open government forum meeting 27 november 2020 - 5.1 … · web view2021. 2. 3. · commitment #1...

Open Government Forum Meeting 27 November 20205.1 Attachment A

of 32

Commitment #1 - Building better connections between civil society and government

improving transparency and openness of civil society groups Submitted by Dr Colleen Lewis (not verified) on Wed, 10/14/2020 - 17:14Some civil society groups are fundamentally partisan in their approach to accountability, transparency and openness. Even when some claim to be non-partisan, their focus, actions and words do not reflect their non-partisan claim. When analysing their public opinions/commentary and membership it becomes clear that many overwhelmingly support one of the three largest political parties in Australia. This is not a problem if these civil society groups declare that they exist to support a particular political party or say that they overwhelmingly favour the ideology and policies of a particular political party. While I agree, it is important to go beyond the individual and involve civil society groups, it is just as important that the past and current political affiliations of members of civil society groups are made public. What will the OGP do to ensure this level of transparency and openness? Without it, the public could be deceived which I am sure the OGP would not find acceptable.

Universal agreements of governance performance mgt Submitted by Ratepayers Australia on 15/10/2020Transparency, accountability and public participation (community engagement) are good governance (GG) principles/enablers. If this national initiative can establish agreements of the government decision making processes and datasets that define procedural and data compliance criteria to at least these 3 GG principles, then we have established a political bias free system for establishing the 3 GG principles as target outcomes.

Reading behind the lines, I am observing that the Victorian Local Government Act (2020) is heading reforms along the lines I just mentioned. This LG Act (2020) has community engagement (and other governance performance mgt areas) guiding principles legislated as a conceptual governance framework, however its implementation scope and control systems are still not clearly defined. Potentially, there are good lessons to be learnt from analysing this evolving Victorian emerging governance framework for its LG sector. It is still in development and its underpinning implementation performance system are not clear yet. Whatever the national governance and performance mgt framework and systems become, it is very appropriate that its enterprise architecture blueprints also gets translated into state and local government's governance frameworks and performance reporting systems. I am happy to share my research insights into the evolving Victorian Local Government models and understand how it can be reused and enhanced for developing a national solution.

connections Submitted by Frank GRAHAME Drew on 19/10/2020I have obviously missed something here. What are the three National Action Plans?


of 32

Looks like a couple of typos as follows:What is the public problem that the commitment will address?

Last Paragraph.This commitments seeks

What is the commitment? 1st Paragraph.“- - - bring together senior bureaucrats and civil society leader in an open discussion- - - - ”.

I wish to comment on: 2nd Paragraph:The open exchange of views that would flow from the dialogues would create the opportunity for different perspectives to be aired and appreciated, in turn building greater trust and understanding amongst the participants.

“My concern with this statement is that it assumes that everything is arbitrary, that all views are of equal value and that there can be no distinction between right and wrong. The biggest problem in the world today is that the difference between right and wrong is not acknowledged world wide hence we have judgements like the Corona virus that are there because the difference between right and wrong fails to be acknowledged.

I am not convinced that those who are most concerned about real issues will actually participate.

It is my view that people who best understand the real civil society issues will never have the time to be as thoroughly involved as they need to be and as politicians tend to have a bent toward agendas, their own or party agendas they fail time and time again to understand real issues that need addressing in civil society.

There could well be a sidelining of some individuals who need to be listened to for the sake of expediency.


of 32

We had a model why not implement it as a first step Submitted by Greg Thompson on 22/10/2020While I affirm the intention of this new commitment, I want to register disappointment that past commitments in NAP 1 and 2 to the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative which involved Federal and State officials, Industry and Civil Society representatives in the kind of dialogue intended. Steps were taken prior to the commitment to the OGP in a pilot which led to NAP 1 and 2 commitments. But the Federal Government has failed to fulfil a commitment by the Turnbull Government in 2016 to proceed to candidacy of the EITI in accord with the EITI Standard.Here was a perfect vehicle well established globally which has been funded by successive Australian Governments.

I trust more will come if this commitment is implemented and perhaps EITI can be revisited?

I also hope the NAP 3 will have a clear sign of commitment by the PM and his Ministers to encourage wide support by Government and Civll Society to this collaboration in shaping and implementing public policies and programs.

The connection problem Submitted by Kate on 23/10/2020There is a fault in the connection. And this version moves further away than the last NAP which identified it - there is a continuing call for establishment of a national integrity body. Corruption of process is rife, the people & civil society organisations are aware of its extent and depth. Government unwillingness to accept the people’s strategy to address the loss of confidence means this 3rd NAP will be seen as increasingly empty, insincere and misleading

Investigation Phase, Test Phase Submitted by Kerry Willis on 05/11/2020I am writing as a citizen not a member of any group or organisation.1. I am surprised that so few people have contributed comments. Consider whether there are other ways to "reach out" to people than those you have already tried.2.You have probably done many literature searches in preparation for the Investigation stage. Here are some interesting articles I came across when searching for examples of government-civil society successful collaborations: "https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/fixing-the-patchy- collaboratio... "https://home.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/01/unlocking-power-of-partne... https://www.sydney.edu.au/sydney-policy- lab/our-research/current-researc... 3. I am not sure what is meant by "Design and deliver a pilot dialogue aligned with a Forum meeting a pilot". There are many engagement


of 32

processes that could work, for example, Open Space Technology, Search Conferences, and the Stakeholder Engagement Toolkit developed by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services in 2018, all of which could be considered for the pilot dialogue.

A serious look at the Open Government Forum? Submitted by Peter Timmins on 06/11/2020An examination of lessons to be learned from the establishment and functioning of the Forum would provide valuable insights into government/non government partnership.As Greg Thompson points out there is a wealth of (disappointing) experience available in the similar Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and the commitment in an earlier plan to achieve great things.

The OGP positions the multi stakeholder forum thus: "A Forum is a cornerstone of each country’s successful participation in OGP and is crucial to delivering collaborative open government reform.”

Australia formed a forum because those of us on the outside in 2016 pushed strongly for its establishment and the then senior leadership for the OGP initiative in PMC saw the wisdom in it after a less than satisfactory attempt to manage the very first series of engagements on open government commitments.

Just a couple of comments:

The OGP Participation and Co-Creation Standards state "All OGP countries are expected to meet the basic requirements outlined in this section.”. Those requirements include even representation: "The multi-stakeholder forum includes an even balance of governmental and non- governmental representatives.”

This hasn’t been the case for twenty months

Since the resignation of Fiona McLeod SC as the CSO Co-chair in early 2019 that role has been undertaken by another member of the Forum Professor Ken Coghill. I’m sure he has done a good job. But the number of civil society representatives on the Forum was reduced from nine to eight. Unannounced and not mentioned in minutes of meetings until June this year, and then obliquely, another CSO member Dr Lyn Carson resigned early this year. There are seven not nine members from outside government. Two members appointed by then Minister of State apparently have little if any connection with civil society organisations-one described only as the partner in a major law firm, the other who


of 32

participates in a personal capacity heads an organisation that represents major law firms. Nothing wrong with lawyers and the private sector being involved but civil society as such appears to have five not nine members.

The Standards referred to above state "The forum’s rules should allow non-governmental members to lead their own selection process.” This has never been the case here where the government has reserves the right to make appointments to the forum.

The Standards also state "Government provides members of civil society, through the national multi-stakeholder forum or otherwise, with regular (i.e. at least biannual) opportunities to meet with the responsible minister to review progress, the government self-assessment and IRM reports." The minister responsible for OGP co-ordination 2015-2020 Minister of State Cormann, never spoke publicly about the OGP inside or outside Parliament, never met with civil society members of the Forum but did meet once in five years in 2018 with a delegation that included some Forum members who left him with some suggestions about lifting our game but never received a response.

