Australian Society of Archivists
1999 Conference
The Information Economy and Electronic Recordkeeping
: A New Zealand Perspective
John Roberts
Senior Archives Analyst
Statutory Regulatory Group
National Archives of New Zealand
The New Zealand government, like most governments, has been looking
at the impact of the “information economy” or the “knowledge
economy”, and the role of electronic recordkeeping in supporting
that sector of the overall economy. Linked with this are questions of
the role of government in the electronic age. The information economy
is the arena within which electronic recordkeeping will develop, and
electronic recordkeeping practices are thus likely to be significantly
shaped by government policies towards activity in this area. Key
issues for recordkeepers are the need to understand and adapt to the
broader environment, to recognise and engage with other players in
that environment, and perhaps most significantly, the fact that in
today’s networked online world, this development process takes
place in a global context.
In this brief paper, I will consider electronic recordkeeping in two
key areas:
1) Electronic commerce: what is the role of a government committed,
in general, to deregulation, in this field?
2) Public recordkeeping: how is electronic recordkeeping developing
in a public sector which emphasises devolved responsibility over
centralised control?
Government Role in eCommerce
Electronic commerce is the engine room of the information economy;
from a New Zealand perspective, ecommerce has been widely touted as a
significant opportunity to overcome geographical isolation and
increase competitiveness in the global economy. A recent government
report described ecommerce as “the ‘freezer ship’ of
the 21st century” for its potential to bring about far-reaching
improvements to the economy and standard of living.(1)
Ecommerce raises a number of issues for recordkeeping. Responses to
these issues will be shaped by a number of stakeholder groups, each
bringing their own interests to the debate. The business, technology,
and legal communities will all be active, and along with both local
and foreign governments will all influence the development of
recordkeeping practice. In the ‘freezer ship report’, the
government notes a number of recordkeeping issues which need to be
addressed:
- The application to electronic communications of statutory
provisions which mandate paper or paper-based concepts such as
original, writing and signature.
- The admissibility in court of electronic evidence
- Security issues such as
- authentication of electronic communications, that is,
verification of a correspondent's identity
- the commercial confidentiality of business transactions
- security (integrity) of electronic communications,
particularly against interception or alteration by unauthorised
third parties
- Transaction and other record retention and management(2)
In the New Zealand context, a matter of particular interest is the
degree to which the Government takes an active role in shaping and
stimulating ecommerce, or whether it trusts the market and
self-regulation to provide solutions. While statistics show that New
Zealand has a high rate of Internet use, there has also been
consistent criticism of the Government’s ‘hands off’
approach to the issues involved in ecommerce. “We lag behind in
having an official government organisation to oversee Internet use”
claims a recent newspaper article, which continues to quote Professor
Howard Frederick of Victoria university’s Internet Institute: “To
increase our GDP there needs to be a governing body overseeing
everything. New Zealand companies are not with it.”(3)
Consideration of the agencies involved illustrates some differences
between the New Zealand government approach to ‘on-line’
issues, and the approach in Australia. We have no equivalent to either
the National Office for the Information Economy, nor the Office for
Government On-line. Such issues are largely dealt with by a small IT
policy unit within the Ministry of Commerce.(4)
This perhaps reflects the view that the growth of the information
economy is something which should be allowed to happen, rather than
made to happen.
Such a view is of concern to potential investors. Motorola, looking
to establish a new Australasian development facility have sought
assurances from the New Zealand government of their commitment to
support of the information economy: “The underlying concern about
New Zealand that I have is in terms of how strongly New Zealand as a
nation and a society is focused on having a significant presence in
this whole information economy/knowledge-based business.”(5)
In April of this year Ernst and Young, in partnership with the New
Zealand Institute of Management, issued a report on the state of
eCommerce in New Zealand.(6) This report
noted that “it is of concern that the majority of survey
respondents perceived New Zealand to be average or lagging behind the
rest of the world in the eCommerce arena”. To some extent
Government is seen as responsible for this situation, as a result of
its ‘hands-off’ approach. Max Bradford, Minister for
Enterprise and Commerce comments “Many respondents see a need for
more Government investment in electronic commerce if New Zealand is
not to be left behind by other economies. This is happening. …
But I see the principal role of Government as setting the environment,
including removing barriers to growth where problems are identified.”
