Open Government Review of Australia

4. Towards a connected digital infrastructure for participation in Australia

Abstract

This chapter examines how Australia's strong digital government capabilities can be better connected to citizen participation. It discusses opportunities to strengthen the coherence of digital participation platforms, provides an analysis of in-house modules and procured tools, and identifies opportunities to develop common standards, streamline user experience, collect standardised data, and close feedback loops. Drawing on international examples, the chapter recommends a co-ordinated roadmap toward shared digital participation standards and infrastructure. It also stresses the importance of ensuring these operate in collaboration rather than replacing non-digital channels.

4.1. Connecting digital infrastructure with meaningful participation approaches across Australia

This chapter discusses how Australia can leverage its strong digital capabilities to increase and improve citizen and stakeholder participation. It reviews the policy, governance and institutional frameworks that enable the use of digital tools for public participation processes and identifies opportunities to develop a more coherent approach to digital participation across government.

Key findings and recommendations

Australia is a global leader in digital government, providing a strong foundation for further developing its approach to digital participation. Across government, numerous agencies have adopted digital platforms for participation, although greater alignment in standards, interfaces and access points could improve the citizen experience. Building on existing assets such as the GovCMS Have Your Say module, Australia could further integrate digital and participation frameworks and develop common standards, while continuing to provide non-digital channels for the roughly one-fifth of Australians who remain digitally excluded.

Policy recommendations

To move from a fragmented landscape of digitally enabled participation to a sound and coherent digital participation infrastructure, the Australian Government could consider:

• Working with agencies mandated to promote public service innovation, AI and digital transformation, and citizen participation to co-ordinate a roadmap towards a sound, citizen-centric digital infrastructure for participation in collaboration with the DTA and the Department of Finance. This roadmap could include:

  • A definition of digital participation standards (e.g. user-centred and responsive design principles, good practices when using digital tools for participation, privacy protections and clear communication on how participants’ data is collected, used and managed). This set of standards should be developed in collaboration with relevant stakeholders and could be integrated in the Australian Government Architecture (AGA). The standards would apply to both in-house and government procured solutions, the latter through appropriate procurement pathways.

  • Investment in systematic improvements to in-house digital platforms for participation, namely the Have Your Say module of GovCMS. These improvements should be agreed upon with a wide range of stakeholders and users. In principle, the module could become more flexible and adaptable to a variety of participatory processes. It should also enable better feedback loops on the use of participants’ inputs, and allow for more interaction among participants.

  • The improvement of data collection and data interoperability across digital participation platforms to enable a more advanced monitoring of digital participation.

  • Measures to promote digital access and accessibility for all Australians, including support for digital literacy and continued availability of non-digital participation channels for groups facing barriers to engagement, as well as targeted support for CSOs to navigate emerging digital and AI-enabled participation tools.

4.2. Australia’s changing digital participation landscape

As set out in Chapter 1, the use of digital technologies is transforming the government-citizens interface, including participation in policymaking. Hence, broader participation frameworks should include a digital dimension. Governments at all levels and around the world are regularly using digital tools to support participatory processes (OECD, 2022[1]; OECD, 2025[2]). Digital tools help enable participation by facilitating it in contexts that would otherwise be cumbersome or impossible, opening possibilities for citizens and stakeholders to interact in different ways. More specifically, digital tools can increase the reach of participation processes by allowing citizens to participate from anywhere and at their own pace. They allow for large group discussions on a given topic through interactive spaces where participants can read, endorse, and comment on proposals and inputs submitted by others, or vote for their preferred projects and initiatives. Finally, the use of digital tools facilitates governments’ effort to collect and analyse participation data. Box 4.1 outlines considerations and principles for the design and use of digital tools for participation.

Box 4.1. Considerations for digital tools for participation

Guidance from key OECD reports provides a set of considerations and design principles for digital tools for citizen participation, aiming to make them effective enablers of meaningful engagement.

• User-centric: User needs should be central to the design of digital participation tools. This can be achieved by involving users in the co-creation, testing, and refinement of tools based on feedback and behavioural data. This helps ensure usability, relevance, and alignment with participation objectives while respecting privacy and ethical standards.

• Accessible: Digital tools should be accessible to all publics, including those with limited digital access or skills, through measures such as mobile-friendly design, multilingual content, and integration with offline channels. The use of plain language and other good practices in public communication further support broad participation.

