Category Archives: Policy Making

The wrong end of the stick!

Posted on by
Reply

In a typical knee-jerk and censorial reaction, Australia’s Federal Parliament has recently approved legislation that will attempt to ban anyone under the age of 16 from accessing social media.

Knee-jerk, because the legislative process was rushed, with barely a 24 hour public consultation period. The policy itself was only aired less than 6 months earlier, and was not part of the Labor Government’s election manifesto in 2022.

Censorial, because Australia has a long history of heavy-handed censorship. I still recall when I lived in Adelaide in 1970 (aged 10), broadcasts of the children’s TV series, “Do Not Adjust Your Set” were accompanied by a “Mature Audience” rating – the same series which I had watched when it was first broadcast in the UK in 1967 during the tea-time slot!

As yet another example of government not understanding technology, the implementation details have been left deliberately vague. At its simplest, the technology companies behind the world’s most popular social media platforms (to be defined) will be responsible for compliance, while enforcement will likely come from the eSafety Commissioner (to be confirmed).

The Commissioner herself was somewhat critical of the new policy on its announcement, but has since “welcomed” the legislation, albeit with significant caveats.

From the perspective of both technology and privacy, the legislation is a joke. Whatever tools are going to be used, there will be ways around them (VPN, AI image filters…) And if tech companies are going to be required to hold yet more of our personal data, they just become a target for hackers and other malicious actors (cf. the great Optus data breach of 2022).

Even the Australian Human Rights Commission has been equivocal in showing any support for (or criticism of) the new law. While the “pros” may seem laudable, they are very generic and can be achieved by other, more specific and less onerous means. As for the “cons”, they are very significant, with serious implications and unintended consequences for personal privacy and individual freedoms.

Of course, domestic and international news media are taking a keen interest in Australia’s policy. The Federal Government is used to picking fights with social media companies (on paying for news content), tobacco giants (on plain packaging) and the vaping industry (restricting sales via pharmacies only), so is probably unconcerned about its public image abroad. And while some of this interest attempts to understand the ban and its implications (here and overseas), others such as Amnesty International, have been more critical. If anything, the ban will likely have a negative impact on Australia’s score for internet freedom, as assessed by Freedom House.

The aim of reducing, mitigating or removing “harm” experienced on-line is no doubt an admirable cause. But let’s consider the following:

