data.gov.au Released

Gary Gray, the Australian Special Minister of State, announced the release of data.gov.au 10 Mar 2011. This provides government information for commercial, research and community use. Data is provided by agencies including the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Geoscience Australia, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Citizen-centric services

Senator Kate Lundy's spoke on "Citizen-centric services: A necessary principle for achieving genuine open government" to the Citizen Centric Service Delivery 2011 conference, 1 March 2011: "... three pillars of Open Government. These are Citizen-Centric services, Democratising Data and Participatory Government..." . This speech makes the Gov 2.0 case well and complements the Information Commissioner's "Towards an Australian Government Information Policy". These are valuable resources for my Government 2.0 students.

Imagine a government experience that adapts to you and your circumstances: clear, seamless, integrated services that are both compellingly easy to use, always up to date and with a look and feel suited to your taste and comfort zone.

Citizen-centric services are not obscured or cluttered by the multi-layered complexities of government structures designed in some cases a century ago, and certainly in a pre-digital era.

Citizen-centric services deliver a tailored service to the degree of personal detail and relevance determined by how much information the citizen is willing to provide. Concerns about privacy can be addressed and managed by this permission-based approach to personal service: the more information the citizen is willing to share, the more personalised the service delivery can be.

Today, although there are several government departments and agencies that have incredibly innovative and intuitive online interfaces to their services and information, the fact remains that citizens have to go searching and often have to interact with several spheres of government as well as different agencies before they find what they are looking for.

It is unreasonable for us to expect all citizens to understand the complexities and structures of government service delivery. While the structures of government ought to be transparent, they should not determine the navigation and access pathway for citizens seeking a service. This approach is inside out. Whilst the organisational challenge is significant, the technology definititely exists. ...

With this in mind, I believe there to be three pillars of Open Government. These are Citizen-Centric services, Democratising Data and Participatory Government ...

Citizen-Centric Services

Imagine a government experience that adapts to you and your circumstances: clear, seamless, integrated services that are both compellingly easy to use, always up to date and with a look and feel suited to your taste and comfort zone. ...

Democratising Data is about recognising that government data is a public resource. It can facilitate both public and private innovation. Opening up government data is not just a matter of publishing a few pdfs. It is about ensuring that at the point of creation, government data is assumed to be destined for public release, unless there is a specific reason not to.

This means from creation:

• data should have a permissible copyright license such as Creative Commons,
• data should be stored in an open data format such that it is not locked into a specific product or technology,
• data should be machine readable so that people can create applications that can use the data for new services or analysis,
• there should be a strategy for whether and how to keep the data set up to date, and how updates should be published,
• data should include useful metadata such as date of creation, author, any geospatial information, keywords, to ensure the data is able to be re-purposed on other ways such as by plotting the data on a map. ...

Finally, the third pillar is Participatory Democracy. This pillar is about the proactive engagement with citizens such that their perspectives and experiences can inform and improve policy outcomes. Participatory government has always been there with consultation with citizens and stakeholders a strong feature of mature democracies.

This pillar is about engaging citizens collaboratively in the development, design and implementation of government policy. The web and social networking has provided new ways do this and citizens are exploring the opportunities with enthusiasm.

Policies can be developed and designed with an improved capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. This is crowd-sourcing at it’s most constructive: applied, purposeful and outcome oriented. The challenge for us all, including government, is to channel this goodwill and energy into the public interest. ...

From: Citizen-centric services: A necessary principle for achieving genuine open government, Senator Kate Lundy, 1 March 2011

Principles for Open Public Sector Information

The Australian Information Commission proposed ten Draft Principles on Open Public Sector Information. Comments are invited via a blog by 1 March 2011:

1. Open access to information - a default position

Information held by the Australian Government is a valuable national resource. As recommended by the Government 2.0 Taskforce, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, access to that information should be open, that is:

• free
• based on open standards
• easily discoverable
• understandable
• machine-readable, and
• freely reusable and transformable.

This places a proactive and pro-disclosure obligation on agencies to:

• use information technology to disseminate public sector information, particularly by publishing information online
• maximise the amount of information that is published voluntarily, rather than waiting for specific requests under the FOI Act, and
• apply a presumption of openness when deciding whether and how to publish public sector information.

2. Effective information governance

Information held by Australian Government agencies is a core strategic asset that should be managed effectively by:

• a senior executive information champion, such as a Chief Information Officer within the agency, who is responsible for agency information, management and governance, and
• an information governance body with responsibility for:
  • maximising the integrity, security and availability of the agency's information
  • establishing and maintaining strategic planning processes for information resources management
  • providing leadership and direction in the preparation of the agency's plan for complying with Part II of the FOI Act under s 8(1)
  • ensuring the agency's information management policies incorporate open access principles and authorise the routine and proactive disclosure of information, and
  • ensuring that the agency engages appropriately with stakeholders about access to information.

3. Robust information asset management frameworks

Effective management of information throughout its life cycle can be achieved by:

• developing and maintaining inventories or registers of an agency's key information assets
• identifying the custodians of those assets and defining the custodians' responsibilities
• adequately describing information assets using appropriate metadata
• documenting known limitations on data quality and caveats on data use
• deciding in advance whether information is suitable for publication
• preserving the agency's information assets for appropriate periods of time
• training staff in information management, and
• protecting information commensurate with the risk of harm that could result from the loss, misuse, or unauthorised access to or modification of such information.

4. Findable information

In keeping with the principle that public sector information is a valuable national resource, potential users should be readily able to discover the information an agency has published, and identify assets the agency holds but has not published. This can be achieved by:

• ensuring that published information has high quality metadata through implementation of the Australian Government Locator Service (AGLS) Metadata Standard
• applying search engine optimisation strategies to ensure that all published information can be indexed by search engines, and
• publishing the agency's information asset register to enable both internal and external users of information to identify the available information resources from a single source.

5. Sound decision-making processes

Sound agency decision-making in relation to open access to public sector information can be achieved by:

• ensuring clear lines of authority to make information publication decisions
• establishing mechanisms for potential users of information to apply for release of unpublished information outside of the FOI Act
• making timely decisions
• embedding the presumption that agency information should be published free, on open licensing terms, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary
• identifying where relevant appropriate alternatives to not publishing information, such as publishing subject to caveats or disclaimers, and
• imposing controls to avoid personal information being published inappropriately or inadvertently in a data set.

6. Transparent complaints processes

Agency decision making about information publication should be transparent. This can be supported, within the agency's information governance framework, by an internal complaints procedure to handle complaints from the public about agency publication decisions outside the requirements of the FOI Act. A transparent complaints procedure will:

• be published
• explain how complaints will be handled
• set timeframes for resolving complaints
• identify possible remedies and outcomes of complaints, and
• require decision makers to provide written reasons for all decisions.

7. Open and accessible formats online

The economic and social value of public sector information is enhanced when it is published online in formats that are human-readable and compatible with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines endorsed by the Australian Government in February 2010. Information should so far as possible be published in a format that is:

• open
• machine-readable, and
• searchable and indexable by commonly used web search applications.

8. Appropriate charging for access

The principle of open access to public sector information requires that the cost of access to individuals is not unreasonably restrictive. Appropriate charging for access to information can be achieved by:

• not charging more than the additional marginal cost of providing access to published information, and in particular excluding from calculation cost associated with producing the information
• using methods of publication, particularly online publication, that minimise the cost to the agency of providing individual access to the information
• not imposing charges except as authorised by law, including the FOI Act, and
• supporting any charges that are imposed for agency publications or information in an agency policy that explains the basis for charges and is published and regularly reviewed.

9. Clear reuse rights

The economic and social value of public sector information is enhanced when it is made available for reuse on open licensing terms. The Statement of Intellectual Property Principles for Australian Government Agencies requires government agencies subject to the Financial and Management Accountability Act 1997 to consider licensing public sector information, upon release, under an open access licence.

10. Engaging the community

In keeping with Australian Government policy that agencies embrace online engagement in policy design and service delivery, the community can participate in agency decision making in relation to publication of public sector information. This can be done by:

• consulting with the community in deciding which information an agency will
• prioritise for publication
• encouraging the community to identify errors in published information, to give feedback to the agency about the quality, completeness and usefulness of published information, and to tell the agency about productive reuse of the information, and
• responding, either individually or in a public statement, to any comment received from the community.