• Transparent: Tools should be designed and used transparently, for example by choosing open standards tools and by providing and clear communication on how citizen input informs decisions.

• Safe: Participation platforms should ensure safe interactions while protecting people’s privacy and freedom of expression, including by implementing responsible content moderation.

• Re-usable: Tools should be designed for reuse across processes and institutions to reduce costs, maximise public value, and provide consistent user experiences. This can be achieved through shared standards, open-source solutions, and clear documentation.

• Modular and adaptable: Participation tools should be modular, allowing organisers to adjust features (e.g. consultation, voting, deliberation) to fit each participatory process. This flexibility enables scalability, experimentation, and alignment with evolving needs.

• Enabling feedback loops: Tools should support continuous and visible feedback, informing participants how their input is used and what actions follow. This helps sustain engagement and accountability.

• Fostering citizen-to-citizen dialogue: Beyond government interaction, tools should facilitate meaningful exchanges among citizens through features like discussions, collaboration, and endorsements. Well-designed dialogue improves the quality of contributions and mutual understanding.

Source: (OECD, 2019[3]; OECD, 2021[4]; OECD, 2023[5]; Welby and Hui Yan Tan, 2022[6]; Buell, Porter and Norton, 2021[7])

Australia is a world-leader in digital government. In the 2025 OECD Digital Government Index (DGI), the country ranked second out of 42 with a score of 0.88, well above OECD average at 0.70. The DGI assesses countries’ digital government maturity by looking at the degree to which they have the necessary foundations in place to be able to leverage data and technology to deliver a whole-of-government and human-centric digital transformation of the public sector. The DGI includes six dimensions, ranging from the extent to which government is open by default to its capacity to place user needs at the core of design and delivery. The table below outlines each of the dimensions and Australia’s score and relative ranking in each.

Table 4.1. Australia’s 2025 Digital Government Index Scoring

	Australia’s Score	Australia’s Relative Rank
Dimension 1 -Digital by design: measures how digital government policies are designed to enable the public sector to use digital tools and data in a coherent way when formulating policies or transforming public services.	1	1
Dimension 2 - Data-driven: measures government’s advancements in developing the governance and enablers needed for data access, sharing and re-use across the public sector.	0.88	7
Dimension 3 – Government as a platform: measures the deployment of common building blocks such as guidelines, tools, data, digital identity and software to equip teams to advance a coherent transformation of government processes and services across the public sector.	0.91	4
Dimension 4 - Open by default: measures openness beyond the release of open data, including efforts to foster the use of technologies and data to communicate and engage with different actors.	0.67	13
Dimension 5 - User-driven: measures governments’ capacity to place user needs at the core of the design and delivery of public policies and services.	0.95	1
Dimension 6 - Proactiveness: measures governments’ capacity to anticipate the needs of users and service providers to deliver government services proactively.	0.88	5

Source: 2026 OECD Digital Government Index

Together with Dimension 5, focused on the extent that digital government efforts are User-driven, dimension 4, which assesses governments’ capacity to promote openness, transparency, and accountability through the proactive use of digital technologies and data, is particularly important for digital public participation as it creates the conditions for the creation of transparent, reusable digital solutions, while unlocking the power of data across government agencies and for external stakeholders. While Australia’s score has improved significantly from the 2023 DGI (from 0.47 to 0.67), this is the dimension where Australia shows room for improvement. The finding is consistent with the 2025 results of the OECD Open and Reusable Data Index (OURData), where Australia scores 0.29 out of 1 and ranks 31^st out of the 42 countries assessed (OECD, 2026[8]). Data openness, sharing and interoperability are key assets for governments to take advantage of the evidence gathered by all government agencies when interacting with citizens and stakeholders. With respect to participation, good data governance and openness can enable public officials to tap into past consultations and engagement initiatives to inform future processes and support policy design.

4.2.1. Ensuring Australia’s strategic framework for citizen participation includes a focus on digital participation

Digital government infrastructures and services in Australia are governed by robust policy frameworks and strategies, including the Digital and Data Government Strategy, the Whole of Government Digital and ICT Investment Oversight Framework (IOF), the Australian Government Architecture and the Digital Experience Policy (Box 4.2). These policies have resulted in highly user-friendly public services, as demonstrated by Australia’s DGI score on the ‘User Driven’ dimension (see Table 4.1).

