A NZ-Uk op-ed

January 13th, 2014 at 7:03 am by David Farrar

An op-ed in The Guardian by NZ Minister and UK Minister on digital services:

At the Open Government Partnership (OGP) summit in London in November 2013, New Zealand became the 61st member of a rapidly expanding global movement.

The OGP is all about making governments more transparent, accountable and responsive to citizens. International co-operation and the exchange of ideas are essential to embedding openness and transparency across the world. In different ways Britain and New Zealand are already world leaders in transparency. They have a great deal to learn from one another. And we are already partners in the digital revolution that is helping to make open government an everyday reality for citizens. …

Both our countries have taken significant steps towards a new digital world. After the election in May 2010, the UK established the Government Digital Service (GDS) to drive a new “digital-by-default” agenda through Whitehall. In 2013, the New Zealand government launched a new ICT strategy and action plan focused on using technology to deliver better services. Whether in Britain or New Zealand, the cornerstone of digital transformation is a user-friendly domain for government information.

Until our governments embarked on a new digital push, neither country had a digital portal which met the acid test of really meeting users’ needs. Directgov in the UK was an entry point into a confusing maze of additional sites. It was hard to navigate, duplicated information and had confusing design, presentation and language. User research in New Zealand showed that the newzealand.govt.nz portal could also do a much better job of meeting the needs of users.

I didn’t even know we had such a portal!

New Zealand’s project to replace their portal is called Govt.nz. The site is now in beta stage, for public testing with real users at beta.govt.nz. As was the case with the groundbreaking GOV.UK, Govt.nz is being built through an iterated, user-tested design.

GOV.UK was built for sharing. Most of its code is open source so other countries can use it, rather than having to develop their own. The New Zealand team adapted GOV.UK’s basic design elements, saving time, money and resources.

At the same time, ideas and information are flowing back to the UK. Research in New Zealand corroborated similar studies in the UK which highlighted the need to simplify website design. The Govt.nz team routinely shares the results of its research with its counterparts in the UK, so they can learn from it as well. We know that there’s greater scope for co-operation as independent research and user testing often throws up the same challenges. We look forward to working together ever more closely.

After testing and feedback from the beta site, New Zealand expects the new Govt.nz site to go live in 2014, and by 2017 wants all new government services to be digital-by-default.

Sounds excellent, and good to see the two countries learning from each other rather than operating in silos.

4 Responses to “A NZ-Uk op-ed”

  1. tvb (5,515 comments) says:

    We have more to learn from the UK but this does not stop NZ officials thinking they can reinvent the wheel in one of their many vanity projects. Though with the squeeze on staffing presumably there are fewer officials in Wellington with not much to do except dream up something.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. PaulL (6,059 comments) says:

    As someone who knows a bit about govt IT projects, my guess is that this is lip service. It’s very unlikely that they’re really sharing much code or content, and it’s very unlikely the UK govt pays any attention to the research done in NZ, they probably politely scan through it and then decide that NZers are stupider, more colour blind, or otherwise different than in the UK. Everyone thinks they’re special.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wikiriwhis business (5,174 comments) says:

    If the NZ govt is so open why is the TPP going to be signed with no viewing as a top secret document exactly as th ePatriot Act was ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Harriet (7,536 comments) says:

    All good comments.

    Building a vast usable website, and placing infomation on it, are two entirely different matters. Having up to date infomation is another matter. How broad the website is, is another matter again.

    It’s all just apperances and another mechanism to keep the status quo [read Nat/Lab Public Service Monolith] in power.

    In other words: All the ‘compliance matters’ for the public will be at the center of the system – and the front of the website.


    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote