Review of 2021 Census Topics

Proposed new topic - digital literacy.
Being digitally literate is increasingly fundamental in order to participate in economic and social life, particularly as more and more services are delivered on-line. Various studies have shown that certain groups may be more at risk of being left behind than others but to date, there is no single longitudinal survey instrument that measures the entire population's digital literacy. Given the existing geographic and socioeconomic data that is collected in the Census, the inclusion of digital literacy data would allow for a much more nuanced exploration of the relationships between these factors at different scales which in turn would facilitate the development of more specific and effective policies and programs. This is particularly important in the context of the Digital Economy and extent to which the population can participate in this economy (both as potential consumers and producers).

Being digitally literate is increasingly fundamental in order to participate in economic and social life; consequently the digital literacy of the population is a matter of national importance.

The increasing push for the Commonwealth (and other levels of government) to deliver services via on-line only platforms is evident in recent policy and program developments such as the creation of the Digital Transformation Agency (previously the DTO) and associated Digital Transformation Agenda, as well as the Digital Economy Strategy, due for release in mid -2018. As noted by Chen (2017, p5) these developments are underpinned by assumptions regarding availability and affordability of connectivity, as well as digital literacy (i.e. that essentially everyone has access to connectivity and the skills to use it), that are not necessarily supported by research (e.g. ACCAN 2016, Chen 2017, Infoxchange and ACCAN 2016, Rennie et al 2016, Selwyn et al 2016, Seton et al 2015, Thomas et al 2017). Collectively this body of research indicates that internet availability, accessibility, affordability, and digital literacy varies across the population. For example, there are around three million Australians who are still not online (Thomas et al, 2017 p3), and there are particular groups such as the elderly, disabled, low-income, rural and remote users, remote Indigenous communities, CALD communities and homeless people, who are particularly at risk of being left behind in an increasingly digitalised world (Chen 2017).

As recently as March this year, the Chairman of the Australian Information Industry Association and Managing Director of Business for Optus, Mr John Paitaridis, expressed concern that a lack of digital literacy was leading to a “burning platform” for Australian industries and the economy, and urged government, industry and universities to work together to address the problem (Baxendale 2018). The Australian Council of Learned Academies has also warned that Australia “lacks critical mass in ICT skills such as programming, software development, computer engineering, data management, data mining and data analytics” and that this has negative implications for future economic growth, employment and society (Williamson et al 2015, p18). Future policy and program development should be based upon a credible, robust evidence base and good understanding of the digital literacy of the population as a whole and at a finer-grained level than is currently available (refer also remarks at C2 and C7).

It should also be noted that there is a proposal for digital literacy to be included as a Closing the Gap measure (see also response at C2 and C7). If included, it will be necessary to have a mechanism(s) in place by which progress on this measure can be monitored and reported.

Refer also remarks at C1 and C7. Only by including the whole of the population will we be truly able to gauge the digital literacy of the nation as a whole and identify those “pockets” where digital literacy is lacking. This will allow for the development of more effective, targeted programs across a range of sectors. As noted at C1, research to date suggests digital literacy may vary according to a range of socioeconomic and geographic factors but owing to the nature and scale of much of this research, it is not necessarily valid to apply these findings to the population nation-wide.

Given the existing geographic and socioeconomic data that is collected in the Census, the inclusion of digital literacy data would allow for a much more nuanced exploration of the relationships between these factors at different scales and facilitate the development of very targeted (and therefore likely to be more effective) policies and programs.

Such data might also be valuable for future Census planning, specifically the mode of collection of Census data, by facilitating the specific identification of certain geographic areas and cohorts whose digital literacy does not extend to the completion of a Census form on-line. This may allow the ABS to use its existing resources more effectively.

If the topic adopts a self-assessment approach, then it is reasonable to assume that the household member completing the form would have a good knowledge of their own digital literacy and that of other members. Refer also response at C4.

For most respondents it is unlikely that this topic would be considered offensive, intrusive or controversial. However there may be some people such as the elderly or some Indigenous people who would be reluctant to “self-assess” their digital literacy skills as “low” and may feel some embarrassment or a sense of shame, but this could be offset to some extent by the way in which the topic is broached on the Census form. i.e. perhaps by selecting a statement from a limited series, that most accurately represents their skill levels, couched in terms of the types of activities that they can undertake, without using terms such as “low”, “high”, “good” etc. This would limit the time taken to answer this question.

In terms of coding and processing and costs, we are not in a position to be able to comment on these as they relate to operational matters to which we are not privy. However we do not believe that the topic would require a lengthy introduction or set of instructions, and would not necessarily need to involve a large number of response categories, if the the topic was broached in a manner that involved the household member making a single selection from a limited series of statements that most closely corresponded to the level of a household member’s digital literacy.

It cannot be assumed that digital literacy will automatically improve, nor that any improvement will be uniform across the population; in recent years for example, the digital divide between regional/remote and metropolitan areas has widened despite the introduction of the nbn, according to Thomas et al 2017, with implications for digital literacy. In today’s world it is not enough to be simply “literate”, one must also be digitally literate and this will continue to be case in the future (Williamson et al 2015, p18).

