Category Archives: Policy Making

Counting the cost of Covid19

Posted on by
2

Here in Melbourne, we are nearly two weeks into Covid19 Lock-down Pt II, and as we know sequels are rarely as good as the original. The State Government of Victoria has also decreed that anyone under the Stage 3 restrictions has to wear a mask whenever they are outside their home. The irony is that relative to other parts of Australia, Victoria went harder and earlier under Lock-down Pt I, and was later and slower in opening up – in fact, we hadn’t got that far before the second Lock-down was announced.

Some of the details about mask wearing are still a bit vague (what about when I’m driving my car, or playing golf, or in a self-contained space where there is no-one else?), so good luck with the enforcement process. And what significant information do we know now that we didn’t know back in March under the first Lock-down, that somehow made it OK to NOT advocate or require wearing masks four months ago? Could we have made even better progress in suppressing and/or eradicating the virus if we had all covered our faces from the start?

Of course, the major failings by the State Government are evidenced by the apparent human errors associated with the lapses in the hotel quarantine programme, the failure to fully understand the nature (and extent) of key clusters (cruise ships, abattoirs, schools, aged care facilities, fast-food restaurants, logistics centres, public housing towers, and even health care staff), and the inadequacy of community consultation early in the pandemic.

There is also a suggestion that the public became complacent, due in part to the way the politicians and civil servants were telling us how good a job they were doing. No doubt the initial measures were successful in containing the numbers and flattening the curve. So some people over-compensated when Lock-down Pt I ended, and not only disregarded social distancing measures, they started gravitating back to social gatherings, pubs, restaurants and shopping malls. Plus, the undue focus on getting professional sport back on TV helped to suggest things were back to “normal” (even though no games are being held within Victoria).

Some Government spokespeople implied that certain Covid19 conspiracy theories had taken hold in the community, resulting in people not taking the virus seriously. This commentary (that the virus is a hoax, that it is all a plot to curtail individual freedom, and that the “experts” were pushing an authoritarian agenda) has also been linked to anti-vaxers, anti-5Gers and regular members of the tin foil hat brigade. In particular, some conspiracy theories suggest that the pandemic is an attempt to distract us from other issues.

There is a huge human and economic cost to the virus (the number of cases and fatalities, the restrictions on daily life, job losses, business closures and trillions of dollars of government and corporate debt). It will cost a lot more before the pandemic is over and/or we have a viable vaccine. But there has also been a huge cost in terms of public debate and intellectual rigour. Language has become a weapon, science has been politicised (i.e., it shouldn’t get in the way of a political agenda…) and experts have been undermined. Possibly not since Galileo and heliocentrism has science been so poorly debated, irrationally challenged, arrogantly dismissed and badly defended by our leaders – even as some of these same leaders and those around them caught the disease. (OK, the political debate on climate change is another case in point…) If trust in politicians was already at a low, the pandemic is taking a further toll on our democratic institutions. Which suits autocrats, populists, demagogues, fundamentalists and radicals alike in their hatred and contempt for liberal, pluralistic and secular societies.

Choosing to not wear a face mask has apparently become an expression of individual freedom and civil liberty. Whereas I thought wearing a mask during a pandemic caused by a respiratory disease was both common sense and a courtesy to other people.

Next week: Life During Lock-down

 

 

Open Banking and the Consumer Data Right

Posted on by
Reply

While most of Australia has been preoccupied by things such as Covid-19 lock-downs, border closures, which contestant got eliminated from Big Brother/Masterchef, and which federal politician went to an NRL game (and depending on which State you live in), the ACCC has implemented the first phase of the Consumer Data Right regime (aka Open Banking).

The TLDR on this new regulation, which has been several years in the making, can be distilled as follows:

Banks can no longer deny customers the right to share their own customer data with third parties.

So, in essence, if I am a customer of Bank A, and I want to transfer my business to Bank B, I have the right to request Bank A to share relevant information about my account to Bank B – Bank A can no longer hold on to or refuse to share that information.

Why does this matter? Well, a major obstacle to competition, customer choice and product innovation has been the past refusal by banks to allow customers to share their own account information with third party providers – i.e., it has been an impediment to  customer switching (and therefore anti-competitive), and a barrier to entry for new market entrants (and therefore a drag on innovation).

