Ogpau.pmc.gov.au



Ken: So we're due to start right now. I don't think everyone is online yet, but I'll firstly start by welcoming those who are here. And looking forward to each of your contributions, your comments, your questions, your suggestions, if you have some about the commitments which are proposed under the Open Government Partnership National Action Plan for Australia.Can I start with my acknowledgement of country? And I'll begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of country throughout Australia, and their continuing connection to land borders and community. I pay my respects to their cultures, country, and elders, both past and present. And I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today.So, welcome. Great to have everyone here. We've got a couple of presenters who are members of the Open Government Forum. James Horton and Mark Zirnsak. And we also have, I hope, Phillip Gould. Philip, are you here already?Phillip: I am indeed.Ken: Ah, wonderful, Phillip, that's great, thank you very much. So Phillip's from the office of the National Data Commissioner, in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. And I think we're also due to have Kristina Hopkins from the Department of Finance. Kristina, are you online? Not yet, apparently, but I expect her shortly.The next slide, please.Next slide, please, Avril, Jen?Avril or Jen, you there?Avril: Hi Ken, yes we're here, we're just moving through now. There might be a slight delay, apologies.Ken: That's all right. So, I don't think everyone who is registered is online, but we do need to keep moving.So, the next slide, please, is just a reminder to make sure that you're muted unless you are speaking. So please observe that.The next slide after that, can we have the next slide, slide three, please.Ah, wonderful, thanks very much.So this is a privacy notice. And we treat the privacy of people participating in this webinar very seriously. And if anyone who's online doesn't want to be recorded, then I suggest that you leave the webinar if you do have any such concerns. But the recording will be both audio and visual. And there will be written transcripts prepared from the audio, and those will be uploaded to the website for the Open Government Partnership. So if you do have any concerns about privacy, then there is a website highlighted as a hyperlink at the bottom of the page. And that explains how the department handles privacy issues and protects people's private information. And it also explains how you can correct any errors that may have been made in recording, things that we hold about you. And if you want the actual privacy policy website, also includes that information. So the next point I wanted to make before we move on is the use of Slido. So if you've got a question that you wish to ask or a comment to make, or some suggestion to make, you can use Slido. And Avril, I wonder, would you like to explain how it's going to work?Avril: Thanks, Ken. So, Slido is up and running. You can access Slido from your web browser. So the address is there, all you need to do is type that in and you'll be prompted to enter an event code, which is OGP2020. This will take you to a page where you can answer two questions as part of a pre-webinar survey. So, thank you to those people who've already done that. And this is also where questions can be typed in and sent to us as the webinar moderators. So if you have a question at any point, particularly in the Q&A discussion, which we'll get to later, you can enter your questions here, and I will be relaying them to Ken verbally. And this is just going to help us give you the best webinar experience in terms of muting and unmuting microphones. So please jump onto Slido now and have a play around with that. And we appreciate you filling out both the pre- and post-webinar surveys.Ken: Thanks very much for that, Avril. Does anyone want any clarification on anything there? About the use of Slido? No comment there. So the next slide, please, the webinar agenda. If we can have the next slide, please. These slides are sometimes a bit slow to load, so I'm sorry about the time that it's taking. Well, I'll speak to it while we're waiting for the slide to come up. So, the webinar's going to start with a very brief introduction to the Open Government Partnership. Just the background to it and an overview of how we're approaching the development of this, the third National Action Plan. And then we'll have a discussion. Thanks, we've got the slide up now. We'll have a discussion of the three draft commitments which we're considering today. There's another three to be considered on a similar webinar on Thursday. And there was one that was considered a week or so ago. So the ones that we'll be looking at today are 'Building Trust Connections between Civil Society and Government', and 'Building Trust in Data Sharing'. And the third one for today is 'Professional Support for Ministerial Advisors'. And at the end, there'll be time available for some general discussion about the National Action Program and the three that we've dealt with today. So is that all clear? Need to make any further comment on that? Okay, thank you. So, as to the Open Government Partnership, it was a multinational initiative that was started by David Cameron, who was then prime minister of Britain, Barack Obama, who was then President of the United States, the then President of Indonesia, the then President of the Philippines, and a small number of other international leaders of government. And the idea was to enhance the accountability, the transparency, and the public participation in decision-making in each of the countries who sign up to join it. And it's a condition of joining that the government and the country is committed to upholding these principles. So in Australia's case, we were not some of the very first to join, but we did join in November 2015, which you may remember was when Malcolm Turnbull was the Prime Minister. And it operates on a cycle, a two year cycle. So in each two year cycle, each member country develops a series of commitments to reforms that they intend to make, which are going to enhance open government. And Australia has already had two commitment periods. We're in the end stages of the