|
|
|
Back to top |
 | lack of public transport to venues, |
| lack of facilities for disabled athletes, |
| inadequate lighting of grounds and car parks which is a real concern for many women, |
| lack of change rooms and toilets especially wheelchair access, |
| lack of adequate child care and |
| lack of quality public facilities. |
So how do we redress the barriers that are preventing more Australians from pursuing a healthier lifestyle?
There isn’t some magic formula that will automatically make us a fit and healthy nation, but slashing funding is certainly not the answer!
What you can do though is look at those sections of Australia where participation is low and then examine what resources and facilities are available. And what you will find is that some regions and urban centres are well catered for, while others compete for scarce resources.
Its amazing what a decent football field or basketball court or soccer pitch with a club house and change rooms can do for the physical, mental and economic health of a community.
The Government might be surprised to learn that the health and well-being of all Australians is what counts, not just certain sections favoured by this administration.
One of the reasons that we must enhance and broaden the participation rate is that sport acts as a coalescing force. It binds people together; it gives them a sense of purpose and a sense of place.
For many residents of rural Australia, sport is one of the few things that keeps communities alive.
The banks might be gone, the internet might be unaffordable, Pay-TV will never arrive – but sport has always been there.
Governments understand this – or at least they understand it when they underwrite international sporting events. But this Government doesn’t understand that by investing in people – by investing in grass-roots sport and recreation – they will get a far greater return than just financial revenue.
It is with some interest that I note that with each passing week I see more and more World Wide Web addresses advertised, be it in print, on the television or on radio. As more companies, government services and community organisations establish an Internet presence, I cannot help but think that only part of our population is privileged enough to participate in this new medium.
In fact, recent statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that only 13.5 per cent of Australian households have Internet access. When you think about the depth and magnitude of promotion of an Internet web site, you will start to understand that, whilst 13.5 per cent of our households have access to this amazing new medium, the vast majority do not.
This raises very serious questions of equity in access to the Internet and to information technologies. The same set of ABS stats shows that the biggest reason why people do not have Internet access is indeed cost, reinforcing the much reported phenomenon of information haves and have-nots that permeates not only Australian society but all particularly westernised democracies around the world where the Internet has become established. Notwithstanding this, of course, growth of Internet usage is exponential, with now 100 million people across the globe with Internet access. The volume of traffic on these networks doubles with each 100 days that passes. As we move closer to the millennium, these growth trends will continue. I am concerned, however, that a large proportion of our society will not be afforded the opportunity to participate.
This exclusion zone goes beyond just household access and into the areas of education, the workplace and community groups, particularly amongst our senior citizens. As there is a transfer of government and corporate services to the Internet forums, it is not an unreasonable assumption to think that whilst this transition is taking place sections of our community will be permanently excluded from this area of technological progression. Hence perhaps even those services, as they become more established and entrenched in the online medium, will be diminished in more traditional exchanges and interfaces of the provision of those services.
Equity of access to the Intertnet presents a political challenge that should not be underestimated. It is about the nature of our culture and our society in the 21st century. With this inwardly spiralling convergence of information technologies leading to the vortex of Internet Protocol, where the Internet becomes the central point of distribution of information, entertainment, services and electronic commerce, it is absolutely fundamental that governments take on the challenge of providing equity in access to this medium.
In schools alone it has become very clear that established schools, particularly private schools, have placed a priority on the provision of information technology equipment and services within the curriculum. However, under the pressure of the coalition government over the last 2½ years, public schools have become even more starved of resources. We find that, as pressure increases on those schools, it is the new initiatives, the introduction of new technologies, that begin to suffer first and foremost. Whilst we see the entrenchment of this socioeconomic divide between the information haves and have-nots in society, we can see it also developing within our educational institutions.
Children today who are afforded with the opportunity to learn how to use a computer, to learn and understand the nature of the Internet and what it can offer in terms of life choices, will have a considerable advantage over those who do not. I am not suggesting that every job will relate specifically to your ability or lack of ability to manage information technology, but even today it can be demonstrated that skills in these areas afford a very specific opportunity for many job seekers.
The policy mechanisms for achieving more equitable access to information technology are not simple in any respect. They traverse just about every portfolio area and present themselves across Commonwealth, state and local government jurisdictions. Finding the right balance in achieving access and equity to new technologies is, I believe, a prerequisite for a genuine goal for social equity. Recently, in the closing stages of the OECD ministerial forum on electronic commerce in Ottawa, the South African Minister for Post, Telecommunications and Broadcasting, Mr Jay Naidoo, said:
Those words from Mr Jay Naidoo sum up the issue for me. When we talk about access and equity to the Internet, it is far more than just providing the transition onto a computer of services previously delivered face to face. It is far more than just another game to play or another activity in which children-or indeed adults-can spend time looking for some useful or useless information.
It is about a cultural shift. It is about a technological advance that will change the way we as a society access information. If you believe that access to information is a determinant of power in our community, you will start to understand the magnitude of this cultural shift. Governments, therefore, have a fundamental responsibility to foster access.
Governments have a fundamental responsibility to ensure that content across this converging digital medium is diverse, accessible and carries with it a quality that only sound policies of ensuring access and diversity of content can put in place. This is one of the greatest challenges confronting governments right across the world. I do not think for a minute that this coalition government is providing this issue with the attention that it truly deserves.
Senate adjourned at 10.19 p.m.
Change can make people feel insecure, particularly if the changes impact upon their personal lives.
If the change is technology-driven and the reasons for it are not clear, the feelings of insecurity are intensified.
The rapid pace of technological change is therefore a source of some angst for people who, understandably, look for ways to have their insecurities addressed.
This is where the government has a responsibility to manage change, and in doing so, act in the public interest.
Defining what constitutes the 'public interest' is a challenge in the context of converging technologies and connectivity. From a policy perspective, it’s far easier to address these issues without considering the public interest: the social dimension. But this will put government at odds with people’s needs, and the feeling of insecurity will grow.
Nowhere is change so rapid as in IT and communications. The concept of connectivity is already way beyond just getting a decent Internet connection to your home - something that many Australians are still waiting for.
Connectivity has three inter-dependent elements: infrastructure, content and participation.
Whole bureaucracies set up to look after infrastructure and content, but issues relating to participation in the age of connectivity have been left behind.
One very important issue is confidence: without it, insecurity prevails.
