If you are working for the government then you are likely to cringe when you hear this. I have a pile of letters, small, but a constant turnover that sits on my mantelpiece waiting for the moment I get my act together and find the time to address their requests.
Having opened one of its sort before—and forgetting numerous times to reply—I have known for a long while that about five of those letters, forwarded from an old address, are from the Australian Electoral Commission, wanting my new address (on going to print I finally posted this one off!).
In the time the letters have been piling up (and really, I am not half as lazy as many other householders I know out there) I have visited Medicare about three times—on the first occasion I changed my address, and every time after this confirmed my place of residence.
It is not that I have no respect for the electoral commission and their request—I really do value my right to vote—but hey, who really needs me to do the leg work when I am so busy (standing in line at Medicare, or the department of transport to have my licence renewed) and I can always leave it to the last minute, just after they threaten to strike me off the list.
If only smartcard technology already allowed for better sharing of information between departments then I would not find myself having to constantly update my government information. In some countries, such as Hong Kong, the smartcard is used so heavily that you can even update information by visiting your bank, which has deployed them for the added security with two-factor authentication (comprising of a digital signature and something only the holder knows, such as a pin).
This kind of technology could also come into play with electronic voting—here there is little doubt some measures such as this will be needed for security. But, as Brett Winterford finds out on in his article “Clicking the box” on page 14, e-voting, while offering some of the more marginalised in our community, and our voters overseas an easy option to take part in our most democratic of rights, is still some way off, though worthy of present public debate.
Another issue garnering more than its fair share of debate is that of intellectual property. The Australian Information Industry Association has had it on its agenda for some time and the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has also recommended that measures be taken to release smaller providers of IT services to government with limited liability, to make government contracts more enticing (see “Putting a cap on liability” on page 32). And, as Mark Wheeler explains in his article “Is that IP to go?” on page 9, the issues do not stop there. With IP having such a short commercial window, calls are also being made by industry bodies for government third-party vendors or contractors to have government election promises for more opportunity for commercial IP in government met.
What are your thoughts on intellectual property? How much involvement do outside contractors have in the running of your department’s IT or services? And can you see smartcards helping your operations, internally and as service provision to your constituents?
Penny Jones is the editor of IT in Government magazine. You can reach her at pennyj@derwenthoward.com.au.
Write to the Editor at Technology and Business
* All fields are mandatory.