From: Towards an Australian Government Information Policy, Australian Information Commissioner, November 2010.

Digital Democracy Down-under

Chris Quigley, co-founder of Delib UK discussed Gov 2.0 over lunch today at Old Parliament house in Canberra. He outlined campaigns run for the former and current UK governments. One interesting point was that contrary to conventional wisdom, there was less legal liability where the public's posting to a forum were not moderated before being posted. Provided any offensive postings are removed promptly when there is a complaint, this works better than having a moderator who attempts to check postings in advance.

Chris described the "Citizen Space" software his company developed with the UK Government for online government consultations. He described this as "open source" but I could not find where to download a copy of the software.

Chris commented how US government staff adapted to online consultations more readily than UK civil servants. At question time I asked about the need for training for such staff. He said there was a need, so I am looking to include this in my course "COMP7420" which starts at ANU 14 February. At present the course is called "Electronic Document and Records Management" which has not proved a crowd pleaser. So I might change it to "Consultation techniques and technology for e-government". This course would then support the Austrlaian National University's "Australian Centre for Dialogue Project" and the Australia Forum.

Chris's experience crosses viral marketing, social media and e-democracy. He has an ongoing interest in how people, business and government interact, and how the internet (especially social media) are changing relationships.

He has been working in the Open Government space for almost ten years across both the UK and the US. He was involved in some of the earliest crowd-sourcing projects in the US, under the former President George Bush.

Chris's company, Delib, was asked by the current US government to build an ideas-sharing website to "crowdsource thoughts" about how to design a portal that would monitor the US's $787bn (£510bn) stimulus plan. The result was recovery.gov.

Chris was also involved in the design of the UK government's 'Your Freedom' website, designed to allow UK citizens to discuss laws they wanted to see changed or removed. The site received 11,546 ideas, 72,836 comments and 190,175 ratings.

Alongside his Open Government work, Chris is also a co-founder of The Viral Ad Network, a specialist automated syndication platform for branded content and of Rubber Republic, a specialist viral ad agency (which also has a strong interest in socks).

Learn more about Chris in The Guardian's article, "The man opening up government".

From: Craig Thomler

Canberra Gov 2.0 Drinks with Chris Quigley

Chris Quigley, co-founder of Delib UK will be discussing Gov 2.0 over drinks at the Wig and Pen, Alinga Street, Canberra, from 5.30pm on Monday, 7 February 2011.

Chris's experience crosses viral marketing, social media and e-democracy. He has an ongoing interest in how people, business and government interact, and how the internet (especially social media) are changing relationships.

He has been working in the Open Government space for almost ten years across both the UK and the US. He was involved in some of the earliest crowd-sourcing projects in the US, under the former President George Bush.

Chris's company, Delib, was asked by the current US government to build an ideas-sharing website to "crowdsource thoughts" about how to design a portal that would monitor the US's $787bn (£510bn) stimulus plan. The result was recovery.gov.

Chris was also involved in the design of the UK government's 'Your Freedom' website, designed to allow UK citizens to discuss laws they wanted to see changed or removed. The site received 11,546 ideas, 72,836 comments and 190,175 ratings.

Alongside his Open Government work, Chris is also a co-founder of The Viral Ad Network, a specialist automated syndication platform for branded content and of Rubber Republic, a specialist viral ad agency (which also has a strong interest in socks).

Learn more about Chris in The Guardian's article, "The man opening up government".

From: Craig Thomler

Government 2.0 Action Plan Victoria

The Victorian Government released a "Government 2.0 Action Plan - Victoria" (July 2010). Craig Thomler organised an excellent talk on this in Canberra, yesterday (his blog is a goldmine of useful information on topics such as use of Yammer by government).

The Victorian government plan provides a useful, and brief, 21 page overview of what Government 2.0 is, benefits and risks, how it fits with government strategies and how to go about implementing it. The Australian Government lacks a similar concise overview document. So in the absence of anything more suitable, I will be using the Victorian document for teaching the course COMP7420 at ANU, starting 14 February 2011.

Government 2.0 Action Plan - Victoria

Contents

• Introduction
• Four action areas

1. Driving adoption in the VPS
2. Engaging communities and citizens
3. Opening up government
4. Building capability

• Implementing the Action Plan
• Appendix 1: Government 2.0 applications in the Victorian Public Service
• Appendix 2: Web 2.0 Glossary
• References
• Further Information

Introduction

Government 2.0 involves direct citizen engagement in conversations about government services and public policy through open access to public sector information and new Internet based technologies. It also encapsulates a way of working that is underpinned by collaboration, openness and engagement.

The application of the underlying principles and approaches of Web 2.0 are redefining how people communicate and are transforming the web into a platform of participation and co-production. This transformation extends to the public sector where Web 2.0 tools can deepen democratic processes through participation; support policy development through open consultation; and tailor the delivery of services to meet citizens' needs for personalisation and choice.

This Government 2.0 Action Plan provides the foundation for a whole of Victorian Public Service approach to Government 2.0. It recognises that new approaches, processes and technologies such as social media, wikis, and blogs can put the citizen at the centre in a more open and collaborative relationship with government. It also means a shift in how we work, with an increased emphasis on transparency and collaboration. There are already pockets of innovative Government 2.0 practice in the VPS, ranging from the use of Twitter to keep the public informed during emergencies through to using Facebook to bring together small business owners and prospective owners for networking and information sharing. The Victorian Government has also committed to open access to public sector information in its response to the 2009 Parliamentary Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data. Opening up public sector data and information is a major opportunity to increase engagement with the community and realise a range of social and economic benefits.

The Government 2.0 Action Plan focuses on the following priority areas:

1. Driving adoption in the VPS > Leadership
2. Engaging communities and citizens > Participation
3. Opening up government > Transparency
4. Building capability > Performance

There are 14 initiatives under these four action areas, aimed at engaging and empowering citizens, making government more transparent and improving government capability. Our approach to implementation is think big, start small and scale fast.

In the spirit of collaboration and co-production, the Action Plan was developed through extensive consultation and an open wiki process. It sits alongside the VPS Innovation Action Plan and both Plans represent our commitment to developing a leading edge Victorian Public Service that delivers better outcomes for the Victorian community.

The Government 2.0 Action Plan will continue to develop as we harness the ideas and energy already evident in the Victorian Public Service. ...

From: Government 2.0 Action Plan - Victoria, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Victorian Government, July 2010.

Electronic Document and Records Management

Here is my attempted buzzword enriched rewrite of the description of the course COMP7420 Electronic Data Management.

Some proposed changes:

1. Course title: change to "Electronic Document and Records Management": the rationale for this is that "Electronic Data Management" is associated with the more techical aspects of the use of database systems. The EDRM term is more broadly applicable and of wide interest.
2. Course Description: Remove mention of e-libraries, as librarians have not shown interest in the course.
3. De-emphasise the technical: XML, XHTML HTML stuff: the students will still be doing it, but I will ease them into it gradually.
4. Learning Outcomes: Remove all but one of the "describe" objectives and add an "evaluate" learning objective to make it higher order.
5. Indicative Assessment: Replace the online quizzes and examination with a second assignment. Increase the Online Discussion from 20 to 24%. I am proposing to change the assessment method as it suits the material and also because I am confident in using the same assessment methods as for the Green ICT course. The forums and work based assignments worked particularly well with public servant students.

Some remaining questions:

1. Recommended Courses: At present it says: "Ability to use a computer. Experience in document use in the workplace.". That is a bit vague. Are there any formal definitions for these used by educators? For example for computer skills, I could specify the equivalent of International Computer Driving Licence (ICDL) Certification, but would anyone know what that is?
2. Are there standard descriptions of workplace related study?

Also I have been invited along to meet the people doing Government 2.0 in the Commonwealth Government. I will see what suggestions they have.

