That
glib and oily art
To speak and purpose not.
King Lear, Act 1, scene 1.
The NIAA recently published a Discussion Paper to support
the development of the Australian Government’s proposed Indigenous Digital
Inclusion Plan (link
here).
According to The Mandarin (link
here):
Federal Indigenous Australians
minister Ken Wyatt said access to digital technology was closely linked with
economic growth and social connection and was particularly essential because of
COVID-19.
“Digital technology encourages
entrepreneurialism, wealth creation and economic advancement – it’s about
closing the gap and taking the next step after that,” Wyatt said.
“That is why we are developing
a comprehensive plan to address the barriers to digital inclusion.”
My initial reaction to the NIAA Discussion Paper after a
quick scan was that this was a useful and thorough piece of work. It included
plenty of data, state by state analyses, and covered the key issues involved,
with extensive reliance on the available academic literature. I made the decision
to draft this post motivated in part by a desire to record some positive policy
developments. Unfortunately, the closer I looked at the issues involved, the more
disheartened and critical I became.
This post is not aimed at exploring in detail the elements
of the Indigenous digital divide. The NIAA Discussion Paper, complemented by the
research papers cited in its footnotes, is
in fact a good and timely introduction, albeit one that must be considered
critically. For example, it glosses some important issues, for example the
links between low rates of digital inclusion and high levels of financial literacy,
and low levels of educational attainment. It fails to mention others such as the
potential links between the extraordinarily high levels of pre-covid disengagement
with the social security system in remote Australia and digital inclusion. See
the April 2020 Senate Community Affairs Committee report into the adequacy of
Newstart (link
here) for a discussion of disengagement and a recommendation for further
research to be commissioned by NIAA (paras 6.142–153). Eighteen months later, this
appears not to have progressed.
Instead of an analysis of the Indigenous digital divide –
an issue deserving of detailed research in the post covid policy world – this
post aims to consider the backstory to the NIAA Discussion Paper.
The background is set out in the Discussion Paper’s
Introduction:
In 2018, the Regional
Telecommunications Independent Review Committee presented the 2018 Regional
Telecommunications Review – Getting it right out there (the Review). For
Indigenous Australians, the report highlighted the need for those living in
remote communities to have better access to phone and Internet services.
Recommendation 8 called for a targeted Indigenous Digital Inclusion Program,
with a focus on access, affordability and digital ability, to be developed in
partnership with Indigenous communities.
In response to the Review, the
Australian Government agreed in-principle to Recommendation 8, and committed to
develop an Indigenous Digital Inclusion Plan.
So the genesis of the Discussion Paper is the 2018 Regional Telecommunications Review (link
here).
That review allocated five pages (pp.57-61) to discussion Indigenous needs.
While brief and succinct, it made the case for improvements in digital access:
A coherent and holistic policy
approach to telecommunications services is needed for remote Indigenous communities.
A number of stakeholders have called for the development of an Indigenous
Digital Inclusion Strategy. It is important that there is local ownership in
all aspects of the strategy, and that it builds upon the capacity of existing
organisations, infrastructure and programs to avoid duplication.
The strategy should include
data collection to measure whether remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community members have broadband available to them with the minimum
requirements in terms of access, availability, affordability and digital
literacy. The strategy should consider affordability and suitability of
services for Indigenous communities, such as community Wi-Fi. It is important
that a digital literacy program is included as part of any such strategy, and
is developed to be culturally and linguistically appropriate for remote
community members.
The review recommended
A targeted Indigenous Digital
Inclusion program with a focus on access, affordability and digital ability be
developed in partnership with Indigenous communities.
The Australian Government March 2019 response (link
here) stated:
Recommendation 8: The Government agrees-in-principle with this
recommendation. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will provide
lead policy advice, with support from the Department of Communications and the
Arts to develop an Indigenous Digital Inclusion Plan. The Government will work
through existing Indigenous consultative mechanisms such as the Indigenous
Advisory Council to identify community priorities and ensure a tailored
response.
The Government’s Indigenous
Digital Inclusion Plan will consider Government investments to date to improve
Indigenous digital inclusion and identify community priorities for further work
(recommendation 8). A one-size-fits-all approach is not always appropriate, and
specific action needs to be tailored to community needs.
Or as the NIAA Discussion Paper put it in more succinct
terms, the Australian Government:
agreed in-principle to
Recommendation 8, and committed to develop an Indigenous Digital Inclusion
Plan.