  • On-line platforms such as social media are simply reflections of the society we live in. Such ills are not unique or limited to Facebook and others. Surely it would be far better to examine and address the root causes of such harms (and their real-world manifestations) rather than some of the on-line outcomes? This feels like a band-aid solution – totally inappropriate, based on the wrong diagnosis.
  • When it comes to addressing on-line abuse and bullying, our politicians need to think about their own behaviour. Their Orwellian use of language, their Parliamentary performances, their manipulation of the media for personal grandstanding, and their “calling out” of anything that does not accord with their own political dogma (while downplaying the numerous rorts, murky back-room deals and factional conflicts that pass for “party politics”). I can’t help thinking that the social media ban is either a deflection from their own failings, or a weird mea culpa where everyone else is having to pay the price for Parliamentary indiscretions.
  • A blanket “one size fits all” ban fails to recognise that children and young people mature and develop at different rates. Why is 16 seen as the magic age? (There are plenty of “dick heads” in their 20s, 30s, 40s etc. who get to vote, drive, reproduce and stand for public office, as well as post on social media…) From about the age of 12, I started reading books that would probably be deemed beyond my years. As a consequence, I by-passed young adult fiction, because much of it was naff in my opinion. Novels such as “Decline and Fall”, “A Clockwork Orange” or “The Drowned World” were essential parts of my formative reading. And let’s remember that as highly critical and critically acclaimed works of fiction, they should neither be regarded as the individual views of their authors, nor should they serve as life manuals for their readers. The clue is in the word “fiction”.
  • Children and young people can gain enormous benefits from using social media – connecting with family and friends, finding people with like-minded interests, getting tips on hobbies and sports, researching ideas and information for their school projects, learning about other communities and countries, even getting their daily news. Why deny them access to these rich resources, just because the Federal Government has a dearth of effective policies on digital platforms, and can’t figure a way of curbing the harms without taking away the benefits (or imposing more restrictions) for everyone else?
  • In another area of social policy designed to address personal harm, Governments are engaging with strategies such as pill-testing at music festivals, because in that example, they know that an outright ban on recreational drugs is increasingly ineffective. Likewise, wider sex, drug and alcohol education for children and young people. Draconian laws like the under-16 social media ban can end up absolving parents, teachers and other community leaders from their own responsibilities for parenting, education, civic guidance and instilling a sense of individual accountability. So perhaps more effort needs to go into helping minors in how they navigate social media, and improving their resilience levels when dealing with unpleasant stuff they are bound to encounter. Plus, making all social media users aware that they are personally responsible for what they post, share and like. Just as we shouldn’t allow our kids to cycle out on the street without undertaking some basic road safety education, I’d rather see children becoming internet savvy from an early age – not just against on-line bullying, but to be alert to financial scams and other consumer traps.
  • Finally, the new Australian legislation was introduced by the Labor Government, and had support from the Liberal Opposition, but not much from the cross-benches in the Senate. So it’s hardly a multi-partisan Act despite the alleged amount of public support expressed. It may even be pandering to the more reactionary elements in our society – such as religious fundamentalists and social conservatives. For example, banning under-16s from using social media could prevent them from seeking help and advice on things like health and reproductive rights, forced marriage, wage theft, coercive relationships and domestic violence. Just some of the unintended consequences likely to come as a result of this ill-considered and hastily assembled piece of legislation.

Does age matter?

Posted on by
Reply

When it comes to standing for President, how old is “too old”? When it comes to travelling alone abroad, how young is “too young”?

In the first example, Donald Trump mocked his opponent, Joe Biden about his age and infirmity. Now Trump could become the oldest ever candidate to be elected President, but he doesn’t countenance any criticism of his own mental or physical frailty….

In the second example, a parent has been criticised for allowing their 15-year old son to go Interrailing around Europe, with friends, but minus any adult supervision. The teenager doesn’t appear to have come to any harm – and has probably gained some maturity in the process!

When it comes to the US Presidency, first Trump and then Biden set the record for being the oldest candidates to assume Office (both being in their 70s at the time of their respective inaugurations). In general, Presidents get elected in their 50s or 60s; in the post-war era, only three Presidents have been elected in their 40s – JFK, Clinton and Obama. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, at the age of 61, Keir Starmer is the oldest person to become British Prime Minister since his Labour predecessor, James Callaghan, who took Office in 1976. I’m not sure what conclusions we can draw from this, but it’s interesting to note that while many countries have mandatory retirement ages for Judges, it seems there is no upper age limit to becoming (or remaining) President, Prime Minister or Head of State. So while old age may be seen as a barrier to dispensing justice in a Court of Law, there is no such concern about exercising political power.

Obviously, age should not be the sole or primary criteria for measuring one’s ability to perform one’s role, to fulfil one’s obligations and to meet one’s responsibilities. Factors such as capacity, cognition, experience, character and overall fitness (physical, mental and moral) should be the basis on which candidates are to be assessed and evaluated.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are several areas where the legal minimum age is being debated: for example, the age of criminal responsibility; the age when children and teenagers should be allowed access to social media; and the voting age. There are also related discussions on the age of consent, marriage, reproductive rights, access to birth control, and censorship controls.

While it is understandable and desirable to protect minors from harm (both by themselves and by others), setting universal minimum ages is not that easy. Individual children and adolescents develop at different rates – biology is simply not that uniform or consistent! I’m sure we all know of teenagers who are far more mature and responsible than adults in their 20s (and even 30s).

