states are exploring the Government 2.0 agenda, though some are further advanced on the journey than others. We feel the use of such examples is useful both because the states control much of the data that affects people’s lives most closely and because data collected by state agencies can and should often be the subject of national information agendas (as in the Council of Australian Government’s (COAG) agendas in education and health). Some government agencies and some individual public officials maintain blogs where they share their expertise and have informal discussions of professional matters of public interest.
Yet at both federal and state level, these are exceptions rather than the rule. Once established, policy and practice within any bureaucracy are hard to change – and the Australian Public Service is no exception. Thus, although the Australian Government went to considerable length and cost to produce and distribute its 2009‑10 Budget, one need venture no further than its inside cover to find that “no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission”. The Australian Government’s final report on the 2020 Summit forbade the reproduction of “major extracts or the entire document . . . by any process” without permission. And yet these reports have been funded by Australian taxpayers and agencies typically desire their contents to be known as widely as possible. This remains the case over a year after a major review into innovation recommended that public reports, and much else besides, be permissively licensed to permit free copying and transformation of PSI.
Australian Governments have recently funded the generation of data on the location of resources and public utilities to use in various ways, including on government websites and to support policy deliberation. Others have sought to extend its usefulness in their own applications at no cost to government. Yet doing so has been far from straightforward.
For instance the Commonwealth funded the establishment of a dataset to support its National Public Toilet Map website. (The National Public Toilet Map (the Toilet Map) shows the location of more than 14,000 public and private public toilet facilities across Australia. Details of toilet facilities can also be found along major travel routes and for shorter journeys as well. Useful information is provided about each toilet, such as location, opening hours, availability of baby change rooms, accessibility for people with disabilities and the details of other nearby toilets.) The Taskforce identified the release of the data as an ‘early win’ for its deliberations. However the relevant agency does not believe itself able to openly licence the data for a number of reasons but primarily because it considers that it does not own the copyright to elements of the dataset that have been provided by other jurisdictions and organisations.
However, this example demonstrates the value to agencies of a clear directive from Government, as a result of this report, and supported by the proposed establishment of the Office of the Information Commissioner. The aim is to ensure clear direction and practices on open access to public sector information and simplification of the approach to copyright, licensing and the treatment of intellectual property.
While there have been few hard legal obstacles preventing those public servants who wish to from participating in online discussion forums as part of their professional practice and development, the culture of the public service has tended to discourage it. For example, it was made clear to one Australian blogger and academic that it would be appropriate for his blog to be discontinued while he was temporarily seconded to Australia’s public sector. A better alternative would have been to ensure his blog conformed to the relevant guidance for public servants.
The immense possibilities presented by Government 2.0 will not be easily converted to realities. Overcoming even some of these difficulties will be challenging and confronting for ingrained processes and cultures. Many of these issues are explored in further detail below. But if we cannot make rapid progress on the easy things – a task our peers in the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand have worked on for some time – it should not surprise us that we fall further behind the leaders.
The work of Government- funded or -managed agencies pervades and underpins some of the most important aspects of our lives. By improving their operation and their relationship with stakeholders, Government 2.0 gives us the scope to improve:
- The quality of our schools;
- The quality and safety of our hospitals;
- The safety and productivity of our workplaces;
- The convenience of public utility services such as public transport, energy and local maintenance;
- The dynamism, engagement and responsiveness of the public sector, its services and regulatory systems.
Government 2.0 enables us to achieve all this whilst deepening democracy and engaging the citizenry so that governments don’t just ‘consult’ their constituents, but draw all those with the enthusiasm, expertise and relevant local knowledge into active collaboration with them. Fortunately, it seems we are turning the corner and the central agencies of government are beginning to show leadership. In addition to those agencies pioneering Web 2.0 practices outlined above, the APSC has just published new guidelines which boldly encourage public servants to engage online. Before going on to elaborate the ‘ground rules’ which refer to the core values of the public service adverted to above, they begin as follows:
‘Web 2.0 provides public servants with unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community. In a professional and respectful manner, APS employees should engage in robust policy conversations.
Equally, as citizens, APS employees should also embrace the opportunity to add to the mix of opinions contributing to sound, sustainable policies and service delivery approaches....’
Central Finding: Concerted action needed for Australia to lead Government 2.0
As a world leader in public administration and public policy innovation, Australia should be among the pioneers, such as the US, the UK and New Zealand, of Government 2.0. However, despite strong pockets of enthusiasm and leading edge capability this is clearly not the case. The new guidance offered by the Australian Public Service Commission encouraging public servants to engage online is a very positive and encouraging recent development. We must do better if we are to realise the government’s aspirations as set out in the Taskforce’s Terms of Reference. We can only achieve those aspirations with stronger, more co-ordinated governance and a renewed Australian Public Service culture of openness and engagement. Some important policy improvements need to be made. However the greatest barrier to Government 2.0 is cultural. Leadership is thus the key requirement.
Central recommendation – A Declaration of Open Government by the Australian Government
Accompanying the Government’s announcement of its policy response to this report, the Australian Government should make a Declaration on Open Government, stating that:
- Public sector information is a national resource and that releasing as much of it on as permissive terms as possible will maximise its economic and social value to Australians and reinforce its contribution to a healthy democracy
- Using technology to increase collaboration in making policy and providing service will help achieve a more consultative, participatory and transparent government
- Online engagement by public servants, involving robust professional discussion as part of their duties or as private citizens, benefits their agencies, their professional development, those with whom they are engaged and the Australian public. This engagement should be enabled and encouraged
- The fulfilment of the above at all levels of government is integral to the Government’s objectives including public sector reform, innovation and utilising the national investment in broadband to achieve an informed, connected and democratic community.
Chapter 4: What is Government 2.0?
From the formulation of public policy to more open forms of academic peer review, setting up mutual support groups for people facing similar health problems to collaborative forms of social innovation, the principles of open source promise to radically alter our approach to complex social problems.
The future potential of these methods is such that they will soon become common place in our lives. Just as it is now impossible to think about getting things done without considering the role of the internet, so will it soon be impossible to think about how to solve a large social problem without considering the role of open methods.
Mulgan, Steinberg and Salem, 2005 Wide Open: Open source methods and their future potential (Mulgan, G., Steinberg, T. with Salem, O., Wide Open: Open source methods and their future potential”, Demos, UK, 2005.)
‘Government 2.0’ may be understood as the application of tools and approaches associated with collaborative web or ‘Web 2.0’ as it has been dubbed. These tools are potentially transformative of the way governments operate. Before elaborating on this, the report outlines key aspects of Web 2.0.
4.1: What is Web 2.0?
Until recently activity on the internet was dominated by the website and email. Where email is, as its name suggests, an electronic analogue of letters through the post, telexes and telegrams, the website is a broadcast medium permitting the producer of the website – often a firm – to broadcast to users or customers. Users of websites can also send information back to the producer via feedback forms, and indeed perform more complex operations within the producers computer systems as occurs for instance when we go online to book an airline ticket or do some banking.
If we call this internet “Web 1.0” it enabled broadcast, point to point and hub and spoke activity through websites, Web 2.0 enables connections and collaborations of all kinds.
Thus, the social networking website Facebook has facilitated and enriched communication between people within social networks. Meetup.com, where people propose meetings, anywhere and for anything, has facilitated all sorts of get togethers of people with common interests and passions. And the internet ‘ideas market’ Innocentive has brought together those with technical problems to solve and those who can solve them.
Search engines have facilitated collaboration between people who might be unaware that their own search behaviour is teaching the search engine to be more useful to future users. (Search algorithms typically employ users’ selections of search results to optimise future searches for others.) Most radically of all, users of products come to build the products themselves as with Wikipedia and stumbleupon.com. (In this sense open source software which is typically built by volunteer individuals and/or firms was a precursor to Web 2.0.)
Somewhat more prosaically firms like Dell and Starbucks have built Web 2.0 platforms to engage their employees, suppliers and customers identify existing problems and to co-design future products.
All these tools create networks in which relationships can be made and deepened whilst knowledge of all kinds, whether it be scientific expertise or the understanding of something ephemeral and local is shared and further developed in the sharing. (Except where otherwise suggested, references in this report to Web 2.0 and expressions like ‘online’ include mediums that are not strictly part of the internet and which may not literally use cables, such as the mobile network.)
4.1.1: Web 2.0: the promise
Web 2.0 tools and approaches provide benefits of many kinds, both economic and social. One calculation concludes that internet searches generate total economic value of somewhere between 0.5 and 5% of US GDP. Likewise purely commercial sites like Innocentive generate substantial economic returns.
Other benefits of Web 2.0 are harder to assess because they do not directly lower costs but improve the quality of our lives. Search engines and wikis do not just save time but produce more germane or more targeted and relevant results than previous methods. In addition to lowering costs in the commercial market for photography and making better use of the stock of images that exist, Flickr encourages enthusiasts by connecting them with an appreciative audience and with like minded enthusiasts.
Web 2.0 allows fine grained interaction between firms and their suppliers and customers – previously not remotely possible ‑ between people with particular interests, expertise or knowledge. A cancer patient can find others in the same predicament and, in addition to gaining mutual support can share information about drug reactions, doctors and specialists.
Blogs permit anyone with internet access to publish their thoughts globally and to invite discussion from others on any topic imaginable. Blogs permit rapid and highly informed discussion of all manner of subjects. One benefit of this is the rapid identification of those with the knowledge to speak authoritatively on a subject, however arcane. This potentially ‘turbocharges’ the process by which reputations are forged and authoritative insights are arrived at and disseminated.
As the storms started to form and ultimately broke upon the world in the form of the global financial crisis, one blogger identifying herself only by the pseudonym of her family nickname, ‘Tanta’ anatomised the sub-prime mortgage market from her own perspective as an employee in the industry. Her professional training was in English literature, not economics, but her blog posts were produced with such meticulous integrity that the most influential expert bloggers on the economic crisis, including Nobel Prize winners in economics were reading and linking to her. Indeed she was cited in US Federal Reserve (the Fed) Research on the financial crisis without the Fed knowing her ‘real’ name. Before blogging this almost instant matching of ‘talent’ with circumstances could not occur.
It is difficult to put an economic value on many of these phenomena. However, they show how Web 2.0 is reconfiguring our world, driven by individuals and groups with a thirst for information and innovation and a powerful desire to engage on their own terms.
4.1.2: The vibe: the culture of Web 2.0
As commentators have observed, Web 2.0 emerged not as a function of new technology but because the ubiquity of internet technology was making new ways of operating and interacting possible. It is thus more a shift of mindset, and a change in the ecology within a large part of the information and communication technology (ICT) market than any simple shift in technology.
Web 2.0 companies have typically opened up large parts of their own businesses to participation from users. They have sought to co-operate with rather than control others, and in particular have reserved only some of their intellectual property rights. They have done so to encourage others to participate and provide their own. They have avoided ‘reinventing the wheel’ but built their own contributions to co-operate with those of other businesses. Their products have been continually adjusted and improved as feedback and user contributions make this possible. (See O’Reilly (2005), “What is Web 2.0”.)
Box 1: A Government Agency’s Early Experience with Web 2.0
It’s worth sharing our early experiences with Web 2.0. In 2002 we had visionary staff who wanted to build a Web 2.0 space called ‘My Museum’ as a component of a much larger website redevelopment and content management system project. Users would become members, select images of objects in our database, add captions, and upload their own images and captions. In short, users would curate and share their own online museum exhibitions.
My Museum was part of the stage two rollout of the project. By the time it was released, Flickr and YouTube had arrived with simpler interfaces, an easier process for joining and more sophisticated functionality. The commercial web space was moving much faster than My Museum and they ran right past us.
More importantly, we learned that we had been thinking about Web 2.0 as a technology rather than a human online community. We needed to plan for ongoing engagement – for Museum staff to be part of building a community, to join with My Museum members in creating great online exhibitions, to showcase staff members’ exhibitions as well or invite ‘guest’ online curators as SFMOMA [San Francisco Museum of Modern Art] has done in its Collection Rotation online feature. If we were developing My Museum today, we would focus on the human participants in the social media space and develop the technologies to fit the humans. We would also choose a much more rapid and flexible development process, able to respond quickly to innovation in the wider context. And we would ensure that Museum staff had both the time and the skills to participate and communicate effectively within the space.
4.2 What is Government 2.0?
At its simplest level the term ‘Government 2.0’ is the result of applying Web 2.0 collaborative tools and practices to the processes of government. As they have outside of government, these tools and practices can increase productivity and efficiency. Yet this report is guided by the conviction that it can be much more than this. As Australia’s self-organised Government 2.0 Google Group puts it:
Government 2.0 is not specifically about social networking or technology . . . . It represents a fundamental shift in the implementation of government - toward an open, collaborative, cooperative arrangement where there is (wherever possible) open consultation, open data, shared knowledge, mutual acknowledgment of expertise, mutual respect for shared values and an understanding of how to agree to disagree. Technology and social tools are an important part of this change but are essentially [just] an enabler in this process.
Given that government should be inherently collective and collaborative, the potential of a Web 2.0 enabled approach to government – what we call Government 2.0 – is potentially transformative. It offers the opportunity to make representative democracy more responsive, and more participatory. The incorporation of Web 2.0 technology into government engagement offers a unique opportunity to achieve more open, transparent, accountable and responsive government.
A Government 2.0 culture is open to the opportunities presented by technology, and is willing to listen, to engage with its citizens – indeed to invite them to directly collaborate in their own governance. It is a government that is in many ways more exposed: to criticism and unsought comment, but also to new ideas and informed feedback. These cultural challenges are at the heart of Government 2.0 and more profound than the technical and other challenges of adopting new technologies.
Government 2.0 will also subtly change the relationship between citizens and government. It will open up opportunities for citizens to engage more directly and collaboratively with public servants. But this will occur only where government agencies and public servants encourage their involvement – not just by inviting it, for we have no shortage of such invitations today – but by responding in ways that demonstrate their appreciation of public contributions. And of course alternatives should continue to be provided for those not wishing or able to engage online.
Further, increasing citizen participation pre-supposes access to information. Here Government 2.0 takes the next step in the evolution of open government by strengthening freedom of information rights and building upon those rights of access, rights to freely re-use, republish, repurpose and otherwise add value to government information. In short, to use the words of the Freedom of Information Bill currently before Parliament Government 2.0 takes as a premise that “information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource”.
