DoctorDamage

Not free trade

2006-01-05T15:13:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage
Our federal trade boys are off to the states again to fix up our negative trade index. A free trip and a couple of cheeseburgers have not done us any favors since we signed it. This to the Australian.

Please send someone else to fight the US on sugar (The Australian, 5/01) Poor old Minister Vaile has had enough. On the "level playing field" of global trade Vaile is now reeling and the score is US 3, Australia -1. Minister Vaile uses the sporting term "win win." Only one game, soccer can achieve close to this fallacy, with a nil all draw. Australia will not even make this mark with our US free trade agreement.

Minister Vaile further erodes voter confidence by blaming a strong Australian dollar and competition from Asia. Well hello! Multinationals have all their products made where it costs the least. Electronic consumer items are put together in China by assemblers being paid 65 cents per hour. We export ores and energy that go towards the make up of consumer products that we then import in enormous quantities. Computers alone make up $19b per annum. This will not change for years!

Just what Minister Vaile and his small retinue of advisors are up against is now being played out in the Abramoff lobbyist scandal in Washington. This threatens to expose the extent of vote buying by special interest groups in the US.

If Minister Vaille hopes to have any influence on the "evergreening" practice by US pharmaceutical makers he is facing one of America's biggest lobbyist groups. This $500b pa industry comprises 50% of the global market and funds 60% of US bio-medical R&D. It is vehemently supportive of evergreening and will work on any weakness to enhance its grip on the Australian market.

Topping this, the US even has a "Buy American Bill! No counterpart exists in Australia. American industry will remain fiercely protective, particularly its agricultural and primary products groups.

Minister Vaile's caution, that the figures are just for one year completely ignores the historical trade deficit and the recent Customs computer fiasco, which now has frustrated importers threatening to sue the government for damages.

The one ray of hope is to invoke the "free trade" escape clause (six months notice) and retire hurt from the field, until it is tilted at somewhat less than 45 degrees.

Victoria's Xmas Humbug

2005-12-30T13:51:00.000+10:30

The Victorian Attorney General has urged Australia to have a Bill of Rights. Victoria's record of dealing openly with its populace is dubious to say the least. The Australian published the following letter the day prior to Xmas. They edited out para 3 and the last sentence. Probably cause I was grinding the axe too much and the last sentence suggests a referendum which Australians traditionally vote against.

The Comonwealth Games will eventually cost Victorian taxpayers twice the original sum quoted. Perhaps Australians will then begin to question bread and circuses and understand why politicians run up flags like a bill of rights.

Letter begins...
Victoria’s Attorney General Hulls demonstrates just how far out of touch he is with folk ordinaire. (Public expression of shared values, The Australian, 23/12) He claims his Victorian Charter of Rights was endorsed by 90% of those chosen via “extensive community consultation.” AG Hulls did not place an advertisement in the press inviting 400 individuals to draft such a charter. Rather, the consenting group was a result of an invitational process. Just as lawyers will never ask a question to which they don’t know the answer, so too political parties do not hold consultations that they can’t control.

To suggest that the Bracks Government, via this Charter of Rights, will fix those that seek to “curb public criticism or scrutiny of the executive,” is disingenuous. It completely overlooks the Victorian Government’s own lack of openness when Freedom of Information request costs, are tallied by the nation’s press.

The states have an appalling record of getting it right, even when governed by the same party. From railway gauges, health and water rights through to defamation and libel laws, their history is a sorry one. Hulls’ clumsy political shot at the Feds saying that Victoria will get this right is exposed for the humbug it is, when police shootings and vibrant organised crime, extant in his state, are examined.

It could be suspected that this is a sideshow to distract us from Victoria’s looming financial debacle as the Commonwealth Games cost blow out, again negatively impacting Victorian’s health and eduction. Or will the Attorney General insist on a full cost disclosure in the nation's media?

This is not agitation Attorney General. This is opposition. A referendum on such an issue, or no deal.

Bond opens in Aus

2005-12-20T17:53:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

The SMH "Frankenstein" column challenged folks for an Australian opening for the latest Bond film. They hope that the next 007 epic will open with an Australian sequence. Most of the entries published on the SMH web were set in Sydney or along the east coast. My entry was a little different and they kindly displayed it on their web site.

Its night, shots, explosions and a running Bond - dingo scurries off - large roo veers aside. Bonds heading for a sheer drop over one of the cliffs in the Buccaneer archipelago - far Northwest Australia.

Pulls gadget from backpack, fires a bolt into rock, locks in and jumps, shooting at baddies as he goes.

Bond abseils down cliff - we see large crocs thrashing in the water below.

Hooded figures chasing him slash the rope - it parts - he is hurtling down - fires gas thrusters strapped to his legs - descending gently - a huge croc rears out of the water - bond disappears feet first down its throat.

Teeth flash as baddies grin. Leers turn to horror. Bond has twisted - slamming beasts jaws shut . crocs eyes - bright blue - we see JB safe in a snug cockpit. (crocpit)

The crocs legs paddle - it dives. Lying prone he scans the instruments -- baddies prepare to lob grenades - "Never smile at a crocodile," says JB. He jabs a button and from the crocs rear shoots a missile. It arcs up out of the water - baddies blown into the water where real crocs eat them.

"Crock of shit," quips JB as he heads towards Horizontal Falls.

Sharks and swimmers

2005-12-14T12:54:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

Pressing my luck I sent this one off to the "Tiser" following increasing reports of nasty noahs bumping boats and biting people.

Little wonder that sharks are getting closer to offshore fishermen, The Advertiser 14/12. Fishermen's habit of putting burley, a mixture of blood and rotting food, into the water will attract big fish and little fish alike. Sharks now associate boats with food.

Mounting evidence suggests there are fewer fish to be caught so sharks may be finding it harder to get a meal. This seems to be supported by the shark's behaviour in mouthing the boats.

The upshot for swimmers and especially anyone falling in from a boat is therefore increasingly perilous.

Ministers all talk

2005-12-12T17:25:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

SA pollies have nicked off for the summer. They wont be back 'till March. Minister Holloway is using his time to attend another talk fest on the auto industry in Victoria. I hope he sees this letter (to the Tiser) before he goes.

Minister Holloway will gain no answers at any summit junket on automotive industry decay.

Ford, Mitsubishi and GMH are all global companies. Just as there is no Australian computer there is no Australian car. Australia has always been a cheap, reliable place to manufacture cars. These global icons located here for the following reasons. Stability, cost, access to markets, access to labour (skilled and unskilled) and sound infrastructure.

We no longer have a solid hold on these criteria. With Chinese electronic assemblers prepared to work for 65 cents per hour and production line staff $3.50 per hour, further industry subsidies would have to be huge. SA householders will even be asked to switch off their air conditioning as our sagging infrastructure threatens industrial production. Cheap imports and free trade agreements prevent state governments mandating the above brands for government automotive needs. So we are left with stability – one out of four location criteria.

