The election is over. But does that mean we are stuck with the same IT policies we've experienced over the past three years?

Just prior to the election we asked each party for their take on technology.

We sent the same list of IT policy questions to: Richard Alston (Liberal-National Coalition); Brian Greig (the Democrats); Kerry Nettle (the Greens); Carmen Lawrence (Australian Labor Party); and Pauline Hanson (One Nation).

Is there any difference between the political parties on IT policy? Despite hopeful claims in some of the IT media, IT barely registered a blip during the election campaign.

And, not surprisingly, given the neglect in the lead up to the election, most IT professionals believe there is little difference between the political parties in terms of IT policy. Research by IDC found that 72 percent of business and IT managers interviewed for the researcher's Market Sentiment Monitor saw no difference in any of the major political parties when asked which government they believed would be best for Australian IT.

IDC concluded that neither the Liberal-National Coalition nor the Labor party fully understood and captured the needs of Australian business and IT leaders.

However, when Technology & Business, in conjunction with the ZDNet Australia Web site, conducted a survey of five major political parties, while we found a great deal of common ground, we also uncovered quite a few areas of lively debate, and a couple of surprises.

You may have seen the Great Online debate on ZDNet Australia. Technology & Business took this a step further and asked all the parties some additional questions specific to the needs and interests of IT managers and professionals.

Judging from the answers we received, a Labor victory in the election might have caused some shifts in IT policy, but the return of the Coalition means there will be little change, if any. Labor for the most part seems to concur with Coalition policies, but there are significant differences in areas such as regulation of Internet content, ownership of Telstra, and the role of the ACCC in telecommunications pricing.

By contrast, the Coalition seems to have nothing new up its sleeve, although judging from industry reactions to the Coalition's IT policies so far, this may not be such a bad thing. On the other hand, it means the Coalition's contentious policies--cybercrime, telecommunications interception, privacy, and censorship--will stay in place for the time being.

We've presented the answers from each party pretty much as we received them, except where some were edited for length.

How do you respond to recent industry criticism that the Cybercrime and Telecommunications Interception Amendment Bills are impossible to enforce, and place onerous restrictions on network administrators and security professionals?

Coalition: The Coalition considers that the enforcement provisions in the Bill are not onerous. Whilst companies are not compelled to report security incidents to law enforcement, it is only through the monitoring of incidents on a national and international basis that trends can be predicted and business given adequate warnings and advice. The Coalition believes that by participating in such arrangements and keeping informed, companies will avoid the impact of e-crime to their business activities and to their customers.

The reforms contained in the Cybercrime Bill will not be unduly restrictive. The computer offences in the Cybercrime Bill apply only to unauthorised computer activities. To prove the commission of an offence, there would have to be evidence to demonstrate that the person intended that those tools be used, for example, to damage data in another person's computer. The possession or production of tools for the purpose of conducting legitimate security monitoring of networks or detecting and preventing attacks would not be an offence.

Democrats: Industry assertions about enforceability are yet to be tested and we are skeptical of some of the claims. While the Democrats thought Cybercrime 2001 was a somewhat clumsy bit of legislation, the Coalition, Opposition, and Democrats all supported it because it was aimed at legitimate concerns and shortcomings in the criminal code.

Greens: Legislation must be realistic and enforceable. We support an inquiry to address the widespread complaints about the costs and feasibility of the CTIA Act.

Labor: Labor supported the Cybercrime Act through the Parliament because it is essential that Australia's criminal laws are equipped to protect the public and the information technology industry from threats to security and safety in the 21st Century. It is not anticipated that network administrators will be hampered in their day-to-day operation by any of the provisions in the Act, because criminal guilt requires an intention to commit a crime or in some instances a lack of authorisation for the action.

We support a review of the operation of the Act to ensure that it is not having unexpected negative consequences.

One Nation: The system is utopian in its ideals, it needs to be more realistic and practical.

Have the recently enacted privacy laws resulted in an increased cost to businesses and do you think they should be compensated?

Coalition: The Coalition is committed to avoiding unnecessary red tape or costs for businesses that pose a low privacy risk, such as most small businesses. The Coalition will continue to encourage self regulation in privacy, promoting Australian businesses to adopt sound privacy practices and encouraging Australian businesses to recognise that good privacy is good business. User confidence, particularly in the area of privacy, has been identified as a critical factor in the uptake of electronically delivered services, especially e-commerce.

The laws have been designed to minimise compliance costs. The Coalition believes that protection of data that businesses hold on individuals should be seen as part of their normal business running costs.

Democrats: The Democrats are concerned that the current privacy framework has exemptions far in excess of those required.

The main justification behind the Coalition's exemptions to small business from the application of the NPPs has been the issue of compliance costs. Despite this being constantly brought up as the major justification for broad-ranging exemptions, there has been limited evidence to substantiate such claims. The Democrats note the lack of substantial compliance costs or other significant difficulties associated with the implementation in other countries of private sector privacy legislation. Why have these countries implemented privacy regimes in the recent past without wide-ranging small business exemptions?

