[@OKau] Will the Open Government National Action Plan transform anything?

Sat Apr 2 21:40:18 UTC 2016

Hi everyone

The bacon and eggs thing is just a bit weird but I get the general idea. I think this is a process and an opportunity to participate in policy decision making and like many other such processes there is no guarantee of anything. The fight for copyright reform has seem numerous inquiries, reports, reviews etc. over more than 20 years. Two are underway now. There is still no certainty anything more will be achieved this time although we have finally got legal deposit for the NLA through which is a great win. And yet we must continue to campaign, advocate, write submissions etc. Participate in the process.

The OGP is at least a new kind of process, with different rules and an international audience. It's another platform to advocate for the many improvements we would like to see. Who knows if it will transform anything. Buts it's worth a try.

Having said that it would be great to see it more widely known about and it does seem like many interested players are not engaged at this point. But maybe that's a chance for those of us who are following it to play a bigger role. More will follow.

On 1 Apr 2016, at 12:12 PM, Steven De Costa <steven.decosta at linkdigital.com.au<mailto:steven.decosta at linkdigital.com.au>> wrote:

Awesome Craig :)  Brings a whole new meaning to Angry Birds, which I'll be explaining to my kids tonight.

I'm pretty excited by everything going on right now. Very busy just keeping up with it all actually.

Cheers,
Steven

STEVEN DE COSTA | EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
www.linkdigital.com.au<http://www.linkdigital.com.au/>

[http://www.linkdigital.com.au/email/logo-apn-acp-agp.png]  [https://association.drupal.org/files/Drupal_Association_sup_partner_80.png]  [http://www.linkdigital.com.au/email/ckan_association.jpg]

On 1 April 2016 at 11:58, Craig Thomler <craig.thomler at gmail.com<mailto:craig.thomler at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi guys,

I have appreciated throughout this first OGPAU process that many people would 'hold fire' as it was new to them and they may not be sure how the process will roll out, plus there's many existing consultation and engagement processes that people are involved with that might be more specific to the outcomes they are hoping for.

This is a journey, and I expect to see increasingly levels of participation throughout each successive OGP cycle - exactly the experience of other jurisdictions.

I think there's a bit of truth both in Rosie and Pia's position.

Pia has lived and breathed this stuff for years and is totally committed to the positive outcomes that open government advocates are hoping for - as are the current team in PM&C.

As such she's aware of how easily bruised the process can be by comments that outsiders might see as innoculous - and she has fielded every skerrick of negativity personally, which can shade someone's perspective, in order to protect the process and ensure it has every chance of positive outcomes.

I don't think she's leaping at shadows, but I do feel that as she's sensitised to the material she occassionally goes hard on perceived negativity. However given the alternative (a disinterested bunch of bureaucrats who don't understand or connect to the engaged community) I prefer to see her a little overprotective of the process than unengaged.

Remember that Pia, and the team in PM&C are like the pig in a meal of bacon and eggs - committed and responsible for the outcome. They'll get the brunt of negativity if people feel it has failed - and hopefully much of the credit for a successful outcome.

Rosie, as have myself and others who are 'involved but not committed' (like the chicken in bacon & eggs...), are reflecting on how the process could be improved or deliver better outcomes and also hope and wish to influence it to ensure success.

However there is a potential blindness in this - we don't have to juggle the expectations within government, the cabinet processes, the competing views and priorities. We're free to speculate and comment and critique, with no direct consequences to our opinions. We can have Unicorns and ribbons, the team in PM&C gets politicians and red tape.

So let's trust a little and give the process the time to roll through a full cycle before critiquing it too much.

Yes it won't be perfect, but nothing is.

Yes with 70 proposed commitments, each has only a 1 in 70 (that's 1.4%) of being selected - but some commitments may be combined with others, implemented outside the OGP process, or rolled into future years (or not attempted at all - but maybe they weren't practical or appropriate for this process, there's other doors and approaches they might suit).

I appreciate the work done on this by Pia, and by the current team - Toby, Tim and others including Amelia, who has run herself ragged.

