Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Australia and the Information and Computer Technology revolution

By Brian Anderson - posted Wednesday, 15 August 2001


In 1945 the chairman of IBM forecast that there might be a need for perhaps four or five computers. These days, information and communication technologies are ubiquitous and embedded in ever more products.

As a result of these technologies, today we have things like cochlear implants; vastly improved weather forecasting; General Motors shipping more computer power than any computer manufacturer – all to control fuel efficiency, braking, temperature in its cars – and so on. It is possible to call a 1800 number and book a seat on an aeroplane that might be flying between Frankfurt and Paris. We are all familiar too with what mobile phone usage can bring and it is even more impressive that you can just step off the plane in Frankfurt or Hong Kong or Johannesburg or New York and make a call immediately. And in those cities if you want to read The Australian or The Sydney Morning Herald each morning, you can, if you have Internet access.

Of course, one can envisage that computers will get faster and have more memory but is there anything more beyond faster and bigger? Well, yes, there is. In the future we can look forward to Internet access almost anywhere in the world, with a wireless connection. We can look forward to natural language processing by computers, something that will truly automate directory assistance or ATO interaction, and do away with call centres. We can probably look forward to lawyers pleading a case in property law in front of a computer rather than a judge – a computer that has moved beyond the storage or handling of data or even information, and not only has a knowledge base in it, but indeed has developed some wisdom.

Advertisement

You may have read that there is a limit on the speeds with which chips will be able to operate and therefore there will be a limit to this treasure trove of exciting capabilities. Know then that we will partially be migrating at some stage from dependence on silicon to dependence on biological material as very basic building blocks in computers, and then many more of us will permanently wear or have implanted computers as part of bionic devices.

The fact that over the past year there has been a reappraisal of the money to be made from high-tech stocks, especially ICT stocks, serves in no way to contradict the rich landscape of scientific and commercial opportunities lying before us; a landscape of Information and Computer Technology (ICT) industry itself, of other industries differentiating their products with ICT, and of all industries propelled to new heights of productivity. The information industry itself is in its infancy. Australia has not missed the bus; fleets are yet to arrive. Can we catch them? Can we dare to seek to drive at least some of them?

An honest self-appraisal is part of answering these questions. So how is Australia doing? I would like to give you some statistics. The most positive statistic concerns Australian use of ICT products.

There is no doubt that by world standards we are a leading user, in terms of quantity measures. What I am far less clear about is the extent to which this use derives from consumption, such as video recorders or DVDs in the home or mobile phones as fashion statements for teenagers – as opposed to use for productive purposes, for example, robots to build cars more cheaply, computers to control automated warehouses containing cars, washing machines, detergent packets and so on, or software to take some of the pain out of the GST for small businesses.

If you move away from use and look at a number of other measures, the picture is much less attractive.

In 1997 Ireland produced about $2800 of ICT goods per capita, while Australia produced less than $200 per capita. We were just edged out in the OECD league table by Portugal, approximately equal with Spain and ahead of only Greece, the lowest producer. You may be cheered to know that our telecommunications patents over a 5-year period increased by 5 per cent, but on the other hand in that same period, the US’s patenting increased by 61 per cent.

Advertisement

If you look at the strength of our ICT scientific R&D base, your first problem is to find adequate indicators. There are at best surrogates. One of them is called citation intensity.

It measures how much Australia’s published work is seen as relevant by the rest of the world. In the computer science area, Australia’s intellectual endeavour is rated by the world as having 28 per cent less relevance than the world average. There is no other area of science and technology in Australia that is as poorly rated by this measurement as is computer science.

What about our imports and exports? The knowledge intensity of world manufactured exports has been growing for about 25 years. There is a more detailed aspect about the pattern of the world manufacturing exports which is also important: high-tech exports have been growing faster than low-tech and medium-tech exports. What has been happening with Australia? In 1997 the ICT share of our exports was 5 per cent and the ICT share of our imports was 13 per cent. In the OECD league, that ratio put us at 24th worst, out of 28. Several years later we know there has been a big fall in exports and a big rise in imports, because our ICT industry has been weakening.

Well, is there a prize for Australia for doing ICT better, or to a larger extent? Yes, there are a number of prizes.

  1. ICT is a tool to enable us to differentiate our low-technology and medium-technology products from those of our competitors.
  2. ICT, if we did it better or did more of it, would enable us to export more high-tech products, both pure ICT ones, and those containing significant ICT; and remember, the high-tech end is where the growth lies for international trade.
  3. If we were more ICT literate, not blind, to use Paul Anderson’s words, we would also be able to make much more intelligent purchases of ICT products from abroad.
  4. If we were doing ICT better, and if we were doing more of it, we would certainly create jobs, many with high intellectual content and low adverse environmental impact, and the world might start to think of the Australian dollar or Australia Inc. as an attractive growth stock.

The prize is effectively an industrial one, an industrial one affecting all industries but especially high-tech ones, within which, as a very significant component, stands ICT production. Of the US economic output in the year 2000, about 8 per cent was due to ICT, but of the real growth between 1995 and 1999, one third came from ICT, much of it from ICT production and the rest from use.

Well if there is a prize to be gained, what blockers do we need to clear away in order to gain that prize, and how do we do that?

First, there is a set of blockers that have lowered Australia’s overall industrial research and development performance. We have had unfriendly taxation structures, aversion to risk-taking, shortage of venture capital, a UK-inherited culture sustaining a gulf between much of the R & D community and industry, a low level of technological literacy in Parliament and sometimes company managements, and certainly a lack of will, skills and incentives on the side of our public-sector institutions to commercialise.

Governments of both political persuasions started some years ago to address these problems, and the commitment by the coalition government in January of $2.9 billion to 'Backing Australia’s Ability' is quite properly focused on the goals of wealth generation or other improvements in our lives through innovation.

But in the ICT area, some particular aspects of the situation have to be flagged.

First, there is the industrial structure. With the exception of Telstra and perhaps News Ltd, we have no really large players in the ICT area that are Australian owned. The problem with the non-Australian owned multinationals operating in Australia is that, apart from a few conspicuous exceptions, they all too frequently see Australia as just a sales target. We have many indigenous small players, and very few medium ones of the size of, say, the smart card company ERG or Cochlear. What the small enterprises desperately need is help to go global or even to be born global.

On the public-sector side, the first issue is one of balance. About one third of research and development workers in industry are working on ICT. On the other side, the government is spending only 5.5 per cent of its R&D budget on ICT. It spends no more on ALL the CRCs per annum than it is spending in grants to firms in the textile, clothing and footwear areas, for new plants and buildings, R&D etc. Figures now a few years old showed CSIRO was spending more on textiles, clothing and footwear than ICT. Also, the Australian Research Council, according to their website, awarded only one post-doctoral fellowship in the ICT area last year, although classification problems may make this an underestimate.

Next, there is the issue of the quality and resourcing of universities, especially in the computer science area. The price for the universities’ principal product – a trained Australian student – is not theirs to set, instead it is set by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). Economists call this a monopsony and they are about as keen on monopsonies as they are on monopolies. Not surprisingly, the monopsony power has led to a situation where staff members are leaving computer science departments in droves, especially the better ones, and the departments cannot replace them. The problem is accentuated by the quaint view of DETYA that it should be cheaper to teach computer science than electrical engineering, or chemistry. And so the official price paid per student is lower. Not surprisingly, universities are not keen on taking more Australian computer science students, despite everything you read in the newspapers about there being a shortage of trained individuals.

And this is the greatest problem of all in the public sector: its inability to supply the human capital that the private sector so desperately needs. Even worse, not only is there a quantity problem, reinforced by DETYA policies, but there is a quality problem among the trainers. This is why the decision by the Government in January to fund a world class ICT centre, outside the funding parameters of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has been so welcome.

Aiming to do for ICT what the AIS did for sport, there is no single initiative that could be more important in the public sector than this. Such a centre will need to create much human capital, and in particular train many trainers, and it will have to be staffed to a significant degree by people imported to this country. It is simply not practical to imagine that one could assemble such a centre from existing talent in Australia and create a world-class enterprise in the process.

To sum up: Australia must find a new path to ensure the GDP statistics continue to look great; a path which ensures they will look good, too, when denominated in dollars, euros or yen. Intelligent use of ICT across our society will be critical, but at the moment the amount of ICT intelligence we have is too small. ICT production itself can play a major role in securing growth, but we need to focus on growing our own Australian-domiciled companies, rather than hoping for favourable boardroom decisions taken in Tokyo, Helsinki or Silicon Valley. Such domestic ICT production has the potential to underpin trade growth, as mineral prices and Australia’s terms of trade fall off the bottom of the graph.

As we move towards an election, I hope there can be bipartisan acknowledgment of the problem, and measures taken to address it. For many of the measures are ones for governments to take. With WTO-friendly industrial support, and with policy and financial repair of our over-stressed education system, acknowledging the priority status of ICT, all Australians can share in the winnings.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This is an edited extract from Prof Anderson’s address to the National Press Club, Canberra on 25 July 2001. Click here to read the full transcript.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Professor Brian D O Anderson is President of the Australian Academy of Science.

Related Links
Australian Academy of Science
National Press Club
Photo of Brian Anderson
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy