ogpau.pmc.gov.au · Web view: Okay, I'll just give you a couple of minutes to complete that survey and then we'll move on to the next slide, please. So the agenda for today is simple

Audio transcript Webinar on Commitment #5, #6 and #7 – on 29 October 2020

Ken: Good morning, everyone. My name is Ken Coghill. You'll see it from the slide there that I'm one of the Co-chairs of the Open Government Forum, which is hosting this webinar. And I'm one of the civil society members of the Forum and a member of the civil society organisation the Accountability Round Table. The other presenters you'll see listed there. Mark Zirnsak who's a civil society Forum Member with the Uniting Church and Andrew Walter, who's a senior officer of the Attorney-General's Department the Federal Attorney-General's Department. Can I commence by an acknowledgement of country?

And I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land waters, and community. I pay my respects to their cultures, country and elders both past and present. And I extend that to that respect to. Let me correct myself. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait and the peoples here today.

So welcome everyone. It's great to have you here. We're going to be talking about three draft commitments and the two presenters that I've mentioned will be making presentations of them in due course. But firstly, can I ask you to make sure that your microphone is muted unless you are actually speaking or about to speak. If it's not muted then we can sometimes get some interference which spoils it for everyone.

So, before we proceed, I want to draw your attention that we are recording this webinar, and that will be audio and visual. And then transcripts will be made from the audio and the transcripts will be uploaded on the Prime Minister and Cabinet YouTube channel, and the Forum's website. So, anyone who's uncomfortable with that I'm afraid you might choose to leave the webinar. So, I just want you to be aware that anything you say or do may or may not be captured as part of the recording or transcript, and what you do choose to disclose is a matter for you. We're not insisting that you identify yourself or provide any personal details and the privacy policy of the government and therefore of the Forum is at the website that's listed at the bottom of the slide. Yes. So I think that everything you might need is available from the slide.

So, the next point is about the use of Slido. And this is the why in which you will be able to alert me to something that you want to say, whether it's a question or a comment or some suggestion. So, I'll ask my assistant, Avril if she can explain the way in which Slido will be used.

Avril: Thanks, Ken. So, participants would have received an email in advance of the session. I'm asking you to become familiar with Slido. So, you have the web browser link on the screen now and you can enter the code '#OGP2020' which will take you to a page where you'll have the option to complete a pre-webinar survey which is open now. And this is also the medium by which we'll receive questions from the audience. So you have Q&A there as well. This is just to help us moderate the session and minimise the need for you to mute and unmute your microphones. If we don't receive any question through Slido then Ken will moderate and is happy to take questions from the floor, but we would encourage you to use Slido if you can, and to complete that pre-webinar survey now.

1


Ken: Okay, I'll just give you a couple of minutes to complete that survey and then we'll move on to the next slide, please.

So the agenda for today is simple and straightforward. So, the first is that I'll pick a bit of a background on OGP at the Open Government Partnership and then an overview of the process for developing the third National Action Plan. And then we'll move on to discussion of the three draft commitments, which are listed there on the slide numbers five, six, and seven. And then at the end of the session assuming that we've got enough time available, it'll be the opportunity to comment on the National Action Plan overall the Proposed National Action Plan overall and anything that's related to that. So, the next slide then, please.

The Open Government Partnership is a multinational initiative which was started in the time of President Obama and Prime Minister, David Cameron, and others. And that it was started by a small number of nations, which included Indonesia and the Philippines under their previous, at least in the case of the Philippines under the previous President. And it's all about countries which are democracies wanting to further promote transparency, accountability, and public participation in the way in which government operates and government is defined very broadly. So, it could be a parliamentary matter. Now Australia formally joined in November 2015, which you'll recall was shortly after Prime Minister Turnbull came to office. Although some initiative had been taken by the outgoing rather than Gillard governments before I left office and each country who is a member, goes through a two-year cycle of developing reform proposals, which advance transparency, accountability, and public participation, and implement those within a two-year period. And those commitments, the implementation of those commitments is reviewed by an Independent Reporting Mechanism. That's a very brief introduction to the nature and operation of the Forum and the Open Government Partnership which Australia is a member.

So, the next slide then indicates that we are in the midst of preparing a National Action Plan. Most national action plans are at the core of each countries participation in OGP and each country prepares a small number of commitments generally not more than 15, anything from five up to 15. And they really are the central thing which drives this for each country's perspective, for each country to develop proposals which are then adopted by that country and reported to the International Secretariat of the Open Government Partnership, and those commitments then are monitored as I was saying earlier. So, that's a very brief introduction.

And the process that we've been through is outlined on the next slide, thank you. Got the next slide. So, the process that we followed for this Action Plan has been to have sorry, it is to have a questionnaire which was used to gather ideas like about 18 months ago now. And no, that was about about a year ago, I'm sorry. And those ideas were then fed into a series of workshops and online participation, and those workshops were scattered around Australia and were taken up by people from the community much as we have here today. And those ideas were then taken by the Open Government Forum to develop the draft commitments, which we've got before us today and the ones that were considered in a couple of earlier webinars. So, we're looking for your views now on the draft commitments which are going to be put to government in late November. A sufficient explanation of the backgrounds to the why in which this process is operating.

2


So the next slide then we'll show the slide, show the commitments which are being developed for the National Action Plan. And by the first four of them were subject to earlier webinars. And today we'll be looking at the fifth theme, which 'Improving Awareness within Commonwealth Entities'. And more broadly risks associated with government responses to a crisis situation that's occuring at the moment the sixth one is 'Improving Transparency and Trust related to the Use of Emergency and Crisis Power'. And the sorts of powers which we're seeing used currently in Australia. And seventh is 'Best Practice in Dealing with Freedom of Information Requests'. These are the three we'll be looking at today. The previous four have already been considered by earlier webinars. And there is one that is missing is 'Political Campaign Finance Integrity' one, which was blackballed at the meeting of Open Government Forum; blackballed on the basis of a premise, which is now found to be discredited.

So let's move on then to the commitments and what I'll be asking each presenters to do is give a brief outline of the commitment and we've already had the opportunity to read through it in detail and then allow sufficient time I have for there to be discussion of the particular commitment. And factors that you think that are relevant to that particular commitment. So this first one will be presented by Andrew Walter, Andrew, as I was saying earlier he's a senior official in the Attorney-General's Department I don't actually have your rank indicated here, Andrew. But I think that you are Deputy Secretary, am I right there? Right, can I hand over to Andrew Walter, please? Andrew, are you there?

Andrew: Sorry, can you hear me now, Ken?

Ken: Yes I can.

Andrew: Good. Sorry, we have some limitations in our IT here so I can't participate through the web platform. So thank you for that. Thank you for the promotion as well. I'm actually a First Assistant Secretary but happy to take the highest salary. So thank you. So shall I introduce number five?

Ken: Please do so that'd be really appreciated if you can get an overview of it.

Andrew: Sure. So firstly, if I could just acknowledge Serena Lillywhite and Transparency International Australia for their suggestion with regards to this proposal very welcomed. I give you a little bit of background. So in 2019 the Attorney-General's Department was given a small amount of money to establish a Fraud Prevention Centre as a pilot we were given two years of funding. And the aim of the Centre is to build the capacity across the Commonwealth to prevent fraud against government programs and obviously internal fraud as well. And it's important that to emphasise the prevention aspect that's the key component here it's while we of course work very closely with those who are investigating and responding to identify fraud. The main focus of the Centre is to front load that into try and prevent fraud in the first place. So since its creation a little bit over 18 months ago the Centre is focused on providing information and tools to help agencies identify their fraud risks put in place appropriate countermeasures test existing fraud controls, and to do work around doing better data sharing, obviously within the confines of legislative requirements to identify where fraud is uncovered in one program for example, to see whether it's the same players, the same people, also operating in other

Ken: Hello? It seems like we lost Andrew.

3


Andrew: Sorry. Can you hear me now?

Ken: Hi. Yes, I can hear you. I can hear you again, yes.

Andrew: Oh, that's odd. Anyway. So where I left off with, just to say, you know, we've been focusing on those core key areas of identifying fraud risks helping agencies make sure they've got good countermeasures in place and testing those countermeasures and also doing a bit of data sharing to identify, for example, in fraud, pops up in one program to see whether the same people and organisations are also operating in other programs and shine a bit of light on, on those activities. Obviously that's all done within the legal parameters of Secrecy and Privacy Regulation. At the beginning of this year, obviously we're all thrown a curve ball by firstly the black summer bush fire, and then by COVID 19. So the work of the Centre to focus on fraud prevention in emergency context. So obviously government during an emergency Are very keen, and rightly so, to get money to the people who need it. And the circumstances we found ourselves in is, has meant we've needed to relax some of the controls that might otherwise have been in place. For example, around turning up face to face for identification purposes, those types of things. So we've been working with agencies to make sure that even in that environment, we do take appropriate account fraud and try and mitigate those risks as best as possible and have a response when it's identified. So the commitment is very much about seeking to raise awareness of the Centre's work. And I think it's fair to say that the Centre is probably not incredibly well-known. It's certainly getting well-known within government and certainly for the major players within government who either, you know, who spend money we have good relationships with all those outlay agencies and of course, with the tax office as well. One of the you know, purposes here is to, to increase that within government to, to get a broader understanding of what we do and the tools we have and how we can help agencies who might not be in that big expenditure type category, but also to raise the public profile of the Centre to encourage either, you know, to for people to have an understanding or greater assurance around what the government's overall fraud response is. And so that's, that's kind of the critical elements of the proposal as Serena and we worked on this, you know, Serena, you know despite her quote involvement with many government activities wasn't really aware of what we were doing. And so, you know, that was a, a sign in itself that perhaps we could do a bit more work around that. So there that kind of, that's the kind of key purpose behind it. I will just note one other thing, Ken which is just around timing. As I mentioned, we have pilot funding we are hoping that the funding for the Centre will continue but the timing reflects the fact that, you know right now until another budget decision is made funding for the Centre runs out on the 1st of July next year, so 2021. So we have put slightly truncated timing into this commitment to make sure that we get it done within a meaningful period so that it can help government think about ongoing funding to the Centre, but also raise awareness you know, faster, I guess, the simple way of putting it. So I might pause there and hand back to you.

Ken: Thanks very much, Andrew. I really appreciate that briefing, but we've got a quarter of an hour or so available to us if we want to go through each of the draft commitment. So do we have any anyone who'd like to raise a matter? Avril, is there anything on Slido yet?

4


Avril: Hi, Ken. Yes. We've had a question. So the question is, "In the future will the Centre be set up to receive relevant information from the public about fraud related issues?"

Ken: Okay. Unless there's something which I think Andrew would be best equipped to respond to.

Andrew: Thanks. Thanks. Thank you for the question. So the Centre has a very specific purpose, it's not intended to be, it's not an investigation agency. It's not, you know, it's not a body where you refer fraud matters. If you go to the website that we have, you know, it tells you how to do that. If you do if you've identified something that's fraudulent it directs people to the relevant bodies, whether that's, you know the agency concerned and how to contact their Fraud Unit or in, in the relevant circumstances to the Australian Federal Police or state territory police. So that's not the intention. We certainly do reach out to academics and the private sector to get a better understanding of the fraud landscape. We want to build even better relations with the private sector. We have pretty good relations with the banks and others but we want to build those so that we have a better picture of the overall fraud landscape but it's certainly not meant to be one of those. If not that kind of response entity. We do however, and I stress this. We do have a close relationship with those bodies that are doing the investigations because we want to see what they're seeking so that we can be that back into the kind of, you know, countermeasure prevention space. So I hope that gets to the nub of the question you're asking.