Government has a responsibility to ensure that people feel confident about technological change.
It can do this by showing leadership and being proactive in addressing sources of insecurity.
Privacy of personal information held by government is one area where governments have a clear responsibility to act in the public interest.
Privacy has attracted little attention in the public debate surrounding the outsourcing of Federal Government information technology, yet it is a critical political issue.
Understanding privacy implications, and the potential for unauthorised, manipulative use of Australian citizens’ personal data, requires a leap into the future.
An appreciation of the value of the data, (information held within the mainframes of the Australian Tax Office and Social Security for example) is a prerequisite if policy-making in this area is to have any hope of addressing the public interest.
What possible use could such a mass of personal data be? Let’s take a glimpse at the markets, and marketing strategies, of the future. Tumultuous change is making the future impossible to predict, but there’s a widely accepted view that consumers will call the shots.
With the complexity of people’s lives increasing, passive advertising will be a waste of time. Interactive media will also give us far greater discretion about the advertising we expose ourselves to.
For retailers of products or services, the challenges of selling will grow in proportion to the decline of the mass audience traditionally exposed to advertising via broadcast media.
Marketing will need to be efficient, targeting those most likely to offer a return. Previous broad assumptions about lifestyle and consumer trends will be turned on their head.
The Internet, arriving via TV, computer or phone, will offer an array of goodies literally at your fingertips.
Those most likely to be successful will build one-on-one relationships between company and customer.
The key to such strategies lies in access to, and effective management of, comprehensive consumer databases.
For business, connectivity will be the key to accessing markets. For society, connectivity holds vast opportunities. Seizing those opportunities requires a multi-dimensional set of policies that address citizens’ needs.
Failure to adopt such policies will hasten the division of society into information haves and have-nots. It will entrench fear about the direction of technological change, particularly relating to connectivity.
Anticipation of these concerns, and plans to proactively address them, are necessary if citizens are to retain confidence in government.
Government therefore has a critical role to play, not just policy setting but in leading by example.
The Commonwealth has the largest procurement budget for information technology, and government departments manage information on behalf of Australia’s citizens.
But none of the Federal Government’s assets is more undervalued than the vast databases of personal information about citizens.
In public hands, the privacy of this information is governed by legislation.
Memories of the furore surrounding the Australia Card proposal should remind governments of the communities attitude to privacy protection.
So who has these databases of potential consumer information? Any entity that enjoys a monopoly, or near monopoly, in a particular market fits the bill.
Telecoms corporations fit that description nicely, as do utilities and government departments - but rarely do you see a value placed on the information contained in a mainframe.
What is it that telecoms companies have that is so appealing for them to take a central role in digital convergence and connectivity?
On the safe assumption that connectivity will make the world go round in the new millennium, multinational corporations are assessing how they will maintain their profit margins in a global, connected economy.
What is required is access to consumer databases, and those playing it smartest are embracing others who have such databases.
The nineMSN venture’s partnership with Telstra is a good example of how an online service can access a ready-made consumer database.
Telstra management obviously has either little grasp of this asset’s leverage, or has chosen to move down a path that will have public interest drawing the short straw as strategic management of Telstra’s consumer database is progressively handed over to multinational interests.
Community concern over the use of citizen’s personal data for purposes other than that for which it was compiled, is very real.
That concern has come to the forefront in the context of the Government’s IT outsourcing program.
No aspect of this controversial program is as dismal as the Coalition’s failure to protect the privacy of citizen’s personal information once it is private hands.
One of the most disturbing features of the IT outsourcing program is that it doesn’t even afford Australian companies the opportunity to bid for the contracts - so the data itself, and strategic information management within departments, must go to multinationals.
The implications of this policy have been at the public’s expense.
Already marginalised by the Howard Government, the prospect of a 10% tax on every single consumer item and every service will be the last straw for many women. A broad-based GST will have a profoundly negative impact on families and lower income earners.
First, let’s look at what Australian women have been faced with under the Howard Government.
Momentum towards equality for women, which Labor had worked so hard to achieve, was lost with the election of a Howard-Fischer Government.
The Coalition’s Workplace Relations Act has disadvantaged women immensely: women are disproportionately in lower paid, casual and part-time work.
The opportunities for women to work and earn an income have been reduced under the Coalition. Over 300,000 women are currently unemployed, 86,000 of which have been unemployed for over one year. In short, the Coalition has failed to deliver the jobs growth that is needed to give women a brighter future. In Canberra, massive retrenchments have been made by the Howard Government and the social impact of these cuts have reverberated through the community with thousands of families affected. Welfare agencies across the board have reported significant increases in demand for their services.
Mr Howard’s Job Network has denied help to women whose partners are working, affecting around 50,000 married women. Consequently many women have giving up looking for work.
Women have not fared well under the Coalition's new industrial relations regime either. Wages for part-time workers have fallen and because of the concentration of women in part-time jobs, the gap between male and female earnings is widening.
The most significant attack on the lives of working women and their families has been the cuts to childcare. When the Howard Government cut over $800 million from childcare, they sent the cost of childcare through the roof. The average increase in childcare is $20 a week - and as a consequence many women have been forced to give up work.
By pushing child care beyond the reach of ordinary working families, the Howard Government has effectively put a ceiling on their incomes – and this from a man who promised to govern for battling families!
The Coalition began its term by downgrading the Office of the Status of Women (OSW). Funding to non government women’s organisations was cut and fragmented, as was funding to the Affirmative Action Agency and Working Women’s Centres. The Women’s Bureau in the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs has been abolished and the position of Sex Discrimination Commissioner was left vacant for over a year. And, significantly, the Women’s Yearbook, produced until last year by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and OSW, has been axed. This was a major source of information about how women are faring in Australian society. Obviously the Howard Government does not want us to know.
Now Australian women are being asked to accept the GST, even though independent evidence demonstrates that this tax places an unfair burden on them.
A study undertaken by Professor Patricia Apps from the Economic Department of the University of Sydney shows that the Coalition’s tax package unfairly shifts the burden of taxation to married women in the workforce and to unmarried working women.
If the GST is introduced it will add to the cost of all food and drink, clothing, baby products, school uniforms, books, cosmetics, electricity and gas bills, over-the-counter medicines, postal, telephone and internet services, bus tickets, taxis, video rentals, dry cleaning, gardening supplies and home repairs to name just a few.