A Government 2.0 culture represents a shift to an assumption that government information is open by default, in the absence of good reasons to the contrary. Not only would this represent cost savings in the administration of access requests, but, as argued elsewhere in this report, it makes information available for a range of new uses including uses that provide important social and community benefits.
Policy changes mandated by governments, and legal changes by Parliament, are necessary to make this transition. However many of these are either in place or in contemplation. While these changes are necessary they are not sufficient for Government 2.0 to take hold. For the transition cannot be forced. It must come to infuse the culture of public agencies and their operatives. It must become ‘the way we do things here’. This will be a difficult transition to negotiate.
The promise of Government 2.0 is a rich one, however, and this is not the kind of challenge that Australians are likely to resile from. If Australia fails to fully grasp the potential of Government 2.0 we will lose the opportunity to increase the effectiveness of policy making and forsake the opportunity to draw citizens into closer collaboration with their government. Our nation’s innovative capacity will also suffer and the country will falter in its ambition to achieve a world class public service.
Chapter 5: How Does Australia Compare Internationally?
Australian governments have made some encouraging moves towards Government 2.0. However, until recently these efforts, particularly at the federal level, have not been driven in a coordinated way, but rather have tended to rely on the interest and enthusiasm of individual agencies.
The 2008 Survey of e-government readiness (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management, (2008), United Nations - Government Survey 2008. From e-Government to Connected Governance, United Nations, New York.) published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs suggests that Australia is doing well in some respects but less well in others.
According to the UN Survey, Australia ranked eighth in the 2008 composite index of e-government readiness, just below Canada but above France and the UK (ninth and tenth respectively). Sweden ranked first, followed by Denmark, Norway and the US. (The e-government readiness index is a composite index comprising a web measure index (measuring government presence on line), a telecommunication infrastructure index (how good is the infrastructure available to deliver e-services) and the human capital index (how well equipped are people to derive benefits from services in relation to literacy/education etc), pg 20 http://www.unpan.org/egovkb/global_reports/08report.htm) . However the capability for e-government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Government 2.0 approaches to thrive. (The methodology of the UN Survey relates to e-government which is an indirect proxy for Government 2.0. It looks at aspects of the use and access in government of information and communications technologies rather than government take-up of Web 2.0 tools and approaches. However, in the absence of other comparative measures it assists in providing some context for the rest of this chapter.)
Different historical, institutional and political contexts will affect the speed of transition of a country to a citizen-centred Government 2.0 model. However, it is clear that, in the government sphere, we lack an overall recognition of the potential of Government 2.0 and a governance framework to underpin individual agency efforts. Without these, it is likely that Australia will fall progressively further behind its international partners. While no other country is even close to fully embracing the possibilities of Government 2.0, some countries like the US enjoy particular structural advantages while others like the UK have recognised the economic and social benefits of Government 2.0 for some time and have begun the process of driving co-ordinated and centrally driven reforms.
1
5.1 Australia
In some respects Australia was an early leader in moves towards more open data management. For example the Australian Government’s Spatial Data Access and Pricing Policy was one of the first examples in the world to make significant government data freely available to the public. Some states have also led the way with specific initiatives.
In developing its Future Melbourne Plan, Victoria enabled participation through a wiki so that people could directly edit the document or comment on Discussion pages.
The New South Wales (NSW) Government recently launched a data catalogue of public sector information, including publications, spatial information, raw data, audio visual files and web services from agencies across the state and funded prizes for the best uses of that information.
There have also been moves to develop administrative frameworks to support the release of public sector information. For example, the Queensland Government recently enacted its Right to Information Act 2009. This Act arose from recommendations in The Right to Information, Reviewing Queensland’s Freedom of Information Act a review headed by Dr David Solomon and published in June 2008. The Queensland Government has made a commitment to provide access to information held by the Government, unless on balance it is contrary to the public interest to provide that information.
Similarly, the Report of the Victorian Parliament’s Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee following the Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data has laid the foundations for the Victorian Government’s policies on access to PSI.
Another practical development has been the Government Information Licensing Framework (GILF) project, the aim of which is to help those who use PSI to readily understand the rights of use associated with the material. The GILF framework includes a suite of seven licences for PSI, six of which are Creative Commons licences.
The South Australian Government endorsed the GILF in December 2008. Implementation of the South Australian GILF Program began with an across government briefing and workshop in June 2009 and the establishment of a Working Group of agencies. Subsequent communication with agency chief executives announcing commencement of the program resulted in the expansion of the South Australian GILF Working Group, with implementations now underway. (Information provided to the Taskforce by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, South Australian Government.) In the non‑government sphere, OpenAustralia, inspired by and adapting web sites built by the UK’s theyworkforyou, aims to connect people to their parliament and their representatives.
5.2 United Kingdom
The UK has for a number of years been developing policies and implementing practices intended to make government information more easily available for re-use. The Office of Public Sector Information, a part of The National Archives, together with the Information Commissioners (Scotland has its own Information Commissioner who regulates the Freedom for Information (Scotland) Act which covers Scottish public authorities) and the Cabinet Office work on a series of initiatives intended to bring greater coordination to making information more freely available.
The Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) plays a key role in information policy by setting standards and encouraging the use and re-use of PSI. OPSI has operated from within The National Archives since 2006.
Its functions include oversight of the Information Asset Register, a central source for the information resources of government (particularly unpublished resources) and the Information Fair Trader Scheme which requires public sector agencies registered under the scheme to encourage re-use of public sector information.
OPSI's objectives are (as cited in The United Kingdom Report on the Re-use of Public Sector Information 2009. Presented to Parliament (PDF) by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty, July 2009):
- To deliver the policy lead on the re-use of PSI across the UK
- As a regulator to promote high standards of information trading across the public sector under the Information Fair Trader Scheme (IFTS) and investigate complaints under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations
- To license, advise and manage the re-use of Crown copyright material
- To develop innovative technological solutions and models that support emerging information policy
- To put solutions and new initiatives into practice that facilitate PSI re-use.
Other aspects of information policy in the UK come under the umbrella of the Information Commissioner's Office. This Office is an independent authority set up to promote access to official information and to protect personal information, through its oversight of legislation relating to data protection, freedom of information, environmental information and privacy and electronic communications. It works with The National Archives, through a memorandum of understanding (PDF), to promote and manage the records management code.
In 2007, the Cabinet Office commissioned a report on the social and economic benefits offered by better use of government held data. Following the publication of the Power of Information Review (PDF) in 2007, a Power of Information Taskforce was set up. The Taskforce submitted its final report in March 2009, building on and extending the recommendations in the 2007 review. Its Show Us A Better Way contest generated over 500 submissions, made new datasets available for the first time and has resulted in funding of some new applications.
The Power of Information and the Making Public Data Public initiative (Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Professor Nigel Shadbolt were asked by the Prime Minister in June 2009 to lead the Making Public Data Public project to advise on how Government can best use the internet to make non-personal public data as widely available as possible) have led to a number of developments, including:
- Projects and services publishing public transport, environment and planning notices using semantic mark-up to make it easier to re-use;
- Arising from the recommendations of the Power of Information review, the Cabinet Office has opened data.gov.uk as a developer test site with the aim of making government data more widely available. The site currently requires users to be registered and authorised but will be launched as a beta site in December 2009; and
- The recently introduced ‘Local democracy, economic development and construction Bill’, is expected to pass into law soon. It requires councils in England and Wales to provide local residents with an e-petition facility and publish schemes for both electronic and traditional petitions, to acknowledge any petition to its organiser, and to offer a response, all of which should be published online.
5.2.1: PSI initiatives in the UK and info-philanthropy
In addition to initiatives taken by government in the UK, a notable trend in the UK has been the development of Web 2.0 projects from outside government.
The charity MySociety.org, for example, has been very active in establishing websites which simplify the interface between citizens and their government and tracking government responses making government more efficient and accountable.
These are examples of ‘info-philanthropy’, or the creation by individuals or non-profit based organisations of information assets (information itself or platforms for delivering and adding value to the information) as a public good from which many people will benefit. Examples discussed briefly elsewhere in this report include:
5.3 United States
The day after his inauguration in January this year, President Obama issued two memoranda to agency heads which clearly set out his intentions for government to be accountable, transparent, participatory and collaborative. This followed the well-publicised use of information technology to engage with the public during his election campaign.
The Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act (21 January 2009) called for accountable, transparent government and required agencies to administer the Freedom of Information Act ‘with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails’. The Memorandum contained an instruction that new guidelines on freedom of information, reaffirming a commitment to accountability and transparency, were to be issued. These guidelines, issued in March 2009, include an instruction that agencies should readily and systematically post information online in advance of any public request (PDF).
The Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (21 January 2009) called for transparent, participatory and collaborative government with the clear statement that ‘My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.’
In the Memorandum, the Chief Technology Officer was directed to coordinate the development of recommendations for an Open Government Directive.
Examples of PSI initiatives in the US are cited throughout this report and also include the following:
- The US data.gov site aims to increase public access to machine readable datasets (Machine readable formats store data in format that can be accessed by an automated sensing device and capable of being turned into some form of binary code. Examples of machine-readable media include (a) magnetic disks, cards, tapes, and drums, (b) punched cards and paper tapes, (c) optical disks, (d) barcodes and (e) magnetic ink characters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-readable_medium) generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The site allows users to suggest other datasets for loading to the site. It also provides links to similar US State and local catalogues;
- The District of Colombia data centre provides access to 405 datasets from a range of agencies. Users can subscribe to a live data feed and can access data in a number of different formats;
- The New York City Data Mine is a catalogue of government-produced machine-readable data sets in a variety of formats;
- DataSF, in beta, provides links to a number of data sets from the City and County of San Francisco. It allows users to search for data sets using a number of criteria, comment on and rate data sets, and suggest additional data sets. The site requires users to register; and
- Everyblock offers a news feed for every city block in 15 cities. It addressed the question, ‘what is happening in my neighbourhood?’ by collecting local news, events and civic information.
5.4 New Zealand
The New Zealand government first ventured into Government 2.0 with its guide to online participation in 2007 noting that (PDF), ‘New technologies will enable easier access to government information and processes. People will have improved opportunities to be informed and participate in government’.
In August 2009, the New Zealand Government released a Draft New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing Framework which recognises that the “licensing of public sector copyright works for re-use on liberal terms and otherwise enabling greater access to their information and data may: bring about creative, social and economic benefits for the people of New Zealand; and foster greater transparency of government agencies’ performance.”
- The Police Act wiki, inviting ideas for a new Policing Act;
- The Safer Journeys Discussion forums for safer roads; and
- The Couch, an online panel on issues facing New Zealand families operated by the Families Commission.
More recent developments include:
- New Zealand published a guide to social media in 2007, as part of its status report on e-government: Information has been provided on identity and authentication to help people prove their identity to government service providers securely via the internet;
- The blog In Development was launched in March 2008, containing links to a number of other government blogs;
- The National Broadband map was launched in 2008, providing a mashup of telecommunications fibre maps, locations of government offices and other broadband demand data;
- Guidelines were published for public servants use of social media in early 2009; and
- In August 2009 a discussion draft on creative commons licensing was released. An example of use of Creative Commons licensing in New Zealand is the Northland regional council which has released around 90% of its geographic information system (GIS) data under this licence.
Examples of innovative use of Government 2.0 by Government agencies in New Zealand include:
- The Companies Office which tweets and podcasts;
- InfoConnect, New Zealand’s Transport Agency, is developing application programming interfaces (API) (interfaces that a software program implements in order to allow other software to interact with it, much in the same way that software might implement a user interface in order to allow humans to use it. APIs are implemented by applications, libraries and operating systems to define how other software can make calls to or request services from them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_programming_interface.) to transport related data;
- Digital NZ contains tools to work with New Zealand’s digital content; and
- New Zealand’s data.govt.nz is a directory of New Zealand government datasets which contains a facility to request datasets and make comments.
Chapter 6: The promise of Government 2.0: online collaboration
Being truly citizen-centred means placing the citizen at the centre of the entire public service endeavour. This requires a meaningful commitment to actively engaging and empowering people at all points along the service delivery chain—from high-level program and policy formulation all the way to the point of service delivery, and capturing feedback from the users of services.
New technologies are bringing new opportunities to enhance feedback between service delivery and policy or program design areas—more than half of all Australians now interact with government using a variety of these technologies—but a cultural shift among policy and service delivery agencies is needed for these opportunities to be fully exploited.
Discussion Paper, Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the world’s best public service ( Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration, October 2009)
Web 2.0 tools can make government more democratic, participatory and transparent but they are only tools. Their potential cannot be realised without a cultural shift in the way governments engage online.
6.1: Online Collaboration
Web 2.0 vastly increases the extent to which we can have organisation without organisations (Clay Shirky, (2008) Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, (2008) pp 29-30). Web 2.0 tools enable people of like mind and purpose to locate each other, and to work towards common goals. Where this works well, Web 2.0 can potentially lower costs, increase flexibility, improve quality and also the satisfaction of those performing useful tasks.
The most prominent early form of online collaboration, and a forerunner of Web 2.0, was the development of open source software. Unpaid volunteers (including commercial enterprises) work together to continually optimise, debug and enhance the functionality of software. They are able to work on the software because it is licensed in a way that requires users, if they pass it on, to pass it on with its ‘source code’ enabling others to alter it to suit their own needs.
Pure open source production of this kind can generate large savings for organisations. As Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams observe,
By collaborating with open source communities, companies can reduce costs dramatically. IBM estimates it has saved $900 million per year compared to what it would have to spend on creating and maintaining an operating system in-house. Companies must dedicate resources to filtering and aggregating peer contributions. But these types of collaborations can produce more robust, user-defined, fault-tolerant products in less time and for less expense that the conventional closed approach. (Don Tapscott and Anthony D Williams, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Portfolio, New York, NY, December 2006, p 94.)
To the surprise of most, the broad collaborative platform which Web 2.0 provides means that this ‘open source’ way of working is now appearing prominently in areas of online endeavour, ranging well beyond the production of software. Thus the Wikipedia project is building online encyclopaedias in myriad languages, and blogs are creating vast amounts of content on the internet. They are different in kind to the activities they now compete with. Some articles in Wikipedia are inadequately researched compared with a professionally edited encyclopaedia and the excess of hundreds of millions of blogs have highly variable quality. Thus users must use their discretion, though users have always had to decide how much they will rely on a source. But these media now enable one to find and verify matters of fact in ways that earlier generations could only dream of.
