Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 417 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

anywhere else in Australia, and probably much more highly educated than most parts of the world. With these factors, Mr Speaker, we are in the right position to develop this type of business and, with it, the employment that is so important to each and every member in this Assembly.

It was with alarm that I learnt of the Government's intention to outsource, possibly to a large company outside the ACT, reform of the information technology in the ACT Public Service. My understanding is that we are talking about an industry that benefits to the extent of some $50m from the ACT each year in terms of our expenditure on information technology. A Canberra Times article on Saturday, 10 February, stated that a Government commissioned review of current arrangements had been made by Planning and Support Inc. and Price Waterhouse, and that it had recommended standardisation and rationalisation. That is fine. But it also recommended outsourcing.

When I talk about outsourcing, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am not suggesting that it is, of itself, intrinsically wrong or intrinsically bad; on the contrary. For two elections I have said as part of my business policy that outsourcing has an important role to play in the development of business in the ACT. But I do not believe that that means blind outsourcing; that whenever we can outsource something, we do it. We have to look at the costs and benefits and ensure that the benefits come back to the Public Service and the public sector and that we assist in developing the private sector. I think that appropriate use of outsourcing does have the potential to benefit both.

That seems very logical and rational on the surface. I have to say that it seems logical and rational that we look at standardisation and rationalisation, as recommended in the report by Price Waterhouse and others, because I have not seen the report; nor, I understand, has anybody other than those in government seen the report. That includes people who are directly affected by the decisions as a result of the report. We have here a government who claim that they are an open government. When one of the industries most vitally affected by a decision like this is told that there is a report but it is not going to know what is in it, I think that is of great concern and is, indeed, a matter of public importance.

There is good reason, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, why people would be nervous. They only have to look at South Australia, where there was a strong move by the new Liberal Government there to outsource their information technology. They did it. Instead of having a monopoly within the public service on how the information technology goes out, they handed over to a single company outside South Australia who then gained that monopoly. The impact on local business was devastating. It is fear of that impact that is behind raising this issue today, fear that the Government's response will be to go to a single big company who will claim to be able to supply all the hardware, all the software, all the follow-up services, all the maintenance, and do it at the cheapest possible price.

I have been told privately by the Chief Minister that that is not the intention, that they are not going for the one big company; but we can be very nervous about how this Government is going to deal with big companies, because it just allowed CRA to get off the hook for $11m in stamp duty. That is a very big company. I have heard the Chief Minister's responses to those questions about CRA; but it still leaves me nervous

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .