E-Governance to E-Democracy:
Progess in Australia and New Zealand toward Information-Age Democracy
| By Steven Clift Online Strategist and Public Speaker http://www.publicus.net Editor, Democracies Online Newswire http://www.e-democracy.org/do Copyright 2002 Steven Clift |
This article was commissioned by the Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance. See Part B of their International Tracking Report Number 3. |
E-Governance to E-Democracy:
Progress in Australia and New Zealand toward Information-Age Democracy
Prepared for the Commonwealth
Centre for Electronic Governance by Steven Clift <http://www.publicus.net>
in March 2002.
Introduction
E-democracy means different
things to different people. In different countries and political
systems the term is generally connected to the broad use of the Internet
in politics, advocacy, elections, and governance. In most places it is
misunderstood to primarily mean e-voting. This article focuses on the dynamic
aspects of e-democracy between elections in governance.
My working concept of e-governance
relates to the preparation of government as it reacts to information, technology
and communications (ICTs) trends on its traditional governance and role
in society. It is the climate for governance in an online world.
E-democracy builds on e-governance and focuses on the actions and innovations
enabled by ICTs combined with higher levels of democratic motivation and
intent.
This paper focuses specifically
on one element of e-democracy – governance and representative democracy
in the information age. On my recent visit in November 2001 to Australia
and New Zealand (in-person and online) I discovered a number of activities
deserving greater attention.
E-democracy within government
remains at an early stage around the world, but these two countries should
be listed in the top ten in terms of government interest. The role
of government in e-democracy is important. Investments in online
applications and new approaches in the official representative and consultative
processes are considerably more sustainable than projects from the “outside”
that typified early e-democracy explorations in the United States.
This article focuses on four
key areas:
1. Policy development and
political leadership
2. Enhanced information
access and e-mail notification
3. Representative strategies
in parliaments and local councils
4. Online consultation and
communities of practice
With each area I will provide
examples and web addresses for further information.
1. Policy development
and political leadership
The current e-democracy policy
activities of the UK government <http://www.edemocracy.gov.uk>
within the E-Envoy’s office <http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk>
and the new E-democracy committee of the parliament are being watched closely
in Australia and New Zealand. The recently released OECD guide titled,
“Citizens as Partners Guide: Information, Consultation and Public Participation
in Policy-Making” <http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201131e.pdf>
has also generated new interest and comment within government circles in
these two countries.
In the e-government world,
the need for political leadership and vision is stated again and again.
Rarely do heads of government or members of parliament hear from citizens
about the need to better utilize ICTs in government. It simply does
not rank up there with the services people receive directly like education
and health care.
Combine this reality with
information and technology agency “silos” that often resist cooperative
approaches designed to serve citizens from the citizen perspective and
you have a very complex situation where inaction is the least risky route.
In countries where political leaders have made numeric goals related to
e-government, such as Australia and New Zealand, my personal observation
is that with those goals, the political cover provided allows champions
within government to deliver and gain access to the resources required
to meet those goals.
According to the UK e-government
benchmarking study about Australia, “The 1997 announcement by Prime Minister
John Howard that all appropriate Federal Government services would be provided
online by 2001 has provided significant impetus to progress.” <http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/publications/reports/
benchmarkingV2/summary_aus.htm>.
In New Zealand the government lists in their E-Vision <http://www.govt.nz/evision/>
a number of e-government five-year goals to help “people judge what progress
has been made.”
Why is this important to
e-democracy? It is my sense that the governments with integrated,
high profile e-government service efforts are the first to expand actively
into to the area of “representative e-government.” By representative
e-government, I mean government bodies that either represent people like
parliaments and local council or those departments and agencies that consult
with citizens and stakeholders often as required by law.
While I argue that governments
have an obligation to develop e-services and e-democracy at the same time,
most governments are focused on services first. In many places the policy
seems to be services first, democracy later. While parliaments and other
representative institutions are online, their information technology and
communication resources have paled in comparison to the administrative
side of government. Democracy is falling behind and power is shifting as
a result of a non-policy that by default gears most resources toward the
“holy grail” of transaction services.