I could go on.... but suffice to say there's plenty to be learned about partnership from the Open Government Forum and EITI experiences.


of 32

Commitment #2 - Building trust in data sharingNo actual commitment exists here. Submitted by Chris Drake (not verified) on Thu, 10/15/2020 - 11:51Promotions of "good practice", guidance, and principles to consider etc are not actual commitments. Trust needs to be earned, through unwavering actual adherence to non-negotiable rules, otherwise departments can continue to behave any way they like, safe in the knowledge they've broken no rules (since there are no rules).

I have participated in many senate inquiries, and made use of FoI on many occasions, all in relation to serious vulnerabilities within government data handling practices. I have first-hand knowledge of the actual way they public servants really behave - which is vastly different to how they claim to behave or how web sites etc promote their supposed safe handling of our data.

There need to be unambiguous actual rules, but much more important, there needs to be consequences for breaking those rules, a mechanism for the public and others to report when rules are broken, and an independent system to punish those who refuse to follow the rules, and a working means to have non-compliance rectified in a sensible amount of time.

None of the above exists at the moment, which - together with the outrageous lack of compliance with FoI rules and the multi-year waiting period for FoI reviews is ensuring that the scale of non-compliance throughout government. is mushrooming out of control.

Building trust in (decision making) data sharing Submitted by Chan Cheah on 15/10/2020Much of the governance failures in the Victorian handling of covid-19 contagion is the lack of decision making (and including risk management) information disclosure to the public. If there is a universal agreement of decision making process-phases, it is easy to identify the decision lifecycle process flows, including data sets in phased decision making and implementation tracking activity flows. Integrating community engagement interactions in strategic decision life-cycle stages, with clear expectations of what decision information sets and citizen participation roles (ie be informed, consulted, involved, collaborate or empowered), public trust can be easily established per decision phase. The community engagement process enables the public to play a citizen's oversight role in checking how informed is a government agency's decision making and implementation progress reporting - hence transparency and accountability. Using surveys to quiz participation views of information and involvement experiences can also set some of the governance KPI and measures.


of 32

Victorian Local Government Victoria (LG agency) is trying to evolve and implement these concepts incrementally. Currently, they require all councils to set up their community engagement policies and over time evolve competency in executing these policies in council decision making episodes linked to council strategy plans, activity center and long term assets management plans and maybe even high impact risk management incidents. However, current systematic implementation has several flaws/barriers, such as lacking universal definitions of:

1) good governance principles and how their compliance can be measured and determine "governance performance" KPIs to be reported publically and dynamically (not annually, etc)2) a common council decision lifecycle process model that can clearly specify the different decision process-stages that community engagement interactions can take place to oversee the degree of public decision information, influenced by the participation role citizens are allowed to play.

Open Government & Social Credit - A Micromanaged Population Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 17/10/2020Open Government & The Social Credit System - Dangers of the Backlash of a Stressed and Micromanaged Population

Australians feel that they are losing control of their world. To reclaim back some control of their lives many are tuning to alternative perspectives and theories. Government and institutions, up until recently, is were Australians looked for reassurance and safety. I have sadly noticed that many rational Australians are attempting to regain control of their world by clinging on to various conspiracy theories. In the community many have little trust in big data sharing

Open Government sounds like clever double speak for an Orwellian system to micro-manage the people. Australians and media are shocked and in disbelief at the use of the Social Credit System overseas the feeling in Australia is that it is so outrageous that it could never happen here.However in reality Open Government is just one application or mouse click or bout of creeping agency authority away.

The legislation must be unambiguous in that it that makes it impossible for Big Data citizen control and manipulation to happen. Once implemented it will be here forever. A future tyrannical government could use it against opposition or troublesome politicians or citizens. It would be a failure of imagination to not envisage all the unknown unknowns.

There is a danger this system creates a disenfranchised population stressed under unfair control and relentless application of the rules and laws from the system. Robo-debt was a tiny example of what could go wrong which was a mild example of the failure of building trust in data sharing.


of 32

In a Catch22 the system may then become necessary to use Open Government to discipline the now disenfranchised population. I feel this project is ignoring this rudimentary Achilles' heel. It would be better if this major issue is honestly head-on addressed in these initial stages rather than becoming a perpetual Sword of Damocles perpetually hanging over the Government and various agency heads. A centralised data system could turn into an ongoing political and social disaster.

Gerard Hosier

Licensing Data Handlers to Improve Trust. Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 04/11/2020

Data mishaps are a major threat to building trust in data sharing.My experience with data handlers is how unaware many are to the risks of handling data, this appears true in civilian street as well as in government and business.At the very least I propose a Data Handlers License which should be required for any one handling over 1,000 personal records (with online testing like a NSW RSA) and big business or government data handlers should be required to have a higher-order qualification (such as accountants are required to have to handle money).

Some of the issues that are essential:*Responsibilities required under the law for data handling and the maintaining of values to uphold civilian expectations.*The awareness of how third-parties such as researchers and contractors could mishandle this data.*Understanding that all anonymised data can be re-identified.*The consequences of poor judgments, to the individual, national security and trust.*The requirement to only hold only just enough data for agencies to carry out their work, a large data foot print exposes us all to more manipulation when a data breach occurs. It should be assumed that at some point in time a data breach WILL occur. A cost / benefit should be made for every line of data held.*Exposure to legal liability*How social engineering can trick data handlers to release data or security keys. Internal staff risks.*An understanding that data security software becomes increasingly obsolete from the moment it is implemented.*The clear understanding of the threat to national sovereignty and the vulnerability of having a high value a honey pot of centralised data and the dangerous opportunities this gives third countries and bad actors to weaponise this data against us.

Without professional Data Handlers our faith and trust will be shaken every time a handler make an uninformed but honest mistake.


of 32

Strengthen Transparency in the new Bill Submitted by Dave Smith on 06/11/2020The draft states that in support of this commitment, the National Data Commissioner will promote good practice and adoption as well as provide guidance and advice to ‘incrementally change and mature’ practices in government agencies.

This approach will not be effective. The 2016 Productivity Commission Inquiry into Data Availability and Use determined that ‘marginal changes to existing structures and legislation will not suffice’.Unfortunately, another key tool, the Data Availability and Transparency Bill also does not go far enough to satisfy this Open Government commitment. Some areas that need improvement include:

Use of data.gov.au: There is no requirement for all agencies to register datasets held. Not all data, just those they control and for which they have not received an exemption from publishing (in whole or part) by the Commissioner. There should be a duty to publish unless exempt. And, of course, in line with the Productivity Commission’s findings, exemptions should also be published.

Agreements: A great feature is the Agreements Register, but it only captures agreements between government and external entities. It does not capture existing government to government (G2G) agreements, or future agreements (G2G or otherwise) made outside the scheme, which is optional.

Public Notice: The Bill ensures sharing agreements should be with the Commissioner 30 days after signing, by which time data could have already flowed. Ideally, for Open Government, data would not flow until after the public had been notified of the intent to share and been given sufficient time to have any objections arbitrated satisfactorily.

a meaningful connection between civil society and government Submitted by Peter Bennett on 06/11/2020The whole OGP process has been farcical. There is in effect and practice no connection between civil society and government. The most outstanding failures has been government’s steadfast refusal to carefully consider let alone accommodate civil society’s priorities. Government’s abysmal response to whistleblower protections is offensive those who have tried to bring transparency and accountability to government. Yet OGP make full claims of success where there has been no success whatsoever. The Commonwealth Public Interest Disclosure Act-does not even refer to whistleblowers. Whistleblowing legislation has been fragmented at the Commonwealth level despite the greatest efforts by civil society to remedy these failures. One could create a formative critique of the failures of this OGP process to properly serve civil society and the public interest. I have just raised one issue dear to my heart but frankly there is almost nothing in the government’s commitments which is truly


of 32

commendable. Moreover, the commitments have been created with virtually no mechanism for critical adjustments to produce sustained usable implementation.