second commitment period now. And we're in this process today, participating in the development of Australia's third National Action Plan. So that's a very brief introduction to it. Is there anything in which anyone would like me to clarify before we move on? Okay, well just to continue then with the National Action Plan, each country has a number of commitments for reforms that they propose to make during the two year period. And these are subject to reporting and peer evaluation. The peer evaluation is via a reporting process quite independent of the government, quite independent of the National Action Plan process. And is then able to publish a report against which that country can be judged by its peers. And it's used really to help countries improve their performance rather than to have any sort of denigration or condemnation of countries which have struggled to reach their targets. So, any further comment on that? Okay, so we're up to the next slide there, to discuss what we'll be doing today. And the process that we're in today is part of a process that started in late 2019. Firstly with an online questionnaire, and then there were a series of workshops which used the ideas that had floated up in the questionnaire to develop concepts which could be developed at the final stage in the commitments for reform. And there was also an online opportunity, as well as the workshops that were conducted during that period. And those workshops led to over 60 different possible commitments, which had been received from the public by July 2020, this year. And there were to be some further face-to-face consultations roundabout this time of the year, but of course with COVID-19, not been possible. But this webinar today, and the one on Thursday and the one held last week, an idea of the way in which it's operating. And what I mean by that is that as well as the forum developing its thinking on the concepts that came forward from the questionnaire and the workshops, we've got this further opportunity to examine the ideas that have are being developed out of those earlier ones, by the Forum. So today and the other forums, other webinars, I'm sorry, are going to be a really important part of finalising the commitments which are going to be put to government for adoption and submission to the international secretariat. So as well as today, of course, comments will be recorded, as I mentioned earlier. There will be the opportunity to make online comments. Either yourselves or anyone else in the community who wishes to. So we'll move now then to what the draft commitments are that have been developed by the Forum as part of the National Action Plan.The first one of them, and read each one of the ones we'll be looking at today. And is that readable from your screens?Gerard: Yeah.Ken: Okay. It is readable? Okay. Well look, I won't read them out then, but the three that are in orange highlight there are the three that we'll be looking at today. The third one, which is in green, that's the one that was dealt with at a webinar a week or so ago. And the ones below there, the five, six, and seven are going to be dealt with on Thursday morning, in a similar process to today's process. I do ask you to note that there is one that is missing from there, and that is the political campaign finance integrity proposal. That is a proposal for a commitment which was blackballed. And as it turns out, blackballing on a disputed premise. So that is not there as one of the commitments which are listed to consider today. So let's move on then to the first of the commitments which we're going to look at today, the 'Building Better Connection between Civil Society and Government'. And this is a stage at which, I'm just looking, yeah, Mark, I think you're going to speak to this one to give us a brief introduction?Mark: Yes, that's correct. So this particular concept comes out of a background where we've seen across the world a decline in people's faith in democratic government. Trust in government has declined. Now, it has received a bit of a bounce back during the period of the pandemic, where people have turned to governments and been more trusting. But the overall general trend, globally and in Australia, particularly in recent years, has been a decline in the trust in the institution of democratic government. That has extended into civil society organisations as well. And in the way that they have spoken about the role of the democratic government as they have pursued various advocacy issues. This particular concept then seeks to actually open up a more direct dialogue between government and civil society organisations. Civil society organisations and government would meet regularly on various issues as it stands across all sorts of portfolio. But this sets aside a specific project, a specific area where broader issues around that trust in democratic government, how to work together, how to actually allow government to function more authentically in the way it interacts with stakeholders, and also allowing those civil society organisations to better understand the inner workings of government, how to better work with government around raising issues and working together as stakeholders. Around that, what we can do together to help strengthen trust in the institution of democratic government. The reason for picking civil society organisations is because many of them communicate with large numbers of people. In some cases, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people. So while ideally it would be lovely if this kind of concept was available to every Australian citizen being able to be part of the dialogue, clearly a room full of several million people is not a possibility to have a meaningful conversation. So unfortunately it means that there needs to be a way of selecting what might have the most impact in this, having this kind of dialogue, and therefore the concept of focus on trying to engage with civil society organisations and commentators who are likely to have that reach in their own communication out to the broader community, and, in a way, build up that connection around support for the democratic disposition of government, while still being able to advocate on various issues to put to government. So that's the