1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The use of government information and services on the Internet in New Zealand rose from 40 percent in 2002 to 45 percent the following year. Correspondingly, the number of these who used the Internet increased from 71 percent to 75 percent in the same time period (see Government Online, 2003). Given the continuing increase in the number of users (and presumably the increased number of uses) of the Internet and government on the Internet, the E-government Unit, States Services Commission, wanted to learn more about what New Zealanders expect of the government information and services provided over the Internet as well as through more traditional channels. Equally important issues are

• How do New Zealanders interact with government in their daily lives, either as individuals and citizens, or in relation to their roles in the workplace?
• What government information and services have they used, either online or through more traditional channels, and how do they view those experiences?
• How do they locate the government information and services they use?
• Has access to the Internet changed the way in which they seek government information and services?
• What barriers, if any, does the public encounter in seeking government information and services both online and through traditional channels?
• How might barriers be overcome?
• Do they consider the government portal (http://www.govt.nz) as a way to overcome obstacles to the receipt of government information and services?
• How much trust and confidence does the public place in the information and services that the government provides on the Internet?
• What factors affect their levels of trust and confidence?
• Do they distinguish between trust in the Internet as a secure means of accessing information and services in general and trust in government web sites for the information and services provided?
• Do demographic characteristics (e.g. personal, educational, cultural, and geographic) influence responses to the previous questions?

The answers to these questions neither suggest nor imply that the government perceives the provision of information and services as the exclusive role of the Internet. Instead, the answers show how people interact with government and their preferred methods of that interaction, as well as suggest strategies for meeting the information needs and information-gathering strategies of the public through assorted channels, be they traditional or the Internet. In essence, as the percentage of the public using government on the Internet increases, has the public really become more dependent on the Internet for access to government information and services? Has increased Internet access resulted in a decrease in the use of other channels for gaining access to government information?

1.2 Previous Studies

Several studies (e.g. a report prepared by the Institute for Economic Research (2001) on e-government preparedness in the small coastal township of Levin, and a report on a series of focus group interviews with selected groups of citizens in and beyond the Wellington region (Cullen, 2004)), have highlighted some of the motivators and barriers lying behind the use of government information on the Internet. Motivators that Cullen identified for using the Internet varied greatly among the groups interviewed, but they centred on convenience, rapid access to a wide range of up-to-date information, the ability to participate in policy debates, the ability to schedule appointments, the avoidance of difficulties in speaking and listening to English, anonymity, and the ability to contact government in a less personal and intrusive way. Each group encountered some barriers in its use of government on the Internet. Those related to the 'digital divide'—the gap between those who have access to information technologies such as the Internet, and those who do not—include:

• Physical access to information and communications technologies (ICT), ranging from competition for the one residential telephone line to poor connections in rural areas, to lack of time and money;
• The level of ICT skills and support, as well as the need to keep up-to-date with computer hardware and software;
• Attitudes related to concerns about the safety of the communication over the Internet, the lack of privacy for community access services, and a preference for human communication, either face-to-face or by telephone; and
• The relevance of content and contacts, as the public may find neither appropriate content nor personal contacts on government web sites that are helpful in resolving their information needs.

Both of the reports (Cullen, 2004; Institute for Economic Research, 2001) highlight some key issues, in particular:

• The need for alternative channels of communication to cater to those who, for whatever reasons, lack access to government on the Internet, or who prefer a more interactive and personal form of communication;
• A lack of awareness of the government portal and the need for greater promotion of it if the portal is to fulfil the vision of serving as a 'one-stop shop' for e-government;
• The need for government departments and agencies to promote the information and services that they make available on the Internet and that are accessible through the portal;
• A widespread need for an education programme to enable the public to be more effective and efficient in searching for, and gaining access to, government information and services through the Internet; and
• The need to build a culture of open communication between government and citizens, and a climate of trust to facilitate online transactions and other services.

While some of the above-mentioned issues are specific to groups that, in the past, have been considered to be disadvantaged in terms of the digital divide (e.g. rural groups, those from lower socioeconomic groups, those with either poor English-speaking skills or low education, beneficiaries, and Māori), the two studies indicate that response to e-government is more individualistic. That response is a complex mixture of external circumstances, opportunity, and personal and cognitive preferences. Thus, use of government on the Internet involves issues such as the digital divide, socioeconomic characteristics, and cultural and personal issues.

The success of e-government—whether government to government, government to citizen, or government to business—depends on a better understanding of the types of barriers that inhibit or prevent use, as well as the public's information-gathering preferences and past experiences in gathering information and dealing with particular government departments and agencies. Cullen (2004) and the Institute for Economic Research (2001) have identified a number of barriers related to the public's use of e-government. These barriers might be related to service, technology, agency, content, or level of education. Because other barriers might exist, there is need to develop a taxonomy of different barriers.