Commending the OGP process as a credible project, seriously diminishes the integrity and sincerity of those claiming that this process has any merit.

1. BUILDING BETTER CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENTPublic/civil participation in this ‘connections’ process has failed. The meagre responses to this whole OGP process, all of which are negative, proves the public sees no benefit in pursuing this OGP process. Every indication is that there is no effective relationship between civil society and government nor is there any improvement in the level of understanding of government processes or civil society priorities.Civil society priorities are best pursued through “pub tests” in the media. They are much more effective than any appeal to public administration or government processes. Corrections to maladministration are more effectively implemented by challenging government and administrative actions through media “pub tests”.

The OGP will do nothing to advance transparency, accountability or public participation in government and public administration.The abject failure of government to establish an effective integrity commission which would ensure the protection of whistleblowers is proof positive of government’s insincere commitment to the OGP process. The government has no interest bringing to account those who commit offences against the public interest. Moreover, there is no genuine interest in providing transparency and accountability let alone integrity within government and public administration.

Building Trust in data sharing Submitted by Peter Bennett on 06/11/2020The commitment to Data Availability and Transparency is commendable in principle. However, the Commonwealth Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation shows how easy it is for governments and public administration to selectively release information which serves the Government’s purposes and intent. On the other hand the FoI legislation provides an unassailable mechanism to keep information secret if it is contrary to the interests of the government and public administration.The record clearly shows that a selective disclosure of data is not always in the public interest. Government and perhaps more so, public administrators generally claim inviolable ownership of administration information. As a rule, the only time either party is ready and willing to disclose information is if it in the interest of and for the benefit and/or protection of the government and public administrators or if it is certain the disclosure will cause neither party any distress.


of 32

Therefore until there is a formal and independent mechanism to ensure that the public interest is best served by data sharing, the public should be very wary of any proposal by government and public administrators about what information is made public and what must be kept secret.To that end, it would be best to have an independent mechanism to protect the public interest. Australia should establish a Public Interest Commission. That commission should ensure that any information which best serves the interest of the public should be shared regardless of the views of government and public administration. Likewise, such a commission would ensure that information which does not best serve the public interest is not made publicly available. Such a Commission could ensure that the government or public administration should not have ready access to personal information without reasonable and just cause.

A supplementary function of such a Commission would be to advise and arbitrate on disclosures by Whistleblowers. This would be a means to provide whistleblowers with a reference point to ensure that a proposed disclosure was in the public interest before making a disclosure. Another function would be to give guidance to authorities seeking warrants about disclosures which may be in breach of security provisions.

Does this deserve a place in the plan? Submitted by Peter Timmins on 06/11/2020This seems to be an outline of what the Office of the National Data Commissioner is going to do over the next two years. If it is going to happen anyway is anything gained by including this commitment in the OGP plan? " Ambitious and transformative"?There were many other suggestions put forward earlier in the piece that warrant further consideration.Commitment 2.2 in Plan #1 aimed "to build trust about the use of integrated data and actively respond to public concerns about data sharing." Any outcomes or evaluations available? What can be learned from that experience?


of 32

Commitment #3 - Open by Design (right to know)identify information that is: valuable to citizens Submitted by John Hyde (Secr... (not verified) on Thu, 10/15/2020 - 11:20In developing the principles to identify information that is: valuable to citizens, a key component should be designing a system that provides for 'one-stop-shop' access to information. A key deterrent to citizens even accessing currently available material is knowing where to look and how to access it there. Establishing a "silo" access point for existing government departments may be easier for them administratively but may not provide the real information that is valuable for citizens, eg a land planning process may also have inputs from environment, mining, foreign ownership, sustainability, State planning, local planning departments etc. Thus, having a one-stop-shop portal that can be the conduit to all other government stakeholders provides for a better outcome.

User Experience (UX) Design Orientation Submitted by Chan Cheah on 15/10/2020While government determines the business requirements to digitalise the new governance monitoring and controlling services & KPI measures in government decision making, it is important that they also design the system that is easy to access, navigate and use by lay to IT savvy citizens. Citizen centered UX design, especially usability is a key success factor. Involving different segments of civil participants is important during the future system development.

Open Contracting and Procurement Essential Submitted by Greg Thompson on 22/10/2020It seems this important commitment can build and widen the focus on the Open Contracting Data Standard and hopefully will provide a step towards a genuine commitment to Open Contracting in all Infrastructure investments and public procurement.

Right to Know Submitted by Peter Bennett on 06/11/2020The right to know is not restricted to data sets bound by technical algorithms and source codes or subject to contractual or other arrangements, or the location of information including datasets. Most matters of public administration is by means of individual text or computer saved files/folios. This information involves decisions and at times reasons for decisions. It also usually lays a trail relating to responsibility and accountability. This is probably why it does not seem to have received much attention under the OGP process.


of 32

The Commonwealth should lead with appropriate legislation to ensure that the public has a right to know information which best serves the public interest. The Commonwealth does neither. It does not lead with any appropriate legislation to assist the right of the public to gain information about the Federal government. And wherever possible the government has established the structure and practices which ensure that the public can be denied access to relevant information which best serve the public interest.Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act, does not facilitate ready access to information which best serve the public interest. The structure and authority of senior bureaucrats and agencies is ably supported by the Australian Government Solicitors Department (AGS) to thwart access to information which would help the public understand the conduct and processes of government. The AGS does not act as an independent legal advisor in the service of the public. It acts as a firm of private lawyers engaged to protect public administration - in particular, bureaucrats, at the expense of the public interest.

Information which is outdated, security misclassified and would, if disclosed, be harmful to public administration is fiercely protected. It may not be going too far, to suggest that the level of collusion between some in the AGS and client agency bureaucrats could amount to a conspiracy to protect some engaged in maladministration or other wrongful act.

To be fair, the AGS does not routinely engage with senior bureaucrats to stop public access to a range of information. However, as matters become more sensitive and the consequences of disclosure could affect senior bureaucrats, there is a consistent response to deny public access to information and to protect senior bureaucrats.

Except for New South Wales, the conduct of state governments providing information to the public is unknown. However, experience under the New South Wales, Access to Information (GIPAA) has been resoundingly different from the Commonwealth experience and gratifying in its transparency, accountability, and management. New South Wales should ignore any recommendations by the Commonwealth to adopt any vestige of legislation, procedures or practices which emanate from the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act. That is not to say it is perfect. However by comparison with the Commonwealth FOI Act and processes the New South Wales legislation is 92% superior,

Ethics Board & Open Log - Ai Criminal Responsibility Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 06/11/2020There must be and Ethics Board to develop policy and to debate contentious issues.

A Open log must be kept and displayed with a continuous record of all inter agency data transfers.


of 32

If Artificial Intelligence is used it must be clearly specified and if prejudicial judgments are made using it who is ultimately responsible? If fatalities occur such as with Robodebt who would criminally responsible; the implementer?Or the programmer? Or the Ai?Or would it be the person who made a data entry error? This is a big question.

The log should cover issues such as are there continuously open data channels that citizens would expect? Who gets to use Facial Recognition. Do facial recognition contractors get to keep the facial data they collect under their licence can they on-sell it? Are there data types such as medical records that are occasionally transferd and how many times and to which agency? Australians would than have a better understanding and trust of their Government. If we are open to the Government and commercial interests than the Government must be genuinely open to us.

Will the public play a role ? Submitted by Peter Timmins on 06/11/2020There is no mention here of what if any role "members of the Australian community'" will play in identifying information"valuable and/or necessary for open and accountable government." That's a fatal flaw in the detail available so far. Journalists researchers, academics , opposition and cross bench members of parliament, interest groups, non profit organisations as well as members of the public can all provide valuable insights. The Milestone Activity list makes no mention of a process to reach out to these 'actors' for input and/or engagement.The Commonwealth and some state FOI legislation is still of the 'pull' variety despite a decade or more of experience elsewhere of incorporating 'push' elements in the law. A serious look at this issue would almost certainly contemplate legislative change in some jurisdictions.Greg Thompson's mention of Open Contracting reminds that previous plans included commitments to more transparency in procurement, and in other areas including beneficial ownership of corporations. The government has not delivered in these and other fields that clearly are "necessary for open and accountable government."We live in hope!

Ethics Board & Open Log - Ai Transparency Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 08/11/2020There must be and Ethics Board to develop policy and to debate contentious issues.

A Open log must be kept and displayed with a continuous record of all inter agency data transfers.


of 32

If Ai judgments and profiling are made on Australian citizens (outside the national security arena), all the inputs to the algorithm code and all strings used the brand and version of software supervisor and department approval must be recorded so that an audit can be carried out in fairness and transparency. This will help prevent failures show bias and clarify liability.

If Artificial Intelligence is used it must be clearly specified and if prejudicial judgments are made using it Who is ultimately responsible. If fatalities occur such as with Robodebt who would be criminally responsible; the implementer? Or the programmer? Or the Ai? Or would it be the person who made a data entry error?This is a big question.

The log should cover issues such as are there continuously open data channels that citizens would expect? Who gets to use Facial Recognition. Do facial recognition contractors get to keep the facial data they collect under their licence can they on-sell it? Are there data types such as medical records that are occasionally transferd and how many times and to which agency? Australians would than have a better understanding and trust of their Government. If we are open to the Government and commercial interests than the Government must be genuinely open to us.


of 32

Commitment #4 - Professional support for Ministerial Advisers

Professional support for ministerial advisers Submitted by Dr Colleen Lewis (not verified) on Wed, 10/14/2020 - 17:42Ministerial advisers' salaries are paid for from the public purse, they are, therefore, public servants. If Ministers want advisers who exist solely to serve the party political requirements/interests of their minister, to advise on matters such as how to influence the media to support their party's policies and to advise on policies that would advantage the political party their minister represents, then should their salaries be paid for by the relevant political parties? Does the OGP believe that a ministerial adviser is going to act in a way that is not partisan in nature after after attending a professional development program? More information needed to explain how ministerial advisers contribute to the public good. This is something that the public would like to know and knowing would strengthen the relationship between government and the public they exist to serve.When you say civil society will be given the opportunity to inform and influence the Ministerial Advisers' PDP, will this be with the usual civil society groups? How are you going to broaden your consultation process to include the general public who pay MA's wages?You say that transparency will be addressed by publishing the Ministerial Advisers PDP on the Ministerial and Parliamentary Service Website. How many 'ordinary' people access this website? Do they even know the website exists?

Professional support for ministerial advisors Submitted by Tanya Smith (not verified) on Thu, 10/15/2020 - 11:36I do not see reference in the program components to ministerial advisers' relationships with the Department, which seems odd. More generally, it would be great to see this pitched as more than a series of training courses and, rather, as a move towards the professionalisation of work as an adviser in the office of an elected representative. There a few reasons for this: 1. so that you can address the ambiguity that the PDP applies to all MoPS employees but is clearly tailored to ministerial advisers 2. to cover off on the transitions to government and to Opposition; 3. so that ministerial advisory roles can be recognised as something that people might do for a fair chunk of their working lives and not just be a step out of or a step to something else; 4. to promote the idea of professional standards and norms beyond what is required by legislation; 5. to create a clearer sense of career progressions and pathways within the 'profession' including by supporting professional (not just party-related) links across jurisdictions. This would need to be driven by staffers themselves rather than the Government, but approaching the PDP as a mechanism to support a profession rather than as a means to upskill people who are temporarily doing an advisor role, would create room for something more substantial over time -- assuming this would be welcome by the 'profession'.


of 32

Governance Education & Formal Support for Deliberative Democracy Submitted by Chan Cheah on 15/10/2020This initiative is fostering the shift from representative democracy to deliberative democracy. Covid-19 has show us the worst of representative democracy when premiers shut down state/territory borders, exert tyranny and closed control, permitted under their state emergency acts. Once government decision making and progress reporting are allowed to be closed, the risks of collusion, fraud and corruption increases, already evolving in Victoria and NSW. The shift to deliberative democracy needs more formal acknowledgement, maybe even legislated, if this form of democratic system is the way forward for all Australians.

Cultural change is also needed. It starts with Ministers and communities been effectively educated about what is good governance and how it operates and is scrutinized in behaviours and practices, especially in the contexts of ministerial to enterprise decision making and implementation. Governance is abstract cognitively and in practice, and we need to simplify its knowledge and practice delivery.

Professional Support for Ministerial advisers and others Submitted by Peter Bennett on 06/11/2020It seems incongruous to propose standards of conduct for professional ministerial advisers when the standards of conduct for ministers seems to be very ineffective.

The whole process of making politicians and their immediate helpers and advisers accountable is unachievable until their conduct is transparent to the public and there some means to force that transparency to a level of accountability.

Setting standards without establishing some means of enforcing those standards and imposing clearly defined penalties is like building a snowman in hell - it won’t work.

Many years of watching ministers, senior politicians and more often senior bureaucrats thumbing their noses at ministerial standards and public service codes of conduct, makes the prospect of another review through the OGP process a waste of everyone’s time.

The problem is not with the standards, it is with the means to enforce compliance. Until an independent organisation (other than the media ‘pub test’) is established, the whole process of Caesar making rules to control Caesar is little more than a farce.It is strongly recommended that the OPG process abandon this particular item until there is sufficient independent politicians in Parliament. Such


of 32

a body may then enforce the establishment of an appropriate standard of ministerial and adviser conduct, with the ability to test compliance and an appropriate process to remove ministers, parliamentarians and their advisers who use their position contrary to the public interest.

Best practice Ministerial Advisers Psychological Privacy Ai APIs Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 09/11/2020Best practice Ministerial Advisers: Psychological Privacy, Ai Justice & API’s

Do we have a Right to Psychological Privacy?

Open Government is a very-very personal Data Leger on each Australian. It is valuable to each of us it is not a product, it is not for sale, it is not an opportunity for data scraping and it is not for monetizing. We all have no choice but to give up this information and trust our Government faithfully and we trust Ministers to do so, as it also affects them and their families long into the future.

We all have a right to privacy

Facial recognition, web browsing meta data (Network Theory), mobile tower triangulation (live knowledge of position), all financial transactions, credit card (buying ), medical records, school and university records, public transport movements (Opal) CCTV, car travel details (ANPR), air travel details API/PNR, entertainment and viewing habits (My ABC ect.), street behavior with city wide CCTV, social services records, tax, live drinking and gambling CCTV monitoring, court records and transcripts, DNA, minute by minute power usage (smart/intelligent meters) and all other level 1, 2 & 3 information including Facbook, Instagram, Linkedin and Twitter.

This is just an abbreviated list of public knowledge information that is readily available to our government today, not all are subject to Open Government ……yet.

If all this data is brought together the whole nation, every single individual, could be psychologically profiled.Algorithms exist today to profile potential future criminal behavior, they are being used in as part of the Xinjiang IJOP and the Social Credit System.

The first nations to use it appear to be oppressive or insecure governments, Ministers must not allow ourselves to join that club. On paper it seems “to-good-to-be true” to manage the masses.


of 32

Agencies may have had presentations or seen at trade shows products promising profiling.

