Regardless of where you stand on the Occupy movement, this photo highlights that even if we forget the protests themselves (and the abuses) something has definitely changed. Not sure if we should really call it citizen journalism, more a kind of governance.

Open government; resilient state: Innovating for government in NSW

If you work for government – or with government – whether federal, state or local, this one-day forum is for you.
 
GovCamp for you

This GovCamp “unconference” is simply a space to open up the public sphere conversation - to create a comfortable place where new thinking becomes possible and enables new outcomes.  There are no long presentations and the topics are yours - you get to create the agenda.

So this GovCamp is about how government works, as well as how it works for citizens.  It's about the pressures of needing to do better government with less; about meeting growing public needs and expectations within an increasingly transparent and stretched public space.

It's also about leverage points for innovation in NSW, such as connective technologies and open data.  We hope to hear some big-picture policy ideas and some pragmatic new-ways-of-working.

GovCampNSW is about the power of ideas and conversation. It aspires to build upon the gov-tech / 2.0 focus and look beyond to shaping innovation in government in NSW.

Discussion will include:

• Cultural change leading to open government.
• Social technologies and service delivery.
• Policy 2.0: Why do apps have all the fun? 

For more info on the program and format OR to suggest topics you'd be interested in discussing on the day, please visit the GovCampNSW website at www.govcampnsw.info.

GovCamp is for people like you

Public sector practitioners, advisers and leaders who are excited by these challenges, who seek to better understand the risks and opportunities within emerging trends. 

There are no clever corporate games; just dialogue and an open exchange of ideas.  It's a Saturday. It's free time, casual and as "off-the-record" as you need.  And because it's shared conversation, you'll take away even more than you contribute.

 

 

For my part, a recurring Gov 2.0 theme for me is social innovation and the role of the non-profit sector in service delivery. So I hope to see a good mix of government people, agitators for change (like me), engaged citizens and also the non-profit sector at this first GovCamp for NSW.

BTW I'll be helping out, co-facilitating the conversation cafe and maybe a presentation.

Professor Braithwaite says he doesn't oppose the system outright but he says the Government needs to give a much better explanation of how it would operate.

JEFFREY BRAITHWAITE: Is the data really reflecting performance of hospitals and services or is it a reflection of the different idiosyncrasies within the system and the complications within the system?

So it really does require a lot of smart thinking to present data in an effective way.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: Do you suspect that when all is said and done a system of this nature simply might not be worth the money?

JEFFREY BRAITHWAITE: Well that's the big $64 question. No-one really knows.

You set up an authority, you hire staff, you have a lot of activity within the health system to gather data in accordance with the information system's requirements. You get a lot of people not only gathering the data but using it.

Do you get commensurate benefits in terms of health systems improvement? No-one really knows.

I wasn't particularly impressed by the MySchool effort and I wasn't impressed by the MyHosptials site when I heard about it late last year. However, lets not get confused about actionable and useful open data with publishing meaningless facts and figures, that are only likely to distort management priorities. I'm still waiting for a genuine Government 2.0 approach and innovative thinking in the public sector to be applied to this particular problem. And its not like there aren't models they can copy. I wonder what's stopping them?

I did make many of these points since the very beginning of the open government initiative, and I have been warning other jurisdictions not to enter a competition based on how many data sets, or how many Facebook pages or idea contests they would run vs. other jurisdictions.

What very few have done, and should have been hardwired in the directive, is to link openness to value and mission objectives. There is still time, although the clock is ticking as the Congress – which is no longer as favorable as it was at the beginning of the Obama administration – starts looking more closely into this matter.

Gartner analyst, Andrea Di Maio, comments on the recently released US Congressional Report on Open Government, which appears to challenge some of the rhetoric of open government supporters - Di Maio clearly thinks, to put it in commercial lanaguage, its all about return on investment.

