Gov role in ICT industry development in Australia (was: Budget discussion)

[Pia Waugh]

Hi all,

Firstly just to be upfront, I have recently started as the ICT policy
advisor to Senator Kate Lundy. Some of you may know Kate, she has had
a deep interest in ICT issues and policy for almost 14 years. My
personal background includes almost 10 years of working in the
industry, largely around Open Source technologies, and industry and
community development.

Anyway, the thread about the budget and it's impact on the local ICT
industry was brought to my attention. I meant to join this list months
ago, so apologies I didn't see it myself.

I brought up some of the concerns raised with the Senator and we are
both very interested in identifying blockers and new potential policy
directions to help with local ICT industry development, and would like
to get perspectives from this group, not just around the budget but
generally. Kate went to the US in 1999 and at the time wanted to
identify how the US was different to Australia in terms of policy
towards ICT industry development, but of course now she is in a better
position with more resources to tackle the question :)

We recently launched a new initiative for public engagement on
government policy and directions called Public Spheres (http://
www.katelundy.com.au/2009/04/29/public-sphere-1-high-bandwidth-for-australia),
and the first Public Sphere was around high speed internet access and
the opportunties and issues therein. We are planning in collaboration
with the Wollonging ICTI Cluster (launching tonight http://www.icti.org.au/events)
to run a Public Sphere specifically around local ICT industry growth
and development, which would result in a briefing paper that we (Kate
and I) can push through appropriate channels in Government, as well as
hopefully more informed policy makers and parliamentarians from the
process. This Public Sphere isn't announced yet (and we are planning
one around "Open Government" also to be announced soon) but we would
like to run this Public Sphere workshop in late July or August.

It would be good for this list to discuss what Government can actually
do to help local ICT industry both to get a clear list of what is
needed, and to prepare for the ICT industry development Public Sphere
which itself will hopefully flush out more ideas. We would anticipate
having a few portfolios represented (likely by advisors and other
staff) at the Public Sphere.

Please find more information by Senator Lundy on her website at
http://www.katelundy.com.au/ and it would be great to get your
comments on the budget on her most recent post which discusses ICT in
the budget (http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/05/18/whats-in-the-2009-
budget-for-ict/).

Thanks, and I look forward to speaking more to you all on this and
other ICT related topics.

Cheers,
Pia Waugh

Mobile: 0400 966 453

[mmp1]

off the top of my head....

a) keep out of the way ? seriously, thats a big difference between
here and US.
b) don't make it a crime to want to be successful ? To take a risk
people need to feel its worth it.
c) come to grips with the fact that 2 guys in a garage could start a
100M+ year company. Look at how many people Google and MS employ.
But it all started small. Stop thinking innovation = CRISO + Uni's.
d) stopping treating everyone like "employee's".
e)Get the senator to regularly attend The Hive gigs?

other things ->

f) be like ireland ? ie. offer intel (or similar) tax breaks to get a
plant here or something similar. What's the use of putting money in
things like Ballarat? Put the money near the money. Do we need an
IBM call center or an IBM plant ? A lot of the valley started around
the side industries. Ireland (dublin) was similar.


Anyone else ?

[Matt Moore]

One thing that the US govt does well is to be a major customer for its
technology companies. Does the Australian govt do the same? Whilst I'm
not a fan of mindless "buy Aussie" jingoism, Australian public sector
IT managers tend to be very conservative in their purchasing habits
and openness to experimentation is the exception not the rule (I
remember a 2007 conversation when I worked in federal govt where I was
told that of course we could implement a wiki... in 2010). Anyways
this support would be a drop in the ocean - the 2008 US Defense Dept
budget was about 3/4 of Australia's total GDP for that year. There's
another rant about the inflexible nature of government procurement
processes but enough for tonite.

Along with mmp1, I'm not sure that the "ICT" label is very helpful -
as that includes everyone from Telstra to the proverbial small guy in
the garage. It's like lumping Thiess and Michelangelo together in the
"Doing Things With Stone" sector and then trying to create policies
applicable to both.

However I have to disagee with mmp1 about Ireland, that model works
when you are a relatively low cost country near an expensive
continent. Unfortunately we are an expensive country near(ish) a low
cost contintent. And Ireland is now in pretty bad shape - Romanians
are a lot cheaper than Irishmen.

That said I think the Public Sphere initiative is an interesting one.
But it raises a question for me. What does the government think that a
healthy ICT sector looks like?

[Nick HaC]

A small input around my biggest pain...

For our startup, if we didn't pay payroll tax we would be able to reinvest in our company more and hire more staff.

When that quarterly cheque goes out, i question why i have to pay the government to create jobs for people at the expense of creating more jobs.

Just my 2cents.

Nick

2009/5/20 Matt Moore <innot...@gmail.com>

[David Banes]

I agree with Matt, the generic ICT label is to wide in it's scope.

As a director of the IIA (Internet Industry Association) I represent
the smallest (Cat A) members and I can tell you that 90% of the work
that goes on in the work we do is not immediately relevant to these
members, but does shape the landscape they work in.

Only the big corps, probably the 'CT' of 'ICT', that have a keen
interest in these issues from day to day exert any influence, and any
significant industry or government policy and investment tends to fall
out of this activity. I don't see anyone on this list getting big
contracts for the NBN rollout for example.

So what can government do? Probably just be clear about which
industries it's supporting and which segments within ICT if policy
says ICT is a focus. If the policy makers aren't interested in our
segment then we all know where we stand.

At the end of the day it's up to the founders of businesses like those
on this list (if they're not happy) to either change career, put up
with being a minor industry segment or move offshore.

Me, I'm happy in my own little niche in Australia but planning a move
offshore with a sales office opening in California this month and the
UK later in the year. The Welsh industry development people have some
good packages for IT firms moving into the UK :-)

David.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email Filtering by Cleartext a Carbon Minimised company - www.cleartext.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mike Zimmerman]

Great to have you on the Beach.

Education:
- Give visas to all top computer engineering or science students in AU
who are from overseas
- Reduce HECS for computer engineering or science students

R&D
- Reinstate commercial ready grants
- Tax breaks for R&D investment in AU even by multinationals
- Focus the massive investment in govt research into more narrow areas
likely to produce winners (eg we have 64 CRCs)

Funding:
- Increase IIF or other programs to provide more matching funds for
local VCs (sorry guys it's a VC thing)
- Tax break for legit angel investments

Companies:
- Change new ESOP policy
- Provide some free/ subsidized space for "top" start ups or help fund
some incubators
- Provide some kind of program or funding to get overseas experienced
execs as mentors / advisors to local start ups
- Make it easier for start ups to get govt or large corporates as
customers -- what about having govt give a rebate or subsidy to
corporates for budget spent with start ups...

[Phil Evans]

I think the key point is for Government to get out of the way. They
can’t help “do”. I don’t think these strategies need to single out
ICT industries either. I think any entrepreneurial venture needs to
be, and can be, supported in similar ways. I have a four point plan
for the federal government:


1. Faciliate Employee Share Ownership (ESOP)

One of the beauties of ICT, or knowledge industries generally (and
presumably why the government is so interested in them) is that anyone
can create a product or service with very little initial capital
outlay. The principle investments are ideas (free) and time (which,
as we know, costs money).

ESOP is a big deal for start-ups because they allow you to buy time at
a discounted rate with a deferred up-side through ESOP. This allows
you to get going with less capital and reward the risk-takers. This
is a whole different animal to ESOP for executive remuneration in
large companies and the changes in the last budget are, as others have
already pointed out, insane.


2. Remove or reduce Capital Gains Tax (the Tax on success) for start-
up ventures

Every start-up needs some initial capital (to at least buy pizza,
beer, and keep the laptop charged), and I think the Government can do
something here to increase the net return to investors. I’d like to
see CGT radically reduced for start-up companies as it improves the
exit position of wise individuals who choose to invest in those
winning companies.