However if ethics and the value of humanity is the essence of a nation than it has no place in our system.

**************************************************

Ai Justice is a seminal change in the landscape of Australian values.

Buried in Open Government is the word Artificial Intelligence.I am extremely concerned that the Open Government project is cover to leverage Artificial Intelligence into the justice system. The Attorney- General’s Office is having a large part in spear-heading the direction of this project Automated Justice. Ministers must recognise this is a seminal change in the landscape of Australian values.

Just a few countries lead the world in Ai security. I hope that Ministers are not swayed by Power Point Presentations where civil Ai data scraping is a win-win for their agency and cost control. For many agencies it is a no-brainer a win-win.

The mere fact of using Ai on us is dehumanizing for every one of us especially on the future of our children, as this technology becomes more mature. It devalues Australian citizens and Australia as a nation, we are perhaps one of the safest and most law abiding countries in the world, a common Australian phrase is “just do the right thing”, yes there are some bad apples.

However humiliating us all by subjugating us all in inhumane dragnets of automated algorithms and electronic intelligence is a real threat to the fabric of our current society and once that special trust co-mingled with a healthy cynicism is broken it will be lost forever. It also has the potential to be used maliciously by future governments against previous governments. A lose-lose for Australia

Open Government only mentions the rewards; it would be prudent to be honest about the real hard risks.“Support world class research and development” is a painfully naive and innocent term. Ministers have to be much more grown up to the risks.

In the outline of this legislation one of the points of the bill is “research and development” this is a catch all vague term. Firstly it assumes all research is benign. Much research is understanding behavior which than follows on to social manipulation. Cambridge Analytica’s political manipulation is an early example of this. Even the cover of medical (which includes psychometric) and educational research (which conditions socialisation) can in the wrong hands be a powerful tool to usurp and manipulate free will.


of 32

US Social media has been using this to modify our buying habits but suddenly they have realized their power of individual thought alignment on the whole scope of human endeavor and thankfully have tried to reign in their power in this US election. Not every company is going to be awoken by the ethics issues, in addition takeovers by foreign interests could take things back to silent control.

Minister should be advised on the impact of cultural control on Australian identity, we have media laws to avoid external dominance,it is also important in electronic social manipulation.

There is a common belief in Government that researchers are benign; Google, Amazon, Alibaba, Badu, Megvii, Watrix, SenseTime, HuaRui, Yandex and the former Cambridge Analytica are all researchers. The gift of data can modify their bottom line, their global power and social hold and threaten sovereign civilian government legitimacy and sovereignty by weaponizing their insights. University research can be inadvertently exported when students return home.Ministers should be advised on this.Many of the companies have more power than our Government. Some of the companies with re-identified data can crucially affect the lives of Australians who came here as refugees and be a mortal threat to their families remaining in their homelands. See my appendixin https://releasethefuture.com/ To my Health Minister I would like the Commonwealth to withhold my and my families personal Data Ledger from being so-called anonymised and shared with “carefully selected” researchers we have never given permission for that not now and not retrospectively.

The current modus operandi of being risk averse is a healthy asset; a common thread in Open Government project is that prudence is undesirable. There is a naive attitude that if we promiscuously share out our wonderful data trove of Australian’s personal Data Ledgers than we will enter a warm utopian nirvana of civilian micro management this should be terrifying to any Minister. It has been demonstrated that since Germany in the1930’s that data collection will be abused. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust and it continues today with Cambridge Analytica and the Xinjiang IJOP.The information above should be core to Ministers handling data. I hope that none of this comes to pass when this is re-read in the future in 1, 5, 10 or 100 years. Everything here is known, demonstrated and a clear risk today.

Ministers need to make legislation to make this impossible and illegal to occur.

******************************************************************************************************************** API’s Ministers should be advised to not allow raw data to leave their departments, they should only allow access to external entities via managed API


of 32

calls.Google understands the power of their data and this is exactly what they do.Face book did not understand this and gave out raw data and we got Cambridge Analytica

Gerard Hosier


of 32

Commitment #5 - Improving awareness of fraud risks associated with government responses to crises situationsFederal government fraud Submitted by Andrew on 14/10/2020The initial note of the conservative estimate of fraud against the government is over $1bn, where is the estimate of fraud created by the federal government against the public and tax payers? The robodebt failure by human services is a prime example of debts created that are simply false and fraudulent. I also have experience from the same department of them creating fraud, refusing to investigate it and the afp doing the same.Any criminal activity at all levels of the federal government can be simply dismissed and covered up.

The Commitment to increase awareness of the establishment and operation of the Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre within Commonwealth entities and more broadly is nothing more than creating another department with no more fraud control inside the government itself.

The government acts on behalf of the people of Australia. It should minimize fraud at all levels including those not compliant with welfare and other services as well the public servants administering payments and ministers responsible.

This commitment is completely hollow, meaningless and does nothing more than anything currently in place

Fraud within government vastly exceeds fraud against government Submitted by Chris Drake on 15/10/2020The other commenter, Andrew, is spot-on. To add some examples to his - the DTA operates a "marketplace" and a range of "panels" through which they can perform procurements. All the panels are in breach of procurement laws, and 9% of all marketplace spending is secretly awarded to single contractors with no competition at all (also in breach of procurement rules). Hundreds of millions are being spent on just the few contracts I've looked at, much of it going to the former employers of staff working within the agency.

One massive problem with the $80bn spent annually on procurement, is that when a government has a problem to solve, if they hire hundreds of millions worth of employees to build a solution (e.g. GovPass/myGovID) they get to build their own mini-empire with huge wage rises as their


of 32

"career" rapidly expands throughout the APS - however - if they had instead purchased an already-working solution from the private sector instead, while that would save hundreds of millions in wasted expense, it does nothing for their career.

There needs to be an enhanced development moratorium enforced throughout government, and VASTLY better controls to prevent fraud and financial wastage.

$1bn per year is nothing in comparison to the losses caused by public servants feathering their nests instead of following rules.

Someone needs to take a VERY CLOSE LOOK at the "hiring" of Boston Consulting Group (BCG)( https://marketplace.service.gov.au/2/digital-marketplace/opportunities/6629 ) to build the CovidSAFE App - the DTA bypassed all other marketplace sellers for this work (see the link - "Invited: 1"), opting instead to give it directly to BCG. At least two senior DTA staff members (DTA's chief strategy officer Anthony Vlasic, and DTA chief executive Randall Brugeaud) was at the time a Boston Consulting Group (BGC) ex-employee, and around the time of this procurement Anthony left the DTA to return to Boston Consulting Group employment.Long story short - there are no penalties for public servants who break rules, and no working system to even report rule-breaking, so it makes perfect sense that fraud and financial wastage throughout government are out of control.

Re-focus this commitment to combat internal fraud and wastage first.

Lacking governance = collusion, fraud & corruption risks Submitted by Chan Cheah on 15/10/2020A key root cause of collusion, fraud and corruption incidents is due to poor and inconsistent governance oversight and severity of non compliance penalty within and across government tiers and agencies.Foreign interference and criminal activities find this a great environment for their activities. The more fragmented and uncoordinated a government system is, the easier to find opportunities to engage in collusion, fraud and corruption, geopolitical interference and creating money laundering layers. Australia still remains the number one money laundering country - no brainer to understand why.

