Today Minister Tanner launched the Australian Declaration of Open Government on the AGIMO Govspace website.
The Declaration was one of the core recommendations of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce Report (the Government response is here), and it includes some good key principles for Open Government in the 21st century which I’ve quoted below:
The Australian Government’s support for openness and transparency in Government has three key principles:
- Informing: strengthening citizen’s rights of access to information, establishing a pro-disclosure culture across Australian Government agencies including through online innovation, and making government information more accessible and usable;
- Engaging: collaborating with citizens on policy and service delivery to enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought; and
- Participating: making government more consultative and participative.
I am extremely pleased with the result and it is a credit to Minister Tanner and his office.
You can contribute your thoughts on the Declaration blog post.
I would like to take this opportunity to foreshadow the next Public Sphere consultation to be a followup of the Declaration of Open Government, to be held after the election.
We are looking at following up from the exciting initiatives emerging from the Gov 2.0 Taskforce, the public sector and the enthusiastic community, as well as exploring the full potential of the Gov 2.0 agenda. I would love your feedback and ideas for this next public consultation.
Please check out the Australian Gov 2.0 Showcase and continue to contribute your case studies there.
42 Comments
Reply | Subscribe
Kate,
An increase in government openness can only be a good thing so well done for your part in this.
Can we expect a similar announcement about using open source software in all levels of government?
It’s not squarely a Gov2 issue, but, as I’ve already discussed with Kate, I think it would be great to run a Public Sphere on the theme of how we move beyond ‘he-said-she-said’ and ‘race-calling’ journalism.
I’d also love to move beyond the “cult of personality” in politics and journalism. eg. “the Gillard government”. It’s simply not, it’s the ALP (or whatever political party is in power) driving the political policy agenda, not just Julia Gillard. It should be reported as such. We certainly don’t live in a dictatorship! The PM is simply the head of the government; their most senior spokesperson.
The declaration is great news.
Perhaps a Public Sphere on the theme of the intereactions of the social/community sector, technology and government.
This whole post is a joke, right? Labor has no interest at all in having an “open” government.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’d like Labor to be open about your precious internet filter, ACTA, NBN discussions, the restriction of both Freedom of Information rules and the constant piling on of matters into the “Refused Classification” category, Gillard’s discussions with Rudd about usurping his role, and all the back-room deals you lot strike with your own personal stakeholders. Remind me again how open you lot were when Conroy gave the TV stations a quarter of a BILLION dollars with absolutely zero *official* strings attached.
Not that Liberals are any better, but at least they’re not claiming to be supporting “openness and transparency”.
A declaration is one thing, but sadly it seems reality is totally different.
Nice post Kate.
Unfortunately i and every other Australian is yet to see this open and transparent government you speak of.
Please show me the openness and transparency of the ACTA talks Australia is participating in.
Please show me the openness and transparency of the 250 million dollar license fee cut the TV networks received.
Please show me the openness and transparency of the ISP filter trials.
Please show me ANY example of the openness and transparency the ALP has shown since coming to power!
Kate while a appreciate and am proud of the posts your make, i am yet to see any substance to them.
You are just another politician talking out of their rear distracting people from actually fighting the issues.
GROW SOME METAPHORICAL BALLS AND PUT YOUR WORDS INTO ACTION!.
If you really believe what you keep posting then show us, start making waves in the labor party!
STICK YOUR NECK OUT FOR US… We will stick it back out for you… in the voting booths!
Kane
P.s I was been nice before as i thought you might actually do something. But getting sick of the lack of action from you… Your words have no substance and i am running out of patience!
Hi Kate.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Does this mean that secret blacklists proposed for your Internet Censorship scheme will no longer be secret?
Cheers
Dave
Action speaks louder than words.
All I see here is that some politicians have, yet again, produced some words.
Talk of open government and all the web pages, blogs, etc does not mean the government is truly open.
For instance telling the citizens who voted you in what is going to happen and what new nanny state initiatives you’re implementing is not “open government”
Open Government is not just press releases via “Gov 2.0″, but a true dialogue (not monologue) where Government listens to the citizens and governs according to what people really want done.
Not some “we must be seen to be doing something” style of governance where we end up with law after law that either does nothing or restricts the citizens further.
It is also giving citizens the right to disagree and you actually listen. You know where you stop thinking of yourselves and what law to enact next, and actually put aside your ideas and hear and understand what the citizens are saying to you. You know the citizens that you are supposed to be SERVING, not CONTROLLING.
