Submission to the “Revue of the Australian Government’s Relationship with Standards Australia Ltd and the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia.”

Introduction	1
Definition of a standard	4
The Standards Australia submission	4
Standards, a most valuable contribution to the economy	4
Standards and an ITU recommendation	7
Suggestion for a democratic program	8
Standards and the way of law	10
Standards, some examples	11
Consequences of voluntary standards	20
Politics, and being civilised	21
A program for improvement	25
The public’s dilemma	27
Power and authority	28
In defence of democracy and social justice	29
The Market Economy	29
The Hilmer Report of 1995	31
The introduction of television and standardisation	31
The stakeholders	33
Australian youth as educated	33
In conclusion, being civilised	36
Decline of Public authority over spectrum	37

Introduction

This paper is based on a working lifetime of international experience with the local and international developments of industrial, commercial and consumer standards, evolving from new sciences, materials, technologies and engineering, while initiating new industries, new markets and new social opportunities from emerging technologies.  These are major social and business aligned programs to establish new market opportunities from the relevant emerging technologies, products and services, for the potential industrial, commercial and social fields of radio, television, telecommunications, and public transport.

The single most serious and most damaging belief in Australian politics today is the promotion and expansion and even the education in our schools that social and economic “good” can be most efficiently achieved by “competition” between private “Market Forces”.  Therefore, with this revue of government’s relationship with Standards Australia, we must dig much deeper than this relationship alone to find the real cause of some very serious problems.

Every four years, the world is exposed to the Olympic games, standardised for the rule of law, a process to prepare from the masses, sophisticated processes of selection, education and training in secretive ways, so that the potential international competitors do not share this knowledge.  Our nation uses the sciences and technologies to develop a special human being and progressively sort the wheat from the chaff from the initial masses to produce one final winner in each event.  Each individual challenger, in his own private way, and by personal effort against each competitor, when a winner, is rewarded and publicly proclaimed for his outstanding efforts by the presentation of a gold medal.  In Australia, even leadership is now an Icon associated with sports.  With this globalisation of “Sport”, the media in particular, and financial institutions, exploit this activity!

A brief study of history will highlight that civilisation can only expand when this concept is turned completely upside down.  For the continual improvement of civilisation, we start with one publicly unexposed winner, a person with a gift from nature, one single mind, the producer of an idea, that when shared and supported by a democratic social system, is the catalyst for an industrial and economic revolution.  The birth of a child is the original source of any potential value that may mature to benefit future civilisation.

Only when the nation’s institutions and foundations effectively support the healthy dispersion and sharing of ideas and knowledge for continual advancements of our human capital, will ideas and scientific discoveries develop to commercial and social reality.  It is only when the knowledge from the sciences becomes intelligence for standardised and measurable progress, for education, that sufficient resources are available to support a program for a community, for a nation and for the enhancement and advancement of civilisation.

Other than a life support, natural resources have no added value to human societies without first developing the human capital that by public or privately supported scientific research, add values to societies.  When public foundations openly coordinate these processes and disperse this knowledge civilisation develops.  The social processes for this include the setting of standards and documenting the intelligence behind each standard for further open education, as a free choice for each and every individual.  Only then, is it possible for any of nature’s resources to become added values to a nation and to civilisation.

Human talents that produce new sciences, materials and processes, working as consolidated teams, when supported by governments and financial institutions, is the human capital for industrial progress.  The economists and politician who promote forced methods of competition on these talented individuals, as progressive, have no understanding of human culture, nor the scientific and spirited nature of being human.

For a government to accept and promote that this process is far more efficiently managed by private “Market Forces”, as now globally promoted by the media and economists, is socially irrational and illogical.  Alternatively, it may be a promoted doctrine, for intelligence to be collected in private and kept secret between a few to contrive private authority over public processes for private exploitation of human capital.  This is a process, whereby, communities, societies, and nations, and perhaps even the United Nations are subjected to private global nationalisation, not a process of social justice and democracy.

The danger is that this idea, this doctrine for those with most global power over information and financial management, that the public now with constrained public means for dispersion of knowledge and intelligence, will result in this doctrine becoming accepted by public opinion.  Steadily, the global “Market Forces” gain authority, via governments, over each nation’s political process.  The danger and the threat is that communities, societies and nations, steadily become under the authority of private global nationalists rather than the authority of a government that is willing and forceful enough to protect a democratic sovereign nation from exploitation.

The simple and by far the most efficient way to protect each nation as a sovereign state, is for government to be openly responsible and openly accountable for public knowledge, intelligence, standardisation and from this, the rule of law.

Forcing on a nation a political and commercial environment of “competition” (the Olympic Games process) and then deregulation (no standardisation and the rule of law) is confusion of ideas, and, with increasing frequency, expanding opportunities for devious behaviour and private exploitation.

This promotion of competition, self-regulations and privatisation of public support is an economic policy that stifles the very human spirit from each and every Australian from any choice and public debate of ideas and options.  It denies the public, the means to know why and even when to participate in the more frequently private and secretive processes between government and private “Market Forces”.  It denies producers and consumers to be involved in “standardisation”, social justice and the rule of law.  It is civilisation going backwards.

At no time is participation and sharing of knowledge, intelligence and resources more necessary than the launch of a new industry.  Sound public organisation, institutions and infrastructures must support the re establishment of government responsibility for leadership in industrial and agricultural objectives.  The progressive damage to date by privatisation, as explained below, can be repaired, for some, in quick time, others will take decades.  But only then, will the industrial, commercial and social economy have the human capital to resource the solving of major emerging social and economic problems, and then to expand to equal and excel international developments.

From this concern for the involvement of government with “Standards Australia Ltd”, the government will discover that it has a new and most exciting opportunity.  It is the simple re organisation of government systems and processes, to vastly revolutionise the supporting infrastructures to expand industry, commerce and international trade for Australians.

Government authority over standardisation is more essential than ever for industry, agriculture, commerce and trade to be a winning activity and a major contributor from Australians, for Australia and for the international progress of civilisation.

Definition of a standard

A standard, according to the Australian edition of the Collins English Dictionary: “An accepted and approved example of something against which others are judged or measured.  Level of excellence or quality, an authorised model of a unit of measure or weight.    Regularised”.

The Standards Australia submission

The Standards Australia submission in their executive summary includes:

“Standards Australia recognises that just as the standards themselves must change in line with new demands and new realities, so too must the system for their development.

The traditional premise that there is surplus industry and government expertise available to provide an unending supply of time and expertise to Standards Australia for voluntary standards development is becoming increasingly unsustainable.”

Further down, their submission includes:

“We see the future for the development of standards in Australia as evolving to a system based more on direct partnership between Standards Australia and those industries or agencies seeking standards development.”

Standards, a most valuable contribution to the economy

For Australia, the attention to these issues are even far more socially and economically urgent than already conveyed in the submission by Standards Australia.  The knowledge and intelligence that contribute to the advancement of civilisation is expanding at a continually exponential rate.  Unless Australia also improves the efficiency of expanding this relevant knowledge and intelligence and commitment to public standards and measurement for its deployment, the Australian economy has no chance of meeting and excelling the advancement in nations that respect and value this knowledge and intelligence.  Nations use standardisation as a discipline to expand knowledge and intelligence and the rule of law, for the progressive good of their sovereign states.  Deregulation is the removal of the public processes for standardisation and the rule of law.

Knowledge when supported by standards for its measurement, is knowledge that can produce “intelligence as “products”, and be licensed as a tradeable commodity.  France has licensed its “intelligence”, the engineering description of a critical process, gained from public knowledge for energy production from the nuclear sciences and engineering, to China.

One most serious remark in the Standards Australia documents relates to the unending supply of time.  I will show that that the very nature of bringing sciences and their technologies to a marketable or social realisation is an integral part of the development process of standardisation for industries and for the protection of safe and open markets.  The repetition of this process by a privately nominated committee, with no involvement in the evolution of the sciences and critical processes with standardisation, learned during development, produces substantial waste and, too frequently, delays the commercial realisation for years.  The voluntary process also is a system that could permit “Market Forces” from blocking market opportunity altogether.  These issues will be addressed and far more efficient solutions proposed.

The sciences are the most valuable resource of knowledge and intelligence to the human race.  It is the means of the discovery of extreme values available from nature’s own resources, previously hidden from humans.  The nations that continually expand their disciplined management of this process are the nations with the most progressive economy and lifestyles.  This is the difference between humans and animals.  It is this spirited and scientific nature that makes us human.  Being civilised is continually developing and sharing in the social and economic lifestyles from these special and most valuable attributes of being human.

The sciences, technologies and the relevant engineering are by far the major contributors to the expanding economy and improvement in lifestyles throughout the world.  The sciences and technologies are producing new social and economic opportunities at an exponentially expanding rate.

In spite of this, the Australian government has reduced, virtually eliminated, its support, its public research, and government agencies’ participation and responsibilities to the public, and to the producers and to the consumers, the human capital for industrial, economic and social expansion from the new sciences and emerging technologies.  Instead we de focus the public interest and energies from these most critical objectives by conceding to “make believe” ideas as “Globalisation”, “Liberalisation”, “Privatisation”, “Partnerships” and “Market Forces” as the means to create efficient markets and a progressive economy.  This has become an alarming situation.

