Wending languidly towards Indigenous digital inclusion

 

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.