Governance is not meant to be a power trip, but a humbling experience where you realise that with power comes responsibility and that responsibility is to govern for the benefit of the citizens as a whole without individuals being disadvantages.
Open government is not trying ways to reduce people’s privacy and security in the name of government security. It is not governing out of fear of what you do not understand.
Some of the things being done by your government that is anti “open Government” is treating us like 2nd rate individuals who are incapable of determining to the right things for ourselves and coping with things for ourselves. (in relation to our thoughts and what we see).
Monitoring your citizens is not open government.
Deciding what we can/can’t communicate is not open government.
Being our nanny is not open government.
Recording what your citizens communicate is not open government.
Not recognising that the internet is a communications system and what people communicate over it maybe private and maybe considered media. It may seem at times to be similar to a form of media but then one realises that it is 1000 times more than just media, distribution, etc. It is purely a vehicle for communicating and what is communicated is the responsibility of the people involved and not the governments. If someone ends up with, or doing and illegal act while communicating then the police can handle it. We are old enough to decide for ourselves without your government “hand holding” our (or our children’s) communications.
It is an insult to reasonable people the amount of intrusions into their lives that this government has tried to do in the last 3 years. No other government in Australia has overstepped these bounds even 1/100 of this government (There are countries who do, but never before in Australia)
For once be “Gov 0.1″ and realise that to reach “gov 2.0″ you have to give power back to the people then ask the people how government can better help them to live happy and productive lives. Not the other way around where the government just takes and takes and takes away people privacy, dignity, hope, and power to be themselves.
A very sadden voter who used to vote Labor.
Will only vote Labor if they change.
Can you please tell me who is actually running government then? We all know it can’t be the PM!
Senator Lundy
It grieves me to see how many people are leaning towards voting Green 1 – then preferencing the Coaltion. It grieves me more that I’m thinking of joining them.
I usually park my second preference with Labor – but the Labor Government’s arrogant, irrational and offensive behaviour over mandatory Internet censorship is the opposite of the Open Government principles you espouse.
Labor should commit to net neutrality and net accessibility, following world-first, best-practice legislation recently passed in Chile and Finland respectively.
Bring back give-away voluntary ‘filters’ for those who want them. Put funds into citizen education on internet safety. Prosecute real crimes – but not victimless ‘crimes’. Cut the moral panics and spook-driven grabs at Australians’ civil liberties.
The mandatory censorship policy is a disgrace. Last week’s announcement by Senator Conroy did nothing to allay concerns.
PLEASE fix this now – before the election.
Hi Kate,
Fantastic blog post and an ideal worth striving for. Pity the current Labor Party does not demonstrate ANY of the attributes that an open Government should, which is why we need to vote the current regime outof power ASAP.
Your party should look abroad for insight on steps to achieve true Open Government.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/13/2056218/Chile-First-To-Approve-Net-Neutrality-Law
I like the idea of open government, but it seems so at odds from some of the things we have seen from Labor over the last few years. I agree with what others have said, actions speak louder than words, and the actions from Labor to date have been anything but open.
I think that whilst Labor’s mandatory internet censorship plan is on the agenda, trying to engage with the online community is going to give people a forum to vent a lot of pent up anger. I think you witnessed that with the forum thing from last year, almost all the comments were against internet censorship no matter what the topic was.
Steps to implementing the open government ideals:
1) Dump the internet censorship policy
2) Only then start engaging with the online community in a meaningful way
Kate, I used to believe in you, back when you were in opposition, really I did. Now, I feel like a bit of a dill! I’m afraid you are just one of the crowd of pollies with one simple objective, to stay in power at all costs.
Saying you have open government is not the same as actually having open government. Remember just a few weeks ago it was your mob talking about monitoring everybody’s Internet activities. Please explain how that fits into “open government”.
All of you, whatever your political persuasion, have long ago forgotten that you are there to represent us. If only a few brave people would take that on board and start working for us, that would lead to open government without you having to tell us!
Come on Kate, show us you have the guts…
Meh, asylum seekers, ETS, #nocleanfeed.
I’m voting green. Hope those ‘working families’ work out for you guys….