Ken: Thanks. Thanks for responding, Andrew. Do we have further questions or comments, Avril?

Avril: Not through Slido, but you might want to open to the floor now, Ken.

Ken: Yes. Okay. Is there anyone who would like to make a comment, ask a question, make a suggestion?

Gerard: Yes, Gerard here.

Ken: Yes, Gerard.

Gerard: So am I, yeah, so I just would like to ask Andrew about habeas corpus in his enforcement of alleged fraud because we saw how sort of data collection can go terribly terribly wrong, which we had that with a Robodebt which is damaged, you know, faith actually in government. And he was talking about a free transfer between agencies. And this is the big problem with big data in government is that there is a free transfer of data. And there seems to be no ethics between what should be transferred. I had ask a question about an ethics board but apparent, I'm not sure if it's on the agenda but particularly for the transfer of data between agencies it's important to have an ethics board to set up policy and possibly even with contentious cases, overview, whether that is possible. I mean, you could say, well, it could be the courts, but the size of transfer isn't clear, is it just one query or is it a catch-all for the whole country? And everyone is assumed guilty and their data is captured and, and data matched with every other bit of data, because if that is so, every person in Australia at some point wouldn't be doing something that is against the law.

I mean, I was explaining once to my son, how you could probably break 12 laws on the way from the house to the station, you know, with, with big data on your phone. So I think the habeas corpus part

5


of it is really I would like to hear Andrew address that actually because I think it is in essence what would actually alienate the Australian public from the government. And I think I did put that in one of my submissions. It wasn't in this one. Now I will add it in, but it was that if people are constantly surveillance constantly accused of doing wrong, they will start pushing back. And the benefits of, you know most agencies think this is all too good to be true. I can do everything with less people. And you know, it's too good to be true just in the early days of big data. We said Oh, elections, big data is, you know, enabling democracy. And now we're seeing big data is the enemy of democracy. Oh, I will stop now. Okay.

Ken: Thanks, Gerard. And I'll, I'll hand back to Andrew to respond to the points that Gerard has made. Andrew?

Andrew: Sorry. Ken, can you hear me now?

Ken: Yes, I can.

Andrew: Great. So thanks, Ken. And thanks, Gerard to the question. I'm not entirely sure what the reference to habeas corpus in here, but I think I understand the general gist of your question. So yes, the point that you make is absolutely critical one that you don't want to be judged willy-nilly, washing against each other against each other in the hope that we find some kind of you know, wrongdoing, even if habits are minor that's not what we're talking about here. We, firstly, we as a Centre do not collect data on people or on individuals agencies collect information and data as part of the you know, the provision of their services to the public or you know, where it's a statutory function of data. So we don't, we don't do that. And we aren't, you know asking that agencies collect more data than they already do. So there's no, there's none of that element. If I can just, you know, if I can just put that to bed you know, we don't hold databases, but we're not ourselves you know, collecting huge amounts of information on people. What we do here is where fraud where there have been identify where there has been identified fraud in a particular program by particular in, you know, individuals or entities. What we are trying to do is to take those identified people who've engaged. We know who've engaged in wrongdoing and watch against other programs to see whether they're also doing the same thing in those programs. So we have you know, and it's a little bit tricky for me to talk about some of these because they are police investigation but we have had very, real instances where individuals are and we're talking to high end here. So individuals who are frauding, you know one particular program into the millions of dollars. And we find that they're operating in other programs that just gives us the intelligence or the information to say we might want to see what's going on there and perhaps make sure that we've done you know, appropriate identification checks, all those kinds of due diligence things and just have another look there. So it's not about, you know, presumptions of guilt or anything like that. It's about identifying where there might be odd activity occurring. And of course that has to operate within the legal framework. And the legal framework in this context has three components. One is the Privacy Act and in my division administers the Privacy Act. So we're very alive to the concerns there. Now, of course, that has exemptions in it and general permitted purposes in the law enforcement space. But the Privacy Act obviously most, well not all, a large number of Commonwealth agencies also have specific secrecy and confidentiality provisions. So we obviously have to operate within those. We don't have any, you

6


know, override there, but we do have in the case of criminal fraud, we do have a provision in the Crimes Act that does facilitate sharing in circumstances where we're talking about criminal conduct but it's a limited, it's a limited power. So I think the short answer really is to say firstly, we're not aggregating huge amounts of data. We're not washing loads of data sets against each other. We're dealing with instances where they have been identified you know, verifiable instances of fraud. And we are seeing whether in similar programs, but type, same types of people. And as I said, often entities are actually turning up there and seeing it, then we need to make further inquiries.

Ken: Thanks, Andrew. I'm just wondering if you can comment on the suggestion of an ethics board. It's an idea that I've heard elsewhere in addition to to the way in which Gerard is articulated it.

Avril: Just to quickly interrupt you, Ken. Just let you know, we have three questions pending in Slido.

Ken: Okay. Well just very quickly, Andrew if you can comment on the suggestion of an ethics board. Yeah, just very briefly.

Andrew: So thanks, Ken. I think they, the conversation about an ethics board has occurred very much in the big data space. And that was certainly something that Gerard has had mentioned. I'm probably not the best qualified person to talk to that idea. It's probably you know, I probably actually we'll just put it to one, one side because it's really not an area of my policy expertise and I wouldn't want to lead you down the wrong path, you know, perhaps Avril and I can work together to get you a better answer to that.

Ken: Okay. Thanks very much for that. So Avril, first of the Slido questions, comments.

Avril: The first question we have pending is "How does industry with world-leading data sharing infrastructure connect to get involved in the pilot program?"