We also note that the Bureau is considering ways in which the digital economy might be captured (ABS Submission on the Digital Economy: Opening up the Conversation Discussion Paper, dated 5th June 2017). We suggest that capturing the digital literacy of the population should be a critical part of measuring the Digital Economy in terms of identifying that proportion of the population who have the ability to participate in the Digital Economy. We note that in Appendix A of the submission under the heading “digital literacy measurement” there is a reference to the ABS’ Business Use of Technology Survey. It is our view that this survey cannot be used as a proxy measure of digital literacy across the population more broadly, for reasons outlined under C7 below.

Refer also to our previous comment regarding the proposal for digital literacy to be included as a Closing the Gap measure.

Currently, it appears that there is no dataset providing information regarding the digital literacy of the entire population across the nation.

The Australian Digital Inclusion Index (Thomas et al 2017) does not capture data across the entire population. Instead, it relies on a survey of 16,000 (of which less than 100 were from the NT in 2017) and does not include remote Indigenous communities. Additionally, the Index is dependent on private sector funding and it’s future in the medium and long term is not guaranteed. There is a need for consistently collected data over longer time periods in order to be able to gauge the extent of progress.

The existing question regarding internet access in the ABS’ Multipurpose Household Survey which is used to produce ABS Cat.no. 8146.0. (Household Use of Information Technology), does not directly equate to digital literacy. A dwelling might have internet access, but not all household members will necessarily have the skills to make use of that access. By the same token, a dwelling may not have internet access but people might access the internet through other means (e.g. community hub, local library, mobile phone etc.). In a similar vein, the existing reasons for accessing the internet cannot be used as a proxy measure for digital literacy; an individual may want to access the internet for online banking but still struggle to undertake this task if their digital literacy skills are poor. In any case, the Multipurpose Household Survey does not include Indigenous people in remote communities, nor people living in non-private dwellings. The Business Use of Information Technology (ABS Cat. no. 8129.0) and Summary of IT Use and Innovation in Australian Business (ABS Cat. no. 8166.0) also only capture a restricted cohort and cannot be applied to the broader population. We also note that the 2016-17 issue of Cat. no. 8146.0 is the final release of this publication and this data will no longer be produced.

ABS Cat.no. 8153.0 (Internet Activity, Australia) only measures particular aspects of connectivity such as type of access connection, advertised download speed and volume of data downloaded, no. of mobile handsets and so on, which do not directly equate to measures of digital literacy. This survey also excludes particular sectors of the population: people who do not have internet or mobile access at home, people who are with an ISP that has less than 1,000 subscribers, as well as excluding hotels, libraries, internet café’s, internet kiosks and hotspots.

Data provided by nbn, such as the NBN Wholesale Market Indicators Report and NBN Half-Yearly reports do not collect information regarding digital literacy.
ACMA’s Communications Reports also do not include questions regarding digital literacy, instead focusing on the performance of carriers and carriage service providers, customer satisfaction, quality of service, and overview of the telecommunications industry performance against various regulatory obligations, codes and standards, such as the CSG. The data around type of connectivity and devices also cannot be used as proxy measures of digital literacy. In any case, the data is presented at an aggregated level, meaning that is it not possible to make comparisons between select geographic areas or cohorts (e.g. age, Indigenous status) and given the survey methodology, it is likely that some cohorts are under-represented or excluded altogether (e.g. very remote areas, Indigenous communities). We note that Focus area 3 of ACMA’s Research Program 2017-18 Update relates to social and economic participation, however none of the planned projects relate to digital literacy. This is not surprising given that digital literacy lies largely outside their regulatory mandate, although they have in the past undertaken some research around digital media literacy set within the context of its regulatory interests and consumer protection and education/awareness activities (Commonwealth of Australia 2009). Given the length of time that has elapsed and developments in telecommunications that have occurred since this work was undertaken, it is likely that this data has lost much of its applicability.

The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey is a valuable longitudinal dataset and has included questions relating to home internet access in the context of identifying potential measures of material deprivation (e.g. see the 2016 Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey: Selected Findings from Waves 1-14, p84-85). However, as noted in relation to the Multipurpose Household Survey, this cannot be used as a proxy for measuring digital literacy. Additionally, the HILDA survey does not capture certain cohorts/areas, for example people living in remote/sparsely settled areas of Australia and people living in non-private dwellings. Furthermore, sample size issues means that data collected from NT households must be treated with caution and these findings cannot be more broadly applied to the NT population with confidence.

Other surveys such as that undertaken by the Broadband for the Bush Alliance (B4BA) and Better Internet for Rural and Remote Australia (BIRRR) rely on self-participation (i.e. participation in the survey is optional), are smaller and more limited in scale and also do not necessarily capture certain cohorts (e.g. people in very remote Indigenous communities without internet access, homeless people) and are only conducted when funding allows, usually as “once-off” activities that rely on grant funding. As such, they lack the consistency required to facilitate valid statistical comparisons over time. Similarly, specific research such as that referred to at C1, is generally not conducted on the spatial and temporal scales required to allow for fine-grained identification and analyses across the entire population.

