Connecting Up Conference

Keynote address
Adelaide
4 May 2004

It's about people, not technology

It makes perfect sense that the current technological revolution is the mere beginning of a far reaching period of social change. Information and Communication Technology represents one of the most critical forms of social, cultural and economic empowerment.

How effectively modern, democratic governments manage and encourage that change will impact deeply on social equity and justice for generations to come.

There are many facets to this change: connectivity and the ability to get an affordable quality internet connection is just the beginning.  Having the ability and confidence to navigate the medium of the internet is another dimension altogether.  This challenge involves computing skills, typing skills, new motor skills to manipulate a 'mouse'. 

And then there is the prospect of putting these skills to practical and meaningful use. 

This aspect is often overlooked with policies that adopt a 'build it and they will come' attitude.  Unfortunately, Australia is yet to cover first base with respect to reliable infrastructure.

Perhaps decent, affordable infrastructure will solve a part of the digital divide, but there is increasing evidence that it is not enough to be able to get online, on your own, in the home. 

Public access and the role of community places is just as important.  This is especially true when considering internet training, community development and provision of more demanding information services, like accessing Commonwealth Government publications.

Community, health, education and banking services through to managing email, web searches and online shopping need reliable communications infrastructure. But they also need to be easy to use and actually useful and convenient in people's lives.  Innovations in service delivery need to be compelling for citizens.  Australian government services online have the potential to lead the world.

Another really interesting area that is attracting attention is the concept of public information: digital content that is in the public domain.  The online world has challenged the traditional operation of intellectual property law and I will discuss the tensions between the forces arguing greater copyright protection and the movement promoting innovation through sharing knowledge.

The last five years have been crucial for governments as they have been presented with the social challenge technological innovation presents.  Governments have responded differently depending on the vision, experience and commitment to social justice. 

Some, such as many nations on the African continent, have seen developments in information and communication technology as a serious opportunity to improve the social and economic prospects of whole regions.  They have effectively leap-frogged generations of copper infrastructure.

Other countries, such as Canada and Korea have envisioned the social and economic potential that a major public investment in communications will bring and taken that step.

Other countries have relied on the prevailing market to determine the extent and pace of development.  Sadly, Australia is one of these.  It is particularly disturbing because the market in Australia is dominated completely by Telstra.  This perhaps would not be such a bad thing if Telstra were a dynamic innovative company.

But they’re not and their dominance has had a profound impact.  The Howard Government's privatisation agenda has been the force behind this symbiotic relationship: this agenda has given both the Government and Telstra have direct interests in maximising Telstra's share price.

First is has ensured that Telstra has been assisted by the Howard Government to retain its complete dominance despite poor services and lack of competition in key sectors. 

Secondly, it has ensured an ad-hoc and compromised policy response to closing the digital divide. Why? Because the Howard Government's motivation has not been to close the digital divide because of the impending and growing social inequities – it has been motivated by giving the impression that Telstra services are improving so as to get the support needed for privatisation.

There is a chasm between these motivational forces.  The Howard Government is long on rhetoric and short on substance.

Why else would the Networking the Nation funding be ties specifically to Telstra sale revenue?  Why was it expanded with the social bonus after the second tranche was sold? It becomes a complete no-brainer when you look at the relatively small amount of actual new money that went into the response to the most recent inquiry into telecommunications: the Estens Review. 

For example, half the funding of one of the major initiatives, HiBIS, came straight out of an underspend in a fund announced under the previous Besley telecommunications review: the BARN fund.

In an astounding admission, Telstra seem to have reneged on a key recommendation of the Estens Review: to remove old pair gain systems that inhibit connection speeds and in some cases prevent customer access to dial tone.  There has not been a peep from the Howard Government about this.  And why would there be?  These inquiries were just expensive stunts to try and make the privatisation of Telstra palatable to the Australian public.

And now the focus for the Howard Government is to convince frustrated and alienated internet users that Broadband is on its way.  Once again the substance of these efforts is easily challenged when a key opportunity for generating investments in new, broadband-enabled communications networks is ignored. This opportunity is of course, competition.  The recent Competition Notice issued to Telstra by the ACCC in relation to ADSL pricing is testimony to their unacceptable conduct.

As is Telstra's recent announcement of line rental increases.  For Telstra to increase these monopoly rents so soon after the failure of the Telstra sale bill yet again in the Senate demonstrates the contempt with which they treat the Australian market.  It is also a symbol of the Howard Government unwillingness to act to constrain the prices.

All of this means that Australia has slipped in its global standing – this is bad news for the economy and society, but it is bad news for the family living on the outskirts connected via a RIM, and it is bad news for the family down the coast whose exchange does not have ADSL.  It is bad news for the hobby farmer who can't get more than 14.4kbps on a 6/16 pair gain system.  And it is bad news for everyone's connection if it rains a lot!

But I will move on to the equal and accompanying challenge of the social policy challenge that sits side by side with the infrastructure challenge.

In contrast to the Howard Government, Labor has at least an understanding of the operation of the internet that will ensure our online content policies are relevant, useful and meaningful to internet users, not divisive, fear-mongering and irresponsible.

For example, Labor has always argued that the best approach to internet content management is empowering end-users by helping them acquire the skills and confidence for using the net, supervising their children and installing content and spam filters at the desktop as they see fit. Where is the support for this from the Howard Government?  

During the debate on the Interactive Gambling Act, Labor advocated strong regulation of Australian based web sites so that punters could be protected.  Instead the Howard Government merely pushed all on-line wagering operators offshore. 

Finally, Labor had to pressure the Howard Government into legislating at all for spam – the one area that desperately and b elatedly needed regulatory attention.  However, this was one area that the Howard Government (via NOIE) advocate that no legislative action was needed!  All I see is a funds-starved 'Netalert' and lack of investment in fostering internet skills and confidence in the community generally.

But one of the most important areas of public policy is the issue of how we use it our lives.  The social appropriation of technology is one of the most neglected in Government policy.  This doesn't mean that nothing has been done.  It is credit to all of you here that Australia is home to quality research and many inspirational programs.  But there is no policy vision guiding.  No push from Government to make things happen.

For citizens who lead busy lives – and who doesn't these days, the use of IT has to present a compelling proposition if it is going to change behaviour and contribute positively to our lives.  The hype has gone and the social and cultural implications of the internet and converging communications technologies now present one of the greatest social challenges. 

For at least a generation there will be people who are just not comfortable using the internet.  It is not a question of depriving these people services and information just because they don't want to use a computer, rather it is necessary to respect their approach and provide dual modes of service delivery for at least another 30 years.

Even health and education, the issues of most concern to the people of Australia will be governed by the accessibility and usability of IT in the community.

Closing this digital divide takes more than just an internet connected computer at home.  It will take more than computers at work, and it will take more than computers in schools to fix this problem. 

Public access points are so important.  Places where people can gather and learn and swap ideas about using the net.  Public spaces online are important – the internet is not just a corporate vehicle – it is so much more.  Creative communities and local culture can thrive online.  New programs designed to add humanity and friendship can bring together people living in the same community for the first time. 

Social software is about people, not technology and this is the way of the future.

Making sure there is room for innovative, community and cultural content is therefore critical.

So in conclusion I want to turn to an issue that is very pressing at the moment.

Australia is on the brink of adopting the US system of managing digital intellectual property as a result of the Howard Government's so-called 'free' trade deal with the US Government.

Opens source developers and even proprietary software companies will be greatly exposed to legal action as a result of the Howard Government's agreement to adopt software patents. This widely criticised approach, managed incidentally, by a US patents office that is a profit-making enterprise, will potentially dramatically increase the risk for investors dramatically.

Even independent discovery is not a protection for software patents.  Software patents increase unfairness is the software sector, and ultimately make the market an uneven playing field.  So much so, software patents have effectively been disallowed in Europe. 

Large companies have the resources to police their patents. Small companies do not. Large companies do deals with each other large companies to share patents.  Smaller companies have no choice but to pay licensing or go out of business. This is not good for innovation or Australia.

So it is not surprising his is a really important issue for the software sector, in particular open source software developers. The Australian/Open Source community argues that Australia will be particularly disadvantaged because we have a higher proportion of, and greater potential for, open source as part of our software sector.

While software patents are one example of the ongoing tension between proprietary digital rights holders and digital information that is rightfully in the public domain.  This battle is unfortunately most commonly fought and won in US courts by the incumbent corporate interests: not surprising when you think about the sort of organisations that can fund such legal action.

Theoretically intellectual property law can assist in making the adjustments necessary to protect the public interest.  However, the trend certainly in US law is merely a case entrenching the trend in the courts: strengthening the hold of proprietary rights at the expense of innovation.

I urge you all to take an interest in the FTA and its likely impact on Australia.  It may seem like a tangential issue but I believe it is inextricably linked to how we develop as a nation.  This complex deal is as ambiguous as it is complex. John Howard has no regard for the impact it will have.  After all, it's about people not technology.