Australia's great leap forward in digital diplomacy

In the UK the Foreign Office states, in regards social media, that "The FCO encourages all staff to make full use of the opportunities offered by social media to help deliver FCO objectives", and "we do expect social media to be a core part of the toolkit of a modern diplomat."



In the US the current Secretary of State, John Kerry, has said "Of course there’s no such thing any more as effective diplomacy that doesn’t put a sophisticated use of technology at the center of all we’re doing to help advance our foreign policy objectives, bridge gaps between people across the globe, and engage with people around the world and right here at home," and "The term digital diplomacy is almost redundant — it’s just diplomacy, period."



Many other nations have taken similar steps to introduce digital channels, particularly social media, into their diplomatic suite.



Australia, until recently, was regarded as a laggard in digital diplomacy. I've heard us described on forums for diplomatic staff as highly conservative and as potentially damaging our diplomatic efforts through taking an excessively risk-averse approach to using social media in diplomacy.



Fortunately this has changed over the last year, with the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) having become far more active in digital channels to promote the values and character of Australia.







Under the auspices of DFAT, Australia now operates over 60 social media accounts for digital diplomatic ends, including 22 Twitter, 30 Facebook, three each for YouTube and Flickr, a blog and China-specific accounts on the Sina Microblog, Sina Blog and Youku (a YouTube equivalent).



I've briefly analysed these accounts, which you can view at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap1exl80wB8OdDF6YTVKZWt1MGh5UEIwaFVZZ19pTEE&usp=sharing



DFAT's social media accounts now cover around 60 countries and, while most were established in 2012 or 2013, they are already growing Australia's digital diplomatic reach and influence.



Countries covered by DFAT social media accounts at 4 November 2013







While Australia still lags powerhouses like the UK, which has over 240 international Twitter accounts alone and the US, which now has over 300 Facebook page and is tweeting in over 11 languages, we've definitely established ourselves in the second tier of countries engaged in digital diplomacy.



We're roughly equivalent to countries like Ireland, or Canada, both of which have just over 30 Twitter accounts and between 60 and 80 social media accounts overall in use for diplomatic purposes.



This is a sold start - although it has occurred without a broad and public discussion of how to most effectively use social media in diplomacy, as in countries such as the USA and Canada.



Hopefully as DFAT builds its skill base and guidance, we'll see less broadcast and more engagement by embassies and ambassadors online - more public conversation that leads to real and valuable diplomatic and economic outcomes from these channels.



After all, with civilian populations and governments alike increasingly engaging each other on social media, being absent online excludes an agency or government from important conversations and allows others without Australia's best interests at heart to fill the gap.



Below is my consolidated list of DFAT's social media accounts, drawn from DFAT's media page and current at 4 November 2013.

eGov AU

Craig Thomler's personal Gov 2.0 and eGovernment thoughts and speculations from an Australian perspective

What's the digital communication capability of Australian governments?

On the back of the UK Government's second whole-of-government communications plan, the UK Government has been undertaking a Digital Communication Capability review asking (in simple terms), how is digital communication and engagement done, and how could it be improved?



The Review has involved consultation with Communications Directors, digital engagement specialists and senior executives across the UK Government and was led by a team of three independent reviewers with a deep knowledge of digital communications.



The review is still in the closing stages (final due in November), however has been an extremely transparent process, with all comments available online and the draft report already released for final feedback (similar to the process the Australian Gov 2.0 Taskforce used in 2009, but has been rarely used since in Australian government).



Many of the top-line findings would resonate with Australian public sector digital communications professionals, with the headline finding being:

Pockets of good practice notwithstanding, the headline finding is that digital communication in government is developing in silos and not in the mainstream. The consequence is that it is being outpaced by the best of the commercial and NGO worlds. Too much is broadcast and does not seek to engage. And, crucially, it is still treated by many in departmental leadership positions as a specialist area where the risks usually outweigh the benefits.