Search engines which capture the experience of their recent users to optimise searches for their next users, as well as Facebook, and Twitter are all offering interfaces through which people use their immediate or virtual connection to other people to make sense of the vast resources of the internet. “People subscribe to people” is often a dominant design principle of the online world, putting a premium on connecting and collaborating with others as a way of creating, finding, filtering and evaluating knowledge.
Even where traditional production modes remain dominant, some of the elements of open source production can complement traditional management. A forerunner of these trends was the Japanese management revolution in manufacturing production – particularly identified with Toyota – in which management systems were built to encourage learning at all levels of the enterprise by accessing not just the local knowledge of all employees but even those outside the organisation like customers and suppliers. (See eg, Dyer, Jeffrey H. and Nobeoka, Kentaro, 2000. “Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case” Strategic Management Journal, Volume 21 Issue 3, Pages 345 – 367.)
Today Web 2.0 enables firms to draw their own customers into many of the processes of research, design and production, giving them not only new ‘voice’ but enlisting them in many ways as co-producers of the products and services themselves, and the value they represent. That same potential is increasingly now available for those charged with developing better public policies, improved design and delivery of public services and smarter configuration of regulation.
The collaboration of those outside government also brings a potential difference in the kind of contribution they can make. While public servants bring certain types of knowledge and expertise to bear, there will increasingly be a range of people outside government with their own expertise and professional insights to contribute. In many cases, this will derive from their perspective as service users, or their local knowledge or some other expertise.
This phenomenon has been identified by Beth Simone Noveck in her work on ‘wiki government’ (Beth Simone Noveck (2009) Wiki Government: How technology can make Government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press). The central insight is that we have arrived at a point where technology offers the opportunity for policy development and service delivery to be both more democratic and more expert. We have the capability to fashion much more open and connected approaches. Those approaches will recognise that in some cases, those on whose expertise we want to draw may be found outside the particular agency developing policy or delivering services. They will be found in other agencies which interact with the delivery agency, in communities of users of services or general interest groups in Australia or elsewhere.
James Surowiecki’s book The Wisdom of Crowds begins by pointing out that on the game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire, asking the crowd produces a right answer over 90% of the time whereas phoning a smart friend – the closest the contestant can come to an expert – generates correct answers just 65% of the time (James Surowiecki’s, 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds, Doubleday, NY.). The point is not that all those in the audience know more than the expert, but rather, that to answer some questions, providing one has some plausible way to identify those with the specific expertise required, more minds addressing the problem increases our chances of finding a solution.
These ideas are the inspiration behind the pending Peer-to-Patent project in Australia. (The Australian Peer to Patent project is part of the international expansion of Peer-to-Patent into jurisdictions outside the United States. It operates with the support of IP Australia. and is the result of the collaborative efforts of the Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Law and New York Law School http://www.peertopatent.org.au/). Much of its value will come from finding just the right person in the community. Opening patent applications to online peer review, or ‘crowdsourcing’, will help to find the “needles in haystacks” which may demonstrate whether a patent application idea has been anticipated elsewhere. This will not only lower costs to government but, more importantly produce more accurate search results.
Understanding the value of crowdsourcing does not discount specific expertise and the policy experience of Australia’s public servants. It certainly isn’t a claim that any and every problem can simply be crowdsourced to a successful solution. Some solutions aren’t well ‘crowdsourced’ because they require specific expertise. Thus the Reserve Bank’s responsibility to set official interest rates cannot be done well without considerable expertise. And other decisions – for instance the setting of tax rates or welfare payments - should not be ‘crowdsourced’ because we require that they be decided by more focused, analytical processes.
What is changing is the range, type and mix of expertise on which complex and challenging decision processe can draw, especially as more of the issues we need to confront can involve contentious and conflicting values and assumptions. Government 2.0 heralds a move towards a more open, diverse – but still often highly specialised and expert – knowledge base from which we can draw to improve our chances of seizing an opportunity or solving a problem.
1
In this regard the Taskforce endorses the views of the Government’s Advisory Group on the Public Service Reform (the Moran Review):
Collaboration—especially where it draws together different ideas and perspectives from academia, business, citizens and other stakeholders—is vital in terms of driving innovation and addressing this barrier is a vital component of overall APS reform. … The APS needs to nurture a culture where new, innovative and creative policies are explored and experimented with. (Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the world’s best public service (PDF), pg 23)
6.2 The third sector and democratic engagement
Often the prime movers of improved democratic engagement come from outside government (see "Mr Gruen goes to Washington"). The third sector of non-profit community organisations, pioneers in a whole range of areas, including aged care, education and community safety, has been particularly active in pioneering Government 2.0, particularly in countries like the US and UK, who are leading the way on Government 2.0.
The UK’s FixMyStreet helps people report local problems like graffiti, potholes and other matters requiring maintenance making their online reports easy and reporting local governments’ performance in fixing them. As a result it has become popular as a way for people to communicate with their government and has had over 55,000 jobs logged on it with a large number fixed. (As at 09 November 2009 1545 there were 58,498 updates on reports, 1,072 fixed in the past month and 699 reports in the past week.) A “proof of concept” Australian version was created at the GovHack day sponsored by the Taskforce. When fully functional It’s Buggered, Mate would enable visitors to sketch out a local maintenance problem with public infrastructure on Google Maps complete with diagrams and comments. These deployments of Web 2.0 tools by those outside government improve the interface between government and the community. Large additional benefits in democratic engagement as well as myriad other social and economic benefits can be brought about by the release of PSI and the adoption of Web 2.0 tools and approaches more widely within government.
- They can considerable improve the efficiency of processes to identify and fix problems impacting people’s lives;
- They widen the range of specialists and experts whose knowledge, time and observation can be harnessed more effectively to the common and shared ambition of quicker, more sustainable solutions; and,
- They are fundamentally engaging, creating simple and effective ways for people to show they are interested and want to help. In many ways, the larger and often slightly nebulous ambitions of “citizen engagement” are built on the foundations of these more prosaic opportunities for people to participate where it matters most to them and their communities.
The third sector has also pioneered sites which help the community engage by making it easy for them to inform themselves and to communicate with their governments. In the UK the website WriteToThem enables people to find out who their politicians are at every level of government and to write to them easily. OpenAustralia is a similar enterprise in this country which is dedicated to similar projects and often adapts code from MySociety projects. However it is often unable to get permission to republish material that, for example, in the US is in the public domain and is, accordingly available without any restriction. The Australian site MyRepresentatives, which is still in development, would take a postcode or an address from anywhere in Australia and return corresponding representatives at all levels of government.
As Open Forum noted in its submission to the Taskforce, “People do not wish just to talk to government but to see proof they have been heard” (Open Forum, Submission to Towards Government 2.0: An Issues Paper http://gov2.net.au/submissions/). Thus for instance the attraction of writing to representatives via the WriteToThem website is that it tracks responses and reports on politicians’ performance. WhatDoTheyKnow offers an easy interface through which around 13 percent of all the UK’s FOI requests to departments are now made, and like WriteToThem, it provides feedback on performance. (The figure is even higher for FOI requests to the Home Office with 32% of all requests being made using the WhatDoTheyKnow website; ‘Fraction of FOI Requests Made via WhatDoTheyKnow.com Increasing Fast’, 1 October 2009.)
1
The Recalled Products’ website allows people in the Europen Union (EU) to access and search for the official safety record of products. The recalled products site, still in beta, uses data from the European Commission’s Consumer Affairs RAPEX web pages and allows keyword searches, really simple syndication (RSS) and an email alert facility.
6.3 Online collaboration, intrinsic motivation and the meritocracy of contribution
While traditional consultation methods can typically take months, with the production of issues papers, the taking of submissions and writing of reports, platforms such as bulletin boards and blogs can provide ongoing and very rapid feedback between government and the community. As David Williams said to the Taskforce in an online submission, “I don’t think that the imagination of the citizens needs capturing – they just need the opportunity to participate.”
Even here the model might be taken further. In a Web 2.0 world, the drivers of motivation , reputation and authority are all subtly different. There are opportunities here to harness the motivation of online volunteers which promise to inject a new strand of meritocracy into public service.
Where public servants work under direction and for payment, volunteers are, by definition, intrinsically motivated by what they do. Intrinsic motivation is recognised as a crucial ingredient of much of the best quality work where high levels of skill and knowledge are required. We are still a long way from understanding the importance of intrinsic motivation or of how to maximise it in the workforce, but it seems clear that it is critical to highly skilled activity. Eric S. Raymond attributes a good deal of what he argues is the superiority of open source modes of working to intrinsic motivation:
'Fun' is therefore a sign of peak efficiency. Painful development environments waste labor and creativity; they extract huge hidden costs in time, money, and opportunity. (Raymond, Eric Steven, 2003. The Art of Unix Programming, http://catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/index.html at http://catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s05.html)
For many public servants, service to the public is an important motivator, but some it must be said are time servers and there is evidence that altruism wanes over time during public servants’ careers.( Buurman, Margaretha Dur, Robert and van den Bossche, Seth, September 2009, “Public Sector Employees: Risk Averse and Altruistic?”) By contrast service to others is a motivator of most people who make major volunteering commitments, including online. (All of those quoted in a report on the motivations of those correcting text errors in digitisations of historic newspapers for the National Library mentioned the way in which their work helped others as one of their motivations. Holley, Rose, 2009. “Many Hands Make Light Work: Public Collaborative OCR Text Correction in Australian Historic Newspapers”, National Library of Australia. March, 2009 (PDF).)
The ethic of voluntarism coupled with the openness of online collaboration has typically led to a culture in which status and recognition are a function of the quality of contribution as judged by those who share an interest in the common ambitions of the community or network itself.
There are various ways in which the value that this brings can make a contribution to government. Firstly, governments can tap more confidently into online collaboration. Some of those who self-organise around an issue of shared interest are likely to have particular expertise and aptitude which can complement government resources. This, for example, is the assumption behind some of the innovation in welfare and service funding in countries like the UK, where people with disabilities, for example, or older people, are being funded more directly, allowing them to invest resources to reflect their intimate knowledge of need and context. (See, for example, In control in the UK.) Providing matters of probity are appropriately dealt with, this level of expertise and insight could be drawn more closely and explicitly into the policy design and service delivery process.
This can be taken further. Should they wish, might the best volunteer contributors – whether that contribution is correcting text or discussing policy alternatives – be afforded greater recognition and respect which might be reflected in greater responsibility or more opportunities to contribute over time, in the way that salaried public servants are offered promotions? At the very least this would widen the pool of talent available to perform various tasks. It might also provide a pathway, which, providing candidates were otherwise appropriate, might lead to greater levels of responsibility.
1
Perhaps new pathways could complement existing career pathways in public service. This new pathway could be built, as structures of authority are built in the world of open standards and open source software, based on self-selection, enthusiasm and a record of aptitude and contribution in the field. And just as these values can be brought inside traditional organisations, firms in the Web 2.0 world are successfully experimenting with means of adapting aspects of this kind of volunteerism to their own organisational structures.
One approach which a number of software companies have experimented with is enabling employees to spend some of their time on projects which are for the benefit of the firm, but which they are free to choose. Employees with a creative idea have the authority to try it out, and to try to persuade others to collaborate and, in the process, create some of the organic possibilities and associations typical of the undirected spontaneous activity of markets and civil society.
If such an approach were centrally imposed on agencies it might simply reduce productivity. Nevertheless, tapping into the intrinsic motivation of public servants, and encouraging a greater degree of self selection for tasks is an important challenge for the public service. Approaches which have their origins in the culture of Web 2.0 might be trialled, either in pockets of the service or in recognition of particularly creative and well motivated public servants. Recommendation 5 seeks to encourage agencies to take measured steps in this direction.
1
Chapter 7: The Promise of Government 2.0: The Benefits of Managing Public Sector Information (PSI) as a National Resource
In its recommendation for enhanced access and more effective use of public sector information the OECD Council defined PSI, as “information, including information products and services, generated, created, collected, processed, preserved, maintained, disseminated, or funded by or for the Government or public institutions, taking into account [relevant] legal requirements and restrictions.” Except where otherwise indicated this is what the Taskforce means in this report.
It will be evident from this definition that governments are custodians of a great deal of PSI. In its role as deliverer of public information, through agencies like the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Bureau of Meteorology and Geoscience Australia, the Government spends tens of millions of dollars generating information of benefit to Australians. Government is also a collector and custodian of much material in the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) sector. Ultimately these institutions and their collections exist for public benefit.
Likewise in its roles as policy maker and service deliverer, the government spends large sums on collecting, analysing, and transforming vast amounts of data, information and content. Because government has already invested in the production of this information, it exists as a national asset.
The advent of the internet has vastly increased the value of this information because of the internet’s extraordinary capacity to disseminate it at minimal cost. Internationally and nationally, there is a growing recognition of the extent to which PSI is a resource that should be managed like any other valuable resource – that is to optimise its economic and social value.
Not only is there value to be gained from governments making PSI available for reuse by others, but there are also significant benefits for public sector agencies that take steps to integrate their information with external information sources and services. For example, this might mean agencies making use of external information sources such as maps or statistics to add value to their PSI, or agencies making their services compatible with the support and feedback loops provided by online social networks. Agencies that maximise the value of their information assets will be those that develop an intermediary policy and identify external information sources and services that can be used as alternatives or complements to their own resources. (See Andrea Di Maio, ‘Social Media in Government: From Citizen-Centric to Citizen Driven’, speech to Gartner Symposium, Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, 17-19 November 2009.)
7.1 The principles of open access to PSI
To be useful information must be findable. Then it must be practically useable. Generally speaking, where an asset already exists, the most economically efficient price to make it available to others is the marginal cost of doing so. In the age of the internet that marginal cost of distribution of PSI typically approaches zero. Thus as this report argues, in the absence of good reasons to the contrary, in the world of the internet, PSI should be free – that is, distributed at zero price.