The Government can’t pick winners, so they don’t know where to throw
their (our) money. I believe this was one of the issues with COMET
and, although it was a nice programme that did some good things, I
don’t think it was necessarily the right thing for the Government to
do and I’m not particularly sad to see it gone (apologies to COMET
beneficiaries).

The people who can pick winners are people who have already picked
winners. Profound, I know. People who successfully invest in start-
ups will likely keep doing precisely that, so let them keep more of
their returns and they’ll have more funds available to invest in the
next set of ventures.

For example, say I invest $1m in a venture, it works and I exit with
$50m after 3 years. How much of that gets gobbled up in CGT? I’m not
an accountant but my understanding is roughly half will go. Let’s say
I only lose 25% in CGT, or $12.5m. I’ve already proven that I can
pick winners, so why not let me keep my $12.5m CGT and let me invest
that into the next project myself. Then I don’t need things like
Government co-funding, I can go it alone and I have enough for an
additional 12 ventures.

The reward for the company owner would be along similar lines. When I
sell my company for $100m (a bargain at twice the price, offers
gratefully accepted) I’m not going to retire to a beach in Queensland,
I’m going to do it all again (but I will be driving an Aston Martin to
work).


3. Ditch Payroll Tax – a tax on employment

I have never understood payroll tax. I know this is a state thing,
but no-one cares – just get rid of it.


4. Expand the Export Market Development Grant (EMDG)

I am a fan of the EMDG. Australia is a small place, with a small
market. In order for any Australian company to do truly great things
they are going to have to conquer some, or all, of the world. The
EMDG makes entering new markets significantly less painful. There’s
still plenty of room to improve the EMDG scheme, but even without
changes a larger pool of funds would be welcome, with perhaps a
broadening of the expenses that can be claimed.


And I reckon that’s it. In summary: let me start something, get
investors, share my success with my employees, and exit with enough
cash for everyone involved to go and do it again another few times.

Regards to all,

Phil.


Phillip Evans • Managing Director • Evanscorp Pty. Limited
P +61 2 42258388 • M +61 408 422717 • F +61 2 42258663
PO Box 515 • Wollongong NSW 2520 • AUSTRALIA
www.evanscorp.com.au • p.e...@evanscorp.com.au

[mmp1]

Matt, like the last question

"What does the government think that a healthy ICT sector looks like?"

also

what did Kate learn when she went to the US in 1999 ?

[Viki]

Do you remember when Australia needed teachers (late 70s early 80s I
think) and we opened the doors (and provided assistance) to US
teachers who came here in droves to bolster that sector. Most of them
stayed.

The ICT sector needs global marketing and sales skills.

Innovative ideas are in abundance in Australia but so few are ever
commercialized because we don't understand marketing at a global
level. The thinking of an Australian entrepreneur is formed in an
environment of 20 million people contributing to 2% of the world
economy. Appropriate if that is your target market. Not appropriate if
you are attempting to build a global venture.

The government could take a parrallel approach to this problem;
1. Educate our university students to be global marketeers and
entrepreneurs (not employees) to address the future, and
2. Develop a government funded program to recruit experienced, global
marketeers and entrepreneurs to work with early-stage Australian
companies at the commercialization stage of their venture.

The elephant in the room that I haven't mentioned is the lack of a
venture capital industry in Australia to fund innovative ICT (and
other) ventures. Why? Because experienced entrepreneurs will find a
way to fund their venture.

The program I have suggested in point 2. above will cost the
government a fraction of the funds previously allocated to the
Commercial Ready program.

I congratulate you in reaching out to this group and would welcome the
opportunity to discuss this further.

