Victorian Electronic Democracy - Your Say in the Future heading image

Discussion Paper, November 2004

[Download PDF] 955k

[Preamble]
[The Parliament] [The Executive and Bureaucracy] [Our Election Processes]
[Your Community] [The Media] [In Local Government] [Appendix: Terms of Reference]
[How can I take part?]

An inquiry into "electronic democracy"?

The Victorian Parliament is holding an Inquiry into electronic democracy, and wants you to be a part of forming a vision of the future for our democracy.

For many of us, "electronic democracy" is a new term. Mobile telephones, the Internet, digital television and fax machines have all made it easier to communicate with government and each other. Computers allow information to be processed and repackaged, searched and analysed on demand, highlighting how modern communications and computer technology has changed the way we live, play and work. Clearly the political decision-making process is not immune from technological change.

In other states of Australia and around the world, governments and citizens have started to use these new technologies for political purposes. From the act of voting, to running election campaigns, community consultation, and forming community interest groups and alternative news services, new technologies may be of value to our democracy by allowing greater communication, government transparency, and empowering citizens to act together to have their views heard by decision makers. For these reasons, many people suggest that we should embrace new technologies as integral to all parts of our traditional democratic process.

But there are also concerns about the impact these technologies may have. Some members of our community are unable to access new technologies, for a variety of reasons. There is also a fear that new technologies can be abused, distorting outcomes or excluding people from participation. Because of these concerns, some people argue that the introduction of new technologies should be resisted or curtailed.

The Victorian Parliament's Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee has been tasked to conduct a formal Inquiry into the promise, costs, benefits and risks of electronic democracy. Importantly, as a public Inquiry, this process recognises that what we accept as appropriate forms of democracy are defined by the public as a whole. A copy of the Inquiry's terms of reference can be found in the Appendix.

What is electronic democracy?

Electronic democracy" can be a confusing term. It is used in a variety of contexts to describe all manner of behaviour. Because of the breadth uses to which new communications and information technology can be put, the Inquiry has resisted focusing on an overly narrow definition of what electronic democracy is.
Instead, to facilitate discussion and the generation of new ideas, the Inquiry will focus on a definition of electronic democracy that covers the application of new computer and communications technology to formal and informal political processes. This includes:

  • Highly formal processes, like voting and the deliberations of Parliament and councils,

  • Highly regulated processes such as election campaigns, and

  • Informal processes and political participation by community groups, associations and collectives.

To assist people making submissions this discussion paper includes a range of Australian and international examples that can be seen to reflect various aspects of electronic democracy.

What does our Parliament want to achieve?

The Parliament has been asked to address three key areas:

1. To examine how the Parliament may communicate better with the public - as the historical centre for democratic debate in our system of government, how might this institution ensure the public understands its work and issues of the day?

2. To explore how the public might be further engaged with the democratic process through new technology - this includes more than simply voting in election campaigns, but how public points of view on issues and policies are canvassed and communicated to those who make decisions and implement government policy, and

3. To assess the barriers and drivers to increased use of technology for political purposes - if electronic democracy is to be encouraged in Victoria, what impediments exist that will prevent its adoption? What structural or institutional reforms or changes will be required to encourage the proliferation of electronic democracy initiatives across our democratic institutions and traditions?

MPs undertaking the Inquiry

The Inquiry is being run by five Members of Parliament, a subcommittee of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, representing both government and opposition and the upper and lower chambers. The Members are:

  • Mr Murray Thompson MLA

  • Mr Michael Leighton MLA (Chairperson of the subcommittee)

  • Mr Peter Lockwood MLA

  • Mr Jude Perera MLA

  • The Hon. Lidia Argondizzo MLC

  • The Hon. Andrew Brideson MLC

Electronic Democracy and the Parliament

Traditionally the Parliament has been the centre of democratic life in our Westminster system of government. In Victoria, the Parliament serves as the place of formal political debate and retains many of the traditions, protections for its Members (Parliamentary privilege), practices, and functions that it had when first introduced in colonial times. Today, Parliament maintains its importance as the place where elected officials gather to undertake their official duties and stands as a symbol of the representative nature of our democracy.

Because of this, Parliament should be considered both as a single institution with internal practices and procedures for communication with the public, and as a body of individually elected representatives that act autonomously to represent citizens in their district or province.

The traditions and conventions of Parliament have changed dramatically since the foundation of the original legislative assemblies in Europe and the shift from monarchical rule to popular democracy. Significant changes have occurred to increase the workload of Members of Parliament as society has become more complex. As well, in Victoria (and around the world) the rise of disciplined political parties has limited the extent to which debate within the Parliament is genuinely deliberative in character, with decision making in political parties and the Executive (the Cabinet) becoming more important in policy making.

Thinking about Parliament in terms of electronic democracy is important. Parliament is a key source of political information through its role in public debate, its focus on public participation through the receipt of petitions, and through the inquiries held by Parliamentary committees. In addition, the various departments of the Parliament play critical roles in delivering support services to Members to undertake their representative functions and duties.

What are the issues?

In an era of computerisation and new communications technology the focus is on two specific issues with regard to the Parliament:

  • How effectively does the institution of Parliament distribute and collect information for political debate and policy formulation? And

  • To what extent should Members of Parliament be assisted or encouraged to adopt new technologies in order to fulfil their representative functions?

Overall, these issues relate to the effectiveness of the Parliament and its Members in communicating with the general public. As the Executive and public service have become increasingly active in consultation with the public, questions exist as to the effectiveness of individual Members of Parliament consulting with their stakeholders when compared with public sector consultation processes. For the Parliament to act as an effective oversight of the Ministers and their Departments, sufficient resources will be needed for Parliamentarians to match the information of the public servants whom they scrutinise.

"In addition to 'top down' information, parliamentary websites can also provide additional 'bottom up' channels of communications for citizens, interest groups, professional lobbyists, and community associations seeking to contact elected representatives."

Pippa Norris,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

What examples are there?

Australia:

  • Queensland Parliament's online petitions (parliament.qld.gov.au/petitions) - the Queensland Parliament has introduced electronic petitions on the Parliamentary website as part of the wider Queensland electronic democracy policy. This has reduced the need for paper petitions to be distributed around the community.

  • ParlTV (www.aph.gov.au/live/webcast1.asp) - the Commonwealth Parliament broadcasts its proceedings (including both Houses and committee hearings) online, in addition to the production of written transcripts of debate (Hansard) and radio (Newsradio) and television ("Order in the House") broadcasts.

International:

  • Parliamentary committee consultation in Canada (www.parl.gc.ca/ disability/Econsulting/index.asp?Language=E) - as part of the Canada Pension Plan Disability program inquiry, the national Parliament's sub-committee on the status of persons with disabilities has used its website for electronic consultations, attracting over 15,000 visits and 1,400 submissions.

  • The Public Whip (www.publicwhip.org.uk) - a website that uses data about MP's voting records produced by the Parliament to interrogate the voting records of elected representatives, allowing members of the public to identify the performance of their local Member, and other Members who vote favourably on issues of concern to them (London).

What questions should we consider?

Thinking about Parliaments as institutions and collections of individual representatives, a range of questions are evident:

  • To what extent does the public wish to access the debates from Parliament? Does new technology provide an effective way to show members of the community the working of the democratic Houses and appraise them of the policy debates?

  • How can Parliament use new technologies to draw citizens into its deliberative policy development, through petitioning and the work of its committees? Does the Parliament have the resources (financial, human, technology) to utilise interactive technologies?

  • Given the de-emphasis on Parliament as the sole focal democratic institution in our society, is further investment in the technology of Parliament a legitimate use of public resources? Or should the Parliament take on new functions that can be facilitated by technology - such as public questions to Ministers in question time, or greater public involvement in the deliberations of committees?

  • Are the current communications and computing technologies provided for the use of elected representatives sufficient to allow them to interact with their constituents more frequently, and/or more effectively? What may be required to improve this area of activity (resources, skills, hardware, and/or software)?

  • To what extent would the provision of additional communications resources to Members of the Parliament constitute an unreasonable advantage in terms of incumbency and consequently prevent competition between candidates?

    "We are heading not towards a toppling of the democratic, parliamentary or legislative process, but towards their reinvention in a new participatory context."

    Douglas Rushkoff, Author,
    Open Source Democracy

Electronic Democracy and the Executive and Bureaucracy

While parties and Parliament are crucial in law-making in our democracy, the day-to-day management of the state - including critical decisions regarding the implementation of policy and the development of management strategies, budgets, and new policies - predominantly lies with the Executive (the Premier and government Ministers) who have responsibility for, and authority over, the Victorian public service.

As the management of government has become increasingly complex, the capacity of periodic assemblies, like the Parliament, to effectively oversight the complete range of bureaucratic activities has declined, giving governments considerable latitude to develop new policies but also limiting the degree to which Ministers can receive advice from the Parliament on their portfolios.

Over the last ten to fifteen years, therefore, the public sector has become increasingly engaged in direct consultation with the public. These consultations may be regular meetings between public servants and interested parties, casual and ad hoc meetings with members of the public, or extensive and expensive research projects. Such research projects may involve developing draft plans, calls for extensive public input, numerous public meetings and public negotiation over the detail of policy plans. This rise in direct consultation between public servants and citizens is also a result of a change in traditional views about the role of public employees (as anonymous, non-partisan functionaries), with governments calling for public servants to be more pro-active and entrepreneurial in their dealings with the general public.

In addition to consultations initiated by government, a range of mechanisms exists by which citizens are able to seek recourse to government decisions they feel are unfair or unjust (the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Ombudsman's Office) or gain access to government information (Freedom of Information). These mechanisms provide both protection for citizens from the power of government and the means by which citizens can scrutinise the operations of government and attempt to correct misdeeds or errors.

What are the issues?

While governments make extensive use of consultation to gauge public views on policy proposals, or to assist with the development of new responses to areas of social concern, members of the community sometimes feel excluded from these processes. The use of face-to-face meetings or distribution of surveys can be costly and can exclude people who have limited physical capacity to engage in consultations.

Some governments around Australia and internationally have developed sophisticated, ongoing online consultation systems, whereby members of the public can be consulted on new and emerging policy issues. Cost-effectiveness is one potential advantage of these systems. Another potential advantage is the ability for members of the public to participate out-of-hours, without risk of personal exposure (for sensitive issues) and in a way that allows members of the public to interact with each other, discuss their issues and learn from each other.

"If the policy process is opened up to greater public involvement, might citizens expect politicians to become creatures of their will?"

Stephen Coleman, Professor of e-Democracy,
Oxford Internet Institute

In addition, some see the decline of Parliament's role as an oversight on the Executive as problematic. While Parliaments try to fulfil an important role in maintaining the accountability of the Executive, the government party's control over (at the minimum) the Legislative Assembly encourages some observers to look for means of accountability outside of the Parliament, including direct citizen oversight. For citizens to exercise accountability over government (either through appealing to bodies like the ombudsman, or through the media) a critical ingredient is access to information. Over the last twelve years the use of official government websites have been useful in informing citizens about the actions of their government, however legal means to access public records is important as a democratic check on the Executive. The ability to access data from inside government (in physical or electronic formats) is a basic requirement of an accountable, and therefore democratic, government.

What examples are there?

Australia:

  • ConsultQld (www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au) - a centralised website allowing citizens to learn about issues under consideration, contribute their points of view, and interact with other interested people.

International:

  • Estonian government's direct democracy portal ("Today, I'm Deciding"; tom.riik.ee) - allows citizens to comment on legislation, and propose laws prior to the passage and debate of these bills in the Parliament, with popular suggestions or changes referred back to relevant Ministries for reconsideration before being sent to the Parliament for debate.

  • United Kingdom Consultation Portal (www.consultations.gov.uk) - this single website contains links to all the consultations being run across government, with suggestions on how best to participate, to have a meaningful impact on policy decisions.

  • Welsh Cabinet minutes and papers online (www.wales.gov.uk/organicabinet/content/CabMeetings/index.htm) - the Cabinet maintains a policy to publish papers and minutes from cabinet meetings on its website, unless there is an overriding reason not to do so.

  • Canada (publiservice.pco-bcp.gc.ca/comcon/docs/cons/tbs-online-annexC_e.doc)- has established a central agency responsible for educating and co-ordinating online consultation across the national government.

What questions should we consider?

In terms of increased public participation in consultations and the transparency of government, some questions would be:

  • To what extent should all government consultations have an online component?

  • What minium standards for online consultation should be developed?

  • Does the existence of online consultation disproportionately favour those with computer access because of the relative ease of participation?

  • How should best practice be measured with regards to online consultation?

  • How best can the range of government departments and agencies develop and maintain the skills required to develop and run effective online consultation processes?

  • How can new technology be used to enhance citizens' access to government information?

  • Should existing information access rights be reviewed specifically to include electronic means to access government information?

    • "The power of information is contingent on the degree to which it helps people make choices by telling them about the likely consequences of actions they are currently considering."