Automotive manufacturing in Aus faces terminal decline. GMH and Ford are currently sacking thousands of workers. The decision to move GMH, Ford and Mitsubishi to cheaper sites will not be made here.

Minister Holloway and his advisors would be better off estimating the “doors shut” date and moving to ensure worker entitlements and retraining programs. They should be looking at subsidised training for autoworkers in shipbuilding and other emerging areas. This will at least defray government carping on not enough workers and provide some comfort to existing workers that they do have a future.

One government level too many

2005-12-05T21:18:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

On August 19 I posted a comment on many SA councils approaching insolvency. Their own association commissioned a report that indicated that 75% of our 76 councils (for 1.5m people) could go under. Today the Tiser front page reports that our wise city fathers want more money. This to the paper in dismay.

Until today I did not know exactly what unmitigated gall was. Then I see the good ‘ol councils are at it again. Pay rises for all and it will cost ratepayers more! These proposed pay rises come hard on the heels of the recent Local Government Association’s council report, which claimed 75% of SA’s 76 councils were considered financially “vulnerable,” or “minimally sustainable.” What part of this equation am I missing? Dodgy councils demanding more money for ineptitude. Now is the time for massive amalgamation. Those councils that have been regularly useless should disappear. Lets hear from our pollies what they will do about this rot before the 06 election.

Aus customs system fiasco

2005-11-22T11:03:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

Australian Government departments continue to burn taxpayer money. This time it is Customs' turn and they have done us proud with hundreds of millions vaporised on a computer system that was never going to work. The Aus IT section registered my (and hopefully fellow taxpayers) disgust in the following letter.

The oft-repeated claim that Australian ICT companies are “more of a risk,” is now well and truly discredited. (Customs faces huge payouts, November 15)

The new Customs Integrated Cargo System, or lack of it, is a classic study of how not to put in a system. On top of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid to the US based ICT industry icons, for a dud system, Australian taxpayers must now foot additional millions in compensation for lost trade and damages.

Where were the penalty and non-compliance clauses in the contracts? Who was the Customs ICT manager that allowed the project to pass the FF (fix or flush) point? Where was the risk management? It is outrageous that the same companies, whose gross ineptitude is responsible for this mega expensive disaster, will continue to be paid tens of millions of dollars!

The Federal Government, long a major contributor to Australia’s eye-watering ICT trade deficit of $19b pa, has ensured the Customs debacle will only enhance its position. To see no evidence of any penalties against the incompetents who mismanaged the project is utterly unacceptable.

The Minister, department head and the CIO must be sacked and all future government ICT contracts underpinned by penalty clauses.

Meanwhile all legal avenues should be pursued in an effort to get compensation from the US based ICT scions whose abject failure has cost this country so dearly.

Made the WE Australian mag

2005-11-19T15:01:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

A couple of weeks ago, the WE Aus Magazine published a fabulous story on the bird flu threat. I harp on intellectual property and the creation thereof and this story supported some of my more outlandish statements. So, I wrote and congratulated them. To my delight the letter appeared (with edits & para 3 omitted) this weekend. The original copy follows.

As your Weekend Australian Magazine of Oct 5-6 carried no congratulatory letter on the previous weekend’s (Oct 29-30) Avian Flu story I hope this will do.

In a simple, gripping format Whittaker captured the drama, creativity, history and ongoing threat of pandemic disease vs. scientific discovery. The article demonstrates that rigorous science can avoid or alleviate global pandemics and that Australian scientists have provided one of two tools available to fight the avian flu threat.

The scientist’s passion, the growing global threat and Australian scientist’s awesome contribution to world health is there to see minus any mystery. Likewise the ease with which a foreign firm can copy then capitalise on others hard work, when intellectual property is not nurtured and carefully protected.

That the research effort began in 1978 with CSIRO scientists will not escape your reader’s attention, especially now that the Federal government is again cutting CSIRO funding. Clever, passionate people toiling away in under-funded laboratories have again become world-beaters.

In an information economy, where science/discovery can save countless lives while simultaneously creating employment and wealth, this story had it all.

Congratulations on an outstanding science communication.

Taxpayers -getting value?

2005-11-17T13:09:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

The Tiser ran a report 17/11 on some of the behind the door funding decisions that the state government has been approving. The exceptional item is the $20m for an alien university when all around us our infrastructure is eroding and we already have three world class unis. This sent, but not published as yet.

Transparency in government spending is all taxpayers right. Labour always said that it would cull corporate handouts. Under the Liberals, Labour had seats on the approvals committee, so had no surprises when their turn to dispense dollars came.

Mostly, these handouts are to retain or create South Australian jobs and therefore worthy of support.

The standout exception, approved by Labour, is the $20m gift to a foreign university (Carnegie Mellon) to set up in Adelaide when we already have three, world class, home grown universities.

At a time when Federal funding to universities is undergoing dramatic change, despite increasing fee paying students by 13% over 2004 and when our universities are cooperating via several committees, Labours largesse is unfathomable.

By any metric there appears no gain for SA, unless our pollies think filling an unused building in the city centre is worth paying for.

This furtive gift needs a close scrutiny and taxpayers need sound reasons just why the deal is so good for us.

SA Consortium for IT&T PR draws coverage

2005-11-17T12:48:00.000+10:30

DoctorDamage

The following press release was put together for SACITT. It generated publicity in the Fin Review and the Advertiser. ABC also videoed extensively on some of the tech opportunities we have lost and some we may gain. It was to run to air on Stateline but we got knocked off by a change of health minister one Friday and by the massive flooding the following. It may air some time in the future as a filler. The Forum was a resounding success and several followup events have been organised. (It finally ran on Friday Dec 2.)

Press Release - Immediate – 28 October 2005

Forging Research and Industry Links – Forum

South Australia’s leading researchers and business innovators will meet on October 31st at the National Wine Centre, to intensify commercial R&D outcomes. The workshop starts at 8.30am and has been initiated by the South Australian Consortium for Information Technology and Telecommunications. (SACITT).

SACITT intends to improve stump jump plough success
The world famous 19th century rural invention, the stump jump plough was invented, manufactured and sold by a South Australian, Robert Bowyer Smith in 1875. It revolutionized broad acre tillage. By 1878 the patents had lapsed, as Bower Smith could not afford to extend them. Intellectual property development and protection was critical even then.

In the 21st century, information and knowledge based economies demand that products or processes be one jump ahead of the market or face irrelevance.

Today’s stump jump plough would have to comprise exotic metals, be solar powered, have GPS positioning, allow remote control and cost one-tenth the original price. The designs and drawings would need to be protected and patented globally. This could only happen via collaborative R&D.

State businesses not investing in R&D imperil their future. If R&D groups are under-utilised or fail to compete then they risk funding and suffer the loss of their best researchers to other states or countries. This greatly decreases the state’s ability to compete in the technology arena.

SACITT actively addresses this by regularly partnering state based businesses with research staff and centres of expertise. This enables intellectual firepower to hone products and processes that can then compete globally.

