Learn from the mistakes of others

Crow beaters

Meanwhile, the South Australian Government is copping flak from the local ICT industry. The Government, which once outsourced its whole IT operations to EDS, is a potentially sweet honey pot for the lucky players who are picking up a piece of the action. However, the local ICT industry, which wants a slice of the $500 million-a-year pie, is up in arms over what it believes is a purchasing system heavily weighted in favour of large multinationals.

The ICT Council for South Australia, which represents 1200 companies, has called on the state's Labor government to support local players by removing the uncapped liability clause from its contracts. The council's chairman, David Raffen, says uncapped liability is a barrier for local companies and favours multinationals whose solutions may be inferior. He says while the South Australian Government happily gives contracts to overseas vendors with no local connections, Australian companies venturing abroad find it difficult to explain to potential clients why their own government is not a customer.

Sadly, this is nothing new. In the 20 years since we started reporting on the Australian ICT industry, the nation's ICT trade deficit has grown to more than $20 billion and the main culprits have been our own state and federal governments, who account for almost half the ICT spend in Australia each year.

Successive state and federal governments have at times tried to tackle the problem but there seems to be a peculiar, self-abasing purchasing culture within government agencies that believes that multinational equals big and big equals good, while local equals small and small equals bad. For what it's worth, we would like to add our voice to that of the ICT Council for South Australia and ask all Australian governments to correct their past ICT purchasing mistakes.

Stan Beer <stanbeer@itwire.com.au>
May 2, 2006

Crow beaters

Meanwhile, the South Australian Government is copping flak from the local ICT industry. The Government, which once outsourced its whole IT operations to EDS, is a potentially sweet honey pot for the lucky players who are picking up a piece of the action. However, the local ICT industry, which wants a slice of the $500 million-a-year pie, is up in arms over what it believes is a purchasing system heavily weighted in favour of large multinationals.

The ICT Council for South Australia, which represents 1200 companies, has called on the state's Labor government to support local players by removing the uncapped liability clause from its contracts. The council's chairman, David Raffen, says uncapped liability is a barrier for local companies and favours multinationals whose solutions may be inferior. He says while the South Australian Government happily gives contracts to overseas vendors with no local connections, Australian companies venturing abroad find it difficult to explain to potential clients why their own government is not a customer.

Sadly, this is nothing new. In the 20 years since we started reporting on the Australian ICT industry, the nation's ICT trade deficit has grown to more than $20 billion and the main culprits have been our own state and federal governments, who account for almost half the ICT spend in Australia each year.

Successive state and federal governments have at times tried to tackle the problem but there seems to be a peculiar, self-abasing purchasing culture within government agencies that believes that multinational equals big and big equals good, while local equals small and small equals bad. For what it's worth, we would like to add our voice to that of the ICT Council for South Australia and ask all Australian governments to correct their past ICT purchasing mistakes.

Stan Beer <stanbeer@itwire.com.au>
May 2, 2006

I was interviewed for a maybe job, as a lawyer in a government department. I think I might enjoy this in-house counsel gig, if it comes to pass. At the moment, if things come together, I will be working from mid-May to the end of June - though the job has scope to go further, budgeting etc have not been finalised for the next Financial Year. It is possible that it could become ongoing. The job is at ASO5 level, which is not to be dismissed lightly (pay scale starts at AU$55,100).

The position will be autonomous, though part of a small team. I'll either be preparing briefs from investigations to go to the Crown Solicitor's Office or advising investigators regarding evidence and other legal matters regarding investigations.

All this under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (SA) [mostly].

I was interviewed for a maybe job, as a lawyer in a government department. I think I might enjoy this in-house counsel gig, if it comes to pass. At the moment, if things come together, I will be working from mid-May to the end of June - though the job has scope to go further, budgeting etc have not been finalised for the next Financial Year. It is possible that it could become ongoing. The job is at ASO5 level, which is not to be dismissed lightly (pay scale starts at AU$55,100).

The position will be autonomous, though part of a small team. I'll either be preparing briefs from investigations to go to the Crown Solicitor's Office or advising investigators regarding evidence and other legal matters regarding investigations.

All this under the Occupational Health & Safety Act (SA) [mostly].

Four simple actions are needed in any partnership deal. First, an independent board must review all partnerships options. The reviewers must be people with expertise in the field who have been appointed for terms longer than an election cycle. Second, an external contractor, not a consultant hired by the investment banker, must review the feasibility of the project. Third, a fund to protect against default must be set up. And, finally, it is wise to enter into projects that are part of a longer-term strategy, such as the City of Cities Strategy, and are part of a bipartisan long-term contract to protect the assets from political manoeuvring.

Four simple actions are needed in any partnership deal. First, an independent board must review all partnerships options. The reviewers must be people with expertise in the field who have been appointed for terms longer than an election cycle. Second, an external contractor, not a consultant hired by the investment banker, must review the feasibility of the project. Third, a fund to protect against default must be set up. And, finally, it is wise to enter into projects that are part of a longer-term strategy, such as the City of Cities Strategy, and are part of a bipartisan long-term contract to protect the assets from political manoeuvring.

MARENC Speech Notes

Mr. Ross Cameron, MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services
To Open the Marriage and Relationship Educators' National Conference (MARENC)
Lincoln College, Adelaide
Friday 26 September 2003

MARENC Speech Notes

Mr. Ross Cameron, MP
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family and Community Services
To Open the Marriage and Relationship Educators' National Conference (MARENC)
Lincoln College, Adelaide
Friday 26 September 2003

since the electorate finished the emasculation of opposition in the federal arena at the last election, the coalition gets to have its cake, and eat it too.

there is genuine disquiet among the general membership of both houses of parliament, but the realities of party politics leaves little room for real dissent.

at the end of the day, the howard coalition have control of both houses, and can pretty much do whatever they like. howard and his inner team are savvy enough to know that they need to look strong and in control, without appearing to be completely arrogant. allowing backbenchers to mirror the concerns of their electorates allows those members to look strong to the people who vote, while still maintaining the appearance of party unity.

it's a win-win for our glorious leaders™, and it has the added benefit of taking the wind out of everyone else's sails.

unless, and until, the labor party - or anyone else - gets a grip on the way the game is being played now, and presents a coherent and believable alternative position, little will change. and in any event, the howard camp have several years of political domination ahead to get us used to the new program™ as they roll out massive social changes, one after the other.

since the electorate finished the emasculation of opposition in the federal arena at the last election, the coalition gets to have its cake, and eat it too.

there is genuine disquiet among the general membership of both houses of parliament, but the realities of party politics leaves little room for real dissent.

at the end of the day, the howard coalition have control of both houses, and can pretty much do whatever they like. howard and his inner team are savvy enough to know that they need to look strong and in control, without appearing to be completely arrogant. allowing backbenchers to mirror the concerns of their electorates allows those members to look strong to the people who vote, while still maintaining the appearance of party unity.

it's a win-win for our glorious leaders™, and it has the added benefit of taking the wind out of everyone else's sails.

unless, and until, the labor party - or anyone else - gets a grip on the way the game is being played now, and presents a coherent and believable alternative position, little will change. and in any event, the howard camp have several years of political domination ahead to get us used to the new program™ as they roll out massive social changes, one after the other.