GOVIS 5. An e-Government Odyssey

May 2 2001, 9.30-10.30

What will E-Government Mean to Citizens?

This panel session (with four invited non-government speakers) aims to communicate concepts and topical issues around e-government and citizens. This paper concludes with background information about each speaker.

Who Or What Is A Citizen?

Kate McMillan, Victoria University of Wellington

You are going to spend the rest of the day talking about e–government and the citizen.

I want to begin this panel discussion by reflecting a little on who or what a “citizen” is.

The political ideal of citizenship we have inherited, as most of you are probably aware, draws heavily from the democratic city-states of ancient Greece. As described by Aristotle, the citizens of the ancient Greek city-states were those who participated in the act of governing their political community, and who were, in turn, subject to the laws they had created. Citizenship was thus an active political status. You were not a citizen unless you participated in political decision-making.

In Aristotle’s time citizenship was a privileged political identity, only available to a small minority of residents.  It was a status restricted to men, and then only to those who were property-owners.  So for every citizen there were many others – slaves, labourers, wives, children, those not born in the city – who had neither the status nor the rights that citizens had.  They were, in other words, excluded from membership of the political community – unable to participate in the act of self-government.

The model of citizenship described by Aristotle was thus based on the exclusion of the many, and the privilege of the few. Yet despite this, the ideal of citizenship has endured, and remains, I would argue the most desirable of political statuses, and the one to which democrats continue to aspire.

Why? Because what distinguishes citizenship from other forms of political identity, and the citizen from other classes of individuals, is that citizens are free to pursue their own life choices as individuals, and can take an active part in making decisions about how they might live with other members of their particular political community.

The history of the past three hundred years, especially in the liberal European nations, has been characterized by the attempt to both increase the number of individuals who were to count as citizens, and to increase the range of rights to which citizens could lay claim.

Today the modern ideal of a citizen would look something like this:

A citizen:

·                    Is a formal member of a self-governing political community.

·                    Enjoys a legal and political status of equality with other citizens.

·                    Has access to citizenship rights and is bound by the obligations of citizenship.

·                    Participates in the act of collective political decision-making.

So, from this ideal we can see that being a citizen is both an active and a passive status - passive in that citizens have become the possessors of a range of individual rights, and active in that, ideally, they participate in political decision-making.

In order for individuals to be free to choose what kind of life they want to lead, and to go about trying to lead it – their individual rights and freedoms need protection.

These rights include the legal or civil rights which protect the individual from the state and from their fellow citizens;

They include the political rights which protect the individual’s right to participate in political decision-making  - in New Zealand two of the most fundamental political rights, for example, are the right to stand for political office and the right to vote for political representatives.

In the twentieth century most liberal states have added a range of social rights to the list of citizenship rights, on the grounds that it is very difficult for individuals to gain access to the benefits of citizenship if they do not have adequate food, shelter, education and health and income.

But for all of these rights the citizen is dependent upon the state, which alone can legitimately enforce the citizen’s rights.  In a democratic society such as New Zealand, the state must seek a mandate from the citizens in order to govern. In this sense every citizen is reliant on every other citizen’s willingness to give their mandate to a government that is prepared and able to continue to protect the rights of citizens.

Here we can identify the link between a stable political community and citizenship. In political communities where the divisions between citizens become too great, the concept of community is placed under great strain, and citizens become less willing to conceive of themselves as sharing a common political identity. Prudent democratic communities will thus act to ensure that legal, political and social inequality does not become so great as to make a mockery of the claim that citizens are equal in legal and political status. Otherwise what you have, in effect, is return to the elitist and exclusivist model of citizenship outlined by Aristotle.

As we all know, the New Zealand Government launched its e-government strategy last week. In that strategy the Government said that it hoped that the internet would become the dominant means of delivering government information, services and processes by the year 2004. As the Government moves towards this goal, it is imperative that we keep in the front of our minds how e-government will impact on New Zealanders’ experience of citizenship.

·        Will e-government affect citizens’ sense of political community positively or negatively?

·        Will it increase or decrease levels of equality within the community?

·        Will it increase or decrease citizens’ access to their civil, political and social rights?

·        Will it encourage or discourage them from participating in collective decision-making? (that is, will it facilitate political participation?)