Government has indeed been seeking to address some of the issues
noted in the ‘Freezer ship’ report. Several of the issues of
particular significance for electronic recordkeeping fall into where
government involvement is seen as necessary, most notably in terms of
ensuring the law is able to cope with business in an electronic
environment. (These initiatives are, in general, seen in as ‘removing
barriers’ to participation rather than as facilitating
accountable business practice, although consumer protection is
considered important.) Late in 1998 the Law Commission released a
report addressing, in a preliminary way, Electronic Commerce, and
discussing the legal issues involved. This report applies the work of
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) to
New Zealand. The Commission has also identified four guiding
principles:
- to ensure business can be conducted electronically without any
unavoidable uncertainty arising out of the use of electronic
communication;
- to ensure the fundamental principles underlying the law of
contract and tort remain as far as possible untouched;
- to ensure laws are expressed in a technologically neutral manner;
and
- to ensure compatibility between the principles of domestic and
international laws.
A draft evidence code building on this report, and on the
submissions received in response to it, is expected to be released
shortly.
Further, there are indications that government ministers may suspect
possible market failure in this area, and be looking to a more active
role for government in promoting eCommerce. There has been increased
interest in the initiatives taken by more interventionist governments
in Ireland and Finland, both of which have been recently visited by
the Minister for Research, Science and Technology, Maurice Williamson.
Enterprise and Commerce Minister Max Bradford has suggested that New
Zealand needs to market itself aggressively offshore to attract
foreign investors, and points to Victoria as an example.(7)
A higher profile for whole of government strategy work in the policy
development programmes of the central agencies has also been requested
by Ministers in the current year.
For electronic recordkeeping, this situation suggests a lack of
clarity as to whose role it is to develop the standards and other
tools to support robust electronic recordkeeping.
One area of criticism of the New Zealand government has been the
suggestion that it is not acting as a role model to encourage
electronic business activity. The Ernst and Young report noted above
comments: “Examples such as Ireland, Singapore, Malaysia,
Australia, Canada and the US show that the Government could act as a
role model if they planned and implemented a sophisticated online
presence.”(8) Similarly, a number
of agencies are moving to on-line service delivery. Decisions of this
sort are not, however, driven by a general requirement to do so, but
by business cases targeting specific services and functions. The
implementation of these projects does not take place within a clear
framework of infrastructural expectations. However, the problems of
government agencies developing their information systems in
idiosyncratic and incompatible ways are now becoming evident. A Review
Team considering the possible merger of Customs, Immigration, Aviation
Security and the Quarantine Service as a single Border Agency has
recently noted significant difficulties and costs in integrating
information systems of the four agencies: “Each of the fours
agencies has its own custom-built IT system. Each agency has developed
its own process for information collection, and its own intelligence
system to meet its specific business requirements. There appears to be
only limited consistency in the way in which information is used and
managed across the agencies.”(9)
Government willingness to commit heavily to technology developments
is currently overshadowed by concern about Y2K, and concern about a
number of recent high-profile budget overruns in major IT projects.
Indeed, several of the most significant initiatives conducted by the
State Services Commission in the last two years have focused on these
areas: “ministerial concern has been expressed over the failure
of the National Library's NDIS project, problems with the education
payroll system, and the high cost and apparent deadline slippage of
the Police INCIS project. This, combined with a general unease over
the level and quality of government investments in information
technology, prompted the Cabinet to direct the State Services
Commission, Treasury and Ministry of Commerce to undertake a stocktake
of IT in the Public Service.”(10)
This stocktake was followed by a set of guidelines for selecting and
implementing information technology projects. Not surprisingly, these
guidelines emphasise cost effectiveness and risk management. They do,
however, also require some information management outcomes to be
considered:
“The Chief Executive is responsible for ensuring that the
following principles are applied when selecting IT projects:
- The information supporting its business processes is a key
strategic Crown resource, and must be managed throughout its
lifecycle…
- IT projects must conform to Public Service standards that,
subject to statutory and privacy requirements, common core
information should be accessible and able to be shared.
- Information relating to business requirements should be
collected only once, and thereafter be shared by authorised users,
but only if this is practical and cost-effective.
- Common definitions for shared information must be agreed to and
implemented.”(11)
These principles suggest an increasing desire to see the public
service acting as an effective whole rather than competing silos. A
potential difficulty exists, however, in the absence of mechanisms to
allow for this.
Public Sector Electronic Recordkeeping
In the New Zealand public sector, individual Chief Executives are
responsible for their departments in areas such as information
management and recordkeeping. A market model predominates which sees
ministers purchasing specified outputs from departments. Whole of
government guidance in respect of recordkeeping and information has
been very limited, however there are a number of initiatives which
serve to illustrate the dynamics of the situation, and the
difficulties that it poses for an agency such as National Archives
with whole of government responsibilities.
A central document is the Policy framework for Government Held
Information, approved by Cabinet in 1997.(12)
Typically for such policy programs in New Zealand, the Framework
operates at a very high level, specifying desired outcomes and
principles. The implementation of these principles is then the
responsibility of the departments themselves - mechanisms for the
implementation are neither suggested nor required. Indeed, the
Framework’s Stewardship principle states “Government
departments are stewards of Government held information and it is
their responsibility to implement good information management”.
This example also gives an idea of the level of generality at which
the principles are pitched.(13)
The difference in approach between the Canadian government and that
of New Zealand is well illustrated by comparison of the Canadian Policy
on the Management of Government Information Holdings(14),
and the New Zealand Policy Framework for Government Held
Information: where the Canadian policy spells out ‘policy
requirements’ the New Zealand document sets out broad principles;
the Canadian document is supported by detailed guidelines, while the
New Zealand framework identifies that “it is [Government
departments’] responsibility to implement good information
management”; the Canadian policy applies to all departments and
agencies, in New Zealand only core departments are involved.
The New Zealand framework takes a very broad interpretation of the
term information. While records are clearly within its scope, it is
equally clear that recordkeeping is not the focus of the document.
Similarly, the Policy Framework is not limited to electronic
information, but does encourage departments to make certain
information “increasingly available on an electronic basis”.(15)
As noted, Chief Executives play the central role in public service
information management policies. Indeed, one of the principal
mechanisms for ensuring compliance with the Policy Framework,
is through the performance management system for Chief Executives.
This now includes “Information management” among the areas
for assessment. In documentation of expectations in this area, the
emphasis is on return on investment (“it is vital that the
Government of the day be assured that the investments it makes in
information deliver intended outcomes”) and risk management (“good
practice approaches to the high level management of information …
and critically, a business risk management perspective”).(16)
To see how they carry out this role, a good place to look is a
report recently presented by the Chief Executives Group on Information
Management and Technology to the Chief Executives Forum. Entitled
An agenda for collaboration in the use of Public Service
information and technology resources, this report shows Chief
Executives grappling with the issues of collaboration and collective
action in an environment where there are no formal structures to
impose uniformity or common approaches, at the same time that concerns
have emerged about inefficiencies of inconsistent systems.
The issue of collective interests in information was highlighted as
a key issue by the 1997 stocktake of IT projects: “The
Government, its organisations, and the public expect more and better
information to be easily available. The increasing need to share
applied research and development in a devolved Public Service
highlights an ongoing increase in the need for departments to share
information as efficiently and effectively as possible, where it is
appropriate, and according to statutory requirements. Better
information sharing impacts on the collective issue of developing
greater co-ordination and, where appropriate, improved co-operation
between departments.”(17)
It is, however, interesting to note the wariness with which Chief
Executives approach collaboration in the Agenda for Collaboration.