concept and that's where it stands in brief. I'm happy to open up for discussion or take questions.Ken: Thanks very much for that, Mark. Well look, as we indicated at the beginning, we've got three commitments to deal with today. So I suggest that we have up until 2:30 or so for dealing with this one, with any comments you may have, questions you may have, or suggestions you'd like to make about the way in which this concept could be adopted and implemented. So over to you, who? Avril, do we have any questions?Avril: Hi Ken. Yes, I have a comment from Tim Warner. Regarding point one, the outcome of a similar process--Sorry, Ken. We're just getting some background noise that we're just gonna manage quickly for you.Ken: Yeah, look, Tim, I can see that Tim's here. Tim, would you like to pose your question?Tim: Yes, I have experience of a similar scheme, a process occurring over at Department of Industry where they decided to have a formal entry into the Department of Industry, and they have what are called industry groups. But if you don't meet set criteria, especially if you don't have a national body, you're basically not allowed to participate in the processes, because they have very specific rules about what civil society is in terms of who they will speak to. And it's actually become a very narrowing and cribbing thing on terms of trying to speak to the Department of Industry, is this process of formalising what civil society is and who they can speak to.Ken: So are you wanting to make any suggestion for how that could be improved in this context, Tim?Tim: Well, I would suggest that it not be in the form that committees are formed with set membership, and that those are the ones that you speak to. It's got to have some form of aspect where you can have other people who, on a particular issue, have a knowledge or think can participate in such a process. It can't be set in stone.Ken: Okay, thanks for that comment. Further questions or comments? Avril, did you see any others there, Avril?Avril: We haven't had any others on this particular commitment yet, Ken. So just a reminder to useSlido to submit your questions.37900:20:43,140 --> 00:20:44,920Ken: Yeah, I think Gerard, did you-- (speaking simultaneously)Gerard: Slido keeps making my computer crash. Can I ask a question?Ken: Please do Gerard, yes.Gerard: Yeah, so one of the things with Australia now that's been, we're really lucky, Australia has always had a benign government, a government that everybody can trust. It's never had any political turmoil, really, maybe except for the Eureka stockade and the Rum Rebellion. But (chuckles) there are some new players also that have to be taken into account here, because it's not just civil society. It's also, the other players are the big data, the Googles, and the Facebooks, and the agencies who control government data. For example, the face scanners at the airport, the IBM backroom processing for every department, AWS. And these players all have now become part of the equation, which is nowhere anywhere in this whole discussion. And it is, with COVID, it has been creeping up. Big data and control of data by corporations. Like, you know, Google has all the national health data, you know, in their data banks. So I think we have to, agencies, government has to be really aware of a threat to civil society from big data corporations who are answerable to no one. And in fact, their algorithms are invisible to everyone. We don't know what they do with them. It's like an unaudited police or benevolent police, or it could be an oppressive regime within any of these organisation sites. I think big data has to be taken into account. And also one other thing that I would perhaps sort of worry about is governments that seem really solid, I mean, you can look at theUS and maybe even the UK, have had governments that show that what seemed like a solid, stable government can quickly turn into a tyrannical government. I mean, and it's still not extreme, but it is possible. You see it in other countries. And in all the way that the open government is set up, it must take into account the fact that one day, maybe in 10 years, 50 years, or 100 years, the government could become tyrannical against its own people. And I think that must be taken into account. I have seen it happen too many times in my career that I was talking about earlier, in news covering 30 years of war.Ken: Okay, thanks very much for that. Thanks very much for that, Gerard. Have we got any other questions or comments?Avril: No questions in Slido yet, Ken. Just to give you that update.Ken: Mark, I'm wondering if you'd like to make any response to the comments that we've heard from Tim and from Gerard.Mark: Look, I think Tim's point is a valid one, about there needs to be careful consideration about who is part of the dialogue, and trying to not make it exclusive, but recognising there are limitations to the number of people that can be in a discussion or dialogue for it to be effective. So there is a balance to be struck there. I think the experience with the Open Government Partnership itself is also that being able to have that ongoing connection and build relationships actually build an understanding. So again, there needs to be a balance between trying to make it as open as possible and allow, you know, as many different people and organisations to connect into the process while still allowing relationships, meaningful relationships to be built that actually build up that trust and mean that civil society organisations are communicating more favourably about our democratic system and have a better understanding of engagement. I also would add this concept doesn't take away from people's ability across government to have conversations about all sorts of topics in all sorts of places. It's not seeking to replace anything that currently exists nor limit other dialogues and other conversations that might take place. It simply opens a particular concept and space for that. Look, in terms of, it was Gerard's point. I think, look, I would absolutely concur around the issue of the large technology corporations and their role in society. This concept isn't seeking to solve every problem that our democracies face, not by any stretch of the imagination. I