The gamification of governance

Gamification is… what, exactly? | Training Journal

In the first week of its release, the government’s CovidSafe app has apparently been downloaded 4 million times. The app has been heavily promoted by government and it has been endorsed by the Chief Medical Officer, Chief Nurse and the heads of the doctors’ and nurses’ unions.

The release of the app was accompanied by a determination issued by the Health Minister, Greg Hunt. He is empowered under the Biosecurity Act to implement measures that support preventing or controlling the spread of disease. Because of early concerns about privacy, and whether the app would be made mandatory or not, the determination covers both those things: only health officials can access data and only with your consent, and no one is allowed to coerce you to download the app, or upload your data.

Despite the government’s eagerness to promote the app, however, it was revealed yesterday that there was not yet provision for health officials to access contact data. Although people who are using the app so far are collecting information about their contacts, that information can’t yet be used by the health department to work out if they have been in contact with a person with COVID.

In addition, the government has not yet shared the full source code for the app. Nor has it yet implemented legislation that it promises will protect users. This legislation will, presumably, also provide answers to how state health officials will access the data.

The government did release a privacy impact assessment (PIA) at the same time as the app. But as @mslods has pointed out on Twitter, a PIA ‘should be undertaken early enough in the development of a project that it is still possible to influence the project design or, if there are significant negative privacy impacts, reconsider proceeding with the project’. Because of the timing of the release of the PIA, the public has not had a chance to engage with these issues before the release of the app.

In short, the tech ‘solution’ to contact tracing is not yet ready to go. So why has government already been so keen for Australians to download the app? The early roll out gives the government scope to maximise uptake before the full governance framework is sorted out. And it is doing this not through conventional processes like public consultation. It is using strategies of gamification.


The online dictionary says that gamification is

the application of typical elements of game playing (e.g. point scoring, competition with others, rules of play) to other areas of activity, typically as an online marketing technique to encourage engagement with a product or service.

“gamification is exciting because it promises to make the hard stuff in life fun”

Gamification is not new. Small children are given star stickers to encourage good behaviour. There is a leaderboard in events such as walkathons to see who can collect the most donations. Anything can be made into a game, with rewards motivating behaviour independently of any intrinsic motivation concerning doing the task itself.

Digital media has made gamification even easier. We thrive on a good star rating in Uber. We rate books and articles that we read online. We are living in a constant feedback loop of self-affirming ratings. And we always have an eye to unlocking that next achievement badge.

Instead of existing processes of governance that usually surround the introduction of intrusions into citizens’ autonomy, the government is using gamification to encourage the uptake of the app.

Rather than a serious discussion about the surveillance infrastructure already in place in Australia, and how the app will fit into that, we are told that if we want to get back to the pub, we need to download the app. The Health Minister tweeted yesterday:

The government has now told us what that achievement is – we will be rewarded with a return of the ‘things we love‘ if we download the app. And it is our job to tell our friends and family to download it too. The Department of Health website has a suite of communications resources to promote the app. There are handy social media tiles that we can share with our friends once we have downloaded CovidSafe.

By the time we get to see the full disclosures of how the data will be managed (including how it fits within existing government surveillance powers), what the legislation says, and even the full set of code behind the app, we will already have unlocked achievement.

Maybe the app is the key to winding back restrictions – though there is not really evidence to confirm this. But there is a bigger issue at stake here – and that is government harnessing gamification to implement its data strategies instead of working through existing processes of checks and balances.

By playing this game, we are part of a strategy that is unwinding the processes of good government.

Not a revolution in property investment


Following my last post about fractionalised land title on blockchain, I’ve been thinking through a number of additional unanswered questions about the proposal. Based on responses and discussions on Twitter, it seems clear that there is no use case for blockchain in this context even though it is possible to roll it out.

Assuming it is rolled out – and it was an announcement by a South Australian government minister that kicked this off – there are myriad issues, I think, with the scheme. This post works through the nature of what is being sold. Is it land? Or something else?

Continue reading

Fractionalised land title a furphy?

Image result for bricksThe South Australian government has announced the launch of a new system of property investment to be rolled out in Adelaide’s two new residential towers. The system involves ‘fractionalising’ the property into ‘bricklets’ and establishing a market for the bricklets via blockchain technology. According to the press release bricklet owners will have their interest recorded on the blockchain for ‘credibility and trust in the audit trail’. Their interest will also be automatically added to the title.

For readers who know anything about land title, or anything about blockchain, this scheme raises a lot of questions. In this post I try to understand how this proposal would work. Continue reading

Time for some blue-sky thinking in legal education

Image result for blue sky thinking

Subject to the vagaries of air travel, I will arrive in Sydney later today to attend the UNSW Legal Education Conference. I’ll be presenting with my colleagues Alex Steel and Melissa Castan on some work we are doing developing a taxonomy of legal education research. More on that in another post.

In this post, I outline my thoughts on the state of publishing in Australian legal education. I’ll be presenting these as part of a plenary panel at the conference.

Continue reading

Legal citations 2.0

Post by Kate Galloway and Melissa Castan. Cite as:
Kate Galloway and Melissa Castan, ‘Legal Citations 2.0’ Katgallow (21 June 2017)


The leading work on legal citations in Australia is the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (‘AGLC’). The AGLC, currently working on a 4th edition, provides users with a comprehensive style guide for all legal writing from use of capitals, through to citation of international treaty materials. (For an example of the current application of the AGLC, see eg this article.)

The explosion of online and other digital sources poses a challenge to most standard r

eferencing styles – as is clearly articulated by Prof Patrick Dunleavy, in this post. For legal citation in Australia, much of this development has occurred since the publication of the third edition of the AGLC, making it timely to reconfigure some of the key guiding principles behind legal citation.

As editors of the Alternative Law Journal and the Legal Education Review respectively, Melissa Castan and I increasingly encounter diverse forms of reference and referencing. In response, and this post, we propose a reorientation of the analogue focus of the AGLC to adapt and address the digital landscape of legal scholarship.

Continue reading

Are we seeing the devolution of university education?

cracked institutionYesterday the Australian Minister for Education, Simon Birmingham, announced cuts to higher education funding and increases in student fees. In addition, the income threshold for repayment of student debt will be reduced. Funding for teaching will be reduced in 2019 by $380 million relative to the current funding formula.

Universities are huge institutions requiring significant funding to maintain their operations. Yet they face hefty competition from global and increasingly accessible, technologies. Instead of a future of under-funded universities, I see their devolution altogether – at least in terms of education, if not of research.

The change will not be quick. A higher degree (bachelors or above) is now the entry point for the regulated professions. These professions, including law, use course accreditation as a means of guaranteeing standards of graduate entry. For unregulated professions (such as marketing, or banking) the market determines the entry requirement, and that is generally a bachelors degree.

But things are changing, and universities’ role can no longer be taken for granted.

Continue reading

‘Add tech and stir’ is no recipe for innovation

AddTech.pngMy previous post gave an overview of the Law Society of New South Wales’ flip Report, on the future of law and innovation in the profession. My overall impression is that the Report might provide a useful and very gentle overview of the road ahead, but fails to engage in any real sense with the way in which technology will – and already is – changing law and legal practice.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the chapter devoted to legal education. This poses a real limit on the possibilities for innovation – especially to the extent that regulatory bodies are likely to accept the Report’s statement that existing knowledge and skills must remain.

Continue reading

A roadmap for the legal profession: flip

Robot Lawyer

‘The robots are taking our jobs!’*

The Law Society of New South Wales (‘LSNSW’) has recently released its flip Report (the Future of Law and Innovation in the Profession). Through submissions and a series of hearings between May and November 2016, the Futures Committee has provided the profession with a readable overview of the contemporary environment for the practice of law in New South Wales. And, I dare say, in the rest of Australia and probably beyond.


The Report responds to the exponential rate of change faced by the legal profession, notably through the advent of new technologies. It provides not only a series of key findings, but also a series of recommendations concerning the role of the LSNSW in supporting innovation in the profession.

In this post I provide some initial thoughts on the overarching approach of the Report.

Continue reading

Centrelink, leaners, and the cyber

Image result for cyber

The Australian government’s harassment of tax payers through its Centrelink data matching system is now well-documented. (See eg my own posts, here, here and here.) Yet today the Minister, Alan Tudge, again came out in defence of the system saying that ‘it is working and we will continue with that system’.

Accepting widespread criticism of the Centrelink robo-debt program, the question is whether it is a clever application of technologies to prosecute an ideological agenda, or further evidence that government does not cyber very well.

Continue reading

Centrelink: A failure of government

arrows missing target

Centrelink is the latest government IT-dependent scheme to miss the target

Over the last couple of months, #Centrelinkfail has gained momentum as a news story. We knew from reports in 2016 that the Department of Human Services was introducing a data matching system that would check social security payments against tax records. But over Christmas, what began as a trickle of reports of incorrect allegations of debt, debt collectors, and tales of personal crisis turned into a flood.

Meanwhile, the government continues to defend the system, ‘confident’ in its operation.

Today, the former head of the government’s Digital Transformation Office, Paul Shetler, has commented on the government’s succession of IT failures – including #censusfail and Centrelink – describing them as

“cataclysmic” and “not a crisis of IT” but a “crisis of government”.

The Centrelink debacle – in particular when viewed together with the government’s other ill-conceived attempts at implementing digital services – demands an urgent and radical rethink about the nature of process of the exercise of state power in the face of pervasive digital technologies.

Continue reading