I haven't had time to read the report myself, so I'm taking Di Maio's comments on face value - surprisingly, I agree with some of them in principle. It is very easy to get caught up with app building and open data, while not actually really doing anything innovative to extend, improve or reduce the cost of community services, they way they organise or how they are delivered.

However, the thing I would challenge is who exactly do we mean as the beneficiary of the return on investment in open government - the institutions or the citizens? And is this report really just the sign of government institutions fighting against change and the FUD created by Wikileaks?

The issue of what Clay Shirky calls "Coase's Floor also comes to mind - the problem might be that governments are making it too expensive is some cases to move to open government, by trying to measure and make the effort visible so they can analyse it before taking action.

I had the honour of presenting this Vital Issues Seminar today for the Parliamentary Library, at Australia's Parliament House. In between interruptions by the bells, Sen. Kate Lundy chaired the meeting and even managed to throw me some curly questions to deal with.

Also demonstrating that the Parliamentary Library is walking the Gov 2.0 talk, you will find a copy of my slides and also a sound recording* of my presentation on the Parliament's Website. This I should add is not only a great resource for people working in parliament, but also those that wouldn't necessarily normally have access to these sessions either.

*BTW that noise at the beginning is the bells ringing through the PA system.

The Government’s response to this report, which Senator Ludwig and I released today, shows twelve of the report’s 13 recommendations were generally agreed to.  We have deferred our response to one recommendation about tax deductibility for information philanthropy until it can be considered in the context of the review of Australia’s Future Tax System and the research report on the Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector.

The Taskforce’s central recommendation was that the Australian Government make a declaration of open government. The Rudd Government has accepted this recommendation and we expect to make such a declaration in the coming months.

Whilst today is the completion of one phase, it is also very much the beginning of a new one. The task now is to implement these changes, beginning with assisting agencies to make the most of the opportunities offered by Web 2.0.

Yesterday, Senator Tanner and Ludwig published the Australian federal government's official response to the Gov 2.0 Taskforce report.

The government agreed with the vast majority of recommendations, so I won't provide a point-by-point critique of their responses. The broad implication is that this provides a mandate at the federal level (and hopefully cascading down to state and local levels) for 'Open Government' and Government 2.0*. The Department of Finance and Deregulation has been appointed the lead agency, working along side the future Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC) and the Attorney Generals Department (AGD), and a multi-agency steering group, to help guide and support the implementation of Government 2.0.

One immediate implication for agencies is that the government also supported the Taskforce's call for an initial 12 month period (on top of the last 10 months of advance warning) where agencies need put together what is effectively their own Government 2.0 review and action plan. I did note that this includes not just external engagement, but "internal collaboration within their agency and between agencies".

However, with hindsight there are probably few surprises in the areas where the government didn't endorse the Taskforce's recommendations entirely or immediately:

• The role of the OIC versus the AGD in relation to public sector information and copyright;
• The didn't support the position that all consultations to be conducted in public (I actually agree with them on this point); and
• Deferment of the info-philanthropy recommendation.

The government also clearly stated that there will be no extra money for agencies to implement Government 2.0 - this is to be treated as business as usual:

The cost of agency change required to address internal technical and policy barriers will be the responsibility of agencies to absorb as part of their business-as-usual activities.

Personally, I think there are some critical steps that need to happen next:

1. The lead agency - Finance (I assume, in practice AGIMO) - needs to focus on actively facilitating the adoption of Government 2.0 through knowledge sharing and networking between people inside and outside government, not just issuing improved guidelines. In fact, the ongoing development of practices and guidelines needs to be a participatory approach by the agencies using them.
2. If individual agencies are going to address Government 2.0 as they have been mandated but also as part of business of usual, I think it will require swapping some existing ways of operating for new, innovative approaches.

Finally, on a related note - nice to see 'govspace' up and running.

*I'm a bit of heretic and don't see Open/Participatory Government as necessarily being mutually inclusive with the concept of Government 2.0, however they are mutually beneficial.