Impacts of the Open Data Charter if implemented as the set of principles for open data in New Zealand

Generally when New Zealand signs up to any international treaty or convention or charter, it tries to be already compliant or able to become so within a feasible time-frame. New Zealand law and practice can be different where there is substantive difference, sometimes due to historical peculiarities.

In other words, NZ could sign up to the Open Data Charter as the policy framework and review, and if necessary change, the NZDIMP as an operational guide for implementation. The two should be complementary. Other parts of New Zealand's policies and practices should be considered for where they fit - including those on Privacy and Surveillance and Access to Government Information.

Government agencies usually require more specific information than a broad charter for guidance on actions. A modified and expanded NZDIMP would fit with an All of Government Approach, and then each agency would have its own simple and clear guides or examples of use for internal reference. Not for more bureaucracy but to save time, just as with standards for dealing with Official Information Act (OIA) requests.

Principles (ODC) policies (NZDIMP), practical matters (circulars to agencies), and examples (in agency guides).

Thanks for the response @kayscarlet - just to see if I've got your points correct:
- you are saying that the government often likes to be already aligned to something before adopting rather than adopting and pulling itself into line in an iterative way (ideally with public input and collaboration).
- You are in support of a more operational layer that sits underneath a hypothetical ODC adoption, this may be a revamped NZDIMP or some derivative of this that applies to All of Government (AoG).

I am thinking it might be good to explore more about this NZ layer might look like, is it some boxes to tick? or is it something that when implemented helps to drive culture change around open data over time?

Yes @camfindlay1 in my experience with ILO Conventions the Government goes through a process before signing up to an international agreement of checking what we already do, what we can do without much extra work, and where more work is needed, and what the implications are for cost and in regard to other agreements and practices. Like Due Diligence. MFAT are usually involved and outline the process for here
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-making-process/

While the OD Charter is less rigorous than a treaty or convention, Cabinet is used to the process going this way and adoption of the ODC would be smoother if all boxes can be ticked.

If implemented correctly - via a comprehensive data base, requiring registration / login each access (a pre requisite for most government websites) would be a welcomed research toil for many. Information pertaining to/ affecting matters of national security and sensative information of individuals protected by privacy laws and subject to information act must be unavailable. Legal reference guides provided for such searches.
It is important that public access to info is not orherwise restricted particularly in the case of government / policy making in order to hold credibilty. As a government information portal, it has to be transparent, unbias and without agenda.

Thanks for your comment @awhinaforbes - a couple of questions and a statement for you to clarify :smiley:

1. Are you saying that you think requiring registration to access data if made easy to use is an ok thing?

2. When you use the term "information" in your comment do you mean raw information (data) or something more refined (that is, someone has take something raw and produced something from this)?

3. When we talk about "open data" we are referring to non-sensitive data so this would exclude personal identifiable information and things in the matter of national security. Have a look over Principle 1 in the Open Data Charter to see more about what is said about this point.

Dear Cam forgive me, for jumping the gun...

Look, I wholeheartedly support the sharing of knowledge in its purest form, and site that provided tools to group and flip raw data into a visual resource, so information is available at a glance... is brilliant!

Open Data Policy is inevitable. It's introduction merely numbers the days of non transparent governance.

It's truly gladening to the soul to know that our generation has laid down what I believe to the first stone upon which future generations can rebuild new transparent governance.

"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the world."

If in the implementation process there arises any issues... It would be wise to ensure a witness of sorts, at all times.

Jungle is full of wild animals... ;)

Posting on behalf of @keithabooth commenting as Interim Public Lead for Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand (with permission of course):

[W]e support New Zealand all of government information and data policy continuing to explictly endorse open licensing. This is in line with the Open Data Charter and picks up on the NZDIMP Reusable Principle stating that "copyright works are licensed for re-use, and open access to and re-use of non-copyright materials is enabled, in accordance with the New Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing framework." This is also in line with the detailed Policy Principles in the New Zealand Government Open Acess and Licensing framework and government's adoption of Creative Commons licences when agencies release contents for re-use.

We also support retention of the concepts of ownership, stewardship and custodianship of all government-held information. Examples would be unpublished manuscripts, documents, records, images, collections, personal and restricted information and data as well as open data. As these concepts and the details set out in the Reusable NZDIMP principle have been incorporated in many agencies' information strategies, we submit that an updated policy must continue to embrace all government held information and data.

We also support retention of language in the New Zealand policy that retains a direct link to the Privacy and Official Information Acts. The 'readily available' NZDIMP Principle uses the words in the purpose statement of the Official Information Act and the 'closed' NZDIMP principle uses the words from the purpose statement of the Privacy Act. We would like these high level statements to continue and we support them being supplemented by practical guidance but not being replaced. It is an opportunity to be more explicit about their source to avoid future questions about their language.

We also support a new principle stating that government-held information and data are free of charge.

Adding my support to that last line: "We also support a new principle stating that government-held information and data are free of charge."

And adding my agreement to @jaydaley's (now-closed) proposal. I absolutely support the adoption of the ODC, and most likely as a replacement for (rather than another layer on top of) the NZDIMP.

Underlying the adoption of the Open Data Charter (which I support) there should also be more information for public and government workers, and more training, on the spectrum of data and how it should be treated.

Context:
In their lifetime any person in New Zealand trusts the government with a range of personal data in order to participate in society. Even before birth a baby is entered into the health system, their parent(s) details recorded, a birth registered, information transferred to IRD for entitlements, further data recorded in education institutes. This data capture is understood and broadly accepted. At particular points people can opt out of their data being transferred and they have access to their records for checking and correcting if needed. Personal identifiers may be stripped and data aggregated to create data sets for open data, or maintained as cleaned but closed data sets for public good research.

Recommendations in Paper
In my view, recommendations to Government on the adoption of the Open Data Charter should make the link with other moves within government for greater emphasis of open data sets for public and private use, and for greater sharing with the IDI (Integrated Data Infrastructure) coordinated by Statistics NZ, and access to closed data for public good research or specific needs e.g. ACC Sensitive Claims data validating different treatment of some data e.g. address of a person or family fleeing an abusive ex-partner. Guidance and training for public servants should include data literacy, privacy protections, transparency and accountability. In general people should have the right of access to information held about them, and to be able to challenge inaccuracies.

In short - everyone is using more data, people need more information and training on what will be collected, who by, what will be open, what will be covered by IDI, in order to build trust in the system and how privacy will be maintained. Staff need to be respectful.

Also data collection should cover a range of attributes to enable meaningful research and decision-making. Data should be sought for gains as well as costs. There needs to be quality survey methodology and decisions on what data is to be collected and why.

Reference to other moves: Social Investment Analytics
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/social-investment-analytics-layer-launch