Speaker 1: I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven AM. This week,
Speaker 1: Labor rolled out its flagship social media ban for under sixteenth.
Speaker 1: The reform was expected to be one last win for
Speaker 1: the government after a year of political victories, but while
Speaker 1: the spotlight was on the minister leading the charge, it
Speaker 1: was for all the wrong reasons. Instead of having a
Speaker 1: run way to promote the ban, Anika well spent the
Speaker 1: week defending her use of taxpayer funded expense in toilerments. Today,
Speaker 1: former political advisor to two Prime Minister's Sean Kelly on
Speaker 1: how even a tightly planned policy launch could be knocked
Speaker 1: off course and the unquenchable first to apply the pub
Speaker 1: test to some and not others. It's Saturday, December thirteenth, Suan,
Speaker 1: Nice to see you again. This week the social media
Speaker 1: band for teenagers finally came into effect. So how would
Speaker 1: the Communications Minister Anika Wells and the Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 1: Alberinezi have been planning for this moment?
Speaker 2: Oh, they would have been planning for it for a while.
Speaker 2: You would think generally with a policy of this size,
Speaker 2: with the policy of this impact, with this level of
Speaker 2: national attention, you would have a very clearly thought out
Speaker 2: media plan. It would be, you know, in some type
Speaker 2: of a spreadsheet, and you would have a knowledge of
Speaker 2: the interviews you wanted to do, the challenge you wanted
Speaker 2: to hit. You would have op eds ready to go.
Speaker 2: You'd probably have stakeholders worded up as well, ready to
Speaker 2: go out there and back the policy in. You would
Speaker 2: have planned this thing to within an inch of its life.
Speaker 1: So instead of the reception that they wanted, though, there's
Speaker 1: been revelations that Wells had spent one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: on flights to New York, and so journalist started digging
Speaker 1: into your experienses. When a story like that starts, serve
Speaker 1: seeing in the media what happens inside a political office,
Speaker 1: what conversations would start as have been having it about
Speaker 1: how to handle it.
Speaker 2: They flow along a number of channels. The first thing
Speaker 2: you always have to ask is, well, what else is
Speaker 2: going to come out? And that's not necessarily a matter
Speaker 2: of sinister things, as a matter of the fact that
Speaker 2: if you're in politics, once the media decides to focus
Speaker 2: on you, they will find other things. And that's not
Speaker 2: a comment on the legitimacy of various stories or otherwise.
Speaker 2: It is just for any politician. You will manage to
Speaker 2: find other things so you do not want that spotlight
Speaker 2: trained on you. And then you're going to think, well,
Speaker 2: what is our approach then? Do we try to answer
Speaker 2: these questions? Do we explain them away? Do we do
Speaker 2: exactly what the government has done and say this is
Speaker 2: all within the rules. And often you see these types
Speaker 2: of controversies follow a bit of a pattern. Generally the
Speaker 2: politician will attempt to give an answer, shutting it down.
Speaker 2: Then you wait and see. At every point, you're throwing
Speaker 2: a rock into the pond and you're waiting to see
Speaker 2: what ripples out. And if it doesn't go away, then
Speaker 2: you go into the next stage, and that might be
Speaker 2: going silent for a few days and hoping that the
Speaker 2: media caravan moves on, and if it doesn't, then maybe
Speaker 2: you need to stand up and you need to answer
Speaker 2: every question. You need to make it clear that you're
Speaker 2: not hiding from the media. I mean, in this case,
Speaker 2: it feels like the government's tried pretty much everything and
Speaker 2: still it is still it is going on.
Speaker 1: She was criticized at first for being defensive. Was that
Speaker 1: a misstep in your own opinion?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think the government missed an opportunity. Really,
Speaker 2: there was an opportunity to step in at the first
Speaker 2: moment and say there is clearly a broader issue about
Speaker 2: entitlements here, and we have a great deal of respect
Speaker 2: for taxpayer money and we are going to ensure that
Speaker 2: something is done about that. It's missed that chance. Now
Speaker 2: it's very much on the back foot, and so anything
Speaker 2: it does now will be in the defensive realm. But
Speaker 2: it's worth remembering the context in which these things take place.
Speaker 2: I'd a couple of contexts. First, I think it is
Speaker 2: reasonable to say what politicians have a unique job. They
Speaker 2: have a unique role with unique demands, and it is
Speaker 2: reasonable that we make provisions for that. And I think
Speaker 2: that is especially true if we want to make sure
Speaker 2: there is a diversity of people in the parliament. Now,
Speaker 2: that is not an excuse that covers all sins, but
Speaker 2: I think it is some sort of a reason for
Speaker 2: entitlement somewhere. You need to remember as well that over
Speaker 2: the years, various entitlements have been stripped back and that
Speaker 2: has not always been a good thing. Public expectations are
Speaker 2: not always the best guide to what is helpful. So
Speaker 2: the best example of this is when Mark Latham essentially
Speaker 2: politically cornered John Howard into stripping back the parliamentary pensions game.
Speaker 2: What that has meant over time is that politicians don't
Speaker 2: have that clear income to rely on after politics, and
Speaker 2: I think that has two potential impacts. One is it
Speaker 2: means we don't attract as high quality politicians into the Parliament,
Speaker 2: or at least there's one less reason to attract them. Secondly,
Speaker 2: it means that politicians towards the end of their time
Speaker 2: in the Parliament are already almost inevitably looking to their
Speaker 2: next chance. They're looking to that next job, and that
Speaker 2: obviously creates a conflict of interest for any politician. I
Speaker 2: think politicians need to work very hard to avoid that conflict.
Speaker 2: And that is because there was a feeling that politicians
Speaker 2: were getting too much. But we end up we end
Speaker 2: up hurting ourselves a little bit. I think sometimes with
Speaker 2: these demands for politicians to strip everything.
Speaker 1: Back, part of Wells's tactics was to actually change tact
Speaker 1: and say that she was happy to have her expenses reviewed.
Speaker 1: But news stories kept on coming and coming. Is this
Speaker 1: faux outrage sean an opportunity to will out the say
Speaker 1: called pub test as if anyone is actually talking about
Speaker 1: this in a pub Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look, it's such a range of things. I think there
Speaker 2: really are a number of factors feeding into this. You know,
Speaker 2: it's the end of the year. I'm sure that the
Speaker 2: government would love it if something dramatics suddenly happened in
Speaker 2: Trump's America, but it hasn't the last few days. So
Speaker 2: the social media ban is really the big thing, and
Speaker 2: ordinarily I think that would take all the attention, and
Speaker 2: the government is obviously frustrated that it's not, except that
Speaker 2: you have this awful coincidence for the government that the
Speaker 2: minister under fire is the minister in charge of the
Speaker 2: social media ban. So really that's just charged the story
Speaker 2: a little bit more. I think you have another couple
Speaker 2: of factors. One is that the government has been on
Speaker 2: a pretty good wicket for a little while. The media
Speaker 2: often works in cycles. I'm not saying that's a good thing.
Speaker 2: I'm just stating it for what it is. The liberals
Speaker 2: have been making a heap of criticism and on utterly
Speaker 2: justifiable grounds, over the last month. There's often a bit
Speaker 2: of a sense of, you know, wanting to go back
Speaker 2: to focusing on the government and this is an opportunity
Speaker 2: for the media to do that. And then I do
Speaker 2: think there is a final factor, which is you do
Speaker 2: often see women facing a different level of scrutiny. Annabel
Speaker 2: Krab had a very good piece this week, not at
Speaker 2: all saying that Anika Wells shouldn't be scrutinized, but saying,
Speaker 2: let's look at the scrutiny that Barnaby Joyce has faced
Speaker 2: over the years. Let's look at the number of things
Speaker 2: he's got away with. This pub test seems to be
Speaker 2: used slightly differently for men and women at times in
Speaker 2: their political career, so it is not the only thing happening.
Speaker 2: But you know, much like Julia Gillard saying being a
Speaker 2: woman explained some of her experience in politics and not
Speaker 2: all of it, I think the double standard doesn't explain
Speaker 2: everything that's going on here if the media does often
Speaker 2: have a pre election for going after young.
Speaker 1: Women coming up Anthony Albanzi's Howard moment. Surean, let's stop
Speaker 1: doom scrolling for a second and talk about the social
Speaker 1: media ban. How significant do you think this reform is
Speaker 1: going to be.
Speaker 2: I think it has the potential to be enormously significant. Yesterday,
Speaker 2: admittedly in a clear moment of frustration, Anthony Albanese said,
Speaker 2: you know, this is a revolution.
Speaker 3: What I'm focused on today today is an issue which
Speaker 3: is a revolution. You'll be able to write a book
Speaker 3: maybe on the period of the Labor government when you
Speaker 3: look back and you look at what are the five
Speaker 3: biggest things that we did, I'll tell you what this
Speaker 3: will be one of them. And that's what makes me proud.
Speaker 2: Thanks very much. And that was striking language to me.
Speaker 2: Because Anthony Albanezi often says I am a reformist, not
Speaker 2: a revolutionary. He steers well clear of that type of language.
Speaker 2: So he obviously really believes in this. He also wants
Speaker 2: it to be noticed and believes it's very significant. And
Speaker 2: I think that he's right. It could end up being
Speaker 2: very significant, in part because other countries are looking at
Speaker 2: what Australia is doing and they are considering doing similar well.
Speaker 2: Beginning today, kids under the age of sixteen in Australia
Speaker 2: are being forced off social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram.
Speaker 1: Here's it.
Speaker 2: So the worlds in terms of regulation of the big
Speaker 2: tech companies and many governments are looking at how this
Speaker 2: band is being enforced and what other countries are expected
Speaker 2: to bring in their own regulations on social media in
Speaker 2: the near futures, and I think that is because there
Speaker 2: is a feeling that there is something wrong here the
Speaker 2: dominance that social media has assumed in all of our lives,
Speaker 2: frankly but certainly in the lives of young people. And
Speaker 2: I suspect this won't be the last bit of action
Speaker 2: we'll see, not necessarily in Australia but globally over the
Speaker 2: next few years. I think there is beginning to be
Speaker 2: a significant backlash, and I think that could interact in
Speaker 2: really interesting ways with AI as AI becomes intervenes in
Speaker 2: our lives. More so, I think this is a significant
Speaker 2: pushback against the way that our lives have been heading
Speaker 2: over the last few years, and I think it will
Speaker 2: be a source of debate for some time to come.
Speaker 1: Could this be Anthony Alberineese's gun reform moment in terms
Speaker 1: of taking a league globally and therefore the coverage that
Speaker 1: is receiving global continue to play it over a length
Speaker 1: of time. Do you think the government's going to play
Speaker 1: into that? Look?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. One of the difficulties that this government faces is
Speaker 2: that so much of what they do is not memorable
Speaker 2: that I think people would often struggle to name what
Speaker 2: the government has done. I think this is something that
Speaker 2: really will lodge itself in people's memories, and that is significant.
Speaker 2: It means that even the negative stories, the stories about
Speaker 2: teens managing to get through loopholes, are actually a positive
Speaker 2: for the government. In the end, of course, they have
Speaker 2: to deal with those problems. But in some ways, as
Speaker 2: long as it's being talked about, it as a reminder
Speaker 2: that the government is actually doing something. It's doing something
Speaker 2: in an area in which lots of people want it
Speaker 2: to do something. So in some ways it is an
Speaker 2: answer to criticisms that people make of this government, the
Speaker 2: criticisms that I've made of this government, and I think
Speaker 2: that that really does have the potential in the way
Speaker 2: that many things the government doesn't, to last and to
Speaker 2: be remembered.
Speaker 1: So, now the social media ban is in place, does
Speaker 1: it just give kids more time to watch gabling ads
Speaker 1: on Telly?
Speaker 2: Well, look, I think you've pointed to exactly the question, Daniel.
Speaker 2: The question is is this the beginning of a bolder
Speaker 2: alban easy government or is it an anomaloust moment? You know,
Speaker 2: is it the exception that proves the rule or is
Speaker 2: it the beginning of something new. The gambling ads are
Speaker 2: a really good test of that. Is the government going
Speaker 2: to take stronger action on that, because one of the
Speaker 2: things about the social media ban is that it is
Speaker 2: leaning on a problem that many people already believe exists.
Speaker 2: And there are already always two sides to advocacy. You
Speaker 2: have to convince people that there is a problem, and
Speaker 2: then you have to convince them that the solution you've
Speaker 2: got is a good one. And here people already believe
Speaker 2: there's a problem, so the government just has to make
Speaker 2: the case for the solution. And I think you have
Speaker 2: a similar thing with gambling ads. People already believe there
Speaker 2: is a problem, and in fact, a lot of people
Speaker 2: already seem to believe that banning gambling ads is the solution.
Speaker 2: So the government doesn't have to make much of a
Speaker 2: case for it does have to take on corporate interests,
Speaker 2: and that has historically been a problem for this government.
Speaker 1: As you say, this band seems to be addressing some
Speaker 1: wider issue in the community, some wider sense that something
Speaker 1: isn't right. One of the other ways that government is
Speaker 1: going to need to address that sense of disconnect, that
Speaker 1: sense of disorientation that we have in the community at
Speaker 1: the moment.
Speaker 2: This is one of the things I write about in
Speaker 2: my quarterly essay, which was just released a few weeks ago,
Speaker 2: This gathering sense in society that we are not living
Speaker 2: a good life and that things need to change. And
Speaker 2: I think phones, atomization, loneliness, lack of community are a
Speaker 2: really big part of that. But then there is another
Speaker 2: side to that, which is inequality, and that ties to
Speaker 2: social media in the sense that we are basically facing
Speaker 2: off against a set of hugely powerful, multi billion dollar corporations.
Speaker 2: We as a society are facing off against them, and
Speaker 2: I think in a way that challenge is one for
Speaker 2: governments and it's one for all of us, in the
Speaker 2: sense that there is a chasm between people who have
Speaker 2: assets and people who don't. There is a chasm between
Speaker 2: individuals and the immense power that huge corporations now wield
Speaker 2: in our society, and that power only seems to be
Speaker 2: getting greater, and so I think governments need to start
Speaker 2: stepping into that gap and taking on those fights. And
Speaker 2: for me, the really significant question about the next year
Speaker 2: is whether the government does something significant on inequality, and
Speaker 2: in particular on housing. The government needs to step up
Speaker 2: with a whole bunch of solutions, more than it has
Speaker 2: currently put on the table, and to convince people that
Speaker 2: it is taking housing seriously. I think this could be
Speaker 2: an absolutely huge issue over the next year. I think
Speaker 2: it could be a gathering point for frustration with the government.
Speaker 2: And the other thing we know is that the coalition
Speaker 2: or in the absence of the coalition, one nation, are
Speaker 2: going to lean very heavily on this in the context
Speaker 2: of migration, and I think that is going to create
Speaker 2: huge problems potentially for society, potentially for the labor government,
Speaker 2: and so I think the government needs to be thinking
Speaker 2: now about ways to get in front of that.
Speaker 1: Well. It's going to be a very big year. This
Speaker 1: year has been a big year, Seawan, Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. Sam willed forward to speaking to
Speaker 1: you again in the future.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1: Seven Am is a daily show from Solstice Media. It's
Speaker 1: made by Atticus Basto, Ariel Richards, Chris Dngate, Ruby Jones,
Speaker 1: Sarah mcveee, Travis Evans, Zoltan Veccho and me Daniel James.
Speaker 1: Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan
Speaker 1: of Envelope Poortier. Thanks for listening to seven am. Have
Speaker 1: a great weakend