Reviews of open government laws largely conducted behind closed doors are no exemplar for public engagement

Clearly some who walk the corridors of power think all wisdom resides within.

NSW is a classic case, where a statutory review of legislation disappeared from public view in August 2014 and hasn't been heard of since. More below.

Then there's the Hawke statutory review of the Commonwealth Freedom of Information and Information Commissioner acts in 2012-13 that involved very limited public engagement beyond invited submissions and led to a report in early 2013 that has not been the subject of policy discussion in the public domain since. The one Abbott government FOI initiative, the (ongoing) attempt to legislate to abolish the Office of Australian Information Commissioner was not supported by anything in the review report, on the contrary Hawke concluding the office was doing a good job. That initiative wasn't discussed beforehand outside government and only with a few inside, with no apparent search for options and better answers to whatever problem (allegedly complexity of review processes and cost) the government was considering.
  
Queensland commenced a statutory review of the Right to Information Act and the Information Privacy Act in August 2013 with the issue of a Discussion Paper. Submissions closed in November 2013 but silence (and a change of government) since.

In Victoria where the corridors echoed as the new government arrived with 'Labor will end this secret state and open our doors to the public, because we all deserve to know the details that affect our lives' and 'Under Labor's changes, no future government will ever be able to keep a crisis secret. No more hiding, no more excuses.' This was followed by the 2015-16 Budget  commitment of $4 million this year for the creation (rebranding the FOI Commissioner and then some) and operation of the Office of the Public Access Counsellor. Victoria has had an Acting Freedom of information Commissioner since September 2015. No one including Special Minister of State Jennings has mentioned a much needed review of antiquated Victorian FOI legislation that reflects the best thinking of 1983 but the last mention of "Public Access Counsellor" in the Parliament was in August 2015 when the minister said work had commenced on the necessary legislation. Maybe interested parties have been engaged in this exercise but there's nothing about it in the public domain. 

The Victorian Parliament's Accountability and Oversight Committee Report in December 2015 also made a raft of recommendations which do not appear to have been acted upon or discussed publicly including strengthening powers of the FOI commissioner to obtain documents and boost public and agency engagement; early action on FOI requests by agencies; improving reporting by the FOI commissioner on outcomes achieved; providing people with clearer guidance when appealing FOI decisions of agencies directly to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal; and supporting the release of information that is the subject of frequent FOI requests, which are likely to be routinely granted.

But back to NSW.

Sean Nichols in the Sydney Morning Herald reminds of the great promise of reforms to the  NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act when introduced in 2009 and the statutory review of the act and the companion Government Information (Information Commissioner) Act required to commence within five years. The reviews are to ascertain whether the objects remain valid and whether the terms of the acts remain appropriate for securing these objectives.

The reviews kicked off with a notice inviting submissions by August 2014 so there was some stirring at the time in the Department of Justice. 

It is still listed on the Justice website as a Current review, confirmed by the Information Commissioner who in her 2014-15 Annual Report on the operation of the GIPA act refers to

"the current statutory review (providing an opportunity) to identify the aspects of the statute that are effective and aspects that could be improved. Significantly, IPC submissions have highlighted the interaction of the GIPA Act with other NSW law including the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994…."

The report continues

"Public participation is integral to Open Government and the GIPA Act provides mechanisms to support citizen participation and engagement with agencies. Under the GIPA Act, the Information Commissioner has powers to support NSW citizens’ participation in the development of policies and service delivery by government. The IPC will collaborate with NSW citizens and agencies to promote public participation and assist agencies in achieving success in their engagement with NSW citizens." 

The review of the GIPA act was the opportunity to showcase public participation in the development of policy concerning open transparent government and in improving access to information as a government service.

But alas public participation was limited to a brief opportunity to lodge a submission by 29 August 2014. 

No issues paper, no discussion paper, no survey of users of the act, no forum for discussion and debate of issues raised in submissions, and no testing and building on ideas. 