Right now let's give them our support - all the positive eggs we chickens can muster (including some chocolate ones, given the season) - to bias the OGP process towards a positive outcome and trust that the pigs won't steal our eggs.

Then, if there's concerns down the track, let's deal with them then, in the next cycle.

Cheers,

Craig

PS: I mean no offense by referring to groups as pigs and chickens, it's to illustrate a point. I like bacon and eggs. I also like chickens and pigs.

PPS: If you don't get the stealing eggs reference, look up Angry Birds.

PPPS: Yes I did think of creating an OGP Angry Birds edition - knock down the house of parliament to win back your eggs - Again, leave it for next cycle :)

_________________________________________________

Craig Thomler

http://egovau.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/CraigThomler
http://au.linkedin.com/in/craigthomler
http://www.slideshare.net/CraigThomler <http://www.slideshare.net/CraigThomler%20>

Mobile: 0411 780 194 (International: +61 411 780 194<tel:%2B61%20411%20780%20194>)
Phone: 02 6161 4508 (International: +61 2 6161 4508<tel:%2B61%202%206161%204508>)
Skype: craig.thomler

On 1 April 2016 at 09:10, Pia Waugh <pia.waugh at gmail.com<mailto:pia.waugh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Rosie,

I didn't say airing concerns was a problem. I said a constant barrage of negativity is a problem. I appreciate your comments and although it is good to see you don't assuming something like the timing to be nefarious, you can understand that the comment you made in your earlier post about the timing sets a negative tone.  A few people assume the worst from the process, the government and any of the people involved and this translates to a lot of energy on the part of all involved being used to constantly address mistrust. I have for instance addressed the grand challenges question on no less than 10 occassions, on several different fora, yet it still persists. I guess I'm trying to suggest that once an issue is aired and dealt with, can we put most of our colelctive efforts into making this good, rather than tearing it down.

I have to run, I have a 9 week old that needs my attention. I will try contribute some more thoughts later.

Cheers,
Pia

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Rosie Williams <BudgetAus at hotmail.com<mailto:BudgetAus at hotmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Pia

Out of curiosity, how do you see people airing their concerns about decisions made by the government regarding the NAP as having the potential to undermine the NAP? You state that you are concerned people airing concerns will cause an 'unsatisfactory outcome'. It would be helpful to understand why you believe public commentary is a problem? Are you suggesting that there will be political backlash against the NAP from the bureaucracy or politicians because people have aired concerns about the quality, scope and the focus of the NAP or do you mean that if we change our expectations to be more in line with what the government is happy to deliver then we will be more satisfied with the outcome?

I agree that presuming bad will on behalf of the government can be quite tiresome and that the way to build trust between the bureaucracy and the government is to be fully open about the reasons for things. I am yet to read a comment on the OGP wiki made by the public that does not appear to have been made with the best of intentions so perhaps the presumption of negativity runs both ways. But perhaps a lot of comments have been added since last night of a different nature?

Personally I have never considered that the timing of the consultation period is a deliberate attempt to undermine the process but by the same token it is not the public who decided on the funds to be devoted (or not) to the process or whether or not there would be a decent media campaign to educate the public about the consultation or for that matter which Grand Challenges would be the focus. Having said that I reiterate my question to you about why you feel so strongly that people simply airing their opinions 'will guarantee an unsatisfactory outcome'?

thankyou

Rosie Williams BA (Sociology)
________________________________________
 NoFibs.com.au<http://nofibs.com.au> - Open Data Reporter | OpenAus<https://openaus.net.au> - Founder and Developer

________________________________
From: okfn-au <okfn-au-bounces at lists.okfn.org<mailto:okfn-au-bounces at lists.okfn.org>> on behalf of Pia Waugh <pia.waugh at gmail.com<mailto:pia.waugh at gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, 1 April 2016 7:53 AM
To: Unname; ogp at pmc.gov.au<mailto:ogp at pmc.gov.au>
Subject: Re: [@OKau] Will the Open Government National Action Plan transform anything?

