Comments on: TOWARDS GOVERNMENT 2.0: AN ISSUES PAPER [final]

By: Amelia Loye

Amelia Loye — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:42:27 +0000

If we are to take these mediums seriously as engagement methods for policy development we must develop processes/systems to record, analyse and report information gathered in a format useful for policy writers.
This information also needs to be correlated with feedback gathered through complimentary engagement methods if a cross section of viewpoints are to be considered.

By: Ray Collins

Ray Collins — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:57:31 +0000

I think you are missing the target for collaboration here. Government agencies may draft policies but the Government of the day i.e. the politicians decide the policies. In Australia my primary path to policy decisions is my local member or the appropriate minister; it isn’t a Government department or agency. The politicians are supposed to represent my view and to take the views of their constituents into account when forming policy.

So the questions should be

1.How is Web 2.0 going to help me interact with my representatives in the parliament?

2. How is Web 2.0 going to help me obtain services from Government agencies?

By: Jose Robertson

Jose Robertson — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:51:19 +0000

In terms of collaboration across agencies, 2 initiatives first proposed 10 years ago might now find a more receptive environment.

1) ArtsCast was proposed as a cross-agency video-on-demand service, delivered across all digital channels, but couldn’t attract seed funding from governnment, despite the enthusiasm of a number of cultural agencies for it. The ABC has now built the technology (iView). Rather than just having to rely on YouTube or individual agency sites to obtain video content, citizens should be able to surf a video portal using consistent (high) standards of encoding and delivery. It would give the government a range of video content to deliver down the fat pipes of the near future.

2) ArtsShop was proposed s a cross-agency online shopping mall, but couldn’t attract seed funding from government, despite the enthusiasm of a number of cultural agencies for it. Its implemenation could conceivably generate higher revenue for agencies through the sale of for-profit physical content, offsetting some costs involved in providing not-for-profit digital content.

By: Jose Robertson

Jose Robertson — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:16:38 +0000

It is all very well to talk about the importance of Web 2.0 as a means of improving communication between governments and citizenry, but there are still basic Web 1.0 communication activities that government gets wrong. For instance, my best guess as to the number of replies I get to emails sent to government agencies is about 1 in 5. Even when one receives an email in reply it will often state, ’someone will contact you soon to discuss this matter’ and they never do. There must be more accountability in this area. My perception is that too often there is one testy, disgruntled, lazy or disaffected individual in charge of receiving general email feedback, with their finger poised over the ‘Delete’ button. Service charters for replying to emails must be both equivalent to those for the receipt of paper-based feedback and actually complied with.

By: Jose Robertson

Jose Robertson — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:35:34 +0000

‘Strategy 6: Ensure the Integrity of Australian Online Cultural Content’ of the National Office for the Information Economy’s 1999 document ‘Responses to a strategic framework for the information economy’ states in part ‘Statutory authorities could be required to include standardised online statistics within annual and other reports … The analysis of statistics so gathered would enable more rigorous and adaptable planning to take place at all levels.’

By: simonfj

simonfj — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:45:23 +0000

Most australian citizens are unused to being able to engage with ‘their’ government in any way; consultation ‘blogs’ (if we must dumb it right down) are just another way that they might (not).

By: simonfj

simonfj — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:29:07 +0000

The policy should be that no single agency should run an online engagement space. No online engagement space should be hosted on an agency’s web site.

By: simonfj

simonfj — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:13:40 +0000

I would have thought the thing to do would have been to take all the best ideas and build a platform for the .edu.au domain.

If ‘gov’ (whoever he/she is) wants to do a little outreach and consult around the global traps, that fine. That’s just cheap promotion and a good thing to do. But of we are serious, then we need to build an archive of stuff in a context, so you’l need to RSS back to the (official) ‘inquiry space’ in the .gov.au domain.

By: simonfj

simonfj — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 06:02:54 +0000

I agree. But this is only because producers often don’t know how to do something (easily). The bar will only be lifted by those who know (and are included).

By: simonfj

simonfj — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:59:45 +0000

People will trust in a domain with .gov.au on the end. This is where an SSO comes into its own. The usual reassurances apply (your email wil never be diisclosed). But i heard most of the excuses for not partcipating. They usually come down to “why bother, nobody listens”.