Of course, there are some caveats. Data can only be shared with an accredited data recipient, as a means to protect banking security and preserve data privacy. And at first, the CDR will only apply to debit and credit cards, transaction accounts and deposit accounts. But personal loans and mortgages will follow in a few months. (And the CDR is due to be extended to utilities, telcos and insurance in coming years – going further than even the similar UK Open Banking scheme.)

Although I welcome this new provision, it still feels very limited in application and scope. Even one of the Four Pillar banks couldn’t really articulate what it will actually mean for consumers. They also revealed something of a self-serving and defensive tone in a recent opinion piece:

“Based on experience in other markets, initial take up by consumers is likely to be low due to limited awareness and broader sensitivities around data use.”

Despite our fondness for bank-bashing (and the revelations from the recent Royal Commission), Australians are generally seen as being reluctant to switch providers. Either because it’s too hard (something that the CDR is designed to address), or customers are lazy/complacent. In fact, recent evidence suggests existing customers of the big four banks are even more likely to recommend them.

For FinTechs and challenger brands, the costs of complying with some aspects of the CDR are seen as too onerous, and as such, act as another impediment to competition and innovation. Therefore, we will likely see a number of “trusted” intermediaries who will receive customer data on behalf of third party providers – which will no doubt incur other (hidden?) costs for the consumer.

Full competition will come when consumers can simply instruct their existing bank to plug their data into a product or price comparison service, to identify the best offers out there for similar products. (Better still, why not mandate incumbents to notify their existing customers when they have a better or cheaper product available? A number of times I have queried the rate on an existing product, only to be offered a better deal when I suggested I might take my business elsewhere.)

Recently, my bank unilaterally decided to change the brand of my credit card. Instead of showing initiative by offering to transfer my existing subscriptions and direct debits to the new card, the bank simply told me to notify vendors and service providers myself. If I didn’t request the change of card, why am I being put to the inconvenience of updating all my standing orders?

For real innovation, we need banks and other providers to maintain a unified and single view of customer (not a profile organised by individual products or accounts). Moreover, we need a fully self-sovereign digital ID solution, that truly puts the customer in charge and in control of their own data – by enabling customers to decide who, what, when, why and for how long they share data with third parties. For example, why do I still need 100 points of identity with Bank B if I’m already a client of Bank A?

Finally, rather than simply trying to make money from managing our financial assets, banks and others have an opportunity to ensure we are managing our financial data in a more efficient and customer-centric way.

Next week: Counting the cost of Covid19

 

 

 

Business as Unusual

Posted on by
Reply

At the time of writing, the Victorian Government has decided to defer the easing of Covid-19 restrictions, in the wake of a sudden spike in community transmissions. There was always a risk that opening up too much, too soon, would result in a second wave of coronavirus infections, as people returned to work, as shops, restaurants and bars started to re-open, and as people began socializing on a larger scale. There is even talk of more drastic local restrictions in so-called hot-spot areas.

Meanwhile, the deferment (and the extended State of Emergency) is creating further uncertainty for businesses in an already fragile economy. In recent weeks, I have been attending a number of on-line seminars on the broad theme of business in the post-pandemic era. Variously described as the “new normal”, the “new new normal”, and even the “next normal”, things are unlikely ever to be the same, and not many punters are willing to bet on the resumption of business as usual.

Here are some of the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead:

Future of Work

As employees head back to the workplace, employers will need to balance the need for productivity and business continuity with the obligation to provide a safe working environment. Some staff can’t wait to get back to the office, some will prefer to continue working from home (if they can), while a large number would probably welcome a mix between the two. This has prompted debate on introducing a 4-day working week, the introduction of team rostering (e.g., alternating one week in, one week out), and possibly the end of hot-desking.

Overall, new work practices will necessitate a re-think on office space, workplace location and employee facilities. Some commentators have predicted that companies will need to extend their current premises (to allow for adequate space per employee); while others suggest CBD workplaces may need to decentralize towards more suburban or regional hubs (to reduce commuting times, to relieve congestion on public transport and to allow people to work closer to home). The latter may also stimulate local economies as people reallocate their commuting costs and daily expenses into local shops, cafes and services.