Every time women go to the supermarket, the chemist, a department store, the post office, the dry cleaner and the hairdresser they will pay the GST.
A GST is fundamentally unfair because it has no regard for people's capacity to pay. Thus the lowest income people pay the same rate of tax as a millionaire. But luxury goods, at present attracting much higher wholesale taxes than the basics of life, will become cheaper. Little wonder that Kerry Packer supports John Howard and his GST.
Labor’s main objection to this new tax is that the GST hits the poorest Australians the hardest. As women make up the vast majority of pensioners - 62% of pensioners and 94% of sole parent pensioners – it is poorer women who will ultimately subsidise the rich.
And in case you thought that the Coalition was compensating women for a GST, think again!
It is women who will come face to face with the GST everyday – but they will rarely come into contact with John Howard's tax cuts. This is because the highest tax cuts go to people earning above $50,000 in the Coalition package.
Only 5 percent of women taxpayers earn above $50,000, compared to 15 percent of men. This is just one more way in which the Coalition's tax package is unfair.
Women lose both ways under John Howard – they get less of a tax cut and pay more of the GST.
In contrast, Labor’s plan for a fairer tax system will deliver tax relief to lower income families who need it most. For example, a young woman on unemployment benefits and earning $5,000 a year would have her tax bill cut from $14 to $2 a week, providing a direct incentive to work as well as financial support. The same young woman would pay $13 a week in tax under John Howard.
Labor will:
| Work to restore equality and the lost opportunities for women. |
| Not introduce a GST: a tax that will hurt women (as consumers, mothers and carers) the most. |
| Create opportunities through greater investment in jobs, training and education. |
| Make child care more affordable and accessible. |
| Provide tax credits to boost home wages and provide tax relief for working women so that they get to keep more of their wages. |
| Recognise and assist carers (who are mostly women): Under a Labor Government the Carers pension will increase by over $300 per year |
| Provide a retirement incomes system for women to ensure that the work choices they make over the course of their lives do not jeopardise the adequacy of their retirement income. |
| Labor’s Youth Allowance will help the 134,000 young women aged between 15 and 24 who are unemployed. |
| Labor will ensure that women get access to assistance with job search, and are not excluded as they have been under the Howard Government. |
The choice for women is clear: they must put an end to the Howard Government’s continuous attacks on their standard of living and limiting of their lifestyle choices.
Women realise that this election is about more than tax. It is about creating an Australian society that places people first. That is why Labor’s priorities are jobs, education, health and creating a united community.
Kate Lundy is the ALP Senator for the ACT. 29 September 1998
With technology progressing faster that ever, it is not surprising that many Australians feel concerned. Information technology, particularly the Internet, is changing the way we live our lives: how we bank, how we talk to friends and how we follow our favourite sport! These changes are for some a wonderful improvement in lifestyle, but many others find it plain intimidating.
Everywhere you turn these days an Internet address is being advertised and for many this is a reminder that perhaps they are missing out on something. Although Australians have a remarkable willingness to take up new technologies, the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to have Internet access.
This diverse experience of Australians with respect to changes in information and telecommunications services is recognised by Labor. We understand that it permeates the social, cultural and economic fabric of Australia and that for technology to be embraced within the community, it must bring a social benefit.
As a result, the opportunity for all Australians to access and participate in what we are calling the information society is our policy goal. For some this may mean getting basic telephony services for the first time, however, we hope that our vision for an information society will ultimately provide much more.
The information society is a period in Australia's development that recognises the value of our human resource. It is a period where the community, government and industry work together to provide the social and economic foundation for a sustainable future: a future where security and opportunity form the basis of social cohesion.
Opportunities in our education system and the community are essential if everyone is to exercise their right to participate in the information society. Labor is committed to addressing the current inequities and will work with the states in pursuing our policy goal.
Achieving high levels of participation in the information society also puts Australia in the strongest position to take advantage of the growth occurring in the information technology and telecommunications industry. This means jobs for Australians.
How this industry develops and grows in Australia is critical to our future economic health as well. As well as having the status of the fastest growing industry in the world, information technology and telecommunications enables the services sector, which represents 84% (ABS) of the Australian economy, to be efficient, innovative and competitive.
Labor knows that information technology and telecommunications remains a tool, not an end in itself, for social, cultural and economic growth. With proper management, the outcomes can be immensely positive. Labor understands how to leverage government procurement to provide for an environment of growth for Australian industry. Conversely, lack of management by government and Australian industry can lead to Australia becoming a powerless consumer of IT&T, relegating this country to a digital ghetto in the next millennium.
The opportunities exist to create a society that is powerfully positioned to make the best use of information services. Labor’s objectives go beyond the known economic benefits of a highly educated and technologically proficient workforce. Our objective is to reposition Australia beyond the information economy and into the information society.
It is this enabling capacity of information technology that gives our IT&T industry a place of central importance in our society. Community, government and business need timely and accurate information to retain relevance. This implies access to high bandwidth digital infrastructure, in other words the Internet.
The information society is characterised by the fact that the once distinct industry sectors of telecommunications, computing and media are converging on each other: everything is becoming ‘digital’. Digital content will come into our homes by the phone, TV or computer through a blend of phone lines, cable, optic fibre or radio waves.
The complementary co-existence of public and private 'content' providers in Australia must to be maintained in the public interest. Australia's international reputation for being producers of world class digital content such as video, multimedia, graphic art, music and on-line news, just to name a few, represents an opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.
Our telecommunications network currently underpins this digital infrastructure. Keeping Telstra in public hands makes sense if participation in the information society, industry development and jobs growth are the focus of government. We can make Telstra work for Australians. This is one of many important reasons why Labor will not sell any more of Telstra.
Labor will leverage information technology to enable the community to participate creatively and productively in the information society, with the aim of enhancing the quality of life for all Australians and improving our social, cultural and economic position and potential.
Our policy for an information society has four foundations:
| ACCESS to new information networks like the Internet and other converging digital services should be fair and affordable. |
| PARTICIPATION in the information society through opportunity in education, community, work and home environments. |
| INNOVATION and creativity represent some of Australia's greatest strengths: we must foster them and recognise our human resource as an immensely valuable national asset. |
| INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT requires a coordinated, strategic approach by government and industry, utilising all our strengths whilst removing barriers to growth. |
In government, Labor will meet the challenge of taking government to the kitchen table. Labor has learnt to listen. The convergence of media, telecommunications and the Internet presents a unique opportunity for government to re-engage in a conversation with the citizens of Australia. Labor's policies will ensure that this opportunity won't be restricted to a privileged few.