The technique of telephone interviewing limited the scope and depth of the survey for Government Online (2003) because there was insufficient time to probe motivators and barriers to gathering government information. Regional perspectives and the highly selective coverage of groups limited the insights gained from the Institute for Economic Research (2001) and Cullen (2004), both of which were qualitative studies. Clearly, there is a need for additional probing of the public information-gathering behaviour related to the use of government information and services, particular those available over the Internet.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

This study, which builds on the previous reports, includes the perspectives of more individuals, and from different parts of New Zealand's North Island, but still predominately the Wellington area. The study expands the knowledge base of citizen and business needs for government information and services through the Internet, and it contrasts Internet use with the use of other channels for gathering government information and for using government services. With this expanded base of knowledge about the questions presented in the Background section above, the E-government Unit, State Services Commission, can develop national strategies for understanding better the public's use and non-use of government on the Internet, and can share those insights with government departments and agencies to make government web sites more responsive to the public's needs, expectations, and patterns of information-gathering.

1.4 Study Procedures

For data collection, the study used focus group interviews but before the interview started each participant was asked to complete a general questionnaire. That questionnaire, which addressed the questions listed in section 1.1, delved into participants' use of computers, the Internet, and government information and services, as well as perceptions about the availability of government on the Internet; the instrument also gathered background demographic information. Members of the E-government Unit reviewed the questionnaire and suggested new wording, where appropriate, and at the request of the research team, conducted two separate pretests of the instrument. Based on the responses they received from their staff, the instrument was further revised (see Appendix A for the final instrument used).

Because one purpose of the study was to identify questions that the E-government Unit might ask later in a national survey, the wording of the questions asked was reviewed after completion of the first two focus group interviews (those relating exclusively to the issue of trust). Those interviews did not produce any changes to the questionnaire. Subsequent interviews only produced five suggested changes: all of which were to add further categories to question 6 (on government agencies contacted). Two participants wanted 'disabilities' added as a topic for which they might seek government information, one person favoured the inclusion of 'defence', another recommended 'conservation', and two wanted 'science' and 'food safety' added.

The investigation was conducted in three stages. First, in March 2004, two focus group interviews explored, in some depth, the issues of security and trust (see Appendix B for the questions asked). These interviews were conducted first because the E-government Unit needed the information quickly for a survey it was preparing. These focus groups contained people who were much more broadly defined demographically than the subsequent interviews, and the interviews were conducted in Wellington. The purpose was to gather a diverse set of perspectives; nonetheless, subsequent focus group interviews continued to probe the issues of security and trust.

From March through May 2004, ten focus group interviews were conducted in the Auckland, Hamilton, Taranaki, and Wellington areas with individuals representing the following groups:

1. Disabled citizens, recruited from two local branches of the Disabled Persons Association;

2. Māori, from rural and urban areas around Hawera;

3. Pacific peoples, from the Pacific Island Advisory Committee of the Manukau City Council;

4. New immigrants, attending English as a Second Language classes, in Karori;

5. People in the business community (Auckland), recruited through Newmarket Rotary Club;

6. People in the business community (Wellington), recruited through Wellington Rotary Club;

7. Residents of rural communities, recruited from a rural women's network outside Morrinsville;

8. Senior citizens, attending a senior social group at Miramar Community Centre;

9. Students attending Victoria University; and

10. Working professionals, all members of an amateur choir in Wellington.

As with all focus group interviews, participants completed a consent form and the questionnaire prior to the beginning of the focus group interview. Each interview lasted from one hour to 90 minutes. (Appendix C reprints the questions asked in these interviews).

For consistency and reliability, the same investigator led the discussion in each focus group interview. The other investigator monitored the responses, taking careful notes and occasionally asking a follow-up question to clarify a response for the written record. The focus group interviews were taped, and a written transcript produced.

For a further dimension to data collection, participants in the early focus group interviews were invited to take part in a walk through—an observational technique to examine how they would go about answering a set of pre-determined questions. During April and May, these observations were conducted at Victoria University in the office of one of the investigators. Participants sat at the computer but had access to a nearby telephone book. They were asked to verbalise and demonstrate their method of searching for the answers to five pre-selected questions (see Appendix D for the instructions, and tasks set).

It also merits mention that many participants, especially the Pacific peoples, Māori, and disabled carefully reviewed their answers to the questionnaire before turning in the form. A typical comment was, "I feel I am representing all Māori, so I am taking great care in completing the survey."

A limitation of the study was that it was not possible in the time frame during which the study had to be completed to conduct additional focus group interviews across New Zealand and involve more people from each of the ten demographic groups. The Māori interviewed inserted a caution. They stressed that, because "literacy is an issue for our people," future surveys should be cognisant of this fact and should involve Māori as the research team (or part of it).