There are moments in life when the actions of a leader instantly connect with, and shift the mindset of an entire population.

Australia’s PM Kevin Rudd defined that moment today. In the first instance he made good on an election promise. But more than that, he went beyond saying “sorry” and pushed for partisan, practical strategies to address the cultural divide between indigenous Australians and the rest of us who came later.

Today’s speech was, in my opinion, deeply profound. Yes, he’s deeply buried the Howard legacy (a man who was conspicuous in his absence). But more importantly I believe that when a spirit of reconciliation is embedded into the culture from the top down, real change can, and will actually begin.

A few things I will remember about today:

• Explaining to my inquisitive 4 year old daughter why we are saying sorry on behalf of other people
• Realising that Rudd has the makings of a statesman (it’s about time we had one in Australia)
• Watching the spontaneous standing ovation after Rudd’s speech
• Wondering what on earth possessed opposition leader Brendan Nelson to imply there were cases when it was appropriate to take Aboriginal children from their parents. News Ltd report: “Our generation does not own these actions nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but certainly not all cases, with the best of intentions,” [Nelson] said. No wonder the crowds outside parliament turned their backs.

SMH report here, and video and text of the speech over at the ABC here.

We media types spend so much time studying the Internet’s impact on the media business that sometimes you forget that the Internet is busy disrupting other traditional industries, or institutions.

Take Australia Post for example. I thought Mrs J was exaggerating when she told me there’s a good chance we’ll do most of our Christmas shopping at Australia Post this year. “They’ve got everything!” she exclaimed. Yeah, sure, whatever… Then she showed me the catalogue that had been stuffed in our letterbox. They really do sell everything. Kids toys, games, puzzles, tonnes of electronic stuff, and all those creative “what on earth will I get for Aunty Sue” type presents.

Australia Post’s problem is of course a very simple one. Why send snail mail when email is quicker and free (well, almost).  So when your core business is flat you do what any other business does - diversify. You can see the numbers on page 43 & 44 of Australia Post’s annual report here. To grossly simplify things, the organisation’s pacels and logistics and retail divisions are more profitable than the letters business. Ah, ya just gotta love the Net.

It nearly didn’t happen. I was booked on a flight from Sydney to Canberra at 6am to attend the first day of the AFR’s GovTech conference in July. And in hindsight it would have been far less stressful if I flew down the night before. Instead of telling it to wake me up at 4am Thursday morning, I inadvertantly ticked 4am on Friday morning. It turns out it is possible to outsmart your smartphone. Lesson One: don’t set your alarm when you go to bed at 1am on the same day you have to get up… late nights affect your judgement.

So you can imagine how I felt when I sat bolt upright in bed at 6.35am, a full 35 minutes after my flight took off without me.

Skip forward to when I turned up at Sydney’s domestic terminal at 7.30am, still trying to regain composure. Here’s where I’ve got to tip my hat to Qantas. The woman at the ticketing counter graciously put me on the next flight at 8.10am and didn’t charge me for another ticket. By some small miracle I made it to the Hyatt Hotel in Canberra at 9.20am, just in time to hear the final 5 minutes of Philip Ruddock’s keynote. It was also 10 minutes before video interview was scheduled.

Our film crew had already set up the camera gear and lights (I was told), so after a quick handshake I walked with Ruddock across the corridor and we got stuck straight into the interview. It was all done and dusted in 10 minutes, and after he’d gone I just sat there and stared at the ceiling for a moment. It was the second video interview I’d recorded with the AFR, and the first time I’d met Ruddock. And it nearly didn’t happen!

The rest of a day was something of a blurr, but fun. We interviewed Special Minister of State Gary Nairn, Federal Government CIO Ann Steward, and other federal and state CIOs. Edited versions of these interviews are progressively making their way to the site here.

As for Mr Ruddock, you can see our interview here. As a special bonus it contains my first crack at borrowing from the “piece to camera” playbook of your favourite ABC/commercial TV reporter. Yes, I am a print/online journo discovering 3D. Be gentle! Oh, and Lessson Two: when fronting a camera in Canberra in July do yourself a favour and wear a warm coat. How cold is it down there for crying out loud???

Senator Coonan’s decision to commission the report to end all IT reports is interesting on a number of fronts. After reading this Computerworld story, I’d not hard to guess the assumptions made by Senator Coonan:

1. There are too many IT lobby groups, each with competing agendas. I can’t trust any individual group.

2. There must be one research company out there that can give me the definitive report. I can’t trust non-commissioned reports.

Half of me would like to take the glass is half-full attitude and believe that she really does want to get the research job done right. But experience dictates an alternative reality, regardless of her good intentions - if the Government appoints Gartner, IDC, or another firm, you will simply get that company’s view of the industry. The report will be filtered through the looking-glass of its analysts’ collective set of assumptions and scope of research. Surely the better approach is to take an aggregate view, a broader perspective achieved by combining all the existing data and qualitative reports.