SACITT is a unique combination of the three SA universities, along with DSTO, CSIRO and several local IT companies. It is a positive example of state based organisations collaborating rather than competing and follows closely on the group’s role in fostering the South Australian Broadband Research & Education network (SABRENet).

The $9m SABRENet network will eventually link most SA based R&D centres via optic fibre and greatly enhance the ability of SA based companies and R&D centres to collaborate in bringing high-tech products to market.

It is planned to make this event biennial and measure impact by the number of collaborations, patents and products produced.

Several key speakers will outline examples of where similar R&D collaboration has led to ongoing market success, wealth and job creation. Attendees will then break into four streams (Defence, Health, Manufacturing and Biotech) to develop industry/R&D engagement models.

The Hon Karlene Maywald, Minister for Science and Information Economy, long an advocate of such an approach, will open the day’s proceedings.

Where. National Wine Centre
When. 8.30am, 31st October 2005
Who. Business and R&D leaders - hosted by SACITT
What. Workshop to forge research and industry links
Why. Job and wealth creation for South Australia

Motorists and taxpayers held in contempt

2005-10-28T10:59:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

In previous posts I have written against so called Public/Private Partnerships or PPP. The three Ps may as well stand for patrimony, patronage and purchase. Following the sacking of the man that the NSW Government pinned the tail on, I sent this to the SMH. They kindly ran it in their Sat. edition, 29 Oct.

Please do not refer to those responsible for the tunnel/roads fiasco as "victims." Rightfully, the senior bureaucrat responsible should lose his job. That the various Transport Ministers appear untouchable for this social and financial disaster should seriously concern all voters as it implies that bureaucrats like Paul Forward are making decisions instead of our elected representatives.

If this be not the case and Ministers various have managed to elude responsibility for bumbling ineptitude, then the real victims, motorists, look set to be treated with continued contempt right up to the next election.

Australia's once proud telco, doomed

2005-10-26T12:49:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

Little wonder Telstra shareholders were less than enthusiastic (Sol likes ring of offshore options the Australian 26/7) following Mr Trujillo’s announcements. Mr Trujillo and his amigos amply demonstrated their lacklustre business heritage and continued business mediocrity.

Telstra shareholders and staff continue to face a poor future for the following reasons.

Legacy – no one can serve two masters, one regulating to win votes and the other attempting to work a market. The amigos, as foreigners, are unused to and ill prepared for, the continued muddleheaded mishandlings of a semi-government organization. This is a legacy of Richard Alston who as the responsible minister was awarded “Luddite of the Decade,” by British IT group, The Register.

Innovation – or lack thereof. In the last decade Telstra’s R&D spend has decreased. Telstra has gone from a technology innovator designing and providing some of its own products to a net importer of such products. This adds substantially to Australia’s frightening technology trade deficit currently standing at $19b pa. Telstra’s planned $1.5b network upgrade will exacerbate this debt.

Cost – clearly the major focus and “best practice” will allow for mass sacking and relocation of service/support jobs to cheaper overseas offices, politely known as “offshoring.”

Competition - there are now approximately 400 Internet/Application Service Providers, with just five or six of the biggest responsible for 80% of the market. They are fast, innovative and aggressive, directly competing and often beating Telstra for every service they offer. These ISPs and ASPs are further strengthened by their ability to rapidly introduce new technologies to the market.

Technology – voice over internet protocol, (VOIP) now offers phone users a much cheaper service. ISPs/ASPs are quickly introducing it, giving users the chance to have a single bill for all telephony and broadband Internet usage. Mr Trujillo described this extremely disruptive technology as “a leaky bucket.” VOIP and wireless networks will rapidly deplete Telstra markets.

Many Australians would love to see Telstra succeed. Sadly it has become a commodity player run by commodity managers. I fear the worst.

Mr Kerrin loses it

2005-10-17T15:58:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

South Australia will endure Labour for another term after the Liberal opposition squashed Martin Hamilton-Smith's bid to do something about it. This to the "Tiser."

Rob Kerrin will lead his party into non-entity status in March 2006.
Any chance of giving Labour serious competition has now been missed following Hamilton Smith’s failed altruistic tilt.

At a time when fresh blood, sound policies and energetic exposure of Labour’s many shortcomings could give voters a real alternative, well entrenched mates have prolonged the status quo.

The muted promises of a harder line and tougher questioning are hollow. Even if the opposition benchers do fire up there is precious little time for any impact as the generous Parliamentary Christmas break is almost upon us.

This missed opportunity to strengthen the party is a major tactical error. It is now underscored by Mr Kerrin’s inability to replace Hamilton Smith, finding it necessary to split the portfolio across five other members. Mr Kerrin compounded this ill- thought action saying that it would save SA taxpayers $4m a year if his party won the March 06 election.

Labour has already spent any potential savings by giving $20m to a foreign university to set up in Adelaide. They will continue to do as they please while South Australians have now lost any real possibility of voting in an alternative for another three years.

Public Private Partnerships (PPP) Voters dont want 'em

2005-10-17T11:58:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

Governments generally, have abrogated their infrastructure responsibilities. Two prime Australian examples are the ETSA energy privatisation (Liberal-Olsen) and Sydney’s roads systems. (Labour-Carr) The UK was among the first to adopt Public Private Partnerships and warnings of its dangers soon began to filter out. Staff layoffs, declining service levels, huge Partner tax concessions and excessive executive salaries.

Political groups over the last 20 years have seen no votes in infrastructure. If the party of the day can featherbed an electorate or shore up its electoral position with advertising campaigns, why spend money elsewhere while things are working OK?

While the energy disaster in SA is bad enough with higher prices and regular outages, Sydneysiders are coming to terms as to what their necessary daily commute will now cost them. The Premier who facilitated this PPP is now nowhere to be seen.

I sent the following to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Now that Sydney motorists can clearly see why Bob Carr left for ever greener pastures, they may like to pressure their new premier into halving motor registration fees. This is the only hope the NSW state government has to claw back an iota of credibility.

The failed Public/Private/Partnerships touted to solve Sydney's infrastructure problems have lined the pockets of big business, again slugged Sydney motorists and insulted taxpayers as up to 40% of the privateers income are tax concessions.

The lunatic ministers and bureaucrats who agreed to these locked-in schemes have even allowed that the state government can be sued to make up any shortfalls. This infrastructure disaster should be front of mind at the next state elections.

Liberals stir inSA

2005-10-14T13:02:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

Tha Advertiser ran the following comment on their website 14/10. I would have preferred a run in the paper but beggars cant be choosers. Even if leader Kerrin does start pushing Labour harder, it will be seen as a reaction. The Libs have missed the main chance to rattle the incumbents at every turn with the very database that labour put out to measure its promises. By far the single biggest opportunity has all but passed when labour GAVE $20m to a foreign University to set up in Adelaide directly competing against three well established SA Unis. What for? What single measure makes this good for SA? Yep time for a change.