OG must not be a Gateway for Automated Justice Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 08/11/2020In the AG’s Office presentation it was clarified fraud is being defined here as fraud by the individual against the Commonwealth, not by corporations against the individual or Commonwealth or States.The AG Fraud prevention centre started 2019 is to build capacity against fraud and it provides tools to agencies to connect them to enforcers.


of 32

Andrew Walter the First Assistant Secretary gave an indication that some of the tools that would or could in the future be used for darbyshiring and scraping data from all Open Data agencies and the private sector such as banks. The term tools are very broad and rings alarm bells. In Xinjiang the Integrated Joint Operation Platform" (IJOP), uses pattern matching and artificial intelligence tools looking for “micro-clues” to identify incohesive behaviour and “illegal activities” it is a powerful interagency tool. Australians and our media are in disbelief at this system.

Open government is just one application away from an IJOP.Many of us studied Orwell’s 1984 at school, it was for a good reason; it was to insure that as adults we are alert, and are responsible to guard against the dangers of a of highly a centralised, dehumanised societal enforcement system. We must be very wary that what of opening this Pandora’s Box of automated data driven justice.Robodebt was an example of clumsy pattern matching and data errors it has destroyed peoples lives. Some of the outcomes have been fatal. Yet in Australia there is no death sentence.

Once it is opened it cannot ever be closed. Without clear open and publicly debated ethics policy and board of what is acceptable there is a real possibility that before we blink we ratchet ourselves in to our very own Australian IJOP.

Do we have a Right to Psychological Privacy? Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 08/11/2020Open Government is a very-very personal Data Leger on each Australian. It is valuable to each of us it is not a product, it is not for sale and it is not for monitizing. We all have no choice but to give up this information and trust our Government faithfully.We all have a right to privacy

Facial recognition, web browsing meta data (Network Theory), mobile tower triangulation (live knowledge of position), all financial transactions, credit card (buying ), medical records, school and university records, public transport movements (Opal) CCTV, car travel details (ANPR), air travel details API/PNR, entertainment and viewing habits (My ABC ect.), street behavior with city wide CCTV, social services records, tax, live drinking and gambling CCTV monitoring, court records and transcripts, DNA, minute by minute power usage (smart/intelligent meters) and all other level 1, 2 & 3 information including Facbook, Instagram, Linkedin and Twitter.

This is just an abbreviated list of public knowledge information that is readily available to our government today, not all are subject to Open Government ……yet.If all this data is brought together and the whole nation could be psychologically profiled.


of 32

Algorithms exist today to profile potential criminal behavior, they are being used in as part of the Xinjiang IJOP and the Social Credit System. The first nations to use it appear to be oppressive or insecure governments. On paper it seems “to-good-to-be true” to manage the masses.

Agencies may have had presentations or seen at trade shows products promising profiling.

However if ethics and the value of humanity is the essence of a nation than it has no place in our system

Ai Justice is a Seminal Change in the Landscape of Australia Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 08/11/2020The AG’s Office indicated that this is just targeted at the individual

Ai Justice is a seminal change in the landscape of Australian values.

Smartly buried in this consultation is the word Ai. I am extremely concerned that the Open Government project is cover to leverage Artificial Intelligence into the justice system. The Attorney-General’s Office is having a large part in spear-heading the direction of this project.Automated Justice.

Just a few countries lead the world in AI security. I hope that legal bodies are not swayed by Power Point Presentations where civil Ai data scraping is a win-win for law enforcement and cost control, those contractors are just trying to sell a product. For many agencies it is a no- brainer a win-win.The mere fact of using Ai on us is dehumanizing for every one of us it devalues citizens and Australia as a nation, we are perhaps one of the safest and most law abiding countries in the world, a common Australian phrase is “just do the right thing”, yes there are some bad apples. However humiliating us all by subjugating us all in inhumane dragnets of Automated algorithms and electronic intelligence is a real threat to the fabric of our current society and once that special trust co-mingled with a healthy cynicism is broken it will be lost forever. A lose-lose for Australia

Legislation is necessary to make this impossible and illegal to occur.


of 32

Commitment #6 - Improving transparency and trust related to the use of emergency and crisis powers

Ratepayers Australia Submitted by Chan Cheah on 16/10/2020Trust is established in different formats. One format is through having digital access to decision making information, through all explicit phases of government decision making. When there is explicitly clear (hence transparent) process and data structures relating to decision life cycle phases, part of human trust can be established. These decision system structures need clarity of how they integrate with the government's crisis/risk management processes, which is them communicated to and navigated by the public in simple lay digital formats and language.

The Shooting Industry Submitted by The Shooting In... on 05/11/2020The Shooting Industry Foundation of Australia represents the importers, wholesalers and retailers of firearms and firearm related parts in the Australian Defence, Law Enforcement and Civilian markets. The Australian hunting and sport shooting industry alone contributes $2.4B to the economy each year and supports an estimated 3,300 jobs.The concern which SIFA seeks to place on the record here is that COVID related decisions were made which were arbitrary and without foundation, and that some of the measures enacted demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding on the regulatory arrangements which were already in place, and the nature of the industry being impacted by these decisions.A number of Australian jurisdictions used COVID emergency provisions to close or otherwise restrict the operations of the legal supply chains for firearms and ammunition. A range of justifications were offered at the time, ranging from the fear of an elevated risk of domestic violence, through to the need to preserve ammunition supplies for use by “legitimate” users.Assertions that these decisions were taken following discussions within National Cabinet are unable to be substantiated. The Government agencies who were most likely to have added these issues to the agenda at National Cabinet, and informed any such deliberations, have denied doing so.SIFA is unaware of any data available to any COVID decision maker which suggests that law-abiding firearm owners are represented (as a group) in domestic violence statistics. Given the “good character” barriers to entry to lawful firearm ownership, we suggest that there is more likely to be a marked under representation, if anything.Ammunition shortages which were being experienced at the time were the result of trade dynamics resulting from exchange rate fluctuations and


of 32

stock availability issues in the USA. This scenario is not uncommon and was unrelated to COVID.Aside from being downright insulting to law abiding firearm owners, the measures enacted where overwhelmingly ineffective in addressing the perceived concerns. Even the most superficial attempts at industry consultation or research would have quickly exposed the reasons why these actions were inappropriate and in some cases were counterproductive.These events demonstrate the very real danger of lead agencies (in this case Health) operating outside their areas of expertise. They also demonstrate the opportunism shown by some regulators to give effect to their underlying biases and agendas without normal parliamentary oversight and appeals mechanisms. Both aspects need to be addressed as part of this exercise.Many industries suffered in our collective efforts to deal with this health emergency. It’s difficult to think of any other industry which suffered without that sacrifice contributing in some small way to the containment or recovery from the virus. It is scary to think that the ham-fisted approach taken with respect to firearms might be repeated in any other facets of our emergency response, or future responses.SIFA recommends that the firearms related actions taken with respect to COVID be used as a case study of how not to do things in future. All inputs and deliberations leading to these decisions must be specifically examined as part of any post emergency review or enquiry, so that future responses can be both more effective and better targeted.

improving transparency Emergency & Crisis Powers Submitted by Kim Riley on 05/11/2020Having a landing page with the most up to date information both from the Technical, Social and Political in Global view point is essential. The site should allow for Information being in conflict, The reason for the conflict is important. But this reason must be acknowledged and accessible. Trust is built on openness

Given that emergencies are normally fast moving events. but they can also be slow moving crisis. The real crisis we are to address is one of confidence, so what information that is posted should be whats being articulated by Ministers and agencies now. So we are getting a consistent message often!

New Zealand shoiws the way Submitted by Peter Timmins on 09/11/2020I drafted this on Friday and pressed Save so expect it made it in, but is yet to be published.