In the event the ABS does not take up digital literacy as a new topic, we strongly argue that the existing question regarding household access to the internet should be retained, as this appears to be the only survey which asks this question of the entire population, including those cohorts that are excluded from other surveys (e.g. HILDA, ABS Cat.no.s 8153.0, 8146.0, 8129.0) such as people in remote/very remote areas (including Indigenous communities), and people living in non-private dwellings.

These people and the organisations which represent them have a real need to be able to access an independent, credible, reliable and robust evidence base that allows them to directly demonstrate their need for improved access to telecommunications, digital literacy and so on. It is disappointing that the geographic areas and groups most in need of this assistance are (with the exception of the Census), largely excluded from other surveys that could provide them with the standard of evidence required to support grant applications (increasingly, such evidence must relate directly to their geographic area and interest group/cohort) and submissions to program and policy makers in Government, which would then perhaps result in activity(s) that would assist in overcoming disadvantage, including Closing the Gap.

References (Non ABS Publications only)

ACCAN, 2016, Affordability Map: A resource to inform the development of targeted affordability measures in the Australian telecommunications environment. Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Sydney. Available on-line at http://accan.org.au/Affordability%20Map%20June%202016.pdf

Baxendale, R, 2018, “Push for more digital literacy”. The Australian, March 22nd, 2018.

Chen, J., 2017, Breaking Down Barriers to Digital Government: How can we enable vulnerable consumers to have equal participation in digital government? Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Sydney. Available on-line at http://accan.org.au/Breaking%20Down%20Barriers%20to%20Digital%20Government.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia (ACMA), 2009, Digital media literacy in Australia: Key indicators and research sources, Australia Media and Communications Authority, Available on-line at https://www.acma.gov.au/-/media/mediacomms/Research-library-reports-old/Word-Document/Digital-media-literacy-in-Australia-doc.doc?la=en

Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Communications and Media Authority), 2017, ACMA Research Program 2017-28 Update, Australia Media and Communications Authority, Available on-line via https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/current-researchacma-program

Infoxchange and ACCAN 2016, Social Housing and Broadband: Internet Use and Affordability for Social Housing Residents, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Sydney. Available on-line at http://accan.org.au/files/Reports/Social%20Housing_web.pdf

Rennie, E., Hogan, E., Gregory, R., Crouch, A., Wright, A. & Thomas, J. 2016, Internet on the Outstation: The Digital Divide and Remote Aboriginal Communities, Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam. Available on-line at http://networkcultures.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TOD19-Internet-on-the-Outstation-INC.pdf

Selwyn, N., Johnson, N., Nemorin, S. & Knight, E. 2016, Going online on behalf of others: an investigation of ‘proxy’ internet consumers, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Sydney. Available on-line at http://accan.org.au/files/Grants/ACCAN_Monash_2016_Going%20online%20on%20behalf%20of%20others_WEB.pdf

Seton, C., Tucker, J. & van der Zwan, R. 2015, The Digital Age Project: An Investigation into Strategies Needed to Enable Older Residents in Social Housing to Use the Internet, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, Ultimo. Available on-line at https://accan.org.au/files/Grants/Digital_Age_final-web-accessible.pdf
Thomas, J., Barraket, J., Wilson, C., Ewing, S., MacDonald, T., Tucker, J., and Rennie, E., 2017, Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2017, RMIT University, Melbourne, for Telstra. Available on-line at https://digitalinclusionindex.org.au/the-index-report/report/

University of Melbourne, 2016. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey: Selected Findings from Waves 1-14, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne. Available on-line at https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2155507/hilda-statreport-2016.pdf

Williamson, R.C., Raghnaill, M.N., Douglas, K. and Sanchez, D., 2015. Technology and Australia’s future: New technologies and their role in Australia’s security, cultural, democratic, social and economic systems, Australian Council of Learned Academies. Available on-line at https://acola.org.au/wp/PDF/SAF05/SAF05_Precis_web_16Sept.pdf

About RDA NT
RDA NT is an incorporated not-for-profit community-based organisation that is concerned with building partnerships and ensuring that all governments and stakeholders collaborate in developing and strengthening regional communities. RDA NT is part of a nationwide network of more than 50 RDA Committees with membership comprising local individuals who have a good understanding of the economic, environmental and social issues and priorities in their respective regions. RDA NT has identified telecommunications as the backbone underpinning the NT’s economic and social development.

Given the critical role that telecommunications plays in our region, RDA NT has been active in this space for several years. We have been a member of the Broadband for the Bush Alliance (including Board membership) and supported the annual B4B Forum. We have also had input into the 2015 Regional Telecommunications Review, the Productivity Commission’s Review of the TUSO and the Australian Government’s Telecommunications Reform Package, Commonwealth’s Digital Economy: Opening Up the Conversation Discussion paper, ACCC’s Communications Market Study, current Government TUSO taskforce consultations, and the NT Government’s Digital Strategy Discussion Paper. Additionally, we have also completed two significant telecommunications projects, the Digital Workplace Assessment Tool (DWAT) and the High Speed Technology Wireless Pilot. The former identified digital literacy and lack of tailored training programs as a key barrier to the digital transformation of digital workplaces in the NT.