For Philip, Andrew and “Josh”: If you want to have a debate about collective decision making, caucus solidarity, why crossing the floor is a no no in the Labor Party and why I don’t think it is necessary for the mainstream media and individual voters to know every time I disagree with the Premier or the cabinet then that’s a blog for another day.

What I would say is that government decision making is a far more complex process than described by the mainstream media, our most world weary mainstream commentators and cynical online stirrers. It’s definitely not perfect and nor can it ever be when the decisions that governments make have to balance a range of competing interests and competing priorities. Put simply – you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

Government’s can however do much much better. There is a great desire for people to have input into the decisions that they care about. I also believe that there is a need for governments to be open to embracing a good idea that could come from outside mainstream policy advice. There are good examples around the world that show how Web 2.0 is empowering individuals to have a say and put up their good ideas – if governments and public sector organisations provide the tools. This is something that I will continue to work on into the future.

Penny doesn’t mention it, but there must be something to the fact that 5 of her 12 up-to-date websites are from the 4 Greens and Gordon Moyes – all upper house crossbenchers.

Penny: I think part of the limiting problem you face is that you’re not even allowed to publicly take a stand different from the Cabinet any more – even to the extent of saying “I’ll take up X cause within my party room” – if it’s remotely controversial. Peter Garrett, to his credit, tried this tack early on but the media and political culture forced him back into the box. Thus while you may well take up a constituency’s cause, you can’t really tell them unless you win.

The spin culture also does not allow for a serious discussion about the nuances of policy decisions by politicians. So again, you’re so constrained about what you can say – unlike crossbenchers and independents. That’s one of the reaons why they sound more real, honest and in touch to the punters. I don’t know what you can do about that!

There are many potential reasons for this. Perhaps they’re too busy with the business of Parliament, committees or their portfolios (should they have one). Perhaps they couldn’t be bothered.

Little wonder that the punters regard pollies of all stripes as out-of-touch, at best.

This opinion would no doubt be improved if said pollies would engage a bit more with the people they represent. And I don’t mean websites full of glossy Party propaganda or appearances on the morning show.

I mean discussing policy and taking people’s views on it; Explaining why, for example, this policy position is preferable to that one (whether it be a policy concerning coal-fired power stations, prison reform or egg marketing).

The web is ideal for this.

It’ll be a whole lot of work. And sure, there is the risk of insults, abuse and the like, no doubt.

But in my view people will be a whole lot more inclined to support a pollie if they realise that he or she is not just some seat-warming hack, but someone who will listen and respond to their concerns (however ill informed) on the issues of the day. And if those concerns are indeed ill-informed, perhaps the pollie could take the time to explain to the poor sod why. That way both he or she and the punter get something from the exchange.

Maybe I’m just dreamin’.

Contrary to popular belief, our politicians do work hard, and if they can respond to issues on the web quickly – or get a sense of community feeling via blogs – more time can be spent thinking deep policy thoughts and governing the country.

Blogs can also be good for getting a sense of the “base” (horrible Americanism) – especially how much your base is willing to put up with!

Thanks for dropping by, Penny. The NSW Government has its share of problems, but Penny Sharpe is always out and about and working hard. Unfortunately there are lots of NSW Labor Parliamentarians like Penny Sharpe quietly doing their jobs – but they never get much media attention.

Across government there are so many issues running at any one time – there are also many opportunities for individuals and communities to have input – the real challenge is to make that meaningful – to me that means – giving as much information as possible, genuinely taking that on board (preferably with the means to have open discussion) and when the decision is finally made, reporting back to those who have given input as to how the final outcome has been decided.

This is where I believe that Web 2.0 provides the cheap, accessible tools that can be an additional vehicle for participation and consultation. The immediate challenge is to encourage (and perhaps mandate) the use of these tools as part of any community consultation.

I also don’t agree that US pollies are participating more meaningfully online. Some are – many are not. As part of my audit last year my intern found that all US Senators have sites but most had not added anything post election except media releases and pleas for money. Post Obama – everyone is finally taking notice.

Even if, through your interactions with constituents online, you were to decide that your views on an issue diverged from the party line, you’re fairly limited in the ways you can express that publicly, let alone act on it publicly because party discipline is so rigid here.

In the US, online activists have so many options – direct money to candidates who vote in particular ways, set up ballot initiatives in some states, support primary challengers; none of this is open to Australian activists;, individual politicians can’t take advantage of it either.

The collective effect is to take a lot of the sting out of online engagement, because everything gets decided in the cabinet room (and if you’ll excuse the cynicism here) after consulting a) big business, and b) focus groups drawn from marginal seats. So what’s the point?

It’s not surprising to hear that forum conversation hasn’t gotten up and running, as this does take a critical mass of not only readers, but contributors and commentators that people enjoy reading. Have you considered letting your staffers play in forums? Obviously personal opinions would have to be carefully guarded, but they could act as though provokers and intelligent questioners. Also, perhaps special events like “live online with your member” (I’ll let that one sit for a second… I would suggest not using that title, ever); a regular event that people know beforehand that you will be there to take questions, criticisms, and perhaps even praise. It could be an effective method of “sensing the zeitgeist”, as it were. Perhaps having these happen on a set date after each newsletter (maybe check for when it is most common to have people coming to your page now).

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/futuretense/stories/2009/2554372.htm

You know, I think the biggest change and the one that I’m following closely these days, is how Obama’s vision and the choices that he’s made in terms of personnel, how this is filtering out across the rest of the Federal bureaucracy. There are thousands of government websites in the United States, and until recently, the main priority of government web managers was to control information, and cyber security, you know, protect these government websites from attacks. And the overall theme of the Bush Administration was ‘Thank you, we got your input on election day; we’re not interested in any more input, we’re the deciders.’ And that went as well for how government used the web.

Now you’ve got all these government web managers who are really feeling like they have a licence to experiment, that they can embrace web 2.0 and that they can do lots of things to make government sites far more useful for the public, and also engage the public in new ways. I’ll give you just one example that just came out literally launched today on the Environmental Protection Agency’s website there’s a section called My Environment. And all you do is you type in your address or your zip code or whatever, and up comes a page that is just frankly phenomenal in how it brings together all the data that that the EPA has, puts it on a map and you can see with a bird’s eye view, you can zero in and see sites near you where there have been reports of toxic releases. You can see what the air quality index is for the area near you; you can see what the cancer risk, the mortality records are; what’s the water reports like for your State, and for your locality, the UV index; it’s all there in one place. I’ve never seen a government website this useful.

You know the old joke about government websites were the best-designed ones were the ones where they had to collect your taxes; and the worst ones were the ones that in any way were meant to serve you with information or get your input.

This is slowly changing, but unfortunately still too common with public.

But to get back onto topic, your particular site Penny, I have very few ideas unfortunately, but do appreciate the pollies and public services that do strive to inform/serve. I remember one particular US politician’s site that got a Golden Mouse Special mention some years ago, the content was grouped and organised by target audience – ie one grouping was ‘are you a student or teacher’ and within was reference material on the electorate, it’s history, including political and current issues today. I have no idea how well it worked though. Although the Golden Mouse award said at least it made a explicit effort to identify target audience, their needs and then content to address that.

Thanks again Penny for caring enough to take the time to keep us informed or at least having a go at it!!

http://www.youtube.com/user/macalindenfilm

Thanks Trev for joining in. For those who want to see a different approach have a look at Trevor’s website http://www.trevorkhan.com.au and then his facebook page.

Dave – keep handing out the material – I used it when I was designing my website. I am surprised the number of times I have discussions with people about the value of websites and they think they are too time intensive, too hard to maintain and not worth it for the number of visitors. I don’t believe that Web 2.0 is the be all and end all but it is an essential part of my work and my commitment to communicate with as many people as possible in relation to the decisions the NSW government is taking every day. The numbers speak for themselves in terms of who I am able to reach.

News at 6:30.