On its face, this seems positive. However, the response is qualified…it
is ‘in principle’ and is a commitment to develop ‘a plan’, not to develop ‘a
program’ (with the implication that funding would be allocated) nor does it
commit to any tangible action to improve digital inclusion.
In mid-2021, the parties to the National Agreement on
Closing the Gap added a new target on digital inclusion (link
here).
This sets an ambitious target of 5 years to Indigenous digital equality, but
simultaneously points to a lack of data to enable measurement of the target.
In May 2021, the Government released its 2030 Digital
Economy Strategy (link
here)
with associated finding of $1.2bn. The only mention of Indigenous digital
issues was on p.33 in a section (misleadingly) headed ‘What has already been
delivered’, where the review states:
Digital literacy and ability
are being considered as part of an Indigenous Digital Inclusion Plan currently
being developed. The Plan will consider Government investments to date to improve Indigenous digital inclusion and identify
priorities for further work. It will also have a focus on access and
affordability.
The recently released NIAA Discussion Paper – which arrives
two and a half years after the Government committed to develop ‘a plan’ – lists
in an appendix all conceivable programs that might assist Indigenous citizens’ digital
inclusion. The appendix lists 19 Australian Government universal programs (ie
mainstream programs available to all citizens). There is no analysis of whether
mainstream programs are underutilised by Indigenous citizens. Whatever their
merits and take up by Indigenous citizens, the mainstream programs are
delivering the current digital divide, and thus are conceptually irrelevant to addressing
the issue of Indigenous digital exclusion. It also lists 6 targeted programs
(ie Indigenous specific programs) only two of which appear to involve funding:
Remote Indigenous
Community Telecommunications program: maintenance and
monitoring of 245 community payphones and 301 Wi-Fi telephones, generally
located in communities with less than 50 permanent residents that do not have
reasonable access to a public telephone.
Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Technology-Facilitated Abuse Resources Program:
co-designed resources and training to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander women to identify, report and protect themselves and their children
from technology-facilitated abuse. Includes a grants program for Aboriginal
Community Controlled Organisations to develop culturally appropriate,
place-based resources.
These are ‘the investments to date to improve Indigenous
digital inclusion’. The NIAA Discussion Paper does not indicate the funding
levels involved, but they are likely to be less than $5m over four years. These
are the programs to be ‘considered’ by the ‘plan’ which is unlikely to be
finalised before the next federal election. Even if this funding amounted to
$10m, it would only comprise less than one percent of the $1.2bn allocated in
May 2021 under the Digital Economy Strategy. The Prime Minister’s media release
accompanying the Digital Economy Strategy (link
here) included reference to other significant digital economy funding announced
by the Government totalling in excess of $7bn. Back of the envelope, $10m is
0.125% of $8bn. If actions speak louder than words, then this is the measure of
the current Government’s commitment to Indigenous digital exclusion.
The Regional Telecommunications Review takes place every
three years under Part 9B of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and
Service Standards) Act 1999. It assesses the adequacy of telecommunications
services in regional, rural and remote parts of Australia.
Past reviews and government responses are available on the Infrastructure
Department website (link
here).
The 2008 Glasson review included an extensive section
on Indigenous telecommunications needs, which documented the existence of the
an extensive digital divide. The then Government accepted the recommendation ‘to
expand the implementation and maintenance of community phones, including
pre-paid options for people in remote Indigenous communities’. It allocated
$3.7m in funding.
The 2012 Sinclair review recommended that ‘there
should be a continuation and expansion of the Indigenous Communications Program,
with sufficient flexibility to allow for tailored localised training and
digital literacy solutions. The program should include a trial of wi-fi
hotspots using selected community phones’. The then Government responded
that the recommendation required further consideration.
The 2015 Schiff review made no recommendations
relating to Indigenous telecommunications needs.
The 2018 review has been discussed above.
In June 2021, the 2021 Regional Telecommunications
Review began its work (link
here).
The Review issued an Issues Paper to guide its consultation processes (link
here)
which included a short section on Indigenous issues, listing (without
attribution) issues identified by the
previous review:
Levels of digital inclusion
amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians continue to remain
lower than the national average, including in regard to the take-up and
affordability of telecommunications services.
As with the wider community,
mobile phones are the most commonly used device for voice and data services in
Indigenous communities. However, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Australians are also more likely to only use mobile services than the national
average. This likely reflects a strong preference towards pre-paid mobile plans
due to the ability to ‘pay-as-you-go', providing more financial control than
other forms of access which charge monthly fees.
