Everyday democracy for everybody (in Australia)

Matthew LandauerFounder/Developer guy

@matthewlandauermatthew@openaustralia.org

OpenAustralia

Australia is...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pauliewoll/2398697101/

... a country

... a democracy

Winston Churchill

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government...

Winston Churchill

...except all the others that have been tried. “

Winston Churchill

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. “

Democracy isn’t just...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pauliewoll/2398697101/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yewenyi/408085910/

Let’s look for a moment at the UK

To publish what was said in parliament

was illegal

Proceedings of the Lower Room of the Robin Hood Society

From 1771 it was tolerated

You need to know...

So they do the right thing

So they do the right thingwe

Who is behind this?

A small bunch of technology geeks

• Matthew Landauer

• Katherine Szuminska

• Nathanael Boehm

We’re doing this in our spare time

Non partisan

In process of setting up non-profit

Always looking for volunteers

Contributions

• Daniel Kinsman

• Matthew Panetta

• Bruno Mattarollo

• Khan (Keith)

• Alan Liu

Hosting

• Andrew Snow

• Octopus Computing

Built on the work of mySociety

• Richard Allan• Martin Belam• James Crabtree

• James Cronin• Stephen Dunn• Yoz Grahame

• Phil Gyford• David Heath

• Francis Irving• Ben Laurie• Mark Longair

• Tom Loosemore

• Stefan Magdalinski• Dorian McFarland• Anno Mitchell

• Danny O'Brien• Etienne Pollard• Sam Smith

• Matthew Somerville• Tom Steinberg

• Stuart Tily• Julian Todd• Denise Wilton

How it all works

3 parts

Parser / Scraper

XML

Web Application

Parser / Scraper

• Ruby

• Mechanize - follow links with sessions

• Hpricot - HTML/XML parsing

• RelaxNG - xml schema language

Web Application

• php - majority

• Python - database loading scripts

• Perl - support scripts

• MySQL

• Apache

<?xml version="1.0"?><hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <session.header> <date>2008-11-12</date> <parliament.no>42</parliament.no> <session.no>1</session.no> <period.no>3</period.no> <chamber>REPS</chamber> <page.no>0</page.no> <proof>1</proof> </session.header> <chamber.xscript> <business.start> <day.start>2008-11-12</day.start> <separator /> <para> <inline font-weight="bold">The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins)</inline>took the chair at 9 am and read prayers.</para> </business.start> <debate> <debateinfo> <title>BUSINESS</title> <page.no>1</page.no> <type>Business</type> </debateinfo> <subdebate.1> <subdebateinfo> <title>Consideration of Private Members´ Business</title> <page.no>1</page.no> </subdebateinfo> <subdebate.2> <subdebateinfo> <title>Report</title> <page.no>1</page.no> </subdebateinfo> <speech> <talk.start> <talker> <page.no>1</page.no> <time.stamp>09:01:00</time.stamp> <name role="metadata">Price, Roger, MP</name> <name.id>QI4</name.id> <electorate>Chifley</electorate> <party>ALP</party> <in.gov>1</in.gov> <first.speech>0</first.speech> <name role="display">Mr PRICE</name> </talker>