Part of the problem is that a fixed age limit does not allow for any sort of transition period. For example, at age 17 years and 364 days, I’m not allowed to buy alcohol; one day later, I can fill my boots! Logic and common sense would suggest that if teenagers had the opportunity to consume alcohol in moderation, in appropriate social and public settings, they would have a much better appreciation for its effects and greater understanding of their personal tolerance, without getting themselves into trouble.

My concern is that in too many areas we are denying young people any control over their own choices and decision-making, and as a result we are absolving them from any personal responsibility. Consequently, as a society we are undermining the concept of individual accountability; when things go wrong as a result of their own choices and actions – whether deliberate, reckless, negligent, careless, inconsiderate or simply idiotic – it’s other people who are left to pick up the pieces. The situation is not helped by the inconsistencies inherent in our definitions of “minor”, “legal age”, “adult”, etc. For example, people can legally drive, have sex and reproduce before they can legally vote, or get married without their parents’ consent.

When I see media coverage that suggests that people in their 20s who have engaged in anti-social, irresponsible or unacceptable behaviour are “too young to know any better”, I can’t help thinking that these commentators are being too generous (or totally patronising). Some people in their 20s are responsible for making life-or-death decisions (first responders, emergency workers, police, medical staff, members of the military). Many more are in the workforce, fulfilling legal and contractual obligations on behalf of themselves and their employers. (And in some fields such as sport and entertainment, they get paid very handsomely to do so.)

Surely, we should treat people over the age of 18 as “responsible adults”. Likewise, we should really know the difference between “right and wrong” by the age of 8 or 9, and certainly by the time we start high school. But if, as some academics and social policy advocates suggest, “adults” don’t fully mature until they are in their mid-20s, perhaps we need to raise the minimum age for driving, marriage, consent and voting to at least 25!

Finally, on the issue of access to social media, I would argue that since the minimum age to enter into a legal contract is 18, and since a social media account is a form of contract (at the very least, it is a type of license?) then anyone under 18 needs to have their parents or legal guardians sign on their behalf to ensure compliance with the terms of use. Alternatively, underage users need to complete a test or undertake an assessment to demonstrate their understanding and competence to participate in these platforms.

Next week: “Megalopolis”? More like mega-flop it is!

 

Notes from the UK

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve just made my annual pilgrimage to the UK. It’s also 30 years since I emigrated, and with each passing year, I arrive feeling more and more like a visitor – although I am “from” there, I don’t always feel I am “of” there.

The following notes are some brief observations, in no particular order, based on a relatively short trip (2 weeks), and I was only in the Greater Manchester and Greater London areas.