Andrew: Yeah, so that, that's a great question. So we, with the pilot we, we, we've only got a very small number going at the moment and this was really test the concept to see whether we can make it work or not. One of them does involve the private sector. And so we we've set up one pilot that does involve the private sector in that case, some of the banks. And, but certainly as we go forward and assuming the Centre continue then we will be very much looking out to see whether there are other appropriate. And, you know, we've mentioned the ethics questions. It's gotta be appropriate opportunities to work with the private sector. And the point I made earlier and I'll make again is just that fraud isn't, you know a unique experience with the Commonwealth if it if we're being hit then it's good chance that private sector entities are being hit by the same people and probably same in territory governments as well. So we are very mindful of that broader fraud landscape that we're a small centre, we focus small at this point, we're testing concepts to see if they can work and whether they can be delivered in an appropriate way. And if they can we will then look at seeing where it can be expanded.

Ken: Okay. Thanks. Next one, Avril?

7


Avril: So the next question is from Catherine and it is "What if any interaction does the Fraud Prevention Centre have with the Office of the National Auditor to address fraud in the Commonwealth public sector?"

Andrew: Thanks, Catherine. Really good question. So we have secondees from the, an ANO within the Centre we identified very early that there was a crossover in skills and experience here that we needed. Indeed, almost the entire Centre apart from a couple of people the secondees from other parts of government because we want to bring in different expertise. This is quite unusual for the Attorney-General's Department. I will stress. So we've got a couple of novel AGD policy people, and then we've got people from all over government in there to bring their expertise and the ANO was one of the first ones we identified. So we have secondees from the ANO working there. And then we keep up a regular dialogue with them as well because yes absolutely. The lessons we learned, the lessons they learned and crossed over significantly.

Ken: Thank you. So the next question have to be the last one for this commitment.

Avril: Yep. So then next question is from Peter Timmins and "Is contracting is generally seen as a potential fraud risk across the Commonwealth and involves many billions of dollars each year and earlier OGP plan included a commitment to look at open contracting. It was listed as a priority by the OGP, but led to little change. Does the Centre give guidance on open contracting?"

Ken: Well, thanks for that Peter, and I should acknowledge Peter as one of the founding members of the precursor Forum. So welcome Peter. Andrew, over to you.

Andrew: Thank you. And thank you Peter, for the question. No, at the moment we haven't put any particular focus on open contracting. We, you know, as I've mentioned a couple of times obviously we're in a pilot stage with small, um, we're focused on, you know, where we can add most value initially. We do have a number of areas where we think going into the future we'll, we'll have to put a greater emphasis. In some spaces procurement, generally, is really well handled but that's not universally the case. So that is one area which ties into open contracting where we think we need to put a bit more focus. And the other area that we think going forward might need a bit more focus is around well it's around grants which obviously get a bit of attention as well publicly. And including trying to the previous question from the ANAO. So those are two areas of definite future focused for us. And, you know, open contracting could obviously you know, feed into that and no promises there but you know that there's some obvious connections there.

Ken: Thanks very much for that, Andrew. Avril, do we have a poll before we move on to the next one?

Avril: Yes, we do have a poll I'm just about to make that go live. So if people who are using Slido would like to rate the commitment you will be able to do that momentarily.

Ken: Okay. Thanks very much for that. So our next one is also presented by Andrew. I'll still accredit him with the promotion, which offered earlier and the commitment which we're looking at is 'Improving transparency and trust related to the use of emergency and crisis powers'. So Andrew, would you like to introduce that for us, please.

8


Andrew: Thanks, Ken. So again, if I can acknowledge TIA for their interest in this particular area and others as part of the development of the proposal. So obviously, you know, as we all have great experience of in recent times, unfortunately, during crises governments often acquire extraordinary powers or, or activate extraordinary powers even if that is only for a short period of time. And it's important that all Australians understand what those powers are why they are needed what the justification is, how long they will last and what oversight there is with respect to those powers. So this proposal is a pretty simple one but, you know, from a transparency perspective, quite important. I think, which is we create a landing page on and we said on 'Australia.gov.au', as the right place to have the landing page. As a kind of one-stop shop for information on what crisis measures have been put in place. So what are existing laws that can be used because there are a whole range of existing legal mechanisms available in a crisis when there are proposed new laws, as we've seen during this period, what, you know, providing an avenue for people to be able to access those and find out more information about what's proposed. Some information on specific programs directed at the crisis. So expenditure, and then just as importantly I think information on oversight mechanism. So what oversight is there both for the powers and the expenditure that is occurring. So as I said I don't think it's a particularly complex proposal but nonetheless is quite significant from a transparency perspective. A lot of this information is already available. However, it's available in lots of different places. So this is trying to you know, bring, bring those things together in one spot. The proposal, does also suggest that, you know, perhaps a bit down the track, we might add the states and territories in if they were interested in joining in that kind of proposal as well. Because of course you know, as we've seen in, in the pandemic situation many of those extraordinary powers are actually exercised at the state and territory level. Certainly, a lot of Commonwealth level as well but you know, a lot and many of the ones that impact on individuals most, the most significant way are exercised at the state and territory level. So that could be something we could explore with states and territories to see they have interest as well. Maybe I'll leave it there. Ken, because it's not a very complicated one, this one.

Ken: Just to follow up your final point. There is the exploring the opportunities for extending it to state and territory programs. Is that part of this commitment in that two-year period or something that might be looked at a later stage?

Andrew: So I, I think that, you know you certainly identified in the commitment for this period of time and I think we could at least, you know, once we've you know, we can reach out to state and territory to see whether there's any interest. And I think it would be good to do that reasonably early because if there is, it would be good to be thinking about how we design it in way that takes into acount their concerns. But if there's not sorry, I think concerns are that that's the right word how they want information presented and what type of information they might want presented would be a clear and important factor to take into account in design. But I think if there's not terribly much interest early and it's possible, they won't pay because most states and territories are understandably still very focused on the response. Then we might press ahead and then make sure we think about how we would design it with states and territories in mind.