Hi all,

Can I suggest the first ever Australian NAP is still in development and perhaps it would be more useful to not assume the worst in the first instance, because that will guarantee an unsatisfactory outcome. The OGP team at PM&C are working so hard to try make this happen, to engage with the public, to engage with agencies and get the best outcome possible (i am on maternity leave, and I do not envy their task) and although there have been a lot of good ideas and energy contributed, there is still this snarky undertone which undermines it at every turn, by a number of people who care about this a lot and I would have thought have the most reason to want it to succeed.

I'm going to address just one of the points raised which has come up several times in public fora as just negativity for no reason, a distraction from making the NAP. The consultation kicked off in November, which was the soonest possible to kick off a consultation after a decision was made, and it kicked off a 7-8 month consultation process to align with the OGP annual NAP and IRM timing (july each year). It could have been launched in January thus shortening the consultation process, or it could have been an 18 month consultation to get a NAP by mid 2017. The timing was chosen with the best interests of the community in mind and this is just one example where nefariousness is assumed and it just sucks oxygen from what could be a really positive collaboration between community and government.

I will leave it there. I made a personal submission to OGP on my blog (http://pipka.org), because I care about this succeeding and I wish all the team at PM&C all the luck and good will in the world to continue the good work and get a good outcome. I hope you will all join me in trying to make this work. I've ccd that team so Rosie's concerns are flagged with them.

Cheers,
Pia

https://openaus.net.au/blog/2016/03/16/will-the-open-government-national-action-plan-transform-anything/

I got some very useful feedback from an advocate within the social services sector yesterday which put me out of my misery in terms of understanding why it might be that the health and social services sector are less than enthusiastic about engaging with theOpen Government Partnership National Action Plan<http://ogpau.govspace.gov.au/>.

The advocate pointed out that she was already involved in more than one consultation and I think it is safe to assume these consultations are ones she is both familiar with and has her head across. Contrast this with the mystery of Australia’s first National Action Plan, announced during the Christmas holiday period late last year, with an interface and resources which are in no way intuitive and which takes quite some ‘getting across’ even for those of us who knew it was coming<https://www.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/2016/02/23/how-to-make-an-ogp-national-action-plan-commitment/>!

Gaining this new perspective on what participation in the NAP may look like to professional advocates prompted me to question why it was that I thought it was worth participating in. Why did I think the NAP was more powerful than existing consultations? Given there are many existing consultation mechanisms why does the NAP process exist at all? If I or someone else makes the effort to understand this new fangled process andsuggests a Commitment<http://ogpau.wikispaces.com/Commitments> or contributes to a goal, what certainty is there that this will make it into the National Action Plan: a 30% chance… a 50% chance… a 90% chance? Further to that, is there evidence from National Action Plans in other countries to confirm the transformative power of the Open Government Partnership?

It is questions such as these that impact the decisions people make about whether to invest time in a consultation. The existing resources do not shed much light on the kinds of details that allow one to evaluate how likely any input is to end up as policy. For example who is it that ends up making the decisions about what is in or out, what is funded or not? Do the agencies themselves decide if they are in or out of the NAP or if they are part of the NAP that they will agree to implement a Commitment? What role does government funding and the budget play in all this?

The formal response I got from the OGP last night to my recent request to include the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare in the NAP process did not clarify whether or not it is up to the agencies to decide for themselves if they are in or out, hence my tweet to the official hashtag #OGPAu to clarify:

"Another question for the OGP FAQ: is it up to agencies alone to decide if they agree to implement publicly sourced Commitments? #ogpau<https://twitter.com/hashtag/ogpau?src=hash>"

The AIHW is in my mind a very significant agency in terms of data that relates to policy and funding decisions crucial to many vulnerable groups in Australia. This is borne out in their role collecting the National Minimum Data Sets, a requirement of the National Partnership Agreements with the states, agreements which underpin the flow of funds from the Commonwealth to the states. This observation of mine is stated in the government’s own Gov 2.0 Taskforce Report<http://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/Government20TaskforceReport.pdf?v=1> on page xiii

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 Governments’ (COAG) agendas in education and health).