Submissions haven't been published to date even those lodged by the Information Commissioner referred to in her report. (My humble contribution here. I didn't receive an acknowledgement let alone a take up on the offer to discuss.)

Sean Nicholls says Premier Mike Baird has a "big chance to prove he really is committed to open government" by plucking the review out of the black hole and getting rid of current nonsense such as the practice still common of requiring FOI applications to be sent by mail accompanied by a cheque or Money Order. (No kidding, and there are plenty more improvements that should be in the frame.)

I'm hoping when something surfaces from Justice that the Premier and his ministers aren't of the 'all wisdom resides' school.

Eva Rinaldi from Sydney

Top government record keeper argues for transparency and professional information management

Take it away David Fricker Director General National Archives Australia, as reported in The Canberra Times:

"There seems to be an accepted position that the general public must always resort to freedom of information legislation to obtain the information it needs to hold the government to account," he told an audience at the National Press Club.

"Presumably [that is] because there is a general feeling the public service is either unwilling or perhaps unable to retrieve, collate and provide the information that should [be] in the public domain."
Mr Fricker said he was sympathetic to the view the government had not prioritised transparency given lengthy and often costly battles for public information.
He said the growing demand for information had placed pressure on many public servants with ministers eager to respond to concerns in the media at short notice.
"Day by day we are seeing more and more calls for greater transparency and accountability with expectations for increased scrutiny and faster access to government records as public information," he said.
"A government which is too slow in response or is incapable or showing leadership in the public discourse will lose its connection with people and its capacity to effectively and successfully implement policies and programs

....
To improve transparency, Mr Fricker called for a more professional approach to information management and the hiring of specialists rather than generalists.
"One of my hobby horses is that across the Australian public service we are getting a bit too generalist in a lot of areas where we do need quite sharp and professional expertise and information policy is one of those," he said.
"We recognise the need for certified professionals located in every agency to make sure that the chief executive and the secretary are getting the right advice and the right time and the right management of information holdings."
He also referenced former Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Peter Shergold​'s recent review of government failing, which found there was a need to further improve access to information.
In the report, Mr Shergold blamed major policy failing on the public service's inability to provide frank and fearless advice to ministers.
"There is a strong public interest case for citizens being able to know the basis of decisions that affect their access to services," the report said.
"There is considerable value, too, in publishing as much publicly-collected data as possible and making it available to citizens to use and apply as they want through a 'creative commons' licence."

More  in another post on Peter Shergold's report in which he argues confidentiality is essential for frank and fearless advice. 

Of direct relevance to Fricker's patch, Shergold said

A requirement to create records is implied, though not explicitly stated, in the Archives Act 1983. The ANAO notes the lack of a single clear and explicit requirement for the public servants to create records of all of its key business activities and decisions, although some categories of records are now specified under the PGPA Act. Given the lack of consistency on record keeping, the National Archives of Australia should issue updated APS-wide guidance on the creation of new records, especially digital material, which should be endorsed by Secretaries. The foundation work to support such guidance is already underway.

NSW GIPA falling short, but no 'secret state'

In the 2014-15 Annual Report on the operation of the NSW Government Information (Public Access) Act tabled in Parliament last week, Information Commissioner Elizabeth Tydd commented that the strategic intent of the GIPA Act is "not being fully realised" because of shortcomings in the proactive release of information by government agencies, and in response to applications for information,that there had been an overall decline in information released. 

The Mandarin provides a good summary. 

Points of interest from my reading:

• compliance by agencies with mandatory proactive disclosure requirements is down from 80% in 2012/13 to 69% in 2014-15. (Comment: If agencies aren't fully complying with mandatory proactive disclosure requirements almost six years after the act came into force you have to wonder what difficulty they have in understanding the term 'mandatory.' The Commissioner doesn't name agencies - in the case of those at the lower end of the compliance scale at least, she should);  

• fewer agencies report they undertake the required annual review designed to increase proactive release programs, down from 85% in 2012/13 to now around 71%. (Ditto-names, particularly of those who fail on this and other legislative requirements.)