Electronic Document and Records Management COMP7420 - Details

Offered By:	School of Computer Science
Academic Career:	Graduate Coursework
Course Subject:	Computer Science
Offered in:	Summer Session, 2011
Unit Value:	3 units
Course Description:	Government 2.0/Web 2.0, open access and social networking have created a demand for rapid access to information and greater involvement in the decision making of government, commercial and not-for-profit organisations. Smart phones and tablet computers using wireless networks allow mobile access to cloud computing resources world wide. This poses a challenge for organisations to provide access and input, while maintaining the security and integrity of records, the privacy of personal information. This course investigates how traditional records management techniques and document formats have been adapted to the Internet era. The use of web technology for practical e-commerce and e-publishing applications is emphasised using case studies, standards and guidelines of real organisations . Emphasis is placed on the information needs of the Australian Public Service, but is also applicable to the private sector. Identifying steps that can be taken to accelerate the uptake of electronic documents by government, in conjunction with small and medium-sized enterprises, this course enables the participant to learn practical skills for incorporating e-commerce into their organisation. The focus is on document representation, knowledge discovery, storage and retrieval. The areas covered include requirements, XML, XHTML, HTML metadata, data management. More information is on the course web page: http://cs.anu.edu.au/courses/COMP7420/. This course is offered subject to sufficient enrolments .
Learning Outcomes:	Upon completion of this course, the student will be able to do the following: Describe the use of electronic documents, the recordkeeping framework, processes and systems in an organisation (SFIA Level 3). Evaluate options and make recommendations for the use of electronic documents, recordkeeping frameworks, processes and systems in an organisation (SFIA Level 5).
Indicative Assessment:	24% Contributions to the 6 weekly discussion forums 76% Two assignments, due in weeks three and six, 38% each.
Course Classification(s):	Transitional courses are designed for students from a broad range of backgrounds and learning achievements, which provide for the acquisition of generic skills; or an informed understanding of contemporary issues; or fundamental knowledge for transition to Advanced or Specialist courses.
Areas of Interest:	Business Information Systems, Computer Science, and Information Technology
Eligibility: An undergraduate degree
Recommended Courses:	Ability to use a computer. Experience in document use in the workplace.
Consent Required:	Consent is required prior to enrolling in this course.
Technology Requirements:	Access to computer and Internet
Academic Contact:	tom.worthington(a)anu.edu.au

e-Government for Developing Nations

Greetings from the National Centre for Information Systems Research (NCISR) at the Australian National University in Canberra. I am taking part in a planning meeting for teaching e-Government to public servants. This is in conjunction with the Bangladesh Public Administration Training Centre (BPATC). BPATC is the official trainer for civil servants of the Bangladesh government and also trains senior staff in other public organisations. ANU previously provided a course for Bangladesh with part funding support from AusAID (with a book of the course published "ICT Management Handbook - A Guide for Government officers in Bangladesh".). The intention is to build on this with new and expanded courses. This may include some of my course-ware on Electronic Data Management and Green ICT.

In the past it was assumed that a lack of IT infrastructure was holding back e-Government in developing countries. However, ANU research shows that it is a lack of knowledge of how to use the technology for the business of government. In particular administrators need to understand this is not just about replacing manual clerical systems with computers, but also changing their decision making processes.

Very little technical infrastructure is needed to implement e-Government. Developing nations are skipping over generations of technology and adopting wireless mobile cloud based systems. This technology can be used by government, if appropriate security policies are observed. The expensive and cumbersome infrastructure of desktop computers, servers and bespoke software can be avoided, by agencies using mobile computers and free open source software.

However, the hardware and software is not the main issue, it is training staff to do the business of government differently. In that respect developing nations are not necessarily behind western countries. The solution for both is the same: empower key staff with education.

One issue which is common across the world is how to structure a course for working people. An ANU course is normally over 13 weeks, requiring about 8 hours of time from the student each week (some in class and some personal study). Courses can alternatively be run intensively over a number of weeks. This much study can be daunting, particularity for people who have not undertaken formal study for some years. It is therefore tempting to provide very short non-assessed courses, but these may not deliver the needed rigour and not be able to allow the students to demonstrate that they have learned what was expected.

Other issues are the delivery mode of materials, such as use of Powerpoint and a text book. In my view electronic formats and online delivery have advantages, but access to the technology will have to be considered carefully. One approach would be to supply the student with a netbook computer with built in wireless access for the course. The netbook would cost about a few hundred dollars and the data access abut $10.

Role of Governance in Preparing for Disaster

Greetings from the Australian National University Canberra, where Riyanti Djalante is presenting on "Promoting resilience to disasters and climate change impacts in coastal cities in Indonesia". Climate change is likely to result in more extreme weather in Indonesia. Rather than wait for disaster to strike and then try to clean up, the UN suggests "resilience", with infrastructure and the social fabric strengthened in advance, so that effects are lessened.

The idea of resilience has some synergies with sustainable development. As an example, a local renewable energy source might be used to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuel and carbon emissions. However, it will also increase resilience, in the face of destruction of the power grid in a disaster.

Resilience was first applied to engineered systems such as buldings. But the term is also now being used for social structures. In terms of government and governance, it would be interesting to see how Government 2.0 (that is the application if advanced web systems to government) could be applied.

There is the risk that Gov 2.0 will increase the effects of disasters, by centralising functions and creating a single point of failure. Previously local government agencies would have local paper or computer records which could be used in a disaster. If the records are moved to "the cloud" and stored remotely in a national system, or in another country, the records may not be available when needed.

Australia Leading the World in Gov 2.0

Senator Kate Lundy (ACT) will be talking on Lessons from Down Under: How Australia is Leading the World in Gov 2.0 in Washington DC on 25-27 May 2010 at the Gov 2.0 Expo. Other speakers include Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Tim O'Reilly.

Title: Gov 2.0 in Australia: Building the foundations for open government

Abstract: Senator Kate Lundy will outline her recent “Public Spheres” initiative which takes government policy development online for more citizen involvement, transparency & better policy outcomes. She will also discuss the pillars of open government & some important technical principles to underpin Gov 2.0.

This presentation will showcase Senator Lundy’s experiences as a case study, and will lay down the policy and technical principles she has found to be most important for Gov 2.0. She will also briefly cover what is happening in Australia more broadly, the difference between Gov 2.0 for political offices and government administration (departments and agencies), and finally what she sees as the core opportunity this provides us as a society to design the government of tomorrow, together.

Social media in the Obama Whitehouse

Jonathan Greenblatt, former member of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team, will talk on "Contemporary US Politics of Social Innovation", in Canberra 19 April and Sydney 20 April 2010.

The United States Studies Centre and
DEEWR’s Social Innovation and Social Policy Groups
invite you to a presentation by Jonathan Greenblatt on

Contemporary US Politics of Social Innovation
Jonathan Greenblatt
Former member of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team

Seminar Abstract
President Obama and the White House administration are leveraging social media to accelerate social innovation. The President has also established a new Office for Social Innovation recognising that government alone can’t address the complex social issues that we face. Instead, organisations from the private, public and non-profit sectors need to collaborate to identify and implement potential solutions. The establishment of the new Office shows that the US federal government has a key role to play in promoting and facilitating social innovation.

Jonathan will draw on his experiences as a former White House official member of the Presidential Transition Team to examine how the Obama Administration is developing new models of innovation to change how government works. By leveraging insights from the fields of citizen journalism, social media and venture capital, the White House is changing Washington with its own unique brand of "social innovation."

When: Monday 19 April 2010
Time: 12:30 – 2.00pm
Location: Theatre, Australian War Memorial
RSVP: Places are limited, so please confirm your attendance by Thursday 15 April 2010 with Julie Ward via email: julie.ward@deewr.gov.au or phone: (02) 6240 9383

Biographical Information
Jonathan Greenblatt is the co-founder of Ethos Water, a former vice president of Starbucks Coffee Company, and an acknowledged thought leader on ethical branding, global development and social entrepreneurship. He is the founding president of All for Good and previously served as CEO of GOOD Worldwide. He also has served at the highest levels of government, including as an aide in the Clinton White House and, more recently, as a member of the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team. He teaches social entrepreneurship at the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA and advises corporations, foundations and non-governmental organizations on the intersection between business and sustainability.

You can find a more detailed bio at: http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x18144.xml

Sponsored by the Social Policy Group with a view to building and sharing the evidence base for policy

Evidence driving policy: the DEEWR strategic policy and research seminar series

From: Presentation flyer, by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and the United States Study Centre (University of Sydney).

Transport for Sydney

The NSW Government released a discussion paper, "Sydney Towards 2036" (10 March 2010) and has invited online discussion of topics, which correspond to the document's chapters, such as "Alternative transport options". Unfortunately the discussion paper has not been integrated with the discussion forum, making citizens input difficult.