Sciences have always been global and shared across nations from the beginning of human expansion across the world.  Communities continually strive for disciplines, to control and manage for its people, this expanding and sharing of knowledge and intelligence.  Knowledge and intelligence, by nature, is liberal when opportunity is organised for each and every individual, as a choice, to share this knowledge and intelligence.  When standardised and measured for disciplined progress it is the foundation for continual improvement of civilisations.  It is a selfish nation that constrains finance and denies young people this opportunity, this social freedom to access knowledge and education, on a basis of standards and performance.  This is the most efficient way to add economic and social value, to human capital for a democratic sovereign nation.

Any constraints on the free and open access, to this effectively disciplined social program, so the future of the economy and social lifestyles will be far more constrained.  Since the beginning, being civilised, the human spirit, or being selfish, the animal in us, these conflicts of interest have been won and lost, over and over, using at times the waste processes of robbery, litigation, terrorism, battles and wars.

Because of the increasing complexities, by the nature of the technologies, it is virtually impossible to start a new market from any new technology without a government agency to support its development, standardisation, and knowledge dispersion.  This agency must have the qualified staff in the relevant technologies to understand the needs of the producers and to recognise its potential.  The agencies are publicly involved and publicly participate to understand what is required, why and what  “standards” will ensure optimum efficiency, to avoid conflict of interests, to expand knowledge and to protect consumers from any abuse from the new markets.

These standards and public processes to measure conformance become the way of law.  The waste by litigation is avoided.  From the beginning of the industrial revolution, this has always been fundamental to government / industry aligned objectives and progressive achievements.

Post mid 90’s, Australia reversed its public support for these fundamental principles by conceding to the regularly published ideas, promoted publicly and repeatedly by the media, that “government cannot run businesses”.  The ideas dispersed by the mass media that public assets and support systems are more efficient when managed by private enterprise is now an “ever green” mass media theme.  It is easy to control national attitudes and opinions once dominant control of information dispersion to the public has been achieved.

Media employ economists to expand and enlarge these ideas without any examples from global experiences and comparisons to explain these objectives to the public.  The social needs, knowledge dispersion in particular, are not included in these objectives.  The public is denied opportunities to understand the alternatives.

From new scientific discoveries, engineering is now available to all nations so that by standardisation, within public communications infrastructures, government has for the first time, a simple means to manage and control the diversification of media, to re balance public and private flow of knowledge and intelligence.  This will also provide the public with a far more efficient infrastructure to service Australian industry and commerce and the rule of law, in a revolutionary far more efficient way.

This is readily achievable but only by government ownership and control of the infrastructures for the public by the public, by standardisation for knowledge dispersion.  New major discoveries of the previously hidden values for the management and control of the special physical attributes of the electromagnetic spectrum is one such opportunity.  This is a most valuable natural resource to civilisation, but only when human capital is publicly disciplined to share knowledge to manage and control the systems and processes involved from these discoveries.  The natural values from the electromagnetic system and new materials that expand its deployment for the progress of civilisation have existed, since the beginning of time, in nature but only recently discovered.  Australia once participated as a leader in the international sharing of these discoveries, but no longer.

Government has conceded both these human and nature’s capital values to the authority of private global media “Market Forces”.  The Australian government aborted its responsibility to the public for the standardisation and knowledge dispersion of these most advanced technologies and engineering a decade ago.  This has contributed already to a decade of lost opportunities in international markets and over $30 Billion in wasted Australian capital.

If government quickly reclaimed responsibility for the public use from these technologies, Australia could still be re established as a world leader.  The human capital exists in Australia to do so.

Standards and an ITU recommendation

With telecommunications and TV public digital transport systems, by far the most efficient, is the recent management of light frequencies on fibre.  But what is most critical to this is the internationally standardized way, as the means to provide extremely far more efficient, far more flexible, and far more valuable social and economic contributions to nations.  The potential is only possible when the public education systems and processes support this knowledge as standard and measurable education programs to the public.  Otherwise, the nation does not have, throughout its communities, the necessary engineering talent to expand the economic and social programs, for all in industry and commerce to deploy the many possibilities way beyond just telecommunications, from the new technologies, when standardized. 

A paper “Promoting Broadband: Broadband Issues in Private Sector”, ITU, August 2005 states: 

“Broadband”, which is referred to as the infrastructure for the knowledge economy is seen by countries around the world as crucial infrastructure for achieving their economic social and scientific goals.  High hopes have been placed for the revitalization of demand for the products and services of telecommunications sector through broadband and many describe this as a panacea for a range of social and economic woes.  Despite this, the take up of broadband in many countries has been below expectations, mainly due to its high costs and lack of appropriate policy aimed at promoting broadband”

This paper continues:

 “There is no substitute for true market competition in broadband to reduce price”

In Australia, this is impossible to achieve while the Telstra cable has been, (and the many private and independent mobile networks can be) purposely modified to close this network segment to all competitors.  This can be repaired when the public infrastructure, its standards, specifications, management, and knowledge dispersion is under the authority of a government agency.  Only then will open markets, and fair trade, and true market competition exist even far more efficiently and effectively on the Australian public cable system than is achieved by “Broadband” as expressed in the ITU document.  Most other nations are still yet to build optical cable to match Australia’s build as of a decade ago.

The ITU paper later continues:

“Direct infrastructure investments by governments can play a key role in developing broadband networks, especially in under served areas”.

(Under served for Australia is “In the Bush”)!

Neither the Australian agencies nor the Minister, Senator Helen Coonan convey this “ITU” recommendation to the public, a subject already understood by Telecom Australia two decades ago, the first in the world to commit to the total digital transition program as one public system.  The agencies do not provide the public with the essential knowledge that exposes this corruption of the system in Australian resulting from media interference with standardization, to monopolise the cable for TV, using public funds to do so.

Suggestion for a democratic program

1	Government set up a department and a minister for sciences, research, and engineering, with responsibility of knowledge and the disbursement of intelligence from these sciences throughout universities, trade colleges, and schools.  This is to manage for Australians the development of social infrastructures and of trade and commerce opportunities from the exponentially expanding knowledge, the world’s fastest growth areas for nations’ economic and social objectives.  This could save costs as economists and lawyers can be replaced by scientists and engineers associated with CSIRO.

2	Government sets up a department for the convergence of telecommunication, and interactive multi media, with ministerial responsibility and accountability for the public support infrastructures.  This would be one of governments most profitable departments.  To include media in the telecommunications portfolio is the major cause of the severe damage and unbelievable losses of money, near half of Australia’s balance of trade debt.  Government has no way of correcting this damage while media is the authority over this Ministry and the authority over near total available spectrum. (See Page  37)

This extreme conflict of interest now between public best interested in knowledge and intelligence dispersion and media near complete authority over the most valuable public assets for communications has to be unacceptable.  Near all communication channels from the electromagnetic spectrum, are controlled by media authority.  This financial, political and legal power over the public assets by a media consortium and over any opposition against their monopoly, even after a decade has not been resolved by government, the ACCC nor the DCITA!  The waste and opportunity delays continue unchecked

The Telstra board and Telstra’s most expensive management are not contributing to the future direction from these relevant sciences, so could be dismantled.  The “AC” of “ACMA” would now manage as the agency staff, the Telstra organisation as a public foundation, the technologies, standardization, and further expansion of the public use of the electromagnetic system for the convergence of telecommunications and TV as one far more efficient public infrastructure.  

The media arm, the “M” of the ACMA could be dedicated to public authority over media markets and its behaviour for efficient and fair trade for producer and consumers.  This automatically excludes “Content” as a media “propaganda” means to constrain efficient technologies for the public.  Under this Minister’s portfolio, media ownership can be substantially diversified.  A re balance and equality of knowledge and information dispersion between public and private sources be organized, permitting with open standards, and interactive TV cable channels, to dedicated support of government programs, universities, industrial programs, agriculture, and to stimulate public enthusiasm in the sciences and the arts.

This ensures that the best of sciences and engineering for a public electronic transport and distribution network is supported by the government agency for development and standardization and the rule of law in all electronic markets, not a system for one company to monopolise TV and information dispersion.

3	Government sets up a department of industry and with a dedicated agency.  This will be dedicated to the expansion of industrial opportunities from universities and industry.  Agriculture could have one Ministry in parallel.  Already the CSIRO could be the major part of each Ministry, as a split per relevant science, developments, standardization, and knowledge dispersion, and improvement programs, under the relevant Minister.

4	Government set up a department for media and the arts.  Diversification of media ownership and knowledge and information dispersion to achieve near equality of opportunity between public and private sectors).  This will ensure that  “Content” will be divorced from the technologies for a public support infrastructure and now “Content” in all its formats, sensibly and logically managed as “media” products and markets.

5	Government set up a department and agency for water supply and distribution.  This has to be a most valuable contribution to social and economic issues.  Industry and Agriculture cannot expand without the expansion of available water.  Again, CSIRO already have world-leading scientists and engineers who will contribute far more than economists and lawyers organizing “Water” trading!  This segment of government can be dismantled.  (Water supply is mandatory or die!)

The public infrastructures, roads, schools, universities, water, energy, are public infrastructures and publicly shared to support the private infrastructures, factories, shops, motor vehicles etc.  Contracts to outsource public works will stimulate public interest and public support via private companies.  The Olympic Games 2000 is an excellent example of the public information dispersion, knowledge, and processes and resource sharing for its total commitment.  It is a waste that this excellent organisational program only existed as long as the “games” need for it existed.  Australia does have other industrial and agricultural programs far more important than this one (that was financially, for the media best interests), hopefully that could attract at least, equal public attention and enthusiasm.