• the number of formal GIPA applications remained steady at 13,000. Over 78% (10,000) were from either a member of the public or their legal representative, 2000 from private business, 300 each from non-profits and media, and 150 from members of parliament.55% of decisions related to personal information applications.

• the overall release rate (full or part access) in response to applications was 69%, a decline from a high of 80% in 2012/13. (Comment: I'm not sure what that means for the question posed 'Did applicants get what they asked for?" Raw stats are one thing but as to whether the democratic purposes of right to know legislation are being achieved, who knows? I'm yet to hear of an agency asking applicants for feedback about their GIPA experience and I don't think the IPC has done any digging in this space. Frequent users such as journalists, lawyers, non profits and members of parliament would have something interesting to say if they were asked.)
• Legal professional privilege is high on the list of public interest considerations used to refuse access, particularly with local councils and universities. Ministers who received only 60 applications between them and in half, did not hold the information requested (presumably the relevant agency did), relied heavily in refusing access on the Cabinet public interest consideration, for which there is no public interest test.
  

• applications to the IPC for review of decisions rose from 156 in 2010/11 to 359.  (Comment: This tells us something important but what? Increased dissatisfaction with agency decisions? Frustration with agency internal review processes? Growing awareness of the IPC review option? Other? Any spike suggesting systemic problems in one or more agencies?

• in 2014/15 in around 50% of cases involving state government agencies and 60% in the case of local councils, the IPC recommended reconsideration of the decision. (That is the IPC thought the decision wasn't properly made or was on the wrong track and a new decision should be made reflecting its findings.)

• Around two thirds of cases where the IPC recommended the agency undertake a further review of the decision in question saw the agency vary the decision. (Comment: It's unclear in how many cases the agency did not act on the IPC recommendation. Any agency that has a pattern of not responding positively to the IPC recommendation should be named IMHO);

• there were 154 applications to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for review. In 61% of decided cases, NCAT upheld the agency decision. 

• "(U)nder the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 the Commissioner is an investigating authority where public officials make public interest disclosures to the Information Commissioner about government information contraventions in terms of section 12D of the PID Act. Public interest disclosures often involve allegations in relation to the five offences contained in the GIPA Act. For example destroying, concealing or altering records to prevent them from being released; knowingly making decisions that are contrary to the legislation; or directing another person to make a decision that is contrary to the legislation. In 2014/15, the Information Commissioner received two and closed five complaints involving public interest disclosures. With the benefit of this most recent experience, the IPC has commenced a process of refreshing procedures and developing internal and external guidance to provide greater transparency and assistance to IPC officers, parties to public interest disclosures, and the public more generally. In leading this work, the Information Commissioner will work closely with the NSW Ombudsman, State Records Authority and NCAT to ensure close and supportive alignment of jurisdiction." (Comment; Hmm, were the PIDs about the same agency, or different agencies, what was the nature of the disclosures, what followed and what were the findings, was improper or criminal conduct involved? Alas no details or broader observations.)

"Secret State' 

NSW Opposition frontbencher Jodi McKay, Shadow Minister for Justice and Police gave the Sun Herald the first part of the headline for its piece on the report  Baird government labelled 'secret state' as information increasingly blocked 
 
There are plenty of flaws and McKay was on the right track last week in Parliament in criticising the government over the scandalous exclusion of the multi-billion dollar Westconnex project from access to information law. 

However she overreached or has a shortish memory with the barb "Mike Baird is Premier of the secret state."

Premiers before Nick Greiner in 1988 deserved that label.

The late Peter Wilenski in Unfinished Agenda in 1982, a report for then Labor Premier Neville Wran knew a secret state when he saw one and told the Premier so. 

Wilenski recommended among other things a freedom of information act but his report  was slipped into the bottom drawer at the premier's department and stayed there, ignored for years.

We've come a long way since then, first courtesy of the Greiner/ Fahey governments in the late 80s, the latter dragged further along in the early 90s by independents with the balance of power such as John Hatton, Clover Moore and Tony Windsor, and then after years of neglect under the Carr and Iemma governments, shunted further in the right direction by Premier Rees in 2009.