    Michael Cornfield,
    Pew Internet and American Life Project

Electronic Democracy and our Election Processes

Elections mark a critical part of the political calendar of the State of Victoria, being both a key time for the policies and performance of political parties to be put to the popular test and a time when all adult Victorian citizens are asked to participate directly in shaping the future direction of the government of the state.

Over the years the introduction of new communications technologies has been very influential in the way election campaigns have been conducted. With the advent of disciplined, professional political parties, mass and select (mail, telephone) media have been employed at election time to encourage citizens to vote for particular candidates and parties. Computer technology has also been employed increasingly to target specific individuals or types of voters with political information and customised messages. These developments tend to be combined with traditional means of campaigning, and so at any modern election we see combinations of personal communication, direct email, television and radio advertising, and campaign websites employed to political effect.

One area that remains largely resistant to these technologies, however, has been the act of voting. While the tabulation of votes has undergone some automation, the act of voting in Victoria remains largely unchanged from that used at Federation, with people still using paper ballots and pencils to record their votes.

What are the issues?

The two major issues are the impact of new technology on election campaigning and the means by which the process of voting can be carried out.

With regards to the use of new technology in election campaigning, the scope or desirability of specific intervention by governments (through the regulation of the election process by the Victorian Electoral Commission) may be limited; however, other nations have seen examples of the evasion of electoral laws by people using new technologies. Some examples include:

  • Using websites to engage in systematic vote trading by individual electors,

  • Using unauthorised websites located in other nations to evade electoral laws regarding political advertising, and

  • Attacks on candidates / party websites during electoral campaigns.

Given these possibilities, it must be asked if our existing election regulations and enforcement capacities are adequate to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Does the ease of publication associated with new technologies mean that general members of the public may be unaware of standards of behaviour required during election campaigns?

"Interactivity will be the rage for campaign sites. But that will not necessarily shift power."

Richard Davis,
Author, The Web of Politics

With regards to voting systems a range of alternatives are not available to the "conventional" method of numbering paper ballots at designated booths. These include:

  • Telephone voting (push tone),

  • SMS mobile phone voting,

  • Internet voting (remote from a designated voting location), and

  • Voting via electronic voting machines (within a designated voting location).

In 2002 the Victorian Electoral Commission produced a report proposing the introduction of electronic voting machines and Internet voting on a limited trial basis. The advantages of electronic systems relate to accuracy, speed of tabulation, and the capacity of these systems (if enabled) to deliver voting ballots in alternative languages and for the blind (via spoken voice systems). However, these machines have been criticised as expensive, unreliable, insecure and providing limited means for auditing (scrutinising).

What examples are there?

Australia:

  • The Australian Capital Territory (www.elections.act.gov.auEVACS.htm) - undertook a pilot of electronic voting machines in 2001 using machines developed in the Territory by Elections ACT. Elections ACT determined that the pilot was a success, producing a fast, accurate count of votes, with lower invalid (wasted) votes cast and the provision to provide multilingual voting options and private voting to those with vision impairments.

International:

  • The UK local government voting pilots (www.dca.gov.uk/elections/e-voting) - saw a comprehensive pilot of different voting options in national local government elections, allowing voters to use traditional paper-based voting, Internet voting, electronic voting machines, voting by SMS (mobile telephone) and postal voting. The pilot process showed that systems employed appeared (largely) to be functional and reliable, affording voters significant choice in how they cast their ballot. However no overwhelming demand was demonstrated for the electronic (offline and online) options.

  • Rejection of Internet voting by the Pentagon (www.servesecurityreport.org) - the use of Internet voting for military personnel abroad was canvassed by the US military in 2003 but the Pentagon opted not to move ahead with the proposed "Secure Electronic Registration and Voting Experiment" following a highly critical report of the proposed system's security.

  • Extensive use of electronic voting machines in India (www.eci.gov.in/EVMindex.htm) - India, the world's largest democracy, has introduced domestically manufactured, non-networked (not Internet enabled) voting machines and intends to extend their use considerably in the coming years.

What questions should we consider?

Given the significance of the act of voting in the Victorian system of state and local elections (its compulsory nature), questions exist as to:

  • To what extent do new technologies pose a risk to free and fair elections? Do the regulatory powers of the Victorian Electoral Commission need enhancement to deal with changing technology?

