Two stories caught my eye in the last week which illustrate this point.

1. Kevin Rudd announced a 3 per cent increase in defence spending and directly references the military build up in China as the justification for the spend, which will be detailed in the upcoming Federal budget. Current annual defence funding is in excess of $20bn.

2. The Reserve Bank takes the decision not to cut interest rates and cites recovery in China and the firming up of commodity prices as a key driver for an upswing in the Australian economy.

So in a nutshell Australia is arming itself to defend itself against the threat posed by a major trading partner.

I fail to see why China would invade / attack Australia especially if China consumes more and more of Australia’s raw materials and commodities in the coming years, as the Reserve Bank predicts.

With all due respect, what would be the point?

In an official response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhong Xu said that “China is a peaceful force that forms no threat to any other countries.”

I appreciate that Australia needs to be aware of what is going on in the region but surely there are more progressive approaches available to the Australian Government, especially from a leader who has capitolised on a strong and long personal relationship with China.

Do you know who I am?

The Access Card was the latest attempt by Federal and State Governmentin Australia to introduce an identity card.

The world has changed significantly since 2006 – we’ve seen a major shift in consumer attitudes towards personal information as a result of mainstream social networking.

Internet companies now have access to vast amounts of data and in a wide variety of formats, take Google Street View for example.

Companies like Salesforce.com are tapping into social networks in order to cross reference the information that is readily available there with the information that they hold in databases and CRM systems.

Governments around the world have invested heavily in bail-outs and stimulus packages sending many into deep deficits.  Will the heightened need to ensure that public funds are spent wisely strengthen the argument for citizen accountability via an identity card?

One wonders if these developments will compromise attempts to oppose the introduction of an identity card – or equivalent – in the future.

The objectives of the research were to:

• Capture data on the frequency and type of new media used by Australian Federal politicians, parties, interest groups and activists
• Provide an analysis of the new media used to identify the range of viewpoints and the level of interactivity and community engagement attempted or achieved

Overall, the level of engagement achieved had been minimal due to the failure of the politicians to use the power of social media to engage and interact. Only one of the 226 politicians studied allowed negative comments to appear on their site (this was Malcolm Turnbull). In all other cases, comments sections were either not available or carried purely fan mail i.e. positive/supportive messages. Very small numbers replied to questions submitted via Websites and social networks, completely missing the opportunity to engage in conversation and drive advocacy.

Some figures:

• Less than 6% of selected Federal politicians had a new media presence assessed as “fairly interactive” (i.e. involving links inviting people to comment, ask questions or leave messages)
• 185 elected Federal politicians had new media sites which were completly one-way information dissemination with no opportunity for comment or input by members of the public
• Web and other sites of 70 elected Federal politicians comprised a single page and were judged to be a ‘token effort’
• Only three (1.3 per cent) were classified as “very comprehensive”, assessed on the basis of multiple pages plus links to other information such as blogs, podcasts or YouTube. The Kevin07 site was one of the three.
• Two Websites were judged to be amateurish and the majority were based on templates
• There were just 15 blogs but on average Federal politicians used 2.24 types of digital media

One of the key conclusions drawn from all of this is that “new media have not created a new public sphere of political discussion and debate where citizens can participate as equals as envisioned by Habermas (1989)”.

I take issue with this conclusion. It’s clear from the data that new media hasn’t been given the chance to create ‘a new public sphere of political discussion’ because it has been poorly applied and executed. In other words, new media hasn’t failed but our politicians and their advisors have. John Howard provides a case in point. He made little or no attempt to adapt his message or presentation for YouTube and opened his maiden YouTube appearance with ‘Good Morning!’.

There was much talk after the presentation about the fact that the majority of people that visited these types of sites where politically active and that it’s not actually these people that influence the outcome of elections.

My colleague, Ed, made a good point after the event. He said that he agreed with this conclusion but that the experience of US pollies had shown that social media could be used effectively as tool for mobilising a community of politically active advocates and supporters i.e. it does have an important role to play/does add value.

I would argued that politicians, in general, need to change the tone of their message and the way it is presented (Infotainment). This would help to engage the politically apathetic and help voters feel that they were interacting with a real person with a personality.

The report touched on the contribution of prosumers or citizens in terms of video commentary and other types of media. Macnamara made the point that much of this content was spoof material and he said that the jury was out as to whether this represented genuine political discourse. I don’t think there should be any question that it does.

My other observation related to the number of times that the audience made a point based on an assumption that only young people use social media.

Overall, it was an informative session in an academic setting and food for thought.