It is funny how small comments can sometimes be the trigger for debate. I note your passing comment in a recent edition of Directions Magazine on the AAG Sponsored Congressional Briefing: "Perhaps the efforts of the AAG and other organizations who visit 'the hill' (I'm thinking of MAPPS in particular) will help pull our industry together to speak with one voice."

I gave special emphasis to the concept of the industry pulling together to speak with one voice. This is a concept behind the formation of the Australian spatial information industry sector, which now has a very strong business voice through the Australian Spatial Information Business Association (ASIBA).

ASIBA was formed following a government sponsored process for assisting emerging industries; called an Action Agenda. The Spatial Information Industry Action Agenda was completed in September 2001 and has contributed to the birth of a very influential political voice through ASIBA and a growing profession under the Spatial Sciences Institute.

One key reason for our success in this country - and by success I mean our influence - has been due to our decision to link spatial information and technologies with important government imperatives such as water (we are in the middle of the worst drought in our history), bushfires and emergency management in general (this includes national security) and more recently in spatial interoperability. On the latter point we were successful in securing a million dollar grant to prove that spatial interoperability works in real life and real time (see www.sidp.com.au for the outcomes and much free material for all to benefit from).

On the issue of water, we were successful in developing a property right in water (at least in establishing the theoretical model). Now, while property rights might seem more of a legal construct than a spatial issue, there is an important spatial element that forms the foundation of the theory. How do you define and measure water in its many forms so that a legal construct can be delivered? The OECD recently described our work on water property rights as world leading. The next step is to implement the theory, and then to follow this up with a theoretical model for a property right in biota (fauna and flora) - a far more complex challenge I suspect.

By focusing on key policy issues, and showing how important special information and technologies are to these imperatives, ASIBA has managed to secure champions within government. In the case of water, our champion is the Deputy Prime Minister. Water, salinity degradation, environmental management, health, bushfires, national security, defence - all these issues require our skills and products as an enabler.

ASIBA has managed to meet with key government ministers in education, defence, environment, health, transport, and security to name a few. We have even managed to meet with the Prime Minister to tell him our story. Not many associations can claim the level of access we have in this country but there is still a long way to go. Health is an area we have only touched on and the growing threat from a pandemic keeps us on our toes.

One of the key success factors - aside from linking our industry with key policy drivers - has been the willingness of the broader spatial information sector to come together under one umbrella; that of ASIBA. The National and State governments have all accepted ASIBA as the business sector voice and this has been an important reason for our success. The existence of other voices creates confusion, dilutes the message and weakens all of those so determined to influence policy makers.

The single most destructive element in the influence game is to have multiple voices all competing for the same influence pie. In the influence space we compete against all organizations (lobby groups) including those with far greater community relevance that ours, such as heath and welfare and of course other industry sectors with a far greater capacity that our small sector. So, to be successful in the influence stakes we must focus on unity, relevance and targeted delivery of our message.

Speaking or making presentations to Congress is nice; it makes you feel warm and fuzzy because people are listening to you (maybe even getting a little excited). But it is results that governments and the industry want, it is results that the community want (read that as voters and you'll get the point about influencing elected officials), and that is what a united industry sector can deliver. Fragmentation only serves to benefit those we are competing against for influence. Of course it often also serves government agencies who thrive on divisions within the private sector.

Your observation about the value of "speaking with one voice" is spot on.

Regards
David Hocking

David Hocking
Chief Executive Officer
Australian Spatial Information Business Association Ltd