However, there is another sense in which PSI should be free, which is particularly germane to the way in which Web 2.0 can enhance its value. When information is released it creates new and powerful dynamics which can drive innovative use and re-use, allowing the commercial, research and community sectors to add value to it. Robinson et al outline a subset of the myriad ways in which data can be transformed to add value through Web 2.0 for instance via:
- advanced search;
- syndication;
- discussion forums;
- data visualisation;
- machine automated content and topic analysis;
- collaborative filtering; and
- crowdsourced correction or analysis (Ed Felten, David Robinson, Harlan Yu and Bill Zeller, Government Data and the Invisible Hand, (2009) 11 Yale Journal of Law and Technology 160).
Such deliberate and serendipitous benefits will be facilitated by licensing PSI, on as liberal terms as possible, to drive wide-ranging benefits including better government, greater innovation and economic and social benefits. In this report, where we use the expression ‘open access to PSI’ or just ‘open PSI’ this generally refers to PSI which is freely available at zero price and on terms and formats that allow users to copy, use, transmit, reuse and transform the PSI from its original form.
The Three Laws of Open Government Data developed by David Eaves, a member of the Taskforce’s International Reference Group, seem apposite (David Eaves is “A public policy entrepreneur, open government activist and negotiation expert David advises the Mayor of Vancouver on open government, works with two spin-offs of the Harvard Negotiation Project and serves as a fellow at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University.”, http://eaves.ca/about/):
- If it can’t be spidered or indexed, it doesn’t exist;
- If it isn’t available in open and machine readable format, it can’t engage;
- If a legal framework doesn’t allow it to be repurposed, it doesn’t empower.
Eaves sums this up even more succinctly as “Find, Play, Share”. To ensure that government information is effectively accessible, discoverable and reusable, close attention needs to be paid to the licensing terms and formats in which government information is released - see discussion below. An open access approach ensures that the terms and formats will permit and enable findability, usability and reusability, consistent with Eaves’ Three Laws.
In a number of the examples that appear below, we note the benefits of releasing PSI even where it has not been released on liberal licences. This is not an endorsement of the decision to reserve owners’ rights under traditional copyright licencing rather than more liberal licensing, but it is clearly much better for the information to be released under copyright than not released at all.
Box 2: Unlocking PSI in the UK
The UK Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) has established a PSI ‘Unlocking Service’ in beta which individuals can use to gain access to PSI in a straight forward way. The service allows individuals to make requests for PSI that they wish to re-use. Requests can include pointing out where licences are too restrictive for re-use or suggesting where an API for data would be useful. The OPSI checks first that the data is not already available under data access laws and if it is not, uploads the request to allow others to vote for it. OPSI also contacts the PSI holder on the individual’s behalf to seek the release of the information.
7.2 Enhancing accountability
Open PSI can be instrumental in enhancing accountability both in government and elsewhere. Thus for instance in the US the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) maintains a database of the financial reports companies are required to file with them. The database (EDGAR) was always available for a fee. The SEC resisted making the information available on the internet. In the 1990s however a public domain advocate, Carl Malamud (with the help of benefactors) purchased access to the data and put it online in an accessible format. The SEC was surprised by the site’s popularity and within two years had put EDGAR online themselves.
The US Environmental Protection Agency operates a publicly available database containing information on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities reported annually by industry and federal facilities (see Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program). Using the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Explorer, people can look up toxic releases in their area. Other US organisations such as the Right to Know Network and Scorecard use the TRI data to provide the information in an easily searchable form and combined with other data sources (for example, information on the possible health hazards of toxic chemicals).
Recovery.gov is the US government’s official website providing access to data on spending of public money under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009. The creation of the website was provided for under the Act, which obliged the establishment of “a website on the Internet to be named Recovery.gov, to foster greater accountability and transparency in the use of funds made available in this Act.” The website allows people to see both information on spending across the US and to look up individual projects in their neighbourhood. The website also allows people to report potential fraud, and waste and abuse of recovery funds.
In the US FedSpending is a non-government site that provides all the available data on US Federal Government expenditure and allows users to examine and compare it by department or by state or even whether contracts were competitively bid or not.
1
Likewise in the US MapLight and Fundrace both highlight political donations, and OpenCongress (run by the Sunlight Foundation) allows you to compare donations to politicians to their voting records and legislation. We have already discussed services like TheyWorkForYou in the UK and OpenAustralia. The winner of the Canberra GovHack event was a group which built LobbyClue (renamed Lobby Lens at the time of writing), a Web 2.0 tool which integrates data from the lobbyist’s register and AusTender.
Box 3: OpenAustralia – the Community Value-Add to Government Information
OpenAustralia is an example of how, if government information is released in ways that make it more accessible and useable, the community can add value to that information in ways that benefit government and citizens.
OpenAustralia started out in 2007 as a website that “makes it easy for people to keep tabs on their elected representatives in Parliament.” The site was founded by software developer Matthew Landauer and visual effects supervisor Katherine Szuminska. The site has been developed by a team of volunteer programmers and enthusiasts – about five people are at its core, but as many as 50 have helped develop the site.
The original inspiration for OpenAustralia came when Matthew and Katherine attended the launch of the UK site theyworkforyou.com. Similar to the UK site, OpenAustralia aims to republish all Hansard and other information about members of parliament with the aim of making democracy and the activities of our political leaders more transparent.
1
OpenAustralia has secured permission to publish Commonwealth Hansard in a more accessible and searchable format. Unfortunately, requests to do similarly with State and Territory Hansard have made little headway. The Queensland Parliamentary Service isn’t prepared to give OpenAustralia “authorised publisher” status to publish Queensland Hansard on the OpenAustralia website. OpenAustralia also publishes data from the Register of Members Interests and biographical information about members of parliament (MPs) from the Australian Parliament House website.
Visitors to the site can enter their postcode and find out who their representative is and what their representative has said recently in Parliament. Visitors can also follow particular topics, by using the site search or by subscribing to email alerts every time a particular representative or senator says something or when a particular topic is discussed or both.
In June 2009, the site had 25,000 page views per month and just over 1300 email subscribers. OpenAustralia.org found that of those, 300 (23%) of its active 1300 email subscribers were using .gov.au email addresses, suggesting that the subscribers were public servants.
In addition, media reports suggest that OpenAustralia has identified numerous errors in version of Hansard, that even Hansard reporters admit to using the OpenAustralia service in preference to the official version because it is more reliable. OpenAustralia has been working with the Department of Parliamentary Services to speed the fixing of any Hansard errors that OpenAustralia discovers.
7.3 The economic value of PSI
Once it is made freely available by governments, PSI has great economic potential. According to a survey conducted by the European Commission in 2006 (MEPSIR study), the overall market size for PSI in the EU is estimated at EUR 27 billion. (Note there is a wide range of estimates of the value that is generated from PSI owing to the immaturity of the field and divergent assumptions about what PSI is and what value generation is dependent on it. See Pira international for a different approach which estimates a much higher value of PSI.)Various international studies (see Ed Mayo and Tom Steinberg, Power of Information Review: an independent review, Commissioned by the UK Cabinet Office, June 2007, p. 34–35 (last accessed: 25 June 2009)) confirm the greater economic benefit via increased corporate and individual taxes on secondary publishing and service activities for countries that adopt a more flexible public sector information management approach. These increased revenues typically outweigh any revenue losses from moving from charging for PSI to distributing it free of charge. Likewise the 2007 UK Power of Information Report estimated the amount of money generated by direct sales of information by UK trading funds to be much smaller than the wider value of PSI to the economy(Ed Mayo and Tom Steinberg The Power of Information Review: an independent review, Commissioned by the UK Cabinet Office, June 2007, p. 34). In Australia, economic modelling suggests that the use of spatial data and high precision positioning systems can increase productivity in the order of several billion dollars (Allen Consulting Group (November 2008) Economic benefits of high resolution positioning services. Final report (Proposed for Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information)) across a range of industry sectors, such as:
- agriculture (grains and cattle);
- forestry;
- fisheries;
- property and business services;
- construction;
- transport;
- electricity, gas and water;
- mining and resources;
- resource exploration;
- communications; and
- government.
Of course the potential benefits of dealing with information are not isolated to the public sector. The 2008 UK Capgemini Information Management Report found that failure to properly exploit information assets was costing the UK private and public sectors a staggering £46 billion and £21 billion respectively (Capgemini, 2008, “Failure to exploit information loses UK economy £67 billion a year” March 3rd. Accessed on 9th November 2009.) These estimates are of their nature imprecise. Yet their magnitude indicates the stakes involved. With an increasing number of the mobile phones it manufactures Global Positioning System enabled, Nokia expects services based on the locational information available to make up the main share of future revenues with drivers subscribing to real-time traffic information enabling them to anticipate traffic jams and/or check fuel prices in advance of choosing a petrol station (European Commission Staff. 2009, Working Document Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the re-use of Public Sector Information – Review of Directive 2003/98/EC (PDF)).
Box 4: John Quiggin on optimal pricing for Public Sector Information
On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time.
This quote from Stewart Brand frames the debate on the pricing of Public Sector Information. But the term free is itself ambiguous in English. Public Sector Information can be ‘free as in speech’ that is, available for access, downloading and modification, without being ‘free as in beer’, that is given away for no charge, as is implied in the phrase ‘free beer’. The terms ‘libre’ and ‘gratis’ are often used to refer to this distinction.
The central finding of this project is that, under the conditions created by Web 2.0, making information effectively freely available (libre) generally requires that it be provided free of charge (gratis). As the costs of disseminating and accessing information have declined, the transactions costs associated with charging for access to information, and controlling subsequent redistribution have come to constitute a major barrier to access in themselves. As a result, the case for free (gratis) provision of Public Sector Information is even stronger than has already been recognised.
From the transactions cost perspective, it is equally important that the provision of information should not be burdened with unnecessary restrictions on use, such as those associated with standard copyright. A good default choice, which provides for free (libre) use, protects this freedom in reuse and is consistent with free (gratis) pricing is the Creative Commons BY.
The work in this Project has shown how these points can be demonstrated, and estimates of the social loss associated with priced access to information derived, using a simple diagrammatic analysis of the kind familiar to undergraduate economics.
One report completed for the European Commission offers the following breakdown of the economic value of PSI:
The Australian Government announced its Spatial Data Access and Pricing Policy in September 2001 which was implemented over the six months to February 2002. The policy was “premised on the view that all fundamental spatial data should be freely available at no more than marginal cost of transfer in order to maximise the net economic and social benefits arising from its use”. The growth in use as a result of the policy – an average annual rate of over 40% which rose to over 200% in the third and fourth years is illustrated in the table below.
Table 3 - Growth in Spatial Data Delivered under free access
| Year | Scheduled Dataset Units Delivered |
| 2001-02 | 75,310 |
| 2002-03 | 83,049 |
| 2003-04 | 52,565 |
| 2004-05 | 219,821 |
| 2005-06 | 862,530 |
Source: Pollock, Rufus, 2009. The Economics of Public Sector Information (PDF), Cambridge Working Papers E 0920, May, p.35.
The ABS has also been at the forefront of the movement within Australian Government to free up data, the result being a surge in its use going from around a million downloads per year in when data was sold to recover costs to over 4 million downloads a year in the first full year of free access.
Box 5: Some economic advantages of open access to data
The United States makes complete weather data available to anyone at the cost of reproduction. . . . European countries, by contrast, typically claim government copyright over weather data and often require the payment of substantial fees. Which approach is better? . . . The US weather risk management industry, for example, is ten times bigger than the European one, employing more people, producing more valuable products, generating more social wealth. Another study estimates that Europe invests €9.5bn in weather data and gets approximately €68bn back in economic value - in everything from more efficient farming and construction decisions, to better holiday planning - a 7-fold multiplier. The United States, by contrast invests twice as much - €19bn - but gets back a return of €750bn, a 39-fold multiplier. Other studies suggest similar patterns in areas ranging from geo-spatial data to traffic patterns and agriculture. “Free” information flow is better at priming the pump of economic activity.
James Boyle: 2005. Public information wants to be free (PDF), Financial Times, February 24. Original reference can be found here.
7.4: Social Benefits of PSI
Many of the social benefits derived from PSI are not quantifiable in strict economic terms but they improve our lives in myriad ways. Australia’s cultural institutions, such as the NLA, the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, the Australian War Memorial and the NAA, have all have made extensive parts of their collections available online, and freely available. They are all using Web 2.0 tools and engaging the community to improve their collections.
Most of the examples in this section are a perfect illustration of the intrinsic connection between open access to PSI and online collaboration. For open access online not only optimises the extent to which the information or ‘content’ can be encountered by the public but, if given the change the public invariably add great value not just by detecting and correcting errors, but by contributing content of great value themselves. For example, as the NAA explained in its submission to this inquiry, its website Mapping our Anzacs:
“... was built quickly on a small budget, with resultant limitations in terms of usability, but it indicates the potential for citizen collaboration. In nine months, the Archives has received hundreds of corrections to the names of service personnel, next of kin, and places of birth and enlistment, and 1800 public contributions to the digital scrapbook have extended and enhanced the archival account of World War I service. Additionally, feedback via the site suggests that the public is willing to do more, including offers from individuals to undertake bulk data correction…The Mapping our Anzacs experience suggests that exposing the public to government processes – rather than limiting their exposure to finished products – can be intrinsically motivating for public users, making them feel honoured to be trusted to help and appreciative of the opportunity to be involved.”
National Archives of Australia , Submission to Towards Government 2.0: An Issues Paper, p.19 http://gov2.net.au/submissions/.
1
Since 2007, the NLA has had historic Australian newspapers scanned and digitised by optical character recognition software. It has then published the resulting text on the web in such a way as to permit the public to correct errors produced by the optical character recognition software (The site has a league table of “Top Text-Correctors”. As at 10 Nov 2009 2100 the list was headed by jhempenstall with 288,593 corrections.). The result has been spectacular:
- In the first month of use over 200,000 lines of text were corrected. Today over six million lines of text have been corrected;
- At no point since early in the program has there been a time when text correction is not taking place. It continues 24 hours a day 7 days a week;
- 78% of users are based in Australia but there is a growing international community with users in the UK, US, NZ and Canada. One of the top ten correctors was based in US;
- No vandalism of text was detected in six months so no roll back to previous versions or moderation was required (Holley, Rose, 2009. “Many Hands Make Light Work: Public Collaborative OCR Text Correction in Australian Historic Newspapers” (PDF), National Library of Australia. March. Museums and archives are inviting the public to correct and enrich their collections with their own knowledge and artefacts.).