Kerrin to be challenged
Bravo Martin Hamilton-Smith. If the Liberal party is dinkum about winning the next election it will introduce new blood and solid policies. If it just maintains the old mates status quo then it is headed for electoral oblivion. New faces with policies and vigour will beat a Labour party that has spent its term doing backslapping, "you can be speaker," deals to hold on to power rather than bettering the lives of South Australians. The time is now. Do it and give voters a real alternative.

South Australian politics - the threat of change

2005-10-13T10:46:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

After two and a half years of Labour mismanagement, the great state of SA will go to the polls next March to ditch or endorse the incumbents. The Libs, following a lazy semi- retirement in opposition, have stirred, prompting the following to the Australian.

Dear Sir
A feature of any lion pride or wolf pack is a regular challenge for leadership. Such challenges continually ensure the strongest, if not the best leader for the good of the whole. Politics is the same.

The SA Liberal pack has stagnated and strong contenders must step forward. It is to be expected. Hamilton-Smith has openly challenged, not skulked at the periphery, as he correctly reads the result of going into the next election with the same old pack.

He is right, why wait to wallow in second place five months hence, when with a bit of effort the pack may stand a better chance with new leaders, tighter policy and a keener ability to point out the Labour pack’s poor handling of state issues.

Like the animal world, politics is not for shrinking violets. Unlike the animal world each party member gets to vote. So the weaker members can have a say. Even the - “I am very, very hurt by it,” Angus Redford, will get his chance in the party room.

Hamilton-Smith’s growling is timely for a pack that has lost almost all influence in state affairs - a shakeout now just might get them into contention and rattle the Labour pack that has been feasting too long.

PM wants four more years

2005-10-11T10:31:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

I sent the below off on Sept 30, alarmed at some of the electoral changes PM John wants to put through while he has the numbers. I was delighted to see the Aus chief political reporter, Steve Lewis take up the issue in the Aus Oct 11 edition. I support his warnings.

Honest John is at it again. Having stopped any move to a republic knowing voters would reject a model that disallowed direct voting for president, he now wants us to endorse pollies for four-year terms. (The Australian 30/09)

The majority of Australian voters exercise their democratic rights for five minutes every three years. From that point lobbyists and special interest groups take over until voters next five-minute spot three years later. This time slot is all voters get to endorse or punish the incumbent party.

That the exercise averages five minutes is testimony to Australian’s will to participate. Despite gerrymanders, arcane preference systems and ballot papers the size of movie posters, compulsory voting urges Aussies to turn up at polling booths and they continue to participate in the democratic process. Only a few diehards protest this successful system.

For John Howard to now say this is no good is disingenuous, but the power grab becomes blatant when he says that a “reform agenda” needs four years. What reform? Core promises to be kept? Kym Beazley’s “prepared to consider a flexible four year term,” response was quicker than his vote for the annual parliamentary increase, amply demonstrating the lust for power is bi-partisan.

Most threatening, is the suggestion that party donors of up to $10,000 are to be kept secret allowing lobbyists and self interest groups to become more opaque. Secrecy and democracy don’t gel. Any party and its supporters that can’t stand the glare of public scrutiny should get out.

This is a cynical exercise for the retention of power and Australians will reject it.

Ten year plan for Aus IT industry

2005-10-04T18:10:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

Any Aussie calling for a 10 year plan for our ICT industry is a little late. The head of the ACS has done so and I put this together in a hurry thinking it would be ignored. I'm delighted the Tues IT section of the Australian gave it a run with no edit. It follows.

Edward Mandla called for a ten year tech plan for Australian information and communications technology (IT Suppliment 20/09).

He may care to consider the following ten points which should be considered in year one if we are ever to redress our woeful global ICT trade.

1. Know the history. The dreadful mistake of pulling computing funding in 1964 which now costs Australia $19b pa. The Liberal Country party made that decision. A wall poster in every minister’s office with the computing and technology deficit highlighted.

2. a. Immediately start lessening Australia’s reliance on multinational operating systems - develop a Government GNU or open source operating system. The core of this system may already be available from DSTO or CSIRO. All ISPs and ASPs follow this principle. This will release us from paying millions per annum in licensing fees.

b. Negotiate bulk discounts with Microsoft on behalf of all state and local governments. Estimated at 1,800,000 seats. This will save each state thinking it has the best deal when none of them have. Just look at what Microsoft is throwing at China, which is threatening same.

3. Open Federal, State and Local Government to Australian products. Where the product is equal to or better than the OS counterpart. Stop the default to overseas products. Regulate that Australian product gets a go. This might stop Australians insisting on making OS companies rich, rather than their own.

4. Understand that intellectual property and patents are now kings in a knowledge-based economy. Assist via legal support and grants the patenting and protection of Australian owned R&D and product development. Where possible, assist with insurance, against multinational legal challenges, which are used to preclude smaller companies entering the market.

5. Where expert software has been developed and proven for a particular market especially when it has been successfully deployed, allow the doctors or accountants or dentists for whom it has been developed to make the purchase decision, not the IT execs or staff. It is OK to have IT staff on the board, but experts know what works. The health market, (one of the biggest) is particularly affected by this.

6. Pick winners! DSTO and CSIRO have a sound history in developing hot technology. These boffins know the hot tech areas and have plenty of them. Talk to them - establish direct links for their products into proven Australian companies working the areas. Make it easy for them to do so and stipulate return of service or funds before the company can be bought out by spooked multinationals. Remember Radiata!

7. Training, development and recruitment must be done with a body like the ACS in conjunction with our tertiary groups. Not the AIIA. There will be a difference with those who just qualify and those who can create, design, build or construct products. People that just qualify as support staff without the above ability are already facing job loss to India and China. All students from secondary on, must be taught the dominance of intellectual property in the 21st millennium.

8. Build Australia’s supercomputing power via grid or mesh networks using Government infrastructure. There are over a million PCs available from 5.00pm (65,000 in SA alone) every day. They could be working for Australians all night or at call. This will create employment in three areas immediately, security, parallel processing and application development not to mention communications. Medicine, weather researchers, biotech and the military would be heavy users of such systems.

9. Risk, always tough. Are Microsoft or IBM risk free? Which government department has installed a large system on time on budget? Certainly not the Australian military. The larger the system the greater the risk. Australian products are no more risky than multinational products. In many cases they have proven more stable. As for branding, the kangaroo adorns the world’s safest airline, why not its software?

10.See step one. The ICT trade deficit remains Australia’s single largest budgetary deficiency. Do we want it to stay that way? Then ignore the preceding.

Law and Australians

2005-09-25T15:26:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

The Weekend Australian has been kind enough to publish a few paras I put together about the state of law in Aus. For the first time the editing was heavy, probably because I drifted away in the last three paras and began attacking the lawyers: a favourite passtime. The following was run without the last three paras but with the punch line which they headlined.

Letter
The Australian Press Council’s support for articles closely examining our legal system is most welcome. (Press Council rules on reports on court system, The Australian, 23/9)

Most Australian’s never need the law. Those that do via a traffic offence, divorce proceedings or as a victim of crime come away much sobered by the occasion.

Their day in court will usually come many months after the initial incident and often will not be finalised for years. Reports of sleeping judges and lengthy decision delays dent support for our legal systems. Secrecy or furtiveness is a particularly thorny issue. The number of current suppression orders (at an all time high in SA) should be enough to arouse the curiosity of all law-abiding citizens.

That the Press Council upheld a complaint against a report on NSW legal costs due to “ complexities,” is surprising given that most things automatically cost more in Sydney. The combative nature of prosecution and defence does little to alleviate expense.

This is by default, good for lawyers, who can truly say they work in a “win-win” situation. Everyone gets paid no matter what the outcome. While this is probably fundamental to legal fairness, plaintiffs, even if they are awarded costs are sometimes forced to sell assets to pay costs, when the accused is incapable of any reimbursement.

If people feel we should go easy on our legal systems and those who operate them, remember that in NSW a great many barristers are about to be called to the wrong side of the bar for not having paid their taxes. Some have been reneging for 20 years.

Transparency and justice are inseparable.

Australian Higher Ed Supplement publishes Sep 13 post

2005-09-21T13:02:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

The Higher Ed Sup of Wed 21 ran the above post. I was pleased that they headlined me as the R&D issue is critical if Australia is to hold, let alone advance its position in a globally competitive knowledge era.

The Latham Drearies

2005-09-16T10:16:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

It is dissapointing that the Australian press lends credence to Mark Latham's ramblings. Politicians are bad enough but a failed politician is truly wretched. Latham has done no one any good by lashing out like a petulant child. He can retire on an average Super of $82,000 per annum for life. Ex prime ministers average $450,000 pa for life. 90% of Australians can only ever dream of such ammounts and then only if they have been successful. The following to the Aus.

Garreth Evans, following electoral defeat, was self–diagnosed with the ailment, Attention Deficiency Disorder or ADD. Mark Latham confirms that the affliction is endemic among our ex-pollies.

The severity of Latham’s ADD also exposes another political illness, Publishitus Incredibilis or PI. The main symptom of PI being the stunning ease with which an ex-politician can have a vacuous book published which will be read by few and ignored by most.

The late Donald Horne’s observation that Australia is run by second rate people gains more credence.

Nelson’s Blind Eye on R&D

2005-09-14T13:50:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

When ever Australian governments have interferred in education while driving a political agenda, the results have been disasterous. Many of our secondary students can not read or spell as a result of such interference. Education Minister Nelson now threatens our tertiary system by interfering in research and development (R&D) grants. This prompted the folowing to the Australian.

Government tampering with education systems remains dangerous. It appears that Education Minister Nelson has not learned from history (VCs angry as Nelson springs a surprise. The Aus Sep 4) and is only looking with one eye to the future. His interference in the R&D area imperils Australia’s place in a global knowledge economy.

Unis provide much of Australia’s infrastructure it terms of labs, staffing and centres of expertise. As knowledge bases or hubs of excellence they also have the potential to lure the best and brightest. They derive income from licensing products they have created and can slow the brain drain to foreign universities when excellence is encouraged.

To weaken or impede these necessary attributes in an increasingly competitive education market by adding layers of complexity, bureaucracy and mismanagement, will do irreversible damage to Australia’s tertiary education capacity and capability.

Australian Unis’ global rankings fluctuate depending on the metric. However any decline will rapidly accelerate if the R&D component and the building of intellectual property is disrupted or curtailed.

To appoint an “expert panel” that insists foreigners make up 50% of any peer review panel is ludicrous. The multiple ratings scales also proposed are a bureaucrat’s dream. If stock market trading can rely on decision supporting software, surely Nelson could use similar software to indicate where R&D dollars offer the best returns.

Failure to ensure R&D funding now exposes universities to greater risks of student loss, brain drain, less industry leverage and a decrease in intellectual property creation.

It is estimated that the US is home to 70% of Nobel Prize winners and produces 30% of the globes scientific writing. Nelson’s R&D mistakes will ensure that Australian students look seriously at overseas study as their own institutes decay.

Here in SA the state government really helped by giving Carnegie Mellon $20m dollars to set up an inner city campus. At a time when Adelaide Uni increased its student intake 13% over 2004, the SAG decided that it is much better to give taxpayers money to foreigners than underpin excellence in our own teaching institutions.

Offshoring getting attention

2005-08-30T16:11:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

The Aug 23 post on offshoring was published in Tuesday's Australian IT section. Other letters and some articles in the same edition show that there are many more people out there who are worried about the trend. Jobs, training and government responsibility are key IT issues for Australia and other countries. The minute your work can be done more cheaply by some one else, it will be. This now appears to be best practice.

Peoples infrastructure decline

2005-08-29T12:47:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

The Weekend Australian published the following piece which they edited slightly from my original. I have posted the editors change below this copy.

Dear Sir
Your editorial (No Public Service, 26/8) amply demonstrates why Australians can expect their health, transport and education infrastructure to continue declining.

The 98/99 IBIS figures have federal costs at $146b (excluding defence) and state government figures at $83b annually. The latest ABS figures have federal public service numbers at 250,000 and state public servants at 1,100,000!

Rising costs over the past five years and forthcoming state public service pay rises forecast at 8.5%, ensures the latest ABS figures on government costs, will make BHP's recent profit announcements look like petty cash.

In SA, the state government has added approximately 8,000 new public servants since taking office, some of them on salaries of up to $300, 000 pa. More worrying is a recent Local Government Authority report that found 75% of SA’s 76 councils are considered "vulnerable" or "minimally sustainable.”

Doubtless this dismal outlook will be similar in other states. The removal of at least one layer of government is now a critical issue for Australia.

Australian voters should remember that our biggest industries remain the non-profit sectors of federal, state and local governments, with little difference between Labour and Liberal.

So when stuck in traffic on the way to hospital and worrying about school fees, voters will now have time to think about all that money that could have been spent on infrastructure, which has instead been spent on a ballooning, non-productive governing class.

The second para containing the numbers was changed to the following " Rising costs over the past 5 years and forthcoming state public service pay rises forecast at 8.5 percent, ensure...

It appears that the numbers may have been a bit old (5 years) but they were the latest data I had. Even so the fact that we have 1.1 million (current data) public servants governing states that contain but 20m people is a bit much. Altogether it is a daunting prospect that civil servants will cost Australia approx $280b this year!

Offshoring and discontent

2005-08-24T14:56:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

There has been a marked increase in the number of positive press articles obout the process of offshoring - that is finding a country whose workers will do work more cheaply than your own then sending work there. Not only does this deprive your countrymen of earning a living, but also it devalues them longer term. They find it harder to get a job and when they do they are more often asked to work for lesser rates.

I sent this of to the Australian after a particularly dodgy article written by one of their IT journos.

Despite the “companies embracing offshore” spin of Simon Hays’ article, the reason banks, Telstra and other larger companies offshore, is cheap labour, period.