The discussion paper is released as a 2.2 Mbyte PDF file. The discussion forms consist of a set of web pages. The content discussion paper has not been reproduced under, or linked from the corresponding topics. This requires the reader to first download the 30 page PDF document, find the relevant section of interest, then turn back to the web site, find the corresponding web page and then somehow relate one to the other in their comment. As an example "Integrating land use with transport" starts on page 15 of the discussion document.

The ten topics for in the report are:

1. Planning for a growing population
2. Making Sydney climate change ready
3. Integrating land use with transport
4. More jobs in the Sydney region
5. Growing Sydney’s value
6. Strengthening a City of Cities
7. Meeting changing housing needs
8. Balancing land uses on the city fringe
9. Achieving renewal
10. Implementation

The NSW government has an apps4nsw competition, modelled on the successful federal government gov 2.0 mashup competition. Perhaps someone would like to mash up the Sydney planning discussion paper and discussion forum.

My suggestions for the transport topic were as per my submission on the Sydney CBD Metro.

Also the book Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age (Paul Mees, February 2010) is of interest.

Designing Government 2.0

Tim Turner from the University of NSW at the Australian Defence Force Academy talked on "Web 2.0 and Government-Citizen Interaction", last night at the Australian Computer Society Canberra Branch Meeting. Tim gave a refreshingly cynical overview of Government 2.0. He cautioned about the rhetoric getting ahead of the reality.

As a good academic Tim went back to the origins of the idea of Web 2.0 with Tim Berners-Lee's semantic web. This was an interesting approach, as I thought of "Web 2.0" as a marketing term popularised by O'Reilly Media. Time argued that the glitzy user interface interactive front end had overtaken ideas of a deep web. The emphasis is on communication between people with the computers acting as little more than a telecommunications medium. Tim was sceptical of the value of Facebook and Twitter but positive about Wikis, Blogs and tag clouds. He suggested that within two to three years just about every older teenager to adult in Australia will have a smart phone. He claimed this will allow ubiquitous delivery of information via the web.

Unfortunately I see a lot of government web pages which seem to have been designed to make it hard to use on a phone (I teach mobile web design to public servants at ANU). Tim pointed out the smart phone can be used at the bus stop or in the lift on the way to a meeting (I have actually had an online meeting with someone using an iPhone on an aircraft waiting to disembark).

Tim warned that web 2.0 brings out the extraordinary narcissism of people. Blogs by everyone on everything can diminish the credibility of information. However, the research I have seen shows that this does not happen in reality. The Wikipedia is as high in quality as conventional encyclopaedias if not better.

Tim argues that there is a need for conventional media, such as News Corporation, to assess what is genuine news and what are just media releases. However, I don't believe that the evidence supports this view. An examination of Google News shows that conventional news items tends to be sourced from the same media releases. Bloggers tend to cite the media release as a source, whereas the conventional media pretend they wrote the content.

Tim saw the technology being used by government for publishing, collaborating, and networking. Mash-ups can combine collaboration and networking. He gave the Obama08 campaign as an example of good use of the web for publishing and the former Australian prime minister's use of YouTube as example of doing this badly. He had some concerns about using wikis for the general public to dirctly author government policy (as do I).

Tim saw web 2.0 as a way for government to increase the data sources for insights. He suggested folksonomies for the government getting the public views on issues. He gave th example of buses versus trains for Sydney transport. I am not sure this was a good example, as a citizen I want transport and expect the government experts to work out if buses or trains are better.

Tim suggested the system could be used as a sensor network in a crisis. He used the example of the SMS emergency warnings. A more sophisticated example was to have the citizens to record their view of the bush fire risk at their location and then map the results.

Tim argued that the "perpetual beta" of Web 2.0 is not sustainable. At some point the technology will have to be stabalised and made reliable for government use, as the citizens expect the government to deliver reliably.

Tim claimed that Web 2.0 was politically volatile as it blurs the distinction between the "party line" and individual statements. Also everything said online is permanently recorded. However, I don't see these as different in kind, just degree from previous technologies and not a bad thing.

At question time I asked if there were examples of web 2.0 being used at a smaller scale than federal government. One in the audience gave the examples of "fixmystreet.org" (the Australian version is "itsbuggered") and use of Twitter by the Californian government.

Another comment was the Web 2.0 was disintermediating democracy. Also the issue of data-mining government information and the risk to privacy. Tim pointed out that experts at ABS spend a lot of time worrying about how to provide data while protecting personal privacy.

The issue of the MySchools web site was raised as an example of data of questionable quality being published online. It will be interesting to see the quality of the "MyUniversity" system to be annoucned today.

This was an entertaining and enlightening presentation.

Web 2.0 and Government-Citizen Interaction in Canberra

Tim Turner from the Australian Defence Force Academy will be talking on "Web 2.0 and Government-Citizen Interaction", 6pm Tuesday at the Australian Computer Society Canberra Branch Meeting. It will be interesting to hear Tim's views on Government 2.0.

Australian Government Teleworking Policy

The Australian Government Information Management Office has issued a "Whole-of-Government Tele-working Policy for ICT Staff" (17 December 2009). It sets out the responsibilities of the agencies and the employees. All agencies are required to prepare an implementation plan, or decide to opt out by 30 June 2010. Plans must be implemented by 1 January 2011 and agencies have to report progress annually with metrics.

The appears well thought out, for example allowing for staff to work at telecentres. One curious aspect of this policy is why it only applies to ICT staff. The ICT staff are employed under the same conditions as other Australian public servants.

The policy is a 9 page document. Unfortunately this has been provided a PDF file, so here is a translation into HTML:

Tele-working Policy for ICT Staff

Approved by the Secretaries ICT Governance Board on 17 December 2009

Purpose

The Australian Government Tele-working Policy for ICT staff will reform the ICT workforce in the Australian Public Service (APS) and ensure agencies attract and retain skilled Information and Communication Technology (ICT) professionals.

Objectives

The Australian Government Tele-working policy and its implementation by agencies will assist to:

• promote the design of job roles capable of being performed remotely;
• remove the technical impediments to tele-working;
• provide a whole-of-government approach to securing information and infrastructure to support tele-working;
• build agency capability to manage and support tele-working and tele-workers;
• create APS employment opportunities in regional locations;
• attract higher numbers of skilled ICT workers to the APS;
• increase the complexity of the skill base within the APS; and
• enhance the opportunities for ICT workers with disabilities, or who are returning to work, to participate in the APS workforce.

Background

The APS is facing an ICT skills shortage in the immediate future, as ICT job roles increase in complexity. Tele-working, in conjunction with other ICT workforce strategies, will contribute to the APS being an employer of choice by increasing flexibility of employment. In addition, reducing reliance on Canberra-based ICT personnel will improve value for money. Furthermore, by increasing the geographic area from which ICT workers can be recruited, tele-working will increase the supply of ICT skills to the APS.

The project arose in response to the Review of the Australian Government’s Use of ICT by Sir Peter Gershon (“the ICT Review”). The ICT Review recommended that the Australian Government “establish a whole-of-government tele-working policy for ICT staff, building on existing AGIMO guidance” (Recommendation 5.4.6). Existing AGIMO guidance includes the Better Practice Checklist regarding ICT support to tele-work.

Scope

The Australian Government will support ICT tele-working for APS ICT employees on a full time, part-time and casual basis. Tele-working will support:

• Home-based work – for staff who work within commuting distance of their usual place of work;
• Out-posted work – for staff who work from home but for whom it is not practical to travel to the workplace on a daily basis; and
• Tele-centre work – for staff who require access to office facilities in a location outside of their agency’s usual location.

The scope of the policy does not include travellers, day extenders, field officers or campus workers.

Operating Principles

The Australian Government is committed to providing a flexible workplace for ICT staff.

All APS agencies must develop a tele-working implementation plan if they do not have an existing plan. The implementation plan must meet the stated objectives outlined in this policy, and must address all items listed under Responsibilities. The implementation plan should be based on any relevant and applicable policy or guidelines already existing in the agency.

Individual agencies will have the flexibility to create an implementation plan to suit their individual agency circumstances. These plans will include consideration of value-for-money and fit-for-purpose criteria.

Constraints

The implementation of the tele-working policy for ICT staff will be consistent with Commonwealth, State and Territory laws. A list of associated legislation, regulation and procedures is provided in Attachment A.