As a major volunteer contributor to the NLA’s Newspaper Digitisation Program explained it to the Taskforce:
Yes it can be addictive. For me I value the opportunity to leave my own slight impression or watermark upon Australian historiography.
In the history of the National Library of Australia the Newspaper Digitisation Program may well be seen as a watershed in how the institution very successfully (and accidentally) reached out to the user population, and received a level of commitment and engagement that was beyond belief.
Similar projects aimed at improving, expanding and adding value to PSI are happening outside Australia, for example, Your Archives was launched in beta in April 2007 by The National Archives in the UK. It is a wiki that allows people to submit both articles about historical subjects and articles about records in The National Archives’ collection. People can also use the site to collaborate with others on research projects and can edit other pages. The site does however retain a number of restrictions on the use of its data. (The Terms and Conditions of Your Archives state that the content of Your Archives may only be used for personal, non commercial purposes. It also does not permit copying and pasting extracts from Your Archives into other online sources. Users may only hyperlink to the relevant part of Your Archives rather than including pages from Your Archives in frames on their site. All pages from Your Archives must load into the user's entire window.)
In education in Australia we are relying increasingly on students choosing their preferred tertiary education institutions and even their local primary and secondary schools. Yet we actively hide information from parents and students about the quality of those institutions. We collect information at substantial public cost but then suppress the information so it cannot be accessed by students eager to use it to determine which institutions offer the best service for them. By contrast in the UK similar information is available to students creating obvious incentives for schools to improve their performance. (www.unistats.com. Note: The relevant student opinion information is released in the UK – unlike in Australia – but it is still released subject to copyright which prevents others adding value to it without permission. Gruen 2008 argues that substantial additional value could be added to it and it is likely that some of this would be added if the data were permissively licensed.)
7.5: Taskforce use of PSI
Through its MashupAustralia contest the Taskforce sought to provide a practical demonstration of how an open access approach to Australian PSI could be achieved and the benefits it can generate. In conjunction with the contest, the Taskforce worked with 15 Australian Government agencies and, through the Online Communications Council’s Digital Economy Working Group, with state and territory governments to release over 50 datasets on licensing terms and in formats that permit and encourage use and reuse at data.australia.gov.au.
1
Box 6: Hack, Mash and Innovate!
The Taskforce invited web developers and designers to show why open access to Australian Government information is good for our economy and society by holding the “MashupAustralia” contest. Cash prizes of up to $10,000 were offered for “excellence in mashing” and special prizes were offered for students and the “data transformation challenge”.
To support MashupAustralia, the experimental site data.australia.gov.au was launched to host the 68 datasets made available for the contest by federal and state agencies under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC BY) licence. Datasets already available under CC BY or equivalent terms (such as the ABS catalogue) were also available to competitors.
One of the early lessons learnt was that most government datasets aren’t available in “mashable” formats, so the Taskforce added a “data transformation challenge” to the contest to reward entrants who put in extra effort to enhance datasets or convert them from proprietary and Web 1.0 formats like CSV into formats which more readily facilitated transformation on Web 2.0 like RDF, XML, JSON and KML. MashupAustralia was greeted with overwhelming support from the web community and this enthusiasm was also evident in the ‘hack’ events that were held in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra with the support of Google, Microsoft, Lonely Planet, OpenAustralia, CSIRO and others.
The Taskforce also commissioned the organisers of the highly successful Web Directions Conferences to host a Government endorsed hack day in Canberra called “GovHack” at which over 100 developers collaborated on their mashups with support from international and local mentors, including hack day veterans Matthew Cashmore (Lonely Planet) and Tom Coates (Yahoo! US).
In addition to generating some high quality entries for MashupAustralia, GovHack also gave developers the opportunity to interact with some of the public servants who manage the datasets, and it was clear that there was much that these two communities can learn from each other.
In total over 82 entries were submitted for MashupAustralia, which is fantastic in a five week timeframe and well on par with other mashup contests globally.
Chapter 8: The policy context
8.1: Freedom of Information (FOI)
The Ministers announcing this Taskforce noted that it:
“... builds on our FOI reforms to date by seeking to free up government data and information to enhance government accountability. It will also allow business and others to innovate with government information so that it is more useful and compelling to others.”
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) , introduced by the Fraser Government in 1982 and subsequently by all States, allows members of the public to access information held by government, though significant quantities of information are either exempt or excluded from access. The underlying rationale for exemption is that the public interest in access to documents is, in some cases, outweighed by the public interest in maintaining their confidence, e.g. in the case of documents containing information that, if publicly released, would damage the defence of the Commonwealth or reveal Cabinet deliberations.
The Rudd Government has committed to reform the practice of FOI and in November 2008 put forward the first stage of its FOI reform agenda. The Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009 subsequently commenced on 7 October 2009, and repealed the power to issue conclusive certificates in the FOI Act and the Archives Act 1983. Changes to the fees and charges associated with FOI requests have also been put forward in March 2009 via the Freedom of Information (Fees and Charges) Amendment Regulation which seeks to reduce or make free of charges applications for some government information.
The second stage of the reform agenda will seek a number of changes to the legislation underpinning the release of government information via two new bills, the Information Commissioner Bill 2009 and Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009, which in their proposed forms, create a new Australian Government Office of the Information Commissioner (PDF) and amend the FOI Act and Archives Act (PDF). Although the second stage of the legislative reform is yet to be passed by Parliament, and may therefore be subject to amendments and changes during its passage, the Taskforce strongly endorses in principle the nature of the changes in the reform agenda, and considers legislative reform an essential precursor and enabler to Government 2.0.
In particular, the Taskforce endorses the FOI reforms focus on (see letter from Senator Faulkner to Secretaries, dated 30 April 2009, “Open Government And Freedom Of Information):
- Ensuring that the right of access to documents under the FOI Act is as comprehensive as it can be, limited only where there is a stronger public interest in withholding access to documents;
- Giving greater weight to the role that the FOI Act serves in the pro-active publication of government information; and
- Introducing structural reforms, including creating a new Australian Government Office of the Information Commissioner, to provide a platform for system wide information policy development across government.
The Taskforce is particularly encouraged that amendments to the objects clause of the FOI Act are proposed, putting forward a strengthened underlying rationale of the Act. The proposed new objects clause will read as follows (see letter from Senator Faulkner to Secretaries, dated 30 April 2009, “Open Government And Freedom Of Information):
- The objects of this Act are to give the Australian community access to information held by the Australian Government, by:
(a) requiring agencies to publish the information; and
- The Parliament intends, by these objects, to promote Australia’s representative democracy by contributing towards the following:
(a) increasing public participation in Government processes, with a view to promoting better informed decision making;and
- The Parliament also intends, by these objects, to increase recognition that information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource;
- The Parliament also intends that functions and powers given by this Act are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.
The Taskforce understands that these proposed amendments signal that the intention of the FOI reform is to promote Australia’s representative democracy by increasing public participation in government processes, with a view to promoting better-informed decision making and increasing scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities. Both of these objectives are central to Government 2.0 thinking and practice. Thus if passed through parliament as proposed, the amended FOI legislation will provide a solid basis upon which to build Government 2.0 in Australia.
A central objective of the Government’s FOI reform agenda is “to increase recognition that information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource.” (See Freedom of Information (FOI) Companion Guide, p10 (PDF)) Discussion of PSI as a national resource is at Chapter 7. The new FOI principles of openness, transparency and accountability, when adopted by the APS, are an essential precondition for many of the goals of Government 2.0 to be met.
8.2 Proposed new Australian Government Information Commissioner
Following the first stage FOI reforms undertaken by the Government in November 2008, (see section 7.1 Freedom of Information (FOI)), proposed changes to legislation still being considered by Australia’s Parliament include a Bill (Information Commissioner Bill 2009) outlining the establishment of a new statutory function in the form of an Australian Government Office of the Information Commissioner, to ensure that the Government’s policy of establishing a pro-disclosure culture and open government is delivered.
In light of the fact that the proposed legislation outlines a new Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC), within which a newly created Freedom of Information Commissioner position will sit, the Taskforce is encouraged that a more permissive approach to information management and government engagement appears likely. The establishment of the proposed new Information Commissioner function will create the structural and functional basis for a Government 2.0 agenda. In particular, the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 (FOI Amendment Act) acknowledges that the functions and powers given by the legislation “are to be performed and exercised, as far as possible, to facilitate and promote public access to information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.”
1
Within the context of Government 2.0, the proposed responsibilities listed below are considered by the Taskforce to be important mechanisms to drive cultural change in the APS with regard to information disclosure and release (the Information Commission Bill gives the Information Commissioner three function, namely the ‘information commissioner functions’ which are concerned with reporting to government on broader government information management, the ‘FOI functions’ which are responsibilities relating to oversighting the FOI Act and the ‘privacy functions’ which are responsibilities relating to privacy including under the Privacy Act.):
- The Information Commissioner is to report to the Minister responsible for the Information Commissioner legislation on broader information management matters (beyond FOI and privacy). The Information Commissioner is to be assisted in this function by an Information Advisory Committee comprising senior officials from key agencies and suitably qualified persons external to government;
- The Information Commissioner also has a number of responsibilities in connection with the proposed new agency information publication scheme, including assisting agencies to identify and prepare information for publication and to issue guidelines for that scheme. It could be expected that the Information Commissioner’s broader information management functions, as supported by the Advisory Committee, would continuously inform responsibilities for the information publication scheme;
- It is proposed that the new Freedom of Information Commissioner will have investigative powers with respect to complaints in relation to agencies’ adherence with the new FOI legislation. Specifically, new processes are proposed whereby the Information Commissioner would have discretion to investigate an action taken by an agency in the performance of its functions or exercise of its power under the FOI Act, and/or investigate agencies’ conduct upon complaint by a member of the public. The Information Commissioner would then be empowered to issue a notice on completion of his/her investigation, which may include recommendations that the agency should implement, or take further steps if he or she is not satisfied these recommendations are properly implemented (for example, reporting the matter to the relevant Minister). The Taskforce considers the proposed investigative powers appropriate;
- The Information Commissioner Bill 2009 proposes that the Information Commissioner will have a review and reporting function with respect to how agencies are complying with the Information Publication Scheme and the Australian Government’s policy and practice with respect to information management and the systems used for information management. The Taskforce supports the establishment of a robust review and reporting function, and notes that the lessons generated are likely to capture considerable value (for example in ongoing policy development, agency benchmarking) for agencies and the new Office of the Information Commissioner alike.
In their submission in response to the Issues Paper, the NSW Young Lawyers noted that:
“Many state and territory governments utilise the role of an Information Commissioner which operates to promote access to government held information and the protection of personal and other sensitive information held by governments. However, such a role appears reactionary – ensuring compliance with laws by government departments and monitoring and reporting on the performance of government agencies. In order for government to better administer access to PSI and overcome any perceived cultural challenges around disclosure of PSI, government could utilise the office of the Information Commissioner to take a more proactive step in the identification of information to be made available, and the appropriate disclosure and maintenance of such information, according to national (or international) standards.”
NSW Young Lawyers, Submission to Towards Government 2.0: An Issues Paper, p 4, http://gov2.net.au/submissions/
In a similar vein, in their submission, the NAA saw areas where they and the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner could work collaboratively to help deliver Government 2.0, observing that:
“There are three primary areas where Archives and the [proposed] OIC could work collaboratively:
-
- coordination of government information management policy, guidance and practice through the OIC Information Advisory Committee, recognising the Archives’ status as a lead agency in government information management;
- development of guidelines for the publication of information in the public domain, consistent with the proposed FOI Act reforms, with the consequent realisation of associated recordkeeping issues in the short and long term; and
- development of best practice in the management and appropriate publication of information released to the public arising from individual FOI applications.
The Archives and the [proposed] OIC and other relevant agencies, should develop strong cooperative and collaborative links both within the Information Advisory Committee, and separately with the Archives as a lead agency in this area. Development of such links will augment the development and delivery of Government 2.0 to all Australians.”
National Archives of Australia Submission to Towards Government 2.0: An Issues Paper, pp 21, http://gov2.net.au/submissions/
Australia can potentially learn from the experience that the UK Government has had with their Information Commissioner and The National Archives in UK working together. In their submission NAA noted that:
A Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom Information Commissioner and the United Kingdom National Archives sets out how they will work together on promoting and monitoring a code of practice, issued under the Freedom of Information Act, which prescribes good practice in records management and applies to all FOI authorities and other bodies subject to the Public Records Act 1958. This could serve as a good model for cooperative arrangements between the National Archives of Australia and the proposed Office of the Information Commissioner.
National Archives of Australia Submission to Towards Government 2.0: An Issues Paper, pp 21-22, http://gov2.net.au/submissions/
Taken together, the reforms to FOI and related legislation already made in conjunction with the proposed reforms to be considered by Parliament in 2010, are likely to create within the Australian Government a statutory office which has as its objectives key elements of the Government 2.0 agenda.
The Taskforce notes that the creation of an Office of the Information Commissioner empowered to adopt a proactive approach towards achieving “whole-of-government” information management would be an important enabling step toward greater recognition that government information is a national resource to be used for public purposes.
8.3: What Public Sector Reform is happening in the Australian Public Service (APS) and how will it impact on Government 2.0?
8.3.1: Reform of Australian Government Administration On 3 September 2009, the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, announced the formation of an Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration (the Moran Review) with the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Terry Moran AO, as Chair.
The Advisory Group will deliver a blueprint for reform of Australian Government administration by early 2010. The blueprint will outline steps needed to rejuvenate the APS and enable it to serve the government of the day in addressing the challenges facing Australia in the 21st century.
The Advisory Group has released a discussion paper that canvasses a number of issues and raises a series of questions for discussion with the Australian people and public service. The paper indicates that the Advisory Group’s discussion will framed by the government’s stated expectations of the public service (Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the world’s best public service (PDF), pg 8):
- Having a values-driven culture that retains public trust;
- Providing high-quality, forward-looking and creative policy advice;
- Delivering high-quality programs and services that put the citizen first;
- Providing flexible and agile responses to changing realities and government priorities; and
- Being effective and efficient in all operations.