Indeed, the first area covered is “why and when to collaborate”,
with the conclusion “Collaboration should occur when it is cost
effective from a whole-of-government perspective.” Cost
effectiveness is also seen as the main motivator in the area described
as ‘back office interfaces’. This area encompasses “development
of key standards and protocols to facilitate interconnectivity between
departments’ information systems”. Here the report concludes
“in these areas bottom-up decisions should be made on the basis
of cost/benefit analyses of the business benefits for participating
agencies”. In the New Zealand environment, this suggests that
justification for electronic recordkeeping initiatives will need to
address cost-benefit issues at an early stage.
Two initiatives included in the agenda are of particular interest to
recordkeepers. In the words of the Agenda for Collaboration,
“there is a requirement for enhancing the way that government
information is managed, in order that it may more easily be assembled
and presented to the public. Two major facilitators of this are
metadata frameworks and records management standards”. In both
cases these initiatives were in the first instance grass roots
collaborative efforts, and attempts are now being made to mesh these
with the activities at the Chief Executive level. It is perhaps also
indicative of the focus of Chief Executive interests that both these
areas of work are described under the heading of ‘Public access
to government information’.
The development of metadata frameworks is a good example of the ways
in which recordkeeping initiatives can develop in the devolved
environment of the New Zealand public sector. Standards, especially
metadata standards, feature prominently in our professional literature
on electronic recordkeeping. Indeed, the need for standards in
electronic recordkeeping is such that it has been argued that “the
two great problems (electronic records and standardisation) are not,
in fact, two problems at all - they are twin aspects of the same
problem”.(18) While many
information management and recordkeeping professionals within
government have been aware of international work in the field, the
impetus for collaborative work in New Zealand came from the particular
needs of one agency, the Ministry for the Environment, who required a
metadata standard to support their work on Environmental Performance
Indicators, and were also able to utilise work previously done by
groups such as Australia New Zealand Land Information Council. The
Ministry for the Environment had thus done substantial work to meet
their own business needs, and were subsequently keen to explore the
possible expansion of this work to a wider range of agencies.
At the same time, other agencies have also been aware of the need to
facilitate information sharing with each other, and information
dissemination to the public. There has been some concern that the
public sector reforms have led to difficulties in sharing information,
with agencies focusing on their own core business at the expense of
whole-of-government benefits.
Information management officials therefore formed a group at the
invitation of the Ministry for the Environment to explore the use
being made of metadata, and possible mechanisms for co-operation.
While officials have shown considerable enthusiasm for the idea of a
metadata framework, and have been looking closely at the AGLS
standard, work has currently paused, as the bottom-up work of the
officials tries to mesh with the collaborative efforts of the Chief
Executives. The work done to date on whole-of-government metadata to
date has been essentially unmandated, and based on the common views of
information management professionals.
A major issue for the group has been how to obtain the senior
management support necessary for any proposed standard to become
established in practice. Simultaneously, Chief Executives have been
looking for opportunities for collaboration, and thus this area of
work has attracted attention. Chief Executives at last report were
looking to form a Board to sponsor further activity in the area.
A similar pattern can be found in New Zealand efforts to develop
standards in the area of records management. Unusually, the Australian
standard AS4390 was not issued as a joint Australian / New Zealand
standard. While AS4390 has become quite heavily used in New Zealand
since it was issued, in some areas, particularly terminology and
references to legislation, New Zealand recordkeepers felt that there
were differences between Australian and New Zealand practice. A joint
public / private sector voluntary committee has, over the past year,
been working on a guide to facilitate the use of the Australian
standard in New Zealand.
Again Chief Executives noted the potential of this initiative for
electronic recordkeeping: “This work will reflect international
best-practice in meeting the statutory responsibilities of National
Archives as keeper of the official record of government, for the
integrity of electronic records and their authentication.” It
remains to be seen how Chief Executives may seek to support this
project.
Successful electronic recordkeeping initiatives will be tailored to
suit the environment in which they are to be implemented, and reflect
the technological, business and cultural aspects of that environment.