Innovation

Change and uncertainty should drive companies to innovate – in fact, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recently spoke about innovation in light of the pandemic. His view is that current technological trends will only accelerate, and industries facing disruption will be displaced even faster. So no time for complacency, and no point waiting for normal service to resume.

Necessity has driven many retail and restaurant businesses towards more online engagement with their customers, and those that have been shown to be creative, resilient and agile appear to have found a way through the lock-down. Equally, many businesses used to delivering their services in person have had to find ways to embrace digital solutions – no doubt enhancing their digital transformation in the process.

Self-sufficiency

We’ve heard about the need for food and fuel security – especially when supply chains are disrupted, and when countries pursue “domestic first” policies in relation to essential goods and commodities.

While Australia is a net food exporter, we still have to import many daily staples. Primary producers have come to rely on lucrative export markets, so in the light of trade wars and import bans, local farmers and consumers alike will need to adjust their expectations – on choice, price, seasonal availability and market volumes.

Australia is also in the enviable position of being potentially self-sufficient in energy – but although we are rich in renewables, we are still reliant on fossil fuels, and recent events revealed our vulnerability to volatility in the oil markets. It suggests the current environmental and economic debates around weaning ourselves off coal, oil and gas are only going to become more critical.

There has also been a call for a larger domestic manufacturing base – not only to enhance workforce skills and productivity, but also to ward off supply chain disruption. Some have called for a return to domestic car production. Even if that were desirable, let alone a realistic option, I don’t imagine that anyone would welcome the bad old days of churning out Australian-made gas guzzlers that nobody wants to buy. We would need to advocate for smarter cars, energy efficient and non-fossil fuel vehicles, environmentally sustainable materials and manufacturing process, and possibly different car ownership models (in line with the trend for ride share businesses and smart city solutions) and more creative financial incentives to the industry than wholesale subsidies.

Other manufacturing sectors that are getting attention include medicines and medical supplies (surely there must be a market for domestically-produced PPE made from bio-degradable materials?), clothing (again, an opportunity for environmentally sustainable materials and manufacturing processes), processed goods (after all, we already have much of the raw material), domestic appliances and technology.

One area where Australia has also proven vulnerable is in recycling. China and the Indian Sub-continent are pushing back at taking and processing our exported waste. So we have to get smarter at recycling household waste (paper, plastic, glass and metal) especially if in a post-pandemic world we see a return to single-use items and additional sterile and protective packaging for foodstuffs and personal products. We also need to look at e-waste, and find ways to extract more recycling value from obsolete devices.

The lock-down during the pandemic has also highlighted an opportunity to re-connect with the “make do and mend” mentality of our parents and grandparents. Again, if supply chains are disrupted, buying a replacement item might not be an option. But often, nor is it possible to buy replacement parts – either they rely on the same supply chains, or there are no user-serviceable parts available. What if manufacturers and distributors had more of an obligation to take back and recycle their products, or to include more interchangeable parts in their designs, and enable consumers to become more self-sufficient in repairing and maintaining their electronic and electrical goods?

Federal, state and local governments have a huge role to play here – from mandating the use of more recycled and recyclable materials, to incentivizing recycling schemes, from supporting local repair workshops and “maker” projects, to creating more common and open standards around components and replaceable parts.

Finance and Digital Money

At a time when many people are on reduced income and/or or relying on government welfare, the pandemic has also demonstrated a need to rethink our relationship with money in general, and cash in particular.

The latest round of QE by governments and central banks to offset the financial impact of the pandemic has highlighted once again the fragility of current monetary policies, including fractional reserves and treasury buy-backs. The decision to print money on demand will only increase public appetite for crypto currencies as a legitimate store of value – including stable coins and (ironically) central bank digital currencies – and paradoxically, accelerate the removal of physical cash from the economy.

In times of crisis, digital currencies can also transfer money to remote recipients faster and cheaper than traditional means (i.e., incumbent remittance businesses, bank transfers, payment gateways), and actually increase transparency and traceability.

The lock-down also revealed that many people did not have a sufficient financial buffer to withstand job losses, especially in the casual workforce and the so-called gig economy. This suggests a new approach is required for how people are remunerated for their labour and services, taxed on their income, and incentivized to save for the future. Current systems cannot address these issues because they are over complex, far too rigid, and totally dis-empowering of the people they are designed to serve and support.