  • Do the benefits of phone, online or electronic voting systems outweigh the risks associated with these systems? Would the introduction of one or more of the systems have popular support and reassure Victorian's trust in the integrity of the voting in this state? Or would such a system undermine that trust?

"Voting procedures are more or less the same as they were before the advent of universal suffrage, yet virtually every other part of daily lives has changed out of all recognition."

Local Government Association, UK

Electronic Democracy and Your Community

While the formal institutions of our democratic system are critical means by which Victorian citizens can express their political views and select their state and local representatives, many of the issues that motivate our involvement in political life touch us at a personal level. It has been recognised in recent years that people tend to focus their attention on issues affecting the communities in which they live and work. This is often where we have the greatest understanding of policy issues, because we understand them from personal experience.

Communities can be geographic (our town, suburb, neighbour-hood, street) or "communities of interest"- those people who share our hobbies, philosophical or religious outlook, profession or stage of life, or specific social or political concerns. When motivated and given means of participation, active communities can be influential. This influence can be exerted through participation in public consultations, lobbying governments and Members of Parliament or council and influencing the behaviour of our corporate citizens.

Politically informed, motivated and organised communities allow citizens greater control over their own lives, through proactive engagement in the political process or the formation of voluntary organisations to address local concerns and issues.

What are the issues?

The benefits of community building and strengthening have been recognised for some time, both in terms of the importance of a spirit of voluntary participation in local issues and social and cultural events, as well as an acceptance of the legitimate role of "interest groups" in agitating for changes in policy by governments.

In our modern age, however, a range of pressures has tended to reduce the importance of geographical communities where people know their neighbours and can act together on local issues and problems. This has encouraged governments around the world to look to restore local communities and to encourage greater self-reliance through the provision of skills and resources by which local groups can be active. At the same time, people with shared political interests have found that new technologies offer an effective means to meet people with similar concerns, share information, plan political action and recruit the like-minded.

"Despite the ability of the Internet to serve as a global communications technology, most online activity is between people who live or work near each other"

Keith Hampton and Barry Wellman,
Netlab, University of Toronto

Governments can be very important in establishing the environment in which communities come together and effect meaningful change, but this can be difficult. Questions exist as to:

  • The extent to which government can create "community" - by definition community is separate and distinct from government intervention,

  • How to identify the needs of local groups to assist their participation and organisation, without being overly controlling or patronising, and

  • How to form or encourage the formation of local groups where none exist at present.

These difficulties, therefore, require a subtle touch by government, "seeding" local groups to organise and participate but also providing autonomy and independence. In addition, governments need to ask:

  • Is it acceptable for communities not to wish to participate politically? If so, how can we recognise that this is not a deficit but a conscious decision on the part of some communities?

What examples are there?

Australia:

  • Community Builders NSW (www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au) - an initiative of the New South Wales State Government, Community Builders aims to provide an online resource for people and groups in the community to assist with their organisation and operations. The website assists in developing community skills for organisation and participation, the location of funding, and means to tap into the collective knowledge of other community groups.

  • My Connected Community (mc2.vicnet.net.au) - an initiative of Vicnet (part of the State Library of Victoria), MC2 allows local community groups to establish online "communities" with webpages, calendars of activities, discussion and chat lists, file storage and other functions to organise their activities.

International:

  • e.the people (www.ethepeople.org) - a deliberative conversation space where members of the public are encouraged to talk about political issues. Other readers rate the contributions "and the collective rating ranks contributions in terms of the general interest of the participants (New York).

  • Moveon.org (www.moveon.org)- a news and current affairs website aimed at encouraging public activism. During the lead up to the war in Iraq, moveon.org allowed members of the public to initiate, locate, and participate in over 6,000 spontaneously organised peace vigils as a means of expressing opposition to the war, without establishing a formal protest movement (California).

  • Minnesota e-democracy (www.e-democracy.org/discuss.html) - a community-based initiative that allows members of the public to come together via email and discuss issues of interest and public concern in the State of Minnesota.

  • Smart Voter (www.smartvoter.org) - An initiative of the League of Women Voters California, Smart Voter allows Californian voters to look up their local candidates, polling locations, issues and initiatives, and voting records of incumbents.

What questions should we consider?

If the encouragement of political communities is an important part of grassroots democracy, three broad questions can be identified:

  • How best can government assist local communities to organise their own political associations? What form should this take (resources, information, grants, networking)?

  • Do some segments of the community have specific difficulties organising local associations?

