He waka eke noa: How digitisation of government services could be anti democratic

I am privileged to be a trustee on three education focussed trusts in Ōtautahi Christchurch.

I wouldn't describe myself as a 'high value' trustee, there are others on each Board that do a heap more work, add a heap more value, than I do. However I make the occasional useful contribution, I hope. The three trusts have two things in common: they are each focussed on education and learning in some way, shape, or form, and each of them is working to address the issue of the digital divide that we have in Aotearoa New Zealand, the gap that exists between that 'haves' and the 'have nots' in terms of access to the online digital world. Each trust engages in different mahi but with this same end in mind. You wouldn't be surprised then to read me say that I too think that digital equity is important. Access to the online digital world is empowering, liberating, humanising, and wealth creating. These are benefits that we ALL ought to be able to hold as a right, regardless of birth, race, culture, or geographical location.

You have most probably seen this image many times, reflecting how I too see this world.

This is all background to last week's thinking, having just read a piece in The Listener (August 24-30 2024) titled 'Citizen Drain'. The piece was about funding for Citizens' Advice Bureaus around the motu, but it was the part about digital access that really 'spun my wheels' (in a very negative way). In recent years I have been one of those confronting the increasing digitisation of government services, but from my relatively privileged position as as someone used to this environment, and someone with the resources to continue to own the technology to access those services in that way. I confess to having been sheltered to some degree from the impact of this strategy on those less privileged than me. This part in particular is of interest:

I've copied the article in its entirety at the bottom of this post (noting that there is no intention to contravene the copyright of The Listener in any way, and in fact if you don't have a subscription I heartily recommend taking one out).

I have to confess that despite my relative privilege with regards to digital access, I have experienced my own moments of frustration and disempowerment when attempting access to some of those government services.

Couple this with the latest cost cutting measures that see finding for support for digital learning in schools, and this could look something like a perfect storm. Here is a link to some thinking from Derek Wenmoth from June 2024.

In my opinion, this stacks up as an incredibly anti-democratic thing. Forcing the population to access government services digitally, and then attacking the means by which that population is able to grow the skills, and the software/hardware capability, to access those services, is surely about as disempowering as it gets (trumped .. no pun intended.. only by such things as attacks on women's' reproductive rights, or LGBTQ rights, or suggestions of 'stolen elections' ... etc).

I'd always thought it was the role of government to protect the population, to enable people to live good fulfilling lives in safety. In my book, that has to include access to the full range of government services.

This all means that the work of these three trusts, and the many others in Aotearoa New Zealand that work hard every day to support the disadvantaged, is doubly important. The fact that these are charitable trusts means that they often receive very little government funding, and currently most probably even less. The future is looking shaky not only for the trusts, but for the people whom they attempt to serve.