The discussion paper also notes that the fundamental purpose of the APS has remained constant [since federation]. With strong roots in the Westminster system, the APS (Reform of Australian Government Administration: Building the world’s best public service (PDF), pg 1):
- Serves the government of the day, including by striving to be a professional and rational advocate of ideas that are in the best long-term interests of Australia;
- Fulfils important accountability responsibilities, through Ministers, to the Parliament; and
- Serves the public, within the policy and program framework determined by the government.
The Moran Review has mooted an aspiration for the public service in which it strives to put “Australia and Australians at the centre of everything we do”. Web 2.0 tools and approaches provide one of the most powerful ways of achieving that goal we have. Government 2.0 can provide Australians with unprecedented opportunities to collaborate in a wide range of functions of government and to be more actively consulted about others. (See http://www.pmc.gov.au/consultation/aga_reform/index.cfm for detailed information.)
8.3.2: Review of the National Innovation System
The report on the Review of the National Innovation System, Venturous Australia—Building Strength in Innovation (the Cutler Review), was released by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator the Hon Kim Carr, on Tuesday, 9 September 2008. The Review, undertaken by Dr Terry Cutler and an expert panel, received over 700 submissions from a wide range of stakeholders and held consultation sessions around Australia.
The report identified that Australia's innovation system requires renewal, refurbishment, recasting and, where necessary, re-imagining, and included 72 recommendations. The recommendations cover a wide cross-section of the innovation system. They include:
- Increasing funding for publicly funded research agencies;
- The replacement of the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Concession with a Tax Credit system; and
- A new competitive innovation grants programme for industry.
The report also covers areas viewed as critical for improving the innovation system, such as human capital, innovation in the public sector, government procurement, and governance issues.
The Government is considering the recommendations of the report, as well as the comments and feedback received, in its development of a White Paper on Innovation. The White Paper will provide a robust 10-year framework to develop innovative performance across all areas of Australia’s national innovation system. The White Paper is due to be delivered early 2010.
This review impacts directly on the work of the Government 2.0 Taskforce. The review made recommendations relating to innovation and the use of Web 2.0 technology in the broad economy and in government that have directly influenced the considerations of the Government 2.0 Taskforce.
8.3.3 Advancing Public Sector Innovation
Arising from the Cutler Report, the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Innovation) is leading a cross-government project to investigate how to advance innovation within and by the public sector under the auspices of the Management Advisory Committee (MAC). The project is expected to report the MAC by the end of 2009. (See http://www.pmc.gov.au/consultation/aga_reform/index.cfm for detailed information.)
The project will develop recommendations and a strategy for how the public sector can foster an innovation culture that tackles barriers to innovation and shares and rewards innovative practices. It will look at how the public sector can:
- Encourage ‘bottom-up’ innovation;
- Use new technologies and platforms to increase collaboration and to facilitate, disseminate and promote innovative practices;
- Identify and address barriers to public sector innovation;
- Use innovative mechanisms such as pilots and trials;
- Draw on external expertise and ideas from citizens and stakeholders; and
- Use the above measures to improve service delivery.
This project and the Taskforce’s work are complementary and the team undertaking MAC project has worked closely with the Taskforce.
8.3.4: APSC interim protocols on online media participation
Interim protocols were published by the APSC in December 2008. Their intention was to provide interim guidance to agencies and public servants using, or planning to use, online media to communicate with clients and stakeholders. However they were widely viewed as not encouraging public servants to use social media.
The APSC has consulted widely, including with the Taskforce on new guidelines with a focus on encouraging public servants to grasp the opportunities that social media provide whilst staying true to APS Values and Code of Conduct. The revised guidelines recognise the opportunities that Web 2.0 provides for public servants to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community.
The Taskforce was very pleased to see the APSC’s new Guidelines. The Guidelines are provided in Box 7.
Box 7:New APSC Guidelines for online engagement by public servants
Web 2.0 provides public servants with unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community. In a professional and respectful manner, APS employees should engage in robust policy conversations.
Equally, as citizens, APS employees should also embrace the opportunity to add to the mix of opinions contributing to sound, sustainable policies and service delivery approaches. Employees should also consider carefully whether they should identify themselves as either an APS employee or an employee of their agency.
There are some ground rules. The APS Values and Code of Conduct, including Public Service Regulation 2.1, apply to working with online media in the same way as when participating in any other public forum. The requirements include:
- being apolitical, impartial and professional;
- behaving with respect and courtesy, and without harassment;
- dealing appropriately with information, recognising that some information needs to remain confidential;
- delivering services fairly, effectively, impartially and courteously to the Australian public;
- being sensitive to the diversity of the Australian public;
- taking reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest;
- making proper use of Commonwealth resources;
- upholding the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS.
APS employees need to ensure that they fully understand the APS Values and Code of Conduct and how they apply to official or personal communications. If in doubt, they should stop and think about whether to comment and what to say, refer to the Code of Conduct, consult their agency’s policies, seek advice from someone in authority in their agency, or consult the Ethics Advisory Service in the Australian Public Service Commission.
3
Agencies may find it helpful to provide guidance and training to employees in using ICT resources, including personal use, the use of social media, and any rules or policies about representing their agency online. It would be particularly helpful to workshop scenarios around some of the more complex or ‘grey’ issues that arise for employees in deciding whether and how to participate online, in the performance of their duties or otherwise, consistent with the above principles.
Chapter 9: Challenges to greater online collaboration
Will Rogers famously said that “everybody is ignorant, just on different subjects.” But one of the lessons of modern social media is that the reverse is also true: everyone is knowledgeable, just on different subjects. And social media provides unique ways to tap into that knowledge.
Bittle, Haller and KadlecScott Bittle, Chris Haller and Alison Kadlec, 2009, “Promising Practices In Online Engagement”.
The remaining chapters of this report consider the challenges which must be met if we are to achieve all that Government 2.0 promises. This chapter considers the need for whole of government co-ordination and leadership through a single government agency. The remainder of this chapter and subsequent chapters consider:
- Challenges to greater online collaboration by government agencies and their officers;
- Challenges to achieving open PSI; and,
- Other issues and challenges.
The Taskforce’s recommendations follow from its consideration of the challenges and obstacles in our way at present.
9.1: The need for systematic changes to policy and culture: the case for ‘whole of government’ management
A paradox looms large in our understanding of the dilemmas of Government 2.0.
All the most prominent Web 2.0 platforms are available for free on the internet and essentially function as community assets or public goods. (The technical definition of a public good in economics is that it is available to all without exclusion and the consumption of the good by one party does interfere with its consumption by another. Classic public goods in economics textbooks are defence and lighthouses. (Web 2.0 platforms are typically super public goods because the value of the network rises with each participant.). Yet remarkably, though a central rationale for governments is the provision of public goods because individual firms have insufficient incentive to do so, none of the major public goods of Web 2.0 have been built by governments. (Though the public good lies at the centre of the system, the initial engineering of the internet itself and some of the fundamental software of the worldwide web have been projects of government. Other public goods of Web 2.0 have been built by the commercial sector and by individuals or organisations not primarily motivated by profit.)
Not only have governments been largely absent in building Web 2.0 platforms, they are experiencing great difficulty in taking to the new medium. Web 2.0 evolved from the thousands of experiments in building value on the web. The culture that emerged was perfectly suited to capturing the extraordinary possibilities of this most creative, flexible and adaptive of mediums – personal, immediate, provisional and, in consequence, informal. All these things mean that mistakes in the Web 2.0 world can be and are made readily but they are equally readily corrected, sometimes by the original contributor, sometimes by other users.
The practice of Government, generally stands in contrast to this approach. Instead of being immediate, government announcements and actions can take some time to be forthcoming while all possible stakeholders are consulted and points of view are considered. Instead of being informal, government-speak is quite formal with each word chosen very carefully. Government processes are set up to minimise, if not completely avoid, the chance of making a mistake.
1
The significance of this state of affairs for the task at hand is substantial. For the existing ways of working are ingrained and supported not just by an array of long standing and mutually reinforcing policy settings but by a well established set of preferences, practices and tacit understandings. In short, for Government 2.0 to properly emerge we need to change the ways we develop policy in a coordinated way and we need a transformation in culture in order to achieve this. This task cannot be done in a piecemeal way. Rather it is necessary for direction to be given by those with a ‘whole-of-government’ authority and accountability to coordinate action and deliver the required changes,. As the draft of a consultancy report to the Taskforce on entrenching Government 2.0 has observed:
“... the range of interest and accountabilities engaged is very broad. This obviously reflects the breadth of the cultural change agenda mentioned in many places in this report. It also reflects the stage in the change process where both behaviours and ownership are not yet embedded in the line and have yet to become “the way we do things round here”. In the meantime, concerted effort from a range of agencies at the centre of government is needed to drive the required cultural and institutional shifts. (Project 13: Gov 2.0 Governance and Institutions: Embedding the 2.0 agenda in the APS, Mike Waller, Heuris Partners Ltd. Similar approaches have been adopted in relation to a range of other cross cutting issues at Commonwealth and State level, e.g. in relation to gender and other equity issues, climate change, sustainable development which have progressed from central agency pre-occupations towards broad accountability across line agencies. The same has been true of health and safety performance in companies.)
- Who within government at a department/agency level owns and is ultimately accountable for delivery of the broad Government 2.0 agenda after the Taskforce winds up in December 2009?;
- Are existing roles and responsibilities clear for critical elements of delivery of Government 2.0 and are there any roles that are missing or that require strengthening/clearer specification?
The Taskforce is particularly concerned that these questions be properly addressed and for that reason makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 2 – Coordinate with leadership, guidance and support
An existing agency should be appointed lead agency with overall responsibility for Government 2.0 policy and advancing the Government 2.0 agenda providing leadership, guidance and support to agencies and public servants on Government 2.0 issues. Its work program should be developed in consultation with relevant agencies, for example:
- The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet;
- The proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner;
- The Department of Finance and Deregulation;
- The Australian Public Service Commission;
- The National Archives of Australia;
- The Australian Bureau of Statistics;
- The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.
This is not to preclude the possibility of one of the listed agencies being or including the lead agency.
9.2: Getting to first base: accessing the tools
Until there’s clear guidance from the government and from central agencies that not only is it OK for public servants to engage online (within the appropriate framework) – but that they are encouraged and empowered to do so and cannot be marginalised, bullied or otherwise sidelined by their superiors for engaging appropriately – we are not going to get far with Government 2.0 in Australia.
Craig Thomler, Australian Public Servant and blogger. 31st October 2009, Taskforce Blog at http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper…/#comment-3260
Access to work tools like web-based email, collaborative work spaces and instant messaging create powerful new possibilities for collaboration particularly where collaborators are physically apart. Likewise Twitter, Facebook and blogs provide access to professional information and conversation. Yet not enough public servants have work access to these building blocks of Government 2.0. None of the public servants on the Taskforce or members of the secretariat had access to instant messaging despite the fact that it was an important collaborative tool for other Taskforce members, and several public servants when working from home.
One public servant responded to the invocation for public servants to “feel free and encouraged to engage in robust professional discussion online” as follows:
Public Servant, Taskforce Blog, 23rd Oct 2009 at http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/10/21/if-you-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%e2%80%a6/#comment-2607
On the Department of Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy’s Future Directions of the Digital Economy blog another public servant observed:
One of the most important enablers of access to the "digital economy" is a broadband internet connection. Yet, even many government departments are faced with inadequate connectivity. The ACCC, for example, shares a paltry 4mbit connection between 600 staff members.
The "Digital Economy blog team" themselves have validated YouTube as an important part of the internet. Employees at many government departments aren't able to view your YouTube channel because the site has been blocked.
How does DBCDE hope to bring the "digital economy" to Rural Australians when the government can't even bring it to its own employees?
Public Servant, 10 December 2008, Digital Economy Blog at http://www.archive.dbcde.gov.au/2009/july/future_directions_blog/topics/digital_economy_benefit/public_servant
As a practical matter, the lack of access to the tools makes online engagement impossible. As one public servant commented, having been referred to the Taskforce’s blog: “Just tried to hit the link you included ..This site has been categorised as "Political/Activist Groups/Blogs/Personal Pages”. In addition networks grow in usefulness as they gain members so each public servant absent from the network degrades its usefulness for others. Further demand for such tools is also a function of their supply, because people learn how to use them and their potential usefulness by using them.
Sometimes it is difficult to build access to all Web 2.0 tools for legitimate security reasons. Thus for instance web-mail typically uses encrypted tunnels which may necessitate expensive additional investment to secure against malware. But some reasons which cite security for not giving access are less convincing. For instance social networking tools are frequently taken to raise risks of people voluntarily disclosing confidential information. Management also often consider such tools to facilitate time wasting. Yet employees have any number of opportunities to leak confidential information should they be so minded. An inability to control time wasting looks more like a management problem than a good reason to forsake the productive use of Web 2.0 tools. In each case if necessary, conduct on the internet can be kept under much closer surveillance than most employee activities.
9.3: Online Engagement
Engagement is the central theme of this report. It deals with the connection of people to information so that knowledge assets can be re-used to create new and often unexpected value. It deals as well with the growing opportunities for more effective collaboration with citizens in different dimensions of government – policy development, regulatory reform, program and service design. The promise of Government 2.0 is to lift the quality and impact of engagement with the business of governing.
- How can agencies harness the potential of Web 2.0 tools to make their interaction with the public and others outside the agency more mutually rewarding, satisfying and productive?;
- What opportunities does Web 2.0 create to improve the work of individual public servants? How can the tools best leverage their existing expertise, further develop that expertise, improve the quality of their deliberations, extend the range of their information sources and improve the skill and ease with which they assess issues and offer possible solutions?
9.3.1: Online engagement by agencies
To achieve Government 2.0 agencies need to:
- Take much greater advantage of tools and practices to capture the expertise and experience of citizens, service users and front-line public service workers to enrich the knowledge from which public policy and service delivery decisions are made;
- Use Web 2.0 tools as a major contribution to the task of refreshing and renewing the public service as a critical institution in Australia’s governance;
- Recognise that the more open and connected techniques of communication and knowledge sharing should also fuel innovation in the search for new responses to the difficult policy challenges of a complex, networked world; and
- Use these tools internally to engage with their own staff and with staff across the public service.
However there is growing evidence from Australia and around the world that public sector agencies are experimenting with the growing array of social networking tools and applications.
Mosman Council in Sydney uses Twitter. In New York, a website, SeeThroughNY is giving a clearer view of how state and local tax dollars are spent, allowing taxpayers to share, analyse and compare data from other jurisdictions and authorities. Intellipedia, is a Wikipedia-inspired tool to make it easier for the multiple agencies involved in homeland security in the US to collaborate and speed up the provision of high-quality and timely advice to the government.
The UK Department of Innovation created widgets that allow people to lift consultation questions onto their own websites. The State Government in Utah created the first iPhone app for government, which allows people to lookup agencies and services and news from Utah.gov.
The rapid growth of examples from governments around the world has prompted a suitably Web 2.0 response:(http://government20bestpractices.pbworks.com/) collects examples of good practice with government 2.0 applications and solutions around the world. A page on Victoria Online collects examples of Victorian agencies using Facebook specifically as part of their social media and networking strategies. In Australia, companies like Bang The Table are using social networking platforms to lift the quality of the discussion around sometimes contentious policy issues. Recent issues include the rail line into the central business district of Newcastle, Hornsby Shire Council’s housing strategy and the update of the Canberra social plan have used Bang The Table’s platform.
More examples of agencies embracing the potential of Web 2.0 tools and capabilities emerged from one of the projects commissioned by the Taskforce. In its report Adoption, Barriers, Best Practice and Recommendations of Web 2.0 in Government, e8 Consulting has provided some valuable evidence from contemporary Australian practice at least at the federal level which reinforces that record of innovation.
In the US, the Hope Street Group is experimenting with what it described as “policy 2.0”, opening up the policy making process with new collaboration platforms. Using the Jive community platform 22 K-12 educators, six private sector professionals, and eight participants from the civil society sector across 17 states collaborated online and produced recommendations for teacher evaluation systems. The Hope Street group noted that the most exciting thing about the collaboration platform “is that it puts the power to craft real policy solutions in the hands of the is experimenting with what it described as “policy 2.0”, opening up the policy making process with new collaboration platforms.
The recommendations from the process were published in a report. The story noted that the most exciting thing about the collaboration platform “is that it puts the power to craft real policy solutions in the hands of the engaged citizen, whether that citizen is a teacher who wants to have input in the policy that impact his/her livelihood, or a community member motivated by a desire to improve a failing school district.”
Emerging practice, as outlined in Chapter Five, is moving beyond ‘consultation’ towards true policy collaboration between those within and those outside government agencies. That implies a shift in thinking and practice at both a cultural and managerial level in the public service. The promise of Government 2.0, at least in part, is to spread the search for both formal and experiential, or informal, expertise to find ways more effectively to integrate that knowledge into the deliberation and decision-making process.
These are challenges that will be true for large private and civil society organisations as well as for those in the public sector. They need to give rise to a culture of leadership and accountability that is appropriate in this more fluid, contingent and relational world.
In many ways, these concerns reflect an underlying tension between a social networking culture that is essentially open, collaborative and can turn up the unexpected innovation and a public service that, sometimes for good reasons, continues to be a culture of control, hierarchy and predictability. Several conclusions can be drawn about the experience of agencies in the wider use of online engagement tools:
- Where it is done well, online engagement can open up both new sources of input and contribution to policy discussions and take the notion of engagement beyond traditional ‘consultation’;
- Issues of control can be contentious as agencies seek to harness the promise of a richer mix of voices and ideas that a social networking strategy offers while, at the same time, remaining anxious to control an agenda and ‘steer’ conversations;
- There seems to be limited use of social networking and other online engagement tools for the work of collaboration inside agencies and between public sector agencies; and
- There also seems to be limited use of these tools in the policy development process and even fewer examples of what could be described as genuine ‘co-production’. Online engagement by agencies needs guidance and support.
As discussed earlier in this report, there are a set of blockers, like culture, security and privacy, that have been used as reasons for the limited current use of online engagement by Australian Government agencies. Whilst policy change can assist in the transition, a good deal of the change will only happen as a result of increased training and support. The lead agency needs to work with relevant agencies to develop and provide:
- Education in the form of guidance and training. These needs to focus on real issues and what is the noise so that decision makers can make good decisions about engaging online. It should also include a series of ‘how to’ guides for agencies on engaging online and using Web 2.0 tools;
- Support in the form of contact officers who can be asked questions by agencies and provide a ‘help desk’ for online engagement advice;
- Tools: the Australian Government needs to establish a Government 2.0 toolkit to give agencies a menu of tools and approaches to choose from. The toolkit could include tips on and access to preferred software – accessible with pre-negotiated licences. The lead agency could also provide access to established networks of expertise – for instance in providing community engagement, moderation and other services. It could also extend to the provision of services such as a blogging platform removing the requirement for agencies that did not wish to, leaving them to focus on achieving outcomes not running the process.
Box 8: At Arm's Length
Several major agencies have commissioned work that demonstrates the value of online engagement. While these sites have not been run by the agencies themselves, they do provide access to communities of interest who are discussing issues, sharing information and content and providing a platform for agencies to observe the conversation. In a sense the agency can conduct consultation and engagement “at arm’s length”
The Human Rights E-Forum: The Forum was established by the Institute for Cultural Diversity with funding from the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to provide a place for people to discuss issues of human rights in a cultural diversity context. The AHRC participates by providing content and by monitoring the discussions.
The Homelessness Information Clearinghouse: FaHCSIA funded the development of this information site to provide news and information specifically for organisations involved in the delivery of homelessness services. This site also includes a platform for communities of practice. Several of these include members from within government and outside.
Human Rights consultation: The Open Forum was commissioned to run an online consultation on the Human Rights in Australia. This was a time limited engagement rather than an ongoing conversation, but demonstrated that existing tools and expertise can be harnessed to provide effective consultation, without the need for agencies to manage the entire process in-house.
9.3.2: Online engagement by agencies needs to be reported
Agencies need to accelerate or even embark on their use of Web 2.0 technology and adopt a more open and collaborative culture if they are to see the benefits that can arise from Government 2.0. Government, the public and agencies themselves must also be able to measure the progress they are making. The APSC reports on a range of activities across the APS in its annual State of the Service Report. Its report for this financial year contains the first systematic information we have on which agencies are using Web 2.0 tools like Twitter and Facebook. The APSC’s reporting on the use of Web 2.0 tools should be developed further to support the measurement and reporting of agencies’ progress towards Government 2.0.
Recommendation 3 - Improve guidance and require agencies to engage online
To make government more consultative, participatory and transparent, the lead agency, in consultation with other relevant agencies, should issue and maintain guidance to improve the extent and quality of online engagement by agencies.
Within the framework of this guidance, and in conjunction with the lead agency, all major agencies should:
- Identify barriers within their organisation which inhibit online engagement and develop and explain what they will do to reduce these barriers within 12 months of the Government’s response to this report;
- Within 12 months of the Government’s response to this report, each agency will identify specific projects to make use of social networking and ‘crowd sourcing’ tools and techniques to enhance agency policymaking, implementation and continuous improvement;
- Within 12 months of the Government’s response to this report, each agency will identify specific projects to increase the use of online tools and platforms for internal collaboration within their agency and between agencies that they work with across the public sector;
- The APSC to include in the annual State of the Service Report details of agencies’ progress in implementing the above recommendations, covering successes, disappointments and learnings.
Subject to security and privacy requirements, all public inquiries funded by the Australian Government should ensure that all submissions are posted online in a form that makes them searchable, easy to comment on and re-use. The Government 2.0 lead agency should encourage those conducting inquiries to use interactive media such as blogs to publicly discuss emerging lines of thought and issues of relevance.
9.4: Public Servants, Public, Private and Professional Practice
Virtually all formal organisations distinguish between the official activities of their employees and agents and their private conduct. The distinction is central to the culture of the public service. The APS Code of Conduct and associated documents have well developed protocols for making these distinctions, although the issues remain inescapably subtle and require considerable judgement in their application.
However, between the ideal types of a public servant officially putting forward an agency’s position and one speaking in a private capacity there is much middle ground. In negotiating this terrain, public servants may find official stipulations, codes of conduct and other guidance useful. Yet for the distinction to be practically useful, they must have an intuitive ‘feel’ for how they apply as they negotiate the public space of the internet in ‘real time’.
To date public servants have taken an extremely cautious approach. There is a rich array of blogs hosted from within Australia and elsewhere which provide a valuable avenue for professional discussion. It is true that such blogs sometimes descend into party political debate and even acrimony. It is appropriate that officials avoid public debate of this kind unless it is seen as strictly private activity (and even here sensitivity should be shown if the official is relatively senior). Yet a great deal of blog discussion is not of this kind. And, except for some pseudonymous participation, Australia’s public servants are typically absent.
Box 9: On the Role and Regulation of Public Servants
In an environment of open consultation and perpetual beta, errors and omissions become matters of public record. As such public servants need to be provided room to fail, if they are not to be forced into paralysis or subversion of the access policy. To operate successfully Gov 2.0 must accept the existence of errors and implement tight corrective feedback loops seeking a trajectory of increasing accuracy. It cannot work if public servants are in constant fear of criticism and rebuke for the errors and omissions that are a natural part of any drafting or problem solving process. It is also worth noting here that a shift from being authors of policy to public curators frees public servants to collaborate as citizens in the public contemplation of policy.
Andrae Muys, Submission to Towards Government 2.0: An Issues Paper http://gov2.net.au/submissions/
As a general proposition, engaging with the tools and platforms of social networking should be accepted as a valuable and productive way for public servants to share and develop their expertise. In that sense, they should be accepted as an integral part of their professional development toolkit.
For instance a public servant may be engaging in social networks, discussing both private and professional matters. Keeping their social connections with other professionals – including from other countries - is of great value in enhancing the public servant’s network of contacts from which they might learn something of considerable value to their agency. It is certainly something which agencies pay for when they fund conference attendance. And in a discussion on some prominent blog, it could surely be helpful for public servants to discuss issues and explore alternative views as a professional rather than as a representative of the agency.
Further, in the right institutional and cultural context, and particularly where it was not some matter of heated party political debate, it could be appropriate for an employee of an agency to discuss their own professional judgement as to the pros and cons of various policy options, providing it was clear that they accepted whatever view the government of the day or their agency had or might come to. As the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Hon. Lindsay Tanner MP commented; “While no one is suggesting that we allow public servants to simply tell reporters what is on their mind, they should feel free and encouraged to engage in robust professional discussion in public including online” (Speech to Government 2.0 Conference, Cebit Australia, Canberra, 19 October 2009, http://www.financeminister.gov.au/speeches/2009/sp_20091019.html). It would be fair to say that current APS culture is some way from this ideal and will require commitment from Government and leaders of the public service to affect a positive culture change.
Members of the Australian Public Service should be able to make attributed comments in fulfilment of their official duties and as part of their work environment that do not necessarily represent the views of their agency, and the default might be that their views do not unless stated otherwise. This is the customary default setting by corporations that permit their employees to blog on an attributed basis, then backed by internal protocols and approval processes as appropriate to the organisation and its culture.
The Taskforce believes that the existing culture of the APS focuses too strongly on online engagement as a risk, and quite inadequately on the huge opportunity it offers to provide greater access to the professional capability of public servants and to advance the mission of public agencies. The recent revision of the online engagement guidelines from the APSC represents an important step towards a culture that focuses on reward and not just risk.
In this regard Andrea Di Maio’s words about the absence of public servants from much discussion of Web 2.0 are apposite:
Wouldn’t it be appropriate to single them out and finally recognize that they are an asset government should leverage, through a wise use of “Government 2.0”? . . . It is as if employees were considered legacy, just part of an organization that will be transformed, and not the real fuel and soul of those organizations.
Until when their role will be given equal dignity as “citizens”, Government 2.0 will remain an interesting subject for discussion, will marginally contribute to service improvement, but won’t realize a fraction of its potential.
Realising the promise of Government 2.0 will be much harder to the extent that individual public servants do not feel either encouraged or empowered to use these new tools and platforms let alone actively to incorporate them into their professional practice. In many ways, the behaviour of public servants and their managers as they embrace, or try to limit the possibilities of social networking will determine whether Government 2.0 remains essentially ‘embroidery’ on the edge of, or fundamentally changes, mainstream practice in the public service.
This issue has been the subject of one of the liveliest extended conversations on the Taskforce blog (http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/02/if-i-could-start-with-a-blank-sheet-of-paper%E2%80%A6/ and http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/11/11/blank-piece-of-paper-2/) It has also been the subject of some significant changes, during the course of the Taskforce process, in the guidance offered by the APSC about online engagement by public servants.
On the blog, the Taskforce invited contributions to an exercise that took a “blank sheet of paper” approach to the question – how would you write the guidance for public servants about the most effective and appropriate way to manage their online engagement? The idea of the exercise was to see what would emerge if, just for the purposes of this conversation, no account was taken of the current or comparative examples of online engagement guidance in Australia or around the world, public or private. If you were starting from scratch, but knowing what we now know about these tools and their associated rewards and risks, how would you frame the guidance for public servants?
What followed was a lively and closely argued debate, involving half a dozen or more people, which laid out in some detail the nature of the challenge and opportunity presented by social networking tools for professional practice in the public service. Over 40 pages of detailed argument, exposition and debate came to a couple of fundamental conclusions.
Firstly, public servants should be both encouraged and empowered to engage these new tools as a normal and indeed integral part of their daily work. Secondly, bringing this about will not be easy or simple. Fundamental concerns for confidentiality, impartiality and probity in the conduct of public management at every level mean that in some circumstances complex and careful judgements have to be made. The capacity for the public service to fulfil its obligations to the government of the day implies, in some situations, behaviour and choices that conflicted with the open and connected nature of the social web.
It has also been the subject of some significant changes, during the course of the Taskforce process, in the guidance offered by the APSC about online engagement by public servants. On the blog, the Taskforce invited contributions to an exercise that took a “blank sheet of paper” approach to the question – how would you write the guidance for public servants about the most effective and appropriate way to manage their online engagement? The idea of the exercise was to see what would emerge if, just for the purposes of this conversation, no account was taken of the current or comparative examples of online engagement guidance in Australia or around the world, public or private. If you were starting from scratch, but knowing what we now know about these tools and their associated rewards and risks, how would you frame the guidance for public servants?