Viki Forrest
CEO, ANZA Technology Network

On May 19, 8:14 pm, Pia Waugh <gre...@pipka.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Firstly just to be upfront, I have recently started as the ICT policy
> advisor to Senator Kate Lundy. Some of you may know Kate, she has had
> a deep interest in ICT issues and policy for almost 14 years. My
> personal background includes almost 10 years of working in the
> industry, largely around Open Source technologies, and industry and
> community development.
>
> Anyway, the thread about the budget and it's impact on the local ICT
> industry was brought to my attention. I meant to join this list months
> ago, so apologies I didn't see it myself.
>
> I brought up some of the concerns raised with the Senator and we are
> both very interested in identifying blockers and new potential policy
> directions to help with local ICT industry development, and would like
> to get perspectives from this group, not just around the budget but
> generally. Kate went to the US in 1999 and at the time wanted to
> identify how the US was different to Australia in terms of policy
> towards ICT industry development, but of course now she is in a better
> position with more resources to tackle the question :)
>
> We recently launched a new initiative for public engagement on

> government policy and directions called Public Spheres (http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/04/29/public-sphere-1-high-bandwidth-for-au...),

> and the first Public Sphere was around high speed internet access and
> the opportunties and issues therein. We are planning in collaboration

> with the Wollonging ICTI Cluster (launching tonighthttp://www.icti.org.au/events)

> to run a Public Sphere specifically around local ICT industry growth
> and development, which would result in a briefing paper that we (Kate
> and I) can push through appropriate channels in Government, as well as
> hopefully more informed policy makers and parliamentarians from the
> process. This Public Sphere isn't announced yet (and we are planning
> one around "Open Government" also to be announced soon) but we would
> like to run this Public Sphere workshop in late July or August.
>
> It would be good for this list to discuss what Government can actually
> do to help local ICT industry both to get a clear list of what is
> needed, and to prepare for the ICT industry development Public Sphere
> which itself will hopefully flush out more ideas. We would anticipate
> having a few portfolios represented (likely by advisors and other
> staff) at the Public Sphere.
>

> Please find more information by Senator Lundy on her website athttp://www.katelundy.com.au/and it would be great to get your

[Mike Cannon-Brookes]

Pia,

This is going to be a little controversial :) but I really think
handouts aren't the way to go. Welfare never created incentive to get
off welfare. In summary, you want to create an incentive for smart
people to strike out on their own, rather than join a big bank,
insurance company or go overseas.

1. As everyone else has said, the ESOP changes are just dumb. It
really hurts startups here and makes them non-competitive. Companies
leave our shores _on this one issue alone_.

2. Visas - I know this is a controversial issue, but Atlassian should
be a good example. We've probably 20 people on 457 visas and have
created well over 100 local jobs - but it is getting harder and harder
to get more visas, despite our increase in local jobs. This is
especially true with graduates. We are struggling to get the top CS
graduates visas, because of no experience. These kids are 22, smart as
tacks and _really want to build a life here_. These are exactly the
people Australia wants to attract!

3. CGT - taxing investments in a house at the same rate as a company
you have built doesn't make sense to me. Which is more risky? Which
creates more jobs and a better economy for Australia? Why is the tax
rate the same for people who start companies and grow the economy?

4. IIF / VC fund matching. Our local VC industry is very poor, but a
key plank in making startups and technology successful here. they need
help. This is a long term commitment but one that can generate a lot
of smart jobs - and stop the brain drain that comes from Australia
seeing itself as one large mine / farm.

m

PS You'll note that I don't advocate any different business rules for
startups. If other businesses pay payroll tax, I should have to to I
think. I don't like payroll tax in general, but it's not an ICT issue.
Keep it separate. Same goes for tax subsidies. And stay well out of
the way - things like incubators, and anywhere the government tries to
help actually grow businesses (vs create an environment for it to
flourish) is a bad idea.

PPS And if you want an example on the types of businesses that can be
created - in 7 years - starting as 'two 21 year olds in a garage'
we've hired over 150 Australians, put well over $20m into the
government's coffers in taxes and are responsible for around 20% of
Australia's software exports (according to govt figures) this year. We
have to constantly fight to stay located in Aus - it's basically a
non-economic decision for us at this time. If it wasn't such a hard
environment here, there'd be 10 Atlassians - but alas there aren't.
Make it so.

--
ATLASSIAN - http://www.atlassian.com

[Aussie Phil]

Great post Mike - you really nailed the core issues. It's not just an
ICT issue, but rather affects any small business or startup in any
industry. Small business is the backbone of the USA and when these
companies grow to be big, it's without any direct government support
or intervention.

I have a similar startup success story of employing multiple people,
deploying over 1million enterprise seats, and a great exit for the
company that rewarded the founders, with the government getting a huge
slide of tax on the sale. Unfortunately, it was all in the US.

There are some cultural aspects of Australia that need to change,
especially the tolerance for risk, acceptance of success, and
encouragement to "have a go". As a country we're not particularly good
on self-reflection, and automatically reject any criticism as
"unAustralian" (the ultimate insult that says nothing).

When we lived in Australia, telling people that we ran a startup was
generally met with "couldn't you get a job?" But I still remember the
first conversation I had in the US about how we brought a startup
over, and their comment was "that's fantastic". Our 20yr old waiter
at the restaurant that night became so excited that he was our first
employee after emailing us the next ask asking to get involved (true
story, and he made enough on exit to fund his college tuition).

For me a lot of the dominos fell into place after reading Donald
Horne's "The Lucky Country" - although more than 40 years old, much of
it is still applicable (and I can't for the life of me work out why we
didn't study it in high school, instead of US or UK authors). I
highly recommend the book, as it gives the cultural context for why
many of these attitudes exist.

Personally I feel we need to start to change attitudes in our schools,
and my dream is to make enough money to come back to Oz and found a
"entrepreneur high school", that would focus on helping youth
understand that they really can achieve anything in life by getting
out and having a go. It may be a dream, but changing the attitudes of
our youth is much easier than attitudes of 50+ yr old politicians.

Phil

[Simon Spencer]

Awesome post phil totally concurr and I think the school of
entrepreneurs would rock. Count me in.

Sent from mobile,

Simon B Spencer.

Eml: Simon....@gmail.com
Ph: +61404008956
Twtr: @nomisruption
-----------------------------------------


On 21/05/2009, at 5:00 AM, Aussie Phil <PHIL.MO...@MAJURA.COM>
wrote:

[Matt Moore]

At the risk of getting a bit abstract, Australians need to accept that
we are an "edge" culture - no one cares about us. Which is actually
great - if we can just accept this.

If we also accept that Australia is a small market and that to be
internationally successful, Australian entrepreneurs need to look
globally, then that means a few things:

1. We need to encourage the flow of people. I think Mike's point about
visas is a great one (but as an immigrant I would say that). The flip
side of that is Australians working overseas - which relates to Viki's
point about global marketing skills. If you work in Silicon Valley,
you make business, technical & financial contacts - which if you
decide to come back to Australia are invaluable. How do we make it
easier for Aussies to **** off?

2. We need to encourage investment flows & exports. Australia spends a
lot marketing its meat & coal - but not its intellectual property. I'm
actually not a fan of handouts (because then people spend all their
time focusing on getting the handout rather than doing something
useful, and the handout provider gets inundated with requests so makes
their application process harder, so people spend even more time
trying to get the handout, yadda yadda yadda) but what can be done to
make that export process easier?

3. Linked to the above, a senior Aussie IP academic told me that the
Australian Govt basically rolled over on TRIPS negotiations with the
US - apparently because they didn't understand the implications of
treaty they were signing. DFAT know meat, grain, coal & steel - I
doubt they have much of clue about software. And given the current
nature of Australia's economy, this is understandable - but it doesn't
sound very future-facing.

BTW Thomas Barlow's "The Australian Miracle" is a very interesting
read about Australian innovation in the past & present.

[Tagmotion]

I like Mike Zimmerman's idea of tax breaks for legit angel
investments.
And unlike VCs, angels are large in number, distributed & flexible.
They're also aggregating around (established and emerging) angel
groups in Sydney, Adelaide & SEQ that I know of.
Which ought to make administration easier (if thousands of natural
therapy practitioners can be accredited and a rebate system attached
to their services, surely tax breaks to angel investors can).

A little incentive for angels could end up making a big difference at
the other end in more deals being done, where more startups & emerging
co's can leverage the angels' money, connections, experience and
skills.
And not just in Sydney and Melbourne.