The absence of the AIHW from the NAP<http://ogpau.govspace.gov.au/idc-24th-february/> takes some explaining yet it was yours truly who was asked to explain to the OGP why they should ask the AIHW to come on board, an interesting reversal of logic and accountability. Given the statement in the OGP FAQ that states and territories are ‘not bound by this agreement<http://ogpau.govspace.gov.au/national-action-plan/faqs/#How_can_state_and_local_governments_participate_in_the_planning_process_and_will_they_be_bound_by_the_Federal_OGP_National_Action_Plan>‘ and the importance of the states to delivery of the programs encompassed in the Grand Challenges ‘Improving public services’ and ‘More effectively managing public resources’ –it would seem even more important that Commonwealth agencies that collect data on behalf of national interests are included in the NAP.

Being late to the OGP party, Australia is not exactly blazing a trail in open government. This has the benefit of Australians being able to learn from what other countries have accomplished through their National Action Plans. Has UK democracy or policy been transformed by their NAPs<http://www.opengovpartnership.org/country/united-kingdom/action-plan>? Has America’s NAPs created much change for US citizens? Are the poor and vulnerable better off? Is government more accountable and responsive to needs? Are policy decisions better informed?

I’ve added some resources from countries further along in their open government journey that might help inform these questions and allow readers to better decide the potential impact of our own National Action Plan for Open Government.

Given that my input<http://ogpau.wikispaces.com/Commitments> into the NAP is based on my years of (uncompensated) work with open data as it relates to financial and political transparency and is based on the input I have received from my own consultations with health and social services advocates, I see no reason on the face of it why the government would exclude it from the National Action Plan other than as a result of a deliberate desire to go against the ideals of open government. I also observe however, that the less people and the fewer organisations that take a public interest in the drafting of the NAP, the easier it will be for such travesties to come to pass, resulting in a National Action Plan for Open Government that becomes what so many are afraid it might be: just another talk fest and business as usual.

  *   UK first to launch action plan on business & human rights<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-first-to-launch-action-plan-on-business-and-human-rights>
  *   UK action plan on women, peace & security<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319870/FCO643_NAP_Printing_final3.pdf> (2014-2017)

One year ago at the UN General Assembly I stated a simple truth, that the strongest foundation for human progress lies in open economies, open societies and in open governance and I challenged our countries to come back this year with specific Commitments to promote transparency, to fight corruption, to energise civic engagement and to leverage new technologies so we can strengthen the foundation of freedom in our own countries. Barack Obama

We wanted to make sure the NAP would not end up as just another document which may be good to read or display on the bookshelf. Especially we didn’t want it to end up just another wishlist… it should make a difference.

I’m also very delighted to see that Great Britain has also mobilised the others to see the issue of sexual violence is critical to development. As a woman who has been working with women in conflict for the last 20 years, I say kudos!

Find the associated videos at https://openaus.net.au/blog/2016/03/16/will-the-open-government-national-action-plan-transform-anything/

Rosie Williams BA (Sociology)
________________________________________
 NoFibs.com.au<http://nofibs.com.au> - Open Data Reporter | OpenAus<https://openaus.net.au> - Founder and Developer

_______________________________________________
okfn-au mailing list
okfn-au at lists.okfn.org<mailto:okfn-au at lists.okfn.org>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au

_______________________________________________
okfn-au mailing list
okfn-au at lists.okfn.org<mailto:okfn-au at lists.okfn.org>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au

_______________________________________________
okfn-au mailing list
okfn-au at lists.okfn.org<mailto:okfn-au at lists.okfn.org>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au

_______________________________________________
okfn-au mailing list
okfn-au at lists.okfn.org<mailto:okfn-au at lists.okfn.org>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au

_______________________________________________
okfn-au mailing list
okfn-au at lists.okfn.org<mailto:okfn-au at lists.okfn.org>
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-au
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-au/attachments/20160402/7baecec5/attachment-0004.html>