do think some of the other concepts pick up on that question around data and the role of large technology corporations. I mean, we do have a lot of access to government in terms of communication. And, you know, I'll leave it to people draw their own conclusions about whether they play a force for good in terms of democracy or the negative impacts having that space. But you know, this concept itself can't and doesn't seek to address some of those issues being raised there. And I do think, as I said, there are other concepts that probably touch on it a bit more. And there are also things happening outside of the Open Government Partnership that also are addressing those issues that have been raised.Ken: Thanks for that, Mark.Gerard: Can I just sort of respond to that? One of the things, many contracts that the government enters into, say like with face scanners at airports, the government doesn't own the data. The actual company that does the scanners owns the data. And their business model, just like Google, is to actually own the data themselves. And the government will never have open free access to that data. They may request it. And maybe one of the things that could be looked at is if they enter into agreements with corporations that have ownership of the, where the government loses control of the ownership of that data and the manipulation of that data, I think what would be an important point. Cause sometimes-- (speaking simultaneously) and that's the way their whole, this model of face scanners or medical health works, that the organisation owns the data and the government contracts to use that data back (background speaking).Ken: Yeah, look, someone's obviously got their microphone open (background speaking). Hello, whoever's got their microphone open, would they close it, please? So that we're not hearing it. And now I just wanna come back to the point that Gerard has made, because it has also arisen in another context, in the 'Open by Design' context. That if a government enters into a contract for the use of artificial intelligence, or for that matter, facial scanning and what have you, then it's the government that should retain ownership of the data that's generated, rather than the organisation, which is the contractor. Contractor should be under an obligation to provide its algorithms and its data to the government as the contracting organisation.Gerard: And perhaps the government should have the right to have that data deleted.Ken: Yes, yes, and the right to have it deleted, which I think is part of what's happening in Europe now. Anything further on this first commitment before we move on? If not, thank you very much for your comments. It's been really helpful and insightful, I feel. And when the transcripts available, if you wouldn't mind just double-checking that it's what you intended to say. And if you want to add any further comments at that stage, that'll be very welcome. So we'll move on to the second commitment, 'Building Trust in Data Sharing'.Avril: And KenKen: Phillip, I think, yep.Avril: Sorry, it's just Avril here--Ken: Sorry?Avril: For those people who are using Slido, I've just opened a poll for you to fill in to rate this commitment overall, which I'll do for the other two commitments too. So if you can just take a moment at the end of the discussion to assign that rating that would be excellent.Ken: Okay, well if people could do that immediately and then I'll call on Phillip to introduce us to 'Building Trust in Data Sharing'. Phillip?Phillip: Thanks.Ken: Are you ready for that?Phillip: Yes I am, thanks, Ken. I'm also joined by my colleague, Samira Hassan, who can help with some of the discussion. I've been feeling really bad today, so if I keel over in the discussion today (laughs), she's more than capable of handling it. And I'm also realising that I should not have worn this shirt for a video (laughs) because it's got a terrible strife effect on my camera. So apologies to anyone, if that triggers anything. So at the Office of the National Data Commissioner, we've been working for the last two and a half years on the Data Availability and Transparency Bill, which is currently at the point where we have an exposure draft at the legislation which we're consulting on. So people who are interested to learn more about that legislation are encouraged to go to our website where we've published a consultation paper, as well as the draft legislation and a range of other materials, including a taped webinar, so that if people do want to learn more about what we're doing, that's a really good opportunity to do it. But at the heart of what we're trying to do is improve the way the government shares data. And we're not talking about the open release of data. We're talking about sharing in a controlled environment. But given that that sharing will happen in a controlled environment, potentially with a university research or another part of government, or not-for-profits as examples, we recognise the need for transparency and good governance in such a system. So we've got in place, I think, a number of measures which will enhance the transparency of data sharing by the government. And one of those critical ones is the publication of data-sharing agreements, which lay out a lot of the core elements of what data's being shared and for what purposes, what ethics processes have been adhered to and gone through, as well as requiring a statement considering the public interest. So these are quite fundamental concepts behind the legislation. And what we recognise though, as well, is that sometimes applying these things in practice can be challenging. So we're looking to build on some of our existing products to provide guidance and advice on how to share data as safely as possible. So the legislation itself will establish the Office of the National Data Commissioner, or I should say the National Data Commissioner as an independent statutory regulator. So guidance is always a really important part of a regulator operating effectively. But beyond that, there will also be binding rules and codes and regulations. So there's a whole suite of regulatory tools which we will be using to ensure that the system is used effectively. So ultimately what we're trying to achieve with this