Have a look at the New Zealand central website for the Covid 19 Pandemic.While the pro active release of cabinet submissions and decisions will be a step too far for those in government on this side of the ditch ('end of the world as we know it' and all that) its an impressive exercise in transparency as the crisis unfolded


of 32

Commitment #7 - Best practice in dealing with Freedom of Information requestsBest Practice in Dealing with Freedom of Information Requests Submitted by Dr Colleen Lewis on 14/10/2020The OGP needs to go beyond anecdotal experiences re FOI requests. I would have thought that the hard data exists and it should be made publicly available every six months. The problems surrounding freedom of information have existed for many, many years and still they continue. Why is the question the OGP should be addressing.

Freedom of information Submitted by Andrew on 14/10/2020This commitment supports the OGP values of access to information; and public accountability is a baffling statement.

I’ve personal requested a freedom of information review during November 2018 only to have it processed September 2020 and have the OAIC refer the matter to the AAT where the OAIC was perfectly positioned to complete the information review and only had to check facts behind the matter. Having a review take nearly 2 years to only palm the matter to another department is a disgrace by any government department.

If the aim of the commitment is to identify differences between how government departments and agencies process FOI requests and respond to applicants, timeframes should be a key priority as well as ensuring that departments are capable of performing their own jobs.

The commitment to develop a research project may be a waste of resources if departments have excessive waiting times only to refuse to do their jobs and refer matters to other departments with no accountability. Where are the current mechanisms to deal with these issues?

The Act itself requires amendments Submitted by Chris Drake on 15/10/2020FoI requests are (as per the act) processed by Lawyers, who are hired by the department in question to perform that role. This is a clear and obvious conflict of interest, which is making the FoI system useless in situations where the information sought relates to wrongdoing and non- complinace through the department in question.


of 32

Lawers, by the nature of their role, ethical commitments, and training, always act in the best interests of their clients - the department for whom they work. When FoI requests arrive that threaten to reveal information that is contrary to those best interests, my extensive experience with the FoI system has shown the those FoI officers regularly lie, cheat, and mislead. "Lie" is a strong word, but that is not my word: that was the outcome of the (multi-year) appeal process that overturned an FoI officer refusal to answer one of my FoI requests.

In addition, when many FoI officers are ordered to comply with earlier requests they've refused to answer, they often simply ignore the order. There are no penalties for non-compliance with any FoI laws, and no repercussions for anyone for simply not following them.

The FoI Act needs an overhaul - FoI officers need to be employed by some other department besides the ones they collect information from, Lawyers performing FoI acts need to act on behalf of us, the FoI requester, not on behalf of the Government, and there needs to be an expedient and working appeals system which has actual power - one which can remove FoI officers who break the rules and punish public servants who interfere with requests that are aimed at revealing their wrongdoing.

Ratepayers Australia Submitted by Chan Cheah on 16/10/2020Current and varying FoI request/review systems need to be made consistent and digitalised for easy, consistent (hence transparent) processing and access to requested information. Current practices are hindered by manual interventions to dilute transparency and timeliness of responses to public requests and over priced, as access deterrents or slow down access. Today's technology allows heterogeneous database systems to interoperate and this makes universal digitalisation of FoI reviews/requests very viable.

test Submitted by tst on 19/10/2020 test

Other agencies involved Submitted by Deb Lee on 27/10/2020Seems odd that the contact information does not include the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)?

Law without Penalties Submitted by Anonymous on 02/11/2020


of 32

Consistent with other comments above, the laws require introduction for penalties for non-compliance or giving the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) teeth in pursing Departmenets that continually flout the laws.

Rejections for FOI requests are at their highest percentage since the system was established. PM&C and Home Affairs continually flout statutory requirements for reporting (30 days). Complaints to the OAIC further delay the process, to the advantage of Departments wishing to wage a war of attrition, while determinations made by the OAIC in favour of reporting are ignored without penalty on Departments and their portfolio ministers.

Instead of appointing the OAIC to conduct this research and survey, the choice has been made to appoint the Attorney General’s Department, an agency itself which is well known for avoiding, circumventing, delaying and flouting FOI requests and the FOI laws.

Further funding and changes to FOI laws are required for the OAIC to better process complains and enforce FOI laws. Specific funding should be provided to Departments proportional to their size and scope, to establish FOI officers. These officers can then be migrated between Departments to provide consistent application of the FOI laws, provided continual training and engagement with the OAIC

Alternatively an APS stream can be established, or existing stram co-opted perhaps the new data professional stream, to assess releasability of information and data under FOI laws. Similarly should be trained by or have some reporting mechanism to the OAIC.

Establishing "Best Practices" is a piss-weak, non-attempt at a solution when a solution is pretty clear in empowering the OAIC to enforce the FOI laws. Even the wording of the title "dealing with" conveys antipathy. The irony here is that the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommendation has already been implemented, Departments are generall consistent and stall and obstruct FOI requests.

Survey to capture representative sample Submitted by Kerry Willis on 05/11/2020As a citizen, not representing any group, my comments are based on my reactions to surveys and other means of obtaining feedback.These days people are bombarded by requests to give feedback, along the lines of "How did you rate our Service" yet have limited time and inclination to respond.

1. I would suggest in addition to the proposed survey capturing "a representative sample" to also ask EVERY person submitting a Freedom of Information Request if they would be prepared to respond to the survey, AND/OR to tell of their experience; this could be in writing or via automated phone set up for this purpose. While this approach might be biased in favour of those with negative experiences, or those who did not


of 32

get the answer they had hoped, it may also draw out information that a more formal survey would not. An emotional paragraph could perhaps provide more information that the best designed survey. A survey with a box for "any other information" at the end, when the respondent is tired of answering questions may not draw out the same information. i.e. give people the opportunity to have their say in their own way.

2. I would also suggest that government departments and agencies should be aiming for "sound agreed principles" in processing and responding to FOI requests, rather than "consistency" which may not be practical to achieve.

FOI Submitted by Peter Timmins on 06/11/2020What a disappointment to have ended up with this as the best we can do in 2020-2022, four years after the government in Plan #1 committed to ensuring Australia's information access laws policies and practices are fit for the twenty first century.That welcome step in the right direction ran into the sand-correction, the then Attorney General's in tray- in December 2017, and that of the current AG in March 2018, and hasn't been heard of since. So too the 2013 report by Dr Allan Hawke whose first recommendation was for a comprehensive review of the act, something he was unable to undertake because of time limits imposed and resource constraints.

Consistent best practice sounds great but the record of dodging, darting and weaving that goes on in dealing with FOI in many agencies suggests there's a long journey ahead.

It's welcome news that some research is planned, hopefully with some money allocated, given the fact that historically government has spent rarely if at all ion FOI research.

AGD, designated as the implementer, doesn't come to mind in the pantheon of FOI leaders.

As we know and the Information Commissioner is on the record to this effect, the OAIC is underfunded, and you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of own motion investigations in the 10 years since it was established.

Continuous log on Transfers, Ai and Data Ownership Submitted by Gerard Hosier on 08/11/2020An Open log must be kept and displayed with a continuous record of all inter agency data transfers.


of 32

If Ai judgments and profiling are made on Australian citizens (outside the national security arena), all the inputs to the algorithm code and all strings used the brand and version of software supervisor and department approval must be recorded so that an audit can be carried out in fairness and transparency. This will help prevent failures show bias and clarify liability.

If Artificial Intelligence is used it must be clearly specified and if prejudicial judgments are made using it Who is ultimately responsible. If fatalities occur such as with Robodebt who would criminally responsible; the implementer? Or the programmer? Or the Ai? Or would it be the person who made a data entry error?This is a big question.

The log should cover issues such as are there continuously open data channels that citizens would expect? Who gets to use Facial Recognition. Do facial recognition contractors get to keep the facial data they collect under their licence can they on-sell it? Are there data types such as medical records that are occasionally transferd and how many times and to which agency? Australians would than have a better understanding and trust of their Government. If we are open to the Government and commercial interests than the Government must be genuinely open to us. In addition the log should keep tabs on which contactors hold what data and under what type of license. Ie. does the Commonwealth own the data, and can we have it deleted when the contract is finished.For example does the company facially scanning people at the airport own the face data and can they process it perpetually? This must be public.