Andrew.

On May 20, 9:47 pm, Mike Zimmerman <mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Great to have you on the Beach.
>
>

[Geoff McQueen - Hiive Systems]

Also like that idea: they do tax breaks for movies don't they, so why not angel investing? One is a short term employer with a red carpet launch, the other is a massive multiplier with sustained employment...

[Matt Moore]

How about a version of Kiva for would-be angel investors? Spread the
risk, spread the reward.

Unless such a thing exists already...

[Tyrone Castillo]

Not sure what happened but wasn't there going to be a {{Beach?}}-
Combinator of sorts?

Don't remember who was doing the organising, but I think that the
discussions went offline.


TC

[Rai]

We got exactly this far: http://confluence.siliconbeachaustralia.org/display/general/Silicon+Beach+Startup+Syndicate

Last I remember, there were discussions about legalities and that was kinda it.

2009/5/21 Tyrone Castillo <tyrone....@gmail.com>

[David Jones]

I will respond to Pia's thread separately, but here is my comment on the {{Beach}}Combinator initiative.....I feel very lame about not resolving that initiative one way or another.

Three factors contributed to me not taking it further:
1. Rai is correct in that there would be $5Kish in bootstrapping compliance/legalities/accounting and if the community was only going to get a pool of $30K up, then that is pretty severe leakage/overhead. If we can get $100K pooled then it is probably a good reason to do it. The other option is to just hand the money over but we resolved that treating it as a investment vehicle was a better approach.

2. There is prevailing attitude amongst some of the seasoned members of the community that grants and fundraising is a bad thing. At some points that has become pretty heated including direct criticism of {{Beach}}Combinator experiment. That criticism disincented me (as an interested party) in pursuing it....if the seasoned members are not supporters then we were swimming against the tide. If you get a seasoned sponsor like Paul Graham, then these things snowball - legends follow...***

3. I have my own startup that needs more feeding and watering than a tamagotchi. So attended to that instead of #1, #2 - sorry about that.

So the net/net is that (as Rai indicated) its stuck and needs some bullish entrpreneurs to boot it along and resolve these small roadblocks.

*** Here is my opinion on COMET/CR Grants and VC/Fundraising: "they have their place".
Everyone seems to have an opinion: I've bootstrapped several startups on savings and cashflow. I've also leveraged all three of the above and have seen the distractions and merit. For example here are some merit-based scenarios:
a. If you are trying to solve a hard technical problem, then often you need a deeper funding pool than you can access from whatever early revenues of F&F cash you can source. It takes time, money and smart people to solve problems (let alone pay to protect your IP). Not all startups are about webapps (ahem).

b. You have validated your product but the aussie population can't deliver the revenues you need to fund launching in the US. You know the US will be 70% driver of revenues - you must go there. You discover your first US employee or contractor will cost more than your whole OZ team. Then you need expansion capital to reduce the cashflow pain. EMDG and Tax rebates are great but the cash comes 12+months later.

c. Sometimes an idea is before its time (startup by definition) - you need runway to educate/grow the market.

This is not complete but you get the idea. Should Grants/VC replace focussing on the fundamentals of your business? - nope. Are Grants/VC evil? - nope. Are they compensation for Australian environmental challenges - you bet. (One of the great gutsy oz innovator CEO's Peter Farell [NYSE: RMD] once referred to Australia as "Botswana" in that its a bastard to bootstrap a global business from here. Did RMD use grants? you bet. Did RMD use VC? you bet. Did RMD use F&F? you bet. "they have their place".

I will respond to Pia's thread elsewhere.
d.

[Pia Waugh]

Hi all,

Have had issues sending email from my laptop, sorry for delay, I'm reading
through all the responses with great interest, some great ideas suuggested.