commitment is to build on our earlier work with the OGP and develop guidance which will be used. James and I (chuckles) have talked a lot about this, about the need to actually make sure that there's evidence that this is actually making a difference. And that's essentially what we'll be trying to do, is to provide solid evidence-based approaches to sharing data, and then being really transparent on how it's being used, and reporting on that. So that's probably enough from me. I can sort of talk for about three hours about the legislation itself, but I suppose that's not what we're after today (laughs). So I might throw to James if he wanted to add anything.James: Yeah--Ken: Yeah, thanks very much. James, over to you.James: Yeah, thanks for that, Phill. Yeah, from a civil society perspective, I mean, I guess there's been a fair journey from the original Productivity Commission report that sort of came out a few years ago. And so there's been a series of commitments, I guess, from, that we've worked with, you know, even prior to the office and Phill being established to develop this. I guess the things that we will now, I suppose the other thing I would probably frame here is that the commitment here is coming out of the Office of the National Data Commissioner. So they're a regulator. So in a sense, they don't do this data sharing, but they enable it. And so the commitment really is around, you know, the transparency or the openness under which the agreements that are established under what will be the legislation are made available to the public, and the ability to, you know, understand, you know. Because obviously the legislation will prescribe, you know, sort of principles that have to be adopted in those sort of purposes. But equally, it's important for that to be open so that, you know, an agreement that's made that's not open, well, you know, in a sense doesn't build trust. It's just an agreement that's sort of been made behind closed doors, if you will. Now, the other part for us that's been, you know, obviously in the COVID situation and those things, these agreements have also become, I think, potentially, you know, far most significant, in the sense that there are, you know, when this started, there's the notion of governments wanting to share data for a whole range of purposes around, whether it be service improvement or, you know, to do with research, or understanding, or developing policy. But I guess COVID, also in emergency situations, it also brought, given rise to the fact that, you know, critical events actually can trigger the need to share data very quickly. And so, you know, one of the things that we're looking at with this is that notion that says that these sort of agreements have the potential to be put in place prospectively and openly, so that when those events occur, they can be triggered, but equally, those agreements can also be very clear about what happens afterwards. So when the conditions are no longer there, or the reason for the purpose under which you started sharing them actually gets done. And I think, you know, therein lies probably one of the areas that often doesn't happen, is that, certainly within government (distorted speaking) and institutions in general, we start sharing things, but then we don't un-share them. And so I think what's really important in the legislation is that we actually have a, you know, we specify the beginning and the end. And probably one last point that I think's been quite important in the discussions up until, along this journey, is the fact that within the principles of the legislation is a fundamental principle, is that the data custodian actually retains accountability. So there's no handing over sharing environment that says we're sharing it and it's not our problem. And so it really makes it, it puts the onus back on, you know, the agencies involved, that they can't aggregate that responsibility within a sharing agreement. And we think that's, you know, really important. So I think that's, I guess over to any comments or questions, I guess.Ken: Thanks very much Phillip and James. That's really useful information, good background. So questions or comments or suggestions, please.Avril: Ken, we haven't received any through Slido yet, so you might wanna open to the floor.Ken: Yeah, so it's open to the floor as to any questions or comments anyone would like to make.Gerard: Yeah, so--Ken: Gerard?Gerard: Can I make a comment? Yeas, that's right.Ken: Yes, please.Gerard: Yeah, it's interesting what you say about sharing. And that it becomes bigger and bigger, and a bigger elephant, and you lose control. And the problem that should really be taken into account is, you know, the thin edge of the wedge. So you have sharing in the first instance for a critical event like COVID, or a national security event like a terrorist attack. But then, then it starts creeping, where everything becomes, you know, almost like it. So I'll just give two really good examples. When, in the UK, the terrorism legislation was brought in, do you know what the first thing it was used for? It was used stop the Icelandic bank went belly up. And it was used to stop the Icelandic bank repatriating their money back to Iceland. And they used the terrorism legislation to stop the Icelandic bank returning their money back to Ireland. A very good example in Australia is when data sharing became used, one of the very first things it was used for was to identify a fly tipper in a Sydney suburb. And it's very easy to say, well, you know, this is an unconscionable act. You know, we must use it for this. You know, you can't say no to us. I always call it the think about the children type thing. So the argument at the very beginning is think about the children, you know. You know, child abuse, child pornography. Think about the children. And then that legislation is always used as a gateway to keep going and keep adding and keep adding what to where it becomes almost banal, somebody littering paper in the street. And, you know, people will argue, well, you know, that's as valid as anything else. So we have to be really careful to make sure that there isn't mission creep. I think I did comment on this, in my contribution. There is a danger of there being mission creep. Every