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