<quote who="Mike Cannon-Brookes">

> PPS And if you want an example on the types of businesses that can be
> created - in 7 years - starting as 'two 21 year olds in a garage'
> we've hired over 150 Australians, put well over $20m into the
> government's coffers in taxes and are responsible for around 20% of
> Australia's software exports (according to govt figures) this year. We
> have to constantly fight to stay located in Aus - it's basically a
> non-economic decision for us at this time. If it wasn't such a hard
> environment here, there'd be 10 Atlassians - but alas there aren't.
> Make it so.

I'm working through the other ideas, but just wanted to reflect on this
point. I know a lot of Aussie companies who have had to move overseas
because of:

- local business/government/economic restrictions
- most of their customers of overseas due to 'not made here' syndrome
- can't get local financial/VC support

In spite of these and other issues (not least of which is the poor opinion
around ICT in Australia) there are many Aussies still doing great things,
and we'll be trying to do our bit to improve the situation. Thankss everyone
for the fantastic responses, now we just need to get our head around it all
and also prepare for a public sphere on the topic to help make it a more
public issue.

Cheers,
Pia

--

"If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it
would be a merrier world." - J. R. R. Tolkien

[Phil Sim]

Hi all, haven't checked my beach folder for a while so I've only just
caught up on some of these discussions. Just to pick up on the
combinator discussion as I was also one of the people driving this
forward initially.

We kind of got to the point where we needed to go really big or really
small. My instinct was just to go very small to get under all the
legal problems and at least get something rolling. We also really need
a person to become centrally involved who can do the legal stuff and
another person to do the accounting stuff. Until you have people who
can push it through those roadblocks its not going to happen. If
anyone on the list can do that please let me know, because I've
reached a relatively sane time where I could donate a bit of time to
this.

--
Phil Sim
Chief Executive Officer,
MediaConnect Australia Pty Ltd
www.mediaconnect.com.au
phi...@mediaconnect.com.au
Ph: +61 2 9894 6277
Fax: +61 2 8246 6383
Mobile: 0413889940

[mmp1]

Hi Pia,

I think a common (not the only one) theme to needs to be taken into
consideration with any response is government thinking "too big". I
think a few people said something similar , but this is a good quote
from a previous post :

--------- start quote ---------

Only the big corps, probably the 'CT' of 'ICT', that have a keen
interest in these issues from day to day exert any influence, and
any
significant industry or government policy and investment tends to
fall
out of this activity. I don't see anyone on this list getting big
contracts for the NBN rollout for example.

--------- end quote ---------

In fact, some of the government ideas are so "big" that many startups
do not appear on any radar ie. not one of 5 qualified suppliers to be
able to sell into gov.

Also, it would be nice to have an innovation policy that recognizes
that we are not building factories, or buying new SS utes . We need
recognition that we are developing IP. ie. our costs go to rent,
developers, hosting, bandwidth , some development machines, pizza,
lawyers, accountants and travel (any other categories ?). ie. we
need to create the ideas and then protect them.

So please consider any response in terms of the effected ICT segments,
instead of big picture statements. We basically want to know what's
in it for us, not what's in it for IBM, MS, Cisco or Telstra etc

When you say "public sphere" could you elaborate more on what this
might mean/entail ?

Do you have a time frame in which we can expect to see / hear
anything?

What outcome are you aiming to achieve ?

[Pia Waugh]

Hi all,

<quote who="mmp1">

> I think a common (not the only one) theme to needs to be taken into
> consideration with any response is government thinking "too big". I
> think a few people said something similar , but this is a good quote
> from a previous post :

<snip>

> In fact, some of the government ideas are so "big" that many startups
> do not appear on any radar ie. not one of 5 qualified suppliers to be
> able to sell into gov.

As someone who ran a small ICT consulting company and has worked closely
with many companies ranging from small to enormous, I completely understand
this. I have been on the industry end of trying for tenders and have larger
companies win with inferior solutions, I've heard ridiculous stories from
colleagues, particularly in the public sector, and it is certainly something
I personally care about. Kate understands some of the issues facing the
local ICT industry and also wants to look into this, so I'm hoping through
groups like this we can get a better understanding of what the issues are,
and what role government should either play or stop playing.