Here is a letter I just sent to our local Labour Candidate and why I will not be voting for her, after over Two decades of voting labour, Im sorry Kate but we just dont buy this latest Sound Byte, Catchy Line, or what ever you wish to call it anymore -
Dear Belinda,
I wish to introduce myself, my name is XXXXX XXXXX, I am 44 years old, married with a seventeen year old son, and I live in Bundaberg, in your seat of Hinkler, and I write this email with a heavy heart.
I have been a staunch labour labour supporter and voter my whole life, as is my wife, my whole family and her family. This history of support from us will sadly end with this election, none of us will be voting labour!
The reason for this is because of your Party’s rediculous policy of implementing the “INTERNET FILTER”. I am tech savy and have been online for many many years, in those years I have enjoyed a free and open internet, I have been amazed by the wealth of knowledge that can be found, the ability to learn new things and find information, plus the ability to make contact with people from around the globe or just down the road, but the Labour Governments plan to filter this incredible resource has shown me a fundamental fault with your party and its leadership.
At no point in the history of the internet was it ever concieved to be a domain for children to roam freely, it is a place, like all places, that has mostly good but a small section of bad things. As a parent I knew this, I am not stupid. I knew that as my son grew up the internet would be an extremely valuable source for him in regards to education, entertainment and socializing. I have watched with joy as he grew, learnt from this remarkable instrument and made friendships with others his age, all of this was done under the supervision of myself and and his mother, as we are responsible for the raising of our child.
With all the good the internet holds there is some adult content that is not suitable for children, I understand this, my wife understands this and your party may be surprised to know that probably every other parent and/or Guardian in Australia knows this as well. This content, most of which is not illegal and involves consenting adults is something I as a parent made sure my child could not view, just as I would not allow him to enter an Adult Store, enter a Public Bar, Buy cigarettes etc, all of these are illegal for children and I as a parent dont need the Government to tell me this because as a parent I know these are not suitable for children.
Australian families can utilize many methods to protect their children from the certain sites or dangers on the internet. A parent or Guardian can be sure that the childs computer is in a family room so internet useage can be monitored by the family, a software filter can be purchased from any computer store or purchased and download online, this can be set up by the parent or guardian to filter information they dont want their child to view, or software can be downloaded to track your childs internet history. These can be easily done by Australian parents and Guardians, we can protect our own children. When my son was little we taught him that certain things are dangerous, for example, “Dont Touch the stove, its HOT! It will burn you!”, “Dont cross the road unless you hold my hand, look both ways before crossing”, “Dont touch Power points as they are very dangerous” etc i think you get the point. This guidance also comes into effect when teaching your children about the dangers of the internet. When my son starting using the internet at a young age I always monitored him, I advised him on what is dangerous, I taught him not to give out information on himself such as name, address etc. I taught my son that some bad people pretend to be someone else so they can trick people online. I also talked to my son about Bullying both in real life such as at school and also online Bullying, so he could understand and talk to me about any issues he had.
In regards to the Internet Filter that Senator Stephen Conroy wishes to implement I wished that the Australian Labour Party would actually do some of its own homework and read about how ineffectual this Filter will actually be! Senator Conroy has continually repeated that this Filter is designed to protect children and will only block Child Pornography sites, Beastiality and other RC content. At present it is estimated that the number of Web Pages on the internet is just under TWO TRILLION (thats 2,000,000,000,000). Senator Conroy continually argues that the Internet is awash with so many sites that will do untold psychological damage to us and to our children, yet he continues to mention a list with only a few hundred sites? The percentage works out 0.000014999999999999999% . , or to look at it another way, if you are on the net for 10hrs a day, 365 days a year, you could expect to accidentally encounter one of these URLs about once in every ten thousand years.
There is a reason the internet is not awash in these types of sites and that is the internet has been remarkably well Policed by both the online community around the globe and by Law Enforcement World Wide, this is why you dont find Billions, Millions, Hundreds of Thousands or Tens Of Thousands of websites that involve Child Pornography and Beastiality, they are considered illegal World Wide and are set upon by the authorities with great speed. The list that Senator Conroy has mentioned time and time again will by now be Non Existent, the reason is these types of sites are shut down generally within days and normally within hours due to the international effort in policing these sites.
Protecting children is what Senator Conroy, Kevin Rudd and now Julia Gillard, continually repeat, they say that is the reason for them wanting to implement this Filter.I wish to give you some facts about your parties Filter -
FACTS!
(1) The Filter will not close down ONE Child Pornography or Beasiality site. The filter does not close sites, does not inform Police Authorities and does not remove the pages (The filter is actually the same as putting your fingers in your ears and closing your eyes to a problem, the problem is still there but you are simply pretending it doesnt exist anymore). This can be confirmed by Senator Conroys Office.
(2) The Filter will not remove ONE image of Child Pornography or Beastiality from the Internet. The Filter is not removing anything at all, it simply acts as though the problem doesnt exist.This can be confirmed by Senator Conroys Office
(3) The Filter will not protect ONE child from Grooming by peadophiles. Grooming takes place on sites such as Facebook, Myspace and any one of the millions of online chat and forum pages on the internet. This is a much greater issue as raised by child protection groups, but your parties Filter will not stop this at all, again this can be confirmed by Senator Conroys Office.
(4) The Filter will not result in the prosecution of ONE Peadophile. As the filters ability is only to stop pages being viewed normally in Australia it will not result in the arrest, conviction or imprisonment of one Peadophile. This can be confirmed by Senator Conroys Office.
(5) Not ONE Child Pornography website is what is classed as an OPEN Website. Meaning they are password protected and only the Peaodophiles have access, you, I, our children or our Government have no way to access these sites FULL STOP! If these types of sites are created they are only cracked by International Policing efforts, they have the ability to shut them down and make arrests, this is proven by the incredibly short lifespan of any of these sites, YOUR FILTER WILL NOT DO THIS AT ALL!. This can be confirmed by Senator Conroys office.
(6) The absolute near totality of all Traffic in Child Pornography is done via file transfer methods such as P2P, File Transfer, Encoded Email etc, it is NOT placed in open websites or dealt with openly. YOUR Filter will not stop one image being sent via these methods, not a single one, this has been constantly confirmed by your Minister Conroy, he has admitted this!. This can be confirmed by Senator Conroys Office.
(7) This Filter is not 100% accurate, even though your Minister Conroy continually rambles on about it being 100% this a pure fallacy! As the Minister knows perfectly well the Filter has never been tested on a wide scale in real world situations, and the small scale tests that were performed resulted in False Positives sites being blocked! There is also the fact that if the Peaodophiles find an address is blocked they simply rename and reload and the site is back up within minutes, only the Police Forces worldwide can break this cycle and arrest the criminals, your filter will not do this FULL STOP!
(8) Senator Conroys plan, and in fact your party’s plan, is to have a secret list made up of sites that are to be blocked! This should horrify you! Senator Conroy has said over and over that this list is only to block Child Pornography and Beastiality sites, he then mumbles that other RC content will be blocked. The other sites that will be blocked are sites that contain information regarding subjects such as Euthanasia , Abortion , Safe Drug Use and many more, these are not Child Porn sites! In fact many items on the RC list are not illegal, it is not illegal to possess or view, you can check this yourself, but under Conroys Plan it will be banned! How dare you believe that you have the right to decide what information we may wish to find about subjects that are of importance to us! Senator Conroy has constantly said that the SECRET LIST will only be used to block objectional Material, when questioned about what will happen when future Governments wish to add whatever they want, or even this Government for that matter, he said that he would be the first to protest! What Senator Conroy fails to realise is that when he eventually loses his seat , which I hope he will this election, he will have no control over whatever a Government decides to add to this list.
What is Objectionable?
This brings me to the point of what is decided as Objectionable? What right does anyone have to decide what information I or anyone else should be allowed to view online? What consenting Adults do together is between them, my opinion, your opinion, Conroys opinion matters for nothing, I am not forced to look at consenting adults doing something on their website, neither are you! Who decides what is objectionable? Do Christian organisations have a greater say because they may feel that all adult material on the internet is objectionable? Does a Government minister have the right to make a decision based on his personal beliefs? You may wish to read about the issue Tony Abbott faced when he was Federal Health Minister, the issue was the Abortion Pill RU486, this power was stripped off him when Parliment was allowed to vote on a conscience vote. His personal Christian beliefs are what caused him to deny this pill, and I see no difference between this and what your party is wanting to do , who decides on what is acceptable and what is objectionable? A website showing images of an adult woman in a school outfit may not be my cup of tea, may not be your cup of tea, but if the woman is a consenting adult then she is harming no-one, this would be stopped by the filter because its a woman in a school uniform, this is rediculous.
What is a Terrorist?