Still a long way short, with Westconnex exclusion from the act a barbeque stopper but not the only evidence. 

However 'secret state' only if you don't have a sense of history.

Senate Committee on National integrity Commission, Government senators not interested in this or political donation reform

 It's not simply that when Quentin Dempster speaks, things happen.

After all The Greens have been on about the need for a Federal anti-corruption commission for years, so too a whole raft of organisations and individuals who don't buy the idea that the government and all its constituent parts and players are unique in the long history of humankind.

So while the commission or some other much needed response that tightens things up at the federal level may still be far off in the distance, yesterday some stirring.

On the motion of Senators Wang and Madison the Senate took two minutes to vote to establish "the Select Committee relating to the establishment of a National Integrity Commission" to report to the Senate by September 2016 with these terms of reference. 

Labor, The Greens and cross bench senators voted for. 

None spoke, if you discount a minor intervention by Greens Senator Siewert. 

But the vote is a welcome confirmation of Labor's current interest, having passed up on the opportunity to act when they were in office and darting and weaving on the subject since.

Government party senators voted against. One, Senator Scott Ryan, Minister for Vocational Skills and Training had one minute for the stock standard government line:

The government has a zero tolerance approach to corruption and is committed to stamping out corruption in all its forms. We have a multifaceted approach to combating corruption. We are always looking at how we can strengthen that, rather than throwing the whole system out based on the presumption that a national anticorruption commission will be more effective. The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is responsible for preventing, detecting and investigating serious issues of corruption in federal law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Ombudsman performs an important function in investigating and auditing various agencies and functions. The Australian Federal Police also play a fundamental role in investigating serious corruption issues. The government will continue to take a strong approach to tackling corruption in all forms.

DIVISION:AYES 37 (10 majority) NOES 27 PAIRS 6
AYES	NOES	PAIRS
Brown, CL Bullock, JW Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Conroy, SM Dastyari, S Day, RJ Di Natale, R Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Lambie, J Lazarus, GP Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Ludlam, S Ludwig, JW Madigan, JJ Marshall, GM McAllister, J McEwen, A (teller) McKim, NJ McLucas, J Moore, CM Muir, R O'Neill, DM Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Simms, RA Singh, LM Sterle, G Wang, Z Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N	Abetz, E Back, CJ Bernardi, C Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cormann, M Edwards, S Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Heffernan, W Johnston, D Lindgren, JM Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ronaldson, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR	Bilyk, CL Scullion, NG Collins, JMA Birmingham, SJ Peris, N Brandis, GH Polley, H Cash, MC Urquhart, AE Sinodinos, A Wong, P Colbeck,

 Earlier in the day more voices were heard in debate on a Greens urgency motion:

"The need for immediate action on political donations reform, to address the corrupting influence of political donations, including from property developers and fossil fuel companies."

Debate here and there strayed into broader anti-corruption issues and took an hour.

The motion passed without a vote so Senator Seiwert may get a spot higher on the agenda sometime for the substantive issue.

No surprise that Greens senators and crossbenchers Leyonhjelm, Madigan and Lambie are up for action on this front. Senator Rhiannon outlined how the system is broke but Government senators clearly think things are pretty rosy. 

Labor is committed to significant change but some of its speakers seemed glad to change the subject.

Senator Lambie told the Senate of a close encounter with the PM, looking deeply in his eyes, listening to his low deep voice saying.... 

'there's no corruption in federal politics.'

"I recently met the Prime Minister and when I raised the issue of establishing a federal commission against corruption, a federal ICAC, he dismissed the idea by trying to tell me that a federal ICAC was not warranted because there were not many opportunities in federal politics, compared with state politics, for corruption to occur. I almost believed that nice story from our PM—and I mean who wouldn't? As I looked deeply in the PM's eyes, he said with that low deep voice with that nice smile repeat after me : 'There's no corruption in federal politics—only in state politics. There's no corruption in federal politics—only in state politics. I was left with that fuzzywuzzy feeling of hope for a few days after my meeting with the PM that 'there's no corruption in federal politics— only in state politics.'