This is beginning to change.
Some parliaments and representative bodies are increasing their information
and communication technology investments and leading government departments
are beginning to adapt their in-person citizen and stakeholder consultation
requirements to the information age.
At the national level in
Australia, the National Office of the Information Economy <http://www.noie.gov.au>,
which coordinates e-government, is taking up the issue of online citizen
engagement <http://www.noie.gov.au/publications/speeches/rimmer/
canada1710/sld016.htm>.
They are at an early stage and their staff has indicated that they want
to explore this issue in terms of administrative responsibilities.
As host of the joint Online Council of Federal, State and Territorial leaders
they discussed e-democracy at their March 2002 meeting <http://www.noie.gov.au/publications/media%5Freleases/
2002/mar2002/online%5Fcouncil.htm>.
The Council “acknowledged that e-democracy is a significant issue emerging
for governments in Australia and agreed that Australia’s position as a
world leader in eGovernment continues to be reflected in progress regarding
e-democracy. Ministers were pleased with the progress made to date, in
terms of the application of online consultation, and in the development
of policies and strategies to allow people to better engage with government.”
The State of Victoria announced
an E-Democracy Inquiry <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/web_notes/newmedia.nsf/
ebfd7a9e83f839b34a2568110023b2e3/
8747b9a1469ada824a256b66007c3252?OpenDocument>
in February 2002.
Through both Liberal and Labour governments, Victoria has a long history
of funding ICT development across multiple sectors of their state.
The state library’s VICNET <http://www.vicnet.net.au>
project helps connect people and organizations to the Internet through
training and education and unlike most access promotion projects it provides
civic navigation of regional content. Multimedia Victoria promotes
better understanding of things “e” including e-democracy <http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/Research/ElectronicDemocracy/voting.htm>
and continues to push aggressive e-government development. Back in
1999, the Victorian government initiated a previous democracy online exploration
that led in part to a small online consultation experiment in late 2001.
Last, and most important,
are the e-democracy policy developments in the State of Queensland
<http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/community/democracy.htm>.
In November 2001, the Queensland Cabinet approved both a comprehensive
community engagement policy and a special e-democracy policy framework.
This is the clearest sign of political support for e-democracy issued by
government in the region, perhaps anywhere in the world to date.
In the forward of the Community
Engagement Division’s Direction Statement, Premier Bettie states, “The
role of Government is changing. The community is seeking better Government
leadership through increased public participation in decision-making.
I am willing to accept this challenge.” He goes on to say that, “Strengthening
relations with citizens is a sound investment in better policy-making by
allowing government to tap new sources of relevant ideas, information and
resources when making decisions.”
Within this document, a commitment
is made to a Queensland E-Democracy Three Year Trial. Approved by Cabinet
and assigned to the Community Engagement Division, this is the highest
level of formal e-democracy policy interest that I have seen in any government.
Current developments in the UK will certainly place it in the lead on a
national scale, but Queensland may be the place to watch in terms of measurable
and identifiable outcomes due to its relatively modest population of around
3 million people.
Here are some important excerpts
from Queensland’s “E-democracy policy framework” (see <http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/community/pdf/edemocracy.pdf>
for the full version of this extremely important document):
The Queensland Government
is committed to exploring the many new opportunities the Internet brings
and to discovering ways in which this medium can strengthen participative
democracy within Queensland -The Smart State.E-democracy is at the convergence
of traditional democratic processes and Internet technology. It refers
to how the Internet can be used to enhance our democratic processes and
provide increased opportunities for individuals and communities to interact
with government.E-democracy comprises a range
of Internet based activities that aim to strengthen democratic processes
and institutions, including government agencies. Some of the ways
in which this can be delivered include:· providing accessible
information resources online; · conducting policy consultation
online; and · facilitating electronic input to policy development.It is the responsibility
of government to expand the channels of communication to reach as many
citizens as possible. The Internet is not inherently democratic,
but it can be used for democratic purposes. The full implications of how
the Internet will enhance this interaction are yet to be explored.
Their three-year trial includes:
The Queensland Government’s
commitment for the next three years is to:· post a number of
issues on the website on which the Government desires wide consultation
and feedback;· provide online access
to Government consultation documents relevant to those issues, such as
discussion and policy papers and draft bills;· broadcast Parliamentary
debates over the Internet; and· develop a system
to accept petitions to the Queensland Parliament online.
In my brief time with
New Zealand <http://www.e-government.govt.nz/participation/>
e-government officials, they too presented an early policy interest in
e-democracy. In most governments, now is the time to get policy questions
on the table. One indication of forward thinking in New Zealand,
which I’ll mention later, is their extremely high profile presentation
of information on government consultations on their home page.
From a global comparative
vantage point, it is my sense that you don’t need an e-democracy policy
to have a government with a number of useful democracy services online.
However, when it comes to second and third generation applications and
government-wide initiatives that require resources and political support,
high level policy direction will accelerate and deepen activities. It is
important for government leaders to be able to see e-democracy progress
and celebrate the innovations taking place under their noses. Governments
with a “just do it” e-democracy history will benefit from policy direction
along with those who require an e-democracy policy to develop applications
and initiatives.
In conclusion, a strong e-democracy
policy with specific measurable goals is essential to promote long-term
progress. The alternative is to muddle around with limited accountability
like we see with e-government as a whole in places without aggressive evaluation
and goal setting. Citizens can’t choose governments that do a better
job with e-democracy like they can choose between competing commercial
web sites. This is why top level political support, articulated in
policy is so essential to move government organizations and their democratic
processes forward into the information age.
2. Enhanced information
access and e-mail notification
An argument was made in the
late 1990s that the natural evolution of e-government was from information
access to the provision of transaction services. Providing better and more
effective access to information was not hip in a world dominated by headlines
about the future of e-commerce.
However, to this day the
vast majority of Internet users (U.S. users surveyed by the Markle Foundation
<http://www.markle.org> as part
of their Internet Accountability study) view the web as a “library” and
not an online shopping mall. The reality is that one of the primary functions
of government is the creation and dissemination of information. And the
lack of comparative focus on improving the methods of online access to
ever increasing amounts of government information online has lead to a
crisis of online navigation and usability for citizens.
Try to imagine a library
without a card catalog where undated books are piled in boxes located in
different rooms. Oh, did I mention that some books vanish and change
without notice and that the rooms are organized by agency without doors
or hallways to connect them. In this library, you have to climb up a rope
to the roof and repel down into the next information “silo” hoping to find
what you need. Finally, after a few hours of looking a little sign on the
wall tells you that you are in the wrong library completely and need to
go to the library of a different level of government. As I have said before,
if you have a web page and no one can find it, do you really have a web
page?
Providing timely, enhanced
information access should be a core e-democracy goal of government.
While much of the information government provides is service related or
not directly related to policy development or decision-making, public accountability
and understanding of public service is greatly improved when people can
easily navigate information and services across government based on their
needs and interests.
Enter the public portal.
It is my belief, based on conversations in Australia and New Zealand that
they are taking a more balanced approach to e-government than with the
“services first, democracy later” approach I see in my home country, the
United States. Public portals, with cross agency links and directories
based on topic/theme/audience emerged in places like Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand a year or two earlier than in most other states and countries.
This experience is beginning to build a new kind of civil servant who serves
the citizen online from the citizen’s perspective rather than just being
accountable to a single agency in terms of expressing the agencies view
of itself to the world. These special collaborative online directory efforts
that serve groups or topics (i.e. seniors, youth, or health, new child,
etc.) are building cumulative knowledge and collaborative multi-agency
working clusters.
Presenting content (particularly
through links) from the citizen (business, organization, stakeholder, etc.)
perspective rather than that of one agency is building a unified brand
identity for the public portal. It is building audience for government
content and creating citizen expectations for further navigation and content
access improvements in the future. It is also building knowledge
within government about the kinds of information people actually use versus
those things consultants or citizens might say they want. Within governments
and among governments there is a tremendous opportunity for knowledge sharing
about what kinds of government information is available as well the style,
format and delivery of that information which is most popular.