You may remember when Nelson Mandella languished in a Soth African Prison for 27 years, a sentence handed down by the Apartheid Government of South Africa. Nelson Mandella was seen by the South African Government as a dangerous terrorist. We have seen this great man released from prison, and we have seen him rise to be President of his country and watched how he helped dismantle the cruel Regime that was Apartheid. Can you please explain to me what right a Government has in deciding what I should read and what information I should or should not avail myself to? One mans Terrorist is another mans Freedom Fighter, why do you think you have the right to make a decision that will inhibit my ability to decide for myself? This type of information will be included in the Governments Filter, they have said that what they perceive to be Terrorism will be blocked by the filter, you can check this yourself.
Public Opinion
I along with virtually the entire online community have been absolutely astounded by the complete lack of knowledge of this subject shown by all members of the labour Government! Some simple research by people like yourselves will show this policy to be a complete waste of time and a waste of MILLIONS of dollars, money that we cannot afford to waste on a policy that simply wont work!
At present there is a Poll on the http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/hitech/index.php/couriermail/comments/will_internet_censorship_affect_your_vote/desc/#commentsmore this poll gives you an idea on what the opinion is on this plan. The question asked is “Would you vote for a political party that supports the internet filter?” and as at the writing of this email the poll is presently showing the following -
———————————————————————————————————————————–
Would you vote for a political party that supports the internet filter?
Yes 3% (675 votes)
No 95% (21,172 votes)
Don’t care 2% (340 votes)
Total Votes: 22,187
I am sure that political parties take notice of Neilson and Galaxy Polls, these polls are asked to approx 1,000 people, the poll I have shown you here is currently up to 22,187 votes after only a few days! Yes thats right 95% will NOT vote for a party that wants introduce a Filter!
———————————————————————————————————————————–
The following is another Poll -
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html
Its results are equally dramatic -
Should The Government Filter The Internet?
Yes 1%
No 99%
Total votes: 88645.
Would you like to vote?
You will need Javascript enabled to use our Voting Feature.
Poll closed 5 Jun, 2010
Again you can see that opinion, based on 88,645 votes you have a 99% vote against!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Another Poll on the following site http://www.zdnet.com.au/do-you-support-a-mandatory-internet-filter-339300077.htm showing the following results -
Do you support a mandatory internet filter?
*
Yes, the internet is no different to other media – 2.6% (50 votes)
*
Don’t care, it’s no big deal – 0.7% (14 votes)
*
No, the government is completely wrong – 96.7% (1870 votes)
Total votes: 1934
Again showing a vast majority, 96.7% against this Policy!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Another on-line poll shown here http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/government-goes-to-war-with-google-over-net-censorship-20100330-r9bp.html again you can see for yourself the figures -
Source: smh.com.au
Poll: Do you support the government’s internet filtering policy?
Yes 3%
No 96%
Indifferent 1%
Total votes: 45154.
Would you like to vote?
You will need Javascript enabled to use our Voting Feature.
Poll closed 31 Mar, 2010
Yes thats 45,154 VOTES!!!!!! with 96% against this Policy
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
I can go on and on but I feel it is not my job to have to bring this information to your attention, I believe it is representitives from the Labour Party that should be doing their own research !
The following link is to a forum on the Whirlpool websites that has an ongoing discussion on this subject of the Internet Filter, Please note this forum is now up to PART 85, that means there has been 85 parts each with over 70 pages of every contributor showing their contempt for this policy and how to make sure that Labour does not win the election. These pages contain contributions from many many people, alot of whom were Labour supporters and labour voters but they will not be voting labour at this election!
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1482774&p=74
I am curious to know how your you, your party or the Government can hope to be successfull in this election with such a massive backlash against the Government caused by this issue?How STUPID is the party when they think that this Filter, THAT WILL NOT WORK (please check yourself and you will see), is a good idea?
THE DELAY FOR ONE YEAR
Yes Belinda I am aware, as are all the Whirlpool members and all the other citizens against this policy, that Senator Conroy has shelved this policy for a year for the reason he is saying that RC Classification has to be checked.
Please dont insult our intelligence, we know perfectly well that this Government knows this policy is toxic and they wanted it off the table until after the election! We know this Belinda, we are not idiots as your Senetor and PM must believe we are! We know that the Government cant handle any more bad press and this Filter Proposal is nothing but bad news. There has been no change to Senator Conroys plans, he continues to spout the same rhetoric that I have shown you here is untrue, but please dont just listen to me, read the opinions of others, read the evidence, read the facts.