It is important for logs to keep track of data. What happens if a contractor is made bankrupt can the data be auctioned off as an asset? What happens when the data is orphaned when the company ceases trading or is taken over by a company in an unfriendly country. This information must be in the log.

humaneresearch.org.au PO Box 15, Fitzroy, Vic. 3065 ABN 17 208 630 818

Open Government Forum Secretariat [email protected]

Re: PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON DRAFT COMMITMENTS FOR AUSTRALIA'S THIRD NATIONAL ACTION PLAN

Humane Research Australia Inc (HRA) is a not for profit organisation that challenges the use of animal experiments and promotes more humane and scientifically-valid non animal methods of research. Open Government is crucial to our work, both in relation to Government funded research and privately funded research, for which research institutes have received a licence from a public body.

Obtaining information about what actually happens to animals in research can be a difficult and frustrating process. Those opposed to animal research have an obvious interest in more disclosure. They believe that if the public were adequately informed, there would be greater scope for informed debate.

But so arguably do those who see a need for such research and are concerned about the respect for animal welfare in laboratories. Greater transparency is also supported by significant voices on the research side. As such, a motion calling for increased transparency was passed in the Senate in February 2020 (1).

But while it may be that all sides of the animal research debate desire transparency, Australia remains behind, making minimal effort towards openness, better communication, greater accountability and more public access to information.

HRA is pleased to provide our comments on the draft commitments below, based on the difficulties we face in acquiring even basic information about animal research occurring in Australia.

1. BUILDING BETTER CONNECTIONS BETWEEN CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT

HRA would welcome the opportunity of representation on the Open Government Forum as a civil society organisation, and is supportive of the proposal for a series of open government themed dialogues that bring together senior bureaucrats and civil society leaders in an open discussion on dialogue public policy/governance issues related to the nominated theme. Bringing together different groups in-person will facilitate understanding of the challenges from both a Government and civil society perspective. However, a concern is that the dialogue does not result in meaningful changes on policy or process, and there would need to be steps taken to ensure this commitment is integrated with other commitments.

2. 2. BUILDING TRUST IN DATA SHARING

HRA has no comment to make on this commitment, since our concerns are not with how public data is shared and used by Government agencies, but more so how data from Government agencies is shared with the public.

3. 3. OPEN BY DESIGN (RIGHT TO KNOW)


HRA is strongly supportive of the commitment to improve the accessibility of information held by government, or under government contractual or outsourcing arrangements, through the development of the key features for a nationally consistent approach to the proactive release of information commonly sought by members of the Australian community or which they identify as valuable and/or necessary for open and accountable government.

We advocate for: Mandatory national collation and reporting of statistics, particularly for issues in which there

are national codes and should be national uniformity.

Australia maintains no national collection or collation of animal use statistics, unlike many other countries. Even at state/territory level, there are lengthy delays in reporting, extremely inconsistent collection and reporting methods between jurisdictions and institutions, and some states and territories don’t even collect statistics at all.

Due to the difficulty in obtaining statistics, and discrepancies in data provided, it is difficult to create a comprehensive picture of the national use of animals in research and teaching.

The lack of statistics collation at a national level, and even at state/territory level, means that the 3Rs principles (Refining, Reducing, and Replacing animal use in research), or any other national policies that aim to limit the use of animals in research and teaching, are very difficult to implement, given that there is no accurate way of measuring change. Australia has a responsibility to follow the example of other jurisdictions, such as Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and New Zealand, and set up an annual national animal use report system. Given that Canada, with over 10 provinces, and the European Union, made up over 28 member nations, effectively collect and collate statistics, it is very difficult for Australia to make the case that it is too cumbersome to collect national statistics in a uniform format from our 8 states and territories.

Promotion of transparency in legislation and association codes or regulations

Clauses encouraging institutes to ‘consider making available’ documentation (Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes,) are not sufficient and HRA’s experience in requesting copies of compliance reports from research institutes shows a hesitance to make these publically available. Such language permits this lack of transparency.

Greater oversight of agencies which hold co-regulatory powers

When authorities are effectively given the ability to approve, implement and in the event of complaints, self-investigate, their own research with limited regulator oversight, there is an increased need for scrutiny and public transparency.

Plain language information

For some areas such as animal research, HRA advocates following the example of the EU and Article43.3 Directive 2010/63/EU which now requires that non-technical summaries (NTS) are published by the European Member States in order to provide the public with access to information concerning projects using live animals. The NTS must include title, purpose, objectives and benefits, number and type of animals, predicted harms and application of the 3Rs (Reduction, Refinement & Replacement). They must be written in non-scientific language and accessible for five years. Annual


reports on animal use in research are published, unlike Australia, which has no mandatory reporting system, meaning that there is no way of measuring progress or otherwise.

Certain projects (including those which use non-human primates) must also undergo a retrospective analysis – a powerful tool to facilitate critical review the use of animals. It is believed that this facilitates improved design for similar studies, raises openness of best practice and prevents mistakes.

Transparency in the first instance

Supplying more information in the public domain would reduce reliance on FOI, this reducing time and cost and increasing public confidence in the public sector.

4. PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT FOR MINISTERIAL ADVISERS

HRA has no comment on this commitment

5. IMPROVE AWARENESS WITHIN COMMONWEALTH ENTITIES, AND MORE BROADLY, OF FRAUD RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO A CRISIS SITUATION


6. IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST RELATED TO THE USE OF EMERGENCY AND CRISIS POWERS


7. BEST PRACTICE IN DEALING WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS

HRA applies FOI requests to government agencies and universities. Our most common requests focus on gathering information relating to animal use statistics, the operations of animal ethics committees, identifying animal research licence holders, details on specific research protocols, details of incident reports or to obtain visual footage. HRA contend that the information released provides an insufficient level of detail to enable informed debate on the subject, and unnecessarily so, since exemptions should only be used where absolutely necessary, rather than to counter legitimate opposition. In effect, this enables a “selective openness”, which simply serves to maintain the status quo.

HRA agrees with the finding that freedom of Information requests vary considerably between different government departments and agencies. From our experience, the identical or similar request can result in varied responses dependent on the state or territory, institution, or individual FOI officer. Consistency should not only be sought by the APS, but also institutions such as universities. Third party rights can cause significant delays and this process could be streamlined.

1. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/ hansards/7123b722-738a-4e51-9256-2815f1b3d2bd/&sid=0148

From: Jan SouterTo: OGPSubject: Draft Commitments for Third national Action PlanDate: Monday, 26 October 2020 11:16:37 AM

Please accept my priorities as follow:-1. Better connections between Civil society and government. Do we need an "in-nation type of twitter"?2. Building Trust in data sharing. Public acknowledgement and investigation of what happened in Sports Rorts, Angus Taylor's "emails", NBN bonuses, Western Sydney airport land etc etc and now Australia Post might help!3. Right to Know. Decisions should be made by ethicists not Politicians.4. Professional support for Ministerial Advisors - This support should not be "in House" by sycophants but by trained ethicists and less PR people.5. Fraud Risks. Government response should be turned over to Civil courts, not stacked groups like the APMC.6. Improving Transparency and Trust in Emergency powers. Fast decision making requires a well established test mechanism.7 Freedom of Information requests. NOT government selected groups - maybe Triads from civil justice to make decisions.Sincerely and passionately, Jan Souter

open government forum meeting 27 november 2020 - 5.1 … · web view2021. 2. 3. · commitment #1...

Documents