Three public portal efforts
I want to mention are:
Australia – This site <http://www.fed.gov.au>
is latest version of their federal portal. As part of a marketing buy lorazepam overnight effort
for e-government with the state’s they have also launched <http://www.gov.au>.
From the Federal portal they clearly present organized links into the “Government
& Parliament.” This section not only links to the home page of
parliament, it also helps the user find key sections and related web sites.
Next up is the just released portal that combines national and state resources
<http://australia.gov.au>. As
a side comment, all government portals would benefit from a profile link
<http://australia.gov.au/portals/about_gov.asp>
to a simple and easy to understand explanation of “how your government
works” as well as a tip sheet on how to provide online policy input into
government along with advice on sending in customer service complaints.
Policy input needs to be channeled appropriately and not get stuck in customer
service.
State of Victoria – This
site <http://www.vic.gov.au> has
some of the most developed theme spaces for links across government.
As I noted above, Victoria has provided government funding for a number
of online initiative outside the core area of government services.
Visitors to the Victorian government’s portal quickly get the sense that
this is your “state” and not this is just your “government.” Their
“Citizens and Community” section on the portal give this sense while the
“Government” section takes you to the representative institutions of their
government.
New Zealand – This site <http://www.govt.nz>
is unique among almost all government portals. It is designed much
more as an online news sites (i.e. what’s new across government) with a
pull down menu to frequently request information and services based on
topic. This presentation of “what’s new” across government leads me to
my next set of comments.
E-mail notification and personalization
of public portal features will lead the next revolution in e-government.
If today’s government portals represent the aggregate knowledge about user
interest as understood by government, personalization will turn things
upside down and allow citizens, based on their unique interests, to be
notified on a timely basis about information in which they are interested.
The convenience of being told when frequently updated information (or rarely
updated information) is available in a manner chosen by the user is tremendously
powerful. Imagine a preferences page where you can choose how you’d
like to be notified about a major policy document – e-mail, SMS/Text messaging,
instant messaging, personalized web page. Services like Spyonit
<http://www.spyonit.com> allow
you to monitor any web page today for changes. These features will
be built into the better government portal sites.
E-mail notification may be
the number one e-democracy application for government in the next five
years. Why? Notification does not require a government to change how and
when it releases a document online, it simply allows people to opt-in to
be told when a document, meeting announcement, etc. is available.
Timely access to information has tremendous political value. The highly
obscure release of important documents buried deep on an agency web site
will become a thing of the past in e-democracy friendly governments. Making
content effectively available online when the time to comment and influence
policy still exists will be one of the most cost-effective e-democracy
moves by government.
However, if this is to be
done from the government-wide portal level, which it should when possible
in order to have the greatest whole-of-government impact, a sophisticated
collaborative development scheme will be required. Notification as a default,
not the exception, will require both the automatic and manual aggregation
of document availability and description information and the automatic
dissemination of this information based on user preferences. This
will require the use of database-driven approaches and likely XML.
This will go way beyond hand-edited “what’s new” web pages and e-mail newsletters.
E-mail newsletters are an important starting point and should be established
immediately to build experience with notification.
While I am sure there are
other examples, the best starting point example of topical e-mail announcement
lists I could find comes from the Australian Human Right and Equal Opportunity
Commission <http://www.hreoc.gov.au/mailing_lists/>
on topics such as Children & Youth, Complaints and Legal, Disability
Rights, Indigenous, Racial Discrimination, and more. This is an important
first step where people can sign-up to receive edited announcements and
updates. In my opinion every government web site and portal should
have at least one opt-in e-mail newsletter that at a minimum shares what
is new on the site each week or no less than once a month. An initial
aggregate personalization feature at the portal level is the ability from
one web page to selected or sign-off the e-newsletters of choice from across
government.