Senator Conroy continues to claim that this filter is part of his Cyber Safety Proposal, what the Labour Party doesnt seem to understand is that putting the word CYBER in front of something makes no difference! When Conroy talks of Cyber-Bullies he is only talking about Bullies, we have laws against bullying! When he talks about Cyber sex crimes re: Child Pornography, he is actually talking about Child Pornography and our Country along with the countries of the world have laws to deal with this. When Conroy talks about Cyber Stalking he is only talking about stalking, and we have laws against this now!
Instead of wasting more money on this pointless, insulting and completly useless policy, why cant those Millions of Dollars be sent to the Federal Police, whose job it is to track down and capture these swine! Why cant the money be spent on better Online education for children and Parents and Guardians? This has been stated by Child Protection groups who argue that the Filter will be useless in protecting children.http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/330087/child_groups_slam_conroy_isp_filtering_plans/
Senator Conroy originally stated that this policy would be Opt-In, so if your household did not have children then you would not have to be burdoned by this filter, considering a majority of Households in Australia do not have children., he has now stated that this filter will be Mandatory! He continues to insult all of us when he says “I do not support Opting in to Child Pornography!”, he has said this many times and it insults all of us, it actually disgusts me that this Senator is accusing us that do not want the filter must then support Child Pornography, how disgusting is this!
SUMMARY
Belinda I know this letter to you is pointless, I know that trying to talk common sense to what was once a great Labour Party is also now useless, but I couldnt live with myself if I didnt try to point out the folly of the Governments ways.
Senator Conroy has personally caused the Online Community of this country to change from support for the Government to an overwhelming group cause to see this Government Lose. It takes an incredible amount of ineptitude for a Minister to be able to Sour an entire Generation of Online users!
You can read the evidence against this Filter, you can find information that supports my claims, you know that this Policy is pure Folly and with any luck my once much loved party will be thrown out at the election, or at least lose enough so this Policy will never pass the Senate.
Funny how your party has managed to turn us from Great Supporters to Complete Enemies, simply by following Senetor Stephen Conroy, and his now supporter Julia Gillard.
Please dont bother forwarding this on to Senator Conroy as we have all tried to contact him over this and he simply sends a generic cut and paste that is worthless. If you want you may want to send this on to other Labour Party members, or Ministers, and I would appreciative if you did, but from I have seen that would be pointless as they just dont care any more! This party refuses to listen to anyone!
Goodbye
A Former Life Long Labour Voter
Hear, hear.
I will be putting Labor last for both houses. Only if this stupid internet policy is dropped will I reconsider. I am even prepared to put the recently dropped Michael Johnson (from the Liberals for his questionable actions) before whoever will represent the ALP in Ryan. I do not think he deserves my vote at all (I do not feel he has represented my area well at all), but in the scale of evil, he is less evil than the ALP rep.
For the Labor party: Do not insult me by treating me like I am incapable of looking after myself or my family. And stop insulting all those who question the true motives behind the filter by calling us supporters of child p*** and abuse.
The words on this page are meaningless. Governments always talk. But they never listen. And they never walk the walk.
I appreciate the sweet irony of getting my previous post moderated into oblivion on here, whilst on the AGIMO page it got through.
Truthfully though I am a little disappointed. In the past your team has allowed dissenting views through. The times are a changin’ I suppose…
informing people: your communications will be censored by a secret government blacklist and all your internet activity will be monitored and recorded, you have been informed!
engaging people: accuse anyone opposing that idea of opting in to child porn
consulting people: ignore every opinion, poll, sentiment, logic, argument, discussion, debate, suggestion, demand, or any evidence that does not accord with your governments proposal to censor its citizens communications and monitor and record its citizens online activity.
Hey: your article was really some kind of joke right? Open and transparent government? piffle.
Nice that Minister Tanner launched the “Australian Declaration of Open Government” today.
Pity he is not part of the “open Government”. I live in his electorate and whenever I wrote to him asking specific questions on the mandatory censoring of the internet all I ever received in response (until he stoped responding) was copies of the Labor policy and press announcements.
Never received any direct answers to direct questions.
And you never will! Stephen Conroy has this Government wrapped around his little finger and what he says goes, Hmmmmmmm I always thought the PM was supposed to be in charge, but I am curious how our PM, who is a lawyer, can sit comfortably with the Rights of Australians being stripped away by Conroy and his Policies. It seems the change of leader changed nothing in Labour.