agency, the police decides they need something. The inland revenue decides they need something. Then, well, the health department then decides they need something. And then it becomes established. It opens the door and that door is never closed. The Genie never goes back in the bottle. So let's say now we're in the early days and everyone says, oh no, nothing but the worst. It creeps and creeps and creeps. And then, you know, really, littering, you know, becomes part of it. And remember, this legislation, once it's put in, is gonna be there forever. So it only is going to ratchet in one way. So lots and lots of protections have to be put in to stop that mission creep. And the other thing I would say is you have to sort of be careful. So the data right now is kept in a secure area. The first thing that the data, you know, the government or whoever owns that data, the department will say is that, "This data is secure. We're using the highest security tools and the most cutting edge tools." And they'll probably leave that there for five years before they re-contract it. But even, you know, one week from them installing those security tools, those tools are obsolete. You know, somebody will be at a hackathon and those, you know, the data is open, not just to, you know, sort of backroom hackers, but it's now that data is a honeypot for, say, Chinese, or for any government that wants to use our data as a weapon against us. And we have to be aware that this data can be weaponised. We have to keep that in our mind. At the end of the 9/11 Commission, the final words of the Commission were 9/11 was a failure of imagination. And what you have to think is what is the worst thing that can happen? And you might think, okay, five years but this has gotta be a hundred years. What's being set today will be there in 100 years. So we have to think, what is the worst thing that can happen? You know, I think before we were talking about, you know, two years ago, some of the things that we're talking about now were totally unimaginable. Well, I could imagine though, I did, but you couldn't talk about them because people's imagination couldn't engage with that threat. So I think you have to be really careful to think of the worst of. So now supposing, like just happened recently in Denmark, people's psychological data at a new state was hacked. And people's, you know, personal sessions were being ransomed. And we have to think, well, if that happens regularly, if it happens to our Medicare health, will that make people start policing what they tell their doctor? You know, because that will affect how people react, you know, how they interact with their doc. They might not tell their doctor assuming that they will be hacked. So I would be interesting to hear, like, other people's departments talk about how they think that their worst nightmare could happen even today.Ken: Okay, thanks very much for that, Gerard. Before I ask for responses to Gerard's comments, are there any other questions or comments that people would like to make? If not, can I ask Phillip and James, do you want to respond to any of the points that Gerard has made? And can I just point out that Gerard does have some comments which are on the website, as well as what he's just said here.Phillip: I'm happy to make some initial comments. I think the point around caution is a really important one, and Gerard's absolutely right that data can be misused. So we actually have to be really careful to ensure that we have proper safeguards in place. And one of the things that we've talked about today, which is the transparency measures, it's only one of the safeguards that we are putting in place with our legislation. So, we are taking approaches which have been recommended to us by privacy experts, including data minimisation principles, so that only the data that's needed to be shared is. And very much one of the key elements here is that everything is happening within a controlled environment. So we also have a purpose test, which is a really important part of the legislation, which actually says that data can only be shared using this legislation, if it's for research purposes or service delivery, but not for compliance. And we found that that was a really important distinction to make. We had a number of groups, including ACOSS, expressing concern around the potential for overreach. And for those reasons, we've listened to those concerns and scaled back some of the potential uses of data under this legislation. But you're absolutely right. We've talked with indigenous communities and groups who've also said that, in a sense, data has been used or misused in a way that has not helped communities, and that it hasn't built trust. And they've been really interesting to talk to and keen to be able to participate in our scheme as accredited bodies, so that actually communities can get access to information which they feel that they really need to help their community. So they see the positives around data, but I think that many of them have experienced those risks as well. So we're very much trying to take that feedback on board in the design of the scheme, as well as through the process being as consultative as possible so that we can actually hear concerns. And what we really find helpful is if someone can raise a concern and say, well, this is the way you need to deal with it. And there's further opportunities to engage with us by submissions on our draft legislation or further conversations. So it's just a short answer to, I guess, a comment which probably contained a lot of ideas, but James might also have some reflections.Ken: James.James: Yeah, well, I think, look, I totally agree. But I think the strongest element here in some ways is that the legislation, I guess, you know, if you look at the exposure draft and the way that, you know, NDC is approached is that, you know, you can, on the one hand be quite legislative in a way, or prescriptive, and try to create a set of discreet rules. And in the end, you know, they become problematic because it's, you know, relying on the fact that the rules are somehow watertight. And I guess it goes to a question that I noticed was sitting on Slido around data ethics. You know, and how you sustain it. Really addresses