For the community to be trusting, the privacy of all Australians needs to be protected. The government must ensure personal information held by government, for example tax or health records, is secure and remains the property of the government. Labor recognises and values the institutional knowledge contained within the public sector and respects their capability to manage these issues.
Labor recognises that for a government to be both genuinely representative of Australians and an effective administrator, we need to move government beyond being arbitrators of competing private interests and provide the vision for a better future.
The Australian people and Australian industry in concert with a Labor government can build a nation that can employ its youth, reward Australians for their efforts and protect the disadvantaged. Labor will plan and manage an information society that will deliver a future to Australia. We deserve it.
I would like to begin with a quote:
We are living at a time of profound change. The introduction of new information and communication technologies is having far reaching effects on individuals, on organisations and on nation states.
It is changing the ways in which we work, learn and play; changing the relationships between individuals and the state; changing the nature of business and commerce; and, in the long run, it will change fundamentally the characteristics of cultures that have evolved over centuries.
Nick Moore
Neo-liberal or dirigiste? Policies for an information society.
An appreciation of the depth of change evoked by Moore’s words creates a rather intimidating challenge for policy makers everywhere. These issues require analysis, understanding and ultimately decisive, timely action when and if required. Such action by decision-makers in society must ensure that the public interest is served through the process of change.
For all of you, these decisions impact on your ability to do business as well as play an important role in our social and cultural progression. Over the last few years I have met many people in your industry sector and have been struck by the understanding and commitment to resolving the bigger issues, those beyond the immediate and future interests of your respective businesses. The leadership shown by the Australian Electronic and Electrical Manufacturer’s Association has been welcome in the debate surrounding issues that will shape this country’s future.
This approach exemplifies the complexity of information technology policy. Industry development strategy cannot exist in isolation to the social challenge of the growing division between those in our community who are part of the information society and those who are not.
As a result, any information technology policy that seeks to have some relevance in the context of these profound implications articulated by Nick Moore must traverse a seemingly endless terrain.
For Labor, this landscape is broad enough to warrant a shift of focus, a panoramic vision is required to take into account the complexities. This multitude of issues are as diverse as the availability of venture capital to being able to vote for your favourite Australian artist in triple J’s top one hundred, on the web.
With the whirlwind of new ideas and technological change speeding up, it is not surprising that many Australians feel some concern. Information technology, particularly the Internet, is changing the way we live our lives: how we bank, how we talk to friends and how we follow our favourite sport! These changes are for some a wonderful improvement in lifestyle, but many others find it plain intimidating.
Everywhere you turn these days an Internet address is being advertised and for many this is a reminder that perhaps they are missing out on something. However, there are several factors that impact upon our ability to embrace such opportunities equitably. Australians having a remarkable willingness to take up new technologies, but less than 20% are on-line. Despite a growth rate of 400%, the richer you are, the more likely to have Internet access, and if you live in the city, you are twice as likely to have an internet connected PC in your home than if you lived in the bush.. (ABS)
This diverse experience of is recognised by Labor.
The opportunities exist to create a society that is powerfully positioned to make the best use of information services. Labor’s objectives go beyond the known economic benefits of a highly educated and technologically proficient workforce. Our objective is to reposition Australia beyond the information economy and into the information society.
Initially for some, this may mean getting reliable telephony services for the very first time. However, we hope that our vision for an information society will ultimately provide much more. The demand is there, and it is being heard by Labor.
The information society will exist in a period of Australia's development that recognises the value of our human resource. It is a period where the community, government and industry work together to provide the social and economic foundation for a sustainable future: a future where security and opportunity form the basis of social cohesion.
Opportunities in our education system and the community are essential if everyone is to exercise their right to participate in the information society. Labor is committed to addressing the current inequities and will work with the states in pursuing our policy goals.
The skills shortage that is currently bleeding some of our best minds will serve to highlight how much time has been lost as a result of many universities being deprived of their opportunity to expand and grow in response to the needs of industry. This is a direct result of Liberal Government cuts of $1 billion to higher education.
One of the foundations for a thriving advanced technology sector is a very cosy relationship with the tertiary education institutions. Bright ideas, a skilled workforce, collaborative R&D, such as Co-operative Research Centres and an opportunity for companies to invest in youth are some of the benefits in such a relationship.
Achieving high levels of participation in the information society also puts Australia in the strongest position to take advantage of the growth occurring in the information technology, electronics and telecommunications industry. This means jobs for Australians.
As well as having the status of the fastest growing industry in the world, information technology and telecommunications enables our services sector to be efficient, innovative and competitive. Australia has unique strengths that must be exploited.
One of these strengths is our IT ‘maturity’. A 1996 analysis of IT maturity was published in a Gartner Group Strategic Analysis Report. It ranks Australia first out of 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. IT maturity is described as a measure of how advanced and sophisticated those countries were in their use of IT within their governments and commercial enterprises, in other words, it was an analysis of consumption.
Although Gartner Group is the first to acknowledge the degree of scepticism with which this report was viewed, there is plenty of evidence that this positive analysis stacks up. Firstly, in a report by the Australian Institute for Public Administration titled The Knowledge Economy, the relationship between a skilled and technologically enabled population and growth in related industry sectors is well documented. The same publication analysed the positive relationship between R&D investment and economic growth.
Even more recently the United Nations Development Program published their annual Human Development Report. This year’s report examines consumption from the perspective of human development. Australia’s strength in advanced technology is clear, and the scope of market growth in areas where we have established track records can be found in the myriad of tables that form part of the report.
I will hasten to add that this report traverses a far broader dimension than an analysis of potential IT&T markets for Australia. It is unique in that it cross references a comprehensive analysis of consumer trends with the various stages of human development. It documents supply and demand trends, market accessibility and provides an extraordinary array of case studies to give substance to the observations.
The Report aims to provide direction to governments around the globe for sustainable futures. Not surprisingly information technology as an employment generator and enabling tool attracts significant space in its comparative rating as a clean industry.
It is this enabling capacity of information technology that gives our advanced technology industries a place of central importance in our society. Community, government and business need timely and accurate information to retain relevance. This implies access to high bandwidth digital infrastructure, in other words the Internet.