Ken: Yes, I'll just comment that seems to me an appropriate thing for the National Cabinet. Anyway, do we have any Slido requests, Avril?

9


Avril: Yes, we do. So we have a question which is "How do you expect that centralised access to this information will improve how the public understands the information including to help improve the levels of compliance with advice and recommended protective behaviours set by the government?"

Andrew: Yeah. Thank you for that. Sorry. So just kick off, Ken?

Ken: Yes, please do.

Andrew: So I think it's a really important question. It's one, like I think it's very, very important and I think that there's probably two things going on here. One is for example, in a pandemic we want a very clear, very focused advice available to the public on what to do from a health and wellbeing perspective during a pandemic. And that is a slightly different proposition to what this is which is very much around transparency and making sure that as, you know, a crisis evolves and, and, you know, continues over a period of time, you know, there's kind of two things going on. If it's a health type thing then obviously you want health advice and we want one place which isn't confusing and it's clear for people to go and get that health advice and to understand what if any health restrictions have been put in place such as, you know, what we've seen in Victoria and, and, and other places as well. So I think we wouldn't want to get that too confused with have saying, we also want, particularly these things go on all the time, transparency about what powers there are how are they being used? You know, what oversight is in place to make sure that they're not being abused in any way. So I think they are two separate exercises but we'll have to think very carefully I think, as we go along to make sure that if somebody lands on that landing page that they direct it towards to getting the latest health information if that's the issue and can, can move very quickly to that. So I think you know, need to think about that as we go through. So I don't know that the definitive answer but it's very much an alive question.

Ken: Okay. Thanks for that. Next one, please, Avril.

Avril: Yeah. So this question is from Peter Timmins and "It reads New Zealand from early on established a single website for information about the pandemic, including cabinet papers about decision-making. That might be a bridge too far here but it's a great example of full transparency. The level of trust in New Zealand is self-evident".

Ken: Is that something you'd like to comment on?

Andrew: I, I'm not sure whether that be the comment or question. I suppose the only observation I'd make is that with New Zealand Cabinet process yes, they, they do publish some of the Cabinet decisions, but it's not full publication of everything that's considered in Cabinet a little bit more of a limited aspect there. But yes, of course I think that the general principle is is, is sound, which is that if people see what's going on, see what information is available you know, see what decisions government making see what powers they using then that does you know, that does help engender a great sense of trust and if nothing else, I think this is just as important. Gives people the opportunity to think you know, does that go too far? Should, should I actually be, you know, contacting my local member or, you know, going on social media or whatever I want to do to, to say actually don't support that.

10


Ken: Okay. Look, anyone else want to comment on that point? It was a broad comment rather than a question but thank you, Andrew, for your reflections on it. Anyone else want to comment on that particular point that's been raised by Peter? I must say, from my own perspective having been the Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet in Victoria, after each Cabinet meeting, I was amazed that most of the stuff wasn't released immediately and quite frankly, the staging of the release of information was usually related more to political tactics and political advantage than it was for any necessity to keep the information confidential. That that's just my, my observation.

Any other comment on that point? If not, Avril, could we have the next one, please?

Avril: Yes. So we have a question which is "Regarding pandemics and the global aspects of such are you interested in pan-government models that will align with key cross border data sharing aspects which are necessary"

Ken: Andrew? Is that clear to you what what's being asked?

Andrew: No, I'm not sure. Try. Not quite sure what what's being.

Ken: If the question is prepared either to put more detail on Slido or I can unmute you so that you can speak directly.

Joanna: Oh yes (inaudible).

Ken: So, are you wanting to speak to it or just enter another Slido?

Avril: So Ken, Joanna Cooper asked that question and it's noted that she's happy to be unmuted. Joanna, I think he might need to unmute at your end. We could hear you a moment ago but I don't think we can hear you anymore.

Joanna: Can you hear me?

Ken: Yes, we can.

Joanna: Yes. So the question is we're very much involved in world-leading datasharing infrastructure and we're in conversations with other governments, currently are about cross border information that may be related to vaccine management, digital certificates particularly when we're opening up borders. So we're very much discussing with different levels of the Commonwealth solutions at the moment. And we would be interested to understand if this program would like to understand those aspects of data sharing that has to happen at a government and at a consumer level with this project. So while the World Health Authority is also involved in trying to have common pass information sets and things like that.

Ken: Okay, thanks. Andrew, are you able to comment on that then?

Andrew: Sure. Thank you for the question. So this commitment itself I think wouldn't have any implications for that kind of work. It's a fairly, you know, as I suggested a fairly simple transparency measure to provide a sort of one place where people can find information about powers and measures that have been taken by government in response to the pandemic. There is of course, a lot

11


of work that is going on elsewhere in government in terms of obviously sharing of information that's relevant to the response, but between the Commonwealth and states and territories and vice versa. And of course there's also you know, questions all the time often really about anonymised data in terms of sharing with it organisations like the World Health Authority and others and frameworks that exist for that. So again, you know, putting my privacy hat on, I do have some awareness of things but I'm probably not the best person to comment on that. I think it's probably particularly the health space more one for Department of Health to, to deal with those kind of questions, but really for this proposal no, I don't think it would, it would touch on that at all.

Ken: Okay. Thanks for that. Look, we've got time. I think for one more question, if there is one, Avril. Do we have any, anyone else?

Avril: We don't have any questions pending in Slido.

Ken: Okay. Well look thank you very much for your comments on this commitment. And thank you, Andrew, for responding to the questions and comments that were asked particularly ones which are a bit outside your area. So that's really appreciated. So thank you very much for that.