A vote for labor isn’t a vote for Gillard it’s a vote for Conroy, his friends in the labor party and his “stakeholders”.
I always thought the Voter was a “stakeholder” but I guess I was wrong.
Yep, ask any minister in this government a question, as I have, and the response is overwhelmingly “this is what we are doing” without any thought being put into answering the actual question. This is opposite to openness where one actually listens and openly answers the actual question and not some (un)related issue.
I can remember the Whitlam years and the progressiveness of his government. Yes he made mistakes and paid dearly for them, but he was a true politician, this government does not even reach 1/100 of his openness or progressiveness. This government is running scared and trying to control everything they don’t understand, including the voters. Doomed to be a one term government, Gillard becoming PM was just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.
Frederick wrote: “Gillard becoming Pm was just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”
Couldnt agree more! I am just stunned at how this Government has been able to destroy the support of long time supporters from just this one Policy of internet Censorship!
Now if you add on those turning their back on Labour due to the ETS, Roof Insulation, The Great School Robbery in the construction of school halls, the failure to come up with a working plan for Boat people, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…… I can see alot of ex labour voters, How does Julia intend to win back support???? By having a Minister throw out another meaningless Sound Byte about Open Government, Hahahahaha
Kate, you should really be worrying now, as should your whole party, a party I used to support.
The main reason I voted Labor was because I saw them as a socially progressive and responsible party. One working for the freedoms of ordinary Australians, Guess I was wrong.
Also I might add Kate, I notice the Wizzbang labour website has removed every trace of mention to the Internet Filter. the Website asks for people to get involved and offer advice on issues, so far every attempt to mention the Filter has been instantly nuked by the powers that be in the Labour party.
So your so called open Government is already burying the new slogan, catch-cry by muting any attempt to dicuss this issue on the Party’s site.
Yeah, really open Government, Pffft…..
And a lot of us havnt forgotten that Senator Conroy’s own website also filtered out any attempts to show ‘ISP filtering’ on the issues cloud.
Once again, proof of action showing the government trying to HIDE things from the public, while talking out the other side of their mouth about openness.
A scam, a total scam on the public.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/conroy-filters-his-own-site-against-isp-filtering-searches/
I guess the first rule about internet filtering is that you do not talk about internet censorship.
A ‘declaration’….what on earth does this blabber mean?
Can we please have something more meaningful and tangible rather than abstract press releases.
Something like the entire census data in raw format (de-identified of course).
Or, MyAPS, a website where people (i.e taxpayers) can look at every single non-classified project the APS is currently undertaking including: milestones, projected and actual budgets and results.
Hi Mark,
The Declaration is a great step towards building a more open government, as it defines some principles and a government commitment to the vision. Of course there is a lot of work yet to be done to achieve the tangibles of open government in the 21st century, but it is great to have the vision defined for all of government, as it gives us all something to aim towards.
I really love your idea about publicly tracking public service government projects. I’m going to have a think about how something like MyAPS could work on a practical level. On a related note, there is a new APH website going up and it looks to be really interactive so that people can subscribe to and track stuff happening in Parliament, but primarily around the work of Parliament (legislation progress, etc).
Cheers,
Pia
ICT Policy Advisor
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
The Declaration is NOT a step towards building a more open Government, it is nothing more than Fluff Statement, another catchy oneliner to throw at the masses. It will con some but not most.
I would LOVE to hear how the Declaration of open Government relates to hiding all information in regards your Internet Filter?
Really, please tell us how the two relate!
So Pia or Kate, when can we see responses to the many other questions being asked here? When can we expect to see some tangible commitment to true open government?
After the election, presumably!
Hi Phil and all,
We’re getting to them but it’s been a busy weekend as I’m sure you can appreciate, and this post/Declaration is only a few days old
Obviously some of the questions we simply don’t have answers to at this point, however we will continue to try, as best we can, to answer or get answers to people’s questions.
Greg, I don’t think anyone is suggesting a war is required, but it certainly will take a lot of work. It is a matter of changing processes, culture, entrenched approaches to copyright, and a lot more. Stephen Collins put this quite well in his blog post about this, with some good comments from Craig Thomler too.