When public service departments have the responsibility for public support infrastructure, the nation has a public system to equalize the salary and wages between the public and private sector.  There are no added values to Australia when Boards commit to pay a $10 Million salary to a foreigner who has no experience with the digital transition program and no means to set the standards to measure the performance of our human capital.  For this public expenditure, Australia could have employed 100 or more qualified engineers, their talents way beyond any available in USA.  

USA has not built fibre cable as an integrated national system for telecommunications and TV.  It is a major problem for them to yet resolve.  Australia could help.  USA has not had experience to help Australia.  USA and many other nations can manufacture cable and components.  But to manage this as a national logistics system for telephony, and interactive TV, free and subscription, for Australia, is far more sophisticated.  Only educated Australians within a government agency could do this.  By year 2000, the already trained and qualified Australian engineers were being dismissed!  This is civilisation going backwards.

Standards and the way of law

The formulation of standards, as a public responsibility shared with private sector objectives, is internationally promoted by the science and engineering bodies and publicly accepted as a key issue for the success and efficient workings of the economy.  By the mandatory use of standards, the making and administration of law is vastly simplified.  Motor vehicles drive on the left side of the road.  

The public education program follows, how to manage and maintain a vehicle, how to drive on the left.  Private enterprise programs were openly and publicly shared with these agencies so that markets and communities could achieve optimum efficiency and continual improvement.

These agencies develop, in parallel with industry, agricultural, and social workers the ideas proposals, plan and commitments.  Government policies are promoted in support so that public and private investments were ensured for optimum progress of civilisation.  The expansion of knowledge and skills and the rule of law supported technologies and trade opportunities for the best interests of the public, for democracy and social justice and the rule of law under the authority of government.

This was the system that supported open markets and fair trade and efficient capitalistic markets as a continuously improving program in Australia between the private and public sector, from post war up to about the year 2000.

Standards, some examples

Standards, the accepted and approved examples, to discipline by the rule of law, families, social activities, community behavior, industry, commerce and the nation.  To believe that one standard for all is possible has to be irrational.  This is the dilemma in Australia, the complete conflict between federal regulations, state regulations, and council regulations.  The consequences are an extreme waste as continual personal finger pointing, conflicts, and more frequently lengthy litigation.

The nation must have standards, and the means to regulate.  Simple standards and measurement relate to talents and experience for people to use for employment and wage setting.  This as used in the Armed Forces could apply to the public.  Perhaps, then the 1200 page IR legislation could be reduced to near 50 or fewer pages, and include Managers and Directors salaries and wages as well.  Salaries and Wages could be used as a common standard for public and the private sector.  Either this or a completely open standard would be more democratic than a system of discrimination and de motivation.

Standards have no meaning without first an understanding of the system or process the human talent and experience, relating to the task they are intended to regulate.  Many are general but some are very specific.  Systems and processes without standards, without regulations, places the system and process into a state of uncontrollable behaviour, instability.  Deregulation is a program towards market instability.

Standards and its supporting knowledge and intelligence documents, the training manuals, guides etc, can be as diverse as a simple set of rules for personal self discipline, such as to learn a language, or to control family behaviour.  They could be a set as extremely complex and diversified as the standards and behavior for the establishment of a nuclear energy power plant

Therefore, until the nation has the human capital to resource such a study and to develop the knowledge and intelligence to formulate a program and propose the standards, the nation has no means to evaluate the idea of nuclear energy.

Without this knowledge, when the need exists, the only possibility is to buy a system and process from a more developed nation, from a nation who has completed this program.  However, for Australia to advance its civilisation, it could initiate an Australian program to export nuclear power plants together with the supply of uranium or thorium to run it.

This would not be possible without government having an appropriate agency, open to the public and with full authority and accountability to the public for this proposal.  Private authority and secret arrangement with government, over such a major program, could be a disaster of the worst kind.  The China program that includes nuclear enrichment, the means to eliminate all nuclear waste, and to increase the energy output from uranium near 60 times, is open to the world to study.

Spain recently built a complete oil refinery and shipped it by sea to its customer, all in working order, ready to connect to the customer’s pipes and storage tanks.  This could have been a program from Australia.  The only difference between Spain and Australia is the Human capital.  Spain has this.  Australia does not.

Monetary terms for nations, define the standards representing the agreed value for trade, the exchange value, the trade value as a system to substitute for the direct swapping in markets of the goods or services at agreed values at the moment of commitment.  In a closed community, there is no need for money. 

However, with money, we have no need to agree now to swap a “bag of potatoes for a bag of coal”.  We may not want the coal now, so we can save our money for when we need the coal”, trusting that this money will maintain its value over this time period.  The value of the bag of coal and the bag of potatoes is under private and personal control.  The value of money is not.  Banks that issue “money” control the value of money.

Governments are established to manage, with public trust, the value of money by authority over the banking system and processes.  Standards are used and the public is educated to understand these standards and their value in public.  
To trade with other nations, money exchange is essential.  Once monetary exchange processes were established, credit, trade, and commerce expanded internationally.

Global private financial institutions also have a system accepted by most nations of currency trading or debit “swaps”, that by non disclosure of information to the public of the banks’ or institutions’ privately calculated differences between nations’ current and future values of money, trade accordingly.  By these means banks, (even a nation’s Reserve Bank(s)), and financial institutions are able to “cream” some of the profits from the real trade values between producers and consumers or suppliers and customers.  

For some nations, it has been the cause of non-reversible commitments to debt.  The World Bank at times steps in to nullify the debt at cost and waste to World Bank members.  The EEC common currency standard is towards correcting some currency defects, the deviations and exploitation of trade and commerce when different money values apply.  However, even so, global private financial “Market Forces”, having experience this exploitation, are endeavouring to change global public opinion away from the public acceptance of this EEC standardised system.

Common standards exist for measurement of the equivalent value of the trade as money, at the instance of trade commitment.  It is the means for sovereign nations to trade with each other and the rule of law.  To “commit” to terms of “price” at today’s value expressed in today’s standardised terms of money, and then to complain later that this was false, as the exchange rate was incorrect is “sour grapes” re one nation’s progress over another.

The financial institutions have convinced government to adopt a compulsory super scheme.  The basis for this was Australians were not saving.  These funds could be used to support industry growth.  This now is in fact a second taxing system on salaries and wages.  These are funds directed toward financial institution to deploy and privately manage.  Even a wage earner may need to borrow this money to buy a home.  For eighty percent of contributors to this second tax system, it is unlikely that the funds will be sufficient to pay off the loans committed over time, by the time of retirement.  The administration and legal requirements, the standards and the rule of law are actually severe costs and penalties on the system without any standards and specifications about its future value for the owner of this money now out of the owner’s personal control.

This is not a system and process where each and every part or the system has been set standards, and performance measurements.  If the time and costs of each system and process were measured in a scientific way, before committed to regulations, the standards, and the rule of law, an entirely different and far more efficient system may have been discovered.  This is a huge amount of money, permanently out of the control of the owner or of government authority.  It is not available for needy public infrastructure developments that will resource the future economy.  

One simple voluntary system the government could offer salary and wage earners, with immediate vast cost reduction by elimination of many inefficient processes, the vast waste in the system, is a government saving bank account. Fixed deposits per month from the employer, into government savings that pays above the average earning rate, of the private super funds, net earnings.  As the fixed interest rate, the huge administration and legal costs would be immediately eliminated.  The Treasurer could have an agency to manage this for the public.  As well, any worker should have, as top priority, his wages available to purchase a house.  This denial for every salary and wage earner, this option for the family, is extremely de motivating and a denial of social justice.

Fixed interest is a simple standard for the owner of the money to calculate its future value.  The compulsory super has no such standard to measure performance.  It is an unstable system.  It is a huge volume of money allocated to private “Market Forces” for unstable use in de regulated markets.  This is money out of government control and authority.  Government authority controls the human capital but not the compulsory super proportion of the money earned by human capital.  The total system with deregulated private “Market Forces” with their authority over the money, without standards and performance indicators, is unstable and out of control.

“Price” is always a commitment at an instance in time.  To ask for “price” renegotiation, later is unethical.  Quality can be compared and measured when standards and specifications exist for the measurements of a product or service.  To offer products or services without standards and specifications is unethical.  To allow a nation’s public to be excluded from the knowledge and the intelligence relating to trade and commerce is unethical.  Therefore, to deny the public, knowledge and education, and a mandatory standardisation for the rule of law, as “the sciences” advance, is an invitation to expand waste by exponential expansion of misunderstanding, administration, litigation and corruption.

From the study of the defects from the “Food for Oil” programs, the public has learned that a few farmers argue for one trading desk, with the objectives as the best means to negotiate best price for Australia as a sovereign nation.  Others are in denial and explain that this system disrespects the United Nations objectives for open markets and fair trade and the rule of law.  The world continues with markets and social objectives in stark conflict.  Australia cannot support one without contributing to the destruction of the other.

It was the secretive processes between private “Market Forces” and government that allowed this contrived unethical program to remove standardisation and the rule of law and therefore to continue with no means for the public to correct this contrived program.  It begs the question as to where else are secret and contrived programs operating between private “Market Forces” and government.

Out of this unsatisfactory experience, one thing for certain is that this misadventure could not exist when government agencies are open to the public and objectively work together with specific focus on relevant systems and processes for Australia’s best interests.  Only if openly honest and publicly sincere, can Australians fight together, against one and support the other, while and where these conflicts exit.  