·        Will it encourage them to conceive of themselves as active citizens or will it encourage them to see themselves more as ‘customers’ of a government that aims to serve them efficiently?

If democratic citizenship is an ideal worth pursuing, then the goal of e-government should be to enrich the citizenship experience of New Zealanders.

Thank you.

E-Government to Citizen: Some Issues

Malcolm Menzies, New Zealand Futures Trust

I should begin with some disclaimers – I’ve only got five minutes so I’m going to talk about what I want as a citizen or as a consumer of Government Services, not what I might need.  For example I might want a benefit but what I might really need is some advice or up-skilling.  I might want one type of infrastructure but if I only knew more I would realize I needed something else.  To address needs would require a whole new debate.  I’m dealing with information, not knowledge as discussed by Ed, and not touching on Civil Rights issues, which will be dealt with by a following speaker.

As a futurist, I would ask you to always keep your fundamental assumptions under review.  No one can really tell which way things are going to turn out, and we need to be ready for anything.  Sometimes challenging such assumptions can seem a bit petulant, but I guess that’s what I am here for. 

So following on from Kate, what I want is:

-         Firstly, development of ICT in parallel to current systems, and in addition to them.  Not everyone will take to the new like ducks to water.  Some will be more like dogs – they will paddle around the internet if they need to retrieve something, while others will be cats – they will avoid the water like the plague.  Recognition of these differences is crucial, given the implications for participation and civil rights.  It wouldn’t matter so much if we were just marketing products.  In practical terms, there needs to be provision of a human alternative to any Government ICT transaction – at least until everyone has made the transition to the knowledge society - much in the way that banks still provide tellers to those who want to use them.  So development should be at Many Levels

-         There should be Equality of Access, and it should be available free to those who can’t afford it at home, much in the way that Public Libraries have provided access to knowledge in the past.  In fact the role of Public Libraries could undergo a resurgence in the future. But it’s not enough to assume that “if the poor are given access to computers” they will move from being information poor to information rich

-         Services need to be based primarily on Meeting the Needs of citizens and consumers, not those of Government agencies.  As the New Statesman has put it, the desire needs to come from ground up.  It should not be assumed that everyone wants more information, nor that more information necessarily enriches lives

-         IT should not be treated as a way to enable one-way distribution of information from Government agencies to citizens.  There should also be opportunities for interaction, feedback and accountability (there has progress in this area).  Feedback should be direct and meaningful – i.e. I should know what effect it has (dog story – you can’t outsource accountability)

-         There needs to be Simplicity in the means by which interactions take place this is not just a technology issue, but – it means there should be few portals, easy navigation etc.  Above all, don’t exclude me with technospeak.  I’m not exactly a duck myself, but I use ICT a lot and I can programme my VCR – this seems to be the benchmark for technical literacy.  On the other hand, about all I know about my car is where to put the petrol.  It never fails to amaze me that, despite all the talk about this issue, IT professionals still start from the assumption that I know how the technology actually works. A mechanic would never ask me the sorts of questions about my car that IT people ask me about my computer. 

-         I want real Choice as to whether to use information technology and how to use it.  Don’t try and manipulate me the way ATMs do when they try to get me to not ask for a receipt.  This sort of game only sets me against the technology and its owners.  And I have to ask…. who do they think they are kidding? 

An Introduction To Some Civil Liberty Issues

Michael Bott, New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties

When I was first contacted and asked if I could share some thoughts on “e-government from a civil liberties perspective”, for a brief moment I could begin to understand what it felt like to be a mosquito in a nudist camp – I mean so many targets  - where does one begin?

However as I have only 5 minutes I will introduce four points, and briefly address those.

They are           - Access

 - Ease of Use

 - Trust

 - People

ACCESS

E-government promises much, but will it deliver?

Paul Swain and Trevor Mallard tell us that e-government is good for democracy – it will lead to faster, cheaper services for citizens and is an example of government moving to keep in line with peoples expectations.

We were told during the official launch of the new website that this digital democracy is for all, and that to facilitate computer access for society there will be a greater use made of providing computer access through the likes of public libraries and organisations like the Citizens Advice Bureaux.

Interestingly, I understand that the Citizen Advice Bureaux were not informed or even consulted prior to this launch about their feelings on this matter.

There is a danger that all this might be hype. To get around this there will be a need for actual real investment in actual machines realistically available to all members of the community.