The Digital and Data Government Strategy was one of the outputs of Priority two of APS Reform, i.e. “an APS that puts people and businesses at the centre of policies and services”, together with the Charter of Partnership and Engagement (APS, 2024[9]). This signals that through APS Reform, the Australian Government aimed to improve both the accessibility and user-friendliness of digital government services and the opportunities for citizen and stakeholder engagement in policymaking and service design and delivery. However, in practice, evidence collected by the OECD suggests that these reform priorities have not yet materialised into policies, standards, and concrete actions to improve digitally enabled participation. Notably, participation-focussed policies at the federal level do not mention the digital dimension, while policies shaping Australia's digital government do not include participation as an area of focus.

This points to an opportunity to leverage Australia’s digital government expertise to create policies, standards, tools and practices for high quality digitally enabled participation. More specifically, OECD research and interviews identified concrete opportunities and entry points for Australia to improve and enhance its digital infrastructure for participation and to build capacities for its adoption across government agencies at all levels of governance. Such infrastructure, together with adequate capabilities, would support more meaningful and representative citizen participation processes. These opportunities include investing in the improvement of government-developed digital participation platforms, in the elaboration and adoption of digital participation standards, applicable to both in-house and procured solutions, and in the integration of consideration on the use of digital tools in participation frameworks and guidance.

Box 4.2. Key policies and strategies of Australia’s digital government of relevance to citizen participation

• The Data and Digital Government Strategy released in December 2023, is co-led by the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) and the Department of Finance. It sets a 2030 vision to "deliver simple, secure and connected public services for all people and business through world class data and digital capabilities”. It is organised around five missions: delivering for all people and business; simple and seamless services; government for the future; trusted and secure; and data and digital foundations. The strategy is supported by annual Implementation Plans (released for 2023, 2024, and 2025).

• The Whole of Government Digital and ICT Investment Oversight Framework (IOF) Introduced in 2022, the IOF provides a comprehensive, end-to-end approach across the digital investment lifecycle—from early planning to benefit realisation—aligned with the Data and Digital Government Strategy 2023-2030. Iteratively developed to meet evolving needs, the IOF seeks to strengthen decision making and boost the successful delivery of digital initiatives. In 2025, the OECD reviewed the IOF’s progress three years post-launch, benchmarking it against OECD good practices, and assessed it as a key strength of Australia’s digital investment governance. The OECD Review identified strengths, challenges, and opportunities to ensure the IOF remains fit for purpose and continues to advance Australia’s digital government ambitions.

• The Australian Government Architecture is a framework that brings together a collection of digital artifacts and guidance to help government agencies using, building, or purchasing digital technologies align with the government's digital direction. The AGA provides common language and a structured approach to understanding and implementing digital and ICT capabilities, ensuring consistency, interoperability, and value for money. It includes policies, standards, designs, and strategies, guiding agencies in making informed investment.

• The Australia Digital Experience Policy establishes mandatory whole-of-government standards for the performance of digital services. It is supported by a suite of standards -including service design, access, and performance -that require agencies to design and deliver high-quality, measurable, and accessible digital services. The policy also mandates the use of data and performance monitoring to continuously improve services and inform investment decisions, aligning with broader digital government strategies.

Source: (Australian Government, 2023[10]; Australian Government, 2025[11]; Australian Government, 2025[12]; OECD, 2025[13])

4.2.2. Positioning digital participation within the governance of participation

The main institutions involved in governing and delivering digital public participation platforms at the federal level in Australia are the Department of Finance and the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA), both involved in the broader digital transformation and innovation of the Australian Public Service. The Department of Finance sets policy directions and steering the implementation of major digital initiatives, including leading the national Digital ID programme and the Data and Digital Government Strategy (Australian Government, 2026[14]). The Department of Finance is also responsible for part of the digital infrastructure of the Australian Government, including the Government Content Management System (GovCMS), which includes the module “Have Your Say” for digital consultations (Box 4.3) (Australian Government, 2026[15]).

Meanwhile the DTA, located in the Finance portfolio, supports government agencies developing and procuring digital solutions by setting standards and frameworks – notably the Digital Policy Experience, the Australian Government Architecture and the ICT Investment Oversight Framework – as well as by maintaining the digital marketplace BuyICT and providing technical assistance when using the procurement platform and following procurement process. (Australian Government, 2025[16]; Australian Government, 2025[12]; Australian Government, 2026[17]). Finally, the DTA develops and maintains shared platforms and standards and collects performance data to advise the Australian Government on continuous improvement and future opportunities.