And then—what do you know?—Veterans Affairs Minister Stuart Roberts was forced to resign; we found out about the rich Chinese businessman having drinks with Liberal Party members and the $10,000 watches that were given out as gifts.

The same sort of thing happened after I wrote to former Liberal PM Abbott asking him effectively whether any people associated with the Liberal Party and mentioned in the Heydon Royal Commission secret reports were corrupt. And PM Tony Abbott wrote back to me, essentially saying that no-one in the Liberal Party was corrupt; and then seven days later we found out the Liberal Party President in Victoria had defrauded their members to the tune of about $1.5 million.

Last year's Roy Morgan Survey of Professions saw 13% rate Federal politicians highly on ethics and honesty.

If every state in Australia has one what's holding back the establishment of a Federal anti-corruption commission?

Quentin Dempster in The Saturday Paper 

The case for a federal ICAC is compelling. With highly skilled forensic accountants, metadata analysts and IT specialists; phone tap, covert surveillance and search warrant powers to gather evidence; and the power to compel attendance at preliminary in-camera interrogation, a federal commission against corruption could start to correct the myth that there is little or no corruption at the Commonwealth level......
Resistance to a federal corruption commission is expected to be intense from within the political parties and the Murdoch press because, as in NSW, its very existence would confront Australia’s corruptible and influence-peddling political and commercial cultures.
Examples of corruption will be fobbed off as “just a few bad apples”. As in NSW, such an investigative body will be likened to a “star chamber” or a Russian show trial. But the need and the benefits are manifest.....
The NSW ICAC, with a budget of $25 million, assesses an annual state public-sector budget of $70 billion. With the Commonwealth’s annual expenditure now running at $434 billion, the case for an adequately funded countermeasure for a culture vulnerable to corruption would seem to be self-evident. 

Important to you?

Join the like-minded such as Transparency International Australia, Accountability Roundtable and others as discussion gets underway about public integrity, anti-corruption measures  and related topics in the context of development of Australia's Open Government Partnership National Action Plan.

Lots of room for your thoughts, ideas, suggestions and observations.
 
Become a member of the Australian Open Government Partnership Network, or tell the Prime Minister's department directly what you think.  

What's holding us back from strengthening democracy?

The Human Rights Law Center Report Safeguarding Democracy released yesterday 

"documents how federal and state governments are adopting new laws and practices that undermine critical components of Australia’s democracy like press freedom, the rule of law, protest rights, NGO advocacy and courts and other institutions. It outlines 38 recommendations to stop the erosion and strengthen our democracy."

Is democracy important to you? Are you up for the cause of strengthening and improving democratic practices?
 
Join the like-minded as discussion gets underway about open, transparent government, public integrity, citizen engagement and related topics in the context of development of Australia's Open Government Partnership National Action Plan.

Lots of room for your thoughts, ideas, suggestions and observations. 

Join the Open Government Partnership Network, or tell the Prime Minister's department directly what you think. 

What's holding us back from doing something about money, politics and influence?

Important to you?

Join the like-minded as discussion gets underway about public integrity and related topics in the context of development of Australia's Open Government Partnership National Action Plan.

Lots of room for your thoughts, ideas, suggestions and observations. 

Join the Open Government Partnership Network, or tell the Prime Minister's department directly what you think. 

A selection below from media commentary in the last few days prompted by the Stuart Robert scandal - following years of deaf ears to calls for reform.

 Lenore Taylor (Guardian Australia) on Q&A

I think these scandals come and they go, the person resigns if there is enough political pressure but the only thing that will change the system is if we change donation laws and change the relationship between politicians and big money.