For outstanding early examples
of the more systematic approach we need to look to the UK and some local
governments in the State of Minnesota. The <http://www.info4local.gov.uk>
site in the UK is geared toward those in local government seeking updates
about information from central government. It allows users to receive
instant e-mails on selected subjects and document types from selected UK
government departments. You can also sign-up to receive links to
new releases, but at this point the coding required to personalize what
you receive is not implemented. In St. Paul, Minnesota <http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us>
the use of a service from Govdocs.com <http://www.govdocs.com>
allows people to sign-up to receive key city documents as they are placed
on the web such as city council meeting notices, agendas, minutes and the
like. City staffers now know how many people will instantly receive
an update about the content they upload. They no longer have to ponder
whether anyone reads what they put online six clicks from the home page.
This has increased timely awareness of government information in St. Paul
and has firmly established the business case for the work required to fully
integrate online access into city processes.
3. Representative strategies
in parliaments and local councils
When I mention the concept
of “representative e-government” a light goes off in people’s head.
That is right, we already have representative institutions and what they
do online to provide better access to their current processes is important.
In the early days of e-democracy interest, many assumed it meant direct
democracy where people would vote on everything because the technology
would enable it. People are now realizing that how often you vote
and how you vote (polling places, by mail, online, or combination) are
primarily political choices. What e-democracy does best is allow representative
institutions to add more participatory features that engage citizens between
elections.
On my recent trip I spent
a number of days with staff from the Christchurch City Council and met
with a number of those who worked on the Australian Parliaments web presence.
In my recently released “Future of E-Democracy” <http://www.publicus.net/articles/future.html>
speech/article I explore issues related to putting in-person public hearings
online, full featured online constituent offices, and what I called “wired
elected officials” or Weos. I won’t go into detail here. Instead I’ll focus
on some important trends I observed down under and over top (Canada).
Like many parliaments around
the world, their web sites do not lack substance. While I have no
knowledge about the specifics of Australia, the general trend is that first
and second-generation parliament web sites are driven by staff champions.
It is not that Members of Parliament are not supportive; they don’t really
know what they might be missing, so why be too concerned? Also, with parliamentary
forms of government, the Cabinet members get to take advantage of their
department’s online resources while backbenchers and opposition members
have limited online support.
The “online constituent office”
seems to be emerging as a set of uniform service options or it is unfolding
as political communication tool developed competitively by party caucuses.
I suggest a hybrid approach where as much as possible is developed uniformly
for all members to assist them with their official duties online and only
those highly partisan or election-related online activities be reserved
exclusively for party parliamentary caucus technology.
In New Zealand, there is
increasing interest in e-democracy at the local level. For sometime,
the Wellington City Council <http://www.wcc.govt.nz/yoursay/>
has listed current consultations online and has a fairly wired base of
local councilors.
In Christchurch, the Council
<http://www.ccc.govt.nz/> has
recently assumed day-to-day responsibility for their government’s web presence
from the library. Christchurch’s deep collection of local content,
presents a fuller community picture than I have seen just about anywhere
else. Because the local media sites are part of a national online
media conglomerate, the government site is viewed as the highest traffic
site in the community.
The library will now lead
an exciting project to build an even broader and inclusive Christchurch
Online site with council funding and support. I am interested in
how this new entity might be able to host discussion and civic interactivity
that the Council itself may hesitate to host on its server. They may have
the foundation for the e-democracy one-two punch that Minnesota E-Democracy
has played in relation to government and media sites in the U.S. (I am
Board Chair of E-Democracy.).
Along with the Council’s
interest in exploring online consultations, I had a number of conversations
about the tools local councilors need to be better representatives in the
information age. It must be noted that elected officials at all levels
have the most varied degree of technical skill and aptitude of any active
group of players in the e-democracy world. As official representatives,
they are the most legitimate actors, so how they are supported is fundamentally
important for the future of democracy as a whole. We do not want
the information age to pass them by. They must be supported so they
can become more effective information age representatives. I should
note that that the Mayor of Christchurch stands out for his web site <http://www.christchurchmayor.org.nz/>
and the personality it exudes.