Australian governments and business do not buy Indian word processors, Mumbai CRMs or Punjabi operating systems. All these come from US multinationals at a cost to Australia of $19b per annum. Now, having put all these systems in place, “best practice” is to have cheap overseas labour servicing Australian-based systems.

Little wonder that Australian trade officials are now seeking greater trade ties with India. Apart from our hardware and software debt we will now have an increasing operational debt as more of our money goes off shore. The Infosys 1999-2000 figures quoted, suggest $60m just for Telstra and that figure is five years old!

This work has enabled mass sackings of Telstra workers. Privatisation will allow many more. Many of those staff and other technically skilled people have increasing difficulty getting a job in their own country.

In the article’s supporting customer testimony, a Michael Young is quoted thus, “we did not go to Tata because it was cheaper, that was just a bonus. The certification and education of software engineers there is second to none.”

This just about nails it. Australians who sit the same exams for the same software support from the same multinationals obviously don’t rate as well. Or is it because their salaries are three times those paid for Indian workers?

Not an issue Simon? Thawing Simon? Offshoring is a disaster for qualified IT workers in this country and I for one remain ice cold towards it.

Councils and financial ineptitude

2005-08-19T13:42:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

Much to my delight the Advertiser ran with this comment on their website. I tapped it after reading the the LGA report on our multitudinus councils.

The Local Government Association’s council report on our financially inept councils provides few surprises and adds further weight for amalgamation. The threat of continual rate rises, which are already above the CPI and causing hardship to older folk, is real. Some pensioners can’t afford heating any more. Even where councils have knocked down hundreds of older houses and allowed developers to rebuild two units (doubling rateable income) it still has not been enough to wean them from profligate spending and infrastructure degradation. Imagine if SA had three or four councils instead of the current 76! Alarmingly, the report also says that 75% of councils are considered "vulnerable" or "minimally sustainable.” This report is a clarion call that our wise city fathers and mothers need radical pruning now!

Overpaid executives and their wisdom

2005-08-15T16:38:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

David Murray, 13 year boss at the Commonwealth bank is to retire. The long announced retirement is a rich one with a generous super payout of over $10m. Murray keeps popping up at various points to remind us that he is a top exec and worth the money. I have never thought so. This to the "tiser" Aug 15.

Outgoing bank boss David Murray’s swansong is becoming a lengthy opera, unlike hundreds of former branch staff that had no say at all. As the multi-million retiree heads for other pastures, he again reminds us that his efforts always had shareholders at heart. He said there would be no job losses, no more IT support jobs would go to India and now tries to have it both ways with bank mergers by saying competition is good but we might merge all the big players. On top of closing branches and cutting staff (best practice) he also ensured customers who used Internet banking were charged per transaction. There is an old saying, “always leave them laughing.” Commonwealth Bank customers long ago lost their sense of humour and have ceased to enjoy the corporate wisdom lobbed at them by millionaire Murray as he attends his interminable farewells.

Hills making for China

2005-08-10T14:41:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

Additional support for my China Rising comments is to hand. Hills Industries, the inventor of that Aussie institution the Hills Hoist, is to move manufacture of said item to China. It is cheaper to make them there, and then ship ‘em back to Aus. No doubt Hills hope that soon there will be enough wealthy Chinese to own a hoist but Chinese housing conditions would seem to preclude them from that market for a while yet.

Fortunately the hoist side of Hills business is it’s smallest with electronics and security being a much larger part. However, if and when these areas can be made more cheaply elsewhere and if the Chinese markets open, then so too will these operations cease to function on Australian soil.

Hills was so successful with the hoist that for many years they were an automatic entry to every Australian backyard. Over time the look and feel has changed little with the idea that clothes are pegged then lifted to gain maximum drying conditions.

Hills has proven that diversity is key for smart companies. Had it remained a one product shop it would have disappeared eight to ten years ago.

China Rising

2005-08-02T12:07:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

It remains a continual disapointment that our federal officials keep getting the wrong message. It is compounded when people who should know better, like the Australian Industry Group also get it wrong. The Australian's trade article, taking information from Heather Ridout of the above group clearly demonstrates they have not yet grasped the fundamentals of globalisation. It is equally disapointing that Ms Ridout completely underestimates grass roots support for Australian products. The article initiated the following copy which has yet to be published.

Australia’s trade imbalance with China will not improve any time soon. Heather Ridout (The Australian Aug 1) is wrong when she blames “improving quality of Chinese goods.” Globalisation and Free Trade agreements are causing the inequality.

As more companies are amalgamated and owned by fewer people their ability to locate anywhere is greatly enhanced. The following rules dictate country selections, stability - political and regulatory, cost, access to markets, access to staff (skilled and unskilled) and access to reliable infrastructure. These are not all the criteria but they are the most important.

Australia’s decline in manufacturing can be directly attributable to rule two, cost. Electronics assemblers in China are paid 65 cents per hour. Ms Ridout notes that computers were the biggest import category from China. China did not invent them they just make them more cheaply. IBM PCs are now made in China.

The current drama with Australian vs. NZ potatoes is again a cost issue. The multinational food chains can focus enormous buying power to drive costs down by sourcing cheaper potatoes from NZ. It is only a matter of time before they buy them from China.

The only way to deter multinationals doing this is to threaten the preceding rules, in the case of food, rule one, regulation and rule three, access to markets. Firstly regulation - regulation that makes clear concise labelling mandatory on all products and secondly a national boycott of the product.

The Liberal government is reluctant to regulate labelling and although Australian farmers have mustered enormous support (negating Ms Ridout’s “Australians don’t care”) it will be hard to sustain a national boycott when cheaper Chinese vegetables can be bought under anonymous brands from supermarket shelves. Without precise labelling any buy local campaign is almost inevitably doomed.

At any given time China has several millions of unemployed so labour is not an issue. New Liberal Industrial Relations regimes foisted on Australian wage earners will drive wages down but not quickly to a point where we can compete with China. No one I know will work for 65 cents an hour.

We will continue to lose various industries to China not because they are “moving up the value chain,” - but because they can produce goods more cheaply than we can and multinational companies adhere to the above rules.

The Federal government will do nothing to change things.

Election selection

2005-07-28T14:11:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

South Aus. heads to the polls in a few months time. There is some rumbling in the Liberal ranks about leaders and changes. If they follow their usual practice and keep their buddies in all the same old places then they will deservedly face more limbo time. Shot this off to the “Tiser.”

If the Liberal party is dinkum about winning the next election it will introduce new blood and solid policies. If it just maintains the old mates status quo then it is headed for electoral oblivion. New faces with policies and vigour will beat a Labour party that has spent its term doing backslapping deals to hold on to power rather than bettering the lives of South Australians. The time is now. Do it and give voters a real alternative.

Continuing Government ICT Ineptitude

2005-07-26T14:20:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

At the commonwealth level Australia has had a a disasterous history in the development of ICT. Our last minister for ICT was Dicky Alston who was awarded Luddite of the Decade by the English website, The Register. For his pathetic efforts, Dicky has ended up in London as Australia's Cultural Attache to the Court of Saint James, replacing an ageing Les Paterson.

