Beyond the sunset (clause)? My submission to the DAT Act review
The DAT Act, currently under review due to its sunset clause, is an insufficient and overly cautious reform compared to the 2017 Productivity Commission's vision
Hi ,
You may not have heard of the Data Availability and Transparency (DAT) Act but it was enacted by the Australian Government in 2022 to promote better use of public sector data.
Its core objectives include enabling data sharing in a way that is consistent with privacy and security safeguards, enhancing the integrity and transparency of government data practices, and building public confidence.
The Act establishes a scheme where Commonwealth data custodians can share public sector data with accredited users. The Act also established the National Data Commissioner as an independent statutory officer to oversee this scheme, providing advice, guidance, and regulatory oversight.
A incremental, hesitant approach to reform
A statutory review of the DAT Act 2022 is underway due to a specific requirement built into the Act itself: a sunset clause. This clause means the Act will cease to be in effect five years after it commenced (unless a decision is made to continue it).
The inclusion of both a statutory review and a sunset clause was an intentional design by policymakers to ensure the DATA Scheme “demonstrate its value to the Australian public to continue into the future". This created a "prove-it" model for the Act, reflecting a cautious and incremental initial approach to a complex reform area.
The review therefore serves as a critical assessment point to determine the Act's effectiveness and its future.
Has the DAT Act demonstrated it’s value?
Well, the answer is complex, and in trying to answer this question, I had to go back and understand the work that led to the recommendation to the Government to implement the DAT Act in the first place: The Productivity Commission's 2017 Inquiry Report "Data Availability and Use".
The PC’s report provided a comprehensive diagnosis of the systemic impediments hindering Australia’s ability to harness the value of our data assets and, crucially, offered a bold and integrated blueprint for transformative change. The PC's vision was holistic and squarely aimed at public sector data reform.
Does the DAT Act match the PC’s proposed remedy?
No - several fundamental pillars of the PC's proposed reforms are notably absent or significantly diluted in the Act we have today. The reasons for these divergences are complex, stemming from the government's initial, more cautious response to the PC's ambitious proposals, specific design choices made during legislative drafting, the influence of parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder feedback, and an overarching preference for an incremental approach to reform.
So should we let the DAT Act “ride off into the sunset”?
Allowing the DAT Act to sunset without a significantly more robust, comprehensive, and well-implemented successor framework would represent a substantial setback. It would risk squandering the investments made to date, however modest the returns, and could signal a retreat from the national ambition to leverage data for public good.
The progress in establishing the ONDC, the accreditation
framework, and the initial data sharing agreements, while limited, provides a foundation upon which to build. To discard this foundation entirely would be a retrograde step.
However, simply continuing the DAT Act in its current form and with its current operational impediments is also an insufficient response.
The 2024 APS Data Maturity Report reveals systemic weaknesses in foundational data capabilities. An ONDC Working Group identified significant practical
barriers to the DATA Scheme's uptake and an "unclear value proposition".
Furthermore, as my submission argues, the DAT Act in its present iteration falls considerably short of the holistic and transformative vision articulated by the Productivity Commission in 2017. These are not minor omissions; they are core components of a system designed to build broad social licence and unlock deep, systemic value from data.
Therefore, my view is the review should recommend a path of substantial amendment and expansion of the DAT Act, or its replacement with new legislation that fully incorporates the original proposals outlined by the Productivity Commission.
Legislation is not enough (the culture and leadership bit)
It must be unequivocally stated that legislative change, while a critical enabler, is not a panacea.
The recurring themes of the past fifteen years point to a deeper challenge: the need for sustained commitment to cultural transformation, visible and unwavering leadership, adequate and consistent resourcing for foundational capabilities (especially data quality, metadata, and skills), and, above all, the disciplined execution of agreed reforms.
Without these, even the most perfectly crafted legislation will fail to deliver its intended impact. The APS must "break the cycle" of admiring the problem and instead commit to the hard, foundational work of implementation.
This Statutory Review is more than an assessment of an Act; it is an opportunity to fundamentally evolve Australia's approach to data. It is a chance to move from hesitant, incremental steps—which characterized the DAT Act's genesis—to confident, strategic strides towards becoming a leading data-driven nation.
The profound benefits for public service effectiveness, economic innovation, citizen empowerment, and democratic accountability warrant nothing less than a bold, comprehensive, and enduring commitment to this transformative agenda.
The time for admiring the problem is over; the time for decisive, integrated action is now.