4. Online consultations
and communities of practice
Experimentation with government-led
online consultation and hosting of citizen discussions has a strong start
in Australia. Much of this activity is at the state level. The most
established and cited example on my trip was the government-hosted Talking
Point web forums <http://www.talkingpoint.sa.gov.au>
hosted by the State of South Australia. At this, time these open forums
on public topics are closed while their state elections are underway.
In addition to these discussions, their Premier has appeared in a number
of live chats featured on the site.
In Victoria, Queensland,
and the Federal level it was suggested that they are more closely exploring
online special events on specific topics with a start and an end date.
My advice for “online consultation” hosts is featured in my detailed how-to
article on the subject <http://www.publicus.net/articles/consult.html>.
Both the New Zealand national
portal <http://www.govt.nz/news/index.php3?type=cco>
and a section of the Australian Capitol Territory <http://www.act.gov.au/government/reports/index.html>
list current consultations taking place in the off-line world. New
Zealand is unique in that it lists consultations prominently on their home
page and the section with further detail includes links to consultations
hosted by local governments as well.
In Victoria, an experiment
called “Have Your Say” <http://www.haveyoursay.vic.gov.au/discussion/>
is likely to be incorporated as a feature of the main e-government portal
sometime in 2002. (Link is down, see bottom of thie DO-WIRE post
<http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00347.html>.
An evaluation of their event from October 2001 is pending. Like many
online experiments, the lack of broad publicity left them with a small
audience. My key piece of advice is that an audience must be recruited
for at least a few weeks before an event starts.
In Queensland, as mentioned
above, their e-democracy program includes development of a platform for
online consultation across government. This presents an issue that governments
need to explore -should they build a shared platform for consultation used
by multiple departments, parliamentary committees, even the head of government?
The alternative is a patchwork of online consultation systems implemented
by leading agencies with few systems on smaller government web sites. While
no one platform will serve the needs of all agencies, I’d like to suggest
that building a shared system for online consultation will lead to broader
activity across government. More importantly it will allow citizens to
transfer their knowledge about and experience with the online tool from
one event to another regardless of the host.
One of the more exciting
government-sponsored interactive examples I have discovered anywhere is
the communitybuilders.nsw <http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/>
online “community of practice” hosted by the State of New South Wales.
If online consultation related to policy development, government-hosted
communities of practice relate to the implementation of policy. The
Premier of NSW states that the Community Builder initiative is designed
to “to help local communities across the State share ideas on how to enhance
and strengthen their community” … “This site aims to communicate how different
communities have addressed various issues such as enhancing public safety,
stimulating employment and promoting reconciliation. It shows how my government
is forging partnerships with communities around the state. It is very much
your site. Although the Premier’s Department will be responsible for updating
the site and keeping information fresh, the site’s success will depend
on people such as yourself sharing the information you think is relevant.”
With over 1100 participants, their hybrid web forum – e-mail notification
system with a supporting web site positions government as a facilitator
of public work rather than just as a provider of services. Providing a
many-to-many online space related to a public mandate will allow government
departments to adapt their implementation strategies and incrementally
improve their policy approaches as well. The Internet improves through
trial and error. Communities of practice hosted by government may
be a starting point for incremental government reform rather than the huge
mega-project model that often falls on its face. Finally, through
the VICNET project, the Victorian state government is supporting the creation
of online communities as organized by NGOs, citizens, and others.
As their MC2 <http://mc2.vicnet.net>
software is upgraded, hopefully with two-way e-mail participation (right
now you must post via the web) it may be extremely useful for governments
and civic organizations around the world.
Conclusion
I am extremely bullish on
the future of e-democracy in government in Australia and New Zealand.
They have a unique perspective on the world that encourages them gather
innovative ideas and applications from far away places and adapt them to
their very practical cultures. In North America and Europe, sometimes you
are too close to the action to see what is really important or gain the
perspective required to fully appreciate what really works.
As the concept of e-democracy
in governance gains hold, I look forward to gathering future lessons and
ideas from Australia and New Zealand for use around the world.