Eligibility of the role and the employee must be determined against measurable criteria or outcomes. The worker’s job function must fall within agency eligibility requirements. Criteria to determine employee eligibility could include length of tenure, performance and demonstrated skill set proficiency.

A tele-working arrangement does not alter the employment status of the employee; must be mutually agreed; and can be reviewed at the request of the employer or the employee.

Australian Government agencies must maintain a safe and productive working environment for employees who are tele-working.

Actions

Agencies must have a tele-working implementation plan, or have opted-out through the Expenditure Review Committee by 30 June 2010. Implementation of this plan must be completed by 1 January 2011. Agencies will report annually to the Secretaries’ ICT Governance Board (SIGB), through the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) on its implementation plan. Specifically this report will address progress by agencies; barriers to implementation and possible solutions and numbers of ICT staff employed under tele-working arrangements. Agencies may include specific success metrics in their annual report to the SIGB.

Agencies must establish a formal multi-disciplinary governance body that includes ICT, HR and workplace representatives to oversee the implementation of tele-working and take-up rates.

The Australian Government will develop a whole-of-government solution to secure classified information commensurate with the level of classification for the physical and electronic information that will be handled. A lead agency will develop a security solution in consultation with Finance and the Chief Information Officer Committee (CIOC).

A tele-centre allows agencies to support a remote ICT workforce in regional centres. However, the cost of establishing agency specific tele-centres will be prohibitive for many agencies. AGIMO, in consultation with the Cross Jurisdictional Chief Information Officers’ Committee, will report to SIGB on the demand for and feasibility of establishing tele-centres in selected regions by February 2010.

Outcomes

Tele-working will provide the following outcomes for the Australian Government:

• increasing quality and quantity of ICT applicants and retention of the best employees, particularly those who value flexible working hours and newer workers who have high expectations of technology;
• providing an alternative for employees with long commutes to save travelling time and expenses;
• reduced expenditure on overhead items such as recruitment, facilities and utilities;
• reducing traffic congestion, emissions and stress on infrastructure, thereby improving the environment;
• creation of infrastructure and processes to support disaster recovery and business continuity during an emergency;
• opportunities for agencies to share cost processes and infrastructure;
• reducing the Canberra-centricity of existing ICT activities by harnessing emerging new labour pools, particularly from regional areas; and
• promoting equity in employment by increasing employment options for people with disabilities or caring responsibilities.

Responsibilities (joint)

Workplace participation

Tele-workers and their managers must use processes and tools that maximise communication opportunities. The use of collaboration tools will sustain social and knowledge networks, and cultural affiliation of tele-workers.

Taxation

Agencies must familiarise themselves with the tax ramifications of implementing tele-working arrangements.

If the arrangements result in benefits being provided to an employee, agencies must consider Pay As You Go withholding obligations (for additional salary and wages) or fringe benefits tax (FBT) obligations (for benefits) that may apply.

Tele-workers should seek taxation advice on claims that may be made with respect to the tele-working arrangement. Tele-workers may make substantiated claims for deduction on additional running expenses of an office or a study at home that is used for income-producing activities.

Education and awareness

Agencies must provide an education and awareness program for tele-workers and their managers on topics specific to a tele-working arrangement. In these programs agencies must address Occupational, Health and Safety (OHS), security, Comcare coverage, remote access, support and manager training on time management of “out-of-sight” workers.

Agencies must ensure tele-workers’ ICT skill sets remain current and relevant to the role they are performing. The long term impact on career opportunities of these workers should be monitored and specific training, together with interaction and collaboration tools considered.

It is both the employee and their manager’s responsibility to ensure development opportunities are identified and scheduled.

Insurance

All Australian Government employees are covered by provisions of Comcare for working hours, regardless of their working location. It is recommended that each agency include the exact details of this coverage in their education and awareness training for tele-working.

All Australian Government assets are covered under the Comcover Insurance Policy at all working locations, including private residences. Where some or all of the ICT equipment is owned by the employee, responsibility for insuring the asset(s) rests with the employee, unless otherwise agreed by their employer.

Communication

Agencies and tele-workers should agree formally on contact arrangements; client interactions and attendance at other physical locations upon request.

Cost-sharing

The responsibility for the costs of tele-working (set up, maintenance, continuity etc) must form part of the contract for tele-workers to be agreed upon by both parties. Agencies should be aware of, and detail the approach to be taken for part time tele-working where the tele-worker is also engaged by another agency (Commonwealth or State) and/or with private enterprise.

Responsibilities (employers)

Application Process

Agencies must define the eligibility requirements for tele-working. Agencies’ implementation plans must clearly state the process for application and termination of tele-working arrangements. Agencies should assess tele-working applications with regard to the following:

• the duties of the employee
• the sensitivity or classification of information to be accessed
• the expected deliverables or outcomes and how they will be measured
• the duration of the arrangement
• the benefits to the organisation
• the costs to the organisation
• agency operational requirements.

Security

Agencies’ implementation plans must comply with the Protective Security Manual 2007 (PSM). Part H of the PSM specifies the security arrangements for working from home.

Agencies must undertake security assessments for home-based tele-workers.

Agencies will determine the level of classification of information that can be worked on at home or in a tele-centre and this determination must comply with Part H of the PSM.

Agencies must provide and maintain security containers at a level appropriate to classification level and other security measures for tele-workers to manage classified material.

Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)

Agencies must take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety at work of their employees. An employer’s duty of care under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 (Cth) (OHS Act) applies to an employee conducting authorised work at home.¹

An agency will determine what is ‘reasonably practicable’ as there is no specific requirement for a physical inspection under the OHS Act or associated regulations.

ICT Infrastructure

Agencies will ensure tele-working staff will use agency approved ICT infrastructure in their home.

Agencies’ ICT plans must include secure and scalable tele-working infrastructure and support mechanisms to support their tele-working implementation plan.

Short-term arrangements (less than 4 weeks)

From time-to-time, ICT staff may have short-term tele-working arrangements put in place. For example:

• where an injury impairs travel but would otherwise not impact on performance of their duties;
• a staff member has temporary caring responsibilities and is able to perform some or all of their duties for part of the day; or
• a disaster or pandemic which prevents workers from attending their normal place of work.

In these circumstances, an agency will determine the most appropriate method of assessing OHS and security arrangements.

Responsibilities (employees)

Access

Home-based staff must provide access to their home to employers, or agents acting on their behalf, for purposes such as security checks, OHS assessments or ICT support, following an agreed period of notice.

Third Parties

Home-based tele-workers are responsible for the safety of visitors to their home and must maintain public liability insurance to the level specified by the agency.

1 Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 (OHS Act), Section 16(1)

Performance

Employees must maintain full proficiency in their job specific competencies, as well as agency processes.

Agency Guidelines and Instructions

Employees must conform to all agency guidelines and instructions.

Evaluation

The employee should agree to participate in all studies, inquiries, reports and analyses

relating to this policy.

Dependent Care

Tele-working is not to be treated as a substitute for dependent care. Tele-workers will not usually be available during working hours to provide dependent care.

Attachment A

Associated legislation, regulation and procedures².

• Agency Collective Agreements (and other individual agency-based requirements)
• Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
• Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth)
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
• Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
• Information Security Manual (ISM) 2009 Section 6
• Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment Act 1991 (Cth) (OHS Act), Section 16(1)
• Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)
• Protective Security Manual (PSM) 2007 Part “H”
• Public Service Act 1999 (Cth)
• Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
• Superannuation Act 1990 (Cth)
• Taxation Administration Act1953 (Cth)
• Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
• Work Safety Act 2008 (ACT)

2 State/Commonwealth legislation (liability and insurance) should also be taken into consideration.

Attachment B

Definitions

APS ICT employee

APS ICT professionals that perform analytical, conceptual and practical tasks, which support the efficient and secure provision of information and communication technology (ICT) services to government.

Campus

The buildings & grounds of a complex (industrial park or military establishment).

Day Extender

Employees that may regularly work a standard day(s) at the office and then may log in from a secure home office to complete work that could not be undertaken during the normal day. Such work patterns for the same employer when done on a repeated basis (i.e. not ad hoc) would qualify as tele-working.

Dependent Care

Care for a child, frail older person or someone with a disability or chronic illness.

Regional

Refers to any area outside of Canberra and the ACT.

Tele-centre

A location separate to the employee’s home and remote from the agency’s normal business premises that provides access to an office environment. These facilities may be provided on an agency specific or shared basis.

Tele-work

Paid work conducted away from an organisation’s physical offices, but that requires at least periodic connection to the employer’s computer network.

Tele-worker

An employee or contractor undertaking tele-work.

From: Whole-of-Government Tele-working Policy for ICT Staff, AGIMO, 17 December 2009 (converted from the PDF version.

Environment Department Wasting Energy on Letters

On 8 January I sent an email message to the Minster for Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts suggesting Internet enhanced meetings for post-Copenhagen climate change negotiations. Today I received reply from the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services. This anonymous message had a facsimile image of a letter attached (signed with an unreadable signature). The letter thanked me for my email and said my letter (I didn't send them a letter) had been referred to the Minister for Climate Change.

The attached letter was in the form of an image. The resulting file was about 100 times larger than it need be and would not be readable by those with limited vision. Government guidelines (and Australian law) require services to be provided in a way does not discriminate against people with a disability, including the blind. Routinely generating correspondence in the form of an image may constitute unlawful discrimination.

If communication was necessary (which it wasn't) all that was needed was a brief email. This would have been more readable and would used much few resources.

The Ministerial and parliamentary services handled about 20,000 items of ministerial correspondence last year. Assuming that a message similar to the one I got (about 40 kbytes of unnecessary data) was sent to each, that represents about 800 Mbytes of data. As this is correspondence the department will need to keep a copy on file for some years, wasting resources (including greenhouse gas causing energy) and increasing costs. So the Department's response to my suggestion for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has been to increase theirs.

The Australian Government has some excellent guidelines on how to handle communications (some of which I helped write). The Ministerial and Parliamentary Services of the Australian Department of Environment perhaps should read some of them.

Government 2.0 Report

The final report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce, headed by Nicholas Gruen is now available "Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0". The report is only available in PDF (1.6 MB) and Microsoft RTF (4.9 MB) formats. At 157 pages this is a very large report. An easy to download and read HTML version of the report will not be available until mid-January. In the interim, I have converted the executive summary and recommendations from the RTF to HTML using OpenOffice.org and HTML Tidy and appended them here.

Key points

• Government 2.0 or the use of the new collaborative tools and approaches of Web 2.0 offers an unprecedented opportunity to achieve more open, accountable, responsive and efficient government.
• Though it involves new technology, Government 2.0 is really about a new approach to organising and governing. It will draw people into a closer and more collaborative relationship with their government. Australia has an opportunity to resume its leadership in seizing these opportunities and capturing the resulting social and economic benefits.
• Leadership, and policy and governance changes are needed to shift public sector culture and practice to make government information more accessible and usable, make government more consultative, participatory and transparent, build a culture of online innovation within Government, and to promote collaboration across agencies.
• Government pervades some of the most important aspects of our lives. Government 2.0 can harness the wealth of local and expert knowledge, ideas and enthusiasm of Australians to improve schools, hospitals, workplaces, to enrich our democracy and to improve its own policies, regulation and service delivery.
• Government 2.0 is a key means for renewing the public sector; offering new tools for public servants to engage and respond to the community; empower the enthusiastic, share ideas and further develop their expertise through networks of knowledge with fellow professionals and others. Together, public servants and interested communities can work to address complex policy and service delivery challenges.
• Information collected by or for the public sector — is a national resource which should be managed for public purposes. That means that we should reverse the current presumption that it is secret unless there are good reasons for release and presume instead that it should be freely available for anyone to use and transform unless there are compelling privacy, confidentially or security considerations.
• Government 2.0 will not be easy for it directly challenges some aspects of established policy and practice within government. Yet the changes to culture, practice and policy we envisage will ultimately advance the traditions of modern democratic government. Hence, there is a requirement for co-ordinated leadership, policy and culture change.
• Government 2.0 is central to the delivery of government reforms like promoting innovation; and making our public service the world’s best.

From: "Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0", Government 2.0 Taskforce, Department of Finance and Deregulation, 22 December 2009

Executive summary

Web 2.0 and its promise for government

The use of the internet as a platform for collaboration is already transforming our economy and our lives. Whole industries and sectors are being refashioned by this phenomenon of Web 2.0. Citizens are being empowered to express themselves, organise and collaborate in myriad new ways.

The tools of Web 2.0 include blogs, wikis and social networking platforms. These tools enable communities of interest to develop rapidly to find people with local knowledge or technical expertise to build understanding of issues and solve problems as they emerge. They enable communities to filter the torrent of information on the internet and identify the most useful parts of it. They enable us to find the most useful contributors in any given subject area, be they a world expert or someone possessing important local or ephemeral knowledge.

Web 2.0 also encompasses the way in which the internet has become a platform for the distribution of vast quantities of data and the way in which it has empowered people and organisations to transform data by ‘mashing it up’, combining it with other data so that it can become useful in new ways.

These new tools and the culture of open collaboration which distinguishes the culture of Web 2.0 present important new challenges and possibilities for government. This offers new opportunities to refresh and deepen the enduring principles and values of modern democratic government and improve the quality and responsiveness of government policy making and service delivery.

The taskforce’s Government 2.0 agenda

The taskforce came to define its agenda for Government 2.0 in terms of three pillars:

• Leadership, policy and governance to achieve necessary shifts in public sector culture and practice.

• The application of Web 2.0 collaborative tools and practices to the business of government.

• Open access to public sector information (PSI).

Government 2.0 presents challenges to some long held government practices and has the potential to change the relationship between government and its citizens.

The promise of Government 2.0

By embracing Government 2.0 we can:

• make our democracy more participatory and informed

• improve the quality and responsiveness of services in areas like education, health and environmental management, and at the same time deliver these services with greater agility and efficiency

• cultivate and harness the enthusiasm of citizens, letting them more fully contribute to their wellbeing and that of their community

• unlock the immense economic and social value of information and other content held by governments to serve as a precompetitive platform for innovation

• revitalise our public sector and make government policies and services more responsive to people’s needs and concerns by:

• providing government with the tools for a much greater level of community engagement

• allowing the users of government services much greater participation in their design and continual improvement

• involving communities of interest and practice outside the public sector — which offer unique access to expertise, local knowledge and perspectives — in policy making and delivery

• more successfully attracting and retaining bright, enthusiastic citizens to the public service by making their work less hierarchical, more collaborative and more intrinsically rewarding.

Government 2.0 will be central to delivering on critical national objectives including delivering on our National Innovation Agenda — including the aspiration for a more innovative public sector.³ It will be central to addressing the desire of the Advisory Group on the Reform of Australian Government Administration to establish in Australia the world’s best public service which puts citizens at the centre of everything it does.⁴ It will be an important component of the Department of Human Services service delivery reform agenda .⁵It can improve social inclusion. And it will enable us to make the most of our huge broadband investment making Australia a more connected democracy.

The state of play

The enthusiasm of public agencies, public servants and the public themselves are all necessary for Government 2.0 to take root. In this regard Australia is well placed. Some Australian Government agencies have become recognised as international leaders in their embrace of Government 2.0 approaches.

In 2001, the Australian Government’s Spatial Data Access and Pricing Policy was one of the first substantial programs in the world in which government data which had previously been sold was made available without charge.⁶Today both the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Geoscience Australia are licensing much of their output using Creative Commons licences which permit others to freely use and remix it. This is an invitation to enhance the value of this public information asset (see Chapter 5).

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 Museum⁷ have engaged Australia’s citizenry in contributing their own time and content to enrich and improve national historical collections of text and visual material. 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.

There are many other examples. However efforts to date have tended to rely on the interest and enthusiasm of individual agencies. A recent KPMG survey undertaken for the Review of Australian Government Administration found that the Australian Public Service compared favourably with counterpart services elsewhere in a range of areas, but had worse performance than its best peers in the provision of online access to government information and services, mechanisms for cross-agency collaboration and tools and methods for incorporating external advice into the policy development and service design process. These are all things that Government 2.0 can deliver.

Since 2007 the United Kingdom, New Zealand and, more recently, the United States, have recognised the economic and social benefits of Government 2.0 at the highest levels of government. These countries have put in place co-ordinated and centrally driven reforms to advance the Government 2.0 agenda. Until recently, Australia was lagging behind these leaders, but proposed legislation to strengthen access to information and the promulgation of very encouraging new Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) guidelines for online engagement has set the stage for Australia to join the other countries in pioneering Government 2.0.

The taskforce’s approach

Accordingly the taskforce’s central recommendation is for a Declaration of Open Government to be made at the highest level of government emphasising the role of Web 2.0 tools and approaches in

• achieving a more consultative, participatory and transparent government

• realising the full social and economic value of public sector information (PSI) as a national resource

• asserting the centrality of Government 2.0 in the achievement of the government’s broader reform objectives.

For Australia to achieve the aspirations outlined in our terms of reference, it will require stronger, more co-ordinated governance; policy improvements and a renewed public service culture of openness and engagement. It is essential to find ways that government can adapt to the new paradigm of open and transparent government.

Government 2.0 needs concerted leadership to drive the necessary reforms and bring about the shifts of culture and practice required across the whole of government. For this reason the taskforce’s second recommendation is that a lead agency be appointed from within one of the central portfolios — either within Finance and Deregulation or Prime Minister and Cabinet — to 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 of high level officials from relevant agencies.

The lead agency will provide guidance and support to improve the extent and quality of online engagement to promote innovation and share knowledge. Agencies will identify and address barriers to online engagement; and nominate specific projects aimed at enhancing policy making and delivery through the use of online tools within and between agencies across the public sector.

According to a recent survey,⁸governments around the world had the lowest deployment of unified communications and collaboration technology across major industries. Currently, few public servants have work access to these building blocks of Government 2.0. The taskforce recommends that agencies provide employees with access to appropriate technology.

In order to achieve these shifts, public servants should be actively encouraged and empowered to engage online. The recently issued APSC guidelines for online engagement are an excellent start. They begin:

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 public servants 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.

Security concerns have been a major inhibitor of collaboration technology adoption in the public sector. Accordingly the lead agency should work with the Defence Signals Directorate to develop appropriate guidance so that agencies can undertake security risk assessments and ensure the effective, efficient and secure use of Web 2.0 tools.

Public agencies should also seek opportunities and provide space for staff to experiment and develop opportunities for greater online engagement and participation with their customers, citizens and communities of interest. Over time it will also be important to report and scrutinise progress, ensure that lessons are learned and reward outstanding practice in the use of Web 2.0 tools to improve agency and program performance. Recognition for outstanding practice will include adoption of WCAG as the minimum accessibility standard for Government 2.0.

The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC)’s annual State of the Service Report will be one instrument by which agencies’ progress in implementing these measures can be tracked and reported.

We also need clear, strong and simple policies to deliver the aspiration of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009⁹for public sector information (PSI) to be released by default with secrecy being maintained only where there is good reason to do so. In addition the information must be truly open. This means that unless there are good reasons to the contrary, information should be

• free¹⁰

• easily discoverable

• based on open standards and therefore machine-readable¹¹

• properly documented and therefore understandable¹²

• licensed to permit free reuse and transformation by others.

The need for the licensing itself to be machine readable means that the licence should conform to some international standard such as Creative Commons.

The taskforce proposes Creative Commons BY as the default licence.¹³Where third parties are involved, agencies should contract to ensure that government is able to license their work under the default licence. The government should also proceed with a review of copyright in relation to ‘orphan works’¹⁴. There should also be a process of providing more open licensing to the stock of existing PSI which has been more restrictively licensed in the past.

Because so many of the benefits of Government 2.0 will accrue when state governments are involved, the taskforce proposes that the principles set out in this report be implemented at all levels of government in Australia through a national information policy and that the Commonwealth should provide national leadership towards such a policy by engaging the Council of Australian Governments.

To accelerate progress the taskforce recommends establishing a central portal (data.gov.au) that will enable access to and discovery of the data and skills necessary in preparing government information to be released as open PSI. Guidance will be required to assist agencies to protect privacy and confidentiality, including making sure that they can reliably de-identify personal and commercial-in-confidence PSI.

The taskforce endorses the proposed Freedom of Information reforms and recommends that the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) operate to ensure the integrity of the process by which PSI is released by default. PSI should be released unless agencies are following the Information Commissioner’s (IC’s) policies or have the agreement of the IC not to release it.

In addition, the OIC will develop and administer policies to ensure that PSI that may be considered as holding value is proactively identified and released; and that all options to protect privacy and confidentiality by suppressing certain fields in structured data¹⁵be explored before an exemption from release is granted. The Commonwealth Copyright Administration (CCA) unit within the Attorney General’s Department (AGD) should also be moved to the OIC or the lead agency reflecting their charter to optimise the flow of information.

In order to measure the benefits of releasing PSI, the proposed OIC should develop a common methodology to determine the social and economic value generated from published PSI; require major agencies to report and publish their performance on the release of PSI in their annual report, as well as their contribution to the consolidated value of Commonwealth PSI.

Taskforce supports the model for the information publication scheme set out in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 and recommends that the proposed OIC provide guidance to the public on their rights to access PSI and guidance for agencies to meet their information publication and reporting obligations.

Some of the most successful experiments in Government 2.0 have been led by not-for-profits in the UK and the US. Here, the taskforce suggest that policymakers facilitate recognition of info-philanthropy¹⁶as an eligible activity to qualify for deductible gift recipient status and other measures that recognise charitable or philanthropic purposes.

What is at stake

The work of government funded or managed agencies pervades and underpins some of the most important aspects of Australian’s lives. By improving agency operation and their relationship with stakeholders, Government 2.0 gives us the scope to improve:

• the quality of schools

• the quality and safety of hospitals

• the safety and productivity of workplaces

• the convenience of public utility services such as public transport, energy and the maintenance of government infrastructure

• the dynamism, engagement and responsiveness of the public sector, its services and regulatory systems.

Government 2.0 can enable Australia to achieve all this while 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.

Getting to Government 2.0 will not be easy or straightforward for it requires co-ordinated leadership, policy and culture change. But as Mike Waller put it in a project for the taskforce ‘no country can lay claim to having yet achieved the overall transformation in public sector culture, systems and processes required to deliver a fully articulated Government 2.0 approach’. Having just begun the journey back to world leadership, we should press on secure in the knowledge that a serious effort will see us succeed.

Report recommendations

Central recommendation: A declaration of open government by the Government

Accompanying the government’s announcement of its policy response to this report, a declaration of open government should be made at the highest level, stating that:

• using technology to increase citizen engagement and collaboration in making policy and providing service will help achieve a more consultative, participatory and transparent government

• 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

• 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 using the national investment in broadband to achieve an informed, connected and democratic community.

Recommendation 2: Coordinate with leadership, guidance and support

2.1 A lead agency should be established within the Commonwealth public service with overall responsibility for advancing the Government 2.0 agenda, providing leadership, resources, 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 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the proposed new Office of the Information Commissioner, Department of Finance and Deregulation, the Australian Public Service Commission, National Archives of Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, through a Government 2.0 Steering Group¹⁷.

2.2 The Australian Government should engage other members of the Council of Australian Governments to work with the lead agency to learn from each other and promote their successes in the development of Government 2.0 strategies.

Recommendation 3: Improve guidance and require agencies to engage online

3.1 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.

3.2 Using this guidance, in conjunction with the lead agency and within 12 months of the government’s response to this report, all major agencies¹⁸should:

3.2.1 identify barriers within their organisation which inhibit online engagement and document what they will do to reduce these barriers

3.2.2 identify and document specific projects to make use of social networking and ‘crowd sourcing’ tools and techniques to enhance agency policymaking, implementation and continuous improvement

3.2.3 identify and document 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.

3.3 The APSC will include in the annual State of the Service Report details of agencies’ progress in implementing the above recommendations, covering successes, disappointments and lessons learned.

3.4 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.

Recommendation 4: Encourage public servants to engage online

4.1 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.

4.2 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.

4.3 The default position in agencies should be that employees are encouraged and enabled to engage online. Agencies should support employee enablement by providing access to tools and addressing internal technical and policy barriers.

4.4 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.

4.5 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

6.1 By default Public Sector Information¹⁹(PSI) should be:

• free²⁰

• based on open standards

• easily discoverable

• understandable²¹

• machine-readable²²

• freely reusable and transformable²³.

