What public servants think about open government, a question yet to be asked

The Australian Public Service Commission State of the Service Report referred to in a recent post on whistleblower protection was published in November 2011 together with  results of an employee survey . The report details the activities and human resource management practices of APS agencies. But the survey again was a missed opportunity to gather data about awareness of open government reforms and respect for privacy that would throw some light on prevailing culture and assist to track change over time. Nothing has changed since last year in this respect.


Question 70 for example asked about familiarity with the Standards of Ministerial Ethics, the Register of Lobbyists, and the Lobbying Code of Conduct-around 50% in each case of a large sample of public servants had not heard of these, or were not sure. But no-one was asked about familiarity with the Open Government Declaration, with freedom of information reforms of 2009-2010 or asked to respond to any questions designed to guage general attitudes concerning open government, or appreciation of the law regarding respect for information privacy and what that entails.


Responses to questions such as these would be a modest but useful start to testing culture. After all culture change has been one of the prime objects the government says it is on about in moving towards greater transparency. 


The only jurisdiction that has attempted a to gather base-line data is Queensland where a survey was undertaken on behalf of the Queensland Information Commissioner last year. 


Results of that survey showed the reaction to questions by a large number of Queensland public servants was "what reforms?" but at least those in the know thought important changes were underway and were having a positive effect. We know little about the views of Commonwealth public servants although those who signed off on submissions to the fees and charges review hardly exhibited an enthusiastic embrace of the new regime.

Queensland leads in reporting on open government performance

The Queensland Information Commissioner has published a report Agency Progress on Right to Information Reforms (pdf), compiling and analysing results of an electronic audit in which government agencies assessed their own progress in implementing obligations under the Right to Information and the Information Privacy acts. By any standard this is a large project- 155 of 197 agencies provided responses to 185 items (Appendix 2 pdf) concerning compliance with the acts, legislative guidelines and other requirements. It's self assessment, with all that goes with it, but overall the Commissioner concludes "considerable progress" has been made with significant variation between sectors: 94 percent full or partial implementation of the reform obligations in the government department sector, 64 percent in the local government sector, and

• strong reported performance in the initial implementation of publication schemes, and in putting in place roles, responsibilities, delegations and authority to implement the reforms,meeting privacy obligations and in engaging with applicants under the legislation

• weaker reported performance in adopting the ‘push’ model, making arrangements for information to be accessed administratively and monitoring their own progress

•  better implementation when senior governance focused on the reform process

• An identified need for further training and awareness raising.

There are insights in this report for all reform jurisdictions, particularly the importance of high level leadership, support and governance arrangements. While all state government agencies reported an SES level Information Champion is appointed, and active in the role, this in itself isn't sufficient: "actively driving and managing the reform process (by an information governance body in departments) policy development and training" has a positive impact on almost every area of the reform process.

And agencies won't immediately see the necessity to do more than the law requires by going beyond statutory requirements in pro-actively publishing, or in providing informal/administrative access.

Agencies aren't identified in the report in order to encourage "accurate self reporting, openness and cooperation, and has been appropriate to establish a baseline measure." In the next round, the Commissioner states "the report will compare performance across agencies and against the baseline, and individual agency results or non responses will be published." Agencies have been provided with comparative information about their results.

The Commissioner commends agencies for what appears to be a good start on the reforms, and for commitment to the principles behind the reform process, but says more is now required:

After the initial efforts to implement the reforms, a sustained effort by agencies is now needed to make sure the reforms are fully realised and to build community awareness and confidence in access to public sector information.

Queensland had a head start of a year in introducing FOI reform and is way out in front in publishing information about Performance Standards and Measures pdf, and reports on agency performance like this and an earlier report on compliance with publishing scheme requirements. 

Timely external review a problem in the west

The Western Australian Information Commissioner's Annual Report 2009-2010 naturally enough has a lot more on the subject. As previously indicated in his review report   the Commissioner says complaints received in the office are unlikely to be resolved in less than six months, in contrast with the one month timeframe envisaged in the act. On current projections the Commissioner says "it is unlikely that this will have improved by next year, despite the various steps taken by my office to improve efficiency and output."

The Office received 125 complaints (and 19 other applications under the act) during the year. The break up suggests a rather different complainant profile than elsewhere: 60 from individual citizens, 21 from members of parliament, eight from non profits and just one from the media.