All of us would agree that the ability to participate in government and especially e-government, should not be determined by economic resources. It is also correct that in this ‘Information Age’, that an imbalance in access to the latest software and equipment can exacerbate inequalities.

It is therefore essential, if e-government is going to provide true equality of access, that investment is made in providing free public access to these portals.

EASE OF USE

If I can use the analogy of a car. If my son wants some independence in terms of transport- so I give him a car- unless he knows how to drive the thing he’s not going to get very far.

Tony Blair the prime minister of one of the leading countries in e-government has admitted that he has trouble programming a VCR. If the prime minister of a country at the forefront of e-government has trouble with technology- what about ordinary Mr and Ms Citizen?

If we are talking about access for all it must mean more than potential access for all, we have to have programmes that are user friendly and we have to break down that ‘digital divide’. Further some people are put off by technology; we have to educate people in how to access information without the perceived need to be a rocket scientist.

TRUST

There’s a lot of talk about e-government empowering people and enhancing democracy. This sounds nice, but it’s crap.

Bells and whistles in a system – however don’t empower. People empower themselves.

The idea that the picture of people sitting in front of computer screens, downloading government documents and filling out forms on official websites, somehow provides

us with an image of democracy, is rubbish. All you have done is merely streamlined service delivery!

Broken down to its ‘nuts and bolts’ essentials, e-government transfers successfully to a variety of regimes. China and Cuba for example both boast of their having embraced the concept of e-government.

Singapore- a country closer to home, but also a country that restricts the freedom of the press and has no truly independent judiciary- last year declared that it was turning itself into an ‘e-government’.

E-government on its own will only give you an interactive veneer of modernity without disrupting the underlying power relations.

You need something else. You need a system that people trust. A system that responds to need openly and respects the rights and freedoms of citizens. Privacy principles, for example, must be spelt out and adhered to. Anonymity must be respected. Unlike a recent US federal example from, I think March of this year where system inspectors found 64 Federal Agency Internet sites used unauthorised permanent cookies to gain consumer information. Such breaches can rapidly undermine the integrity and trust people place in a system.

PEOPLE

E-government to be effective must be about people. Because it involves you and me as citizens it also has a constitutional role, beyond the ‘bottom line of the ledger’.

One worry I have is that e-government is a repeat of the spin given to us by banks in the 1980s. We were all told that ATMs and electronic banking were the way of the future and that it would save from bank fees and queuing. In reality it was largely about shaving staff, and once we embraced the technology the fees started to climb.

Machines and software however are only so good. They can only provide solutions to a predetermined range of inquiries. Further despite all our efforts some people will always hate dealing with a machine – they have a right to access government as well.

So for the labour prime ministers and other people of this world who have difficulty with computers you will always need that human face. You’ll also need that human face for inquiries beyond the pop-up options on the computer window.

Lastly by way of sideline I would like to flag some potential problems with this goal of online voting. If it is to be done at all, it has to be done within the protection of the polling booth. If you can vote online from home there is the issue of interference from partners or caregivers. Plus remember unlike a paper vote an electronic vote could be especially hard to recount particularly if the system goes down, or is hacked into.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

-         E-government is nothing in and of itself.

-         The goal of e-government at its most basic level should be no different from the goal of good open government in the past.

-         If it is to be effective in New Zealand it must be accessible to everyone.

-         It must be easy to use.

-         It must have to earn our trust and respect our privacy; and it must always be citizen and people focused.

Speaker 4.

Ross Bell, Social Policy & Information Officer, NZACAB

Providing 2 perspectives:

Community Organisation

-         The largest community organisation providing information to citizens – we have 90 bureaux – providing information, advice and advocacy services across the country

-         One of New Zealand’s largest voluntary organisations – about 3000 volunteers

Citizens’ Perspective

-         We have about 600,000 enquiries annually; over a half of these are enquiries about government.  CAB get 1 enquiry every 12 seconds

-         From these contacts we see the sort of issues and concerns facing people in the community.

My comments today are primarily about provision of government information and services in relation to e-government, but can also be applied to the wider e-government picture.

From the beginning let me say that we see the value and potential in e-government and the strategy released last week.  We acknowledge that it does offer opportunities.  But there are also risks.  There are lessons we can learn from past experience to ensure e-government is of value to citizens.  I have 4 lessons for you this morning.