The last two and a half years were a critical time for the growth and development of Australia’s indigenous information technology industry – a time that was hopelessly squandered under the Liberal Government’s lazy administration.
John Howard promised to improve Australia's performance on industrial research and development. Instead he commissioned cuts to research and development support. These have caused a collapse in business research, with many companies taking their clever ideas offshore.
During the last two and half years nations like Ireland and Israel have positioned themselves strongly in the global IT&T markets as a result of strategic industry development policies supporting local industry development.
In stark contrast, the Howard Government has pursued a political and economic agenda that has left this sector of industry out on a limb. Australia has remarkable prospects in this sector with globally recognised strengths. There is a kaliedescope of examples of our success, some of which were showcased at last nights AEEMA Export Awards, and I congratulate all for their success.
However, with non-existent industry policies and an ineffective Minister, there has been no direction or vision. This is despite a range of succinct industry reports, including reports authored by Mortimer, Goldsworthy and Cutler, that consistently articulated a range of measures designed to facilitate growth.
The Howard Government ignored the recommendations of its own inquiry into the industry -the Goldsworthy Report. Instead it cut research and development funding, abolished the Computer Bounty, announced the sale of the rest of Telstra and denied indigenous firms access to Commonwealth contracts!
In Government ownership Telstra has used its purchasing muscle to nurture a competitive domestic telecommunications equipment industry. Exports in this industry have grown from $26 million to $505 million in just ten years. A privatised Telstra will not give the same commitment to developing Australian industry.
If you are concerned about Telstra’s future procurement plans, then it is well founded. We need look no further than the Liberal Government’s very own IT outsourcing program.
In a policy blunder of devastating proportions, the Howard government embarked upon an IT outsourcing program that excluded the involvement of indigenous IT firms from bidding for tenders. This mistake has denied the opportunity of many of these firms to compete for what are likely to be the largest IT outsourcing ventures ever attempted in the world.
By clustering Commonwealth IT contracts across agencies, the government has effectively determined that only multi-national IT corporations are in a position to tender and win. Any profit made by these companies will be going overseas.
The only opportunities for indigenous firms are as sub-contractors. This denies Australian firms the critical ‘export credential’ that comes when seeking export markets. The big question, the credibility test is: Does your own Government use your product?’. This very important point was first bought to my attention in the Senate Inquiry into outsourcing by an active AEEMA member, Geoff Ross, who took the time to make sure we knew what was happening. It was re-iterated last night by an export award winner.
Unfortunately, to add insult to injury, the tendering processes have placed massive financial and resource strains on small business and the haste with which the tenders are being rolled out, is making the task of tendering impossible for many.
To make matters worse, the original savings that the Government used to justify their outsourcing program have not been realised. International evidence and experience shows that these saving may never be realised.
Originally there were claimed savings of $960 million over 7 years. These savings are now expected to shrink by up to 75 percent, largely due to the un-factored costs of large numbers of redundancies, failed bids and poorly structured contracts.
Another appalling outcome of the IT outsourcing program is the effective sale of personal data of all Australians to overseas interests. The Howard government has neglected to legislate adequate protection for the security and privacy of this information.
Arguably, this data is one of the most valuable assets held by the Commonwealth Government. To allow its effective control and management slip out of public hands represents a serious breach of public trust and as yet has gone unchecked.
The Liberal party have committed themselves to continuation of their outsourcing program and irresponsibly released the Tax request for tender just a week or so prior to the election being called. It is due to close late October. Kim Beazley had this to say:
"Fridays’ announcement that the Taxation office’s IT system is to be put out to tender lasting just ten weeks is a case of the Howard Government going too fast. John Fahey seems embarked upon on a headlong rush to mortgage as much of the Commonwealth IT sector as he can before the election is called, and he is doing so with little regard for the consequences of being so hasty.
I think it is time to call a halt to such massive outsourcing programs, until we know what the real long term impacts on Australian industry and employment are going to be. There should be a moratorium on future outsourcing of Commonwealth IT requirements until such an assessment is made."
Total neglect of industry policy and ad-hoc activity across a few government agencies have contributed to the strong perception that John Howard and his Ministers don’t understand the significance information technology in modern society.
Grasping a sound understanding of information technology and the implications for jobs and social cohesion has continually eluded John Howard.
The only bleep in the flat-line were Bill Gate’s big day out, talk of chip plants and of course a recent and justifiable fascination by Mr Fischer for whips and pistons.
They have shown time and time again that they are prepared to compromise important programs, like improving Internet access, to pork barrel certain constituencies and electorates.
Global trends and challenges such as the growing shortage of skilled IT professionals, convergence of media, telecommunications and computers, profound growth in Internet use and increasing competition in IT products and services markets will make things really tough for Australia.
Another term of a Howard Government will damage our future prospects beyond repair and we will sink into a global digital ghetto.
The information society is characterised by convergence: everything is becoming ‘digital’. Digital content will come into our homes by the phone, TV or computer through a blend of phone lines, cable, optic fibre or radio waves.
The complementary co-existence of public and private 'content' providers in Australia must to be maintained in the public interest. Australia's international reputation for being producers of world class digital content such as video, multimedia, graphic art, music and on-line news, just to name a few, represents an opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.
Our telecommunications network currently underpins this digital infrastructure. Keeping Telstra in public hands makes sense if participation in the information society, industry development and jobs growth are the focus of government. We can make Telstra work for Australians. This is one of many important reasons why Labor will not sell any more of Telstra.
Labor will leverage information technology to enable the community to participate creatively and productively in the information society, with the aim of enhancing the quality of life for all Australians and improving our social, cultural and economic position and potential.
Our approach for an information society has four foundations:
| ACCESS to communications networks and new information services like the Internet and other converging digital services should be fair and affordable. |
| PARTICIPATION in the information society through opportunity in education, community, work and home environments and the potential of a renewed relationship between citizens and government. |
| INNOVATION and CREATIVITY is one of Australia's greatest strengths: we must foster innovation and recognise our human resource as an immensely valuable national asset. The Marsupial Factor – where geographic isolation becomes an advantage and our products become global icons. We are more than niche. |
| INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT requires a coordinated, strategic approach by government and industry, utilising all our strengths whilst removing barriers to growth. |
In conclusion: a few words about participation. In government, Labor will meet the challenge of taking government to the kitchen table. Labor has learnt to listen. The convergence of media, telecommunications and the Internet presents a unique opportunity for government to re-engage in a conversation with the citizens of Australia. Labor's policies will ensure that this opportunity won't be restricted to a privileged few.