Underneath this, the review found that there wasn't a natural home for digital within departments - with placement in existing areas such as media relations leading to a biased approach which didn't serve all agency needs.



It also found that;

• departments were not realising economies of scale, with different agencies separately purchasing the same or different social media management and analytics tools, 


• communication focused far too much on informing rather than conversations, 


• objectives were based on easily measurable quantitive scores (such as followers or tweets) rather than on changing outcomes,


• there was an over-reliance on 'build it and they will come' approaches, 


• there was a shortage of skills - exacerbated by a lack of confidence and judgement, 


• there were limitations on access to social media due to IT security considerations - which may be valid but were poorly explained and understood, and


• there was a lack of trust and overriding pre-occupation with risk.

Unfortunately there's been none of this type of work done in a systemic way in Australia - despite it being possible to take an approach (such as the UK one) and repeat it across every state, territory and the federal government to provide a comparable model (then do a cut-down version for local governments).



This is similar to where I started with the Digital Innovation Review I conducted in Victoria (no other states or territories have been interested in a similar review as yet though).



I'd like to help. Any takers in government?

eGov AU

Craig Thomler's personal Gov 2.0 and eGovernment thoughts and speculations from an Australian perspective

My presentation from RightClick - the latest in global digital government

Earlier this week I presented at RightClick in WA about the latest in global digital government.



My main points were that government in Australia has largely been doing OK in the digital stakes, although talent is thinly spread and there is not a consistent level of expertise across agencies.



For example, the fourth computer in the world was built by CSIR, an agency in the Australian government, and the WA government was using the internet seven years before Facebook was created.



Yes things have changed enormously in the last ten years, however the use of digital is now well-embedded within the public sector, not only in Australia but also across a large proportion of the world.



The challenge is to keep improving, to focus on designing services for digital which are relevance, simple and easy to use for citizens and to become better at connecting - reusing what others have done and at sharing what agencies are doing.



At the end of the day, however, it is not about the technology - that's simply an enabler - it's about meeting agency goals.



So even when you feel your agency, or you, are a dinosaur, remember that dinosaurs can survive massive change - provided they are prepared to change themselves.

eGov AU

Craig Thomler's personal Gov 2.0 and eGovernment thoughts and speculations from an Australian perspective

Watch ABC 7:30 ACT tonight for a piece on Social Media and the APS

There should be an interesting piece on ABC 7:30 tonight in the ACT looking at the relationship between the Australian Public Service and the use of social media by public servants.



I was interviewed from Brisbane for the piece and know of several other ex public servants who were also interviewed or consulted.



There's also an interesting opinion piece on the topic today in ITNews by Steve Davies which is worth a read, The Government's push towards a silent state.



There are a number of people I know of concerned over the consequences now emerging of the 2012 changes to the APSC guidance on social media use by public servants, particularly combined with the line that appears to be being taken by the current Australian Government.



The longer-term implications are still unclear, however it is apparent that significant tension remains between the rights and responsibilities of public servants when it comes to their requirement to be perceived to carry out their work duties in an apolitical way versus their ability to participate in the community as an Australian citizen, with all the political freedoms this entails.



As governments move towards greater community engagement, but place increasing strictures on how public servants can participate in these engagements, where an opinion or concern may be interpreted politically, we're likely to see more cases of public servants being forced to choose between their career and their personal rights and more opportunities for unscrupulous managers to interpret vague public sector policies in ways which can be interpreted as harassment and bullying.



I see this as a rising cost to the public sector, as well as leading to greater reluctance on the part of public servants to participate in public discussions in meaningful ways, both on their own behalf and on behalf of the governments they serve.



Fortunately this trend isn't being repeated in other countries - from the UK to New Zealand public servants are being welcomed into community discussions both as individual contributors and on behalf of agencies - so in a few years the impact of the different approaches should be starkly apparent.

eGov AU

Craig Thomler's personal Gov 2.0 and eGovernment thoughts and speculations from an Australian perspective

Identifiable public service social media voices no longer required in Australian government

The new Twitter profile pic for former
DIAC/DIPD Twitter spokesperson Sandi Logan.