> So please consider any response in terms of the effected ICT segments,
> instead of big picture statements. We basically want to know what's
> in it for us, not what's in it for IBM, MS, Cisco or Telstra etc

Agree.

> When you say "public sphere" could you elaborate more on what this
> might mean/entail ?

We are trying a new form of public engagement to get feedback on important
issues to feed the ideas and policy improvements back through to appropriate
channels in government. The first one was a couple of weeks ago, and the
briefing paper will be out most likely on monday. Basically we are trying to
improve how government engages with the community by trying to find the best
way to do it. All the information on what we are trying to achieve is in the
details of the first event which also has links to the liveblog and
twitterfeed in the comments:

http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/04/29/public-sphere-1-high-bandwidth-for-australia/

All feedback to the public sphere topic is done in the public eye. People
contribute to each public sphere topic by either emailing/letters (which are
republished on the blog post), blog comments, or links to other
evidence/blogs. Each public sphere topic will also include an event where
short 10 min presentations (which anyone can volunteer to do) are streamed
online, and over Twitter anyone can comment, link, and generally discuss
what is being presented around the topic. This means we have two basic
levels of peer review, both on the web page (as people can comment on each
other's "submissions" and ideas on the blog, comment threading soon to
come!) and during the event. We believe this very public and accessible
approach will help ensure that a variety of interests are represented and
are a little more balanced, if not because they are in the public arena,
then by the peer feedback they receive. It also means groups will less
lobbying power (eg - the vast majority of small to medium sizes ICT
companies) can actually represent their own views without an enormous amount
of resources required.

This is an experiment, and we are in early stages. Feedback to our
methodology and such is _very_ welcome here:

http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/05/07/the-right-recipe-for-the-public-sphere/

The public sphere category on Kate's website will have news:

http://www.katelundy.com.au/category/publicsphere/

We anticipate setting up a wiki for future better collaboration on the
actual briefing paper itself, in time for the next public sphere which will
likely be on "open government", and will likely cover topics such as open
data, open political processes, and I would suggest interested people here
could bring up issues such as open procurement practices.

So we identified in our first discussions about important topics the need to
do an event around local ICT industry development, and then James Dellow
from Wollongong approached us after the first event suggested perhaps that
we run one there about ICT industry development. So there will be an event
in Wollongong in late July/August around ICT industry development.

What is entailed in participating in a public sphere is:

- post your opinions and links to evidence/blogs on the public sphere page
when it is put up
- comment on other people's responses to help us understand what is useful,
and what is wrong
- if you want to, you can propose a 10 minute talk on the blog post, and
you can either give it in person, or prerecord it
- participate if you want in the online Twitter based discussion on the day
of the public sphere event to again help with peer review and with new
ideas

We will then have the wiki page up with the basic structure and outline of
the briefing paper for people to contribute to.

> Do you have a time frame in which we can expect to see / hear
> anything?

Yes, we want to do our open government public sphere first, likely in late
June (to be announced Monday/Tuesday) and then we'll announce the ICT
industry one after that. You can subscribe to the rss feed on publicsphere
to be kept more up to date, and if people here are ok with me posting about
the public spheres on this list, then I'll ensure I send announcements as
soon as they are made.

> What outcome are you aiming to achieve ?

A great question! In Kate's words:

"(it) improves transparency and makes it much easier for people to
contribute in a focused way to areas of public policy in which they have an
interest or expertise. It also provides a mechanism for online and
transparent peer review of presented ideas, a powerful and important step in
balancing the many perspectives put to Government."

http://www.katelundy.com.au/2009/05/12/speech-for-cebit-access-conference/

In my words, we want to achieve a more informed, and more representative
discussion both with government (from an industry and public perspective)
and internally in government. We also think this will lead to more public
engagement and empowerment. Ultimately, we hope this will achieve better
government policy and more transparent and open government processes. As ICT
is a major interest for both the Senator and I, we'll be using the public
sphere mechanism for a lot of ICT related issues.

Big goals, but I think this is one area where we can't think "too big" :)

Cheers,
Pia

--

"Cowards die many times before their deaths." - Shakespeare