6.2 PSI should be released as early as practicable and regularly updated to ensure its currency is maintained.

6.3 Consistent with the need for free and open re-use and adaptation, PSI released should be licensed under the Creative Commons BY standard²⁴as the default.

6.4 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 OIC.

6.5 The proposed OIC should develop policies to maximise the extent to which existing PSI be re-licensed Creative Commons BY, taking account of undue administrative burden this may cause for agencies. To minimise administrative burden, the taskforce envisages that rules could be adopted whereby a large amount of PSI that has already been published could be automatically designated Creative Commons BY. This would include government reports, legislation and records that are already accessible to the public. Individuals or organisations should also be able to request that other PSI should be re-licensed Creative Commons BY on application, with a right of appeal should the request be refused, to the proposed new Information Commissioner.

6.6 Where ownership of the PSI data rests with the Commonwealth, data should be released under Creative Commons BY licence. Negotiation with the other party/s will be required to ensure release under Creative Commons BY for PSI which is not owned be the Commonwealth, or is shared with another party/s. New contracts or agreements with a third party 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.²⁵This policy should become mandatory for all contracts signed by the Commonwealth after June 2011.

6.7 Copyright policy should be amended so that works covered by Crown copyright are automatically licensed under a Creative Commons BY licence at the time at which Commonwealth records become available for public access under the Archives Act 1983.

6.8 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 OIC and consistent with the government’s FOI policy, noting that:

6.8.1 in the case of structured data,²⁶agencies must exhaust options to protect privacy and confidentiality before seeking an exemption²⁷

6.8.2 agencies must proactively identify and release, without request, such data that might reasonably be considered as holding value to parties outside the agency.

6.9 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.

6.10 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.

6.11 Within the first year of its establishment the proposed OIC, 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.

6.12 The major agencies²⁸under 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.

6.13 The proposed OIC 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 online and be accessible for comment and discussion.

6.14 Following government acceptance of the initial Value of PSI Report, the proposed OIC should consider the development of a ‘lite’ version of the common methodology for use by other FMA Act agencies.

6.15 The taskforce notes the proposed changes to the FOI Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009 to have the proposed OIC issue guidelines to support the future operations of the Act as described in the Explanatory Memorandum for Schedule 2, Section 8.²⁹To ensure effective and consistent implementation of access to PSI these guidelines should give due consideration to the concepts outlined above.

Recommendation 7: Addressing issues in the operation of copyright

7.1 Agencies should apply policy guidance, or seek advice on a case by case basis, on the licensing of PSI either before its release or in administering licences after publication from the proposed OIC.

7.2 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 should be transferred to the either the proposed OIC or the lead agency. Other administrative functions of the CCA unit should be reviewed to identify which of the functions should remain within AGD and those that should transfer to the proposed OIC

7.3 It is recommended that the proposed OIC 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: Information publication scheme

8.1 The taskforce recommends that, in the development, management and implementation of a government information publication scheme, the proposed OIC, once established, take regard of the findings and recommendations contained in the report Whole of Government Information Publication Scheme, Government 2.0 Taskforce Project 7.³⁰

8.2 The taskforce supports the model for the publication scheme set out in the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Bill 2009³¹and notes that the Bill incorporates complementary aims. To reinforce its support, the taskforce recommends information publication schemes be developed with the following explicit aims. To:

8.2.1 provide an overall and consistent statutory framework for information publication by all agencies

8.2.2 encourage the widest disclosure of useful government information consistent with the public interest, and thereby greater trust in government

8.2.3 guide agencies in overcoming attitudinal, technological and legal barriers to optimal information disclosure and use, and to improved public engagement

8.2.4 provide a planning framework to assist agencies in their overall information management

8.2.5 provide an integrated and simplified guide for agencies to meet their information publication and reporting obligations

8.2.6 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

8.2.7 enable the proposed OIC to monitor schemes, and encourage agencies towards achieving government pro-disclosure objectives through reference to exemplars, and reporting of unsatisfactory progress.

Recommendation 9: Accessibility

9.1 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:

9.1.1 agency compliance with the Worldwide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)³²as the minimum accessibility level for all online community engagement and online PSI provision is required. Data provided on the primary PSI site, data.gov.au, should be provided in full compliance with WCAG

9.1.2 where an agency is considering a Web 2.0 project where strict compliance with WCAG accessibility guidelines risks preventing a project from proceeding, AGIMO will provide guidance on options to facilitate maximum access for people with disabilities

9.1.3 where an agency elects to proceed with a project that is not fully compliant they must publish 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 compliance within a reasonable timeframe

9.1.4 a central register of accessibility compliance statements should be maintained on data.gov.au

9.1.5 in consultation with relevant agencies, the lead agency should establish awards for agencies that recognise outstanding practice in the application of accessibility principles and guidelines impact of Government 2.0 tools to improve agency interactions with citizens, business and community groups.

Recommendation 10: Security and Web 2.0

10.1 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.

10.2 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 should take into consideration the different environments in which agencies operate the varying risk profiles that exist and the range of tools that may be used. DSD should update the Information Security Manual (ISM) accordingly.

10.3 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 OIC 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 11: Privacy and confidentiality

11.1 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.³³

11.2 To protect the commercial-in-confidence information of businesses included in PSI, the proposed OIC should develop guidance on the de-identification of PSI.

Recommendation 12: Definition of Commonwealth Record

12.1 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 reviewed 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.

12.2 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. Wherever not being able to meet such standards would produce any appreciable delay of release, the data should be released provisionally and then updated with compliant metadata. 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 13: Encourage info-philanthropy

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. 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. As part of their policy approach to recognise volunteers in the community, they should also ensure that online volunteers are appropriately recognised. ...

3 Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century http://www.innovation.gov.au/innovationreview/Pages/home.aspx or http://tinyurl.com/67l3vm and Management Advisory Committee, Advancing Public Sector Innovation see http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspx or http://tinyurl.com/nbx6jm.

4 Advisory Group on Reform of Australian Government Administration. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/AdvancingPublicSectorInnovation.aspx or http://tinyurl.com/nbx6jm.

5http://www.mhs.gov.au/media/speeches-transcripts/091216-service-delivery-reform.html.

6 http://www.osdm.gov.au/OSDM/Policies+and+Guidelines/Spatial+Data+Access+and+Pricing/default.aspx or

http://tinyurl.com/kpgtsn.

7 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).

8 See: Table 1: Technology Deployment by Vertical Industry

9 http://www.pmc.gov.au/consultation/foi_reform/index.cfm or http://tinyurl.com/d7ywkt.

10 Provided at no cost in the absence of substantial marginal costs.

11 The Semantic Web involves a vision of a machine-readable web, where intelligent agents would be capable of understanding data presented online by interpreting the accompanying metadata.

12 Supported by metadata that will aid in the understanding the quality and interpretability of the information.

13 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/.

14 Information for which the copyright is held by third parties who cannot be readily identified or located.

15 ‘Any data kept in an electronic record, where each piece of information has an assigned format and meaning.’

http://www.mgrush.com/content/view/70/33/.

16 The building of public information goods and platforms for public benefit.

17 This is not to preclude the possibility of one of the listed agencies being or including the lead agency.

18 All departments of state and material agencies see http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/flipchart/index.html or http://tinyurl.com/yhkrbe2.

19 The definition was 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’.

20 Provided at no cost in the absence of substantial marginal costs.

21 Supported by metadata that will aid in the understanding the quality and interpretability of the information.

22 The Semantic Web involves a vision of a machine-readable web, where intelligent agents would be capable of understanding data presented online by interpreting the accompanying metadata.

23 Not having limitation on derivative uses.

24 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/.

25 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).

26 Any data kept in an electronic record, where each piece of information has an assigned format and meaning.

27 This would include, for example, the removal of specific fields or records. However, in considering appropriate treatments, agencies should avoid unduly compromising the potential value of the data that may be derived.

28 All departments of state and material agencies see http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/flipchart/index.html or http://tinyurl.com/yhkrbe2.

29 http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4163%22 or http://tinyurl.com/ycqhp83.

30 http://gov2.net.au/projects/project-7.

31 http://www.pmc.gov.au/consultation/foi_reform/index.cfm or http://tinyurl.com/d7ywkt.

32 This recommendation 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.

33 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. ...

From: "Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0", Government 2.0 Taskforce, Department of Finance and Deregulation, 22 December 2009