<subdebateinfo> <title>Second Reading</title> <page.no>3</page.no> </subdebateinfo> <para>Debate resumed from 11 November, on motions by <inline font-weight="bold">Ms Macklin</inline>and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Tanner</inline>:</para> <motion> <para>That this bill be now read a second time.</para> </motion> <speech> <talk.start> <talker> <page.no>3</page.no> <time.stamp>09:05:00</time.stamp> <name role="metadata">Bishop, Julie, MP</name> <name.id>83P</name.id> <electorate>Curtin</electorate> <party>LP</party> <in.gov>0</in.gov> <first.speech>0</first.speech> <name role="display">Ms JULIE BISHOP</name> </talker> <para>In considering the bills comprising this stimulus package presented by the government of some $10.4 billion, the <inline ref="R4001">Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008</inline>and cognate bills, it is necessary to put them in the context of the global financial crisis which has been unfolding around the world for at least the last 12 months. Some have suggested that the global financial crisis has been caused by extreme capitalism-whatever that means-or corporate greed, but that is far too simplistic an analysis of the cause of the global financial crisis. It has come about because of a number of failures, policy failure, regulatory failure and management failure, and the combination has created what one could describe as a perfect storm which has led to a crisis in confidence and a situation where banks have become reluctant to lend to each other-in fact, banks do not trust each other-so the whole flow of credit throughout economies has been frozen.</para> </talk.start> <para>As we all know, this began with the subprime crisis in the United States. This was a result of some policy decisions. Firstly, money was easy to obtain. Between 2000 and 2003 interest rates in the United States fell from 6.5 per cent to one per cent. Secondly, there were the policies from successive United States administrations for homeownership, particularly among the poorer demographics. When you combined this cheap and easy money with this push to ensure that more people got loans for homeownership the result was that many people whose creditworthiness would not have otherwise entitled them to obtain a loan from a bank were able to obtain credit. This was fine when the housing bubble was increasing and house prices were increasing, but when the bubble burst people were left with loans that were in fact greater in value than the value of their home. These were colloquially known as NINJA loans—no income, no job or no assets loans. People just could not repay the loans. In many states in the United States they were non-recourse loans, which meant that people could effectively walk away from their responsibilities.</para>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><publicwhip> <major-heading id="uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-23.3.1" url="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:chamber/hansardr/2008-10-23/0000">BUSINESS </major-heading> <minor-heading id="uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-23.3.2" url="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:chamber/hansardr/2008-10-23/0000">Days and Hours of Meeting </minor-heading> <speech id="uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-23.3.3" speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/6" speakername="Anthony Norman Albanese" time="09:00:00" url="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:chamber/hansardr/2008-10-23/0000"> <p>I present a chart showing the program of sittings for 2009. Copies of the program have been placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the program be agreed to.</p> <p>Leave granted.</p> <p>I move:</p> <p class="italic">That the program of sittings for 2009 be agreed to.</p> </speech> <speech id="uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-23.4.1" speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/427" speakername="Christopher Maurice Pyne" time="09:01:00" url="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:chamber/hansardr/2008-10-23/0000"> <p>I will not speak for long, but I think there are some points that need to be made about this program of sittings for 2009, which comes on the heels of the program for 2008. The incompetent leader of government business in the House has yet again managed to restrict the number of weeks of sitting to 18 for 2009, on my understanding for this year and 18 for next year. I have been in this House much longer than most of the people in the House, and I can tell you that most of the time that I have been in this House the normal sitting period has been 20, 21 or 22 weeks of the year.</p> <p>This is a government which prided itself at one stage on having openness, transparency, scrutiny and accountability. The government even got the poor Governor-General in his address at the opening of the parliament to give a speech about accountability and openness and a new era of transparency; yet in 2008 it managed to limit itself to 18 weeks of sittings and in 2009 will manage to limit itself to 18 weeks of sitting. It is not an open, transparent and accountable government; it is far from it. The people of Australia expect us to serve our electorates and legislate, not to spend 18 weeks here when we should be spending 20 or 21 or 22 weeks. This is especially the case with a new government which, even in its second year in office, cannot think of enough work to do in parliament to sustain more than 18 weeks of sittings in the year. So the first point to be made is that, yet again, this government is squibbing on transparency and accountability and trying to avoid the parliament.</p> <p>The second point I would like to make is that the program for 2009 follows on the heels of the extraordinarily incompetent attempt at unconstitutional Friday sittings. The opposition managed to ensure that the Constitution of Australia was upheld by stopping those Friday sittings. It was an unconstitutional act on the part of this government. It was one of their earliest bungles—although not as serious as their latest bungle on the financial crisis. I am glad the Treasurer has come in to hear my speech on this matter today, because I am sure he wants to highlight the bungle of the financial crisis following hot on the heels of all the other bungles of the government over the last 12 months, starting with the unconstitutional attempt to have Friday sittings.</p> <p>This is the third example of the poor old hapless leader of government business in the House introducing yet another deficient schedule of 2009 sittings. Again, he has managed to schedule four occasions when there will be a one-week non-sitting period between two weeks of sittings. So members of parliament will be sitting four weeks out of five rather than a properly scheduled sitting program. There is also a seven-week break in April and May, a six-week break in July and August and a four-week break in October. Why can’t your leader of government business get it right? You have got four times when we have one week back in our electorates between two-week sitting blocks—which is the worst thing imaginable—and three major blocks of seven weeks, six weeks and four weeks when the parliament will not be sitting. There is no good reason or justification for this other than the fact that the leader of government business has his hands off the wheel when he should have both hands on the wheel focusing on what matters in this House—the schedule for 2009.