The current landscape of digital tools for participation in Australia is rich but fragmented, with numerous agencies at all levels of governance using a variety of tools with different capabilities. The two institutions analysed above can play a crucial role in building a sound digital infrastructure for participation drawing on both in-house and procured civic tech tools. Existing policy frameworks such as the Digital Policy Experience and the Australian Government Architecture can serve as a relevant starting point: although these policies do not mention digital participation as a specific area of focus, most of the design principles and standards (e.g. accessibility, user-centredness, seamlessness) apply to the realm of digital participation. Moreover, these institutions can play a key role in supporting the proposed Centre of Excellence for Participation co-ordinating the deployment of the infrastructure for participation across government agencies. However, investments in digital infrastructure should complement broader efforts to improve the quality of participation processes, as suggested by evidence collected by the OECD for this review (See Chapter 3) which suggests that CSOs place greater importance on issues such as timing of engagement and communication of outcomes than the availability of digital tools.

4.3. Towards a coherent digital infrastructure for participation in Australia

Digital platforms for participation are software designed specifically to support online citizen participation processes such as online public consultations, online voting for proposals and projects, and online fora and discussions around given or proposed topics. To that end, digital platforms for participation tend to include a wide array of interactive features that can be activated depending on the needs of each participatory process. The software behind these platforms is often designed specifically for government-citizens interactions at all levels of governance, from local to supranational.

In Australia, numerous government agencies at the Commonwealth, State, and municipal level have adopted digital platforms for citizen participation. These platforms, which are either embedded in the official website of the agency or deployed as a standalone website, create a digital channel for citizens to respond to public consultations and have a say on policy issues that concern them. The digital infrastructure behind participation platforms in Australia does therefore not rely on a whole-of-government portal, unlike those of other countries such as Brazil and France (see Box 4.4) but rather on institution-specific platforms, whose software is either developed in house by the government or purchased from specialised tech providers through public procurement. Most of these platforms are labelled “Have your say” or “Your Say”. However, the common labelling does not correspond to a single digital tool nor to a standard visual identity and user experience.

Several “Have your say” platforms are based on a module of the broader Government Content Management System (GovCMS), a digital government software developed in house by the Australian Government. GovCMS is maintained by the Department of Finance and powers more than 350 government websites at all levels of governance (GovCMS, 2026[18]). The “Have your say” module can potentially be deployed on all GovCMS-based government websites with no additional costs. Examples of this module in use include the websites of the Department of Infrastructure, the Office for the Arts, and the Digital Transformation Agency (Department of Infrastructure, 2026[19]; Office for the Arts, 2026[20]; Digital Transformation Agency, 2026[21]). Box 4.3 analyses the Have Your Say platform of the Department of Infrastructure in greater detail.

Box 4.3. Have Your Say – Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication, Sport and the Arts

The Department’s “Have Your Say” platform is an example of a digital participation platform built using the “Have Your Say” module of the Government Content Management System (GovCMS), a software developed by the Australian Government and based on Drupal, an open-source software maintained and regularly updated by a global community of developers. The platform showcases ongoing and past consultations, with filters by title and date. Each consultation card includes a short description, participation timeframe, and countdown for ongoing processes.

Individual consultation pages include a more detailed description of the policy issue at stake, an explanation of why citizens and stakeholders’ input or feedback is needed, how it will be used, and how to participate. Relevant documentation is available in the form of hyperlinks and/or attachments ready to be downloaded. The “Participate” section of each consultation includes a web form for submission, as well as detailed instructions on the minimum requirements needed for a submission to be valid. An email address is proposed as an alternative channel for submitting inputs. Finally, each page provides information on privacy and information management. If the consultation is already closed, the submission form gets deactivated and public submissions are published at the bottom of the webpage. In some cases, the organisers of closed consultations uploaded documentation on how citizens’ and stakeholders’ inputs were used to inform the policy concerned.