Digital currencies (along with the benefits of Blockchain technology, and the new economic models represented by digital assets and tokenization) will enhance trends such as decentralization, peer-to-peer networks, trust-less systems, fractional ownership and more sophisticated barter structures.

Bitcoin was created in response to the GFC, it has now come of age in the post-COVID-19 era.

Next week: Antler Demo Day – Rewired

 

 

 

 

 

Fact v Fiction in Public Discourse

Posted on by
4

In an era of fake news, alternative facts, deep state conspiracy theories, absolutists and populists, “political truths” are wielded like linguistic weapons. Any form of dissent (or contrary evidence) is branded as “unpatriotic”, “undemocratic”, “unconstitutional”, “disloyal”, “treasonous”, “elitist”, or “subversive”.

“The Treachery of Images” (Painting by Rene Magritte, image sourced from Los Angeles County Museum of Art)

Experts are treated with scepticism, scientists with suspicion, relativists with disdain, pluralists with apoplexy. Anyone seen to be challenging the status quo is dismissed as an “enemy of the people”. The public is being co-opted/coerced into buying wholesale certain political claims and party agendas (often hidden), without any opportunity to subject them to independent scrutiny or fact-checking.

Facts and logic are often the first victims in this abuse of language in the exercise of public discourse. Political slogans don’t even bother to avoid or deny accusations of propaganda: “Yeah? So what?” is often the response.

With that in mind, let’s play semantics and semiotics! To begin with, some opening statements:

1. This is a red car. (Observation, and a Fact if we agree on what is “red”) *

2. Red is the most popular colour of car. (Statement of Fact, if proved statistically) **

3. Red cars hold their value more than green cars. (Opinion, but also a Fact if it can be proved statistically, and we agree on what “value” means in this context)

4. Red cars are better than green cars, but blue cars are better than red cars. (Judgement tending towards a display of bias and prejudice)

Depending on the positioning and messaging, #1-#4 could be used in various marketing and advertising campaigns to sell red cars (or in the case of #4, sell blue cars).

Now, here are two reasonably uncontroversial propositions:

  • “Traffic laws are important to the functioning of society.”
  • “Good government relies on the democratic will of the electorate, and adequate funding of public services via taxation.”

We can see from the way language and truth are mangled in the service of current political debate and social commentary, that “statements of fact” can be easily positioned as “expressions of opinion” (and from there manipulated into pejorative and derogatory accusations or subtexts):

1. Red cars are involved in more road accidents than any other colour of vehicle
(Anyone who drives a red car is more likely to drive recklessly.)

2. People who drive red cars don’t observe the speed limit.
(Anyone who drives a red car is either a libertarian or an anarchist.)

3. People who drive red cars fail to pay their taxes.
(Anyone who drives a red car is anti-government.)

4. People who drive red cars are subversives.
(Anyone who drives a red car is a terrorist.)

5. People who drive red cars are law-abiding citizens.
(Anyone who drives a red car is a conservative. OR: Anyone who doesn’t drive a red car is a criminal.)

6. People who drive red cars give to charity but people who drive blue cars give more.
(Anyone who drives a red car is a better person than someone who drives a green car but not as good as someone who drives a blue car.)

The combination of sweeping generalisations and over-simplification in public discourse can obviously distort meaning and generate distrust. For example:

1. What if all taxis are red? That might mean they spend more time on the road, and therefore are more prone to be involved in traffic accidents.

2. What if more sports cars are red than any other colour? That might mean their drivers are more likely to speed. Or that their owners have more money. Or they are status conscious.

3. What if people who drive red cars come from a specific socio-economic, sectarian or ethnic demographic? Even then, they won’t all agree on the same issues, and they will likely display a similar range of divergent, opposing and contradictory views as the drivers of any other colour of car.

Unfortunately, the current environment for political debate and public commentary is being reduced to a binary state, where nuanced and subtle argument is being sidelined in favour of polarised and partisan politics, where facts are not allowed to get in the way of some convenient diatribe. If only politicians were accountable to voters under the Trade Practices Act – although we may soon see election campaigns subject to misleading and deceptive conduct legislation.

* Colour can also depend on context, as these experiments demonstrate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFC7EyR1lhU

** It’s not actually true: https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-news/most-popular-car-colours

Next week: Business as Unusual