Australian Democrats senator Brian Greig has announced his intention to introduce a private members' bill into the Senate that may see federal agencies forced to justify their expenditure on proprietary software.
"It would be a bill that would require departments to look at open source when assessing their IT requirements and if they do or don't choose open source they should have to justify it," said Greig.
He said government departments aren't currently giving consideration to open-source software "in any serious way". He added that it made little sense to spend money on proprietary software when open-source alternatives "may be perfectly adequate".
According to Greig, the introduction of a similar bill in the South Australian parliament last month by Ian Gilfillen, his Democrat colleague, had whipped up a flurry of lobbying activity unprecedented in Australian state or federal parliamentary history.
"The case, as I understand, is that Microsoft has lobbied government ministers and bank benchers in South Australia, which is really quite an extraordinary outcome given that we're talking [about] a private members bill for a minor party.
"I think what that illustrates is the concern that proprietary software companies have about the issue of open source getting exposure," Greig said.
Late last month, the Initiative for Software Choice (ISC)--an industry group representing Microsoft and range of other technology companies--wrote to South Australian parliamentarians asking them to vote against the bill.
Later reports quoted spokesperson for ISC Mike Wendy as saying that the bill discriminated against US software companies and flirted with the possibility that it could be raised in trade negotiations.
However, Greig accused multinational software companies of using scare tactics to protect their interests.
"The knee-jerk arguments against open source by multinational software companies is based on self interest and designed to create fear, uncertainty and doubt," said Greig.
"Our proposed bill will be calling for open source and free software to be considered on merit along with all other options when the government is making its purchasing decisions," a spokesperson for Greig said. "We're not advocating anti-US or anti Microsoft."
Microsoft told ZDNet Australia it was unable to provide a spokesperson to comment on the bill at the time of publication. The company today indicated that it was unwilling to provide and comment on the matter.
What's Microsoft going to say?
MICROSOFT: We don't think it's fair for government departments to have to justify why they are spending big dollars on our software, instead of using cheaper, suitable alternatives like Open Source.
Remember, while Microsoft makes a lot of noise about OpenSource having a greater TCO than Windows, they've only been able to produce a single paper, that they paid for themselves, to suggest that they are telling the truth. And this paper showed that Microsoft was only just better value for money than Linux in four out of five cases.
Compare this to the mounting piles of both official reports from governments, business and industry bodies, along with the mountains of circumstancial evidence that suggests that not only is Linux cheaper to buy, it's cheaper to run and it works.
I want to know why my government is paying for expensive proprietary software instead of using Open Source software. If Linux is good enough to run 14,000 desktops in Munich, I'm sure it's good enough to meet my governments needs.
I welcome any legislation that would force departments to justify their choice of software, rather than just saying "We think this is best".