BRR: We're joined by Andrew Schatz. He's a Senior Lawyer and National Leader of the Australian Government Solicitor Media and Communications Network. Andrew, welcome back to BoardRoom Radio.
AS: Thanks.
BRR: Andrew, last week the Gov 2.0 conference was on in the ACT with discussion focusing on progress and challenges and the future, ah, for government utilization of web 2.0 technologies. Can you run us through a few of the key developments?
AS: Yes, well, my overall impression of the conference was that people in the Gov 2.0 community are becoming a little bit restless and impatient - and I mean that in a good way. It's sort of a righteous impatience or restlessness if you can call it that, and I really got the sense that people want to move beyond all the hype and the talk about Web 2.0 and the Gov 2.0 ethos and ideals to discuss concrete examples about how Gov 2.0 methodologies are being applied in practice, as well as what to do about any real or perceived barriers to engagement. And one of the interesting initiatives that was discussed at the conference was the Public Sphere project supported by Senator Lundy. Senator Kate Lundy was recently recognised as the winner of the International Top 10 People Changing the World of Internet and Politics award at the 11th World eDemocracy Forum. And some other interesting examples from the conference included the social media monitoring tool that's being developed by the Department of Human Services in conjunction with the CSIRO, the OpenAustralia initiative and the Govdex online community which has been set up by AGIMO and, and which will facilitate collaboration between public servants at all levels, so that's a really interesting initiative.
BRR: So Andrew are we broadly seeing, um, most government agencies moving to take Gov 2.0 up or are there still, I guess, some inhibitors preventing them?
AS: Increasingly agencies are moving to do it and, really, there was a declaration of open government earlier in the year and there, there are also some Australian Public Service Commission guidelines that have been released and, and both of those documents really underscore the fact that this is now official policy and that agencies are expected to be looking at what they can do to engage and to collaborate, and to make use of these new technologies, and to become more open and transparent. So certainly, um, there's a lot of momentum in this area right now and we are seeing agencies across the board, at all levels of government, starting to take up, ah, these sorts of new initiatives. But obviously, with anything new, there's, you know, there's still pockets where people may be sort of sitting back and waiting to see what other people are doing.
BRR: Certainly it's a good thing to see this move towards transparent government. I guess, what are some of the practical considerations and challenges that we are seeing coming out of the woodwork?
AS: Well, I talked about some of the legal risks that should be considered before implementing a Web 2.0 initiative in my last podcast, and everything I said then still applies. But, in addition to the true legal risks and challenges that I talked about before, there are also a number of what I'd call perceived risks which are, in reality, not real risks at all. And the challenge is how to identify and differentiate between real legal risks that need to be mitigated and perceived risks that need to be identified and responded to in a different way.
BRR: Mmm.
AS: Perceived risks can still be a real barrier, and it's important to understand that, but the way to surmount them's to explain to people and educate them on why those risks aren't real. And also, even real risks can be managed so, again, it's not enough to just identify the risks, but you also should be considering whether and, if so, how, those risks can be managed. And one of the things I explained at the conference was the need for technical people to involve their lawyers and decision-makers in their Gov 2.0 initiatives, well before they need formal advice or approval. Lawyers and executive staff, um, if they don't understand the technologies, or the potential benefits of a project, are much more likely to be concerned about apparent legal risks.
BRR: Mmm.
AS: But on the other hand, if lawyers and decision-makers have been educated and involved from the start, and they understand what's going on, they're far more likely to be in a position to differentiate between real and perceived risks when the time, ah, the crucial time for their decision comes.
BRR: And I guess, um, Andrew, just as a final question, what are some of the strategies that we are seeing being put into place to minimise potential risks in this space?
AS: OK, well, again, in terms of the risk mitigation strategies, we are starting to see a shift beyond simply getting advice on the possible risks…
BRR: Mmm.
AS: …into the preparation of detailed policies, guidelines, procedure manuals, information registers and other risk mitigation tools. And carefully drafted terms and conditions, click-wrap agreements, privacy statements, moderation guidelines and that sort of thing will all help agencies to manage legal risks associated with interactive websites where people are posting user-generated content. And some of the risks that are real that can arise in that context include risks of liability for defamation. There are risks in relation to privacy issues. There are always intellectual property risks when you're dealing with information and, and material in which copyright may subsist. Ah, but, it's interesting that in some of these cases, you can really think that there is some sort of real privacy risk or, um, or some other significant risk. And, in fact, when you get into it, and you have a bit more of a look at it, it's either not a real risk at all, in the context of the particular matter, or it's a risk that's fairly easily managed. Sometimes the risks can arise from the type of the ICT arrangements for the project. So for example, in cloud-computing or ITC off-shoring scenarios, you may end up with sensitive information being stored on computer hardware based in foreign countries. And that may require agencies to then consider additional legal and policy issues, including things like the guidelines set out in the Australian Information Security Manual. That, in a scenario where the data's being released into the public domain in any event, ah, some of the sensitivities associated with the data being stored in other countries just aren't there, so that's an example. And, and finally, I'd just make the point that AGS lawyers are also being asked to increasingly perform new and interesting types of legal work that don't fall into any of the traditional categories. So it's a really exciting time for us lawyers. And one of the keys to remaining useful and relevant in the space is communication - and the irony is that, in all of this, the same social networking and information sharing technologies that are creating the risks and challenges are giving us the ideas and the tools to address them.
BRR: Mmm. Certainly some interesting insights there. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Andrew, once again, thank you for joining us.
AS: Thank you.
BRR: That was Andrew Schatz, Senior Lawyer and the National Leader of Australian Government Solicitor Media and Communications Network.