LUNDY: It is the Howard Government that has so poorly managed the opportunity to develop the ICT sector in recent years that the prospect of offshoring presents such a threat to local employment. Typically the Howard Government characterises any challenge to the latest global business fad as "old-style protectionism" when in fact the case for offshoring is not only unproven but economic studies seem to fall about equally for and against, presumably depending on who commissions them!
The Howard Government has form as a dumb purchaser of technology. In 1996, it is rumoured that it was IBM that sold them the pup of "$1 billion savings if you outsource your IT this way". Taxpayers will continue to pay for that one for years to come.
So it is not surprising that IBM are in the thick of the proposals for some of the bigger offshoring exercises (eg, Telstra) with promises of bottom-line technology savings.
Regardless of the legitimacy of the unions' views on the subject -- views that Labor will always take into account -- I have been around long enough to see how promises for economies of scale delivering savings actually add, not subtract cost from the bottom line.
LUNDY: Why does the Government ignore the obvious and continued flouting of competition regulations by Telstra, especially given Telstra's "spin" that they responded to the ACCC competition notice on broadband?
WILLIAMS: In Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is responsible for investigating and, where necessary, taking action in relation to breaches of competition law. It is not the Government's role to take action against Telstra. The Government's role is to set the regulatory framework and to ensure that there is an effective independent regulator.
The ACCC has taken tough action with respect to Telstra's broadband pricing by issuing a competition notice. The competition notice is still in force. It is up to Telstra to put in place arrangements that satisfy the ACCC's concerns, and then for the ACCC to withdraw the competition notice.
WILLIAMS: Does Labor still believe that the Internet should be a regulation-free zone?
LUNDY: In contrast to the Howard Government, Labor has at least an understanding of the operation of the Internet that will ensure our content policies are relevant, useful, and meaningful to Internet users, not divisive, fear-mongering, and irresponsible.
For example, Labor has always argued that the best approach to Internet content management is empowering end-users by helping them aquire the skills and confidence for using the Net, supervising their children, and installing content and spam filters at the desktop as they see fit. Where is the support for this from the Howard Government? All I see is a funds-starved "Netalert" and lack of investment in fostering Internet skills and confidence in the community generally.
During the debate on the Interactive Gambling Act, Labor advocated strong regulation of Australian-based Web sites so that punters could be protected. Instead the Howard Government merely pushed all online wagering operators offshore.
Finally, Labor has to pressure the Howard Government into legislating at all for spam -- the one area that desperately and belatedly needed regulatory attention. However, this was one area that the Howard Government (via NOIE) advocated that no legislative action was needed!
13%
1%