May I move on to the number, commitment number seven which is 'Best practice in dealing with Freedom of Information Requests' and it's going to be presented by Mark Zirnsak. It was indicated earlier as a civil society member of the Forum and he works with the Uniting Church. Mark, are you able to take over now, please?

Mark: Absolutely. So this particular proposal looks at only one aspect around the Freedom of Information systems. So what was examined was that anecdotally it felt that some users were having different experiences of how Freedom of Information requests were being responded to in terms of the way in which an officer might deal with them, which would, they might get a phone call to sort out exactly what information they're looking for, the kind of communication took place. Now that said the government does have in place significant guidance material for Freedom of Information officers Freedom of Information officers get together regularly for conferences. And there is quite a bit of information sharing but what was identified was a gap was particularly picking up deliberately information from users directly and gathering some user experience of the system to try and see whether it was possible to get a more consistent response to requests. The proposal is not looking at legislative reform. It is more about systems and operations. I think some of the feedback that's already occurred online to this particular concept, that there is frustration from some people that they have other aspects of the Freedom of Information system that they would like to see addressed. That is, that is not part of this this concept currently I do think there was also some feedback that probably indicates well if this is the only thing that's going to be looked at at a sort of more consistent approach in the way, Freedom of Information officers deal with requests and, and deal with people accessing the system, then don't bother at all you know, happy to hear whether that's a general feedback or whether, you know, there are people who would say well, actually that's one aspect that it could be improved. There might be other things that could be considered. And obviously this particular concept would also help gather more information and allow people who are using the system to feed their feedback in. And if it goes beyond, what's obviously considered in this concept, then that's a matter that both governmental, the Open

12


Government Forum itself could consider further concepts or further action down the track. So I'm happy to leave it there. And I open it up for discussion and questions.

Ken: Yeah. Just before we take any questions can I point out that there is also another commitment a commitment number three, which was considered on Tuesday and there's still open for comment. If people wanted to comment on that aspects that are not covered by this commitment number seven. So we're open for comment now then on the commitment, which Mark has outlined and I'm waiting for an indication from Avril as to whether we've got any Slido listings at the moment.

Avril: Yes, Ken. We do have two questions? So I'll give you the first which is, "Do you think the project will lead to improved release of information under the FOI Act or simply helped to make applicant's experience of the process more consistent?"

Ken: So Mark, if you can.

Mark: The aim of this one is to make the experience of applicants experience of the process more consistent. And also hopefully that that is a best practice that that if FOI officers are doing their best to assist people in getting the information that they're entitled to get and to be able to craft their requests and applications in ways that will be most effective at obtaining the information they after. That may in itself lead to people, being able to get more information but it's not going to change the parameters under which information might be released or might not be released on, on the numerous elements of the legislation that that allow government to determine that information is not suitable for release.

Ken: Thanks. Thanks, Mark. Any further questions or comments?

Avril: Yes, we have two questions in Slido. So the next is "Will the action look at handling of requests across, across Australian jurisdictions or only requests under the federal government FOI Act?"

Mark: At this stage, it is only looking at the Commonwealth Freedom of Information process that, that in itself, sorry the reason I chuckled a little bit there is just even, even in the conversations we've had around developing this concept the sheer number of government departments and agencies that are covered at the Commonwealth will make this quite a substantive piece of work just to even gather this issues of feedback and get it across a variety of agencies and departments in itself will be challenging enough without also looking then at other jurisdictions.

Ken: But again, I would encourage people to look at the commitment number three 'Open by Design' and see whether that addresses this question in part or in whole, the next one, please, Avril?

Avril: Yes. So the last one I have is "How will the Office of the Australian information commissioner be involved in this commitment?"

Mark: So the plan for the Office of the Information Commissioner would be for that baby part of the design in gathering the user information that and also considering the user information that comes back and the implications of that. And then also the response to that information and what changes can be made, what better support could be given to FOI officers to actually deal with requests and to

13


try and ensure that there is a more consistent and, you know, ideally as helpful as possible and approach to applicants in their applications to receive information.

Ken: Thanks for that.

Avril: We do have one more question, Ken.

Ken: Good, Thank you.

Avril: From Catherine. "Does this commitment address of culture as well as process?"

Mark: Look, Yes. I do think that that is going to be the case because I think some of the differences users' experience are actual in relation to the culture of the department or the agency and what the user is. Hopefully the information that you've experienced might highlight and bring to attention where those cultural differences exist between agencies or departments. Now you know, in some cases I think we need to recognise there obviously departments and agencies that handle far more sensitive information and then than others. And, you know, sometimes that, that sort of difference can, can be justified. I mean, if you're trying to get information out of a body like AUSTRAC which regulates the anti-money laundering system I can understand you know, I think we should understand that information. They might be more sensitive than perhaps if you're trying to get information out of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. So there might be some reasons why there are differences there but I also think there is probably some anecdotal evidence at this stage that there are cultural differences that that don't relate to the nature of the sensitivity of the information. And this project will highlight whether that's actually a case we'll test that hypothesis.

Ken: Thanks, Mark. Any further questions or comments?

Avril: No more questions in Slido, Ken so you can open to the floor.

Ken: Okay. Anyone else like to ask a question, make a comment about this particular commitment and then we'll turn to the National Action Plan as a whole.

Gerard: Can I ask a question or make a comment?

Ken: Yes, please.