Australian states can not escape blame either. Each in their own way have had negative impacts on local ICT development. Queensland went a little too far in calling itself the smart state. I sent this one off but it has not been printed to date.

The risk of tagging itself the smart state is now laid bare for Queensland. As they are still developing an ICT strategy (The Australian, July 12) 30 years after the invention of the integrated circuit, they have already missed the boat.

Innovation and Smart State Policy deputy director general, Brian Anker, compounds the smart state tag misnomer, with his statement that they will help the research community “focus and understand business needs.” The demise of their DSTC CRC and federal R&D cutbacks have already had that affect Australia wide.

State bureaucrats, including Premier Beattie then boast that they have attracted multinationals to set up business by offering payroll tax incentives. Any IP profits generated will go directly to the companies concerned, not Queensland.

Right under their noses is one of Australia’s truly great software successes, Mincom. It competes globally against SAP, Oracle and Microsoft. Does this international home-grown success get any tax concessions to further develop their product? Are they asked to mentor the 95% of ICT SMEs that remain a hope for Queensland ICT growth?

The Minister for State Development and Immigration, Tony McGrady, “wont apologise,” for Queensland’s aggressive stance in giving money to multinationals who already dominate the ICT world stage. His strategy has successfully addressed the multinationals operating cost issues and now allows them to further perpetuate their species at the expense of Australian products.

If Australia’s annual trade deficit in ICT currently stands at $19b per annum and Queensland’s technology industry “earns about $14.6b a year,” then the smart state spreadsheet has saved all of us.

If, as seems apparent, Queensland bureaucrats are simply following similarly ailing ICT strategies in other states, then clearly, they are the antithesis of smart.

The law and common folk

2005-07-13T16:06:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

South Australia has had a couple of controversial cases where our laws appeared inadequate at best and corrupt at worst. I shot this one off to the "Tiser." They did not see fit to print it.

Mr Alexander Ward (the Advertiser May 13) thinks SA legal standards are in a fine state. Mr Ward skirts the key issue of public focus in that justice "must be seen to be done." He holds that the SA public damn the system by focussing on two cases only, Nemer and McGee. Not so!

If continuous departmental (DPP) upheaval, plus one of the countries highest rates of case suppression orders were not enough to alarm, then the vastly overstretched court infrastructure, should ring some bells. This system ensures the “day in court” occurs many months after the initiating incident.

Mr Ward asks how “rational thinking” people can question a legal system that processed 80,000 cases in FY2004 with the Nemer case being the only extraordinary event. The Nemer and McGee verdicts will do nothing to curb these worrying numbers. We even have to import our police force.

The final burning issue is equality. Most people cannot afford top silks. Indeed they are often aghast at the costs our legal system can impose. Your day in court (right or wrong) can cost you your house. When a high profile case arises, rational thinkers know that if it were they in the dock, it would be tough, expensive and carry a high likelihood of severe penalty. They note the Nemer and McGee exceptions.

Yes Minister

2005-07-04T12:02:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

Minister Nelson is responsible (irresponsible) for education in Australia. Recently he insisted that education is a privilege, not a right. This of course prompted another of my outbursts that I hoped the media would share.

Minister Nelson will only get one chance on Australian research funding.

The nations 38 universities compete each year for approximately $3.8b in research grants. Minister Nelson has pointed to the winds of change blowing internationally. (The Australian, Jun 28) This inevitably means money, competition and the globalisation of our Universities.

Universities are correct in fearing a league table as the Liberals go about the task of picking winners. The government's poor track record (i.e. stopping computer research funding in 1964favorvour of cloud seeding) gives little confidence.

The Liberal's belated attempt to redress this, resulted in the Sydney based NICTA, an information technology R&D facility. This effort to create a silicon centre, (post era) has largely failed as it has siphoned money away from other promising ICT areas and led to an interstate brain drain, luring our best and brightest researchers from their current projects and posts - with as yet no concrete results.

While Australian R&D is being buffeted by these winds of change, the hurricane of international R&D with the likes of IBM alone sporting a $5.8b dedicated annual budget, demands extremely close consultation with our existing establishments. The Minister must also be encouraging Australian business via tax incentives to support key R&D areas.

Remembering that his party's 1964 computing decision alone now costs Australia $19b annually, the Minister's right to change the system had better be well considered or he may not be privileged with another go.

Biotech best bet for Australia

2005-06-27T15:58:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

It is still obvious that Australia and its many institutions have not fully realised the importance of research, development and education. I sent this one off but failed to get into print.

Jonathan West’s caution on placing too many eggs in the Chinese free trade basket should focus the Canberra trade cowboys.

It is too late for certain manufacturing, clothing and garlic. If the Chinese can also sell wine for a $1.00 per bottle this not only undercuts the American “two buck chuck,” but also casts a shadow over our buoyant wine industry.

An electronic assembler gets $16.00 per hour in the US, $2.80 in Mexico and 65 cents per hour in China. If their qualified engineers get $120.00 per month as West indicates then this country has no option but to invest heavily in biotechnology and science.

West suggests that $1B in recurrent funding for biotechnology R&D and the necessary infrastructure to support it will give Australia a knowledge based edge in a fiercely competitive economy. Products, like higher yield grains and disease resistant crops could be ours to sell or licence and we will not have to rely on another country or a multinational corporation controlling our food production and prices.

Some of the necessary infrastructure will be massive computing power. Australia’s folly in missing that boat sees us buying $15B worth of computers and software annually - because the 1964 Liberal Country Party government stopped funding CSIRO computer research.

Should the Howard government repeat that mistake with biotechnology and science funding then West’s “catastrophic burden” scenario will be all too real.

Business speak and reality

2005-06-08T15:49:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage
Mr Murray had been cited as a possible new man for Telstra to replace the dynamic Ziggy (he of the $5B write-down among other things) and Murray was singing the usual best practice songs. I shot the following off to the Aus IT and they kindly published it Jun 7.

Mr Murray is following other banks, notably the ANZ whose IT support group of about 420 staff is in India (Murray denies IT job losses, May 31).

The guff about getting the best for customers really means cutting costs, and India offers cheap labor. If by cutting costs this way Mr Murray is foreshadowing lower internet banking charges for his customers, there may be some benefit. But if, as I expect it is just more corporate-speak he may as well take over Telstra. We wont notice any difference.

SA Wins Federal defence contract

2005-06-06T22:25:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

The USA spends $30M per hour on defence. It is a massive and lucrative industry which can make or break a company with a single project. Australia spends $1.8m per hour.

The quickest way for any state to gain economic development is to attract some of this spend. Most state governments have well paid bureaucrats working the area. South Australia's Defence Unit appears to have done its homework, but ASC manager Prescott and his exec bid team deserve most of the credit.

Mr Bracks says he relied on the Prime Minister's assurance rather than any hard data or planning undertaken by Victorian public servants. Canberra, anticipating the state bun-fight has had independent confirmation of the decision. Mr Bracks should have asked if John's assurance was a core or non-core.