the other side that sort of says, you know, is the considerations that you make in doing it. So the key to that is the purpose. So the purpose tests ultimately invent the kind of values that we as a society see as reasonable. And obviously we don't see it as reasonable that you can use the data sharing to enforce the compliance. Yeah, to enforce, you know, in a sense, compliance and non-compliance on citizens. And I think the other side of it is in the data sharing agreements, is that it requires really a transparency that's open to the public around what are the reasons, how we're doing it, what are the considerations that we've made in doing it. And so those things may contain, I guess, from the public's point of view, is that there may be things that, you know, limitations sort of, deficiencies, because they're open. They're available for comment. Whereas if, as it currently occurs, sharing might occur and no one'll know. You know, and I think that's the difficulty. And I think it's also trying to get away from that culture of, you know, in this kind of model where if you look at say, you know, the census stuff or robo-debt, you know, the instinctive response is to basically close the doors and go into a defensive mode. And I think what we're trying to do with the data sharing agreement is actually provides a means of allowing the public to engage or actually see develop a level of confidence in what's being done.Ken: Thanks very much for that. Any other questions or comments on this commitment? If not, well thank you very much, Phillip and James, and thank you for the comments that Gerard in particular has made.We'll now move on to the third of the commitments, 'Professional Support forMinisterial Advisers'. And Kristina, are you ready to talk to that?Kristina: Yes, thank you.Ken: Thanks, Kristina.Kristina: Yep, so Kristina Hopkins here from the Department of Finance. And I'm in the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Division. I understand that the participants of this webinar have read through the draft commitment number four, so I won't go through that in detail. By way of background, Finance provides learning and development opportunities to staff of parliamentarians. And we've recently launched a digital learning management platform called MOP(S) Learning. And MOPS stands for members of parliament staff because they're hired under the MoPS Act. And that hosts many of these development opportunities that were previously delivered face-to-face. And we've got micro videos for self-paced learning and opportunities to attend webinars and the like.The current topics that the staff of parliamentarians learn about are the conditions of employment, which is under the Members of Parliament Staff Act 1984 and the associated Enterprise Agreement, and also about office management and other topics.And there is a link from the Finance website to the MaPS, Ministerial and Parliamentary Services MaPS part of that website, which provides the full list of those learning and development opportunities that the Department of Finance provides to staff of parliamentarians. The Australian Public Service Commission is leading a partnership with the Department of Finance to develop guidance and training to increase the understanding about the respective roles of ministerial offices and the Australian public service. And that work is in response to Recommendation 11 of the Australian Public Service Review, which is to strengthen APS partnerships with ministers by improving support and ensuring clear understanding of roles, needs, and responsibilities. So, my colleague from the Australian Public Service Commission couldn't be here today, but the APSC has recently established an expert reference panel to guide the development of guidance and training to increase the understanding about respective roles in ministerial offices in the APS. And this commitment number four that you've read through has been shaped to align with that work.Ken: Okay, that's it, is it, Kristina?Kristina: Yes, thank you.Ken: Yeah, look, thank you very much for that. With my background with having been a member of Victorian Parliament and speaker there, I'm a bit of a purist on these things, and like to see parliamentary matters dealt with by the parliament rather than by the executive. But Canberra has this long tradition of your department or the executive handling these sorts of issues, so I'm not going to insist on any purist reform of that. Any questions or comments on Kristina's presentation or the commitment in particular?Avril: Ken, it's Avril. So we do have one question submitted by Tim Warner through Slido.Ken: Oh, good.Avril: Addressed to Kristina. So Tim's question is “the commitment seems to relate to advisers of the minister. But does this commitment also include the shadow advisors and the parliamentary support staff to provide high quality advice to the political legislative process?”Kristina: So, well, we actually would rely on the results of the consultations with the expert reference panel. So I will leave that open for now. And that expert reference panel is informed by the APSC and will guide the development of the guidance. So I cannot pre-empt the work of that pane.(speaking simultaneously)Tim: This is Tim Warner here. Can I actually make a slight clarification on my point?Kristina: Yes.Ken: Yes, please do.Tim: One particular point, other than the general training of parliamentary staff and advisors, both shadow and ministerial, is there's been a very nasty tendency to cut down on the levels of the parliamentary library staff. More and more, they're entry level people who are being employed. The original intention 20 years ago was to have a very high end think tank type arrangement, similar to the American congressional system. And it has been dumbed down enormously now, so that the support being given by the parliamentary library is nowhere near what it was 20 years ago. And I think that that's a policy position that should be righted right now. It's very bad.Ken: Thanks for that, Tim. It's not directly on the commitment, but that's still a very important point that you've made, so thanks for that. Any further questions or comments? Nothing else?Okay, now that the--(speaking simultaneously)Gerard: Can