Greens: Protecting the privacy of individuals is an essential public policy issue. Businesses should not be subsidised for their past failures to build privacy protection into their systems.

Labor: Labor called for and then supported laws to extend privacy regulation to the private sector. Businesses that recognise that "good privacy is good business"-and protect their customers personal information rather than exploiting it-are more likely to be rewarded with the loyalty and support of their customers.

One Nation: Declined to answer.

Is the cost of the Australian Broadcasting Authority's Internet content regulation scheme justified given its effect thus far?

Coalition: Establishing consumer confidence in the online environment is a critical element in Australia's transformation to an information economy. While recognising that there are some inherent technical and jurisdictional difficulties in regulating conduct and content on the Internet, particularly offshore, the Coalition believes that there is strong community support for taking appropriate action against the propagation of material that may constitute a criminal offence or is highly offensive by community standards.

Around 75 percent of the illegal and highly offensive material removed under the online content regime has involved the depiction of a child or minor in an offensive way, including paedophile activity. Given the serious nature of these complaints it seems incredible to suggest that the government should not take all reasonable steps to restrict access to this material within the bounds of jurisdictional and technical limitations.

Democrats: The Internet is an indiscriminate medium--that is, one of its intrinsically democratic characteristics. It is also one of the reasons why this Government's knee-jerk attempts to control or ban access are so misguided. The Democrats believe the emphasis must be on education to promote responsible Internet use; we remain opposed to applying constraints on the free flow of information and ideas.

Greens: The current content regulation regime needs review. The legislation was hastily enacted as part of a political deal. The Greens recognise the futility of unilateral content legislation, but respect the needs of parents and others to monitor and control content access.

The cost of this current form of regulation is not justified. As a political stopgap, the legislation could not ever be effective.

Labor: There is a place for the sensible regulation of Internet content, but this is a different proposition from attempting to restrict access to specified types of Internet content. The Online Services Act and the Interactive Gambling Act use different legal mechanisms to achieve a common outcome: to make con tent that was legal offline, illegal online. Both of these pieces of legislation demonstrate that the operational reality of the Internet is not understood, or has been deliberately ignored by the Coalition. In this context, Labor does not support the Coalition approach to the regulation of the Internet and the costs of implementing a law that is ineffective is obviously a waste. Labor's view is that there is a place for sensible regulation of Internet content. For example, providers of online trading or gambling services.

One Nation: One Nation believes the regulation of Internet content should be reviewed in consultation with industry and government regulators to ensure the most appropriate strategies are adopted. We believe it is extremely difficult to regulate Internet content and that any regulation proposals must have the full support of the industry and take into account concerns regarding civil liberties and freedom of speech.

Is the ACCC being unfair to Telstra on issues such as wholesale data pricing and interconnect fees, or should it be tougher?

Coalition: The Coalition is committed to an arm's length arbitration or mediation regime to deal with commercial price disputes which cannot be readily resolved between the parties. However, in recognition of Telstra's dominance in some market segments, it is appropriate to keep some telecommunication specific price cap arrangements in place. The ACCC is an independent regulator, charged with arbitrating access disputes where commercial negotiations have failed. The Government role is to ensure the regulatory scheme is working efficiently, and the Coalition has legislated to streamline the operation of the access regime, to facilitate the commercial settlement of access disputes, and accelerate ACCC arbitration where required.

Democrats: We recognise the substantial domination of Telstra in the market and thus the crucial role of the regulator. The issue is not so much "toughness" but rather focusing on areas of national and consumer interest.

Greens: We strongly support the role of the ACCC in regulating monopoly or near monopoly industries. The specific case of Telstra is compounded by more than 10 years of telecommunications policy failure. [Telstra must be restructured] in order to eliminate its conflict of interest as both effective infrastructure monopoly and services provider.

Labor: Labor supports a more competitive Australian telecommunications market. To provide for more pro-active and coordinated decision-making, Labor will establish a new integrated industry regulator, Communications Australia, by amalgamating the Australian Communications Authority and the telecommunications division of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Labor hopes that the ACCC's decision-making process will encourage competition for broadband Internet services by allowing Telstra's competitors the option of providing just data rather then both voice and data services using Telstra's Customer Access Network.

One Nation: Telstra is in a very strong situation to control these services. The only way we will move ahead in IT is to make it affordable. Telstra should be encouraged to provide affordable services for all Australia and not just concentrate on cities. Cash cow services such as ISDN should be made affordable to all businesses.

Would you privatise Telstra?

Coalition: The Coalition's priority is to ensure more services for rural and regional Australia through its AU$163 million dollar response to the Telecommunications Service Inquiry. The Coalition will not proceed with any further sale of Telstra until it is fully satisfied that arrangements are in place to deliver adequate services to all Australians. At present the Coalition is not satisfied that this is the case.