Cheers,
Pia
ICT Policy Advisor
Office of Senator Lundy
Kate and Pia
As much as I totally disagree with your stupid censorship proposal, the way that Labor “run” the government (ie, badly), and the fact that there’s no real alternative, I’d like to say that I appreciate the fact that you have this blog. Every time you make a post you get entirely smashed by all the people who can see through the lies emanating from your repulsive party. I don’t really know why you continue unless you’re showing your caucus mates how opposed a lot of people are to the idiocy coming out of Canberra.
Whilst I don’t think your so-called “open and transparent” censorship plans will break Labor in the upcoming election, I really do believe it’s a substantial issue that will lose more votes than the dark overlords who run the party will care to admit. Prepare to say goodbye to the Senate at least. Your only hope is to bribe the Greens with some sort of environmental policy so they backflip on their censorship stance.
I sort of apologise for the swipes I’ve taken on these threads. Sort of, in the same way that you sort of don’t want mandatory internet censorship but will do it anyway. I do feel sorry for Pia as she’s copping all this flak on Kate’s (and Labor’s) behalf for just doing her job.
Kate, I will never again vote for Labor. I have convinved my parents, both long time Labor supporters, to forgo their preferences to your party as well, at least for this election. I have many friends who are doing the same. Feel free to tell those who control your scruples that they are bleeding ballots. I recognise that you’re a much more capable Broadband minister than any we’ve had since broadband started. However, simply for being with Labor and for pushing their toxic and authoritarian goals, I hope you’re not back in Parliament next term.
Again though, thanks for putting these little notices up. They certainly do raise my ire but it gives me a great reason to arc up with a rant, and we all love doing that.
Yours in confusion,
Luke
Pia states…
Of course there is a lot of work yet to be done to achieve the tangibles of open government in the 21st century…
One cant help but suggest that if the current government was truly committed to openness, then the job would NOT take a lot of hard work.
She basically admits here that in order to get the tangibles of openness, a battle, a fight, a war against the government is required.
So here’s the A-G’s Department in a post-Declaration of Open Government world:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop–premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html
Memo to the Australian Government: You don’t get to decide which debates are “necessary” or “premature”, and you don’t get to withhold information to prevent them. That is not your role, and the fact that you believe it is your role is one of the reasons why we don’t trust you.
Wikileaks FTW.
– mark
Hmmmmmmmm….. The Declaration of Open Government didnt last very long did it Kate and Pia????
It is unfortunate that “WE” the Australian people are not considered intelligent enough or reasonable enough to be able debate an important Government Policy. Congratulations Kate and Pia! Your party has managed to rip up its own DECLARATION!
On the Governments own website we were rubbished when we commented that we didnt believe in the declaration, I think we have proven our point, or to be honest, your Labour Government has proven our point.
And you actually wonder why we lifelong Labour supporters would do anything to see this Labour Government lose!
Thankyou for that link Mark Newton. I guess the Attorney Generals Department didn’t get the memo about there being a more open and accountable Government now. Oh – but that’s right, the Government’s still at the declaration stage. The walking the walk part comes later (if there is a later). You’d think with an election breathing down there neck, the Government could at least muster a slow hobble! Kate Lundy, this sort of social conservatism is why I voted against John Howard at the last election. How ironic that your party has decided to continue down that same path. Also Pia Waugh, you’re right – implementing this will be a huge task. Not only do you need to reform how the federal public service do business, but you obviously have to change how politicians think. Good luck with that!
Hi Pia/Kate,
Just wondering what you think of your government’s censoring of this Carrier-Carriage Service Provider Data Set Consultation Paper?
http://images.smh.com.au/file/2010/07/23/1710367/Secret-Document.PDF?rand=1279847709475
How to the reasons for the redactions in this document (http://images.smh.com.au/file/2010/07/23/1710412/Decision_Letter.pdf?rand=1279848876837) fit in with your recent declaration of open government?
Is it any wonder that the public are (deservedly) skeptical?
Sounds good. Now for making it real. Here is a test to see whether it will be practiced:
I suggest that the government’s entire top-down process leading up to the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into a National Disability Care & Support Scheme be evaluated in the light of this Declaration’s Principles. The non-participatory process has meant a terms of reference in which, people with disabilities, the primary stakeholders, had no meaningful role. That ameliorative conclusions be drawn from this exercise so that the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry be improved by reference to these Principles, including by meaningful disability representation on the Inquiry’s so-called Independent Panel which leads the Inquiry, and explicitly widened terms of reference.