Katherine Murphy (Guardian Australia) and Mark Riley (Seven Network) on ABC Insiders (at 37 minutes), in summary:

the conduct of the minister in the Robert case where he seemed to assume he was a tourist while involved in activities to advance the interests of a business friend and political party donor in China, a business in which he held shares, was appalling. It revealed a political culture where people don't know where to draw the line, and pointed up the need for a hard look and a national conversation about corporate interests, money, politicians and power.

Stephen Mayne Crikey: Can Cormann (and Stuart Robert) fix our broken campaign finance system? (Subscription)

Paul Bongiorno in the New Daily

"..the Robert affair points up the shocking inadequacy of Australia’s political donation regime. There is not enough accountability or transparency....Greater donation limitations and transparency are needed urgently to preserve the national interest from greedy vested interests."

Mike Seccombe, The Saturday Paper "Stuart Robert and political donations."

"The evidence of any significant difference between the parties when it comes to ministerial standards is very weak. But there is a difference when it comes to the corrupting influence of political donations, and a very strong correlation between ideology and money. The conservative parties and their big money donors are the major enemies of limits, accountability and transparency...

The conservatives have also pioneered various means of circumventing disclosure, setting up associated entities to collect money, and by moving it between various party divisions to exploit differences in rules between states. That is not to say Labor is squeaky clean, either, but the record clearly shows that when it comes to dubious means of collecting funds, the Coalition tends to be the initiator and Labor the imitator. ....

[as (High Court) Justice Stephen Gageler (in McCloy) noted] that while buying preferential access to government did not necessarily result in corruption, “the line between a payment which increases access to an elected official and a payment which influences the official conduct of an elected official is not always easy to discern”. The implication of his words is obvious: the bigger the donation the bigger the risk of corruption. The elimination of preferential access to government that resulted from the making of political donations was not just “a legitimate legislative objective,” said Gageler. “More than that, the elimination of that form of influence on government is properly characterised as a compelling legislative objective.”

In other words, let’s set limits on donations, so moneyed interests can no longer buy politicians. Because this is not about Stuart Robert; it is about the whole system."

Editorial The Canberra Times "The public service not ministers, remains Australia's corruption risk."

"Ultimately, the Robert affair distracts attention from a deeper failing in government transparency. Federal parliamentarians' financial interests are generally well known; and, as a result, politicians mostly steer clear of obvious conflicts of interest. Yet, in practice, the vast majority of public spending is co-ordinated and approved by senior bureaucrats, not ministers. Unlike politicians, these officials have no need to make any public disclosures of their private interests. Yes, they are required by law to "take reasonable steps to avoid any conflict of interest (real or apparent)" – usually to their direct manager. However, the lack of regular or systematic investigation of these hidden disclosures begs the question: just how many scandals go undetected within the government?
While this secrecy remains, Australians will be unable to be entirely confident that their government – the executive and the bureaucracy – is as squeaky clean as it should be."

Challenge for new minister: If open data is changing the world, what's holding things back here?

Following the ministerial reshuffle on Saturday, Angus Taylor is Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Cities and Digital Transition. On digital government, he replaces Communications Minister Mitch Fifield appointed last September. 

Mr Taylor's Twitter account states

"Rhodes scholar. Business consulting and agriculture background @mckinsey and Port Jackson Partners. Passionate about good government"

So roll out the red carpet as discussion gets underway about access to information, public data, public integrity, use of technology, better services and public resources, in the context of developing Australia's Open Government Partnership National Action Plan.

Lots of room for your thoughts, ideas, suggestions and observations. Join the Open Government Partnership Network, or tell the Prime Minister's department directly what you think.

On access to government data, below two reports about opportunities for giant steps forward and another close to home about how the Federal government's "capacity to fully derive value from public sector data is constrained by competing priorities and the lack of an overarching strategy" and a plan what to do about it.


Worldwide 
The GovLab (@thegovlab), in collaboration with Omidyar Network (@OmidyarNetwork) has published detailed open data case studies that seek to provide understanding of the various processes and factors underlying the demand, supply, release, use and impact of open data. Conclusions:

• Open data is improving government, primarily by helping tackle corruption, increasing transparency, and enhancing public services and resource allocation.