Overall, the Have Your Say module of GovCMS is an easily accessible digital platform for online consultations which does not require the creation of a dedicated account and provides a familiar way to submit inputs – a webform. At the same time, the platform does not enable other form of digital participation processes beyond public consultations and does not allow participants to see and comment others’ public submissions. Although organisers can update the consultations’ pages with explanations and documentation on how citizens’ and stakeholders’ inputs were used, this stage takes the form of a static webpage and/or long attached documents. Users might therefore find it difficult to get informed about how their inputs were used, limiting the “feedback loop”.

Source: (Department of Infrastructure, 2026[19])

Other Australian agencies at various levels of governance use the same branding, “Have your say” or “Your Say”, for participation platforms that rely on government-procured digital services. Among these, “Have Your Say” for Agriculture, DCCEEW, and Industry are powered by Converlens, an Australian-built Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform, while YourSAy – Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet of South Australia uses EngagementHQ by the global gov-tech firm Granicus (former Bang the Table) (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, 2026[22]; Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, 2026[23]; Government of Australia, 2026[24]).

Finally, some Australian agencies, such as the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, IP Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the National Health and Medical Research Council, ARPANSA, and CASA, have deployed their digital platforms for participation using the software Citizen Space developed by Delib, a UK-based company. These platforms do not use the branding “Have your say” and are mostly labelled “Consultation Hub” (Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, 2026[25]; Attorney-General's Department, 2026[26]; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2026[27]; IP Australia, 2026[28]; Therapeutic Goods Administrations (TGA), 2026[29]; Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 2026[30]; NHMCR, 2026[31]; ARPANSA, 2026[32]; CASA, 2026[33]).

When procuring digital platforms for participation, Agencies can use the procurement pathways established by the DTA for digital and ICT products and services, facilitated via the procurement platform, BuyICT.gov.au. While the Australian Government Architecture is non-binding, agencies can use it as a quality assurance tool when procuring solutions. Agencies remain accountable for the tools they decide to purchase, and the DTA cannot veto a transaction. However, evidence from the OECD interviews with government stakeholders suggests that the DTA and government agencies purchasing digital and IT solutions work collaboratively to meet quality standards through the Digital and ICT Investment Oversight Framework (IOF). At the time of writing, digital participation is not included in the DTA policies and standards, and no specific category of tools is mentioned in the marketplace BuyICT. This gap might result in agencies being unaware of the existence of a market of digital solutions for participation, lacking adequate guidance and standards to choose high quality and fit-for-purpose tools, or might not encourage the adoption and re-use of trusted solutions.

To take full advantage of digital tools for participation and use them to improve both the immediate outcomes and the long-term impact of citizen participation processes, governments across the OECD are working towards the creation of a digital participation infrastructure. Such infrastructure can include both digital tools developed in-house or procured from the market, developed and acquired with a strategic approach. This arrangement allows for a variety of options to experiment and adopt innovative tools according to each agency’s needs and resources. The digital participation infrastructure could be integrated in the broader digital government ecosystem. This allows for a seamless user experience, increasing the visibility of participation opportunities by integrating them in digital portals and gateways that citizens use regularly, and enable greater interoperability across government digital services. Examples of integrating digital participation tools in the broader digital government ecosystem include the use of national digital ID systems as log in portals or embedding these tools in the main digital government services portals. Box 4.4 presents relevant examples of digital infrastructures for participation adopted at the national and federal level in Brazil, Estonia, and France.

Box 4.4. International Good Practices in Using Digital Tools for Participation

• Brazil – Brasil Participativo: Brasil Participativo is the successor platform to Participa.br, initially established in 2014. Developed as a portal for public discussion and consultation, various government agencies and ministries have used it to crowdsource input from citizens on a wide range of initiatives (OECD, 2018[34]). It is governed by the Presidency of the Republic through the State Secretariat for Social Participation. It allows citizens and civil society actors to submit ideas, comment others’, and collaborate on policy discussions. The University of Brasilia, in collaboration with the Ministry of Management and Innovation, developed the platform building on the open-source software Decidim, a widely spread digital platform for participation initially developed in Barcelona in 2016 and maintained by a global community of developers. Fully integrated into the digital public infrastructure of the Brazilian Federal Government, access to the platform is also managed through GOV.br, the government’s unified digital ID system. Since 2023, Brasil Participativo cumulated more than 1.7 million participants.