What followed was a lively and closely argued debate, involving half a dozen or more people, which laid out in some detail the nature of the challenge and opportunity presented by social networking tools for professional practice in the public service. Over 40 pages of detailed argument, exposition and debate came to a couple of fundamental conclusions. Firstly, public servants should be both encouraged and empowered to engage these new tools as a normal and indeed integral part of their daily work. Secondly, bringing this about will not be easy or simple. Fundamental concerns for confidentiality, impartiality and probity in the conduct of public management at every level mean that in some circumstances complex and careful judgements have to be made. The capacity for the public service to fulfil its obligations to the government of the day implies, in some situations, behaviour and choices that conflicted with the open and connected nature of the social web.
From the blog discussion, these additional insights emerged as central to helping public servants be both more active and more confident in their embrace of social networking tools for online engagement:
- Any guidelines should be based on the assumption that the tools and capabilities of social networking offer unprecedented beneficial opportunities. We should try to reduce fear and uncertainty about the circumstances in which public servants should engage and guidance should require such decisions to be made in a way that weighs negative risks, but also balances them against potential benefits;
- Online engagement both internally and externally makes it easier for public servants to be involved in the task of refreshing and renewing the public service as a critical institution in Australia’s governance;
- Public servants should be encouraged to talk openly about their areas of expertise and professional practice in policy debate; and
- Public servants work in a political environment. The use of Web 2.0 tools by public servants cannot undermine the need act professionally, impartially, and courteously. Nor can it compromise ‘due process’ requirements to comply with the law, including discrimination legislation, or significantly relax disclosure and secrecy provisions.
As this discussion on the Taskforce blog started and gathered momentum, the APSC was in the process of developing guidelines for online engagement to replace its earlier interim guidelines which represent a major shift in thinking and a clear embrace of the positive potential of Web 2.0 tools in online engagement. The value of the guidelines will be tested over time by the practical impact they have on the behaviour and decisions of individual public servants and their managers. But the new guidelines put Australia into a leading position in the encouragement they provide for public servants to seize what the guidelines rightly refer to as the “unprecedented opportunities” the new tools provide for engagement. They also elaborate on how sensibly to manage the inevitable risks.
Recommendation 4 – Encourage public servants to engage online
The Taskforce endorses the revised online engagement guidelines for public servants issued by the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) on 18 November 2009, including the declaration that Web 2.0 provides public servants with unprecedented opportunities to open up government decision making and implementation to contributions from the community. The Taskforce agrees that, consistent with APS Values and Code of Conduct, APS employees should be actively encouraged and empowered to engage online.
The APSC in consultation with the lead agency should regularly review online engagement guidelines, using Government 2.0 approaches to ensure the process is open and transparent.
Agencies should support employee-initiated innovative Government 2.0-based proposals that create, or support, greater engagement and participation with their customers, citizens and/or communities of interest in different aspects of the agency’s work. They should create a culture that gives their staff an opportunity to experiment and develop new opportunities for engagement from their own initiative, rewarding those especially who create new engagement/participation tools or methods that can quickly be absorbed into the mainstream practice that lifts the performance of the department or agency.
The Government 2.0 lead agency should establish an online forum on which agencies can record their initiatives and lessons learned.
Recommendation 5 - Awards
In consultation with relevant agencies, the lead agency should establish awards for individual public servants and agencies that recognise outstanding practice in the use and impact of Government 2.0 tools to improve agency and program performance.
Chapter 10: Challenges to freeing up Public Sector Information (PSI)
In light of the potential for PSI to improve our lives as discussed in Chapter 6, it is not surprising that the benefits of free and open publication of PSI were recognised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) when, in June 2008, it adopted the Recommendation of the Council for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of Public Sector Information (the Recommendation)( OECD Committee for Information, Computer and Communication Policy, Recommendation of the Council for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of Public Sector Information (PDF), 30 April 2008), as part of the policy framework that supports the Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy (OECD, Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy (PDF), 18 June 2008).
As an OECD member Australia, together with other member countries, recognised the objective of the Recommendation was:
to increase returns on public investments in public sector information and increase economic and social benefits from better access and wider use and re-use, in particular through more efficient distribution, enhanced innovation and development of new uses (OECD Committee for Information, Computer and Communication Policy, Recommendation of the Council for Enhanced Access and More Effective Use of Public Sector Information (PDF), 30 April 2008, p 4).
All Member countries were invited to “disseminate this Recommendation throughout the public and private sectors to encourage all relevant participants to take the necessary steps to enhance and promote more effective use of PSI”.
The Australian Government’s adoption of a National Information Policy promoting open access to PSI is consistent with the OECD Recommendation and fulfils the FOI Reform objective of managing government information for public purposes as a national resource . It also allows Australia to realise the economic and social benefits that derive from this more flexible approach.
The call in our terms of reference for the establishment of “a pro-disclosure culture around non-sensitive public sector information” is straightforward enough. Yet as demonstrated below, the list of objections that might be made to the release of PSI – reasons for arguing that this particular piece of information is not “non-sensitive” – is virtually endless. At any stage public decision makers may be tempted to play it safe.
Accordingly Government 2.0 cannot be realised without high level, whole of government attention to the issue and the new policy of openness being overseen by an agency with sufficient authority to ensure it informs each decision which might obstruct the free flow government information (There are many occasions where some principle is endorsed, but remains largely unimplemented. Thus for instance in 1986 the Prime Minister, Bob Hawke announced a rigorous new process of regulatory impact assessment. However the then Office of Regulation Review did not report on compliance with the policy by department. In the absence of this accountability, the policy was fully complied with in only 8 percent of cases even after the policy had been announced and operating for a decade. Industry Commission, 1997, Regulation and its Review 1996-7, p. 41 Table 3.2.).
Box 10: Reducing Metadata Paralysis by Choosing Simpler Metadata Sets
It is acknowledged that metadata assists with search, discovery and access for data sets. However, in the case of spatial data, a certain level of ‘metadata paralysis’ can be observed where some agencies focus on completing a full metadata record as an absolute prerequisite before publication of the data set. This reduces the speed with which data is made available to the public.
SIBA recommends mandating the use of minimal metadata requirements for spatial datasets as one of the key mechanisms for making more government data searchable and usable, including legacy data. SIBA also recommends the use of standards based metadata capture and access capabilities and related tools, which reduce the effort to create metadata.
Information supplied to the Taskforce by the Spatial Industries Business Association (Australia) (SIBA)
Box 11: The Semantic Web
The Semantic Web is an emerging suite of interrelated initiatives proposed by the inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and sometimes referred to as Web 3.0. Berners-Lee’s vision for the Semantic Web is of a network that uses intelligent agents to help users search and navigate through the overwhelming and bewildering superabundance of Web resources to find, understand and reuse what they need much more efficiently and accurately than is currently possible.
Providing sets of raw data without accompanying context (in the form of standardised human/machine-understandable metadata) limits the ability of people and computers to find, understand and re-use the information provided. For example, what does the data value ‘60’ represent? Is it someone’s age? A speed limit? When was the information collected? By whom? What are the units of measurement? Providing metadata in a standardised format also facilitates a precise, natural language search. For example, ‘What are the Commonwealth import duties for a lathe purchased from Germany?’ or ‘What agricultural land south of the Lachlan River is under threat from soil erosion?’.
In Australia the AGLS Metadata Standard (AS 5044) has been endorsed by all Australian Governments as the standard for describing government resources (information and services) to support their discovery in a Web environment. There are other relevant metadata standards as well for things like rights management, geospatial data, recordkeeping, digital preservation, etc, all of which can potentially be useful in a semantic web environment. There are of course costs associated with marking up data with semantic annotations. These costs increase with the degree of metadata provided for each element. A difficult-to-answer issue is, ‘At what point do the costs of providing extra information exceed the benefits?’
As an emerging technology, some Australian Government agencies have experimented with the Semantic Web. For example, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme lists of substances and Anatomical Therapeutic Codes is updated monthly as linked data in RDF (Resource Description Framework, a formal specification of the Semantic Web). Based on these and similar international experiences, such as the US Government Semantic Web portal for linked government data, it is clear that governments have a role to play in leading and encouraging the uptake of Web 3.0 technologies in support of greater innovation based on the reuse of public sector information and enhanced citizen/government interaction.
10.1: Perceived Obstacles to open release of PSI
At present, for PSI to be successfully released it must successfully clear the following hurdles:
- For someone to use PSI they must know it is there. Yet agencies often have no systematic knowledge of all the data they hold and to the extent that they do, they have not been required to make such knowledge available to the public in a register;
- If information is known to the agency it may still have to run the gamut of a long chain of permissions for it to be released. Most obviously if it’s existence has not already been published, there may be the need for permission for those outside agencies to have it located and its existence made clear;
- Even if its existence is publicly known, the institutions of government ensure that secrecy is the default. Thus public officials face sanctions ranging from subtle disapproval through to reprimand and ultimately jail sentences for releasing information they are not authorised to release, generally irrespective of the merits of release;
- Releasing information must also be consistent with domestic and national security considerations and with privacy laws;
- There can be economic reasons not to publish. Some PSI may be costly to get into a useable form, whilst a particular agency may earn some revenue from the licensing of PSI;
- Further, once publication takes place, the information cannot flow freely without liberal licensing and even then, given the way in which copyright is built around the notion of cascading permissions to copy, problems may remain (See 10.4.1 below).
10.2: The inevitability of judgement and the scope to frustrate openness
This list of possible bona fide reasons for obstructing the free flow of information is daunting enough in itself. In fact, however, many of the decisions involved require fine judgements, some on detailed points of law. And this is against the backdrop of public sector decision making where incentives are focused on the avoidance of mistakes and/or embarrassments and consensus decision making rather than the seizing of opportunity.
Throughout their decision making, officials and politicians will also be considering how information might be ‘spun’ by the media, their opponents or those with direct commercial interests or an axe to grind. These considerations will militate against release if the data discloses inadequacies in a government program. And whether it does or not might not be known by the decision makers. All this strengthens the case for secrecy for the risk averse.
Thus for example Andrea Di Maio recently (Gartner Symposium in Sydney on 17-19 November 2009) warned agencies to be prepared for the linking or combining of data with other data sets in ways that reveal unexpected or inconvenient truths. Releasing PSI also invites ‘intermediation’ meaning external bodies using PSI to add value or deliver services to individuals and therefore acting as an intermediary between government and individuals. Di Maio warned that this could dilute the brand of agencies or government as a whole. As trust shifts to these intermediaries operating outside government supervision, agencies may also need to consider where accountability lies in terms of the quality of the information, its reliability and currency and how agencies will ensure that the public continue to receive high quality information and services. The Taskforce agrees that these matters should be carefully considered in agencies’ management of Government 2.0. They should never be seen as reasons for preventing PSI from being open.
There might be concerns, legitimate or less so, about the quality of the data. With rare exceptions it will be better to drive the accountability and innovation benefits that come from an open access approach to PSI by releasing the data subject to clearly expressed caveats about its quality and possibly with the intention of subsequently revising and improving it, rather than to use its poor quality to suppress it and the good its release might do. This issue is often best illustrated in emergencies when data is far from perfect but will usually do much more good than none at all, particularly if people are forewarned about its inadequacies. And often release is a prelude to the data being improved as corrections, or at least the identification of problems is ‘crowdsourced’ as has happened with the NAA’s ‘Mapping our Anzacs’ program. One possible obstacle may be embarrassment and the agency’s desire to not release their information because of the potential real or perceived organisational, professional or personal embarrassment. An incident of this nature occurred during the organisation of MashupAustralia by the Taskforce. A federal department was well disposed to release a dataset going back several decades for MashupAustralia. It was largely in the public domain in scattered form and would have been released under existing FOI. However it was discovered to be poorly maintained with some data being wrong or missing. There are no hazards that we can imagine that would have arisen from the publication of the data, but the department then chose not to release it. Many Taskforce members are familiar with stories such as this one.
Even where information is released it is natural for managers seeking to minimise adverse risk to try to control whatever they can. In addition to being reinforced by an organisation’s culture and incentives, it is also ‘professionalised’. Thus specific professions advising management, such as the provision of legal, communications or IT advice and services will typically see maximisation of control as a default setting to minimise adverse risks. If one has information one cannot be sure that it will not be used or misused in ways that may embarrass an agency. So why release it if one can avoid it? If one has copyright, why relinquish some of the rights it gives one, instead of staying in control of how users use the information? If one is managing a commercial entity like the NSW trains services why let others use your information when you are accustomed to controlling it yourself? And why release information that you may – just may – want to sell someday yourself? (See “The Theory of SPIN: Serial Professional Innovation Negation” on the Taskforce blog.)
Around all these issues is a penumbra of doubt. Often something will not be released, not because it is clear that it is in breach of some stipulation – for instance the Privacy Act - but because someone thinks it just could be and of course privacy regulation, like so many areas of regulation can be complex. So rules of thumb are needed for practitioners. They may not precisely reflect the details of that act, or of any of the other possible obstacles, but they may nevertheless obstruct the release of information that the Privacy Act actually permits to be released. Privacy officials use the acronym BOTPA ‘Because of the Privacy Act’ often with some irony to describe such situations where the Privacy Act is cited to defend suppression where a proper understanding of the Privacy Act indicates that it actually permissible (See Office of the Privacy Commissioner, ‘Top ten privacy issues’, speech, 2007, p 11).
Box 12: People and Cultural Change
The Issues Paper acknowledges that people and cultural change within government is a significant hurdle for Government 2.0. We do have a risk-averse culture and we have a culture of highly controlled communication. Most agencies have public affairs, marketing, web and publishing teams with clearly defined roles, responsibilities and approvals processes for published material. Web 2.0 challenges this structure in being an informal conversation space that produces a public record (and, for federal government agencies, a Commonwealth record).
10.3 Cooperation and the relinquishment of control
In the words of Tim O’Reilly, a central design principle of Web 2.0 is, “Cooperate, don’t control”. As Vinton Cerf (2006), puts it,
Because the network is neutral, the creators of new internet content and services need not seek permission from carriers or pay special fees to be seen online. As a result, we have seen an array of unpredictable new offerings . . . [E]ntrepreneurs need not worry about getting permission for their inventions will [sic] reach the end users . . . This is a direct contrast to closed networks like the cable video system, where network owners control what the consumer can see or do.