Democrats: No.

Greens: No. We support innovative public sector solutions to achieve high quality services. We would support an inquiry into the structure of Telstra.

Labor: Labor is committed to the retention of Telstra in majority public ownership. Australia's national interest is best served by using the Federal Government's majority ownership of Telstra to guarantee the delivery of a world-class telecommunications system to all Australians.

One Nation: One Nation does not support the privatisation of Telstra of any of Australia's public assets. The government is selling assets because Australia is broke. One Nation believes that privatisation of Telstra is likely to result in more job losses in the IT sector, poorer service to rural areas and higher prices for customers. How will you promote the rollout and uptake of broadband services in Australia?

Coalition: The Coalition believes the most appropriate and efficient means of supporting the rollout and uptake of broadband services is through an open, competitive and technology neutral telecommunications regime. The Coalition also understands that the development of compelling digital content and applications will be a key driver in promoting the take up of broadband technologies by consumers and businesses in Australia.

Democrats: The Commonwealth must set targets in consultation with the ICT sector. Roll out of high bandwidth capability without significant investment in developing a strong local ICT productive capacity will only entrench asymmetry and lock-in Australia as an ICT consumer (moreover, broadband content will foster demand to drive roll-out). Of course, we need to do both. But we think the priority must be on developing Australia's productive and creative capacity.

Greens: Poor policy planning by previous governments has resulted in the current mess of inefficient duplicated broadband services in some areas and nothing in others. Restructuring the nation's telecommunications infrastructure is vital to address these and other needs. Some subsidisation of specific services in certain areas may be necessary to provide universal access.

Labor: Declined to answer.

One Nation: The Federal Government has failed completely in the rollout of broadband services. While many Australians are still struggling with dial-up Internet services, the government's broadband strategy has resulted in installation problems, companies promoting services that are not ready, carriers going bankrupt and irate customers with very little tech support. We believe that organisations such as Australia Post or Postal Agents in every town in Australia could act as agents that are not aligned to any Telco to facilitate broadband.

Will you use government procurement to bolster Australian IT companies?

Coalition: The Coalition is focused on removing barriers to Australian companies participating in the Government market, such as low visibility, uncommercial risk provisions in Government contracts, and risk-averse buying patterns. The Coalition will not breach its international trade obligations by implementing a specific preferential buying program based on nationality.

Democrats: Yes.

Greens: Yes.

Labor: Yes. We will adopt a strategic whole-of-government purchasing policy that uses government spending to achieve domestic industry development objectives, particularly in key sectors, such as the information and communications technology sectors.

One Nation: Yes, our preference will always be to provide jobs for Australian workers and support Australian business first. Government departments at local state and federal levels should acquire services from within Australia and from within their local areas.

How do you propose to stimulate ITC R&D in Australia?

Coalition: The most significant single initiative is the AU$129.5 million world-class ICT Centre of Excellence, which is currently in a tender process. The Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) program will have a funding boost of 80 percent (AU$227 million over five years), thereby providing significant opportunities for more ICT CRCs. The R&D tax concession has been extended to provide a cash-out option to pre-profit SMEs, which will be of benefit to young but growing ICT companies. The R&D Start program will receive an additional AU$535 million over five years to extend the successful R&D START program.

Democrats: Increased funding for universities, CSIRO, CRCs, pre-seed programs, ARC and DSTO; ensure design, arts and other creative industries receive greater support and prominence in our education and research institutions; change DETYA categories of research outputs in competitive funding models to better reflect the different modes of research in ICT; greater emphasis on co-operation in funding models to enhance development of critical mass in key ICT areasââ,¬"we must encourage an ethos of local co-operation for global competition; lift tax concession to 150 percent with incremental incentive of 200 percent for R&D labor spend; develop more fine-grained R&D concessions to ensure different modes of creativity are not excluded from support; extend and simplify R&D Start and other grants schemes for business; extend tax concessions and incentives, such as is offered to film, to develop strong local production in creative applications and content development; and allow parallel importation of computer software in conjunction with strengthening anti-piracy provisions.

Greens: The Greens would selectively apply tax concessions and public investment to ensure that ITC R&D remains viable and vibrant within Australia.

Labor: The Knowledge Nation taskforce report recommended a target of doubling the R&D as a percentage of GDP by 2010, bringing Australia to the top of the OECD tables. Labor recognises that research, development, commercialisation, and the ability to create jobs and sustain growth from the creation of wealth is central to our future social and economic success as a nation.

One Nation: We need to create more tertiary education places and encourage Australians to participate in higher education. However, it is no use having a throng of IT savvy people with no jobs to go to. One Nation is committed to providing more funding for R&D through the Bank of Australia, which would offer low interest loans and stimulate the expansion of existing business and the development of new business.

Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved.
ZDNET is a registered service mark of CBS Interactive. ZDNET Logo is a service mark of CBS Interactive.