Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Interim protocols for government online media participation released

Back on 8 December the APSC released Circular 2008/8: Interim protocols for online media participation.

I was waiting to hear about them officially before posting about them. However as I've not yet seen any coverage through these channels, I figured that it was time to post about them to raise some awareness for those of us in the egovernment space and for other public servants blogging.

The interim guidelines have been released in support of the current online consultation trials taking place in the Federal government, with the Department of Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy's Future Directions blog being one of these trials.

The guidelines cover both official and private use (such as this blog) of online communications and are broadly inline with similar guidelines in the US, UK and New Zealand.

In summary these are,

Official use of online communication
When using online communication for official purposes:
  • ensure that you are appropriately authorised to do so. Let people know who you are and what you want to achieve. You should disclose your position as a representative of your agency, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as a potential threat to personal security
  • be accurate and informative in explaining Government policies and programmes and be responsive to public views and comment. You should, however, avoid any statements that might be interpreted as advocating government policies or criticising the policies of other political parties or groups
  • be objective and impartial. Avoid any comment that could be interpreted as a personal political view
  • be honest, cordial and professional at all times
  • don’t commit your department or agency or the Government to any action or initiative unless you have authority to do so
  • don’t disclose official information unless you are authorised to do so or unless it is already in the public domain. Be aware of laws covering libel, defamation, privacy and the protection of intellectual property
  • avoid any statement or comment that might bring the APS into disrepute.
Private use of online communication
As a citizen, you are entitled to comment in a personal capacity on public issues, including through contributing to online discussion and debate. You should remember, however:
  • that Commonwealth resources must be used in a proper manner. You should not use work internet or email for private blogging or other forms of online comment;
  • that you should avoid any comment that might be interpreted as an official statement on behalf of your agency or that might compromise perceptions of your ability to do your job in an unbiased and professional manner. You should also be careful about posting comment or material that might bring the APS into disrepute.
Final guidelines are planned to be released in 2009.

Read full post...

MP interests to be published online

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald a few days ago, Open Australia has requested, and plans to soon publish, the register of MP interests.

Per the article, Interests of MPs to go online - it's about time, while the register is publicly available, currently 'public' means that,

As things stand, if you want to know which MPs has been given trips abroad, who has investments in mining or pharmaceutical companies, or who has real estate holdings in areas ripe for development, you have to go to Canberra, get into Parliament House, find the Senate or House of Representatives offices where the registers are held and leaf through vast volumes of forms.

The cost and effort of such an exercise mean that while politicians claim the document is public, few members of the public ever see it.


When the committee responsible for the register, the Privileges and Members Interests Standing Committee, was asked why it had not previously been placed online, the Chair, Brett Raguse said to SMH,

When asked why his committee had not simply put the register online, Raguse said it was "a good question" but was "something no one had really thought about" until now.


I hope other departments and committees are thinking about whether they should put their public information online.

Where government information is already available publicly, surely using the internet for distribution is logical and supports the credibility of a serious egovernment agenda.

Read full post...

US Federal Web Managers Council recommend egovernment strategies for new US Administration

The US Federal Web Managers Council have developed a white paper recommending strategies for revolutionising the US Government's provision of online services for citizens.

The paper, Putting Citizens First: Transforming Online Government, contains some very practical ideas that are also worth considering under Australian conditions, including,

  • Establish Web Communications as a core government business function
  • Help the public complete common government tasks efficiently
  • Clean up the clutter so people can find what they need online
  • Engage the public in a dialogue to improve our customer service
  • Ensure the public gets the same answer whether they use the web, phone, email, print, or visit in-person
  • Ensure underserved populations can access critical information online


To quote the conclusion of the paper,
By harnessing the collaborative nature of the web, the new Administration has the potential to engage the public like never before. The web can foster better communication and allow people to participate in improving the operations of their government. By listening to our customers we can provide better services, focus on their most pressing needs, and spend their tax dollars efficiently. We’re confident that President-elect Obama will appoint leaders who will invest in the web as a strategic asset and make these goals a reality. The millions of Americans who interact with their government online expect and deserve no less.

Read full post...

Friday, December 19, 2008

Transforming local government using Web 2.0

As discussed in the Online Community Consultation blog, the CTO of Seattle, Bill Schrier, has made an interesting post in his blog discussing How Web 2.0 Will Transform Local Government

Bill's post runs through a broad set of tools and how they can be applied by local government - equally of value for at state and federal levels.

Read full post...

A better name for Government 2.0

I'm not a fan of terms such as Web 2.0, which seems to refer to any internet development since 2001. The web is an evolving medium, just like any other. We don't see the term 'Television 2.0' (or 5.0 considering all the generational changes) used to refer to reality TV.

I'm even less comfortable with the term 'Government 2.0' - which refers nebulously to government use of 'Web 2.0' technologies - a slogan on a slogan.

Government 2.0 isn't quite an entire rethink of how democratic government works. Government remains an elected institution designed to provide 'public goods', infrastructure and services more efficiently than would be provided by private concerns. It also has a critical role in regulating and balancing competing economic and social forces to ensure the needs of a community are met with minimal disadvantage to specific groups.

What government 2.0 involves, in my thinking, is significant changes to mindsets, business processes, infrastructure and funding models to adapt how government listens to and engages the public, customers, clients and other stakeholders.

These changes mirrors the social and economic changes already occurring in the community to exploit potential benefits derived through technological innovation.

(Feel free to tell me that my definition is wrong)

So if we need an alternative term to Government 2.0 what should it be?

Personally I favour terms such as 21st century government, modern government or connected government - which reflect that the goal is to reconnect government with its stakeholders using modern techniques and tecnologies.

Dr Mark Drapeau, from the Center for Technology and National Security Policy of the National Defense University in Washington, DC., recently asked people for a few ideas and presented them in his blog at Mashable in the post, Rebranding Government 2.0.

DO you think any of these terms will catch on?

Read full post...

Bookmark and Share