Comments for OAIC
It is understood that the current paper (paper # 1) is from the Office of Australian Information Commissioner and consequently "information" is the key consideration.
However, we need to make sure we do not lose track of the "end game" and why are we considering (doing) this ("Open Information").
Surely it is for social change and social good. I would like to suggest that this is the end game.
Information is not the end game but is an enabler (a very important component).
What is the aim for releasing information: to have a better informed debate about the end game. Government does need to lead and encourage this debate and ensure it is a well informed debate.
Surely we are all trying to expand our horizons and get new ideas so we can implement better solutions for social change (good).
What have I just described : "INNOVATION".
Let's start with a definition of innovation (so later comments make sense):
"the gathering, dissemination of new ideas to provide practical, worthwhile solutions that deliver social change for good".
Surely this is closer to the end game we should all be striving for.
We should not lose track of this, so any debate on free flowing information (both within government and from government to the public) should include innovations as a key, highlighted platform.
Innovation will not survive or flourish without "free flowing" information. Innovation cannot happen in a vacuum.
The executive summary (of Paper # 1) alludes to and acknowledges this;
"A free flow of information is critical to supporting innovation and development in both the public sector and the Australian economy."
This is expanded in Section 2.0 under "Major reports and initiatives on government information policy in Australia";
"Venturous Australia : Building Strength in Innovation" as well as;
"Empowering Change : Fostering Innovation in the Australian Public Service".
Section 4.0 covers important "Australian Government Agencies with Government Information Policy responsibilities"
The Australian Government Information Management Office ('AGIMO') is an exciting group encouraging debate on Innovation.
However, (I feel) there needs to be more emphasis (even in policy debate around "open information") on INNOVATION.
The Executive Summary also points to the world class (globally recognised) work of the Gov2.0 Task Force admirably orchestrated by the professional chairperson (Nicholas Gruen).
The work of the Gov2.0 Task Force covered basically two key areas;
1 Open Data and more importantly (I think);
2 Community Engagement
Community Engagement is also a key to success of;
"delivering social change (good) that is desired and cherished by the public" (coming back to our end game focus).
Community Engagement also needs to be included in information sharing policy formation. Community Engagement does NOT mean talking at the public or even just talking to the public.
True, effective Community Engagement means getting the public involved in all aspects of government decision making. This will only transpire through an informed public.
So Community Engagement is a key to the end game of "delivering social change for good" and needs to be covered in more detail in any debate of Open Government, including this current debate on "open data".
Again, Innovation will be a key platform for delivering worthwhile "Community Engagement" and its necessary "good" outcomes.
So in summary, more thought and exploration of INNOVATION is required (even at this early stage of policy debate) for all aspects of Open Government, including "open data/open information"
Keep Thinking Innovation
The Innovative Council Team