  • I flew from Melbourne to Manchester, via Hong Kong. My in-bound flight to the UK was carrying a large number of overseas students from China – not surprising, as Manchester has one of the largest Chinese communities in Europe, and the city also boasts a UK Top Ten University.
  • A pint of cask ale in the north west cost me an average of GBP4.00 – in London, it was more like GBP6.00. I know some employees receive “London weighting” or a “London allowance” to cover the high cost of living, but I doubt salaries in the capital are 50% higher than the rest of the country. (Regional variations in property prices are a different matter altogether!)
  • On the other hand, a sour dough loaf from a local bakery in the Peak District cost me GBP3.00 – I would generally pay about 50-60% more for a similar product in Melbourne.
  • The in-coming Labour government, having won a huge majority in July’s General Election, has already hit the buffers. A combination of unpopular policies (cutting pensioners’ winter energy rebates), strange priorities (a ban on outdoor smoking), off-key messaging (“doom and gloom” rhetoric) and sleaze (donations of clothes, tickets and spectacles for the new Prime Minister and his wife) have brought the post-election honeymoon period to an abrupt end.
  • Staying with politics, there was a lot of despondency, if not anger, about the political climate. Despite Labour’s overwhelming success at the polls, it was hard to feel any love for the new government. And after more than four years since Brexit, no-one was jumping for joy at the outcomes, as the alleged promises and benefits fail to materialise. If anything, businesses are suffering due to the loss of access to EU markets and/or the additional costs of exporting.
  • Thankfully, the riots that erupted a few weeks ago have dissipated, but it felt like the underlying tensions remain. As well as having been triggered by malicious rumours and blatant disinformation, the social unrest revealed confusion about national identity (and what it means to be “British”), combined with contradictory views on immigration, multiculturalism and globalisation.
  • Meanwhile, the UK taste for “foreign” food continues unabated, along with a love of overseas holidays.
  • Despite producing some of the best television dramas in the world, UK content makers continue pumping out aging soap operas, stale game shows, endless talent contests and questionable reality TV. So, much like the rest of the world!
  • I paid GBP114.00 for a return train ticket from Manchester to London, which seems expensive for a 2.5 hour service. Both my outbound and return journeys were delayed by more than 15 minutes. Thanks to “Delay Repay”, I received a total of GBP42.00 in compensation. I can’t help thinking that the train and rail operators should focus on improving their services, rather than overcharging and delaying passengers, in the hope that the effort to claim is not worth customers’ time.
  • When visiting London, I usually use an Oyster card. This time, I forgot to take it – but thankfully, passengers can use contactless payment methods on trains, the Undergound and even short trips on buses (just remember to touch on and off with the same card on each journey!)
  • The autumn weather was especially mild, enabling me to indulge in long walks in the countryside, followed by a mandatory pint or two in a local pub (that great “British” institution!) Sadly, a combination of Covid lockdowns and changing social patterns means that many pubs have reduced their opening hours, or closed their doors for good.
  • As Australia’s near-duopolistic supermarkets face legal action for alleged misleading and deceptive price discounting, I’m reminded of the amount of choice UK shoppers have between supermarket chains, and across product ranges. No doubt that more competitive markets in Australia (for grocery shopping and beyond) would help alleviate the cost of living – but that requires structural and other changes for which successive Federal governments have had no appetite.

Next week: Does age matter?

The Social License to Operate

Posted on by
Reply

The “social license to operate” is best described as follows: companies only get to do business so long as they retain the trust of their customers, employees and other community stakeholders.

The current debate about de-banking reminds us that financial institutions are among the largest beneficiaries of that social license, especially in Australia where the so-called 4 Pillar banks operate under a protected oligopoly. If you want to be cushioned against external and internal competition, then you need to demonstrate why you deserve to retain that privilege.

Apart from arbitrarily shutting customer accounts, banks are also closing local branches and/or reducing their opening hours. They are scaling back on the services available at some branches, even though their archaic processes still require existing customers to attend in person for things like ID verification and to apply wet signatures on hard copy documents. Seriously, you can’t have it both ways – reducing customer access while at the same time forcing customers to get to a branch to sign papers. (In a recent case, I ended up dealing with three separate branches, as well as an inter-state department, just to process some standard forms.)

The Banking Royal Commission dealt our major financial institutions several reputational blows – but rather than forcing them to improve their ways, foster innovation, increase efficiency, embrace technology and lift the overall customer experience, it seems that the banks have hunkered down in defence. They use the findings of that very same Royal Commission to justify why they now need to employ more and more layers of bureaucracy, form-filling and pen-pushing, in an attempt to cover their backsides and to mitigate against the public backlash.

And it’s not just the banks that are under increased community scrutiny – supermarkets, utilities, professional service firms, property developers, telcos, builders, insurers, landlords and tech companies are all facing various criticisms, for things like price gouging, squeezing suppliers, corruption, monopolistic and anti-competitive behaviours, poor quality products and service, financial irregularities, atrocious consumer data protection, environmental damage, unconscionable contractual terms and unreasonable policies. Unfortunately, our regulators don’t seem capable of holding these parties to account, so it will largely depend on consumers and the community to stand up for their own interests.

Next week: More on Music Streaming