  • What mechanisms should institutions like the bureaucracy, Parliament, and local government use to ensure that these groups are actively included in policy debates and deliberation?

"In the public sphere, citizens hardly agree about what choices are best, but they perceive in common what political choices are to be made."

Bruce Bimber, Director,
Center for Information Technology and Society

Electronic Democracy and the Media

For most Victorians, the popular media (newspapers, television, radio) forms the basis of our knowledge about politics and current affairs. From the media we learn about political issues and actors, form judgements of the performance of governments and promise of oppositions, and see beyond our immediate community.

Sometimes referred to as the "fourth estate," journalistic coverage of political and social issues has long been held as an important ethical duty and social function by the (largely) commercial providers of news services (such as newspapers and magazines). The commercial media has therefore been seen as a key foundation of a democratic society. Countries that lack private and diverse media are often seen to be lacking the basis by which the wider public can effectively participate in political life.

Without an understanding of current affairs, and an avenue by which competing points of view on these issues can be presented, the quality of a society's democracy is questioned.

What are the issues?

Governments have always maintained a complex relationship with the media. On the one hand, there are strong motivations for governments and political figures to influence the coverage and reporting of political issues by maintaining close relationships with media proprietors and journalists. On the other hand, governments maintain a variety of laws that regulate the ownership of media companies (a Commonwealth Government power), and the way journalists and media companies operate. These laws include governing specific types of reporting (for example, the coverage of legal cases), the protection of the rights of individual citizens from defamation or libel, and access to government information (Freedom of Information). Because of the important position of the media in a democratic society, governments have to be cautious in their regulation and interaction of these private actors.

In Australia, concerns have been raised that:

  • The level of diversity of media ownership is too low (that too few different owners own too few media companies),

  • The competitive nature of the media industry means that standards of journalism sometimes suffer,

  • The globally-competitive market has reduced the production of quality local news and current affairs in favour of syndicated national or international content that may lack local relevance, and

  • Groups or organisations in the community (political parties, government departments, interest groups, business) with media management skills or resources disproportionately command media time and coverage at the expense of other, possibly more worthy, groups.

"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one".

Henry Mencken,
Author and Journalist

In response to these concerns, new media technologies such as low cost graphic design, digital printing and multimedia creation, and web-based publishing are seen as potential alternatives to established "mainstream" commercial and public-owned media outlets. Some argue that these "alternative media" sources are inherently democratic because:

  • The possibility for a wider number of people to become "publishers" is greatly expanded, and

  • Low cost distribution reduces the necessity for media to focus on large market segments that are often well catered for by the competitive media market.

What examples are there?

Australia:

  • OnLine Opinion (www.onlineopinion.com.au) - an online current affairs journal which receives contributions from members of the political elite, academics, journalists and members of the general public.

  • Crikey! (www.crikey.com.au) - an irreverent political news and gossip magazine that publishes stories that the commercial press avoid.

  • Melbourne Independent Media Centre (melbourne.indymedia.org) - part of a network of independent media websites that allow any member of the public to publish stories and editorial content directly and without editorial control.

International:

  • Women's eNews (www.womensenews.org) - an independent news agency that publishes online news and analysis of social and policy issues of concern to women (New York).

  • OpenDemocracy (www.opendemocracy.net) - a global online magazine of news and politics, funded by reader subscriptions (London).

What questions should we consider?

In considering the way new technologies provide for alternative media to be established in Victoria, a number of questions arise:

  • What is the capacity of alternative media to meet the information needs and interests of the Victorian public? What specific communities or language groups would be best served by alternative media?

  • To what extent can the State of Victoria encourage the establishment of new, alternative media sources, particularly those aimed at segments of the community for whom local media lacks relevance?

  • To what extent could "traditional" non-commercial media sources (community radio and television, for example) benefit from information technologies?

  • Does "amateur" journalism provide meaningful and effective political coverage?

  • Are current laws governing defamation and libel well suited to an era when non-professional journalists and commentators can publish easily and reach wide audiences?

  • Would the encouragement of alternative media by government impact upon the editorial independence of these sources?

  • Would the encouragement of alternative media by government negatively impact upon existing media by deterring political debate and news coverage (for example, by impacting upon the existing media's market share) or prevent the development of new media companies?

"If the Internet and digital technologies were indeed eliminating scarcity, TV channels would be losing value because of all the new competition."