The number of access applications made to agencies under the act has steadily increased, from 3,323 at the end of the first full financial year of operation (1994/95) to 12,994 in 2009-2010. Western Australian Police topped the list with 2,198 - an increase of 19.0% from last year- with the next highest, two public hospitals (in total 2700), and another 4,060 received by various other health service providers (hospitals, health services and the Department of Health). (Western Australia doesn't have an information privacy act.)

The Commisioner's report includes the following performance indicators. From memory they have been standard for years. As the roles of our information commissioners vary to some extent, so too will performance measures to some degree, but the subject  and comparative performance warrants discussion and debate

Effectiveness:

Satisfaction of parties with review processes: 84% (down from 91% last year but consistent with earlier years), based on responses to a question in the Post Review Questionnaire sent to the parties in every matter. No results are published for two other questions mentioned in the report: "Do you consider that you were kept adequately informed regarding the progress of your case?" "Was the officer assigned to your case professional in his or her dealings with you?"

Satisfaction of agencies with advice and guidance provided. Score 98%, the same as previous years, also based on responses to a survey.

Extent to which complaints resolved by conciliation (this being one of the aims of the review scheme): 56%, down on previous years but explained by a decision by the Commissioner in 2009 to limit the time spent pursuing conciliation before moving to formal determination.
formal determination of complaints.

Efficiency

Average cost of reviews finalised: $7426.

Average cost of advisory services delivered per recipient: $176

Kiwis trumps in this international FOI performance study

In Government Information Quarterly 27 (2010) 352–359, available on a pay for view basis), Robert Hazell and Ben Worthy of the Constitution Unit University College London discuss performance measures for FOI regimes in reaching the conclusion the UK act has performed reasonably well in the first four years of operation. They examine statistics that reflect performance of FOI in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Ireland, and also undertake a broader assessment that takes into account the political environment.

The statistics used are dated (for ease of comparison with the UK, the first three years of the operation of each act), focus on national government only, don't reflect changes that may have occurred recently ( for example, Australia's use of executive veto-conclusive certificates-gets a special bad mark, but they were abolished last September), or issues emerging in the FOI/Gov 2.0 era. With all the caveats, acknowledged by the authors, Australia is in the middle of the field on the statistics, and in the broader assessment, shares third place with Ireland, behind New Zealand and the UK, and ahead of only Canada.

The statistical comparison looks at

"different proxy measures of good performance. A positive combination of .. factors, such as high levels of awareness and use, high rates of successful requests resulting in disclosure, and a strong appeals process potentially locks FOI into a positive cycle of use, learning, and improvement, in which the request process and appeal system improve and the exemptions are clarified through interpretation. Such a finding would be a sign of an Act performing well. Conversely, if FOI is not used or the appeal system is weak FOI may become locked into a negative cycle of disuse, neglect and stagnation"

But Hazell and Worthy note that numbers don't tell the full story: 

"Governments seeking to improve their performance will not achieve that by focusing on the numbers alone. This is where the political context is so important. Above all, an effective FOI regime requires strong government commitment and political will. Officials cannot do it on their own. Given strong political support, it is much easier to put other supportive factors in place: a strong lead department, with authority across government; central support and training (often removed after the early years); an effective appeals mechanism and related clear case law; an effective fees regime, which helps to control demand and reduce administrative costs (though what constitutes a “balanced” regime is difficult to determine).

The New Zealand FOI regime probably fares best, given its progressive openness and high level of political and official support, sustained by a wider pluralistic political culture. The UK follows New Zealand, with reasonably high rates of disclosure, a strong Information Commissioner, single use of the veto, and some explicit political support. Third is Ireland and fourth Australia, both of which, despite high levels of use and disclosure, suffer from a high level of appeals, a lack of political support and consequent restrictive reform. Canada comes last as it has continually suffered from a combination of low use, low political support and a weak Information Commissioner since its inception."

The Australian law is about to be different (from 1 November) and all the right things are being said about the importance of more open government, so our standing might be on the move. Watch out Kiwis!

What is needed in all Australian reform jurisdictions are appropriate measures of progress towards long range and intermediate goals that include not just responding to requests, reducing delays, improving the quality of decisions, but changing cultures, increasing participation in government, pro-active publication etc.

Queensland has kicked things off.

The White House Leading Practices for Agency Open Government Plans and individual agency plans available here are good input into Australian consideration.