Standardisation in public is the efficient means to ensure that this is built in to processes.  Government will be the major catalyst for this once public channels are wide-open to learning, open expression and open debate and the agencies share with the relevant public segment, in standardisation and the rule of law.  While almost all media channels to the public are privately owned, this objective is virtually impossible.  This change, which is not expensive, is one most essential first step.

Existing and planned activities can be defined as systems and processes.  A house is a system.  Cooking is a process.  Energy supplied to a home can be used for cooking.  When the stove is switched on, one of the cooking processes starts.  In societies these systems and processes are associated with information flow, how to use a stove to cook a cake; goods flow, the flour for the cake, the energy for cooking; and money flow, the money to buy the house, the flour and the energy and pay the cook.

All this can be analysed and defined in interlocking systems and processes.  Goods are either moving or stopped.  The least number of times flour is stopped and the faster it moves towards its end point, the more efficient the total system.  If this can be managed efficiently, the speed of information flows, goods flow and money flow, the more efficient the total system becomes.

Market prices in competition places no added incentive to change this system and all its processes.  Standards can.  By setting a standard for a system and process, and measuring performance by following the instructions (the rules) against this standard, we can analyse results.  Deviations from standards are defects (against the law).  Reducing time for a process to complete, below a standard set time, is improvement.  When standards are set and performance measured and documented, teams can work together to analyse performance and implement improvements.  But they must have knowledge and experience of the systems and processes to do this.

In most cases Boards and Management would not have a clue on the need for a standard without a direct line of communication for advice and input from the font line.  Only when the front line has this knowledge and authority for its implementation, is this improvement program possible.  This intelligence will already be used and applied to educational programs, in universities and trade colleges that should participate in standardisation programs.  These processes must be alive before any market could be expected to exist.

Improvement programs and standardisation connects management and government agencies and universities efficiently together.  This is the heartbeat of the nation.  This is where the knowledge and intelligence is found.  When government agencies share, where opportunities arise and necessity call, in this program, standards will be found for government regulations.  They will exist already at this level of operations, in the universities and trade colleges, the real power, the front line, the horizontal level of industry and commerce.

The management task is to ensure that those in authority over these improvement processes, in private companies, and in universities, act on shared knowledge and ideas, not on personalities and finger pointing, the fast way to destroy improvement.

The agency / university / trade college alliances will provide the means to organise how and when it is timely for government agencies to work within these levels for overall industrial and agricultural objectives, as aligned and shared objectives by the relevant private organisations with government.

So, in this way agricultural scientists produced a new rice plant to double the annual production of rice.  Price competition has no way to contribute to such a major improvement in the economy that doubles the output of rice.  Price competition by politically private controlled means, results finally in “last man standing” system.

Standards have been developed by consortiums or organised groups who “share their values” to define their need for standards of behaviour.  A set of parameters is compiled to define how the rules of agreed behaviour would be measured.  This is the “standards” document.  It exists in the Bible, as a part of one page, the “Ten Commandments” the standards for community behaviour.

The rest of the Bible are examples for study, to educate people about the rights and wrongs of human behaviour, of the errors and mistakes made in the past and the hows and whys they should be disciplined and corrected.  Likewise, Shakespearian plays, as entertainment, provide the means to study human behaviour to study the nature of humans, their strengths and weaknesses, to enlighten communities, to expand this knowledge from observation of the psychological nature of humans, for good or evil objectives.

It was Pythagoras (560 –480 BC) who first documented that rods of materials, when reduced in length by third at a time could control the creation of sound as musical notes.  This was the musical octave.  It was not until Bach (1772) standardised a scientific formula to provide an exact measurement for sound, and explained mathematically, how this principle exists in nature.  Using this formula, Bach was able to produce new musical notes as the keyboard that we know today.  Bach used this formula as the means to extend the notes for music over the total sound spectrum used for music in exact measurable notes.  It is now a world standard.

Members of an orchestra produce the best of music by sharing talents as a team.  “Competition” would destroy their music.  Musicians produce standards to measure and compare the progress and improvements in the talents of students.

From the discovery of the mathematical formula for the keyboard, a vast new industry developed for musical instruments.  This formula was also used to expand the knowledge and understanding of the sciences and engineering for the working of machines and expanded the scientific knowledge and intelligence for industrialists.  It became the means to launch, in Britain, the industrial revolution.  Measurements against agreed standards are to discipline progress, to report, to study, and to analyse for continual efficiency improvements in processes. Forced competition corrupts team-shared objectives, replacing the team spirit by secretive and contrived private and personal objectives, (the wishful Olympian who concedes to the use of drugs).

It was Christian Huygens, (Dutch, 1629-1695) who showed that light could be measured.  He produced mathematical formulae, to be the standard for measuring light frequencies, opening a vast new era of scientific discoveries and knowledge expansion.  Over recent decades this continues exponentially today with internationally shared knowledge to produce flat screen TVs and computer displays, LED lamps for homes and now car headlamps using 1/10th the energy of tungsten lamps for equivalent light output.

These revolutionary developments are only possible from shared knowledge and resources and standardisation.  Economists and lawyers have no way of forecasting the contributions to the economy and lifestyles of a nation from the sciences.  Most economists exclude to explain how markets today rise and fall in quick time as the consequences of new technologies from sciences and engineering.  They omit to explain the evolution of new markets and the reason for the complete collapse of the old, the consequences of the machine guns over rifles, the aircraft over battleships.

In spite of this, having replaced the government employed scientists and engineers a decade ago, they are now, the leading advisers to government for economic policies.

James Maxwell, British, (1831-1879), who predicted electromagnetic radiation, was the first to write down the law of electricity and magnetism as discovered by Faraday, (British, 1791-1867) and Hans Oested, (Danish, 1777-1851).  This work continued with Oliver Lodge, (1851 – 1940) who first showed how to control the transmission and detection of radio waves.  Michael Faraday discovered that a changing magnetic field also drives a current.  Only by standardisation (230 volts 50Hz, AC for Australia) could this discovery contribute to a revolutionary expansion of the economy.

Faraday also discovered Benzine in 1825, the catalyst for the motor and plastic industries we know today.  Allenandro Volta, (1745 –1827), an Italian scientist made the first battery in 1800.  Batteries have been standardised internationally.  The motor industry could not have existed without government involvement in standardisation and mandated standards for the rule of law.  Alexander Graham Bell, (USA, 1847-1922) using batteries, coils, and carbon, converted these sciences to telephony.

Morse, (Europe and USA, 1791-1872) produced a standard, adopted internationally, for communications, via electronic means, the knowledge and intelligence for the control over distances of rail and banking.  This standard has stood until recently as the official standard, as the communications for safety with shipping in world trade and commerce, using one common communication language, worldwide.

So standards, when supported by a public system to measure the performance against this standard, is a standard for the rule of law.  This will extremely simplify legislation, remove vast costs, and waste, created by the continually expanded processes of litigation.  It will openly standardize, for the public, the means of education for improving the efficiencies in marketing activities and investments.

Today the Australian government does not support standardisation for efficient engineering of the electromagnetic spectrum, the prime natural resource for electronic information and communication systems and processes.  This, the government claims as policy, is a matter for private “Market Forces”. As Telstra is to be privatised, the authority over this major public asset, the “keystone” in managing the electromagnetic spectrum, is with private “Market Forces”!

In a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, 11th October 1956, the reciprocal Trade Federation, UK wrote: “In industry, television plays an important part in the development of British export trade and in solving many technical problems which, hitherto, have baffled science.”

Electronic communication systems have progressed from Morse code to teletext and to modulation of radio frequency “carriers” (channels of specific bandwidth) with audio and video modulation.  These old systems integrate “carrier” and “content” as one discrete system within one channel.  Today scientists and engineers provide a far superior and far more flexible system, now ready for the world to adopt.

From 1983, an International consortium of engineers, including their relevant governments and universities in this work, shared and expanded resources to standardise, as one system, a program that will revolutionise communications. It is to achieve far more efficient utilise of the electromagnetic spectrum.

It has already dramatically reduced the costs, visible and measurable, in Australia by the huge reduction in price and size and exponentially expanding utilisation of the mobile phone, printers and digital cameras, but in Australia, not for TV, and interactive multi media.  These opportunities for Australians have not been supported.  The vast efficiency gains will not be available until government re establishes its responsibility to the public for the public infrastructures, for knowledge dispersion and the management of the standards for public services, already available to all markets expecting to use any part of the system or processes.

In 1993, the first standards were made available to the public for this progressively revolutionary system.  No longer is it necessary to have carrier and content as one discrete system.  At any time, this revolutionary system manages and controls any carrier for the transportation of any mix of communications, information product or service, when in standardised electronic digital formats.

The only constraint on this system is the bandwidth used for the carrier.  Optical cable system of near unlimited bandwidth, with HFC cable in some locations, is far more efficient than the antique copper wires and telephone exchanges, (1977 technologies) and is now by far, economically and socially, the best replacement.  Instead Australia keeps dividing the system, adding even more antique proprietary technologies in parallel to further complicate the system.

The Telecom Australia system (the international transition program) can only be resurrected by mandating common standards, one set of standards specifically to manage the electronic products and services, voice, data, moving pictures, interactivity, any product or service when digitally formatted to the relevant international standards, for the “content”.  These are the digital transition standards for the source material, voice as telephony, data, movies, TV etc.  This is the “content”.  Home and office systems are standardised for this assortment of “Content”, as one system for all.

A completely different set of standards has been produced for the “carrier” systems, the public electronic transport systems whether satellite, cable or terrestrial (radio).  All transport schemes are interoperable, and can be completely automated, providing the total system is standardised to the “package” of international standards.  This is the internationally standardised program for transition to digital.

At no time in history has so complex science and engineering been able to produce one international, one “standard” system.  At no time has civilisation had an opportunity to dramatically contribute to the economy, the expansion of knowledge and intelligence of a nation so efficiently.  This is one world standard for the flow of knowledge, intelligence, products and services in electronic formats, by automation.  The many new services, in the future, will use this one standardised package to do so.  It is ready to control private motor vehicles on public highways.  It is a system to be shared progressively across all nations.  It is already in use for the space programs.

This is a package of mathematical formulae to control the electromagnetic spectrum, for managing the distribution of goods and services in their electronic formats to and from homes and offices, and distribution as well of commercial “Content” from any producer or supplier.  It will integrate with logistics and administration systems.  This system is engineered for automation of logistics in a revolutionary way with substantial cost reductions for producers and consumers and home and family social needs and interests.

This is now available to any nation that understands its value.  China is now well advanced with this system (originally launched there by Australians in the 90’s as an export of Australian engineering).  This is one common system, continually progressive, so that the world can revolutionise the use of the electromagnetic spectrum for public support of industry, commence, the production of goods and services and the rule of law.

This will contribute to dramatic progress for those nations that adopt this revolutionary technology as mandated standards.  It is as economically and socially progressive and as revolutionary as the motor car was to the horse and cart.  Logistically, it is the direct electronics equivalents to road, rail, sea and air, and therefore, could only be managed by a government agency for the public.

A government agency is the only means to “map” markets, products, labels and addresses for national use of this digital transition program for all in trade and commerce.  This is impossible to manage by private enterprise that has no public means to do so without severe conflicts of interest.  It is impossible to achieve until Telstra is managed and controlled by a government agency.

Equivalent processes for international standardisation and the rule of law is even more essential as nations share their science and engineering developments and process control systems for the use of nuclear energy to civilisations, possibly the most expansive social and economic development from natural resources for the future generations.

Consequences of voluntary standards

Telecom Australia was decades ahead in the sciences and technologies than the average standards of engineering in the United States.  USA has been severely constrained by multi divisions of private owners of a public service.  Australians standards align to international standards, the European standards, for television and telecommunications with far more advance engineering from Europe than USA.  Government insists that Australia adopt the very worst of USA programs.  This is technically and economically totally irrational

For Australia to dismantle Australian engineering teams, who were already engineering for China, with engineering way ahead of any technologies available from USA, and place Telstra under USA management has to be for one private reason.  That certainly is not advanced technologies for Australia.  It has to be a contrived program to allow the already monopolized Telstra assets to be the financial assets of a private consortium.

This could be a program, far worse for its intent than the experiences of the AWB.  Industry has no support from government when the government concedes to private and confidential objectives.  This must be a contrived program as it has been so damaging, so negative to industrial and consumer investments and program producers.  Even now Australia has private companies engineering for Motorola in USA being locked out of Australian opportunities because of a private proprietary systems operating on Telstra!

There is no democratic means in Australia for the public to even be informed of their asset values and defend their public investment from private exploitation, to understand and to apply social justice for Australians in this program.

The recent legislation re the Privatisation of Telstra has only one meaningful statement, the government action to sell public assets for private ownership without the rule of law.  These documents provide no insight or over view for the future generations best interests.  Instead they renew consumer commitments to the 1977 technologies and engineering.

They maintain the increasingly more inefficient copper phones as now a long-term commitment to high cost and technical frustrations.  They maintain the private control of the public service cable by News Ltd.  They permanently destroy the simplest means for media diversity.

The three parts of the Telstra legislation are documents prepared in secrecy from public scrutiny or evaluation.  Evaluation of technologies, trials, and testing was once the essential public process for Australia, as a most important procedure before inclusion in the legislative commitments.  These are processed through parliament with the emergency of war, a system to gag debate, to enforce this abusive private partnership arrangement permanently on the nation.  This is a politically contrived and politically supported bankruptcy in technology, engineering, and social justice to service the objectives of a most politically powerful media cartel.  This is far from democracy for the best interest of consumers!

This is to permanently remove from the public any opportunity for all Australians to profit from the technical advances with digital technologies and from the new markets created from the new sciences and technologies.  It places this most profitable public infrastructure entirely under the authority and control of one global Media Company as an extremely privileged private monopoly financed by the public of Australia!

Even the government agencies with equipped labs for research to share with Australian educated and trained individuals who all participated in the international digital transition program were closed near a decade ago.  This engineering team was the essential catalyst to organize the dispersion of this new knowledge and new opportunities for the public.  These were laboratories once equipped with components and software relating to the digital transition program, preceding government’s submission to global commercial “Market Forces” to close them down.  

Even the easy opportunity, at the time of Foxtel request for conversion to digital, for social justice and democracy to be re established by standardization, government again rejected the restart of the international digital convergence program.  This was even after knowing that USA had now mandated their support to the program.  USA cannot implement the program until they have a national cable system like Australia’s.  Their program will take decades.

Politics, and being civilised

The Collins English Dictionary, Australian Edition defines civilisation as:

A human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political and legal organisation 

An advanced state in social development

The peoples or nations, collectively, who have advanced to such a state

The total culture and way of life of a particular people, nation, region or period

The Collins English Dictionary, Australian Edition defines politics as:

The practice and study of the art and sciences of forming, directing, and administrating states and other political units, the art and science of government

The complex or aggregate of relationships, of people in society, especially those relationships involving authority or power

The Collins English Dictionary, Australian Edition defines the economy as:

Careful management of resources to avoid unnecessary expenditure or waste
The management of resources, finances, income, and expenditure of a community, business enterprise etc.

The Collins English Dictionary, Australian Edition defines Cabinet as:

The executive and policy making body of a country, consisting of all government ministers or just the senior ministers, an advisory council to a president, sovereign, governor.

Good governance is behaving ethically, being open and transparent to the people.  For private business, it is the board’s responsibility of being open and transparent in matters of shareholders’ investments.

Australia has become a nation where government regularly “talks and advertises” on commercial TV to the public in economic terms and commits to programs, in economical terms.  The public has less involvement in standards to measure the performance of the economy or community objectives.  The reports, more frequently as “News” is near always in monetary terms, statements of “now” values.  The media evaluations of these reports exclude human capital, for example, as values.  It excludes the nation’s state re knowledge and intelligence.

They exclude the future values of public and private capital and how monetary targets will be achieved.  The public has little knowledge of these monetary objectives, whether they will be achieved by the sale of assets, by systems and process efficiency improvements, by the income from the expansion of industry or agriculture, or by taxation on the sale of imported goods and services.  Without standards and performance indicators, to measure progress, the public has little means to know whether the nation’s civilisation is improving or has committed to improvement programs as knowledge and understanding to compare their well-being and future expectations with other nations.

Humans accept “standards” so that talents can be measured and applied to the relevant process that adds their value to community values, to nation values.  This is the human capital that is the means to create local, national and international markets.  This is the human capital to disperse knowledge and intelligence, the reproduction of intelligence, and for the discovery of new knowledge and new opportunities for the progress of civilisation.  This is the most essential social program to manage and expand a healthy and safe lifestyle.  This is the nation’s human capital.  This is the nation’s prime bankable value, as gold discovered in the ground is bankable value, even while it is still in the ground.

In Australia these values are respected and apply to sports when sports are used for commercial exploitation.  Rarely does it apply to a good Australian sport, employed in industry and agriculture.

Uranium has extensive bankable value.  Uranium, once committed and shipped to China has no longer any bankable value for Australians, or to the next generation of Australians.  But now as a cargo on a ship, has extensive bankable value, long term, for the Chinese people.

Knowledge and intelligence of these natural and human assets and bankable values are not a process of knowledge disbursement or education systems in Australia for Australians to understand.  Australians were not advised of the bankable value of Telstra post digital transition program for the public, before government committed this infrastructure to private ownership.  Those that had this privileged knowledge, in secret, connived with government in private, that Telstra should be privatised.  Few have any understanding that Foxtel has exclusive use of the major public asset of Telstra, the national optical cable system.

This knowledge, even today, is still kept secret from the public as it has been for a decade.  Even without this dispersion of knowledge for public understanding of the bankable value of Telstra to the public, the privatization of Telstra is a program against the wishes of near 70% of Australians.  This is a program where government is aligning, in secret, with the objectives of private global media “Market Force” using economists to tell the public that it is for their best interests.  This is not a system of democracy or social justice.

These private / government processes in secret, excludes any potential to convey to the public, the social and financial expectations in twenty or thirty years time.  It excludes standards of performance against standards of progress of civilisation, in the development of systems and processes.  Economic terms convey little of the progressive state of the nation.  Civics is no longer a subject in schools.  Advanced engineering of the electromagnetic system for telecommunications and television, is no longer a public university subject.  That was closed down a decade ago as a proposal from media “Market Forces”.

This problem against social justice and democracy started when, post war, some nations kept the commitments by Ministers and Commitments by Cabinet, secret.  This is expected and a requirement by nations at war, for knowledge and intelligence relating to war plans and commitments.  However, to maintain this secrecy in times of peace, is abusing the public.  The worsening trend is that the lines of communications between government and the public are one-way for the knowledge and money collection processes, but two-way between government and private “Market Forces”.