John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney,
Authors, Our Media, Not Theirs

Electronic Democracy in Local Government

Local government, and its participative character, is an important and rich part of the democratic history of Victoria. While the operations of our 79 local governments are partially autonomous from direction by the state government on a day-to-day basis, these governments act within the legal framework of the Local Government Act 1989, an Act of the Victorian State Parliament, and receive assistance from the Department for Victorian Communities in ensuring good government and efficient delivery of services to local communities.

While some may argue that local government is immune to the pressures for electronic democracy due to its long history of democratic participation and relative closeness to the communities it serves, local governments around the world are facing similar problems to national and state governments. These problems include citizen disenchantment from government and difficulties engaging busy members of the community in policy discussion and debate.

What are the issues?

For local governments in Victoria, issues are similar to that of the state government, notwithstanding the difference of scale. The smaller size of local governments has advantages and limitations:

  • They may find the development of electronic democracy easier because of the ease of co-ordinating across the council organisation, however

  • Often local governments have limited resources to commit to the development of electronic democracy initiatives.

What examples are there?

Australia:

  • The Brisbane City Council's "your say online" (ycys.brisbane.qld.gov.au) - an online discussion list to talk about issues of importance to local communities in Brisbane.

  • Wellington Shire, Victoria (wellington.vic.gov.au/) - The shire of Wellington was the first of a growing number of local governments in Victoria to broadcast their council meetings for public viewing over the Internet.

International:

  • Municipality of Ronneby's Election Portal (val2002.ronneby.se) - encouraged a wider range of candidates to participate in the 2002 election by providing each candidate with a web page to push information about themself, and a forum for candidate debates to increase awareness of, and interest in, the municipal election (Sweden).

What questions should we consider?

The questions facing local electronic democracy include:

  • To what extent will local government need to develop unique forms of electronic democracy to meet its specific needs?

  • How will local government develop competencies in building on electronic democracy initiatives given its small resource base? On what basis could collaboration be facilitated within the local government sector?

  • How can local and state governments learn from each other about their experiences in electronic democracy?

  • Does the Victorian Local Government Act 1989 provide an effective legal basis for the range of local electronic democracy initiatives that councils may wish to undertake?

"the goals of e-Democracy will not be met by any one particular strata of society"

Thomas Riley,
Director, Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance

Appendix: Terms of Reference

The Lieutenant-Governor as the Governor's deputy, with the advice of the Executive Council, under section 4F of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968, requests that the:

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of Parliament inquire into, consider and report to Parliament on:

1) netcasting of Parliamentary proceedings;

2) online interactive and collaborative approaches to policy discussion, including citizen email and online forums; and

3) other technology solutions to promote access and participation.

And to this end consider the core issues of the:

1) potential impact of new and emerging technologies on the democratic processes of government;

2) options available to improve democratic processes through the use of such technologies (for example, through electronically enabled voting);

3) costs and benefits of new technologies that promote e-democracy;

4) equitable access of all citizens to e-democracy;

5) legal and regulatory factors; and

6) educational or social barriers to the implementation of e-democracy.

In order to review and make recommendations on any necessary or desirable amendments to the Electoral Act 2002, the Electronic Transactions (Victoria) Act 2000 and any other relevant legislation to facilitate these opportunities.

The Committee should have regard to experiences in Victoria and other jurisdictions as well as the evidence on e-democracy included in the discussion paper undertaken by the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of the 54th Parliament.

This Inquiry has been proposed to examine the above matters with a focus on public participation in democratic and Parliamentary processes. It is not intended to examine issues relating to service delivery and government online processes.

Dated 3 June 2003

Responsible Minister:
STEVE BRACKS
Premier

How Can I Take Part?

The Committee is interested in the views and opinions from as many people as possible, including concerned and interested citizens of all ages, scholars with views on how new technologies will change society, and government practitioners. Because this is such a new and evolving area, there are no "experts" here. All views and opinions are sought on this emerging and important development of our democracy.

You can participate by making a formal written submission to the Committee. You can also view the Inquiry website, which has more information about the timeframe of the Inquiry, alternative means of participation and a discussion list of the issues raised in this document:

Please ensure that you make your submissions by 7 January 2005.

Contacting us

Inquiries and submissions can be made to:

Ms Lily D'Ambriosio MP
Chairperson
Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
Level 8, 35 Spring Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000

or by telephone on (03) 9651 4008 for more information.

Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee
© Parliament of Victoria