Gerard: Okay. Mark, there is a suspicion of, you know, Dragnet collection of data would a non sort of request is an ongoing database on, on, on the website of interagency requests, much as happens. I think with Google and, and other companies when they show how many government requests they have for data, the reason that should have a registered all that data transfer between agencies and all the data requests is to really reassure the Australian public that there is no dragnet collection or dragnet monitoring of Australian citizens. I know today it might be very small but there is a possibility in your mission creep where every agency wants more and more enter agency data transfers because one of the issues, I mean, Australians really balk at China's Social Credit System and the data collection of wagers on the data control of wagers. And we really need as many tools as possible to keep the government in check from mission creep, because without this being seen,

14


there is no way of knowing how wild data transfer and data processing between agencies. It would not be a risk to any investigations. It would just because it would just be a number, you know between say the Department of Health and the place or the Department of Health and local councils or, you know, in, in revenue between some other agency. And I think it's really important to know this number. Is it two? But yeah, I mean, Andrew was saying that you know it was only to be used in exceptional circumstances but exceptional circumstances can creep. And it is essential for us to understand those data transfers between agencies. And I think a number on that site would you, it's all one government, it's not giving anything away and it's reassuring the public that there isn't a dragnet monitoring of the, of agency, because the reality with all this data, it's just one application away from, you know, China's Social Credit or I forgot the name of the system. They have to control the wagers, but it's we need to know we're going to creep into that area. And I think you know, you know, marks what keeping data open of events that happened between agencies and it being clear to the Australian public is essential to stop you know, an Australian Social Credit System coming in. Okay, thank you.

Ken: Thanks for that. Someone like to respond to Gerard's comments?

Mark: Look, this comment I mean the issues raised here are not relevant that lively not relevant to this particular concept. I mean they're not relevant to the Freedom of Information system. Freedom of Information is about members of the public being able to, or journalists or members of civil society groups, being able to follow requests or information from, from government. In most cases that actually individuals wanting to know information that the government is keeping about them. In other cases, it might be a journalist working on a story or it might be a civil society organisation wanting to look at performance of government on various aspects. So any released information goes on to a disclosure log. So there is, there is all the successful requests are logged by and they are publicly available. All the information that has been released is on those public logs that that departments in the agencies release in terms of other data collection and statistics about Freedom of Information requests. I haven't looked into that myself. So others might be better place to comment on that as a more general comment around data. I think it's a two way there, there are multiple aspects in considering that data sharing between departments. And I certainly have had in my work experience of problems because government departments don't and can't share information with each other. So we provided a lot of support to workers coming in on the Pacific Labour Scheme who got work on farms. The Department of Education, Skills and Employment have oversight of that particular program. But for privacy reasons they are not told which workers actually get to come in on the program because all that data is held by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Home Affairs can't hold any information. So we can't actually find out about stuff happening out on farms, where something goes wrong with a worker or if a worker is harmed or workers exploited. And the department has no idea who that worker even is. If I give them the name, they don't even know because it's not information that's shared with them. So their ability to oversight the program effectively is actually inhibited by the lack of information transfer. And that's just one example and there are many I could cite where there is issues about appropriate transfer of information. But what you're talking about is log of all information transfers between departments. That's not in this concept that would be something completely different. And I think the implications

15


of that would need to be thought through pretty carefully about whether that would inhibit effective use and sharing of information at times, versus, you know the issue of too much government oversight of citizens.

Ken: Thanks for that response, Mark and Gerard, I certainly encourage you to submit your comment, but clearly they won't relate to this particular commitment we're looking at right at this moment. Is there any, anyone else wishing to comment on this commitment, commitment seven?

Avril: So Ken, we have a comment in Slido from Sonya who has said "The Office of National Data Commissioner has an action to publish the data sharing agreements about transfers between agencies and FOI can be used to request additional details if needed".

Ken: All right. So that's useful information to have and that will be included of course, in the transcript when that's published online which I expect will be sometime next week. But if anyone wants to follow up, I'm sure we'll be able to help out. Anything else before we leave this commitment? Avril? If not, would you like to do the poll on this one? Avril?

Avril: Yes. Thanks, Ken. The poll is now live for those of you who are using Slido.

Ken: Okay. So I leave that just for a couple of minutes for people to make their comment.

Okay. Let's move on then. So let's talk more generally about the National Action Plan and you will have noted from your reading that what is sought with National Action Plan is reforms which are both ambitious and transformative. In other words, ambitious means that they things which would require some effort to fulfill and transformative meaning that they would really make a difference in the way in which government operates or people's rights protected and enhanced. So it's looking at things like open government public participation, the use of technology the sorts of things that we've been discussing this morning. So I'd be interested to have any comments about the Program overall including in particular, the commitments, which we've dealt with this morning and the ones which were listed from earlier days, and to have your comments as to whether you think that they either, all of them as a package are ambitious and or transformative. So the floor is open to anyone who would like to comment. Nothing forthcoming?

Avril: Ken, it's Avril. I don't currently have anything in Slido.

Ken: Okay. Yes, please. Is that Gerard again?

Gerard: Yeah, just a general comment. The project is called Open Government and I think it's really important to reassure the public, public's confidence that the Open Government is fair. It's fair for everyone. And I think some of the issues we're talking about was, you know, reporting on sites and use of data. And I think these issues will become bigger and bigger as time moves on we're in the very early stages and people can't envisage how things can go wrong. I think we need, you know, to use our imagination to imagine the worst thing that can go wrong with, with open data and envisaging that, and I'm being honest about that. I think it's, it will help us not finding ourselves in a terrible, terrible quagmire of oppressive government, really, because the opposite of open government would be oppressive government. And I think it's important. Like my comments of

16


knowing how much interagency transfer is really important to know what our government knows about us. And we've been really lucky. One of the things in Australia, people always struggle to find out what is the core of the Australian identity. And one of the things that I have found in Australia and I think it's a unique thing in Australia is the how benign our government has been and how we trust our government to look after us. And I think like, what would, that was perhaps a sort of early indicator of how if we lose that trust and we currently show, and that's why I think it's important to know the interagency transfer is to know that we're not being spied on a monitored. Yeah. Okay. I can understand for serious cases as Andrew was talking about, but, you know, those could be you know, in the data of the amount of transforming, we all understand that. And in fact, we kind of want that because we want ask security and we understand that we have to trade off a little bit of our personal secure, personal data but we also need to know how much we are being you know, possibly a choose it's like somebody choosing you all the time you know, with big data and reassurances and, you know, feel good statements on websites, you know and then we all complied with the law, meaning nothing in the end, unless we actually have the actual numbers. Okay. Thank you.

