US President Barack Obama’s Deputy Chief Technology Officer Beth Noveck will be a key note speaker at a public event to provide input into Labour’s policy on open and transparent government.
Labour will hold a public event on 28 August in Wellington to bring together ideas generated over the last four months on how to deliver open and transparent government.
OpenLabourNZ was announced at the end of April on Red Alert as a new way of doing things; our first open policy process, inviting the public to participate in developing its policy on what an open, transparent government might look like.
OpenLabourNZ is an experiment in how Labour could engage with the community, seek their input, build support and use new technologies and methods to develop policy.
This is new territory for us and we want people to contribute by saying what they think a good policy on open and transparent government would look like.
To date OpenLabourNZ has attracted hundreds of responses by blogs, twitter and facebook and direct communication with the Party.
We are serious about being open and transparent. It’s a new initiative, but through it we hope to demonstrate that we mean business and will take the policy to the election and into government.
A bit of info about Beth Noveck
A fulltime law professor at New York Law School, her professional career has focused on developing technologies that increase participation in democracy. In the Obama administration, Noveck leads the open government initiative at the Technology Office at the White House focusings on incorporating more voices into policy planning. To do this, she has already created several online forums where readers can comment on White House proposals and add their own ideas.
She has been Deputy Chief Technology Officer at the White House since February 2009. She was a Volunteer Policy Advisor to Obama (2007 to 2008); Law Professor, New York Law School (since 2002); Bodies Electric, President and CEO (1999 to 2002).
Beth will appear at the Labour public event via video link. Further speakers and the venue will be announced shortly.
The public event is free and open to the public but has limited places. We will shortly be announcing the process to register for the event. It will be live streamed so that people in other centres can observe and participate.
Aw, could ya’s stream it so that the meeting becomes open as well?
That’s the idea Spud. The whole event is to be streamed so you can participate from wherever you are? Where are you?
Spud, read the last sentence of the post . . .
snap
Yep, I skim read the bottom of the post,
I’m not going to say where I am cos I’m gonna need a place to hide after I get caught stalking Trev at the event
Actually that joke was in poor taste, feel free to delete.
“as a new way of doing things; our first open policy process, inviting the public to participate in developing its policy on what an open, transparent government might look like.
OpenLabourNZ is an experiment in how Labour could engage with the community, seek their input, build support and use new technologies and methods to develop policy”
You could start with having open primaries where MPs are democratically selected by their caucus, not by the party leadership. That at least is a start to make MPs more accountable to the public.
Last time I looked Simon Labour was one of the most democratic parties in NZ especially in regards to National which is a basic dictatorship by comparison.
Anyway, how the MPs are selected isn’t a real issue ATM. What’s needed is a more visible input into policy decisions by the peoples of NZ. Something like this would be a start.
This woman is a good example (?) of why the deriding “not more academics” is such BS. The tendency to dismiss academics as somehow not in real jobs, making real contributions is a glib throw away line too many gobble down with dinner.
Large swings are driven by public wanting change.
Voters go for change when they are:
Angry or fed up or see gross injustice
Are scared not to change
Hear something over and over until they believe either of the above.
Think they will get something they want or like (short term bribes)
Subscribe to the ideals offered
Are impressed with the people who speak.
Become committed by contributing a stake of their time , thinking or resources toward change.
Are rich and greedy and just want to grab as much as they can ( two parties available)
Are brainwashed.
The American scene is different to NZ in as much as massive sponsorship of campaigns is allowed.
Winston may help as he knows a bit about bouncing back. Give him a bottle of Black Label
IMO some academics (and PhD students for that matter) are extremely narrowly focussed and not fit for many real-world duties.
Of course, other academics are brilliant, adaptable and practical with great social skills and broad outlooks. Fine. But others are propeller heads who would not survive outside of a protected university setting. They may be awesome in their respective fields but they will end up leaving their academic positions feet first as they have no where else to go. And not just academics, this applies to some university administrators and managers too.
For the sums of money which goes into universities, our society should be getting more back.
Loota
I think that is a narrow view. Especially in a country where business put R & D at the bottom of their priorities, someone has to do it.
Of course “some” are. Some lawyers are crooks, some teachers are lazy, some police are corrupt, some bankers commit fraud, some woodwork teachers become Ministers of Energy, some posties steal mail, some firefighters are arsonists, some doctors abuse patients, some accountants cook the books, some stockbrokers embezzle.
The “real” world is what exactly? University is actually part of the real world whether you or others value or like what they do or not. They are subject to discipline, to dismissal, to redundancy, to budget cuts and restraints, they have bosses, attend performance reviews, meet with students.
This whole imaginary “real world” that is referred to is a gimmick, it’s like “PC” it’s a word or phrase designed to negate the need for reasoned argument or opposition. If I say something is “PC” it’s as though I have said enough, nothing more needed. Same with “real world”, its a way to completely dismiss/diminish a person’s contribution/argument etc
I’m surprised to see you playing into it
Yesterday on Nat Radio a woman was observed in her study of decomposition of bodies in sea water to help with time of death etc. Using pigs heads. Pretty narrow indeed, studying the bacteria that forms.
Who knows what advances are being made, and for which doors are opened in “narrow” fields.
I wonder how recently you worked in or reviewed a university or polytechnic Loota? They are very real world, more real world than three decades ago.
I agree that there is some important research coming out of universities, except that stupid study that proved that poor people smoke their cigarrettes further down than rich people – well duh!
They are just running our unis into the ground
I’d say that applies to people who’ve spent their entire lives in one profession as well especially if that profession has a very narrow focus such as finance. The “real world” is a mishmash and any specialisation can create a disconnect from it as you end up only seeing it from the perspective of that specialisation.
Hi Tracey I’m developing this position for several reasons. (And bear in mind I’ve spent many years in tertiary education, mostly as a student but also some minor ongoing involvement in both uni and polytech roles).
1) “Especially in a country where business put R & D at the bottom of their priorities, someone has to do it.”
This is a nice idea, but are we actually accomplishing this in our universities? Where are the new products, the new commercial technologies, the new manufacturing processes being deployed out of our uni labs? Where are the new high tech, high value added enterprises? Where are the tight timelines, the high pressure long work hours, the proof of concepts leading to large scale commercialisation? Yes there are some small scale activities occurring out there, (dairy companies sponsoring PhD students etc) but thats all it is.
2) “Who knows what advances are being made, and for which doors are opened in “narrow” fields.”
I essentially refute this argument by saying that “blue skies” research is extremely high cost and high risk. Have you read for instance about the millions of scientist hours and hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) wasted over the last twenty years in cancer research because basic cell samples used for years in labs all over the world were actually contaminated and not picked up on.
In other words my position is that we don’t have the money or manpower to do blue skies research properly in more than a couple of fields at a time and if there is a random breakthrough we are then hard pressed to realise any benefits from it commercially, so we don’t even get the payoff from taking the risk. Now this is not meant to sound defeatist because the area of applied research and product development (as opposed to “blue skies research”) is something that I believe NZ could really succeed at.
3) “This whole imaginary “real world” that is referred to is a gimmick, it’s like “PC” it’s a word or phrase designed to negate the need for reasoned argument or opposition.”
OK I will be extremely specific. When I say that these uni operatives are not working in the ‘real world’ I’m not criticising them for not being subject to the generic management and performance pressures that you and I are very familiar with. As you pointed out, they are, to some extent.
I’m actually criticising them from your point of view: the universities are an integral part of the the ‘real NZ’. And as such they should be leading the development of new ideas for our society, the evolution of thinking about ourselves and our communities, and being outspoken and critical of the many areas that we fail in as a country. Again, there are flashes of important work which has been done by very specific individuals, but as a whole though I believe universities have disconnected themselves from real NZ (the small team advising Gluckman is one of the few exceptions I know of) and are too deadly quiet on many an issue, while at the same time acting – in the worst cases – as diploma mills. [DTB thanks for helping verbalise some of what I was thinking here]
FOR INSTANCE Think of the top five problems facing NZ and NZers today. Think, how many years have your chosen five problems been an issue? The five I picked out of hat tonight are:
- violence and neglect against children
- suicide
- substance abuse including drink driving
- the hollowing of the job market
- our loss of economic/productive sovereignty
Now, your list may or may not match mine, but you probably can understand where i am coming from with each of those five points.
So, what proportion of NZ academics are today focussed on helping us solve these top 5 problems (either yours or mine)? I bet tiny. What proportion are off instead focussed on their small disconnected area of theory? Most, I’d say. (Just look at the topics PhD students and post docs are studying department to department at your local uni). What proportion of NZ university research output is focussed on helping us solve these top 5 problems? Again, tiny, I’d say. What new understandings on each of these topics have our universities given us in the last 10 years on each of these major issues? Again not much which has made an impact IMO. All this for a spend of tens of billions over that same time frame.
“The “real” world is what exactly? University is actually part of the real world whether you or others value or like what they do or not. “
All in all I agree with you and this, finally, is the crux of my criticism. The unis are truly part of ‘real NZ’. BUT are they playing the role and performing the functions our society needs of them today? Are they acting as the forward thinking agents demanding change and making the statements which need to be made and which the pollies are too reluctant/cautious to do so? I say – nope – they are too many areas of disconnect, too much of a bums on seats mentality, too many academics off on blue sky tangents, too few focussing on the things that we urgently need answers on.
Take the example of the recent NAT fudge on dealing with drink driving blood alcohol levels. There were plenty of community and volunteer organisations crying out against the NAT position of delay. Also MPs on Red Alert. And where were the statements from our schools of medicine and public health decrying this move as against the best interests of the country and its peoples? Statements which said “actually, international research is unequivocal, lower the blood alcohol level now.” If there was one place in ‘real NZ’ for speaking out of turn on forward thinking ideas, universities should be it.
But of course now there is the promise of Govt funding for universities to do additional NZ research in this area over the next two years. So it may not be very politic to say anything in public one way or the other.