Officials from the Department of Immigration and Border Control (formerly the Department of Immigration and Citizenship) have confirmed that Sandi Logan is no longer required to be a spokesperson for the department on Twitter (using his @SandiHLogan account).



Reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, from comments at the IPAA ACT Social Media event yesterday, effective immediately the Minister is the only spokesperson on Twitter, with the rebadged @DIBPAustralia account focusing on policy and programmatic 'good news stories'.



Sandi has already changed his Twitter profile image and changed the tone of his tweets.



I conjecture that he may even be required to close down the account, based on it having been established as a departmental asset and it being difficult to hand this over to an individual when the following has been built on the account being an official one (see my post on this topic, Is it theft if you personalise & retain an official social media account when you leave an organisation?)



More importantly this step has emphasised a 'do what I do' shift in how public servants may engage via social media. It sends a strong message that public servants may no longer be acceptable as identifiable public spokespeople for their departments.



This has significant implications both for current spokespeople and high profile social media users in the public sector and a much broader impact on the willingness of individual public servants to use these channels for legitimate customer service, policy engagement and service delivery.



While the Department's official account (@DIBPAustralia) remains and has been reinforced as an official channel, individual public servant voices will be hidden behind a departmental name.



I suspect this will only increase the reluctance of public servants to engage in public debates, reducing public understanding of how policy and services are developed and correspondingly reducing the public's ability to participate.



It will also likely reduce the ability for the broader community to understand the value, importance and difficulty of public service roles - damaging employment intakes for the public sector and the reputation and standing of the APS.

eGov AU

Craig Thomler's personal Gov 2.0 and eGovernment thoughts and speculations from an Australian perspective

How Australia compares on the basis of voter participation and invalid (donkey) votes

We hear a great deal about the number of people in Australia that are of voting age, but haven't registered to vote, however we don't hear a lot about how Australia compares to the rest of the world in this regard.



I sought out some data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) to compare Australia with the rest of the world, to see how well we had been doing in electoral participation - which provides some indication of how engaged citizens are with government.



IDEA has data on national elections since 1945 for about 235 countries. This is available online as tables (such as this one) as well as downloadable custom files (through this interface) and great quick snapshots - though there's no datafeeds or APIs available.



As such it took only a short time for me to download the data, plug it into a Google Fusion table and produce the below map and charts.



This shows that Australia is amongst the roughly 18% of nations which have compulsory voting for their parliaments.









Australia also compares well in terms of voter turnout, sitting close to the top of the list (6th as below - mouseover the graph for details) based on the latest election results (looking at the period from 2009-2013), despite being one of our lowest turnouts since World War II.









Our invalid voting rate has been creeping up, particularly since 1984, and is now amongst the top 30 in the world in their last election (looking at the period from 2009-2013) - see close to far right on the chart below. This indicates a growing disillusionment with existing political parties, but hardly one which is fatal to our system.









Finally, below is a view of the entire world based on voter turnout in their last election (looking at the period from 2009-2013) - click on the coloured dots for a run-down of the voting statistics for each country, based on their latest parliamentary elections.

(larger version here)









Based on this data Australia remains a highly politically engaged state, although we've been in decline for around 30 years.



It would be nice to see Australian governments turn around this trend, reversing the decline in engaged voters and improving civic participation at all levels.



Certainly there's lots of good effort underway to engage citizens more actively in government, although this may be being undermined by increasing disillusionment with the way politics is being played.



The answer might be a rethink of politics, rather than a rethink of government - although this would need to be driven by some very courageous politicians.

eGov AU

Craig Thomler's personal Gov 2.0 and eGovernment thoughts and speculations from an Australian perspective