</p> <p>The opposition cannot do anything to change this sitting program. The government manage the schedule of business, and we are prepared to let them keep on being incompetent. We will turn up. We will keep showing them up for the failures that they are. We will scrutinise them and hold them accountable right through to the next election. But I point out to honourable members opposite that you need a new leader of government business. I think even my counterpart, the Minister for Education, or even the Treasurer—although he might have a bit on his plate at the moment—would do a better job than the leader of government business in the House. So, while the opposition will not oppose this motion, we certainly place on record our dismay and disdain for the management of this House by the current leader of government business in the House.</p> </speech> <speech id="uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-23.5.1" speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/6" speakername="Anthony Norman Albanese" time="09:06:00" url="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:chamber/hansardr/2008-10-23/0000"> <p>I am happy to close the debate on the 2009 program of sittings and note that the opposition are once again walking both sides of the street. They say they are supporting this; they are going to vote for this. There are no amendments to this motion, but they criticise, complain and whinge about the program of sittings that has been put forward.</p> </speech> <speech id="uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-23.5.2" speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/427" speakername="Christopher Maurice Pyne" time="09:06:00" url="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:chamber/hansardr/2008-10-23/0000"> <p>We weren’t given any notice about it.</p> </speech> <speech id="uk.org.publicwhip/debate/2008-10-23.5.3" speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/6" speakername="Anthony Norman Albanese" time="09:06:00" url="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:chamber/hansardr/2008-10-23/0000"> <p>It was on the <i>Notice Paper</i>. Of course, the Manager of Opposition Business is away, and I am not sure what has happened to the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Cowper. What has occurred is that the member for Sturt has jumped over the member for Cowper in order to make sure that the deputy could not fulfil the role he normally would have had. And, meekly, the National Party, who have the deputy’s position, have just given it up. They have just rolled over and had their tummy tickled by the member for Sturt. That is what the member for Cowper has done with his failure to take on that position.</p> <p>I want to address the issues of substance raised by the member for Sturt. He suggested that it was appropriate that the parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. I went back and had a look. In 1996 it sat for the 16. In 1997 it sat for 20. In 1998 it sat for 14. In 1999 it sat for 19. In 2000 it sat for 19. In 2001, 14. In 2002, 18. In 2003, 19. In 2004, 16. In 2005, 18. In 2006, 18. So not once while they were in government, in not one of the 12 years, did parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. But here they say that is what should happen.</p> <p>On behalf of the electorate and constituents of Sturt, I can understand why they would not want their member in Sturt, or why the constituents of Cowper would want their member in Cowper. The fact is they did not do it for their entire time of office. But this is typical of this opposition. It does not matter whether it is over organisational issues or whether it is issues affecting the economy, the global financial crisis and the response of this government to it, they say they are for it essentially, they do not propose any alternatives—we saw the Leader of the Opposition on the <i>7.30 Report</i> last night—but they just snipe from the sidelines.</p> <p>The member for Sturt referred to Friday sittings. In the life of this parliament, what issue has the opposition had most speakers on? Was it about pensions? Was it about the global financial crisis? Was it about workplace relations and their defence of Work Choices? No. It was about Friday sittings. That has been their No. 1 priority as an opposition. That had a speakers list where every one of their members had a view. So parliament sat for the longest first-day sitting since Federation because of their strenuous opposition to working five days a week. That is what motivated them more than the economy, more than pensions, more than the response to climate change. That is what really got their backs up: sitting five days a week. They behaved in a way which brought disrepute to this House during that Friday sitting. Because of that, they lost their opportunity to have a day at the end of the week when they could raise issues of concern to their constituents, be they local electorate issues or responses to the economy or alternative viewpoints. Most of that is now put on Monday night in the Main Committee, because they were not prepared to have that opportunity for real parliamentary reform that was given to the opposition and was of great advantage to the opposition.</p> <p>We know that when it comes to work and procedures the Manager of Opposition Business does indeed have a record of which he should be very concerned. Because they have no real agenda—</p> </speech>

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><publicwhip> <major-heading>BUSINESS</major-heading> <minor-heading>Days and Hours of Meeting</minor-heading> <speech speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/6" time="09:00:00"> </speech> <speech speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/427" time="09:01:00"> </speech> <speech speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/6" time="09:06:00"> </speech> <speech speakerid="uk.org.publicwhip/member/427" time="09:06:00"> </speech></publicwhip>

All around the world...

Albania, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand,

Netherlands, Romania, United Kingdom, USA

The future

So many possibilities

Register of Members’ interests

Voting

Contacting politicians

Committees

Bills

States

Video

Think about the possibilities

• Follow a bill

• See amendments

• See it move from between Houses

• Watch the votes

• Give feedback to your representative

• See what other people think

Getting involved

• The software - it’s open source, you know.

• software.openaustralia.org

• email contact@openaustralia.org

Or start something new!

BOFThis afternoon: 5.10pm

Social Science 211

@matthewlandauermatthew@openaustralia.org

OpenAustralia