Wi-Fi services are also
available in some remote areas, both through free access at local community
facilities or using a pre-paid voucher system with data quotas. The National
Indigenous Affairs Agency also funds community phones which may use a similar
payment model. While Sky Muster is available across Australia, take-up is low
in remote communities.
Although pre-paid mobile and
Wi-Fi internet options are often easier to manage, these services can charge
higher costs for data than post-paid mobile and broadband plans. Additionally,
higher levels of 3G-only mobile coverage in remote areas can lead to slower
speeds and heavy network congestion, which may reduce uptake of data-intensive
activities.
The Committee is interested to
examine the adequacy of telecommunications for Indigenous Australians in
regional, rural and remote areas. In particular, the Committee welcomes views
on ways to improve levels of telecommunications access and affordability in
remote Indigenous communities.
The 2021 review’s consultation phase has recently concluded.
The latest NIAA Discussion Paper relies heavily on the 2020
Australian Digital Inclusion Index: Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide (link here). This
is the fifth edition of a regular report, and is essential reading for anyone
interested in understanding digital exclusion issues. On page 19, the report
spells out in some detail the elements driving digital exclusion amongst urban
and regional Indigenous citizens, spelling out the sustained lower index scores
for Indigenous citizens used throughout the Discussion paper. But the data
collection is only partial. As the report itself notes (p.19):
The ADII data collection does
not extend to remote Indigenous communities, where high levels of geographic
isolation and socioeconomic disadvantage pose distinct challenges for digital
inclusion. In 2018 and 2019, ADII case studies were conducted in the remote
indigenous communities of Ali Curung in the NT and Pormpuraaw in far north
Queensland. Findings from these studies suggest that digital inclusion for
Indigenous Australians further diminishes with remoteness, particularly in
terms of Access and Affordability. [emphasis added].
See also the discussion on the Northern Territory at p.45.
The report backs up the discussion of Indigenous digital divide in its
concluding section (pp.46–7). It mentions the new Closing the Gap target, and
mentions that while it focusses on access to digital services, it overlooks the
issue of affordability.
The NIAA Discussion Paper mentions the data issues relating
to remote communities in a single sentence (p.4) and on page 19. However, the
rest of the report and the multiple graphics utilise the ADII index data. Given
the genesis of the Discussion Paper in concerns around remote digital
exclusion, the use of an index based on urban and regional surveys, and that excludes
remote data, is in many respects misleading. The data utilised significantly
understate the levels of Indigenous digital exclusion across remote Australia.
The Discussion Paper does acknowledge these limitations, and hints that it
plans to utilise a mix of quantitative and qualitative data, and data proxies
in the absence of adequate data. Importantly, it notes that:
The National Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, last conducted in 2014-15, generated data
on digital access, use and training, but has not been undertaken recently [my
emphasis].
One might ask why has it not been undertaken? Over recent
decades, NATSISS has been a core element in policy and program development
across the whole of the Indigenous policy domain.
The bottom line is that at least since 2008, Australian
Governments have been aware of the existence of a substantial digital divide. While
data is important, and useful, a Government and Minister that was serious about
this issue would start by devising a basic program with some serious funding
(say $20-40m) over four years, and then work to establish the data sets to
establish underlying levels of need and finetune and improve the targeting of the
program. In the face of overwhelming and demonstrable need, putting the data
horse before the action cart is merely a ploy to do nothing.
After 13 years, and four completed statutory reviews, only
$3.7m has been allocated as a result of the review recommendations, and the only
action since 2008 has been a commitment tabled in the Parliament to develop a
plan, a plan to be developed in consultation with an Indigenous advisory
committee the Government has abolished without explanation (link
here), a plan which is still unimplemented 30 months after the commitment was
made.
Given the context outlined above, what are the odds that
the Government is serious in publishing the latest NIAA Discussion Paper? Why
should anyone take it seriously? What does it say about the Government’s level
pf commitment to the new Closing the Gap targets? What does it say about Minister
Wyatt’s influence within the Government that he can participate in a Cabinet
discussion to approve $1.2bn in digital economy expenditure in May this year and
extract zero for remote Indigenous citizens who confront multiple and
complex needs in the digital policy space?
It is clear that the Australian Government’s failure to
acknowledge that there is an issue requiring resolute and immediate substantive
policy action – rather than a mere plan – is at the root of the continuing
digital exclusion of Indigenous citizens, particularly in remote regions. In
more ways than one, digital extraction is the prerequisite for improvements in Indigenous
digital inclusion.