How many more times do we have to create yet another report offering us the same assessment as this one already well understood across the industry?

Penned by Gartner’s Asia Pacific senior vice president Bob Hayward, the paper discusses the wanting state of Australia’s IT industry noting it has "failed to produce many recognized IT companies or exports" and suggests "what policies an incoming government should pursue….to help the sector to grow".

The AFR is packed (see Australia index, sub req.) with news of the Howard Government’s proposed industrial relations reforms today. ABC Online also has a free version of the piece. AFR’s Lenore Taylor has a decent analysis piece that provides some context for those not up to speed. Lenore says: "So far, the PM’s vision is music to the ears of the business groups that have been offering him free advice."

However, Computerworld’s Julian Bajkowski was more than happy to tell me this morning via email he had the IR story on 31 January. Julian’s piece gives some credit to Lenore’s comment about happy business groups:

If successful, the new laws could legally allow enterprises, outsourcers and vendors to dramatically restructure the definition of permanent and contracted IT staff under federal workplace law. However, Andrews’ office is adamant the new law will not allow employers to force-march permanent staff onto contract conditions, a practice currently illegal under existing industrial laws.

And so a huge IR battle is set between the Federal Government, Federal Opposition, States, and unions (I can feel a protest coming on).

It’s an odd coincidence that Sun Microsystems is currently taking advantage of the USA’s IR policies to "force-march permanent staff onto contract conditions," as Julian would say. See ARN story:

The Mercury News reports that some employees at the company will be "badge flipping," meaning they will continue to work at Sun’s facilities but will be employed by CSC. Sun says the moves are part of its overall goal to reduce spending by US$500 million by July 2006.

On one hand, you’ve got to be impressed with Senator Coonan’s insight into media distribution technology in this Australian story:

"It used to be that you could quarantine content you got through television or newspapers but now it’s being streamed in all sorts of ways," Senator Coonan said.

"Rather than doing it in a fragmented way and looking at bits of media, I would be interested in looking at all these processes and folding them into a comprehensive response."

But you’ve got to wonder about the impact of extensive cross-ownership. Are we about to head further down the bland media monoculture path blazed by our friends in the US? (shudder…)

The Mark Latham saga isn’t something I’d normally write about, but I’ve been fascinated by the story that’s been keeping the big media busy for weeks now.

Today, Latham announced that he’s finally quitting as the leader of the Federal Labour party, and the member for Werriwa. It’s a decision based on health and family reasons, so on that count I wish him well.

A couple of observations, after reading this report in the SMH.

First, regardless of the rise of blogging, announcements of this sort are never official until you’ve done the hastily arranged Fourth Estate media conference. (Philosophically speaking, if the media were not there, did he really quit? But seriously, where were the political bloggers? Sorry, not invited.

Second, Latham refused to answer questions from reporters. He’s happy for the media to carry the news, but not any form of conversation or context beyond the obvious. Latham’s voters deserve more than this, and history will show that failing to comment simply opens the door for more media speculation. And that speculation will not end until he adds further comment at some point in the future.

Regardless of whether we’re getting news via the Fourth Estate or blogs, it’s clear we expect all the answers. Anything less and we assume the worst.

Trevor Cook reports from San Francisco:

The dems made the election a referendum on Bush’s leadership because they thought he was deeply on the nose but the outcome that he is not on the nose with the great mass of middle America - just as Howard is not on the nose with middle-class outer suburban and non-urban Australians as the ALP seemed to think he was.
I think both the ALP and the Democrats need to re-think the way they analyse these issues

Judging by the latest results (yahoo, BBC, CNN), it looks like we’re about to get another four years of Bush. It feels like take two of Australia’s recent Federal Election (sigh).

Is it the Fed’s or the media that’s lost their heads already? The national media has spent all its time since the election gushing about how the full sale of Telstra and relaxation of cross-media ownership rules are all but done deals. On ABC TV news the other night, the financial markets were talking “not if, but when” we’d see T3. Telstra’s stock continues to climb as a result.

Granted there are obvious positives for each of the Big Decisions. The Govt should maximize its sale dollars before technology like VoIP and wireless pull the rug on Telstra’s cash cow residential phone business. And the media ownership changes would likely shake up the game from an investment dollar perspective.

But where is the debate? Who will control Telstra sans Government - can the market + the ACCC be trusted? What happens if Telstra tries to sit on VoIP?

And as for the national media, we need more diversity. Not further concentration of power.

Add to all this the uncertainty in the Federal Communications IT and Arts portfolio. Computerworld tips that Nick Minchin could get the gig and replace Coonan.

In short, we’re rushing headlong into some very significant, far-reaching national IT decisions with very little public debate and potentially with a Federal politician who likely knows little about the IT industry. Yikes.

UPDATE: HURRAH, the Nationals have started to ask questions.