Last week, Labour MP Clare Curran launched an experiment in crowdsourcing policy: OpenLabour. It is aimed at developing a policy on open and transparent government by involving Labour's supporters (and others) on the internet.
Today, they released their first stab at guiding principles for the policy:
The first principle is roughly the "why". And to my eyes, it misses the point a bit. Open government is not about public sector reform. It is not about innovation. It is not about giving our fat internet pipes something to do. It is first and foremost about democracy and accountability - about (as the Official Information Act puts it) enabling public participation in policy making, and promoting the accountability of Ministers and officials to the people. There's a tip of the hat to the former in the mention of promoting democratic communities, but nothing of the latter. So, I'd split this principle into two: one which states right up front that this is about democracy and accountability, and the second with all the business buzzwords.
- That open engagement at all levels of government is integral to promoting an informed, connected and democratic community, to public sector reform, innovation and best use of the national investment in broadband.
- That using technology to increase collaboration in making policy and providing services will help achieve a more consultative, participatory and transparent government;
- That public sector data and information is a national resource, and releasing as much of it on as permissive terms as possible will maximise its economic and social value and reinforce a healthy democracy;
- That online engagement by public servants should be enabled and encouraged. Robust professional discussion benefits their agencies, their professional development, and the New Zealand public
- That Labour’s open government policy will be able to translate from opposition into government. That we can live up to what we say we will do.
The second principle is OK, but puts the focus too heavily on technology. Open government isn't about technology; it is about openness. Technology is just the tool. It can and should be a very powerful tool, but the focus shouldn't be on that - rather it should be on maximising openness to increase collaboration etc.
The third principle gets it wrong as well. Public information is not a "national resource" - it is public property. Releasing it isn't about maximising value - its a matter of fundamental rights, which require a very strong reason (and one which can be justified in a free and democratic society) to override.
I think the latter is very important. Democratic government is our government, and we have a fundamental right to know what it is doing, to scrutinise its actions and advice, and use its output. The former suggests that information should be public, and proactively released as much as possible. The latter suggests that all government information should be public domain rather than subjected to crown copyright (and so free for everyone to use).
The sorts of principles I'm suggesting would give us a far greater presumption in favour of openness, and a far more robust statement of why it is necessary. I hope Labour will adopt them.
