OpenLabourNZ
September 22nd, 2010 at 8:40 am by David FarrarClare Curran blogs:
Do you want to contribute to Labour’s policy on open and transparent government?
Following the public event on OpenLabourNZ at the end of August a draft policy on open and transparent government is now available for comment.
If you would like to have a look at the draft policy it is now up on the wiki here.
You have until the beginning of October to comment on it. Your input and thoughts are welcome and important.
Labour will then have their conference in October, where their policy will be considered at a workshop, and hopefully work their way into the manifesto.
If you have a genuine desire to improve their policy, go to the wiki and suggest enhancements.
Some of the ideas which I hope make it into policy are:
- Open Parliament to the OIA within limits
- An OIA website with automatic release level
- Publish agenda of Ministerial meetings along with papers
- Public sector data and information should be seen as a “national resource” and be released free of charge as a matter of course with exceedingly rare exceptions
- All research done by ministries and their advice to the minister should be put on the internet in an easily searchable database
- All payments (and receipts) of Government should be available for scrutiny
- Create policies and guidelines to allow public servants to use social media
- That Parliamentary proceedings such as Select Committees be broadcast over the internet and television
- To help engage citizens, let’s run a contest. Let’s get MAF (or Landcare or both) to release four datasets and we’ll run a contest for the best mashup using the data. “Best” means “has the most value for NZ citizens.” The winner must be a Kiwi, and wins one hour of face-time with the minister of MAF.
To some degree this is the easy part. The challenge will be getting the party to formally commit to doing some of these as part of their manifesto.
For me that is a win-win. If Labour wins, then at least they will have some policies I approve of. And if they adopt some of these policies, it may encourage National in that direction also.
Related posts:
- The OpenLabourNZ conference
- Open Labour
- Some decent policies from other parties
- Labour on Mobile Termination Rates
September 22nd, 2010 at 8:45 am
This is a great initiative, and a good example of positive time spent in opposition. If they follow through with it this is the sort of thing that will improve their electability and improve government regardless. So yes, win-win.
Each party should do similar. It will be better when it becomes OpenGovernmentNZ.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 8:56 am
The real work will be done in secret and the Labour Party is notorious at that. Open debate does not occur in that Party and that will not change anytime soon.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:02 am
I’m sure these policies will close the gap with Australia.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:14 am
The aim is to close the gap with the voters Gwilly. That’s far more important than some fluid Tasman gap.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 am
“If you have a genuine desire to improve their policy”…. mmmm nope, I’m very happy with their policies.
It keeps them where they should be.
The last guy who pulled off a tax and spend system was Vespasian and he actually spent the money of infrastruture not padding the public service and hip hop tours.
Now if only we could slap that lesson into John Key.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:45 am
Labour is grasping at straws…this is window dressing. They are completely befrift of any fresh or inspiring ideas. Yawn!
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 am
This is the ideal time for a major party to sort their act out, listen to what voters want of a party, and to react accordingly. Then when they get into power next they will be improved and better prepared. That will benefit everyone, even those who don’t like them succeeding.
Dissing positive initiatives (opposing because you’re of an opposing party?) is a bit lame and last century.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 am
I am just loving the concerns of Labour. The machine worked with Helen at the controls. She simply took the manuals and keys with her!
All hey have left is old commands and instructions. So very funny really.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 9:58 am
I agree with Gwilly on this – it’s just window dressing. And a case of Curran trying to look relevant and busy.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 10:07 am
I think it’s good to see a first termer get so involved in what could lead to fundamental – and positive – changes.
I’m baffled that some people align themselves and just don’t want to see any good done by the “enemies”. It should be good for all of us.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 am
Good point Rightnow.
Vote:WE see if Labour openly debate and take on ALL of David’s points.
I won’t hold my breath.
September 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“Do you want to contribute to Liarbores policy on open and transparent government?”. Fair suck of the sav ? Surely they jest or is it April already . The only thing open about a Liarbore government is the space between their ears.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Several of the items on the list i.e. Public sector data, ministry research,transactions and select committee proceedings are already available now without a great deal of trouble. Interested parties can access considerable governmental policy via the net, it’s just hours of reading of detailed reports.
Vote:The list is really just one of those guides i.e. “Politics for Dummies”
September 22nd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Pete – I think it will be a long long time before I take anything from Labour at face value.
Let me highlight why I think Clare Curran is a pretender:
http://open.labour.org.nz/tiki-index.php?page=Open+infrastructure
“Principles…
2) The principles of FLOSS (free/libre/open source software) are all about using technology in a way that achieves the latter. Commitments to openness needs to apply through to the tools being used.”
“Proposed Actions…
3)Competition at as many levels as practically possible is cornerstone policy”
1) Clare wants to push a mandate of increasing the use of open source software in government.
2) Clare wants competition to be cornerstone policy.
I’ll point out the contradiction: you cannot mandate the use of open source software at the same time as you demand competition to be cornerstone policy. Government departments go to tender for their software systems. They are competitive tenders, and if an open source solution is not chosen as the result of the tender then we should conclude that it was not deemed to be the best solution.
Vote:Clare seems to have an ideological attraction to open source software (although I suspect it’s more of an anti-capitalist rejection of the large software companies) that fails to stand on it’s own two feet. If she is ever allowed to influence procurement policy for government IT projects then we can count on visits from Mr Cock-up.
September 22nd, 2010 at 5:13 pm
You have redefined the mandate from “increasing the use of open source software in government” to “mandating the use of open source software”. There is a slight difference between the two and the first definition does not exclude competition.
If an open source solution is not the best fit, then it should not be chosen. If it is the best fit, then it should be. However, equal weight should be given to open source solutions as to proprietry ones. They shouldn’t be rejected because they are open source; because of perceived support/blame problems etc.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Thrash – sorry about the slight difference. To be honest I suspect Clare would tend toward the latter if she could. But my main point is just as you state in your last paragraph – the best fit solution should be chosen, regardless of whether that is open source or proprietary.
Vote:September 22nd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Clare Curran spends much of its time editing Red Alert, the Communist Party blog.
Suppressing the truth and the dissent of ordinary Kiwis is Curran’s zealously pursued vocation.
The pure hypocrisy of this individual calling for “Open Government” is breathtaking.
Vote: