Politicians are notoriously clueless when it comes to technology. Indeed, a Parliament House staffer once told me that it’s impossible to overstate their level of ignorance. But isn’t it time they caught up with the rest of us?

Last year I wrote about this in the business context, “I don’t understand computers” is not an excuse.

If you own or manage a business that handles information (and which business doesn’t?) then you must understand computers and the Internet. If you don’t, you’re incompetent. Yes, that’s right, you heard me. Incompetent…

In short, you don’t need to know the technology itself, but you do need to know its implications for your business.

Australia’s had a Goods and Services Tax since 2000. If you waved your hand and said, “Oh, I don’t understand GST,” your shareholders would have every right to sack you for incompetence.

Yesterday I wrote about this in the political context for ZDNet.com.au, Are clueless politicians holding IT back?, and as in my business-focussed piece I suggested a checklist for what I reckon they should know.

What do you think? Am I being too harsh? Or am I right in using the word “incompetent” here?

The ALP’s grand vision of a “clean feed” Internet safe for Aussie kids is meant to filter out — what, exactly? Labor’s pre-election policy [PDF file] seemed to give the proposed ISP-level filters wide scope indeed, blocking content “inappropriate” or “harmful” for children — however that’s defined. But evidence given to Senate estimates last night suggests it’s little more than what’s already in place.

As I’ve written in Crikey before [1, 2] debate is clouded because sometimes people talk about Internet filtering in terms of child pornography and other very-illegal “prohibited content”, and other times it’s about material as wide-ranging as websites promoting anorexia as a lifestyle choice.

Communications minister Stephen Conroy hasn’t helped by labelling free speech advocates watchers of kiddie porn.

Last night Senator Conroy confirmed that the trial of ISP-level filtering is on schedule. The contract has been issued; the report’s due back on 30 June. But what’s actually being filtered, beyond ACMA’s existing blacklist of about 800 URLs of “prohibited content”? No-one knows. A Ms O’Loughlin from ACMA told us they “haven’t completed discussions” with the Minister’s office about that.

When repeatedly questioned by SA Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham about the scope, another ACMA staffer admitted that they’re looking at expanding the existing list to perhaps 1500 URLs.

As Senator Birmingham rightly noted, “1500 still sounds like an incredibly small number to me, given the scope of the ALP’s policy.” Indeed. It certainly doesn’t begin to cover what might be considered “inappropriate” or “harmful”.

And that’s about as deep as the probe was thrust. One has to wonder just how big an issue this really is when even Family First’s Senator Steve Fielding made only routine enquiries about the timing of the trial, and everyone else was more concerned about Telstra turning off the CDMA network.

If the (non-)reaction to the Howard government’s NetAlert program is anything to go by, perhaps no-one cares.

Conroy confirmed the weekend news that even after a $22M advertising blitz, only 144,088 taxpayer-funded filters were installed — nowhere near the target 1.4 million — and just 29,000 of them are still in use. A question from ALP Senator Ruth Webber elicited that the NetAlert call centre, still operating 8am to 10pm seven days a week, receives just 20 to 40 calls a day.

[Update 20 February 2008: This article was originally written for Crikey, who published it today under the title Labor's dream of kid-friendly internet is flawed.]

My observations — in between other work, so this isn’t representative:

• Senator Stephen Conroy’s little joke of re-reading the PM’s statement about pay restraint whenever anyone asked about executive salaries wore thin. Please, just have the spine to say, “No, I won’t be making a separate statement.”
• Senator Simon Birmingham wasted time asking the head of SBS questions whose answers could have easily been found on their website or in their annual report. Maybe you should organise a coffee with him or a staff member to catch up on these basics.
• Senator Eric Abetz had a detailed list of quite specific questions for Australia Post. It’s precisely this kind of forensic examination which gives Senate Estimates such importance to our democracy.
• Senator David Johnstone was… no, he gets more than a bullet point!

Senator Johnstone was angry that when the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) awarded two new community radio licenses in Perth last month, one long-running “aspirant” (license applicant) called Western Sports Media wasn’t a winner.

Apparently some cricket fans were upset. However Senator Johnstone tackled the ACMA representatives with what I thought was inappropriate aggression — particularly as he obviously wasn’t across the details. I therefore fired off an email…

Dear Senator Johnston,

I understand that it’s important for Senate committees to rigorously investigate how taxpayers’ money is spent. However I thought your tone and attitude this afternoon in questioning the ACMA representatives regarding the awarding of certain community radio licenses in WA was unnecessarily hostile — particularly as you seemed to be arguing from a position of ignorance regarding the laws and procedures for community radio licensing.

I’ve previously been Station Manager of a community radio station, and a board member of the Community Broadcasting Association of SA. I can therefore say with some confidence that this isn’t the first time that ACMA and its predecessors have faced the difficult task of choosing between a number of worthy aspirants when there’s only one permanent license to be had.

Nor is it the first time that one of the “losers” has been running test broadcasts for some time. In the early days of what was then the Australian Broadcasting Authority, some aspirants had been broadcasting on temporary licenses for years — but temporary they were.

I can also say that since I haven’t read the details of this decision, I have no idea what the strengths and weaknesses of the various applicants were. And neither do you.

The two “winners”, an indigenous broadcaster and one targeting the ageing population, seem valid enough in terms of the communities served. But, as I say, neither you nor I have actually read the decision.

I am appalled that you waved the word “cricket” as if such self-indulgent activities as sport are automatically deserving of the limited broadcast spectrum.

If, as you claim, there were 16 thousand letters of complaint from the cricket fans, then this would surely represent a commercially viable radio audience. Perhaps your noisy cricket fans who formerly listened to Western Sports Media’s temporary broadcasts could put their case to a commercial broadcaster, or one of the licensed community broadcasters — or even use the Internet to stream sound and vision of their favourite game, just as I’ve been watching your performance this afternoon.

If there was a fault in ACMA’s decision as a matter of law or procedure, then by all means go your hardest. I’d then congratulate you for doing what the Senate does best. But until you’ve established the facts of the case, I’d have thought that common decency and good manners would require you to treat ACMA’s representatives politely and with respect.

Regards,

Stilgherrian

Naturally I will publish any response I receive.

[Update: Here's a great example of how numbers get twisted. According to Western Sports Media's website, they received a total of 16,000 "emails and letters of support" across 6 weeks as part of their license application. While that certainly shows a significant level of community support, it's certainly not the same thing as "16 thousand complaints" at not winning.]