• Estonia – Rahvaalgatus: Rahvalgatus.ee allows Estonian residents to make suggestion on how to change current regulations to better organise social life in the country by making proposals, inviting others to discuss, collecting digital signatures and submitting appeals to the national or local government. The platform is managed by the Estonian Cooperative Society Foundation (SA Eesti Koostöö Kogu) in close co-ordination with the Chancellery of the Parliament (Riigikogu Kantseleiga). Estonia is consistently a top performer in international digital government indices, with a scoring of 0.83 in the OECD’s Digital Government Index, as compared to the OECD average of 0.70. It is a worldwide leader in the creation and operation of digital public infrastructure, with their secure digital ID and data exchanges allowing online voting since 2005.

• France – Agora: Agora is a digital participation platform launched by the French government in 2023 to enable citizens to contribute to public policy through consultations and direct questions to government officials. It is formally operated by the Centre interministériel de la participation citoyenne at the Direction interministérielle de la transformation publique (DITP), developed within the Beta.gouv digital services incubator, and overseen as part of the state’s administrative apparatus. The platform provides structured online consultations, allows users to submit and support “questions citoyennes,” and publishes follow-up information on how contributions influence policy decisions.

Source: (Presidency of the Republic of Brazil, 2026[35]; SA Eesti Koostöö Kogu, 2026[36]; OECD, 2026[8]; e-Estonia, 2026[37]; Government of France, 2026[38]).

The landscape of digital platforms for participation in Australia is a wide one, as many agencies at all levels of governance use these tools to engage with citizens, but it is also highly fragmented. Although a large number of those use the recognised brand “Have Your Say” (or one of many variations, e.g. “Your SAy” in South Australia), they do not provide a standardised user interface and user experience. For citizens and stakeholders to log in in some of these platforms, they usually have to create a dedicated account on each platform using an email address or, in some cases, their Google or Meta account. For the time being, it is not possible to log in through Digital ID or other digital identity systems in use.

This fragmentation entails several obstacles to participation, both on citizens’ and the government’s side: for citizens, digital platforms for participation are not accessible through a single portal or gateway, require the creation of dedicated accounts, and offer different interfaces and journey. All these frictions might result in limited awareness of the existence of these tools and of the opportunities to participate in public consultations and other processes, fatigue caused by the repetition of actions required to participate (e.g. the creation of a user account), and difficulty in dealing with different user journeys on different platforms. Although mostly technical, these obstacles or ‘sludge’ – unnecessary friction that hinders access, imposes psychological costs and erodes trust - might result in lower participation turnout or in the exclusion of less digitally literate groups (OECD, 2024[39]). For governments, this fragmented landscape can lead to limited capacity to map all participation opportunities taking place online or in hybrid settings. This can also have an effect on capacities to collect data in a standardised manner, tap into the results of past participatory processes, adopt standardised templates to close the loop, and inform participants about how their inputs were used. On the latter, a good practice from Australia is the format “We asked, You Said, We did” of the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (Australian Government, 2026[40]). Moreover, the variety of digital tools used corresponds to different user experiences for both citizens and government officials responsible for the management of the platforms. These variety could lead to increased difficulty to build capacities across government agencies, produce and disseminate guidance, and establish common standards of good practices on digital participation (see Section 4.2).

The GovCMS Have Your Say module could become the cornerstone of a more integrated and consistent digital infrastructure for participation. There is an opportunity to invest in improving the Have Your Say module to make it more adaptable to different types of participatory processes, to enable dialogue among participants, and to improve the feedback loop on how citizens’ and stakeholders’ contributions have informed policies. This investment would potentially benefit all agencies using GovCMS for their websites and expand their capacity to implement digitally enabled participation processes with no additional costs.

While taking advantage of the opportunities created by the use of digital tools for participation, countries, including Australia, should also consider the existing risks. Primary among these is the exacerbation of digital divides and the exclusion of those without the access or ability to use digital tools for participatory processes (OECD, 2022[1]). This is a particularly important challenge in Australia, where the Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2025 found that approximately 20.6% of Australians are digitally excluded or highly excluded. Exclusion rates are highest among people aged 75+ (66.5%), those who did not complete secondary school (54.5%), public housing residents (45.2%), and First Nations people (40.9%) (Thomas et al., 2025[41]). It is important to note that internet access at home is improving, with only 3% of the population reporting no access at home in 2022, compared to 16% in 2010, but that access does not necessarily mean that individuals do not face other barriers to digital access (Commonwealth of Australia, 2025[42]).

With these considerations in mind, digital tools should be seen as part of the toolkit for enabling participation, and not as the only solution to more accessible and representative participation. Process design should focus primarily on participants and desired outcomes before defining methods, tools, and channels. Offering non-digital alternatives to participants, including community-led and community-controlled participation channels, local and culturally adapted facilitation and communication models, remains crucial to prevent exclusion (OECD, 2022[1]). In addition to widespread digital tools for participation (e.g. digital platforms for participation), governments can also leverage Artificial Intelligence and other emerging technologies such as blockchain and virtual reality to improve participatory and deliberative processes. Recent OECD evidence shows that Artificial Intelligence presents strong potential to improve and enhance citizen participation processes by allowing for better resource allocation, improving the design and accessibility of processes, and enabling quality participation at scale (OECD, 2026[43]; OECD, 2025[2]). However, these technologies entail additional sets of risks that should be managed by deploying adequate safeguards (OECD, 2025[2]; OECD, 2026[43]).

4.4. Conclusion and recommendations

This chapter discussed the state of play of digital participation in Australia in the broader context of the leading role of the country on digital government at the global level. It found that Australia is equipped with robust institutional arrangements, policy frameworks and public sector capabilities that deliver for a high-quality, citizen-centred digital government, as evidence by the country’s outstanding scores in the OECD Digital Government Index (DGI). However, digital participation is currently not an area of focus of the main initiatives and policies concerning the advancement of the digital transformation of the public sector in Australia. Similarly, the main participation frameworks and policies do not target the digital dimension as an area of focus.

Numerous Australian agencies, alongside with local government institutions, have adopted digital platforms for participation, either by using the built-in GovCSM module “Have Your Say” or by adopting a private dedicated digital solution through public procurement. The result is a rather fragmented digital participation landscape with untapped potential of streamlining the user experience, make better use of citizen participation data, and raise the standards of quality tools and processes related to online participation. Box 4.5 suggests adopting a roadmap to move towards a more consistent and robust digital participation infrastructure by building on existing policies, standards and tools. It also recommends to link these actions to the broader efforts towards more strategic and meaningful citizen participation in Australia.

Box 4.5. Recommendations on Building a digital infrastructure in Australia

To move from a fragmented landscape of digitally enabled participation to a sound and coherent digital participation infrastructure, the Australian Government could consider:

• Working with agencies mandated to promote public service innovation, AI and digital transformation, and citizen participation to co-ordinate a roadmap towards a sound, citizen-centric digital infrastructure for participation in collaboration with the DTA and the Department of Finance. This roadmap could include:

  • A definition of digital participation standards (e.g. user-centred and responsive design principles, good practices when using digital tools for participation, privacy protections and clear communication on how participants’ data is collected, used and managed). This set of standards should be developed in collaboration with relevant stakeholders and could be integrated in the Australian Government Architecture (AGA). The standards would apply to both in-house and government procured solutions, the latter through appropriate procurement pathways.

  • Investment in systematic improvements to in-house digital platforms for participation, namely the Have Your Say module of GovCMS. These improvements should be agreed upon with a wide range of stakeholders and users. In principle, the module could become more flexible and adaptable to a variety of participatory processes. It should also enable better feedback loops on the use of participants’ inputs, and allow for more interaction among participants.

  • The improvement of data collection and data interoperability across digital participation platforms to enable a more advanced monitoring of digital participation (see above).

  • Measures to promote digital access and accessibility for all Australians, including support for digital literacy and continued availability of non-digital participation channels for groups facing barriers to engagement, as well as targeted support for CSOs to navigate emerging digital and AI-enabled participation tools.

References

[9] APS (2024), APS Reform, Australian Public Service, https://www.apsreform.gov.au/about-aps-reform/our-focus-areas.

[32] ARPANSA (2026), Consultation Hub, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, https://consult.arpansa.gov.au/.

[26] Attorney-General’s Department (2026), Consultation Hub, https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/.

[27] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2026), Participating in a Survey, https://www.abs.gov.au/participate-survey.

[14] Australian Government (2026), About Us, https://www.digitalidsystem.gov.au/about-us.

[17] Australian Government (2026), BuyICT, https://www.buyict.gov.au/public.

[40] Australian Government (2026), We Asked, You Said, We Did, https://consultations.health.gov.au/we_asked_you_said/.