Recordkeepers must bear this in mind as we attempt to develop
solutions to recordkeeping problems in the electronic world. As
Margaret Hedstrom reminds us: “Unless recordkeeping models and
records management strategies are sensitive to new approaches to work
activities and the systems that support them, the solutions proposed
by archivists will be anachronistic to the problems they area
attempting to solve.”(19)
Electronic recordkeeping initiatives in the New Zealand public
sector thus develop in an environment in which Chief Executives play a
critical role. It is an environment in which the emergence of
standards is seen as a means of individual departments becoming more
cost effective in their operations, and in which desire to improve
access provides the most obvious opportunity for recordkeepers to
exploit.
In the long term, however, and in the absence of central direction,
electronic recordkeeping practice appears likely to evolve in line
with global standards for ecommerce. At the end of the day the New
Zealand government’s general preference for avoiding regulation
may prove unsustainable for genuine participation in the international
information economy. The future of electronic recordkeeping in New
Zealand will certainly be influenced by the position on what the Law
Commission describes as a fundamental issue: “whether New Zealand
should follow its own predisposition against legislation for
particular industries or circumstances [or] … might be better
advised to follow the approach favoured by our major trading partners.”(20)
Footnotes
(1) The Ministry of Commerce, Electronic
Commerce: The “Freezer Ship” of the 21st Century,
November 1998. The title alludes to the way in which refrigerated
cargo vessels enabled New Zealand in the late 19th century to overcome
geographical remoteness and participate in European markets for its
agricultural commodities.
(2) Electronic Commerce: The “Freezer
Ship” of the 21st Century
(3) ‘Big holes in the NZ Net’, Sunday
Star-Times, 27 June 1999.
(4) See
http://www.med.govt.nz/pbt/infotech.html
(accessed 26 July 1999)
(5) Ron Nissen, Motorola Pacific vice-president,
quoted in ‘Motorola wants NZ assurance’, Infotech
Weekly, 26 July 1999
(6) Ernst and Young / NZIM, eCommerce in New
Zealand : First Annual Study Results, 1999.
(7) ‘Knowledge Economy Reforms’, Infotech
Weekly, 5 July 1999.
(8) eCommerce in New Zealand, p13.
(9) ‘A bleak picture of department cooperation’,
Infotech Weekly, 26 July 1999
(10) State Services Commission, New Zealand
Public Service Information Technology Stocktake, November 1997,
1.1 Background. Available at
http://www.executive.govt.nz/96-99/minister/williamson/stocktake/index.html
(accessed 26 July 1999)
(11) State Services Commission, Principles and
Good Practices for Selecting and Managing Information Technology
Projects, 1998
(12) State Services Commission, Policy
Framework for Government Held Information, 1997. Available at
http://www.ssc.govt.nz/Documents/policy_framework_for_Government_.htm
(accessed 10 June 1999)
(13) It is perhaps indicative of the environment
that the pricing principle is the statement which provides most
detail.
(14) The Canadian Government Policy on the
Management of Government Information Holdings, issued by the
powerful Treasury Board Secretariat, available at
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/Pubs_pol/ciopubs/TB_GIH/CHAP3_1_e.html
(accessed 10 June 1999), for example requires agencies to “designate
a senior official to represent the deputy head to Treasury Board
Secretariat and other central agencies for the purposes of this policy”
and notes that “the National Archives has specific evaluation
responsibilities on behalf of the Treasury Board Secretariat in regard
to this policy”.
(15) Policy Framework, Principle (ii)
Coverage.
(16) State Services Commission, ‘Expectations
for the State Services Commission’s Review of Departmental
Performance 1997/98’, SSC/17/2.
(17) New Zealand Public Service Information
Technology Stocktake, Section 5 Key Future Issues.
(18) Chris Hurley, ‘Data, Systems, Management
and Standardisation’ in Archives and Manuscripts, Vol
22 No 2 (November 1994), p339.
(19) Margaret Hedstrom, ‘Building
Record-Keeping Systems: Archivists Are Not Alone on the Wild Frontier’,
Archivaria 44 , p 63.
(20) The Law Commission, Report 50,
Electronic Commerce Part One : A guide for the legal and business
community, (Wellington) 1998. Expectations of major trading
partners such as the European Community have already had effects on
legislation in areas such as privacy. |
