Government data sharing law falls flat

A law intended to make it easier for federal agencies and universities to share data is not being used due to “fundamental” design flaws.

The public sector data sharing law passed parliament in 2022 after a four-year lead-up, with Labor - at the time in opposition - pushing changes that limited the scope and improved “safeguards”.

The intent of the law was to open up government data reserves, which could be used for “data-driven” innovation and research.

But a statutory review of the law, tabled in parliament on Tuesday, shows it has been ineffective so far, and requires substantial reform to make it useful.

As of mid-2024, only one dataset - the National Disability Data Asset (NDDA) - had been created using the law.

“Although eight data sharing agreements have been registered under the [Data Availability and Transparency] Act, all have been between Australian government entities for the purposes of building the NDDA,” the review found.

“To date, no other requests for data under the Act have been agreed to.”

Even these agencies plan to stop using the law to facilitate data access, however.

Data sharing across federal government is happening, but in spite of the law passed to improve it. Most data sharing occurring across the federal government today utilises mechanisms other than the Act.

These vary agency by agency, operate with their own frameworks and rules, and may be powered by an enterprise data infrastructure stack that is also specific to the agency involved.

For anyone wanting to access data, that means a different process at every agency.

While the review acknowledged the preference of data custodians “to utilise existing agency-specific processes [as] generally understandable at an agency level", it said this approach at a whole-of-government level was "inefficient".

Changes sought

The reviewers want the Data Availability and Transparency Act to become a standard, consistent and efficient pathway to access data across government.

Another significant change sought by the review is to strip data owners of their current ability to refuse access to data, or to sit on requests.

“The review finds that Commonwealth data custodians frequently decline data requests, including those for de-identified datasets, without providing clear justification or engaging with the requesting party,” it states.

“Although the Act requires data custodians to notify accredited users of refusal reasons, the explanation need not be informative, and users have no right of redress.

“Data custodians’ discretion is absolute: [they] cannot be required to share data and can refuse a data sharing request ‘for any reason’.”

By contrast, the review recommends that “the DAT Act should embed a default posture of agreeing to share data, with data custodians able to refuse requests in appropriately limited circumstances, subject to oversight and review.”

The reviewers said that without any changes, “opportunities to derive public benefit from the data held by the Commonwealth, and the effective sharing of that data, will continue to be missed.”

The review also makes a number of other recommendations, including for a “recalibration” of the “National Data Commissioner’s functions and powers”, and for more entities to be allowed to request government data.

These could include “ACCOs [Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations], not-for-profit research institutes, and not-for-profit service delivery organisations.”