I just make a comment.Ken: Please do, yes.Gerard: It's Gerard. Actually, I'm quite lucky. My MP for my Bradfield is Paul Fletcher. And I have actually engaged with him actually before he was Data Manager, on this very issue. He raised it up to the Attorney General's level. One of the things with the ministers is there is, well it's true in all the government, is there's a naivety of threats, the naivety of a lack of information on what threats can be. Now, I've obviously, you can imagine, I've attended many government discussions on, just general government department discussions on data, particularly pursued it. And one of the things that I've noticed is that there is a culture within government that this is all a good thing and nothing should be questioned. It's a fait accompli. And it's really, this is gonna make our lives easier. This is going to cut costs, which is true. It's going to make management of the country easier because everything is centralised. And it's almost like it's a no-brainer. But I think that what I said earlier, there' just really a failure of imagination at ministerial level to see the threat of something going wrong. Now, they will all say, oh, we didn't know, and they will all come out and blame someone. But as I said before, this information can be weaponised. It is being weaponised today in a very small scale. We have to understand that we can't keep all the data in one place. It must be separate. So even if there is a data breach in one place, there was a data breach at Service New South Wales, I think last month, you know. That's a government agency. And we should feel that that is secure, you know? And there probably are, I wouldn't be surprised, there are many breaches that have to be kept quiet for national security. And quite often, you hear a little dog whistle that suggests that there were breaches. But I think the key thing the minister should be aware of, and department heads, because department heads really are drivers of this. And this is like (muffled speaking). And there needs to be a reality check. Somebody has to give them, and it's for the department's own good. It is for their own good. Because just going in and trusting everything IBM, or AWS, or whoever the contractor is says is utter madness. You know, because you can see what is going to go wrong. You can see today what is going to go wrong in five years time. And in fact, Phillip, you said, you were talking about data being used by research departments. Actually, I started doing a masters course at UTS in Data Science, and I was part of the data society. And one of the things that I noticed at UTS and at Sydney Uni, where I've discussed this, you know, with many people there, is there is an arrogance, once they get the data, that it's their data and their data to use it. The data can be de-anonymised. Everyone must understand that today data can be de-anonymised. There is no--Ken: Gerard, Gerard.Gerard: Anonymity--Ken: Gerard, Gerard.Gerard: Yeah.Ken: You're making good points, but can you please relate them directly to this issue of--Gerard: Okay.Ken: Professional support?Gerard: Yeah, so what I'm talking about is ministers should be aware that there are real threats to ownership of data. And I did like the policy of minimum data necessary for the job. And I think that should be like a motto that's given to every minister, is the minimum data necessary to process. And I think that would be the end of that little thing that I just, yeah. I just would come back to anonymisation with ministers. Google is a data researcher so, you know, and they have NHS data. So, you know, yeah. So research and data are very problematic.Ken: Yep. Thanks for that. And I certainly know some of the people who've done the work on de-identification and the potential for virtually any anonymised data to be de-anonymised. So any further questions or comments on this particular proposed commitment, please? If not, I think we should move on and wind up. So we've got an opportunity--Avril: Ken?Ken: Yes, Avril.Avril: It's Avril. Very quickly, just to remind everyone, if you are using Slido, you can jump in and rate that commitment out of five now.Ken: Oh yes, yes, please do that. Yes, sorry, I should have given you that opportunity to remind everyone, Avril. So what we've got now is an opportunity to talk about the overall approach of this, the third National Action Plan. We don't have before us the three that'll be considered on Thursday, but we can still talk about the overall approach and look for things that aren't covered that we feel should be covered, or any other change that we think might be desirable to the way in which the National Action Plan is being prepared and would be implemented. So any questions or comments along those lines before we move on?Doesn't seem to be anything. So if anyone wants some information on the 'Political Campaign Finance Integrity' proposed commitment that got blackballed, just send me an email and I'll give you the details of that. In the meantime, you're very welcome to make any further comments or suggestions on the website, which is on the screen there now. And the next processes are going to be for the Open Government Forum to meet in late November, after this consultation period is finished, to look at the sort of feedback that we've got and to make final recommendations, which will go to the government and are likely to be forwarded by the government after its consideration early next year.Anything else before we wind up? If not, thank you very much for your participation. Thank you Andrew in the background there, completely silent. Avril, whose voice you have heard. And Jen, who's also been helping, but whose voice you didn't hear. Thank you all for your help today in running this webinar. And if anyone wants to contact the secretariat, the email address is there. Or if you want to contact me directly, it's very easy to do. So thank you all. And unless there's any last minute comment, we'll wind up. If not, we'll close--Avril: Thanks, Ken. I'll also just ask everyone who is using Slido, if they could take a moment to complete the post-webinar survey that's available to you now.Gerard: Thank you.Ken: Thank you all. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download