The continuing slanging match will serve to reinforce to all Australians that state governments might best be done away with. What began with changing trains at state borders has continued with health, education, infrastructure and industrial relations. Different rules different regulations and somebody else to blame.

Bemoaning the AWD contract going to SA is misdirected. State bureaucrats should have informed Mr Bracks that 80% of any ship, plane or tank is in electronics, software and systems and that focus in these areas is longer term, better value and will derive more benefit than a few years of metal bashing. Or were they all at a car race?

Intellectual property challenge by the mighty IT industry

2005-05-20T12:27:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage

After the Australian had published a letter I was pleased to see a copy of it ended up at the following address www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ipprofessor/archivednews.

This site indicates that the Aus Government takes intellectual property development seriously. Just as well, as the following letter outlines it can be a very profitable business.

If Australians have misunderstood our evolution from agricultural, through industrial, to knowledge-based economy, the imminent CSIRO vs.American IT industry patent challenge (SMH May 19) is salutary.
Australia’s CSIRO, is being sued by not one, but six US IT Multinational giants. Microsoft, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Apple and NetGear. Wow! The CSIRO boys must be on a winner!
These gigantic IT groups with a combined R&D spend of billions are ganging up via the courts on our own CSIRO because we have something they don’t.

Should they win it will be another blow to Australia’s future prosperity.
Why, because in 1993 our clever CSIRO boffins had the common sense not only to invent a peer-to-peer wireless LAN, a wireless transceiver and a method of transmitting data, operating at frequencies in excess of 10 GHz in multipath transmission environments; but also to patent (US Patent 5,487,069) their efforts. This means that anyone wanting to use the technology must pay CSIRO (Australia) a royalty.
Is this good? You bet it is. Wireless connection is the next big thing. Think mobile phones and electronic mail. Think Microsoft products licensing. Ponder, global business. Australia has and can, charge the world a fee to join in. CSIRO's system can increase the speed of wireless access by a factor of five and virtually eliminate costly cabelling. The invention addresses some of Australia’s $15B annual IT deficit.
This is more than a footy match. This is our nation’s prosperity. All Australians should congratulate the CSIRO and be ardently supporting them in their efforts to stave off this desperate, greedy American challenge.

Writing & podcasting

2005-05-13T19:35:00.000+09:30

Had a chat with Fang the other day and as usual he had some topics of real interest.
Internet radio is going to be big and from the brief demo he gave it will contain a vast range of subjects. Blogging and letter writing will remain fun but just imagine running your own radio station! The lawyers are going to have a field day but the tide is coming in.

Spooky

2005-05-09T23:17:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage
Mmmm, these search engines are pretty good. Poking around for old news subs and found this one from Jul 2001 in the SMH. It was a response to politicians and budgets and how they could be held acountable.

One thing computers do well is record data. Add Internet and an incentive to play "budget simulator," then add the threat that regular results will be published in your paper and you may have real "real life."

A further addition could be who decided to spend what on what and what that decision costs the country.

A regular chart showing a history of decisions, by whom they were made and the cost to the country, then predicting, using modelling on current decisions, would, I suggest, entice many players. It would also alarm the pollies.

A web site supporting the game should be a hit. An additional benefit is your paper will gain access to a growing number of people who would love a chance to contribute if it meant that their combined efforts may force politicians back into the real world.

The Importance of R&D in Aus

2005-05-05T15:18:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage
This effort was published in the Australian IT section on April 5th 2005

The alarm sounding over decreasing R&D in Aus is timely, but probably too late.

Simon Hayes’ thrust is primarily about multinational efforts here. While Australia can rightly boast that we have produced some world firsts for the likes of Motorola, Epson and others, it only serves two short-term purposes for our country: employment and experience. All royalties due and paid for multinational patents are repatriated overseas.

There are five primary reasons that multinationals locate here. Stability - political and regulatory, cost, access to markets, access to staff (skilled an unskilled) and access to reliable infrastructure. Globalisation ensures these rules remain hard and fast.

Australia has been able to attract multinats R&D work as we have adequately ticked off the preceding rules. We are stable. We have a history of paying incentives (which has a dramatic influence on cost) and we have a history of awarding government and corporate contracts to the same multinats, which assures them of access to our markets. Our engineers continue to be among the finest globally but we are not producing enough of them and all governments are belatedly realising the importance of modern infrastructure.

So as the multinats have saturated the markets and demand for commoditised product falls, the ability to generate new products with global patent protection will go to the country that can best effect the rules above. So multinational R&D is here as long as we keep their costs down.

More importantly, the graph showing Australia’s intellectual firepower in terms of patents, will hopefully, shake our federal and state politicians and regulators. What was left unsaid was that two of our biggest contributors to patents and prosperity in Australia, CSIRO and Telstra have been filing decreasing numbers of patents and spending correspondingly less in R&D over the last ten years.

Telstra, which used to absorb some of its better homegrown products, now imports most of them, thereby shutting access to local markets. The CSIRO patented a technology (802.11a) and licensed it to a local company (Radiata) to make wireless network cards. Had the government realised any of the above and had the slightest understanding of intellectual property in a digital world, that company could have been supplying to Australian government and corporate markets and exporting globally instead of being subsumed by the multinational Cisco, for hundreds of millions of dollars. Peanuts by multinational standards.

While it is OK to have the multinationals here, it is utterly vital that Australia invests in and takes advantage of R&D and the potential rewards it offers. In the twilight days of the digital era, as we stroll towards the bio era, our failure to invest and take advantage of Australian ingenuity, will see us competing for work with China for 65 cents per hour.

My blog intro

2005-05-03T19:36:00.000+09:30

DoctorDamage
Occasionally, when I feel strongly about a subject, I will write to a major paper. Also occasionally, said paper sees fit to publish my opinion. I will attempt to keep a record of these rare events here. The following effort was printed in the Melbourne Age newspaper in September 2002. It concerned Innovation and skills and was titled, Missing the Mark.

It is wrong of Mr Roach ("Woo migrants or perish") to compare post-war economic drivers with today's knowledge-based drivers. Australian scientists, educationalists and others have long warned of the danger of decreasing R&D.

If a country does not innovate in an "information age", it is bound to slide in international relevance. Mr Roach seems to have bought the story that this country has an extensive skills shortage in IT. There are some specialist areas such as defence and speech recognition where skills are harder to find, but in the Web, Java and C++ areas, jobs are still able to be filled by Australian residents.

Better still, Australia has a growing number of software companies successfully exporting.

Finally, Australia does not need to select either Japan or the United States for role models. We are able to learn from their mistakes.

While the US took in migrants, they also raced ahead with R&D and innovation. They know that 82 per cent of any invention is returned to the inventor, designer or licenser. Mr Roach's efforts would be far better devoted to ensuring that the Indian companies locating here pay their Indian workers the same wage as their Australian counterparts. He should not be diverted by questionable diversity and skills shortage furphies.