Page 3465 - Week 09 - Thursday, 24 August 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

(4) What is the process that takes place when an individual uses the “Suggest Data” function on the website, including (a) who is responsible for monitoring and responding to dataset suggestions, (b) the timeframe for responses to dataset suggestions, (c) how the responsible directorate evaluates the dataset suggestions, including the criteria used to assess the suggestion, and the timeframe for the assessment, (d) whether the individual suggesting the dataset is notified of the approval or rejection and (e) the process for obtaining and publishing the suggested data.

(5) What is the Government doing to promote the use of dataACT.

(6) Are there types of data or datasets that are exempt from being included on dataACT; if so, can the Chief Minister outline the types of data and datasets and why they are exempt.

(7) If no types of data or datasets are exempt from being included on dataACT, does the Government provide datasets to individuals upon request; if so, can the Chief Minister provide a breakdown of the total number of times a dataset has been requested by an individual each year since 2012 including (a) the directorate to which the request related and (b) whether the individual was provided with the dataset; if not, why not.

Mr Barr: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1) Additional functionality that has been incorporated includes:

moderation and approval of comments and dataset suggestions submitted by the public

approval processes to publish data views created by the public to the data catalogue and mark them with a ‘community’ badge - differentiating them from official government data views

the ability to create and maintain visual imagery, feature stories and category tiles on the homepage

updating of the search function with predictive dropdown, and

introduction of custom categories to separate dataset ownership by directorate.


a) Design – the look and feel was selected from existing templates. Images were sourced and implemented using internal resources

b) Software or systems – upgrades are included as part of ongoing support costs

c) Other system upgrades – no additional upgrades were required

d) External consultant costs – $4060.00 USD

e) No other costs were incurred

(3) Whilst there has been no specific public feedback on the site, changes to the look and feel have been made in response to alignment with the whole of government Single Public Face project and to provide consistency across ACT Government websites.


a) Until the recent upgrade, data suggestions went to multiple registered account holders across the ACT Government. All future requests will be managed from within the Office of the Chief Digital Officer.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video