When it comes to ICT, national competition does not even stop at the company level. In many cases state-based parochialism hinders Australia's national interests. The cases in point are numerous from train guages to the Murray Darling river system, and more recenlty the squabbling over which piece of the NBN will go to which state jurisdiction. 

Let's consider this in the context of national licencing. Queensland will be the first state to implement a smartcard-based driver's licence. Yet as certain as the other states are to follow, it is highly unlikely that other states will implement the same solution. They will be subtley different but fundamentally the same. Therefore, a national licencing bureau would seem like an intelligent national ICT undertaking. But rather than implement a single version, each state will be allowed to pursue thier own solution so long as they remain "interoperable". It is the modern version of the rail guage problem that took over a century to rectify.

The arguments for producing national licences in one place, like passports and consistent rail gauges, is that it derives millions of dollars in savings.  This is something that cannot be ignored in the current economic climate. At a federal level, the states already convene through Austroads who have successfully defined the necessary interoperability standards as evidenced by establishment of the Smartcard Licence Interoperability Protocal (SLIP) workgroup. The trigger required to move beyond interoperability for national licencing can be largely attributed to the technical requirements for identity based smartcards being internationally standardised (i.e. ISO). And as it happens this has also been achieved through the work here in Queensland. Why then do we continue to allow states to "go it alone", tossing aside the economic benefits afforded all states and territories to leverage existing platforms and bureaus for lower cost entry into the more robust national solution?

Today's policy asks whether a constitutional change to recognise and define multi-jurisdictional projects that represent the national ICT interest is achievable. So let me start this conversation by saying that the fear of God does not exist in modern commerce and for that reason the ICT industry is often treated with a mix of both awe and contempt. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the classic case study in ethical dilema that drives a lot of what goes on in our industry today.

Speaking at an AIIA lunch last week was John Higgins, Director General of Intellect, the UK's equivalent of AIIA. He was recounting certain conversations with Sir Peter Gershon and in particular Sir Peter's comments about the differences between the ICT industry and the Engineering industry. Gershon commented that if he went to the Engineering industry with a desire and concept to build a bridge across the Thames he might possibly be told that it could not be built, and the reasons why; regardless of which engineering firm he called upon.

First a few facts. 80% of Australian SMEs do not have an ICT strategy and most buy their technology from the retail channel on an ad-hoc basis.

Taking 1-man operations out of the equation, Australia has about 700,000 small business operators.In fact, the vast majority of  Australian companies are SMEs.  As such, much work is done in Australia by governments in support of the small business operator. On the flip-side however, 81% of the ICT market by spend is accounted for by the top 13,000 companies. It seems that the strategic thinking stops there as well. This policy initiative asks what kind of a powerful return would strategic ICT planning support at the SME level provide to the Australian economy? 

There is currently much economic research done on the use and application of ICT for productivity gains yet there is little support for educating the SME market in ways to plan, incorporate and purchase ICT within the particular requirements of their own business. Even the annual reports and studies to members from peak bodies such as the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) which represents over 350,000 companies, largely ignore the blueprint for ICT. Neither the AIIA nor ACS, nor CA nor CPA are national industry association members of ACCI whereas most other industries are represented. Instead, the value of ICT is communicated to SMEs through a steady national conference or training agenda from unrelated and removed generic training companies. But there are only so many seminars that a person working 80+ hours a week wants to, or can attend. And clearly even less time to implement solid solutions. Ultimately an ICT planning skill would prove infinitely more valuable. 

For a relatively small, but highly successful country on the global stage our national leaders take an overly complex and often ambivalent view towards the role and potential of information and communications technology. They do so because in many ways the government perceives that it is immune from any action the ICT industry takes. But we strongly believe that this is not the case and that debate on ICT policy should not be confined to the few weeks our policy makers spend on the hustings.

Beginning on 1st June the Naked Chief will be writing 30 blogs in 30 days addressing the topic of ICT policy and we'd like you to join the debate by adding your comments, queries and criticisms to the ideas we will throw-up throughout the month.

Grass-root ICT action and policy, far from the intelligent infrastructure mentality of telecommunications networks, or traditional infrastructure such as tunnels and buildings, is all-but non-existent.  Those ministers that do truly understand the grass-roots ICT industry, such as Senator Kate Lundy, still get lost in the system. Big T Technology, like big P Politics, is a theoretical practice. The realities of political application are much different to theory. It is why political systems are run by bureaucracies. So too the realities of technology adoption to technical theology.