This then is a nation at war, a serious cold war.  It is private deregulated “Market Forces” against the best interests of extremely regulated consumers and producers.  This is not government for the people or nation, collectively.  In peacetime it is a destructive process of democracy and social justice.

Management of the nation’s economy is a government responsibility.  It is accepting "proper and rightful concern and responsibility" for the public.

For Federal Members of Parliament, these are their accepted social and economic responsibilities for our nation and for the public.  The occasional comment from Members of Parliament that “governments cannot run businesses”, as public hears more frequently, the reason for selling public assets to private owners.  This excuse is disrespectful to other members of government.  Members with this belief should be asked to step down.  This parliamentary position of social and economic responsibility, the setting of standards and the rule of law, for the public, should be left open to more talented representatives from our nation to do so.

These remarks seem strange since, over the past decade, deregulation by government places self-regulation into the private sector.  Therefore, as of now, we have both the public and the private sector in conflict with the responsibility for regulations.  Further we have a government claiming public support infrastructures as “Markets”!  Even “water” for farmers is a marketable commodity, the one with the most water by far the financial winner!  This is social justice being destroyed.  This is a complete failure of social justice and democracy, that the most precious and most essential natural resource to all life is a “marketable” commodity.  It may cost the public money to set standards and performance to manage water but to call water a market is civilisation lost.  This is a system of submission to greed.

This, like the AWB scandal, and the Telstra wasted opportunity, is the result of government processes in secret.  The fact that government has removed the knowledge and intelligence resources, standard processes for responsibility and accountability and public reporting is the cause of these failures.  These politically promoted ideas, processed and committed in secret, are becoming completely irrational and illogical.

As addressed later in this document, Australian schools now educate young Australians to totally confuse students’ understanding of markets and as to what is a market and how it was created.  Standards and the rule of law go hand in hand.  

Legislation has long lists of words and with complex arrangements as to what they mean.  Dictionaries are the nation standards for this.  This is as undemocratic as if Latin was still used in law.

It becomes confusing when legislation also includes another list, an internal dictionary of the meanings of words used in the legislation.  Unless these documents are published and used in every school classroom, the public has no means to understand the processes of government.  Let’s use only one standard, the Australian dictionary for the public to understand the meaning of words.  The documents from parliament should use words the Australians learn in school. 

By the nature of developing an idea that generates to the attention of the public, the words used to compile a standard and the intelligence documented for further education, with the new words from the new sciences, exist as a common language.  It seems utter waste that legislation has a whole set of new meanings as defined in private by economists and lawyers and possibly private “Market Forces”, (unless an unexposed future private intent is the reason).

The Telstra legislation enacted late last year provides no means to support the new technologies, standards, and specifications.  These are document of no intelligence to an Australian University student, or to the average person studying for the future.  It guarantees that Australia consumers will still have 1977 technologies post the sale of Telstra.  It guarantees that the “In the Bush” infrastructure will still be financed by Australian Taxpayers while the new owners of Telstra profit from the next generation system built by Telecom Australia as used in the major cities and towns for monopolizing the PayTV market on cable.

This is not “Careful management of resources to avoid unnecessary expenditure or waste”

This is a major cost of not having government responsible for mandating standards.  The Standards Australia Ltd committees were unwilling to provide Australia with the most advanced and far more efficient technologies for the public.  This is not democracy or social justice.  Using the expensive litigation, as Telstra is continually involved, as public news, is far from an efficient process to educate the public in the meanings and objectives of law and the future bankable value of Telstra.

A program for improvement

Ministers are expected to report to government, annually.  I propose a simple way to repair this damage and lost public confidence in the processes of government.  This is to introduce a new standard of behavior for the Minister and their agencies.  The suggestion is that Minister’s annual reports to government are available to all public libraries and universities.  This is a standard distribution system of government knowledge and intelligence for the responsibilities of government to the public.  This should report the plans, how performance will be measured and report progress and achievements in systematic terms as well as monetary terms.

An annual report of the past year, from cabinet, should also be in public libraries, schools, and universities with the knowledge and intelligence relating to overall government accountability for their public responsibilities.  This is a simple way to ensure the public has open access to judge the responsibilities, accountability, and performance of government.  The people need not have to rely on private media to translate public intent and filtered media expression of results.  The communities and individuals will then know who in parliament have good ideas and how they were developed for the nation’s best interest.  There would be no need for finger pointing and whistle blowing. 

Hansard is extremely difficult to study on the Internet.  The local library no longer keeps copies.  To read and study is a trip to the city library.  Hansard should also be distributed to all local libraries, and student encouraged to have an understanding of the objectives and of government processes behind parliament.

In the Westminster System, the Prime Minister reports to the Queen, on a daily basis of parliament sittings.  The Queen reads and signs these daily reports.  This is a standard procedure and, therefore, measurable daily.  On behalf of the nation, the Queen has the option to publicly challenge government over any issues of concern to the public.  The annual report to the public about commitments and expectations by parliament is even more democratic.  It provides the public the means to understand the working of government and democracy and contribute with pride and understanding.

Unless we have a Public Service to openly manage public assets, opportunities and standardization for the rule of law, and its continuance over the ever ending changes in public representation, nations have no means to democratically rationalize issues of conflict.  Only expensive litigation will eventually resolve the issue and not necessary for the benefit of the public.

Efficient and safe public roads and rail were not possible without government agencies being responsible.  The motor industry was not possible without the government agencies being responsible.  The electric energy supply to the public was not possible without the government agencies being responsible.  The public water supply was not possible without government agency being responsible.  Public telecommunications was not possible without government agencies being responsible.  Public radio and television broadcasting was not possible without government agencies being responsible.

All require strict standards and the rule of law.  Without clear and precise standards for the rule of law, the nation cannot function efficiently, or without conflicts.  The Hilmer doctrine, re endorsed in year 2000, is the catalyst for too frequently excluding Standards Australia Ltd from opportunities to discipline the development of public involved systems and processes from a state of instability.

Nuclear energy utilisation will not be possible without a government agency with full and openly shared knowledge and intelligence with the public.  The sharing of standards and patents and licenses for technologies and the rule of law is not possible without government agencies being responsible. 

France is already sharing, under license, it nuclear power generation standards with China’s plan for many nuclear plants.  This is the expansion of civilisation, the expansion of knowledge to add both economic and social values, social lifestyles to communities under their democratic sovereign objectives.

The promoted expectations from the media and from economist employed by government and the media, that private “Market Forces” is the most efficient means to do this, has to be quite false information dispersion to the Australian public.  Their objectives should be publicly scrutinized.

The public’s dilemma

The Television system is a public utility for entertainment, education, and research.

Mr C. G Scrimgeour wrote to the Prime Minister in Dec 1954 and included these points in his letter: “Television is reality---   It is said by experts that 80% of the information people absorb is obtained through the eye, and the language of vision is universal---   Television can be the open door to democracy.  That is why it should be regarded as something of far greater importance than merely another avenue of entertaining people, or of making a profit from its operation --- It is the most potent form of mass communications.  It is more truly a blend of Theatre, Journalism, and Radio.  It is the museum, art gallery, the school, university and lecture room of the multitude rather than the select few; it is the home training and trade manual by which millions of unskilled hands can learn to do things”.

The dilemma and total confusion re television and telecommunications is because the media commercial objective is that the public learn from them and to believe “Content” and the electronic transport infrastructure is one integrated system.

This was so with analogue but not with digital.  This is like saying “motor cars and the public roads” is one integrated system.  Therefore “roads” is a market.  If a car retail consortium could convince government that “government cannot manage business” this retail consortium, a “Market Force”, could convince government that his industry “union” be the authority over the total motor industry.  Government deregulates this “market” to be self-regulated by the car retail consortium.  Thereby one private car retail consortium has vertical control of this “market”, the roads, and the rules for the use of roads, and the cars that could use public roads.  This consortium would not want to be involved with minor roads, roads in the bush.  This would remain the responsibility of government.

This is clearly irrational, but not so it seems, for a public cable system as now completely monopolised for digital TV by Foxtel consortium partners.

In 1950, TV as “content” and the pipe for TV transmission to the home, (the TV channel) were integrated.  Not so today, the electromagnetic spectrum as managed by the digital transition program is a system for electronic goods and services with even more efficient and flexible option of electronic “content”, (goods and services) than the system of roads, rail sea and air is for physical “content”, (goods and services).

With physical and electronic logistics, the standardization, and the rule of law, are, as a concept, virtually parallel operations, one law package for physical public logistics systems and processes, the other law package for electronic public logistics systems and processes.

Voluntary options for standardization is the means for a private committee of aligned, “Market Forces”, within the processes of Standards Australia Ltd, to interfere and abort this revolutionary opportunity.  This enabled Foxtel to vertically monopolize the cable TV market, even using public assets, the public cable, by far the most valuable part of Telstra, to do so.  This private interference, with the developments from the sciences and technologies for the public, must be outlawed.

An efficient and effective way to do this is for Standards Australia Ltd to revert to a public service for standardization and free document dispersion and the developments of the rule of law, under government authority.  Alternatively each government agency could have its own standardization and law team, using their professional people to align with local industry and to interface with international forums as and when necessary.  

Private companies, with no legal need for their standards will work as industrial or commercial alliances or affiliated unions, for their private internal standards, as their business association agrees on the need.  Their own business associations coordinate and disband committees as and when required.  Only when a standard could be used, in law, (even when the need is in doubt), to protect the nation’s people from exploitation, abuse, risk, or danger, need the government agency be involved.

Without the rule of law from standards, legislation can be complex, confusing, and very expensive for use in markets.

Power and authority 

Humans have two most distinctive characteristics that distinguish us from other animal.  The first, we are endowed with the ability to reason with free will, to make a choice between good and evil, individually or as group behaviour.  The second is the human spirit, the spirit of adventure and the spirit of discovery, the ability to discover the sciences and engineering potential from the values and challenges provided by the nature of the universe.

With all this spirit and natural conflict between good and evil, we have evolved the human ideals of democracy and social justice to regulate these two special attributes of humans.  This is built into the internationally agreed objectives, by way of the United Nations Organisation, and its Charter.  It is an obligation of democratic governments to protect the rights of each and every individual, each and every community in each sovereign state with a common objectives towards equality of life styles and open access to knowledge and intelligence for continual improvement of civilisation.

Standards for behaviour define the rule of law for governments to lead their nations, for these objectives to efficiently contribute to being civilised.

The alternative is less civilised, a system that evolves from our animal instincts, cops and robbers, terrorism, and at worst, wars between nations as directed by governments with the greatest force mastering control and authority.  “Market Forces” purposely keep the public focussed on these issues of conflict to deflect public attention from private objectives.  

This is serious when these global elite have convinced a government of a nation to also support, in a contrived way, their private objective.

Eventually, this is one private dominating authority using force for the destruction of sovereign nations.  The beginning of the Second World War was this experience.

In defence of democracy and social justice 

During the 9-12 August 1941, two nations represented by their leaders, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt met to agree if and why this terrible war should continue.  Once established that global nationalism under Hitler was unacceptable, they set out the objectives and agreed to continue the war.  The how followed.  This was a publicly shared program with twenty-four nations intensely involved.

The “UNO”, was founded by Roosevelt and Churchill on the “Prince of Wales” off the coast of Newfoundland in August 1941.  By the 1st January 1942, it had 26 member nations including Australia to share resources to destroy global nationalism and establish the standards and the rule of law, to return to democracy and social justice by way of law in sovereign nations. 

Ever since, the major economic and social contribution to communities is from the knowledge and experiences shared between groups of individual member of each and every nation and by the means as supported and promoted by the United Nations Charter, across nations.  This is especially the expanding knowledge from young people.  This is the prime asset and sovereignty value of nations.  This is the meaning and purpose for civilisation and for the expansion of democracy, open markets, fair trade, and the rule of law.

During the last decade, the world has experience record economic growth and social improvements because of this standardized system between nations, governments, industrialists, agriculturists, communities, and individuals.

However, nations still accept that near a third of the world’s people live substandard lifestyles.  Near 20% are now subjected to environments, not fit for animals.

The Market Economy

The definition of “A Market Economy: “An economy that relies on “Market Forces” to allocate goods and resources and to determine prices.”  (Webb dictionary – not in the Collins, Australian edition dictionary.)

In 1971, Professor Schwab Klaus founded a new global interest group of private and independent members, the “World Economic Forum”.  Its members promote the philosophy of “The Market Economy”.  Their membership drive is mainly by economists who attract leaders of major companies as private members.  More recently the “WEF” are more towards the philosophy of leaders in partnership with governments, to improve the state of the world.

Excellent as are most of their contributions to world understanding of economic issues, the major omission made by economists who frequently cut and paste “WEF” output as their input to the media and to government, excludes any reference to a nation’s real capital.  The critical resource of any nation is its young people with knowledge and intelligence.  

These young people are the most valuable resource and the real capital behind progressive nations.  Their never-ending output of new sciences, technologies, and engineering is expanding exponentially.  They are the real forces that will thwart global nationalism, even if governments of some nations continue to support the “Market Economy” doctrine and its abusive actions against producers and consumers.  “Market Forces” based on the WEF doctrines act as a global force of nationalism for private objectives against these United Nations’ Charter objectives.  The direct conflicts of interest is already being publicly recognised it spite of the mass global media support to the contrary.

The “WEF” general claim is that their members know more about managing efficient economies than governments.  “Governments cannot run business” now so believable that Members of Parliament even quote them.  It was Goebels who advised Hitler that if you tell the common people a statement often enough, they would believe it.  The “WEF” promote globally using economists to do so, that governments should not interfere with markets.  “Market Forces” in competition will drive down prices and therefore result in more efficient markets.

Governments who privatise public support infrastructures and add competitors to the system, will have more efficient public services.  However of more recent times, their position is shifting towards “Leaders in partnership to shape global regional and industry agendas”, as compared with “Competition” as was their position in 1980’s.

The central objective from the private members promoting the “The Market Economy” is to establish private / public partnerships with governments, globally, a system to get “one leg in the door”.  This philosophy is most appealing to government Ministers as it is an opportunity for government to sell public assets to private companies, a simple way to offset fiscal debt and to become “friends” with the global elite now with more commercial power to promote their party.

The trend is that government’s concerns for standardization and the rule of law is therefore becoming more superficial.  Government policies concede to claims for private self-regulations, and then from these “Market Forces” to apply more constraining regulation and constraints on human capital.  The compulsory super funds system for example, denies most owners of their capital, choice for its deployment.

The danger is that commercial companies are using the “Market Economy” doctrine to gain private access to governments and thereby to even influence the United Nations Organization towards their private global objectives.  “UNO” is a foundation based on democratic processes.  “WEF” is a private foundation of global membership promoting private objectives.

The Hilmer Report of 1995

The Treasurer initiated a study by the National Productivity Commission that concluded in the adoption of the 1995 Hilmer report.  This report echoed the doctrine as promoted by the WEF, the “Market Economy.”

Private self-regulations are the means to remove the standards used for this protection by law in commercial markets. Private authority over law, self-regulations destroy the means for international laws from being enforced and remove the legal support in markets when conformance testing is available.   Legislation and law becomes a matter of opinion.  The one with the strongest opinion, the bully, will most likely be the winner.  This is instability.

The introduction of television and standardisation

The development of television was first a race and challenge between a mechanical system from USA and an electronic system from UK.  This is the competitive stage of work for new technologies in new markets.  British industrialist promoted electronic systems, developed from earlier technologies and using the new technology, the electronic display tube (1880) as invented by William Crookes (1832-1919).

British sciences and engineering were leading the world and the private / government shared resources convinced the world that the system would be electronic.  The British were the first to launch TV (BBC, 1936) with the British standard system.  Post the Second World War, nations recognised the political value of television as a public communications tool. After several decades of electronic TV engineering experience, the British system could be upgraded for large screen sizes, actually called at that time, high definition. This generated into a world conflict of standards to divide nations into politically aligned trading partners (the animal instinct in humans).

The world split this upgrade into three markets and information protection in political regions, communistic nations, with 819 lines and 50 Hz, and more democratic nations between trading partners.   USA and Japan committed to a 525 lines 60 Hz system, a technical commitment to be compatible with 60 Hz mains.  The system for Europe and the British Commonwealth was 625 lines and 50 Hz mains.  By this time the British and European shared colour TV research was well advanced, yet too expensive for a consumer market.  However, standards for backward compatibility with black and white existing markets were an important issue.

These issues between industry and nations could only be resolved by government agencies also being set up with research and conformance testing laboratories and authority over the management of the electromagnetic spectrum.  This was achieved internationally via government spectrum agencies setting international standards for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum per nation.  This was the catalyst for a global television system for each and every sovereign nation to adopt.  Unfortunately, this basic system was slightly modified by a few independent nations, industry / government alliances so that a minor variant to a standard could be used for political control of markets, trade and censorship.

It was only a few years before the politically motivated standards, the division for communistic countries, the 819 system, could not survive, as the efficiency achieved by the standardisation for the other two markets was far greater.  So the standards for the system play a far more important role in market and consumer efficiency than any “Market Forces” claiming efficient markets by price competition.  The same dramatic contribution to consumer efficiency from these sciences and technologies and international standardisation for digital photography and mobile phones is clear evidence.

By the time colour was ready for markets, the challenge was for one world standard.  This again was not achieved because of political trade conflict between USA / Japan and the rest of the world.

Television could not start, as a market, before government agencies learned how and why to manage the electromagnetic spectrum for the public’s interest.  The technology had no industrial and economic potential until a government agency operated the first broadcasting system.  The agency could not be established until the inventors, universities and consortium of industrialists defined and committed to standardisation across the total system.  Once established, this agency / industry association, in parallel, also planned and committed government resources to knowledge expansion and trade skills throughout the nation.  Until this was under way, the public had no means to have TV. 

Only after these private industrial investments and publicly shared infrastructures were in place, could the broadcasting operate.  Only then could public television broadcasting be realised.  It was not possible for any private company to establish this industry and this new market.

Preceding this program, in the same organisation way, the telephone industry, the motor industry and the radio industry were established.  It has only been possible because of similar organisational means, between industry and government, that near 20 years after a student leaves university, it is possible for that individual to become a pilot of a 747 certified by a standard used to measure performance before gaining a pilots licence.  These are the gem stones that by publicly shared participation, governments and industrials and agriculturalists preserve and polish, if the economical and social objection of any nation is to match and then to excel internationally, the progress of civilisation in other nations.

The stakeholders

The prime parties that establish that a market exists, are producers and consumers.  Markets are open for fair trade by standardisation and from this standardisation, the rule of law.  (“Stakeholders” is a term used for political reasons, to conceal who are the parties involved).  Secondary parties operate in the distribution and financing channels between producers and consumers and also use standardisation for the rule of law.  The producer determines the attributes that appeal to the consumers; the values are determined by the consumers’ willingness to buy.  Prices are determined by the commitments at each and every points of trade exchange between the producers and the consumers.  Prices are not determined by competition alone.  Only when the number of distribution channels, supply chains, between producers and consumers are in multiples, can prices be influenced by competition.  It is irrational then to remove the use of standards and the processes of standardisation for consumer protection by deregulation.

The “price” is always self-regulation when market systems are standardised and distribution channels are wide open to competition.  Australia’s policies from the Hilmer report, are completely up side down, to deny the existence of efficient markets.   Shopping centres are privately owned and their management control, over which, what and how exist in this centrally controlled privately self-regulated centre, controls all distribution channels.

Self-regulations are not shared between all businesses, but between aligned parties of self-interest, a “union” of “stakeholders”.  Many examples of this as a means to “excluded parties” are reported in “Rethinking Regulations”.  The trends now are that these stakeholders privately and in confidence assist in the compilation of the legislation within government departments to ensure that the stakeholder’s self interest are accepted.  This is the process claimed as liberalisation and added competition is far from liberal as it now exclude producers and consumers from the rule of law.  When government agencies or Ministers privately concede to the objectives of the “Market Forces” or “Stakeholders” they are denying their authority, accountability and responsibilities to the public.  This is hardly a system of democracy and social justice.

Australian youth as educated 

This paper calls up as a reference, the document “The Market Economy”, 2006 edition, as compiled by Tim Dixon, a senior economic policy adviser in Canberra, and John O’Mahony, an economic policy adviser in Sydney.  Within the front cover the text explains: “Leading Edge Education’s Success Package is the premier tutoring package for HSC Economic students in NSW.”

This Australian HSC Education publication explains why, in a “Market Economy”, the role of government is constrained so that private “Market Forces” and “Price competition” are the means to achieve market efficiencies.

This concept, a public educational system for young Australians, suggests that the expectation from government with a “Market economy”, is an intervention role and only when deviant behaviour is recognised in the systems and processes derived by “Market Forces”.  Is this a system then that looks at the smashed gate after the horse has bolted when no longer has anyone any understanding as to whom has the authority to repair the gate?

Government leaves to the private sector, the responsibilities of commercial market behaviour, once the authority of governments.  This is a political change in responsibilities from government authority (by deregulation) to private authority (by self-regulations or codes of practice).  These self-regulations are now compiled in a more secretive way by “commercial unions”, mainly in the financial and retail markets.

Public infrastructures are not markets.  They are not products.  They are public support systems to be shared by any member of the public.  A democratic system expects the public to share in developing foundations and institutions, sharing costs and benefits, and sharing these public support infrastructures for private economic and social needs and opportunities.  The inherent economic and social efficiencies from any infrastructure, public or private, are the consequences from the knowledge and experiences of the people involved in the tasks, its research and engineering and skills.  Private sectors will share in a public project by public contracting and subcontracting.  No one company could possibly achieve the efficient outcome that is possible from a public shared program with specific private sectors to participate and contribute to its development and continual improvement.  There are too many conflicting interests for this to be the responsibility of one “Market Force”.

Private and shared participation in the development, standardisation, maintenance and improvement of public support infrastructures motivates the public and enhances the quality of public programs.  The infrastructure for the Olympic games is an example of the excellence of such public methods.  Telecom Australia is another. 

Another simple example is the “Market Economy” explanations for “Price”, page 75, section 6.1, “Market demand: “The price of the good or service itself”.

From science and engineering, groups of people have recently shared knowledge to produce LEDs as a light source far superior and far more efficient than “Last Generation” electric lamp systems.  Headlamps for motor vehicles (lamps that use a third of the energy of current headlamp systems) are new internationally shared technologies between many local national and international companies.  Unless many producers and distributors share the national and international markets with this new component as socially agreed with governments concerned and involved, as one common consumer standard from this patented technology, the optimum efficiency from this new technology would never be realised.

This common standard and market efficiency for consumers is only possible by consorted and shared effort.  Price would favour the consumer to purchase the old technology, the cheaper lamp.  When knowledge is added, the consumer will recognise and understand value, and make a more efficient choice by paying more for new technology.

By way of law as supported by the United Nations, patents and intellectual property are protected to prohibit private use of patents and intellectual property to be used to monopolise markets.

On page 217 of the referenced education program, is inclusion: “The Broadcasting Corporation is an unusual example of a public good”.  The text explains that “The existence of the ABC demonstrates that the media is more than just another business”, (using the ABC TV logo to head the chapter.)

It omits to explain, and to offer as a real example and real world understanding of how markets are developed.  The electronic TV system for public broadcasting services was only possible because of shared research, technologies and experiences between government and private manufacturers, as once was Telecom Australia.  This is the establishment of an Australian institution, a central public foundation to share with international and local industrialists, universities and colleges.  This is the critical knowledge, that open opportunities for each and every individual Australian to share in the social values, the young people’s new knowledge that seed the emergence of new markets.  This is for the progress of civilisations.

Recently, the UK government, after two decades of social constraints and criticism from Europe re its “UNO” objective and social concerns with TV monopolies, and the rule of law, expanded the BBC to 30 interactive digital public program services to international standards.  Today, the BBC, has the world’s respect for best and world’s largest library, including HDTV for public broadcasting from what still remains as public spectrum in the UK.   Australia still has the opportunity and could do the same, using the Telstra cable as originally engineered for the public to add 30 channels as open public services shared for educational purposes as noted above.

On page 222 the statement is made: “The government may reduce abuses of market power through regulatory bodies such as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)”.  This seems to show recognition that market abuse do exist.  Telstra is the extreme examples that even after a decade of experience of these corruptive processes of gross interference with public assets for private gains and with interference to delay a major public program over this decade, the correction to market abuses have not been enacted.  Market Forces have used private Law and private knowledge and musical chairs to conceal this from the public.

In conclusion, being civilised

The “Collins Dictionary” definition of “civilisation” is: “A human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political and legal organisation, an advanced state in social development.”

Civilisation is a system, developed over time, to preserve the social interests of each individual and to optimise the efficiency of the economy and healthy social needs and interest.  Civilisation is a system for equitable distribution of wealth and employment opportunities and voluntary investments in capital markets.

A market is only possible when two or more people are affiliated with one objective, to swap economic and social values.  It is not necessary to have a “market” at all if this affiliated group agreed to share their self-made values, their standards and performance.  Wars can break out when differentiated groups of people are unwilling to swap, share and trade these values.

A civilised society ensures it has a democratic system, a government body to ensure the optimum progress of a society with options and choice of sharing, trading and improving social and economic values.  The prime basis is the sharing of standardised knowledge and skills with performance indicators from these standards. 

The Australian father and son team Sir William Henry and Sir William Lawrence Bragg, jointly won the Nobel prize for physics, with X ray crystallography in 1915 that opened up new avenues for metallurgy.  90% of steels manufactured today for world markets did not exist 10 years ago.  The universities and their shared research with local and international relationships and forums, are the most valuable source of knowledge from ideas, scientific discoveries and engineering developments.

Public television is one most efficient means to expose knowledge and intelligence way beyond the potential of private commercial television, for the nation to expand the talents across the nation.

A most valuable contribution from government is to appoint a Minister, totally dedicated to the science and engineering to open opportunities for young Australians to be supplied with the ways and means to excel in world knowledge and intelligence, to profit Australians economically and socially.

Government dedication to the Sciences and engineering is the most efficient way for Australians to standardize systems and processes so that Australian human capital will be efficiently employed and consumers protected by the rule of law.

Decline of Public authority over spectrum
Convergence of telecommunication with television and inter active multi media, essential for vastly more efficient use of spectrum for public applications re knowledge and information dispersion, public and private industrial and commercial communications and information interchange, is an engineering program, an integrated system.  This is the responsibility of democratic governments.  Private control and authority over the Telstra public cable has destroyed a decade of opportunity for Australians.  By Adopting standardization and international engineering practices under government authority Australia can easily and quickly reverse this damage  (2 – 3 years).  It is not yet too late! 

Public TV and public telecommunications

		Commercial TV

				Expansion of Commercial TV
									Digital transition program accepted
				Colour TV
									PayTV.    
										Spectrum auctions for PayTV and mobile phones
                                                                                                  Telecom Australia cable plan and build                             
                                                                                                                      (World first and world largest 
“Next Generation Networks”)
                                                                                                                                    Digital program aborted
Government \Telstra Board agreement with News Ltd for private use of new public financed “next generation” cable
     Optus sold to Singapore
 Private ownership of Telstra

100%

																Under government authority

50

 

0
1950							1980						          2006

The Trend in Australia: private media owners are replacing Public Management of Knowledge dispersion and public support systems for access to communications.  They now have almost total authority over information dispersion systems.  Telecom Australia was originally established as an essential public support infrastructure for trade, commerce and social needs.  Government now, has no such plans.  With Telstra sold, spectrum allocated to public services will be near 100% controlled by a private media cartel and other media owners.  This has to be a steep decline in democracy and social justice and fair trade re the commitments of the electromagnetic spectrum!  Australia is unique in that government has given almost total authority over public spectrum and Telstra assets to a media cartel.