For the community to be trusting and confident of these new paradigms in communication, the security and privacy of all Australians needs to be protected. The government must ensure personal information held by government, for example tax or health records, is secure and remains the property of the government. Labor recognises and values the institutional knowledge contained within the public sector and respects their capability to manage these issues.
Labor recognises that for a government to be both genuinely representative of Australians and an effective administrator, we need to move government beyond being arbitrators of competing private interests and provide the vision for a better future.
The Australian people and Australian industry in concert with a Labor government can build a nation that can employ its youth; reward Australians for their efforts and protect the disadvantaged. Labor will plan and manage an information society that will deliver a future to Australia.
We deserve it.
We certainly deserve better than John Howard.
From a political perspective, the product of a Government is the standard of living that they deliver to their constituents. A significant measure in the qualitative assessment of that standard of living can be measured in the nature and level of services provided to citizens by the Government.
Those services are taxpayer funded, so there is inherent public accountability attached to their expenditure, and hence well established parliamentary processes for scrutinising how, why and what for, this money is spent.
In this way, political or administrative challenges can be raised at a political level, and a from a citizens perspective, via a series of statutory offices established specifically for this purpose, for example the Commonwealth Ombudsman
The nature of the privates sector corporate relationships is scrutinised not through a public parliamentary process, but through the courts, whose references extend beyond just relevant legislation and into common law.
Outsourcing government services brings these two domains together in an as yet ill-defined relationship.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman's report of 1997 makes this point:
""The ‘contracting out’ of services previously delivered by government to provide operators brings a new dimension to the chain of accountability. The insertion of an intermediary between government and citizen can confuse responsibility and allow buck-passing if the service is unsatisfactory or a person is harmed or disadvantaged by the contractor’s actions."
Experience has shown that there are many cases of the contractual relationship being ill-defined, and as a result, disputes often end in litigation. Contractual law between the Government and the private sector is an imperfect science. When there are no absolutes, it is often the party with the most leverage and the deepest pockets that prevails in any dispute.
It is a fair comment in my experience that the corporate culture tends to clash with the highly accountable processes that are second nature to public servants. Indeed, this contractual barrier has been identified as a major hindrance to public accountability -most often expressed through claims of 'commercial in confidence'- in parliamentary estimates and other comparable forums.
This in turn has led to simplistic measures of success such as the dollar bottom line, with service quality, accessibility and other hard-to-quantify effects being excluded from the assessment.
This whole debate is not new, in fact it dates back more than 150 years. Many of the same issues emerged last century, including accountability of public expenditure and quality of services, however they tended to relate to specialist services for which expenditure on necessary equipment etc could not be justified.
The recent motivations for outsourcing are, however, not limited to the demand for specialist services. They related more specifically to economic rationalism, where the fiscal outcomes of an administration or Government, take precedence over the service to the citizenry.
The political motivation for such an agenda must be analysed. Is it about reducing accountability, about shedding risk at senior management levels? Is it about fiscal savings and efficiencies? Is it about succumbing to private sector pressure to access new markets and therefore grow?
The Coalition Government's public justification for outsourcing hang off the claim that massive savings will emerge if services are delivered by the private sector. This is a convenient message as their philosophical rejection of the role of the public sector is served.
This argument ignores issues of substance, including the role of the public sector in our community and how services funded by the Government can be most effectively delivered to citizens.
For example, even information management, which was once thought of as being the fundamental role of many agencies, is being outsourced. I question whether the need to outsource this role exists, but while private companies are creating products that seek to establish new markets, any where they is money expended, there seems to be a private sector company to do it 'faster, better and cheaper.'
With respect to records management, the information technologies that underpin the service, are a major budget item and therefore attract attention of fiscal managers.
Information Technology (IT) outsourcing provides a fascinating case study into current policy challenges of outsourcing facing Governments of all persuasions. Outsourcing IT is not beholden only to the public sector, private sector trends also indicate a growth.
I find the definition of IT hard to grapple with. It is difficult because information technologies are an enabling service for some agencies, and for others it's what they do - they manage information. The distinction is not clear.
An analysis of the massive impact that strategic management of IT can have on the improvement in the quality, efficiency and innovative nature of a service demonstrates very clearly its importance.
Even in the application of economics arguments to the outsourcing agenda, the Government fails. This Government intends to race ahead and lock in early contracts despite little global evidence of consistent public savings. In fact evidence has shown a tendency for the fiscal savings to occur only in the first few years (if at all) and then the contractual variations stemming from administrative restructuring or technological progression not only eat into any long term projected savings, they cost government a lot of money.
Introduce the negative effect of locking out Australia's innovative small business IT sector and its dangerous policy. Australia's information technology trade imbalance blow out from $8 billion deficit in IT to $40 billion by 2010. This nation cannot afford to further disenfranchise our own export potential - which is our only hope of altering this alarming trend.
Therefore how we manage our IT sector, both private and public, is absolutely critical to our overall economic position in the global economy.
However, one the most under-reported aspects of outsourcing is the cost to employment and the social impact of such a fundamental change to the way many people earn their livelihoods.
This outsourcing agenda ignores the fact that many people choose to apply their skills and knowledge for the benefit of the social collective - through the public service.
The cultural difference between public and private sector workplaces may vary remarkably, but underlying the private sector is always the profit motivation for private benefit. The public sector on the other hand has a perpetual commitment to the benefit of all. These differences manifest themselves in different ways with different individuals and workplaces, but they have the potential to affect some people quite profoundly.
The potential for loss of employment is one of the most devastating prospects facing any individual and their family. The personal upheaval that arrives when your job is to 'be abolished', or you are told that you might have an opportunity to transfer to the new private company, if they like you, can potentially destroy people. This is strong language, but I don't believe I am overstating the impact.
Invariably, jobs are lost in the transfer from public to private, and sadly, often it is the savings from the wages bill that fleshes out the Government's evidence that a saving was achieved in the process. Never do you see a correlating set of costings detailing social security benefits, legal aid, health expenses and other costs incurred by the Government as a result of job loss and stress. Remarkably, even redundancy costs are not factored into the cost benefit analyses used to justify outsourcing.