Ken: Thanks for that. That'll all be part of the public record of this webinar this morning. So thanks for that for putting that on the agenda for consideration by the the Forum. Any other questions or comments before we wind up?

Peter: Ken, can you hear me?

Ken: Yes, yes. Is that Peter?

Peter: Yeah. It is. My connection dropped out and I haven't been able to get back in. So I'm sorry to have missed a fair bit of what you've done in the last 10 minutes or 15 minutes or so. Just like to comment I presume you've discussed number seven.

Ken: Yes, we have. Yes. We've just, just wound that up.

Peter: Could I just make a couple of comments?

Ken: Please, do.

Peter: I guess that many of us were quite encouraged by the first Plan and the inclusion of a commitment regarding Freedom of Information and access to archives documents. And that commitment was to ensure that Australia's information access laws policies and practices are fit for the 21st century. The public reporting on that is that in December, 2017 recommendations were put to the Attorney General and they were put to the current Attorney General in March 2018. But that is the last public information about that commitment. So this commitment about best practice dealing with FOI would seem to have a link with that earlier commitment. It seems a much shorter and narrower and less transformative than the commitment that was made in Plan number one but I guess what I'll put in some detailed comments about this, but best practice is a great idea but what standards will we use for best practice is the Commonwealth government itself the best source of best practice. There are other jurisdiction in Australia and internationally that I guess would be very useful benchmarks in developing best practice. Do we know what's going on at present in any event?

17


The Information Commissioner has the last time I looked conducted one own motion investigation in about the last five or six years the annual reports just been released. I don't see in that any great observations about some of the frustrations that many of us who use FOI suffer. So I just really making a few comments that it sounds a great idea, best practice in dealing with FOI requests, but it certainly has some links and some uncertainties about current practices good standards. And even though we might've parked for some time for the by the sound of it, any idea of updating our laws, practices and policies still seem to be highly relevant and were issues that presumably were addressed to some extent as a result of the work that went into the commitment in Plan number one. Ken, that's all I've got to say about It.

Ken: That's very substantive. So thanks very much for that. Mark, did you want to make any comment on that?

Mark: Look, I think as we discussed previously. I mean, this, this particular concept is focusing only on user experience within the existing legislative framework and to try and get consistent at greater consistency and a better user experience in terms of the process by which FOI applications dealt with. And I think as, as Ken pointed previously, there is probably to many of the matters that Peter has just raised sit probably more squarely with the commitment three proposal. So I don't know whether Peter fed that feedback into concept three, which I think does cover a lot more of what was being discussed.

Ken: Thanks for that.

Avril: Ken, it's Avril.

Ken: Yes, Avril.

Avril: We have a comment in Slido and I think this is related to the FOI conversation. It reads "Just a comment that there are members in the community who would like to access the data but do not have access to digital technologies and that there is still a digital divide in the community."

Ken: Yeah. Thanks. Thanks for that. That's an important one. We must never lose sight of that. Any other questions or comments before we move on. So I'm just wondering if there's any comment about the extent to which the National Action Plan as commitments as you've seen them today. And as they were also discussed a couple of days ago whether you think they are ambitious sufficiently ambitious and or transformative. Any comment on that?

Peter: Ken, I just Peter Timmins here? I'd just comment that they don't strike me as transformative and ambitious as we might usually interpret those words, or as the OGP itself interprets commitments interprets their their standard of transformative commitments by star ratings.

Australia is yet to have from two plans and no comment about this one, but the two plans so far not any of Australia's commitments were star rated. So our record so far is pretty ordinary in terms of agreeing to transformative and ambitious commitments. I think there's a large Gulf between what many would conclude are the priorities looking at developments that are swishing around us at the moment about integrity and government about transparency. There would be I think a fair bit of

18


scepticism in the broader community that these proposed commitments take us very far in the direction of significant change in terms of transparency and accountability. Maybe the public engagement side of things is a slightly more ambitious commitment than was regard to transparency and engagement in decision-making, but I'd just make that observation that they don't strike me. And I'm not sure about others, all that transformative and ambitious.

Ken: Thank for those comments, Peter and I'll certainly go into the public record of the outcomes of this webinar. Any other questions or comments before we wind up? If not, can I thank everyone who's attended today and participated in whichever way you've participated. It's really a very valuable part of the process of developing the Action Plan. And you can be assured that we'll be giving very serious consideration to comments and suggestions that have been made in the course of this webinar, and the previous webinars but I'd also encourage you to look at the online opportunity for further comment, and that will remain open for further comment until Friday next week, not tomorrow week, and we certainly look forward to taking the comment which have come both here and online and using them to inform the final details of a proposed National Action Plan. So I thank you again for all attending and please feel free to contact us and you can see the email address there online. And if you wanted to contact me personally it can certainly be passed on to me through that email address.

Can I also particularly thank the people who've been in the background today? That's Avril, Jen and Andrew. Each of whom have made it possible to run this session as smoothly as we have today and this enabled your participation while I'm sorry Peter, that yours dropped out at some stage. And I'm very glad that able to improvise your way back in.

Avril: Thank you, Ken. It's Avril here. I'll also just remind those of you who are using Slido. We really appreciate if you could just quickly fill out the post webinar survey.

Gerard: Thank you.

Ken: Thank you very much, each of you and look forward to being in contact with you again, in whatever context. Thank you.

Thanks, Ken.

19

Documents

ogpau.pmc.gov.au · Web view: Okay, I'll just give you a couple of minutes to complete that survey and then we'll move on to the next slide, please. So the agenda for today is simple