Our experience

Widespread restructuring of government departments and agencies in the mid-80 and continuing today has seen a major withdrawal of government services in many areas (especially rural and smaller towns).  For example, Inland Revenue, Work and Income, Immigration, Consumer, and the LINK Centres.

It was really during this time that we saw the introduction of information and communication technologies to replace face-to-face service.

The introduction of these technologies overlooked the needs of many citizens – I’m talking here of the information “have-nots”.  In our experience, those who miss out on getting the information to help them make life decisions and access key social services tend to be those who are poorer, less educated, new migrants and so on.  In many cases, this lack of information exacerbates already difficult situations. 

Government, to a large extent has already failed these people – and the reality is that e-government is unlikely to meet their needs.  These are the citizens that are going to fall into the digital divide.

We like the concept of a seamless, one stop shop where people don’t need to know how government is organised to access services and information.  Indeed, when Mr Mallard launched the e-govt strategy last week he said that it would progressively transform government into a user-focussed institution.

In our view, government should be user focussed NOW - whether through the internet, over the phone, or face-to-face.

LESSON NUMBER 1 - Get things right now… and improve the relationship that citizens have with government now – so that citizens can be confident in e-government

Not just about providing info

Of course a one-stop-shop will never meet everyone’s needs because life is not that simple.  In our experience, the relationship between the citizen and government is very complex – information is only a small part of what people might need – citizens who come to us have complex problems that take time to work through.  Realistically, a government portal will never meet all needs.

LESSON NUMBER 2 – make sure you provide good information, and access to it… but remember that that’s not the always the answer – peoples’ lives and human relations are more complex than that.

WHAT WILL THE Impact OF E-GOVT BE on community organisations

A big question for us is what will the impact of e-govt be on community organisations?

When government reduce services, we and other community organisations fill the gap.  In fact it’s expected of us.  But, in our experience, there is never any discussion about that… and there is certainly never any increase in funding or resourcing for it.  This means we are increasingly placed under pressure, in terms of funding, resourcing and turnover of volunteers because of stress.

There is the potential for this to happen with e-government.

Case in point.  Last week when Mr Mallard, State Services Minister, and the Prime Minister launched the e-govt strategy they also produced some Q&As (or Frequently Asked Questions).

One of the questions was:
”What about those who don’t have computers?”

The answer… “We expect an increased use of intermediaries such as Citizens Advice Bureaux.”  No one told us about it!!

Look, CAB, and other organisations, are keen to assist the e-government strategy to succeed.  But you need to talk to us about it, and you need to consider what we need to help you make it succeed. 

The kind of support we need from you includes:

Physical resources – if you expect us to provide access to the one-stop-shop we need decent computers, good internet access (for example, at the moment some CABs can only afford to be on line 1 hour a week), printers and any costs associated with this.

Training – you have to show our 3000 volunteers how to navigate the portal so they can help citizens.

LESSON NUMBER 3 - You have to think about the impact that your decisions will have, and support us to help the strategy succeed

Improving community/citizen involvement in the planning

My final point is about improving community and citizen involvement in e-government from Day One.

Can I challenge you to broaden your network… make sure you involve community organisations and citizens (after all they’re the users).  Involve them in ANY planning, programmes or projects you undertake as a group or within your individual departments in relation to the e-government strategy.

Look, the strategy talks about e-government being people-focussed, but nowhere in the strategy are there plans to include users in the planning and design of e-govt programmes and projects.

LESSON NUMBER 4 – You need to strive for a sense of citizens and community-ownership in e-govt…If you want to use e-govt to increase participation in democracy then get citizens and communities involved in the planning now

Summary:

LESSON NUMBER 1 - Get things right now… and improve the relationship that citizens have with government now – so that citizens can be confident in e-government

LESSON NUMBER 2 – make sure you provide good information, and access to it… but remember that that’s not the always the answer – peoples’ lives and human relations are more complex than that

LESSON NUMBER 3 - You have to think about the impact that your decisions will have, and support us to help the strategy succeed

LESSON NUMBER 4 – You need to strive for a sense of citizens and community-ownership in e-govt…If you want to use e-govt to increase participation in democracy then get citizens and communities involved in the planning now