On Wednesday, Sam Farrow from Inland Revenue let me know that a project that he and his team had been toiling away at for months had gone live: the IRD Student Loans Consultation Forum.

As it says on the home page,

The government is considering changes to the way Inland Revenue administers the collection of student loans. The aim is to make it simpler and easier for borrowers to manage their accounts.

The main idea is to have everything web-based. This means you will be able to check your loan balance when it suits you, saving time and hassle, a bit like accessing your bank account online.

[...]We would like you to take part in this forum and let us know how the changes will affect you. We’ll keep your comments in mind when we make formal recommendations to government ministers on the detail of the changes.

This strikes me as exactly the sort of approach to public engagement that agencies should be considering. Yes, there are some (very limited) risks associated with this sort of open and transparent consultation but the terms of use make it clear that these risks have been considered and are being actively managed. The point is that IRD are actively engaging the people who will be directly affected by any policy changes and inviting their input into the process.

As Peter Shergold said at DevCon last week:

…users of government services have no sense of ownership of the services they receive.
(my notes)

Shergold went on to say that government’s can no longer operate on the assumption that the people it serves are ‘customers,’ as customers have a choice. We are here to serve citizens, and they best way to serve them is to ask them what it is they want — or, if they do not have a choice about the what, how they would like to be served.

Of course, this requires the sort of genuine, and potentially difficult engagement that is real consultation.

If you have any doubts, have a look at the quality of the contributions to date. The forum has only been up for three days, so there is not a huge amount of discussion, but what there is is thoughtful, direct and, occasionally, very entertaining. Exactly what you would expect from the people that IRD is seeking to consult on this issue.

Email and text would be great. Your phone system is currently a joke, so alternative channels would be nice.

Do stuff online? Sure. Just make sure I can do “everything” online, in one place, with one username and password. Dont bounce me around from product to product and if you guys already have the info, then why oh why do I have to type it in again?

Turn off the paper? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. If I want a statement Ill come get one. If I get something wrong at the end of the year, I expect you guys will tell me anyway.

Save some trees. Be good to your mother. Tips to live by.
OzboiNZ

In my view, IRD should be congratulated for giving the people they serve some of that sense of ownership. Let’s hope that their example serves to encourage other agencies to take the next step.

Police wiki

First, as part of the review of the 1958 Police Act (and in what can only be described as an audacious communciations strategy), New Zealand Police have launched the Police Act Review Wiki to allow New Zealanders to suggest wording for the new Act.

Superintendent Hamish Mccardle, who is heading up the review, said of the foray into social media:

Launching a wiki version of a statute is a novel move, but one we hope will yield a range of views from people interested in having a direct say on the shape of a new Policing Act.

The wiki is open to anyone – no registration required, and has already had a couple of edits. Like Wikipedia, however, if you are not registered your IP address is attached to every edit.

I think that this is a terrific initiative and hope that it does provide a viable channel for Kiwis to get involved in the process of reviewing the Act. I would, however, have expected to see some very clear guidelines for potential contributors. This is something that the Canadian’s got right and we could follow their lead on this.

Otherwise, in terms of the principles of public sector social media, it is a very impressive implementation.

Update 27/9/07

There are now clear behaviour guidelines posted on the About page.

Consultation blog

The other example of social media being used by a public sector agency for consultation in the headlines this week is the report of a discussion document issued by AGIMO, the Australian Government Consultation Blog [PDF 600KB].

As (rather unfairly) reported on TechCrunch, this document seeks feedback as to the Australian public’s appetite for a Consultation Blog.

Interestingly, the paper specifies moderation as an issue for discussion:

Moderation in some form is likely to be necessary as some people may choose to post inappropriate content to the discussion forum. This can have the effect of discouraging others from participating in the forum and also expose the operators of the forum to legal liability.

Two options for moderation are presented (before and after publication) and people are invited to voice their preference. This approach seems reasonable enough to me – down to the draft moderation policy attached as an appendix.

Reading the paper, what seems to have invited criticism is the fact that they are not really talking about a blog per se. This reinforces the rather clunky feel of this process and, incidentally, undermines the purported irony of a consultation process for a blog about consultations. They seem to be talking about something more akin to the (shortlived) UK Cabinet Office’s Have Your Say site.

In any event, as public sector organizations begin to deploy social media to better engage with their publics it is inevitable that there will be the occasional oversight or miscued execution. What is obvious, though, is the sense of building momentum around public sector acceptance of social media.