[15] Australian Government (2026), Whole of Government ICT Services, https://www.finance.gov.au/government/whole-government-ict-services.

[11] Australian Government (2025), Data and Digital Government Strategy Implementation Plan for 2025, https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/news/2025/data-and-digital-government-strategy-implementation-plan-2025.

[12] Australian Government (2025), Digital and ICT Investment Oversight Framework (IOF), https://www.dta.gov.au/our-initiatives/digital-and-ict-investment-oversight-framework-iof.

[16] Australian Government (2025), Digital Experience Policy, https://www.digital.gov.au/policy/digital-experience.

[10] Australian Government (2023), The final Data and Digital Government Strategy released, https://www.finance.gov.au/about-us/news/2023/final-data-and-digital-government-strategy-released.

[7] Buell, R., E. Porter and M. Norton (2021), “Surfacing the submerged state: Operational transparency increases trust in and engagement with government.”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 23/4, pp. 781-802.

[33] CASA (2026), CASA Consultation Hub, The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, https://consultation.casa.gov.au/.

[42] Commonwealth of Australia (2025), Digital Exclusion in Australia, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/digital-exclusion-in-australia-report.pdf.

[22] Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2026), Have Your Say, https://haveyoursay.agriculture.gov.au/.

[23] Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (2026), Have your say, https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/.

[25] Department of Health, Disability and Ageing (2026), Have your say, https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/.

[19] Department of Infrastructure (2026), Have your say, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say.

[21] Digital Transformation Agency (2026), Have your say, https://www.digital.gov.au/have-your-say.

[37] e-Estonia (2026), e-Governance, https://e-estonia.com/solutions/e-governance/e-democracy/.

[30] Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2026), Public Consultations, https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food-standards-code/consultations.

[18] GovCMS (2026), Gallery, https://www.govcms.gov.au/gallery.

[24] Government of Australia (2026), Have your say, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/.

[38] Government of France (2026), La plateforme de participation citoyenne de l’État, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/associer-les-citoyens/centre-interministeriel-de-la-participation-citoyenne.

[28] IP Australia (2026), Public Consultations, https://www.abs.gov.au/participate-survey.

[31] NHMCR (2026), Consultation Hub, The National Health and Medical Research Council, https://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/.

[43] OECD (2026), Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Citizen Participation: Typology of Applications, Opportunities and Challenges for Democratic Innovation, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1ee2e0a-en.

[8] OECD (2026), “Digital Government Index and Open, Useful and Re-usable Data Index: 2025 Results and Key Findings”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 90, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6347ec74-en.

[13] OECD (2025), Digital Government in Australia: Enhancing Digital Investment, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/91c22326-en.

[2] OECD (2025), “Tackling civic participation challenges with emerging technologies: Beyond the hype”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 72, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ec2ca9a2-en.

[39] OECD (2024), “Fixing frictions: ‘sludge audits’ around the world: How governments are using behavioural science to reduce psychological burdens in public services”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5e9bb35c-en.

[5] OECD (2023), Background Note to the Conference “Getting Civic Tech Right for Democracy”, unpublished.

[1] OECD (2022), OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f765caf6-en.

[4] OECD (2021), OECD Report on Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/22f8031c-en.

[3] OECD (2019), Tools and Ethics for Applied Behavioural Insights: The BASIC Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ea76a8f-en.

[34] OECD (2018), Digital Government Review of Brazil: Towards the Digital Transformation of the Public Sector, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307636-en.

[20] Office for the Arts (2026), Have your say, https://www.arts.gov.au/have-your-say.

[35] Presidency of the Republic of Brazil (2026), What is Participatory Brazil, https://brasilparticipativo.presidencia.gov.br/processes/brasilparticipativo/f/1400/.

[36] SA Eesti Koostöö Kogu (2026), Platvormist, https://sisu.rahvaalgatus.ee/.

[29] Therapeutic Goods Administrations (TGA) (2026), Consultation Hub, https://consultations.tga.gov.au/.

[41] Thomas, J. et al. (2025), Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: 2025 Australian Digital Inclusion Index, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society/RMIT University/Swinburne University of Technology/Telstra, https://doi.org/10.60836/mtsq-at22.

[6] Welby, B. and E. Hui Yan Tan (2022), “Designing and delivering public services in the digital age”, OECD Going Digital Toolkit Notes, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e056ef99-en.