The change in employment tenure can completely throw a families life-time financial planning, the education of their children, their retirement savings, their mortgage. The move from permanent employment to contract is not just a simple transfer. It brings with a Pandora's box of personal considerations that are completely ignored, both politically and economically.
Contract labour creates a transient, flexible workforce where experience and corporate knowledge are not recompensed with employment security. Rather the reward is (hopefully) increased remuneration. Skills are not nurtured, they are exploited when needed, discarded when no longer required.
Subsequent effects on a community can emerge in the form of an unstable base to the regional economy, making future employment prospects for younger member of the community uncertain. Government are forced to woo business, expending critically needed health dollars on incentives for the corporations just to keep the current jobs there.
Where is the public interest consideration in this current debate? It must be found, or we will all pay a price.
I want to thank the Records Management Association for the opportunity to talk about these issues. I know I have traversed a lot of ground, and I thank you for you patience and time.
In Sleepers, Wake! Barry Jones MP, former Minister for Science and Technology, wrote that capital, land and labour - the three factors of production - have been joined by a fourth: knowledge.
Information and knowledge are the empowering tools of today's society, but as Jones puts it: is this information 'a free good' and if so, what levels of responsibility should government take in providing an accessible information superhighway, as opposed to a tollway?
As knowledge and information are integral factors in production, control over the carriers of information becomes increasingly paramount to our future. If information is a right then access to the information highway should be freely available to everyone.
But there are those - like the Liberal Government - who believe information is a private or commercial commodity that can be sold or licensed for profit. Granted, there are sectors that can legitimately apply an added value in the transmission of certain data, however by ceding control of information to the corporate sector, the Government is in effect selling off one of the means by which Australians can create an egalitarian electronic society.
As the Howard Government begins the process of selling off the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, it is essential that we assess the role of information technologies in our lives - not so much to find where they are taking us, but to analyse who is being left behind.
RURAL COMMUNITIES & TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The most marginalised sector of the community in terms of the provision of IT services is rural and remote Australians. People who live off the main road understand the essentialness of being properly connected to the nearest highway. In the same way that good quality roads are paramount to country residents, so too is the need for proper connections to the information superhighway.
Rural people know all too well about inadequate services and infrastructure. The decline in rural banking services is an example: one in three major bank branches in rural areas closed between 1993 and 1996, rendering 600 rural communities without access to proper financial institutions.
Rural residents do not have access to the same support structures that metropolitan citizens enjoy and they must survive without the networks that underpin city life. If you live remotely there are often no friends or neighbours able to help solve computer or IT problems. Generally there are no training courses, help desks or even computer stores that offer the sales and service that city residents enjoy.
Unfortunately, it is not just rural people who are unable to drive on the superhighway. Older Australians, Aboriginal Australians and those on lower incomes are similarly marginalised. About 60% of Australians on rural and remote settlements are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and this Government is certainly not addressing their telecommunication needs.
I recently came across a report confirming that rural Australians need a world class telephone system, television, radio, fax, e-mail, and a quality postal service just to be part of today's world. Rural people will laugh at this. Many of them are struggling to access a proper telephone system, let alone e-mail and the Internet.
The information superhighway is not yet a reality for country people, however it is a paradox that electronic services deliver information essential for rural residents; for instance, data about primary industries, weather reports, legal services, stock markets and new product and marketing opportunities and so on.
The principle goal of the federal Government should therefore be to ensure that rural consumers have the same telecommunications and information opportunities as city residents.
A recent study into rural and remote consumers found that while 30% of rural consumers own a computer, 90% of these had never accessed the Internet. Such low Internet usage is attributed to the high STD rates that are charged to rural consumers. This analysis concluded that Australians living in rural areas feel they are disadvantaged when compared to their city counterparts. They feel they have less access to goods and services, less choice and less consumer information.
The biggest obstacle facing regional communities is distance and time. In a society where speed is becoming the benchmark for progress, rural communities are being left behind. To overcome time and distance, regional Australia must be equipped with services that carry voice, fax and data as well as access to enhanced information services.
In reality, rural telecommunication users face congested and noisy lines, frequent dropouts and unacceptably slow repair times. Enhanced services do not properly reach rural areas and emergency services are difficult to access given the chronic shortage of medical professionals in the bush.
TELSTRA
For rural people the telephone is more than just a communications device. It is needed to maintain family and community relationships that would otherwise not exist. It is often the only means of communicating with the outside world. This is why the previous Labor government used Telstra (and Telecom) to cross-subsidise rural telecommunications services.
The Rural and Remote Area Program, which Telecom ran from 1984 to 1992, allowed the national carrier to expend $530 million to provide 45,000 rural and remote telephone services. In effect, each connected telephone cost $11,7000, which was a reasonable price by international standards. This Program upgraded the country telephone system to an automatic 24-hour modern system; however, it was never intended to carry data transmission services. Labor's policy was successful in that the basic telephone system was modernised, but the introduction of high-speed modems and facsimiles means the system is unable to satisfy these services. Rural people can use telephone modems but transmission speeds are slow and the high cost of STD lines makes it prohibitively expensive.
In the last few years a number of initiatives have been trialed. These include: Agrinet, Telecom's specialist rural information service; the Telecentres Program launched in 1992 to assist rural people establish and maintain facilities for open access to computers and IT for training education and business purposes; and CALM, the Computer Aided Livestock Marketing Service.
Regardless of the merits of these or other programs designed to enhance rural information flows, getting access to electronic services has by and large been available only to dedicated enthusiasts. Without strong government direction and influence, Telstra would not willingly provide the bush with the same services that it delivers to the major cities. For example, when ISDN services spread beyond the city, Telstra's policy was to provide services only where a sustainable customer base was evident. Later, the arrival of optical fibre cable was met with a similar approach - access would be available only to those areas where a reasonable customer base was evident.
In early June, Telstra announced a satellite service for the bush, however users will pay $1000 in up-front costs plus $50 per month for Internet services on top of the cost of calls and ISP charges. This fee, which does not include mobile phone services, may increase if there is not a local ISP.
The philosophy on the major carriers is to use their finite resources to maximise their effective use, and this in effect negates cross-subsidisation because it is a constraint on efficient resource allocation. In other words, a fully privatised Telstra will not invest in rural and regional infrastructure and services because of the high costs.
In 1986 the Bureau of Transport Economics valued the cross-subsidy of rural telephone services at $500 million a year. To that figure we must now add the cost of Internet access, e-mail and mobile phones. Now the Howard Government would have Australians believe that a fully privatised Telstra will continue to provide a cross-subsidy, even if it costs a billion dollars a year!