• Open data is also empowering citizens to take control of their lives and demand change; this dimension of impact is primarily mediated by more informed decision making and new forms of social mobilization, both in turn facilitated by new ways of communicating and accessing information.

• Open data is also creating new opportunities for citizens and organizations, by fostering innovation and promoting economic growth and job creation.

• Open data is playing an increasingly important role in solving big public problems, primarily by allowing citizens and policymakers access to new forms of data-driven assessment of the problems at hand. It also enables data-driven engagement producing more targeted interventions and enhanced collaboration.

 Australia 
The Bureau of Communications Research report Open Government data and why it matters now on the impact of open government data tends to focus on economic impacts with not much attention to other positives that feature prominently in the GovLab report.

The Bureau reveals open government data has potential to generate up to $25 billion per year.or 1.5 per cent of Australia's GDP. Conclusion:
 
"Open government data invariably has a net economic benefit
While there is little consensus on the magnitude of the economic benefits of open government data sets, it is apparent that they provide substantial current and potential net benefits to the economy and society.
In Australia, the estimated economic value of open government data sets range from a lower boundary of $500 million to an upper boundary of $25 billion—per year. Globally, the potential value of open data (both public and private) could be up to $4 trillion per year. Significant benefits associated with open government data include improved government services, more efficient operations and business practices, better information exchange, and more engaged citizens, as shown by the sample projects and initiatives discussed in this report.

The maximum public benefit will accrue from free provision of raw government data, or at the most pricing data at the incremental cost of provision
Given that the government collects a significant amount of raw data in the course of its usual operations—for example the provision of broadband and public transport services —much of the fixed cost associated with data collection is already incurred. Net public benefits of open government data are likely to be maximised by pricing at zero or, at the most, the incremental cost of provision (short-run marginal cost), reflecting its public good characteristics of being non-rivalrous and non-excludable.

Value-adding in open government data is generally better left to the private sector   
The rationale for the Australian Government’s provision of open data is strongest for raw data. Raw government data is likely to exhibit the strongest public good characteristics, and hence the broadest benefits from its release. In general, net public benefits will be greater if significant value adding (beyond provision in machine-readable form) is left to the market, as the market sector will generally have more informed insights in identifying what value-add is of benefit to the users. The private sector, especially in developed industries such as ICT, generally have a more established capability and capacity in transforming raw data into products and services that could be introduced in the market. 

Certain government data sets that are likely to have more significant economic impacts
Some of the potential high-value data sets held by governments that have been identified to date are spatial data, health data, transport data, mining data, environmental data, demographic and social data, and real-time as well as past emergency (e.g. bushfire) data."

Australia
Then there's the report on Public Sector Data Management published by the Department of Prime Minister in December 2015. Conclusions:

"Data is under-utilised in the APS. 

Currently, the Commonwealth’s capacity to fully derive value from public sector data is constrained by competing priorities and the lack of an overarching strategy:

• There is no clear mandate for the Commonwealth to use and release public sector data.

• There are barriers (perceived and real) to sharing data within the Commonwealth and with jurisdictions to improve policy and service delivery.

• The APS lacks sufficient incentives, skills and organisational arrangements to capitalise on its data.

• The Commonwealth does not have a strong culture of publishing data to foster economic opportunities."

The recommendations in the report set out an 18 month timetable of actions to change the way government does business by setting up the right frameworks, systems and capability to use, share and value data.

........................

Hmm, won't go into how opening government data and turning the culture around
gels with closing down the government watchdog charged with promoting that culture change and the oversight of our legislated right to access government information-  legislation oversighted by the Office of Australian Information Commissioner that includes an agency obligation to publish certain information....

And how we address two policy directions pulling against each other in the OGP National Action Plan

A challenge I expect even for a Rhodes scholar with McKinsey and Port Jackson experience. 

So far as I'm aware the words "Open Government Partnership" are yet to pass this Attorney General's lips.