Mr Howard thinks that thousands of Telstra shareholders will be more than happy to see their share profit reduced in order to provide for remote telecommunications services. And herein lies the inevitable conflict between government service provision and the free market.
Because Australia is uniquely placed geographically and culturally, we must never allow telecommunications (or financial) institutions to establish charges based on the costs of provision because that is inviting them to charge rural consumers outrageously high fees for services that most Australians take for granted.
And what of the threat of sanctions against Telstra if it fails to provide adequate services? A fine of $10 million might be a softer punishment than actually investing in the requisite infrastructure and service. A fully privatised Telstra would not be able to provide such high levels of investment without upsetting city-based shareholders.
Public ownership of Telstra ensures that it follows government direction in terms of industry regulation, investment, price structures, industry development and access. A government controlled Telstra also has influence over staff levels in order to ensure that rural service requirements are satisfactorily dealt with. Further, a government controlled Telstra would be able to ensure that rural mobile phone users are provided with a service, even though the cost of erecting mobile towers to service a few thousand people may not be profitable.
Since the election of John Howard there has been a shift in telecommunications policy. Telephone and data services are seen not as a right that all Australians should have, but a system in which the big players competitively target those areas with high volume of calls. Proximity to major telecommunication routes (ie, the eastern seaboard), rather than need, is determining Australia’s telecommunications policy.
As we approach the next federal election some Coalition members are expressing reservations about the Telstra sale given its declining service to regional Australia. The Minister for Family Services, Warwick Smith, who represents the Minister for Communications in the Lower House, said on 31 March that "Telstra's quality of service levels have been unacceptable for many years, particularly in regional Australia…the percentage of new services connected on time to clients, particularly in country areas, and the percentage of faults cleared within one or two working days of notification has also declined."
And Queensland MP Bob Katter told the House (6/4/98) that "There is no doubt that we [the Coalition] are going to have enormous difficulty…seeing those [Telstra] commitments being enforced. A mechanism for enforcing those community service obligations is vitally important to the people of outback Australia."
In selling the remaining tranche of Telstra, the Howard Government is effectively saying that the telecommunications needs of rural and regional Australia do not matter.
Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me here to speak today.
I want to address a number of matters related to sports policy and in particular touch on a few issues that are relevant to Australia’s sporting future.
An aspect I will discuss is the balance between elite and community sport. The other is the role of women in sport.
But I want to begin by talking a bit about the Economic Impact Study of Sport conducted by the Confederation of Australian Sport.
This is an excellent document. It establishes the parameters for any analysis of the economic and social value of sport to Australian society.
It also provides a comprehensive analysis of the Australian sports sector and its relationship to productivity, revenue and exports.
As the Confederation report emphasises, the sports sector makes a tremendous contribution to the Australian economy.
A Bureau of Statistics report released yesterday into sport and recreation brings to the fore the findings contained in the Confederation’s report.
The ABS found that the sport and recreation sector was worth $11.8 billion in 1993-94.
I should point out that while this figure includes gambling, the ABS did find that Australian households spend over $4 billion every year on sport and recreation – and that figure does not include monies spent on gambling.
The Bureau report noted that the economic contribution of sport and recreation rivalled the motor vehicle and textiles, clothing and footwear industries in terms of contributing to the Australian economy.
Economics aside, the Confederation’s report provides a snapshot of the nation’s health.
Unfortunately, while we are a nation of sport’s watchers, we are not necessarily a nation of sporting participants.
As a representative for the ACT - and a women who is an active sports participant - I was more than pleased to see that the ACT stands out from the rest of Australia with regard to sports participation.
In fact, Canberra’s male and female adult participation rates are well above every other state and only fractionally behind the Northern Territory.
Almost 40 per cent of ACT males participate in some form of sports activity. This contrasts with NSW, where the male participation rate is about 32 per cent.
The female sports participation rate for the ACT is about 35 per cent, which is approximately 10 per cent higher than the female rate for NSW.
The most satisfying statistic to emerge from the Economic Impact Study is that the ACT leads the nation in sports participation rates for children.
We have a participation rate of 74.6 per cent, which is a stark contrast to Victoria’s child participation rate of only 54.9 per cent.
Statistics like these provide a useful platform for examining the relationship between sport and the economy.
For example, a 5per cent increase in the rate of sports participation will deliver a net economic benefit of over $880 million.
Equally important to the economic benefits of sports participation are the positive flow-on effects that result from a healthier society.
The workforce benefits too, particularly in terms of productivity and the economics of occupational health.
Hence the relevance of these participation rates is that they provide an outline of how healthy we are as a people and how sport contributes to the economic health of the nation.
What these statistics don’t tell us, however, is who is excluded or unable to participate in sporting activities.
Infrastructure also presents a structural barrier. With regards to community sporting infrastructure, there are definitely a number of areas that must be addressed if we are to increase the level of participation and consequently increase the health of the country.
One area that must be addressed is the continued disproportion of male participation in sporting activities and administration.
This is just one of the many issues that are part of the unglamorous side of Australian sporting culture.
One way this gender inequity can be addresses is for the federal government to increase funding to community and recreational facilities.
Increased funding is essential in order to redress the imbalance of access and equity to sporting infrastructure.
An example of these inequities in recreational facilities is highlighted in a survey conducted by Womensport and Recreation NSW into the provision of football fields and netball courts in Sydney’s North Shore.
While there are 308 football fields on the North Shore there are only 284 netball courts – of which 116 are grass, and therefore unusable in wet weather.
Remember that Australia is currently the world netball champions and netball has the highest participation rate of any team sport in the country.
I suggest that if netball was a male sport - and the Australian men’s team was the world champions - then the number of hard courts or indoor netball centres would be much higher.
This is just one example of why funding to recreational sports infrastructure must be more balanced so that there is a consistency in terms of access and allocation of resources.
In the same way that access and equity to sports facilities must be addressed in terms of gender, so to does the need to look at the barriers to female involvement in sports administration.
Women make up only 11 per cent of national presidents of sporting organisations and they comprise less than 25 per cent of sporting national executives.
Women often face the same barriers in sport that they face in the general workplace. And, in many respects, the arguments I am putting forward today are the same ones that women have been pursuing ‘off the field’ for man
